Need a rant - f**king motorists and "invisible" cyclists
Discussion
ewenm said:
PaulHogan said:
Obviously it's not going to happen. As there is no money to build alternative routes for cycles only. (maybe if cyclists had to pay a road tax and have insurance then the funds could be generated over time...)
But, logically, it is the best solution.
Logically the best solution is for ALL road users to act responsibly and walk/ride/drive carefully and with consideration of others. Adding more laws because people are incompetent road users seems to be illogical - treat the cause (crap road users) rather than the symptom (accidents).But, logically, it is the best solution.
Edited by ewenm on Monday 1st November 09:38
Sorry, I thought we were talking about commuting traffic, suddenly it's onto artics (not many of them on your average city commute) and children (oh think of the children!) who are allowed to cycle on pavements anyway.
It would be lovely to commute by bike away from traffic as long as the cycle lans had the same priorities as the roads they were next to, so no stopping for side-roads for example. I'm not sure where you're going to find the space for these extra lanes between the roads and pavements.
As for the road tax comment mentioned earlier - no one pays "road tax". Drivers (which includes most cyclists of course) pay VED which goes into a central pot. We all pay for local roads through council tax.
It would be lovely to commute by bike away from traffic as long as the cycle lans had the same priorities as the roads they were next to, so no stopping for side-roads for example. I'm not sure where you're going to find the space for these extra lanes between the roads and pavements.
As for the road tax comment mentioned earlier - no one pays "road tax". Drivers (which includes most cyclists of course) pay VED which goes into a central pot. We all pay for local roads through council tax.
I note you are non-committal about whether you would prefer to ride in traffic or on dedicated cycle lanes?
Please feel free to take artics out of the problem. Assume that they don't exist. However children do cycle to school in the mornings at, oh yes I remember, rush hour. And round our way they often don't have the option of using the pavement as there isn't one.
And thanks for telling me the proper name for road tax. I knew that though. And I'll still call it road tax like 99.9% of the population. It is also disingenuous to suggest that because some motorists use cycles then that contribution to the public purse is enough for all of them.
On the obverse side would you lobby for cyclists to be allowed to use the motorway network?
Please feel free to take artics out of the problem. Assume that they don't exist. However children do cycle to school in the mornings at, oh yes I remember, rush hour. And round our way they often don't have the option of using the pavement as there isn't one.
And thanks for telling me the proper name for road tax. I knew that though. And I'll still call it road tax like 99.9% of the population. It is also disingenuous to suggest that because some motorists use cycles then that contribution to the public purse is enough for all of them.
On the obverse side would you lobby for cyclists to be allowed to use the motorway network?
I prefer to ride on the roads as cycle lanes are invariably badly-planned, litter-strewn and tend to start and end randomly. Not helpful for making progress.
Bicycles on motorways, no thanks, speeds are too high, junctions are too infrequent and they are exceptionally dull roads. Likewise, I try to avoid dual carriageways when cycling. But again, the thread was about urban commuting by bike.
"Road tax" - not ring-fenced for road usage, so irrelevant to any discussion about road usage.
Cycling to school - I'd use side roads, so would be interested in where you propose these new cycle lanes should go. Most urban roads are already tight so from where do you propose taking the metre or so of space required for a cycle lane? It seems you're proposing narrower roads.
The basic problem is some road users thinking other road users are less important or have less right to be there than them. This applies across all forms of road use. It's very hard to legislate for inconsiderate idiots without inconveniencing the vast majority of sensible road users.
Bicycles on motorways, no thanks, speeds are too high, junctions are too infrequent and they are exceptionally dull roads. Likewise, I try to avoid dual carriageways when cycling. But again, the thread was about urban commuting by bike.
"Road tax" - not ring-fenced for road usage, so irrelevant to any discussion about road usage.
Cycling to school - I'd use side roads, so would be interested in where you propose these new cycle lanes should go. Most urban roads are already tight so from where do you propose taking the metre or so of space required for a cycle lane? It seems you're proposing narrower roads.
The basic problem is some road users thinking other road users are less important or have less right to be there than them. This applies across all forms of road use. It's very hard to legislate for inconsiderate idiots without inconveniencing the vast majority of sensible road users.
Edited by ewenm on Monday 1st November 10:54
PaulHogan said:
el stovey said:
We could ban cars from any road that was built originally for horses.
You name me 10 roads built for horses and I'll name you 100 built for cars. Maybe a 1000. I stand by my comment that the roads are built for motorised vehicles.Road building in this country has slowed massively over the last few decades. Frankly, your argument is based on ignorance.
PaulHogan said:
Think about it. Given the choice I would bet that near as dammit ALL cyclists would rather cycle on their own paths rather than alongside traffic on roads where by some miracle all users were responsible. Because I know that sure as crap I would rather not be in proximity to 40 tonne artics regardless of how good the driver is. And I certainly would prefer my children could go on dedicated cycle lanes.
I sure as hell wouldn't. Using cycle lanes is like using public transport - slower, less reliable and rarely goes from where you are to where you need to be. Cycle lanes squeezed alongside lanes of traffic don't do anything for cyclist safety and can often be detrimental to it as it makes drivers think of it as a separate lane so no need to give any space. The ones where the pavement is halved to make a lane just bring more danger of contact with pedestrians, are usually littered with broken glass and crossing the side-roads is normally more dangerous than staying on the main road. There are Sustrans-type routes which are nice for a weekend pootle, but rarely go to and from places people need to get to.Most cycle lanes are not implemented to genuinely improve cycling but to use up council budgets and allow them to make out how "green" they are for having xx metres of new cycle lane that year. The kind of ineptness that leads to lanes like this.
Bicycles *are* traffic. We don't need a special safe place away from the scary big things with engines, just a tiny amount of courtesy and respect.
sjg said:
PaulHogan said:
Think about it. Given the choice I would bet that near as dammit ALL cyclists would rather cycle on their own paths rather than alongside traffic on roads where by some miracle all users were responsible. Because I know that sure as crap I would rather not be in proximity to 40 tonne artics regardless of how good the driver is. And I certainly would prefer my children could go on dedicated cycle lanes.
I sure as hell wouldn't. Using cycle lanes is like using public transport - slower, less reliable and rarely goes from where you are to where you need to be. Cycle lanes squeezed alongside lanes of traffic don't do anything for cyclist safety and can often be detrimental to it as it makes drivers think of it as a separate lane so no need to give any space. The ones where the pavement is halved to make a lane just bring more danger of contact with pedestrians, are usually littered with broken glass and crossing the side-roads is normally more dangerous than staying on the main road. There are Sustrans-type routes which are nice for a weekend pootle, but rarely go to and from places people need to get to.Most cycle lanes are not implemented to genuinely improve cycling but to use up council budgets and allow them to make out how "green" they are for having xx metres of new cycle lane that year. The kind of ineptness that leads to lanes like this.
"use up council budgets and allow them to make out how "green" they are"
Having had some VERY close shaves out in the Perthshire countryside on some narrow roads where the painted cycle lanes actually led to decreased separation. I agree that ideally having cycleways would be the way forwards (like the continent) but it ain't going to happen any time soon.
As has been said (ad nauseam) there ain't no point being in the right lying in a hospital bed or worse.
Parrot of Doom said:
PaulHogan said:
Horses like tarmacced roads? You call it turnpike: I call it the A1
Your quote was "built originally for horses". You're not speaking to an imbecile here, although perhaps I am, since the A1 is not a tarmacced road.Scraggles said:
Parrot of Doom said:
PaulHogan said:
Horses like tarmacced roads? You call it turnpike: I call it the A1
Your quote was "built originally for horses". You're not speaking to an imbecile here, although perhaps I am, since the A1 is not a tarmacced road.
Road tax?!? That gem of a poorly thought out argument! I cant be bothered to figure out which muppet brought up the cyclists dont pay road tax arguement and respond to them directly, mainly because talking to an idiot does no one any good. But just as a small exception this is for you.
YOU DONT PAY ROAD TAX - NO ONE DOES.
Vehicle excise duty.
If you could start with understanding the name and purpose of the duty then perhaps we can have a debate, perhaps you show a little insight and therefore not need to have the pointless debate in the first place.
"Arguing that cyclists therefore have less right to use the roads is like arguing that smokers should take precedence for medical treatment, because non-smokers don't buy cigarettes and therefore 'don't pay hospital tax"
YOU DONT PAY ROAD TAX - NO ONE DOES.
Vehicle excise duty.
If you could start with understanding the name and purpose of the duty then perhaps we can have a debate, perhaps you show a little insight and therefore not need to have the pointless debate in the first place.
"Arguing that cyclists therefore have less right to use the roads is like arguing that smokers should take precedence for medical treatment, because non-smokers don't buy cigarettes and therefore 'don't pay hospital tax"
shakotan said:
In polar contrast, I had some t
t ride up the inside of me whilst I was indicating left and match my speed as I prepared to turn. I leant on the horn until he finally got the idea and applied his brakes so I could turn in front of him.
On my daily (cycle) commute along the embankment in London, I see this all the time, where there seems to be a mad rush to get to the front of the queue of cyclists at all costs. Those left queueing behind then seem completely oblivious to the cars indicating to turn left..... t ride up the inside of me whilst I was indicating left and match my speed as I prepared to turn. I leant on the horn until he finally got the idea and applied his brakes so I could turn in front of him.As for the amount of people still jumping lights (whilst I call them a w@nker as they ride past) staggers me. The number of cars jumping red lights also seems to be increasing. Perhaps all the bell ends jumping the lights will either see this one day, or will witness what happens when they can't wait 15 secs... Utter, utter c**ts. It's not like they're even riding above 15mph either.
Why can't people check their blind spots prior to pulling out of changing direction? They would last minutes on a scooter/m.bike. Darwinism at work I guess?
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff