Another anti cycle petition
Discussion
Not sure if this has been posted but I thought the PH collective would enjoy this, not just for the usual tired arguments but also the awful English. Got 10k signatures so far
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-cyclists-t...
Although 3rd party cover isn't a bad idea.
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-cyclists-t...
Although 3rd party cover isn't a bad idea.
Edited by Type R Tom on Tuesday 15th November 08:57
These ridiculous petitions do my head in.
Where is my option to comment without signing the damned thing? Why is there no opportunity to sign AGAINST the petition,a 'minus column' for signatures, if you like?
This Owen McDermott character is just another retarded twunt who needs his head bashing about to knock some sense into him. I have an offcut of 2" x 4" and plenty of free time, if he'd care to make an appointment...?
Where is my option to comment without signing the damned thing? Why is there no opportunity to sign AGAINST the petition,a 'minus column' for signatures, if you like?
This Owen McDermott character is just another retarded twunt who needs his head bashing about to knock some sense into him. I have an offcut of 2" x 4" and plenty of free time, if he'd care to make an appointment...?
Particularly like the way the photo on the petition shows 2 type of t
t.
a) The cyclist tt going through the red light
b) the motorist astra tt who is in the cycling bit.
That pic sums the current situation pretty well, I think. tts all round 
I've enjoyed reading the comments over coffee at lunch too...
t.a) The cyclist t
t going through the red lightb) the motorist astra t
t who is in the cycling bit.That pic sums the current situation pretty well, I think. t
ts all round I've enjoyed reading the comments over coffee at lunch too...
Fetchez la vache said:
Particularly like the way the photo on the petition shows 2 type of tt.
a) The cyclist tt going through the red light
b) the motorist astra tt who is in the cycling bit.
That pic sums the current situation pretty well, I think. tts all round
I've enjoyed reading the comments over coffee at lunch too...
Perfectly legal and proper for the Astra to stop at that line if that lights started to change too late to stop at the first white line.t.a) The cyclist t
t going through the red lightb) the motorist astra t
t who is in the cycling bit.That pic sums the current situation pretty well, I think. t
ts all round I've enjoyed reading the comments over coffee at lunch too...
JustinF said:
Fetchez la vache said:
Particularly like the way the photo on the petition shows 2 type of tt.
a) The cyclist tt going through the red light
b) the motorist astra tt who is in the cycling bit.
That pic sums the current situation pretty well, I think. tts all round
I've enjoyed reading the comments over coffee at lunch too...
Perfectly legal and proper for the Astra to stop at that line if that lights started to change too late to stop at the first white line.t.a) The cyclist t
t going through the red lightb) the motorist astra t
t who is in the cycling bit.That pic sums the current situation pretty well, I think. t
ts all round I've enjoyed reading the comments over coffee at lunch too...
That's the problem with photos.
tigger1 said:
Same goes for the chap on the bike - maybe he didn't pass the red light, but stopped because it was no longer safe to continue across the junction?
That's the problem with photos.
Having driven in london, I'd say he's a jumper. The worse riders in london are the ones with no helmet, reflective gear, lights or respect for any road rules and their own lives. He will ride home in the dark in the same setupThat's the problem with photos.
smn159 said:
47p2 said:
Signed I mean that first line: "The public roads used by motor vehicles are becoming unsafe to use due to one particular community that feel they are eligible to cycle on public UK roads"
is just not true, is it? Completely dishonest.
Ive Signed the counter petition. I ride a bike but I also drive a few cars too so would like to think my opinion is somewhere in the middle.
A couple of points...
-How does a road become unsafe due to cyclists??.... it becomes unsafe due to idiots in cars driving badly and making it unsafe for cyclists AND other cars,motorcycles.
-Cyclists pay no road tax.. (well neither do car drivers as its technically vehicle excise duty) but more importantly of the 30+ people who I know that ride bikes on the road, they all have cars too and do pay Road Tax/VED. The lower emmisions of cyclists (I say lower as we do emit carbon dioxide and farts - alot in my case) means no VED/Tax. Some car owners dont pay road tax or VED either though due to the same lower emissions of their vehicle. I own two cars both heavily taxed and probably pay 4 times what most average road users do to use just 6000 miles of road a year. Does that mean others should move out of my way as I am somehow more entitled to the road then them??
-I also had to sit a driving test and theory test.... how many cyclists over 20yrs old dont have a driving licence?? Id think >75% would have one, but would like to know the statistics.
-It is completely legal to ride on britains roads (not motorways) and is covered in the highway code. Cyclists are every bit as entitled to use the roads to travel on.
-If a cyclists hits the rear of a car due to not leaving adequate spacing to the car in front then it is the cyclists fault and as such under the law of criminal damage they are liable and should have to pay for the damage caused, insurance or not. Any person is equally liable if they simply walk over to your car and throw a brick through the window. The problem is if you can successfully get the money from them. Insurance just makes it easy as a third party pays for the damage (insurance company) but it doesnt make them any more liable.
What I would like to see is police actively targeting and fining cyclists that:
- Go through red lights (or otherwise dont follow the law)
- Dont have lights after dusk
- Undertake
- Dont signal
- Use the footpath
^^^ all legitimate gripes that are not mentione in the anticycling petition. Instead its a morons comments that show a lack of understanding of road use/tax law/safety statistics.
Some additional key FACTS:
Around 98% of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e. where pedestrians are most likely to be) are due to collisions with motor vehicles.
Per mile travelled, pedal cycles are less likely than cars to injure a pedestrian, and far less likely to kill them. In Great Britain, from 2011 to 2015:
Cycles accounted for about 2.3% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.8% of serious injuries to pedestrians
Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were over twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian.
The vast majority of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involve a motor vehicle, not a cycle: from 2005-14 (GB), 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries that happened in collisions on a footway/verge involved a motor vehicle.
From 2005-14, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers.
An official study of pedestrian priority sites in the 1990s found only one pedestrian/cyclist incident in 15 site years.
A couple of points...
-How does a road become unsafe due to cyclists??.... it becomes unsafe due to idiots in cars driving badly and making it unsafe for cyclists AND other cars,motorcycles.
-Cyclists pay no road tax.. (well neither do car drivers as its technically vehicle excise duty) but more importantly of the 30+ people who I know that ride bikes on the road, they all have cars too and do pay Road Tax/VED. The lower emmisions of cyclists (I say lower as we do emit carbon dioxide and farts - alot in my case) means no VED/Tax. Some car owners dont pay road tax or VED either though due to the same lower emissions of their vehicle. I own two cars both heavily taxed and probably pay 4 times what most average road users do to use just 6000 miles of road a year. Does that mean others should move out of my way as I am somehow more entitled to the road then them??
-I also had to sit a driving test and theory test.... how many cyclists over 20yrs old dont have a driving licence?? Id think >75% would have one, but would like to know the statistics.
-It is completely legal to ride on britains roads (not motorways) and is covered in the highway code. Cyclists are every bit as entitled to use the roads to travel on.
-If a cyclists hits the rear of a car due to not leaving adequate spacing to the car in front then it is the cyclists fault and as such under the law of criminal damage they are liable and should have to pay for the damage caused, insurance or not. Any person is equally liable if they simply walk over to your car and throw a brick through the window. The problem is if you can successfully get the money from them. Insurance just makes it easy as a third party pays for the damage (insurance company) but it doesnt make them any more liable.
What I would like to see is police actively targeting and fining cyclists that:
- Go through red lights (or otherwise dont follow the law)
- Dont have lights after dusk
- Undertake
- Dont signal
- Use the footpath
^^^ all legitimate gripes that are not mentione in the anticycling petition. Instead its a morons comments that show a lack of understanding of road use/tax law/safety statistics.
Some additional key FACTS:
Around 98% of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e. where pedestrians are most likely to be) are due to collisions with motor vehicles.
Per mile travelled, pedal cycles are less likely than cars to injure a pedestrian, and far less likely to kill them. In Great Britain, from 2011 to 2015:
Cycles accounted for about 2.3% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.8% of serious injuries to pedestrians
Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were over twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian.
The vast majority of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involve a motor vehicle, not a cycle: from 2005-14 (GB), 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries that happened in collisions on a footway/verge involved a motor vehicle.
From 2005-14, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers.
An official study of pedestrian priority sites in the 1990s found only one pedestrian/cyclist incident in 15 site years.
Whar makes me laugh about the who road tax issue is, what about the cars that have free or cheap road tax? Should they not be on the road either?
Or the fact that my vehicles are in a high road tax bracket mean that I have more right to the road space than someone that pays less?
I do agree with the insurance side of things but would be all but impossible to control.
Or the fact that my vehicles are in a high road tax bracket mean that I have more right to the road space than someone that pays less?
I do agree with the insurance side of things but would be all but impossible to control.
BenGismo said:
Ive Signed the counter petition. I ride a bike but I also drive a few cars too so would like to think my opinion is somewhere in the middle.
A couple of points...
-How does a road become unsafe due to cyclists??.... it becomes unsafe due to idiots in cars driving badly and making it unsafe for cyclists AND other cars,motorcycles.
-Cyclists pay no road tax.. (well neither do car drivers as its technically vehicle excise duty) but more importantly of the 30+ people who I know that ride bikes on the road, they all have cars too and do pay Road Tax/VED. The lower emmisions of cyclists (I say lower as we do emit carbon dioxide and farts - alot in my case) means no VED/Tax. Some car owners dont pay road tax or VED either though due to the same lower emissions of their vehicle. I own two cars both heavily taxed and probably pay 4 times what most average road users do to use just 6000 miles of road a year. Does that mean others should move out of my way as I am somehow more entitled to the road then them??
-I also had to sit a driving test and theory test.... how many cyclists over 20yrs old dont have a driving licence?? Id think >75% would have one, but would like to know the statistics.
-It is completely legal to ride on britains roads (not motorways) and is covered in the highway code. Cyclists are every bit as entitled to use the roads to travel on.
-If a cyclists hits the rear of a car due to not leaving adequate spacing to the car in front then it is the cyclists fault and as such under the law of criminal damage they are liable and should have to pay for the damage caused, insurance or not. Any person is equally liable if they simply walk over to your car and throw a brick through the window. The problem is if you can successfully get the money from them. Insurance just makes it easy as a third party pays for the damage (insurance company) but it doesnt make them any more liable.
What I would like to see is police actively targeting and fining cyclists that:
- Go through red lights (or otherwise dont follow the law)
- Dont have lights after dusk
- Undertake
- Dont signal
- Use the footpath
^^^ all legitimate gripes that are not mentione in the anticycling petition. Instead its a morons comments that show a lack of understanding of road use/tax law/safety statistics.
Some additional key FACTS:
Around 98% of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e. where pedestrians are most likely to be) are due to collisions with motor vehicles.
Per mile travelled, pedal cycles are less likely than cars to injure a pedestrian, and far less likely to kill them. In Great Britain, from 2011 to 2015:
Cycles accounted for about 2.3% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.8% of serious injuries to pedestrians
Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were over twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian.
The vast majority of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involve a motor vehicle, not a cycle: from 2005-14 (GB), 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries that happened in collisions on a footway/verge involved a motor vehicle.
From 2005-14, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers.
An official study of pedestrian priority sites in the 1990s found only one pedestrian/cyclist incident in 15 site years.
Agree with that except the undertaking, filtering between slow moving traffic and the kerb is one of the great advantages of cycling in traffic.A couple of points...
-How does a road become unsafe due to cyclists??.... it becomes unsafe due to idiots in cars driving badly and making it unsafe for cyclists AND other cars,motorcycles.
-Cyclists pay no road tax.. (well neither do car drivers as its technically vehicle excise duty) but more importantly of the 30+ people who I know that ride bikes on the road, they all have cars too and do pay Road Tax/VED. The lower emmisions of cyclists (I say lower as we do emit carbon dioxide and farts - alot in my case) means no VED/Tax. Some car owners dont pay road tax or VED either though due to the same lower emissions of their vehicle. I own two cars both heavily taxed and probably pay 4 times what most average road users do to use just 6000 miles of road a year. Does that mean others should move out of my way as I am somehow more entitled to the road then them??
-I also had to sit a driving test and theory test.... how many cyclists over 20yrs old dont have a driving licence?? Id think >75% would have one, but would like to know the statistics.
-It is completely legal to ride on britains roads (not motorways) and is covered in the highway code. Cyclists are every bit as entitled to use the roads to travel on.
-If a cyclists hits the rear of a car due to not leaving adequate spacing to the car in front then it is the cyclists fault and as such under the law of criminal damage they are liable and should have to pay for the damage caused, insurance or not. Any person is equally liable if they simply walk over to your car and throw a brick through the window. The problem is if you can successfully get the money from them. Insurance just makes it easy as a third party pays for the damage (insurance company) but it doesnt make them any more liable.
What I would like to see is police actively targeting and fining cyclists that:
- Go through red lights (or otherwise dont follow the law)
- Dont have lights after dusk
- Undertake
- Dont signal
- Use the footpath
^^^ all legitimate gripes that are not mentione in the anticycling petition. Instead its a morons comments that show a lack of understanding of road use/tax law/safety statistics.
Some additional key FACTS:
Around 98% of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e. where pedestrians are most likely to be) are due to collisions with motor vehicles.
Per mile travelled, pedal cycles are less likely than cars to injure a pedestrian, and far less likely to kill them. In Great Britain, from 2011 to 2015:
Cycles accounted for about 2.3% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.8% of serious injuries to pedestrians
Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were over twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian.
The vast majority of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involve a motor vehicle, not a cycle: from 2005-14 (GB), 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries that happened in collisions on a footway/verge involved a motor vehicle.
From 2005-14, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers.
An official study of pedestrian priority sites in the 1990s found only one pedestrian/cyclist incident in 15 site years.
BenGismo said:
-If a cyclists hits the rear of a car due to not leaving adequate spacing to the car in front then it is the cyclists fault and as such under the law of criminal damage they are liable and should have to pay for the damage caused, insurance or not. Any person is equally liable if they simply walk over to your car and throw a brick through the window. The problem is if you can successfully get the money from them. Insurance just makes it easy as a third party pays for the damage (insurance company) but it doesnt make them any more liable.
They are a individual travelling at speed, seems common sense that liability insurance should be in place. Otherwise there is no way of nothing if the cyclist can actually afford to pay that huge sums that could result- say he injures a pedestrian severly.The petition should have been improved though 1) it should add that each cycle should legally have a front & back license plate for ease of identification 2) to much focus on 'car vs cyclist' and general anti-cyclist rant rather than focusing solely on the benefits of cyclist insurance in general.
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 17th November 23:09
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff