UKC

Put this in Off Belay, as the opinions of non-cyclists could be interesting


Reading the cycling hatred thread got me wondering...

Why do lots of people get really, really uptight about cyclist RLJ'ers?

If they bothered to think beyond the gut reaction, they would realise that if the cyclist does it without endangering or impacting other road users, it actually speeds up the traffic flow - think about ASLs with no extra light for the cyclists

Admittedly to get cyclists to do this always "without endangering or impacting other road users" could be difficult

I admit to frequently jumping red lights on a bike, but in Brussels there's loads of junctions where I'm allowed to (including one complex 5 road junction where I get waved through by a very pretty policewoman when she sees it's ok)

In reply to Carless:
I am not a cyclist but I don't have a problem with it. Personally I'd like to see red lights mean 'Give Way' from a cyclists perspective. There is no reason to keep them all bunched up the inside of the left turning 18 wheeler. If it's safe, go through the light and be on your way.

I suspect it'd increase traffic flow and I also suspect and for me it'd add to the appeal of cycling (cuts down journey time and would make me feel safer).

In reply to Carless:

I wouldn't mind if the law was changed (carefully) to allow cyclists through red lights where appropriate. I object to any group thinking they are above the law however. Also the claims about safety aren't correct, I regularly see red-light jumpers hit, nearly-hit or intimidate pedestrians and have seen several accidents where bikes hit cars after jumping the lights.

In reply to MG:

I'd postulate that no law or regulation will change much from this point of view. Careless people who disregard the law will continue to be careless.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Of course the fact that there are accidents involving jumping red light, doesn't mean that there are circumstances where it is the safest course of action.

Personally I'm not a fan of doing it.

In reply to Carless:


The same could also be said of drivers which isn't to suggest your point is invalid. I rather like the idea behind American flashing amber traffic lights that are only controlled at peak times. Our less versatile equivalent I suppose is the part time traffic light controlled roundabout.

jk

In reply to Carless:


[...]

Because if the car at the front of the queue decides to stop, then the whole queue of cars has to stop, and can't move until the car at the front moves. This leads to stress and annoyance, which is then directed at the cyclist who does what lots of the drivers would love to do.

Edit to add: I'm very wary of RLJing when commuting and generally avoid it, and having seen many cars doing it down the A6 in Stockport hrough rush hour I'm fairly wary of going even when the light's green!

In reply to Carless:

As a full time cyclist and part time driver it annoys me when someone jumps the lights. One might ask why the law shouldn't be amended to allow drivers to go through red lights if it's safe (and some countries do allow a left turn on red). I don't jump red lights irrespective of mode of transport.

The problem is that someone going through the green light has a reasonable expectation of right of way. Someone jumping a red light might not see them and mayhem follows. At the end of the day, delaying one's journey by 30 seconds is not such a big deal. In the US where many states allow left turns on red it's a nightmare for pedestrians as you get hassled by impatient drivers.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I'm very occasionally a cyclist, otherwise I agree completely.

As a driver I'm much more concerned with people in cars and vans jumping lights.
Especially oncoming traffic whilst waiting to turn right - when it's busy around here you'll invariably get a couple of amber gamblers, usually followed by a couple or few blatant red light jumpers, sometimes followed by some fud who grinds to a halt half way across the junction and brings the gift of gridlock to everybody.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
>... who does what lots of the drivers would love to do.

In which case those drivers should stop seething and get a bike of their own. Do 'em a world of good.

In reply to hang_about:

Because the damage you can do to someone else from ill-judgement is far more significant in a car than on a bike. The personal risk to the cyclist is far higher however, but he/she accepts that in running the light. I'll admit it does add an extra thing to be vigilant about with people crossing the road. Though I'd suggest it may do some text writing commuters listening to music some good to have to look both ways before trusting the green man.


A green means it's legal to progress, and not that it is safe to do so. Of course anyone merging through the red light should give way to the green. I really don't see this as any more of a problem than with a give way junction that is without lights.

In reply to Carless:

The other reason I don't get why people get so irate about it is that motor traffic does it all the time too. If you watch any light controlled junction, you'll regularly see 2 or even 3 cars going through after it's turned to red, it's amber-gambling taken to extremes. The difference with cyclists is that:

- Cyclists tend to run red lights in different, more conspicuous ways
- Amber-gambling is normalised and by extension so is going through a second or two after it's turned to red
- Cyclists have more opportunity to jump (if a car stops on red, all those behind it must also stop, whereas a cyclist can filter through)
- Confirmation bias (society says cyclists RLJ, if one cyclist does this confirms it, handily ignoring the 10 who correctly waited)

Like all cycle-hatred arguments, the issue of RLJing makes no sense if examined. What it boils down to is people justifying a pre-existing bias, and possibly a sense of jealousy that cyclists have more opportunity to jump the lights and get away with it more easily.

All that said, I don't think cyclists should jump red lights just because they can. But the moral outrage over it is pathetic.

In reply to Trevers:

That extreme is rare but "amber-gambling" is common. It is also wrong why do you think two wrongs make a right?





Expecting people to obey the law is now hating them is it?

In reply to Carless:

I stop at red lights on my bike, but if I feel that it is a dangerous junction to pull away (left turning HGVs etc), then I stop in the middle of the lane so that no one can pull up next to me and put me in their blind spot or endanger me in any other way. I have found drivers don't like this either! You can't win sometimes! If there is a junction box and no one has stopped a car in it, then I stop there, but often it is not an option for me.

Actually, I have just thought of one red light that I do jump, and it is where the cycle lane branches off the road just after a pedestrian light at a junction. If the light is red on the road junction, but no pedestrians, then I do slip through onto the cycle lane. Maybe I can't be too self righteous in my red light stopping!! lol

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Yes, but in appropriate situations it would allow cyclists to move more smoothly. It would need clear rules, though. Perhaps impractical to do.

In reply to MG:


Not round here it's not.

In reply to MG:



Hating all cyclists because of the actions of a few cyclists is what he is referring to, but then you knew that anyway!

Thanks for the replies – interesting points raised

I should point out that the 5 way junction I mentioned is not one of the ones that allow cyclists to jump the light – I assume the policewoman does it because she's evaluated the junction & thinks it's sensible to do so

On the many Brussels junctions where it is allowed, I've never seen any cyclists doing it without being careful & checking the traffic first

Should they change some UK junctions to allow it, or would this provoke even more hatred towards cyclists?

It's strange to me hearing about problems in the UK as I remember cycling in the UK as being fairly relaxed, including 11 years in London - admittedly this was over 22 years ago

In reply to Carless:

The Law is the Law whether you like it or not. No group is above it, and no one has the right to ignore it just because they don't agree with it.

I like the idea of driving a lot faster than 60 mph on single carriageway roads or 70 plus on dual carriageways where the risk seems low - eg empty straight road with no hazards etc etc, but the law says I can't and I ignore it at my peril. If I get caught and fined, or banned, that's how it is.

If we all chose to ignore laws we disagreed with we would have anarchy, so until such time that the law is changed , if ever, cyclists should obey the law like any other road user.

In reply to MG:


Read my entire post again. *sigh*

In reply to Carless:
The thing which is urgently needed is summary execution for car drivers who are in the middle of the junction when the lights turn red and sit there with nobody in front of them blocking the whole junction until the lights change round again.

In reply to Carless:

http://i.imgur.com/oUCOfzK.png like this

In reply to MG:


The difficult bit is 'where appropriate'. If you want a 'where appropriate' decision-based junction, put a Stop or Give Way junction, don't put traffic lights.

Traffic lights enforce flow control to deal with situations where a stop or give way junction would prevent the traffic flowing (or to create safe pedestrian crossings).

We already employ flashing amber at pelican crossings (proceed if crossing clear); maybe its use could be extended for use at appropriate traffic light junctions.

In reply to Trangia:


Well actually no we wouldn't. Laws are ignored day in day out , but it hasn't led to anarchy. Laws are changed, they don't cause anarchy. Many laws aren't comminly understood, doesn't cause anarchy. So it really depends on the law and the applicable context.

In reply to Carless:

Giving cyclists (motor scooters ? mopeds?horses?) the 'green light' to turn on red lights is a potential disaster IMO. Just how much room should someone coming across on green leave to cater for someone suddenly appearing from around a large vehicle at the stop line ? what does that do to the ability of someone turning right on green to position themselves in the centre of the junction ?

If you really want to, get off your bike, push it round the corner and rejoin the road afterwards.

In reply to Trangia:


Do you mean "like any other road user does" or "like any other road user should"? Important distinction here...

In reply to GrahamD:



I do this....guess what? I get verbals and gestures off morons in cars who seem to think I shouldn't be allowed to cheat by becoming a pedestrian and pushing my bike across a junction on green man.

Go figure.

In reply to Carless:





I find most drivers pretty chilled in Sheffield, personally, and the police don't mind me riding on the pavement carefully (which I'll do in very busy places where the pavement is extra wide), but somebody from India described England as being a small country that's quite competitive due to the number of people there are. What people are describing might be a reflection of 'stress of living' tensions as much as anything anti-cyclist?

I've noticed that drivers give me more room than they did, and that more women are cycling in Sheffield, apparently a sign of a change in perception about how safe it is.

In reply to Carless:


Because it's an offence, and it means as a driver (I am also a cyclist) I have to look out for you doing it. We have rules of the road to make them safer and easier to use for everyone.

In reply to MG:
I wouldn't overly object to a change in the law allowing it when turning left only, and not when any pedestrian crossing facility is provided at the lights.

So campaign if you wish but in the meantime obey the lights.

In reply to Carless:

If your using the road surely you must abide by the rules? I think you should pay tax and insurance too, my car mirror got taken off by a guy in traffic on a pedal bike jumping a red light andits the same as being hit by an un insured driver...could claim against his insurance as he had none....use the roads and the laws and you got my vote

In reply to littlejon86:

Sorry, who should pay tax and why? What's that got to do with red light jumping?

In reply to Carless:

As a cyclist I don't think it would be a good idea. UK junctions are bad enough with all road users (supposedly) bound by the same laws without introducing a variation for a small subset.

There's a junction near where I work, if cameras were installed and everyone who broke a regulation was prosecuted then about a third of all drivers going through it would get points. It really is that bad. (that includes cyclist BTW, including the one who wheelied through a red light and right across the junction) Letting any group of road users go through on red on such a junction would be a nightmare.

In reply to littlejon86:

Cyclists 'do' pay road tax (ie money towards the upkeep of the road), just not vehicle tax.

I'd happily pay to cover the costs of any damage to somebody's car if I dented or scratched it while cycling, as I'm an honourable sort.

In reply to littlejon86:
A zero emissions vehicle is ved band A which is £0 per year.

I guess you would have to increase ved for other road users to pay for the administration costs.

In reply to Carless:

We ought to increase road tax for all those motorists damaging the road. How does £2000 per year sound? Should make the roads safer and keep our poster above happy.

In reply to Carless:

If it was strictly for reasons of safety then I might be persuaded that it's ok to jump a red light. However, in my experience it's mostly just people being impatient and taking a risk in busy traffic.

I cycle by the way and I'm usually the one getting cut up by a red light jumper whilst waiting for it to go green.

In reply to Carless:

I've been out in the car for a bit tonight, nice night and plenty of folks out on bikes. Saw 5 people run red lights, I mean red, not amber gamblers.

4 cars.
1 motorbike, which overtook me stopped at a pedestrian crossing and ran through the crossing on red whilst a couple of kids were using it.
0 bikes.

In reply to Timmd:

And of course many of them do also pay vehicle tax. In my case if I'm cycling I'm also still paying tax on two motorbikes and a van that I decided to leave at home today.

Drivers of cars - I'd get in your way much more in the van, and be a much bigger menace to your wing mirrors on either motorbike. You're welcome.

Not a lot of people seem to know it, but most cyclists do actually have third party insurance via their home insurance.

In reply to deepsoup:



And you would take up a precious parking space (or maybe even 2 depending on the van) when you got to where you were going.

In reply to littlejon86:

I'm guessing you won't score very highly in this quiz:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/2015/jul/03/road-tax-red-...

In reply to Timmd:


It would have been nice if the woman who reversed out in front of me without warning ('I saw you but I thought you would stop'; yeah, whilst going downhill at about 30 my with right of way and 10 feet of warning...) had paid for my written off bike, rather than have her husband complain about a few scratches to her car...

In reply to deepsoup:


Nah; only a small 90% minority of cyclists are drivers...

In reply to hang_about:


I agree with your comments, but would like to add my opinion that in the US it's a nightmare for pedestrians in general.

In reply to Carless:
Tonight whilst cycling up a hill on part of my route, a woman driver who was waiting to turn across me, let me pass then shouted through her window 'rather you than me' with a beaming smile.
All I could say was 'you are well fit'.
She seemed pleased and I will be cycling that way everyday

In reply to Orgsm:

Ok jump a red light,,your fault..cause a multi vehicle pile up due to other drivers assuming that their green meant go and swerved to avoid you...who pay for repairs, legal costs, claims etc
All linked kidda, better off on pavement, safe and not likely to get killed by a truck too.

In reply to Carless:

It's a great idea as long as motorbikes get to do it too, they have the same filtering ability, the same all around vision and if anything it's probably safer on a motorbike than a push bike because if they miss judge the gap they can move much faster.

In reply to littlejon86:



What.......are you drunk?

In reply to Carless:

When I'm zooming along on my bike I normally ding my bell at a red light on pelican crossings so folk have time to dive out of my way. It's a policy I've been using on pavements for years.
At road junctions, when the light is against me, I normally shimmy through with a bit more care but I don't like to put my brakes on if a clear opportunity is there to sail through unimpeded.

In reply to Carless:

Any cyclist who RLJs at a cross roads is an idiot, but I've never seen it happen in Sheffield

What I do see a lot of is the following :

Cars sitting in front of the ASL
Cyclists standing in front of the white line where there is no ASL
Cyclists going through pedestrian crossings on red.

I do the latter myself, but only after any pedestrians have passed. But then, I give priority to pedestrians even if the lights have changed. As to setting off in advance of the cars, yes guilty of that. First of all, you have much better visibility than in a car. More importantly, even an experienced cyclist is likely to wobble, given how little room you are often given, it's best for all concerned.

In reply to Carless:

If it's so safe for a bike to jump a red light, why aren't cars allowed to? I mean they're easier for green-light drivers to see, can clear the junction faster, offer more protection to those travelling on it should the driver have missed a green-light car &c. &c.

I don't jump red lights on my bike. A few second of extra journey time vs not generating bad feeling and, oh, the law. I don't buy the safety argument but then I never find myself up the inside of a vehicle, for the same reasons I never cut up the inside of traffic when I had a motorbike.

In reply to littlejon86:
Most pedal cyclists are covered by third party liability insurance as it is usually not excluded from the general third partry liability section of home contents policies. My insurer, indeed, (Direct Line) has explicitly confirmed this to me (as I was interested and so I asked them) and I have it in writing somewhere.

It isn't well known, though, and I imagine were there too many claims it'd go away.

Indeed, it was for that sort of reason that the Swiss recently abolished their old mandatory Velovignette scheme.

Neil

In reply to littlejon86:

The "littlejon" tag is a bit obvious, but good effort!

In reply to The New NickB:

I've been out in the car for a bit tonight, nice night and plenty of folks out on bikes. Saw 5 people run red lights, I mean red, not amber gamblers.

4 cars.
1 motorbike, which overtook me stopped at a pedestrian crossing and ran through the crossing on red whilst a couple of kids were using it.
0 bikes.

I walk to work and start at 0545. I therefore see the roads, when it is probably the 'best time' to sneak through on a red due to it being relatively quiet, etc.
In the last 5 years of doing this, I've seen one car blatantly going through a red.
Cyclists, in the main, do it as a matter of course. Either that, or they go the pavement for a bit...
So, in that particular circumstance and in my experience, cyclists are massively more likely to go through a red light or avoid them by going on the pavement.

I wrote out a long life-story post and then deleted it as I realised I would bore everyone, but I jump reds on a bike and I jump reds in a car.

In both situations I improve the speed of traffic flow. In one situation I have a very tiny chance of hurting someone else.

And it's not on the bike.

Truth is - the cyclist hate is textbook 'othering' and dehumanisation out of any basic social psychology class. The only way to beat it is to get drivers to see cyclists as human beings - and this only works, funnily enough, by showing human characteristics or by close association.

I was thinking - on this note - that offensive cycling helmets, blacked out wraparound shades, bright Lycra etc actually help to dehumanise cyclists because divers just see a man-made blob. Similarly to the study that showed if cyclists had long feminine hair showing drivers gave them a wider berth - how about cycling jerseys that look like you're topless and no helmet? I wonder if this might be statistically safer?

In reply to Carless:

Or - how about this in response to 'all cyclists must take a cycling test and get a license' etc - all drivers must take a cycling test also as a step up.

I mean you can't get an hgv license before you can drive a car can you?

(I hope not otherwise my comparison is shit)

In reply to Ramblin dave:

"should"

In reply to The New NickB:

Tha what ? Ont crack pipe again?

In reply to Carless:




This is a ludicrous argument. There are lots of cases in which breaking of the law might not do harm in itself or might even be regarded as a "good". However, except in exceptional circumstance that doesn't give everybody the right to pick and choose which laws to obey and when. Most particularly it doesn't give people the right to do so when the downside risk of misjudgment is to cause others harm.

Some cyclists seem not to understand that because they are relatively small and silent and thus less obviously "conspicuous" they can actually represent more of danger than a motorised vehicle to pedestrians. To condone red light jumping by cyclists is to put pedestrians at risk.

Cyclists (and I am one sometimes) are keen to explain that they have as much right to use the roads as motorised vehicles and should be "respected" as much as motorised vehicles. Well, they should therefore obey the rules of the road as they would motorised vehicles obey them.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I thought you might like some stats on the danger to pedestrians of cyclists v motorised vehicles.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf

It doesn't entirely tally with your observation that cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians. Facts are always good.

In reply to FactorXXX:


It if is o stupid hour depending on the lights the cyclist may be waiting a long time. Quite a few use inductive loops which arent always good at picking up bikes.

Even with the added ability of cyclists to jump lights (once one car obeys all the others behind have to) I would say its about even. There is one traffic light controlled roundabout near me which is horrendous for cars jumping the lights. You can spot them accelerating as the light goes to amber.

In reply to AlisonSmiles:

Pedestrians scare me stupid when I am riding on the roads, and scare me even more on the cycle path (dedicated cycle path - not shared use path). I have had masses of near misses when they step out without looking, and have been knocked off twice, once resulting in a shoulder injury that lost me a month's work! They then have the cheek to give me a dirty look like I am the one in the wrong!!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Arguably more right. Hence why no need for a licence.


I couldnt give a toss about being "respected" the only bit I am bothered about is being endangered due to someone not understanding a car is several tons of steel and so they need to pay attention when driving.


This could quite easily allow red light jumping since I dont know if you have noticed but people in charge of motorised vehicles dont always obey the laws when they dont see them as applicable.
It isnt hard to find examples of objections to traffic speed enforcement by the main car lobbying organisations, for example, normally set around it should be targeted to areas of specific risk.
Do you feel that car drivers who have been speeding at some point should still be treated with respect by lorries?

In reply to Carless:

Red Light Jumpers

Sound great, be safe, be seen. I will ask dear Granny to knit me one

In reply to Postmanpat:



The car drivers should thank cyclists for the good roads they now drive on

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved...

In reply to 3leggeddog:



That's what i thought when i saw the thread title!

In reply to girlymonkey:



Yeah, and one of the roads I walk/run/cycle/drive along daily was first built by the Romans.

It's pretty clear that in driving a car one pays a much higher tax burden than in cycling. It's also pretty clear that development and maintaince of the road network is driven by motor vehicles. Further, much of our current economic prosperity derives from motor vehicles. Some people seem to be in denial about this...

In reply to FactorXXX:






I drive to work at 0530 - tbh I don't see many cyclists, but would agree that most cars obey the lights.

However - at that time of the morning at junctions where I can see if there's any other traffic the only real reason for obedience in the car is a fear of points on the licence. If I was on a bike on obviously empty roads I would cycle through - you feel more of a pillock slavishly sitting like a well-trained Border Collie at the command of a light on a bicycle for some reason.

In reply to littlejon86:

Oh, you're real. Shame!

In reply to FactorXXX:

I not really making any argument, but I thought if would be an interesting exercise.

I live in an area that is really popular with cyclists (recreational rather than commuters primarily) and red light jumping by bikes is really rare. The last time I saw it, other cyclists actually took the offender to task.

In reply to wintertree:


Nope it isnt. All that is clear is that a higher percentage of the tax someone pays is due to transport. That is not the same thing at all as a higher tax burden and also ignores the various ways it can be minimised.


You are correct that motor vehicles do a lot more damage which needs a lot more maintenance. I am not sure this really suits your argument though.

In reply to wintertree:

It was intended to be a slightly tongue in cheek response to the entitlement issue.
Interesting point in the article though, that car drivers had a sense of entitlement long before roads were designed with them in mind!

In reply to AlisonSmiles:




They are, and the relevant ones from your link are "Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were about 1.2 times more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian, and almost 2.5 times as likely to kill them"
So, in terms of injuries there is very little difference,and given that cars are more likely because of their size to cause reportable injuries, it would be reasonable that overall (ex deaths) the numbers of accidents per mile are at least equal.
So I'll stick with my view that cyclists "can actually represent more of danger than a motorised vehicle to pedestrians" and add that this is particularly so when they cycle like dXcks.

In reply to dissonance:


Really? Do I pay more tax buying a new car or a new bicycle? Do I pay more tax when buying petrol for my car - per mile or per hour used - than I pay tax when buying human food to fuel cycling? Do I pay more tax on labor and parts for maintaining my car or my bicycle? Do I pay more tax on consumables like tyres for my bike or my car? I'll skip over VED as being obvious.

An individual with identical income pays more in taxes to drive than to cycle. I doubt I've listed half the ways..:

In reply to dissonance:



Yawn, hence "respect" in quotation marks ie.meaning what you are saying.


"as they would motorists would obey them". I'll try and clarify for you:cyclists get pissed off when motorists disobey the rules of the roads ie.they wish motorists would obey those rules.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so cyclists should therefore also obey the rules.


Which is different to simply taking things into their own hands.


See, you understand the use of the term "respect" after all
Yes. Are you pretending I don't think cyclists who cycle like dXcks should be "respected"?

In reply to wintertree:


Depends on the bike and car. Or indeed if you buy second hand.


Depends if you use a electric car dont it?


I have no idea. Depends on the bike and car.


Again iffy. Bikes wear out pretty damn quick when used heavily.


Yes it is rather obvious. Doesnt support your argument but is obvious. It helps if you misread Excise as Emissions to see why it doesnt work in your favour.


Yet people dont have equal income so its f*cking meaningless. Perhaps its something I am sensitive to since the times I have had some halfwit yell shit about paying tax to be on the roads I cant help but make a judgement based on their car and appearance that their tax payments are rather lower than mine.


or half the costs.

In reply to dissonance:

Perhaps its something I am sensitive to since the times I have had some halfwit yell shit about paying tax to be on the roads I cant help but make a judgement based on their car and appearance that their tax payments are rather lower than mine.


Of course you could point out that many drivers in new cars are paying very little or no VED also, and ask if they also have no right to be on the roads

In reply to Postmanpat:


Really. Now i cant speak for all cyclists but personally I get pissed off when my life is put at risk. For example i really couldnt care less if a driver breaks the law by crossing double white lines (as I do more than 10mph the exemption doesnt count) when passing me, I will often aid and abet them in fact.
I could give a f*ck if they overtake and then immediately turn left.


You do realise many cyclists are also drivers. You do realise that most, when driving, will also selectively obey laws?


Apart from car drivers do. Everything f*cking day. Which is why those groups are arguing for the law not to be enforced.


No I am saying that you are putting forward an argument often used by holier than thou drivers who despite the fact they routinely break the law use it as an excuse to drive carelessly and without consideration.

In reply to dissonance:

Are you seriously suggesting the average purchase cost of a bike is comparable to a car? 2nd hand cars only exists because new ones are sold. I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and say car sales pull in 100x more tax, at least, than bike sales.


No actually it doesn't. VAT is not charged on human food, but is on electricity.



Then get over yourself. I deleted the rest of my point by point replied as you are missing my point by a mile.

Most cycling advocates insist it is much cheaper than motoring, so you're out on a limb suggesting that - as an activity - cycling generates more than a minor tax income compared to motoring.

Cyclists may pay as much tax, but cycling itself is clearly and obviously an activity with much less tax burden than motoring. Quite asside from VED, which you can argue about till you're blue in the face, represents a big direct tax income, everything else costs more and is taxed everywhere. The expensive bike argument it tosh -some people choose more expensive bikes or cars and pay more accordingly, it goes both ways. The zero or low emissions argument is tosh - if by some miracle everyone swithes to a £0 VED vehicle tomorrow you can bet your ass the VED bands would change.

I never said this gives motorists more entitlement or privelidge on the roads, simply that there is a larger tax burden associated with cars than bikes.

In reply to Carless:

I wonder what the population level health resource consumption of the cycling population compared to the driving population tots up to?

The tax take from people who cycle/cycle and drive compared to drivers only is always an irrelevant diversion in these conversations.

...and as a driving commuter exposed to the truly execrable manners of many other drivers I'm always amused by the utterly childish outrage that drivers express about cyclists which seems to derive almost wholly from a toddler level tantrum at people getting from A to B faster than they do.

In reply to 3leggeddog:



I'm a Red Light Sweater - sweat pours off me when green changes to amber.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Let's count death as a serious injury, because let's face it, it's as serious as it gets. Things don't look quite so close then.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And how often would you suggest drivers obey every rule of the road? I'd wager that the percentage of car journeys where no rule is broken is very small indeed.

In reply to wintertree:



Because we all know that the paying of tax is the primary function of human beings and one which confers greater rights and status.

*sigh*

In reply to Carless:

If they bothered to think beyond the gut reaction, they would realise that if the cyclist does it without endangering or impacting other road users, it actually speeds up the traffic flow - think about ASLs with no extra light for the cyclists

Does it though?
If a cyclist is in front of me, I won't pass until it's absolutely safe to do so. Sometimes, when I do, I have to then stop at a Red shortly after wards. The cyclist then goes through the Red and the whole process has to be repeated...

In reply to Trevers:


Where as I actually said this in my message:


Are you incapable of reading of did you deliberately ignore what I said? I'm guessing you're not that dumb if you can use a computer so you must be trying to twist my words.

Fact is, someone pays for the roads, and at the moment motorists have a higher tax burden across their activity than cyclists. As I said this does not grant rights or entitlement, but it is risible that people argue otherwise.

In reply to dissonance:

It if is o stupid hour depending on the lights the cyclist may be waiting a long time. Quite a few use inductive loops which arent always good at picking up bikes.

Definitely of the timed variety. Otherwise the cars would trigger them...


Even with the added ability of cyclists to jump lights (once one car obeys all the others behind have to) I would say its about even. There is one traffic light controlled roundabout near me which is horrendous for cars jumping the lights. You can spot them accelerating as the light goes to amber.

Well, I have to thoroughly disagree. Certainly in my experience, bikes are more likely to go through a Red, especially if turning Left. Anyway, I never see cars going on the pavement to get past a Red...

In reply to wintertree:
All tax payers pay for the road, regardless of their mode of transport. Taxation has no place in this argument, one way or the other.

In reply to dissonance:


And cyclist cycling like dicks doesn't put people at risk I suppose? Or maybe as a superior species cyclists are able to perfectly judge when breaking the law is safe and when it isn't?


Yes, in general, they don't just run red lights when they think it's safe, and of course lots of accidents are caused by drivers selectively disobeying the laws and being wrong.


Which groups and which laws?

You simply seem to be arguing that because there are lots of crap drivers it's OK for cyclists to cycle like dXcks.



Where did I even imply that let alone argue it?

In reply to Trevers:


So it's OK for cyclists to deliberately flout key rules of the road like red lights and one way streets? Really?

In reply to The New NickB:


No doubt the person knocked over by a cyclist going the wrong the way up a one way street will feel much better then.

In reply to Carless:

A shocking example of a cycling red jumper

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OE5kiLg7jK4/VXSddhjUC9I/AAAAAAAAOog/08Wnu2HYo3Y/s...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Probably thankful it wasn't a car.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Amazing! Is that an inner tube round his shoulders, held on by a snap gate?
I like this look a lot!

In reply to Chris Harris:


Mon dieu!!

In reply to The New NickB:


Might have heard the car......

In reply to Postmanpat:


Are you going to back this up with an example or just pull possible scenarios out of the air?

How would cycling RLJ's feel about motorcyclists doing the same? Surely the same arguments apply?

In reply to Moorside Mo:


Really? Money does and my base point is not taxation but money. Does anyone really think a road network of such an extent and quality would be maintained without the existence and there financial contributions - direct and indirect - of motorists and their motorvehicles.

Get real.

In reply to wintertree:

The demand for a road network from all users and the benefits of having a road network provides the political will to tax the population sufficiently to build and maintain it.

As per the NHS your relative contribution into the system does not guide your capacity to utilise it.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


The latter. Do you think it is a far fetched scenario?

In reply to Postmanpat:


They might have lots of things, doesn't change the fact that pedestrians are much, much, much, much more likely injured and killed by motor vehicles.

In reply to wintertree:


I am saying it is f*cking meaningless comparison.
After all i know someone who brought a house in a far more expensive area partly so they could commute on their bike. The tax burden to support that decision is far higher.
Hence it is absolutely f*cking pointless cherrypicking the figures for some random reason that even you dont seem to know.

In reply to kinley2:


I never said otherwise, did I? Do you think the political will would be here to fund the current network without motorcars? No way.

It'll be very interesting in another 30-100 years, when batteries are powerful enough and cybernetics are capable and reliable enough that cars can fly. Car sized human capable quad rotors already exist after all. I suspect the road network will crumble away to a few percent of its current size...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well that appears to be your argument around "respect". That only if cyclists are f*cking perfect do they deserve drivers to drive competently.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well with all these cyclists breaking all these laws you should at least be able to provide examples of your scenarios. Surely the number of law breaking cyclists would mean it wouldn't be a scenario. Just keep making things up, it makes your arguments look really good!

In reply to dissonance:


No it doesnt,except to a hypersensitive holier than thou cyclist.
Obviously drivers should drive competently but their incompetence doesnt justify the wilful,preplanned and potentially dangerous law breaking of some cyclists

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

No doubt i could but what would the point if a theoretical scenario illustrates the point? Unless people regard the example as too farfetched to be realistic it serves its purpose.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And your point is that pedestrians are potentially getting injured by cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets and yet you are unable to provide any real evidence that this actually happens. We could make up theoretical examples about what could happen in any situation at all, it doesn't mean they actually happen.

In reply to The New NickB:

Much more likely to be killed you mean?

The statististics don't change the original point that cyclists can be a danger and in some circumstances more of a danger than cars, ironically for much the same reasons that cars often hit them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


yawn. Your argument was the text book cyclists deserve it because some dont obey the law. Complete with the normal generalisations.


F*cking hell talk about leading statement. How about the wilful, preplanned and potentially extremely dangerous law breaking of many drivers? In a tool far more lethal than a bicycle and far lower risk to the user
Since we are speaking about red light jumping drivers incompetence is often actually a pretty good reason for doing it. Which is why there are various schemes based around it eg:
Turn right on red.
Griller les feux
ASL (although the UK examples are poorly implemented and are a liability).
Early lights for cyclists. Cambridge have some examples and I think London are getting some.

In reply to wintertree:


There would probably be an amazingly complex cycle track network.

....and you'd be whining about roller-skaters failing to obey red lights.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Figures for Single vehicle collisions in the UK 2009 -2013

Pedestrians killed by CYCLE 14
Pedestrians seriously injured by CYCLE 334
Pedestrians killed by CAR 1,245
Pedestrians seriously injured by CAR 20,181

In reply to dissonance:


You've either read a different post or proved my point for me. There was no point being made about "cyclists deserving" anything nor was there meant to be. It's inside your head. Calm down dear.


Whataboutery doesn't make the cyclists correct. Car drivers can be incompetent, so can cyclists. That is human nature and we can just try and train it out of people to improve safety on the roads.
Consistently jumping red lights or missing one way streets whether by a cyclist or a driver is "wilful preplanned and potentially dangerous".

The central point is that if people, cyclists or drivers, want to use they roads they should generally try and observe its rules. This includes those cyclists (and drivers) who think they have special dispensation to ignore some of them.
There is no suggestion that their attitude justifies people driving dangerously, but it does justify people being irritated by them.


All of which are of course different to people simply ignoring rules at will.

In reply to wintertree:

While you're up there you should see if you can pull your head out too.

In reply to wintertree:



It would be far more extensive, as it would not cost so f@cking much of my taxes, to engineer roads for motor vehicles. You can build about 30 miles of cycle roads for the same cost as building one mile of a road designed to take motorised vehicles.

So yes, take motor vehicles off most of the roads, and we'd have a brilliant network with far more capacity. In stead of f@ckwits driving a 2 tonne car 5 miles because they are too lazy to walk, cycle etc. to their local shops or work.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, because I'm not manipulating the data.


Virtually everything presents a danger, it is important that we mitigate risk in a way that is proportional to that danger.

In reply to The New NickB:


Neither am I! 1.2X is not "much more" in this context.


Yes, and you don't think encouraging road users to obey the rules of road might be a start?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I disagree that it is the correct context.


I am very much in favour of all road users obeying the rules. Could you point me to somewhere I have said otherwise.

In reply to The New NickB:


Care to elaborate?


No, hence the question mark. What is your point? Simply that when a car hits a pedestrian it is more likely to kill them than a cyclist hitting a pedestrian? Well, caller, thank you for your contribution.

In reply to Orgsm:

Along with total economic collapse. Do you have any idea of the quantity of freight required to support our economy, our standard of living etc?


Wow, just goes to show cyclists can be as lazily prejudiced as anyone else. Not everyone can live within 5 miles of work; perhaps you are privelidged enough to have found jobs for yourself and your wife and school places for your children all within 5 miles of a house you can afford. You're luckier than most then! Before the motorcar people used to live in slums to be near work... Then we've got workplaces with a need to be smart/clean and no locker/shower facilities, a need to go to work when it's sleeting and blowing 40mph winds or get fired, a need to go to other places further than cycling distance, the list goes on.

Get real.

Edit: in the last I've suggested on UKC that one man micro cars with limited range and speed could reduce the number of 2 ton cars doing 5 mile trips and a lot of standard UKC negativity told me how that's never work. If I could but a Lit C1 today I would and that'd be the end of 90% of my 5-15 mile car journeys. I have a lot of sympathy with the view cars are used inefficiently - in terms of capital resources, running costs, road space and emmisions. Something between a car and a bike is needed. Sir Clive Sinclair was on the right track, but to soon.

In reply to deepsoup:


I've tried to make the - I thought - rather obvious point that our road network primarily exists for motor vehicles. If that equates to having my head up my arse in your view, you must live in a very sad world

In reply to Postmanpat:


You really do let yourself down sometimes. I'm off out on the bike to mow down some pedestrians.

In reply to kinley2:


Once we get to Jetsons style flying cars and the road network decays, we'll find out. Man rated quad rotors exist now, and batteries continue to gradually improve...


Where have I been whining about anyone jumping red lights?

In reply to The New NickB:


They are both perfectly reasonable questions. Careful of those cars that intend to kill you.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I suspect it wasn't the questions, I'd be disinclined to engage with somebody coming out with that "what's your point caller" line.

In reply to wintertree:


This, or at least the perception of this, is the route of the problem.

In reply to Moorside Mo:


No. The perception that it makes motorists more privelidged or entitled is the problem. I have said that before

The motor vehicles drives the extent, design, capacity, construction and maintenance is not a problem. It is a massive benefit - I can go far more places on my bike, and with far better quality roads, than if society did not have motor vehicles. It goes deeper than that as the motor vehicle is central to the economic prosperity that enables this wonderful network.

I'll repeat myself to stem off the standard criticism - none of this makes a motrists rights supercede those of other legal road users.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I'm thinking of getting a helmet cam in case of things like this happening to me.

In reply to Postmanpat:


For the second time in this thread, I never said, implied or meant that.

In reply to Trevers:

Some people on here just like being argumentative I think, & they feel clever from it.

In reply to Trevers:


So what is the relevance of the comment?
There are lots of crap drivers who break the rules. What does that mean in terms of being irritated by crap cyclists?

In reply to Timmd:


It would be pretty quiet if argumentative people weren't here! Alan needs the hits
When people are wrong they need to be told
But i will accept that was a cheap shot at nick

In reply to wintertree:

Once again, you are forgetting that 90% of cyclists are also drivers. So they pay all the costs of car purchase, fuel, VED (where it is levied). It's just that, for the particular journey where you seem them as a 'cyclist', they happen to have chosen to ride a bike.

There was a suggestion upthread (or a similar thread) that cyclists ought to wear a shirt saying 'cyclists are people too'. Maybe the slogan 'cyclists are drivers too' would be more effective...

In reply to Trevers:


You are a jeffing idiot

In reply to Postmanpat:


No I read your post which strongly implies if cyclists want respect (which you then clarified as actually not being endangered by someones driving) then they need to obey rules. Which is the standard unpleasant "some cyclists break laws therefore f*ck them all" line. If you dont actually believe that I would suggest trying a more nuanced argument in future.


awww bless. lets be patronising.


Firstly its not whataboutery to deal with the greater threat or to address that drivers take a casual approach to the law when the argument being deployed is the holier than thou cyclists break laws therefore sod them one.


Really? I can think of a better solution than simply trying.


Yes I know. So why did you only apply it to one side?


Actually you did suggest that by your use of "respect". It also doesnt justify it since, lets face it anyone saintly enough not to break any laws themselves wouldnt be getting irritated.


Your statement was that the drivers incompetence doesnt justify law breaking. All of those are examples which show that it is accepted drivers incompetence is a real threat and there are various attempts to deal with it. If a country doesnt deal with it it begs the question of what to do.
. I would normally obey red lights but there are various scenarios where I would disobey them in a heart beat since I am rather more interested in retaining that beat than obeying the law.
There was an report by TFL in 2007 back looking at why women were more likely to be killed by lorries. Didnt get published but bits got leaked including the conclusion that the fact women were more likely to obey red lights than men is likely to be part of the reason.

In reply to dissonance:

No, you inferred that, presumably because you are a fanatic. Read it again. There is abolutely nothing to justify your paranoid interpretation. Is it really so odd to think that as users of the roads cyclists should be expected to pbey the rules of the road?


You made up the "sod them" bit though didn't you? It really doesn't make cyclists look good to do this. The argument is that both should obey the law.



Because the OP's question was about why drivers get angry about cyclists not visa versa !!!


Yet another straw man. I've gone to great lengths to acknowledge that many drivers are crap, some even deliberately so. But you seem unable to notice this.
Maybe you should look into the concept of cognitive dissonance?


Sheesh. I can only repeat the point: if the powers that be decide the law needs to be changed to allow cyclists different laws, so be it. That doesnt justify cyclists deciding to do so on an hoc basis.
Of course there are extraordinary circumstances in which ignoring the eules is correct but that doesnt justify it on a regular basis.

In reply to captain paranoia:


is it just me or is reading comprehension hitting a new low on this thread? I'm not an idiot, and I noted that I run, cycle and drive on the roads, so no I am not forgetting the large intersection of motorists and cyclists.

All I said is that the road network is primarily built for the benefit of motor vehicles and that our economy, which pays for the roads, is largely based on the motor vehicle.

Honestly I give up. You make a simple point and 5 people argue against 5 things you never said. You defend against one of those and the other 4 jump on it. A pattern that particularly comes out on UKC cycling threads...

In reply to wintertree:

What are you actually trying to say?

Roads have existed before cars roads will exist after. Who gives a shit that cars have to maintain what they contribute most heavily to the destruction of? If cars were to disappear tomorrow the cost of maintaining the road network would be very little as bikes don't cause any appreciable damage to them.

In reply to wintertree:

The problem is that you tried to back up your simple point (roads are built for motor traffic) with a lot of nonsensical argument about car drivers paying more tax than cyclists. Since you seemed to be falling into the common trap of assuming cyclists only cycle because they're so poor they can't afford a car, I reminded you that most cyclists also own cars, and it's not poverty that makes them choose to cycle.

If you don't want people to tell you you're talking nonsense, don't talk nonsense.

In reply to wintertree:

So, what is behind the above?

That you think the cycle network shouldn't improve, or that it should improve but not at the expense of the free flow of motorised traffic, or that you don't think the UK economy might change from it's current reliance on motorised road transport,...or?

Without any context, it's significance is hard to grasp...

In reply to Postmanpat:

It would be wonderful, people could share seedling thoughts off the top of their head without their moral fibre or intelligence being called into question, & threads would last for weeks without getting heated, where topics could be explored without becoming polarised into 'right' & 'wrong', with shades of grey being recognised too.


You mean like ' Have you thought that it could be like this?'

In reply to Carless:

I'm a cyclist and a car driver. I have to admit I have jumped red lights before and pedestrian crossings after the pedestrians have crossed or if they are clear. I don't condone it though and wouldn't support a change to make it allowable for cyclists.

What annoys me is cyclists who use the pavement as a bypass, that's worse in my opinion.

You have to wonder though how many of these drivers who get irate about RLJs have broken the speed limit at some point? I certainly have! I think it's the same justification, drivers make up their own minds that the conditions are safe to drive faster.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


If a cyclist goes down the left side of a left turning vehicle they deserve anything they get! It is one of my personal bugbears as a cyclist when cyclists have to try and get to the front of the queue regardless. I will often move to the centre of the lane and hold my position in the traffic which in my opinion is often a much safer position, certainly on narrow roads.

In reply to barrow_matt:

While I agree with you that it's stupid to go down the left of a left turning vehicle, I don't think death is a particularly fitting punishment for it.

In reply to Carless:

Cycling is a bit of a halfway house between walking and driving that requires a liberal interpretation of the highway code by the intrepid pedaller.
Why should a free spirit stop when the opportunity of the moment says go?

In reply to birdie num num:


But enough about taxi drivers, what do you think about cyclists?

In reply to captain paranoia:


It's not nonsense though is it. It's a fact. Everything about motoring is more expensive, and therefore carries more tax. The fuel - electric or oil based is taxed unlike cycling fuel.


It isn't nonsense though. It's bloody obvious, or so I thought. The point maybe wasn't - cyclists only have a road network because of cars, and some of them on here seem to forget that and think it would all be magically paid for in a world without cars...

In reply to FreshSlate:


Time does though. Without cars shifted debrie and dirt, soil, grass and then trees build up in little time at all. If you go back to my first post it was more in reference to a world without cars or their network, not one where they disappear, but I understand the rules of UKC are that a post is critiqued entirely without context...

In reply to wintertree:

Why are we doing this again? A world with whatever mode of transport will serve that mode and invest in it's infrastructure. It's pretty simple. Whether cars disappear or never existed it doesn't actually matter.

I'm struggling to see a point here.

In reply to Carless:

You may not like the law, but it says cyclists must stop at red lights. (It is the only time I get to try my ABS) If you want the law changed write to your MP and/or get your cycling club to do so. In the mean time obey the law. You could also ask that all cyclists have third party insurance, and carry a clear identification, so that when they jump the lights or do other stupid and illegal acts they can be easily identified. The good and law abiders will not object to this, the only objectors will be the who want to ignore the law and give all the good guys a bad name.
Many of the RL jumpers do not do it when it is safe, hence having to brake for them. Many are still alive because motorists mostly are aware of their penchant for RL jumping.
Just because you don't like a law does not mean you should ignore it with impunity. If that was the case for all there would be anarchy across the country! I don't like 50mph limits on some straight rural roads, but they are legal limits so they are obeyed.

In reply to johncook:


Have you ever tried driving at 70 in the fast lane of a motorway?

In reply to Carless:

To sum up this thread so far:

Cycling proponent: "Cyclists shouldn't jump red lights, but since everyone else on the road is breaking all the rules anyway, please stop singling us out. And for god's sake, please stop trying to kill us."

Anti-cyclist: "Yes but that doesn't make it alright! Plus here's some anecdotal evidence/hypothetical situation."

Cycling proponent: "Oh FFS we never said that"

...

Repeat ad infinitum...

In reply to johncook:

I'm a law abider and I would object to being required to carry a registration plate. Why should I? It's quite clear that driving is a privilege which can be revoked since you carry the burden of life and death of the people around you. If cyclists must be registered and ID'd, then so too must pedestrians, and we might as well just tattoo bar codes on everyone's foreheads at birth.

Also, it's not the bad cyclists giving me a bad name. It's people who are too thick to realise that I'm not responsible for anyone else's actions that give me a bad name. Yes, I wish a minority of cyclists would stop jumping red lights, but I don't hold them personally responsible for the opinions of idiots.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


I was hit by a cyclist last Thursday morning near Vauxhall, fortunately he swerved enough that his wheel didn't make contact but his bars did as did his body, I was fortunate that I had a big heavy rucksack that took the brunt of the force, cue profanities and expletives from him, he soon shut his mouth when I threatened to knock his teeth down his throat.
He had jumped a red at speed at the pedestrian crossing I was using, the fu**er hadn't even attempted to slow down according to other cyclists who witnessed the incident.

I know your post was aimed at someone else, but you also wanted an example which I've given you.

In reply to Trevers:


Nail on the head.

In reply to Trevers:


Why? Cyclists kill and injure pedestrians when cycling around. Pedestrians don't kill pedestrians by walking around. Strict liability against cyclists for injury to pedestrians, that'd fix it...

In reply to wintertree:


Extremely infrequently as you're well aware. And the cyclist is as vulnerable in a collision between the two, as you're well aware (although if you're going to continue to be facetious, we'll make allowances for the fact that due to demographics, the average cyclist may be physically more able to withstand or recover from a knock or fall than the average person on foot).


Yes but sometimes people on foot kill other people on foot. Or step out into the path of cyclists. Or even buses.


Serious question, why do you hate cyclists so much?

In reply to wintertree:


Are you sure about that? You get occasional fatal collisions between pedestrians, you also get pedestrian / cyclist collisions where the cyclist is killed.

In reply to Trevers:


50 serious injuries and 3 deaths a year. That may sound small but in terms of injuries and deaths per mile cycled is in not as disproportionate to cars as a first glance suggests.

Edit: If that was scaled to the number of miles driven that would be 3000 and 180, compared to 20,000 and 1200. So per mile the kill and injure rates are about 15% of those of a car. That's actually pretty bad given the slower speeds, lower masses, improved visibility and aural environment that should make cycles safer.


Well then as the faster and larger massing factor perhaps they'd better not hit pedestrians? Consider this - as a driver I fail to anticipate a cyclist cutting me up, do an emergency stop, hit them anyway and get whiplash. Still my fault, right? So the same applies cyclist > pedestrian.


Show me one news story of a pedestrian killing another pedestrian as part of their travel - not murder etc. I am genuinely curious to see a real world case of this happening.


Where did I say I hate cyclists? I have - twice - noted that I walk/run/cycle/drive on the roads. I used to cycle 3000 miles a year for my commute, I've worn 2 bikes into the ground. I cycle for leisure and exercise. Sometimes I cycle to work. I don't hate myself or other cyclists for it. I've had it explained to me a couple of times on UKC that I'm not a "real" cyclist mind you.

In reply to The New NickB:


I'm genuinely interested to see an example as I can't imagine the circumstances, except perhaps with runners, but it's a big world.


Yup. A good reason to give pedestrians a wide berth and consider your stopping distances, something it's all to easy to forget when having a blast on a nice day.

In reply to wintertree:


They are out there.


You are really revealing your prejudices here.

In reply to The New NickB:


Not that you've found one... Clearly not in the same number as pedestrians killed in collisions with cyclists. Lest you go all "na na prejudice" again note I said "collisions with" not "by". Although I note the CTC says "by"...


The prejudice that I want to be in control of my safety as far as possible when cycling? The prejudice that I see someone with headphones in texting on their mobile and think "They probably can't hear or see me coming so I'd better assume they're going to step out in front of me at the last minute not knowing I'm there." The prejudice that I find I have to work at controlling myself to not just go as fast as I can sometimes because it's not safe?

Oh, wait, by prejudice did you mean common sense?

In reply to wintertree:


Much as I hate exercises that turn individual human tragedies into statistics, 3 is not a number that you can base a statistically significant argument on, and you can't just scale it up like that. Where are these stats from?



I didn't say that an incident between a cyclist and a driver is never the cyclists fault. I'm not an advocate for presumed liability. That said I think we've unwittingly reached a legal situation where we struggle to distinguish what is or isn't avoidably dangerous because of endemic bad driving (such as motorway tailgating, impatient overtaking etc.).


It's not necessary for the purpose of my argument. I was just pointing out the ludicrousness of suggesting that everyone should be ID'd and watched simply because they might potentially pose a threat to someone else.


I take back the 'hate' comment. But scanning through your posts, you don't come across as particularly pro-cyclist. Basically I don't understand why you were pursuing this argument about taxation and economic input or how it's relevant. I know you weren't making any claims of road tax, but I struggle to understand that anyone who's shared my experience on the road would give any credence to a line of reasoning which when taken to an extreme results in some knucklehead shouting at me to get out of his way because I haven't paid my taxes.

In reply to wintertree:
I'm sure you know the Einstein quote about "common sense". It's never seemed truer.

In reply to Trevers:


I calculated them from a variety of sources. The CTC have some as it turns out. Table on page 3. Per mile cars and bikes cause the same number of serious pedestrian injuries, and bikes 50% of the deaths. I actually find this almost unbelievably, shockingly high. Given the lower speeds and masses of bikes it suggests something is very wrong. Although I suppose many car miles are on non-pedestrian roads.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf


Neither am I pro-motorist. I am pro-safety and pro-individual responsibility (aka Victim Blaming in UKC parlance.)


My post was to refute a tongue in cheek post about how roads are here because of cycles and cars. Not everyone seems willing to accept that the roads are here because of cars. Re: a knucklehead, they'd have some other shout if it wasn't taxes. I wasn't pushing the argument further so much as responding to a bunch of factually inaccurate replies to my original point - total sidetrack.

In reply to The New NickB:


My my, you really are feeling happy with your judgemental little self. Must make up for the crushing disappointment of not yet having found any evidence of a pedestrian pedestrian collision death, or anything to suggest it's even a fraction of a percent of the - very similar - per mile kill rates for bikes and cars.

Do you - seriously - not understand that when a defensive driver or cyclists assumes the worst about a potential hazard, they are not projecting a prejudice onto them. They are extrapolating a whole different range of likely and unlikely behaviours and making sure they're not going to be troubled by a very unlikely behaviour, so that the one time in a hundred or thousand when it does happen they don't have a smashed bike/grazed knee/dead pedestrian on their consciousness, fault or no fault. It's entirely possible to assign a worst case future behaviour to inform ones own decisions, to every pedestrian you pass without judging them in any way...

In reply to wintertree:



How's a 85% lower kill and injure rate bad? If we could lower car fatalities that much we certainly would? Surely the sample rate is far too low to scale also, multiplying the number of miles doesn't necessarily mean the fatality rate will go up in exact proportion, you're on shaky ground here.

In reply to wintertree:


Good point. The huge number of motorway miles surely skews any mile for mile assessment.

In reply to wintertree:


FFS, me judgemental. You might want to read your own posts and get a big of perspective and self awareness.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Kinetic energy's the thing that causes the problems; it scales with mass and speed squared. A car has 15 times the mass do a cycle and rider, and 3-5x the speed, so there's between 130x and 375x as much energy in a pedestrian-car collision. So a car is >100x as dangerous, and has less visibility, yet it injures only 5x more people.

Would you rather be hit by a car or a cyclist doing 20mph? On top of energy, cars are increasingly designed to minimise injuries when hitting a pedestrian.


By the CTC stats - rather than mine - it's the same injury rate and only a 50% lower kill rate per mile.


Well obviously it's shakey as one can't compare such different things, but the statistics aren't great. The sample rate is low for kills, large for major injuries however and they both scale the same.

As a pedestrian - be more worried about a car.
As a cyclist - you're almost as likely to have an injury or death on your consciousness, per mile, as a driver. Sobering thought. It's a bit dodge as many car miles are on pedestrian free roads which lowers statistics compared to the regions cycles operate.

Also, as cars get smarter and smarter, pedestrian injuries from cars will reduce - perhaps self driving cars will eventually all but eliminate them. As this happens the cycling ones will become more prominent and newsworthy.

In reply to The New NickB:

Until you called me prejudiced - repeatedly - where had I thrown personal judgement on you, or called you prejudiced? FFS.

Still not found that evidence to show me then?

In reply to FreshSlate:


To be fair the stats don't include motorway miles, but I think they do include A roads with similar driver / pedestrian separation. There is not a lot of information on methodology, but I suspect it does include cycle lanes and shared use, where vehicles are excluded, cyclists and pedestrians are funnelled in to the same space.

In reply to wintertree:


This is an excellent example. It's also a strawman.


Evidence of what? Evidence that pedestrians occasional trip over each other and hit their heads on the ground, or sometimes clash heads, or that elderly people fall over on busy pavements. Do I really need to? I've seen it myself, applied first aid, called an ambulance etc.

In reply to The New NickB:


Which stats are those?

In reply to wintertree:



Few comments on this... firstly, those stats make no mention of who was at fault in those collisions (for both bicycles and motor vehicles). And as you mentioned, they're also probably skewed by the fact that motor vehicles travel long distances on motorways, while more cycle miles are in towns and cities. Therefore I'm pretty dubious that the figure of 2.5x in the table is a remotely accurate representation of the difference in the level of deadly threat to pedestrians.

I think a far more interesting stat is this:
"Between 1998 and 2007 in London, where cycle and pedestrian flows are high and signalled junctions ubiquitous, just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles."
Obviously it doesn't factor for numbers of cyclists/drivers and percentages of those who RLJ, but a 24x difference is pretty vast regardless and suggests the hype around cyclist RLJers is mostly just that in the face of a much bigger threat.


I'm pro-cyclist (in that I think getting more people out of cars and onto bikes would be a hugely positive thing, not that I think the cyclist is automatically always right). I'm also pro-safety and individual responsibility. Which is why I'm so desperate to try and dispel myths about cyclists jumping red lights and being a general menace. But admittedly I'm doing a pretty poor job of that because I lack eloquence and lose the plot.


Getting side-tracked and losing a sense of proportion is par the course for these threads.

(also, Will and Adam... stop stalking me you weirdos!)

In reply to wintertree:

That easy if unavoidable you'd choose a collision with a Cycke over a car every time.

In reply to The New NickB:


Me calling you judgemental for passing a direct negative judgement on me is an example of me being prejudiced? You really are not making any sense. At all. I didn't infer anything prejudiced about you, just noted you being judgemental. I still refrain from forming a prejudiced view, as tempting as that may be.


Well you seemed to think it significant compared to the figures for cyclists>pedestrians...


As in fight? That's not an accident then, is it?


What's that got to do with one person travelling injuring a different person? And you use the term strawman at me...


As I said I would be genuinely interested in statistics on pedestrian > pedestrian major injury or death, not bumped heads or grazed knees.

In reply to wintertree:


What are the statistics for pedestrian deaths from planes and trains with much more potential kinetic energy than cars? Probably lower than cars per mile, because kinetic energy doesn't translate into 'dangerousness'.



No they do not scale the same. You think a UK with 180 deaths to cyclists every year is the same as a UK with 3? If you think that, you are mistaken.


I don't accept these statistics.

In reply to Trevers:

I'm just going to like your post as I agree and leave it there, as no matter what else I say I'll be jumped on by someone...

In reply to wintertree:


You have been sneering at people all through the thread.


No, just responding to your position that zero pedestrians are killed or seriously injured by other pedestrians (deliberate violence excepted).


No, it quite possible to clash heads without it being a fight.


Because it is often the result of some contact with another person, so really not a strawman.

You obviously like to be analytical, it is shame that your analysis is so one dimensional.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Yeah. Planes and trains don't share the road with pedestrians, do they? Are you seriously saying you'd rather be hit by a car than a bike at a given speed? No? Why not? Kinetic energy!


Clearly not, and the lower the better. I never said they were the same. I noted that similar per mile deaths for car and cycle is worrying because bikes should be slower, more aware and less dangerous to hit. Do you disagree?


The CTC statistics? The ones that have pedestrian deaths per mile cycled at 50% of pedestrian deaths per mile driven? If there is any bias in CTC stats I would expect it to be to favour cycling...?

In reply to The New NickB:

Or perhaps you are reading with the prejudice you accuse me of. I certainly have been terse or provocative when someone has directly twisted what I have written. Perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt, but hey. Oh, I did mean to sneer at you in my last few posts.


Fascinating. I never took the position you assign to me here. It is exactly this false arguing that leads to me being terse and flippant. I won't sneer at you - now that you've explained yourself instead of banging on about prejudice - but will give you the benefit of the doubt. I said I am genuinely surprised that this happens, that I couldn't imagine the circumstances, but that I did not deny it happens ("but it's a big world."). I asked for information, took several more posts of you just calling me prejudiced before you gave any sort of example.


As is often the case it is in support of my initial point, and no more. However world+dog jumps on the initial point - so I bring in analytical backing for it - and then people infer all sorts of prejudiced views that I never stated and argue with those. As you have done by pretending/inferring that my position is that zero pedestrians are killed by pedestrians. I do rather loose patience when someone takes a post of mine, and replies to something very different to what I said inferring a prejudiced view on me that I do not hold. Seems to happen a lot on UKC cycling threads.

In reply to Trevers:

I'm a law abider and I would object to being required to carry a registration plate. Why should I? It's quite clear that driving is a privilege which can be revoked since you carry the burden of life and death of the people around you.

What is the actual problem with being identifiable? If you are a law abider, it won't be a problem.
It's the same with cars, don't break the law and you won't get caught and fined, etc.
Further, the stuff about 'you carry the burden of life and death of the people around you' is just pure sensationalism guff and a bit of a strawman.

In reply to wintertree:


The problem is, you said exactly that at 20:51, believe me, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went through the thread to check.

In reply to The New NickB:

Ish. It's hardly a strong assertion and wasn't means as an absolute (I should have said "don't tend to" instead of "don't") and as soon as you said otherwise I made it clear I wasn't taking that position as an absolute and welcomed any information. I thought my 20:51 post was pretty obviously going to come across as not entirely serious....

When you replied to my 20:51 saying "are you sure?", I acknowledged the possibility it happens, said I was genuinely interested, and got called prejudiced for my trouble.

In reply to wintertree:


The idea is that just because something has more kinetic energy doesn't mean its more danagerous. Do we have statistics for lorries and buses?


They should be... and they are. Groundbreaking relevation.


How have you come to that conclusion? Show me your working.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I'm sorry but I can't understand that in the context of what it was replying to.


Open this file - http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf - look at table on page 3. Pedestrian deaths per billion miles travelled. 1.1 by cycles, 2.6 by cars. 1.1 divide by 2.6 is 0.423 or 42.3%. I was genuinely surprised that a person is about 50% as lethal, per mile, on a bike as in a car.

In reply to wintertree:


Now that isn't entirely honest now is it!

In reply to FactorXXX:

I don't have any particular problem with being identifiable - I'm generally a law-abiding cyclist. But mandatory cycle registration is just a totally daft idea. It'd be expensive to administer, impractical to implement (where exactly do you put a number plate on a bike?), negatively impact cycling numbers (with knock-on effects for things like congestion, pollution and public health) and have a fairly negligible impact on safety - even ignoring the fact even that bad cycling isn't a major risk to public safety anyway, my unscientific impression is that most really bad cyclists aren't bothered about putting their own lives at risk, so the possibility of being tracked down and fined seems unlikely to deter them either.

Even if your goal is to reassure people that scofflaw cyclists can no longer flout the law with impunity rather than actually make the streets safer, mandatory cycle registration is a mindlessly ineffective way to achieve it.

FWIW, I wouldn't have a major problem with a general rule of strict liability for bigger and more dangerous things versus smaller and more vulnerable things, including bikes vs pedestrians. Although again, I'm not sure how much difference it'd make.

In reply to The New NickB:


I don't know sport, you seem happy to play games round in circles till the cows come home. Certainly you didn't answer me. I can't speak for how honest it is because you never explained your "prejudiced" comment in light of that reply. I'm left guessing at your motivations, inferences and thoughts so forgive me if I misunderstand oh mighty one who sits in judgment.

In reply to wintertree:

Perhaps you could consider the distinction between calling someone prejudiced, the perception of which seems to have really upset you and understanding that we are all subject to various prejudices and that we should probably accept getting called out on these sometimes.

In reply to Postmanpat:


lets take what you said.
Cyclists (and I am one sometimes) are keen to explain that they have as much right to use the roads as motorised vehicles and should be "respected" as much as motorised vehicles. Well, they should therefore obey the rules of the road as they would motorised vehicles obey them.

To which I responded.
I couldnt give a toss about being "respected" the only bit I am bothered about is being endangered
To which you stated
Yawn, hence "respect" in quotation marks ie.meaning what you are saying.

So, ermm, in order not to be endangered by incompetent fools you link it directly to obeying the law. So excusing incompetent and actively dangerous driving on the basis some cyclists break the law.


Does it? Why not drivers since I am both. Or even why not me. Try to think beyond groups.


Ok, so why? Its pretty well established that drivers break plenty of laws and hence the claimed law breaking by cyclists is a tad of a red herring.


No you havent. You have acknowledged it when you have been called on it. Not the same thing at all.


sheesh your claim was incompetence doesnt justify law breaking, no ambiguity or special cases. You dont even need the extreme cases for people to choose to errr on the side of their caution eg a badly planned road merge a 100m or so down from a traffic light and you will vastly increase the chances of red light jumping.

In reply to barrow_matt:


It is something encouraged by ASL feeders and, indeed, most of the road based cyclepaths (aka painted gutters). Which can be a tad problematic.

In reply to The New NickB:


I'm not upset. Not even a little bit. I'm mystified - you seem to think I'm prejudiced for wanting to cycle safely around pedestrians. I am - I'm prejudiced to bring safe for myself and others. When I asked for clarification of your ambiguous comment you steered it in a different direction totally.


We are not "subject" to them like a disease, they're our minds natural way of thinking and informing us rapidly. By recognising them we can transcend them when appropriate, as our social world has developed bound our first line instinctive thinking.


By "called out" do you mean snide references to Einstien quotes and not explaining why my defensive cycling approach is prejudiced? Now that's sneering.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Because it would be expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare. To get it working you would need to enforce the same rules that motor vehicles have had recently eg licenced keepers, forms to fill in when handed over and so on. So as a law abider thats already a problem. If I miss it on any bike big fine time, including on bikes which rarely touch the road. Thats leaving aside the pain it would be for parents with multiple bikes for the kids and fairly high churn.
The cost of registering all existing bikes would be rather interesting particularly with the number and variety of models. That and there is no equivalent of the VIN. Bike serial numbers arent guaranteed unique.

You then have the problem of how it will be usefully enforced. It was ineffective for motor vehicles for many years and has only started to change with the widespread use of ANPR cameras. Something which wouldnt work so well with cyclists bearing in mind the general deployment. Unless you are looking to spend a fortune on gear?
So horrendously expensive, potentially personally and definitely as a taxpayer for rather unclear returns.
There is also an ongoing experiment with "licence plates" on bicycles with the london bike hire scheme since all of them have large numbers (although on the side its about the only place it makes sense on a bike). Last time a request got made about number of complaints made not one included the number. Admittedly that was a while back, if I get bored and figure out the process I might put in a new request.

In reply to wintertree:

I'm just jumping into this thread and I'm terrible at statistics, but a couple of thoughts

1. the difference between 42% and 50% is actually pretty big.

2. I'm not sure why you think adjusting for the relative kinetic energy is statistically significant, but adjusting for (something like) "percentage of shared use" isn't? To clarify, cyclists share a lot more space with pedestrians. Cars should only be in the same space on roads without footpaths and when a pedestrian is crossing the road.

Not targeted at you specifically, I really like the idea of an advance green for cyclists for a few seconds before the car green, to pull into the intersection safely (which is my biggest reason to jump a red at an intersection). However I know for a fact that very quickly many van, taxi, and private car drivers would just start on the "bike-green" rendering it pointless.

some regulation are needed to make things more clear.

In reply to dissonance:

Because it would be expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare.

I was replying to this comment from Trevers: I'm a law abider and I would object to being required to carry a registration plate., which seems to be an objection on moral grounds, as opposed to practical reasons.
Fully understand that it would probably be too expensive and not really worth the effort.

In reply to wintertree:

You seem to have gone through this thread with considerable incredulity that anyone could dare disagree with you, telling people who do so "get over themselves" or "get real". You are now coming across hugely passive aggressive. Just for information, the reference to the Einstein quote was not being snide, it was was treating you like an intelligent adult. I won't bother in future.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Perhaps at some point technology will make it really easier to charge per mile travelled on roads and therefore all adult vehicle users including cyclists will pay a proportionate charge per unit road distance consumed. In that case ID will be necessary.

In reply to neuromancer:


Yes, get everyone in Colombian ladies team kit. That'd soon learn them.

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:



Yeah I couldn't work out how he'd gotten to 'almost 50%' either, surely it's closer to.... 40%. Why claim to be neutral and then distort figures?

In reply to dissonance:






No, your summary of the above is simply false. I deliberately used the word "explain" because I don't doubt they should be "respected". I simply said that cyclists should expect from themselves the same thing they expect from drivers.
You have completely invented the idea that the penalty for not doing so is that they deserve to be run off the road.


Because you are arguing on behalf of cyclists and thus perpetuating a negative image some cyclists create for themselves. This doesn't preclude those cyclists who do this also being drivers.


Why? Because that was the OP's topic!
If you want to start a new thread about why people get angry about drivers breaking the law then feel free. I'll happily join in. But that won't change the subject of this thread.

I realise that the game on UKC is to anticipate every pedantic or ludicrous reaction to one's posts but in this case I neglected initially to anticipate the inference that I think that it is fine to run cyclists off the road. I also neglected to anticipate the inference that I thought they should all be put up against a wall and shot, castrated, or put in concentration camps.
I neglected to do this because I thought it was obvious, but as soon as the first possibility was raise I clarified that this was not my view. Just in case, I'll also clarify that
I don't think they should all be put up against a wall and shot, castrated, or put in concentration camps.


So when I wrote " However, EXCEPT in exceptional circumstance that doesn't give everybody the right to pick and choose which laws to obey and when." you think that this actually means "EVEN special cases don't give people the right to disobey the law"

You are now arguing black is white. I did the time honoured UKC thing and anticipated an objection so you choose to argue I have said the opposite to what I actually said.

Cue some spurious argument about the definitions of "exceptional" and "special"….

In reply to FreshSlate:


If you're going to pull that one, 40% is also distorting the figures. So it's 43% - wow. Either way I'm surprised the average persons kill rate per mile is the same order of magnitude on a bike or a car, be it 43% or 50%.

Bob: I'm not adjusting for KE, I just used it as an example of why I would naively expect a car to be much more lethal. Someone else got rather hung up on it.

In reply to The New NickB:

Really? I though it was part of your dropping judgemental hints and not actually explaining your point, but there we go, it's the internet.

In reply to wintertree:


"In reply to wintertree:
All tax payers pay for the road, regardless of their mode of transport. Taxation has no place in this argument, one way or the other."

Yes, what a nasty, grumpy, sweary post you were responding to!


I think I covered that one, with "treating you like an intelligent adult".

Anyway, I'll leave you to get angry with other people over your statistical analysis.

In reply to wintertree:


This might be interesting?

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/almost-%C2%A31million-day-saved-cycling-and...

{UKC Disclaimer: I have only just come across it, and haven't looked deeply into the statistics, with being somebody who walks and cycles, there is the possibility of bias on my part, with that in mind, however, it does seem plausible that the benefits to human health through self powered transport could indeed save the economy money through less money being spent on treating the consequences of an inactive lifestyle.}

In reply to The New NickB:



It's the other one I was referring to. I am sorry that "get real" strikes you as the high of angry invective and meanness as it was not meant that way.


And I think you have still yet to explain your little judgemental point that you were alluding to. As far as I can tell you were calling me prejudiced for giving pedestrians a wide space when cycling because they represent a hazard beyind my control, and for biting I sometimes have to work at going slower when needed. Wow.

Or actually provide and example of a pedestrian pedestrian death for that matter.


Yeah. Not angry sport. Looks like we can keep misreading each other until the cows come home.

In reply to wintertree:


Yeah to be fair your paragraph was pretty obtuse.


They should be less dangerous to hit, and they are, what isn't making sense to you?

In reply to Postmanpat:


with regards to the cyclists right to use the road. You then went onto your claims about "respect" and rules.


ermm. no you didnt. Your initial statement was quite clear that there was no excuse. You have then amended it slightly but still dont seem to really grasp it.
Anyway I am bored now. As fun as it is to see you rewrite an argument my spare time from work is going to be taken up by laughing at hacking team.

In reply to felt:


I am trying to decide whether that would make things safer or not.
On the one hand drivers would probably give me a lot more room (like several miles rapidly accelerating in the other direction) but on the other hand in those cases where they cant may be an increased risk of accident due to them closing/ripping out their eyes.

When people reach their 80's I wonder if they'll look back fondly on time well spent arguing on UKC with people they've never met?

Peace folks, it's the summer. (:~))

In reply to dissonance:

Except that I didn't "go on" to "respect" it was in the initial sentence. With regard to cyclists having the right to use the road AND be "respected" (to help you, here's the cut and paste "explain that they have as much right to use the roads as motorised vehicles and should be "respected")
See,nothing at all about drivers having a right to run cyclists off the road? That is your paranoid fantasy.


Rubbish, I quoted my original. I'll cut and paste it "except in exceptional circumstance that doesn't give everybody the right to pick and choose which laws to obey and when."

So, as clear as day that there are exceptions.


Enjoy. Next time you want to argue a point at least try and read what is written instead of making stuff up. If you can't do that fist time, at least try and do it the second and third time. It gets a bit tedious otherwise. Byeee xx

In reply to FreshSlate:


I agree entirely with you. I suggested this is partly because of the energy involved. You seem to want to argue about that. Why do you think they're less dangerous to hit?

My point was I'd expect cycle collisions to be much less dangerous than car ones, so I'd expect cycle kills much less per mile, which they're not. I freely admitted the kill rates are on shakey ground anyway mind you.

In reply to wintertree:
My assumption is that collisions between bikes and pedestrians are far more regular, relative to the huge discrepancy between miles travelled by the different modes of transport. Most of these collisions result in either no injury or minor injuries. Virtually every collision between a car and a pedestrian is going to be serious.

Why do I think there are lots more unrecorded collisions between pedestrians and cyclists? Because cyclists are pushed together on often badly designed shared use paths and dedicated cycleways are often abused by pedestrians. Another issue is that pedestrians often interact differently with bikes than they would with cars. In short, pedestrian casualties in relation to cycling are a result in part of pushing, through policy and the attitude of a significant minority of the public and drivers, off roads and on to area that are much more closely shared with pedestrians.

In reply to FactorXXX:


I didn't want to reply to this thread again, but I couldn't let this go unchallenged...

How is that a strawman? A car handled carelessly or incompetently is a potentially lethal weapon, which is why you need to be tested, licensed and insured to use one, and why the vehicle needs to be registered, IDd and regularly inspected. That's all pretty much irrefutable.

In reply to Timmd:


Battles for the greater part of human history took place mostly in summer so we retain some of that balmy martial spirit.

In reply to Carless:

I cycle most days. Much of the time is in town. The only time I jump a red light is at quiet times if the system hasn't seen me and it stays red. I still get 15+ mph town journey times in a hilly town in spite of an occasional breather at a traffic light.

The reason that we, the British, have amongst the lowest rates of road deaths in the world is because we make at least some effort to obey the rules and we generally care about each other. Please obey the rules. Please care about the others using the road around you.

Have I seen others jump red lights?
Yes.

Has it caused a problem?
Fortunately, nothing fatal yet but several instances of major avoiding action by motorists. At least two instances of cyclists being milliseconds from being turned into red paste by trucks.

It might take the pathologist a day or two to dig through the mince and find a bit of your bank card so that somebody can tell your NoK.

Please care about the truck driver who may have to live with turning you into 80kg of mince.

In reply to Trevers:

How is that a strawman?

Maybe strawman is the wrong phrase.
However, when people say things like: 'you carry the burden of life and death of the people around you', I tend to think the person saying is getting overly emotional about it and jump to the next post...

In reply to FactorXXX:




I was explaining why it's right that cars and bikes are treated differently regarding the need for training, licensing and insurance.

In reply to FactorXXX:




'Raises hand' Overly emotional is a subjective thing, no?

It is true, though, I think we forget cars are similar to mobile brick walls in their capacity to be lethal.

In reply to kinley2:

I do this all the time and have never once had any aggro from car drivers. Is this a region-specific thing? Or just the way you do it??

Peter

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Only if I am overtaking. I usually drive in the left lane, and pull out to overtake. If I am overtaking two full lanes and some arse wants to get too close they can just wait. 70mph is the max. I will do that.

In reply to johncook:

What I meant was, do you notice the legal limit of 70 being generally obeyed on a free-flowing motorway? Or do notice a fairly significant percentage of drivers taking the view that they can't see any particular safety issue with doing 80 instead then they're going to go ahead and do it?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Don't get me started on motorway driving abilities of the British Motorist. Some think that 50mph is fast so they do it in the fast lane and leave two empty lanes to their left. Others think that doing 80+mph is OK even though they are wandering about a bit. The list is endless. Many of the problems associated with all motoring and cycling is the belief that 'it can't happen to me!' and that other motorists will take evasive or precautionary actions.
Back on topic, all red light jumpers should be heavily fined, and banned/imprisoned if they are persistent offenders.
End of my little rant. I got my speed thrills racing on a circuit and now don't feel the need to show all the world that I can go fast in inappropriate places.

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:



Twice in the last few months, but to be fair not before that. Perhaps there's been an influx of egotesticle Clarkson wannabe's to Edinburgh this year.

In reply to Carless:

A lady looked me square in the eyes last night before cutting me up, covering an entire lane and blocking my right-of-way access to my lane (a bit of road where 2 separate one-way systems filter into a 2-lane one-way road she cut across from the 'give way' side and blocked both lanes), causing me to slam the breaks on, almost go over the bars and pretty much poke my head through her window. Therefore all drivers are &%^s (generalisation)

I was therefore well within my rights to lose my temper, yell at her about the safety of other road users and make her cry. (I probably was, but I felt very guilty once I'd got home and stopped shaking)

Therefore, we're all gits.

Next

In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:


I hate this dilemna. Do you say nothing, avoid confrontation and let them continue to their their dangerous driving is fine? Do you try to engage politely and be met with some thick knucklehead who wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it punched them in the face (reasonably)? Do you give in to the adrenaline and shout and reinforce the angry cyclist stereotype? (And possibly escalate things further). It can be extremely difficult not to get your heckle's raised.

At least she'll probably not forget the incident in a hurry.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


The one thing the US certainly has right its the turn right on red, or left if it was in the UK... it makes no sense not to allow it in most situations, and in corners with poor vis, or busy roads a sign will say 'no right on red'.. otherwise it just aids the flow of traffic.

I agree jumping reds makes sense but do get annoyed with cyclists riding through pedestrian crossings..

In reply to Trevers:


Yes, I wonder about this. I find it difficult to remain calm and engage politely immediately following an incident, but I try. Last time (he'd overtaken me on a blind bend just before a junction, car came the other way and he pulled in violently. Fortunately, I'd anticipated this and had my hands on my brakes ready to go), I got a mouthful of abuse from the driver, saying I should be on the pavement if I don't like it (with many, many profanities added). I explained politely that he'd been driving dangerously and there was no way he could have known what was coming round the corner. More profanities. He then aggressively overtook me just after the junction, cut me up turning left into a side street and pulled over. Unfortunately I was also going that way and as I approached his door opened. I thought "uh-oh here we go" but he thought twice about it (not sure why - I'm not particularly big or intimidating) and rummaged around in his glove box instead. We exchanged a few more words - logic from me and profanities again from him. After I'd gone he then flew past me again, deliberately too close and meaning I had to concentrate really hard not to clip a parked car. He then got stuck in traffic at the next junction, so I was catching up with him again! This time, he mounted the pavement to bypass the queue of traffic and, presumably, to avoid me catching him.

Moral of the story: In initially remonstrating with the driver, I triggered a chain of events which put me in danger again twice and endangered the public, especially at the last junction (and probably for some time after that as he was still pumped up). In hindsight, it would have been better to not say anything and let it go, sadly.

Wow! Lots of replies & different opinions

To the ones who are convinced that allowing cyclists to jump red lights in certain circumstances would never work in the UK – why not?

Brussels started with a pilot scheme of just a few junctions and it would appear it's been successful as there are now more junctions where it is allowed. The lights have not been changed, there is just a small Give Way sign indicating that cyclists can continue. It's sometimes accompanied with a sign saying something like "Cyclists – you can carry on, but you do not have priority" http://www.eltis.org/discover/news/cyclists-cross-safely-red-lights-brussel...
I've never seen it on a crossroads (which I agree would be stupid), but only straight-on T-junctions and R turn on red, and I've never seen any mopeds, scooters or motorbikes doing it nor seen any evidence of them seeming to get annoyed that cyclists can do it and they can't

There are also pilot schemes in Paris and it's been normal in the Netherlands for years (but they have very advanced cycling infrastructure)

To the ones saying it probably wouldn't speed up the traffic flow – I don't see why not. Imagine no bikes in the ASL compared to 5

And to some others – you appear to have ignored the "if the cyclist does it without endangering or impacting other road users" in the OP

In reply to Trevers:



On at least two occasions, the drivers who have knocked me off have been in a right state and I've ended up looking after them.


My favourite 'he'll definitely remember' incident had to be on a motorbike in Edinburgh when I did an emergency stop as a Nissan crossed my path. After we both stopped, I moved the bars back and fore a touch. The tyre made an eeek-eeek sound as it squeeked across the shiney driver's door of his Z. He looked down at my front wheel and then up at me. He'll definitely remember.

In reply to mountainbagger:


Well your guy is an example of someone who simply shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, since they don't have the empathy or emotional maturity necessary to handle one safely. And another reason I think road cycling experience should be a prerequisite for getting a driving license.

In reply to Carless:


I think it could be made to work for a straight on T-junction where the traffic is joining from the right, or for left turns. Perhaps with a separate feeder lane for cycles (separated by a curb where possible, otherwise with a solid white line).

In reply to Trevers:


Maybe but there are a lot of people like that. Interestingly, the couple of altercations I've had have been near misses. When I've been knocked down (twice), including one where it was my fault, the drivers have been very contrite and nice as pie, in fact more distraught than I was when I saw two of my fingers severed to the bone!

In reply to kinley2:
I'm amazed that anyone would deliberately piss-off a cyclist in an urban area. Nasty pointy things bikes, and a flustered cyclist might end up not being able to prevent their pedals scratching a car as they go past. Wing mirrors are quite expensive these day too. Bikes can get around much faster in cities than cars and have the annoying ability of being able to head off down avenues that cars can't go.

Not that this matters up here in Kendal, motorists generally seem quite pleasant towards cyclists (and vice versa)

Peter

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:


I have found (very anecdotally) that in places that have more of a connection to the outdoors/environment, there's less intolerance of cyclists. Sheffield and Bristol I've found to be very understanding. I wonder if there's a genuine causal link there.

In reply to wintertree:

I went away, but a recent thread brought me back to this...


Which bit of "CYCLISTS ARE DRIVERS TOO" are you having trouble understanding?

You claim to be a driver and a cyclist. When you're cycling on the roads, do you think you've paid for them, because you're also an expensive car-owning, fuel-buying, VED-paying driver?

Well, SO DO MOST OF THE OTHER CYCLISTS, BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE DRIVERS TOO.

Saying that "drivers pay for the roads, cyclists don't" is the nonsensical part of your argument, because CYCLISTS ARE DRIVERS TOO.

Have you got it yet?

CYCLISTS ARE DRIVERS TOO.

I don't see anyone here claiming there should be a cycle-only utopia, with roads cleared of all motor traffic; that's your strawman.

In reply to captain paranoia:



I've always had it. Clearly my point went right over your head though.

If we didn't have motor vehicles, would the road network have been built to anywhere near its current standards for cyclists, horse riders and walkers?

No. That was my point. It was in response to a specific article. No more.

It got jumped all over and I got drawn in to pointing out the factually correct fact that motoring is more expensive, and generates more tax revenues, than cycling. Per mile driven more tax is paid (including in zero emissions vehicles) than per mile cycled. Clearly roads built primarily specified for motor vehicles cost a lot of money. Clearly more direct and indirect tax is paid per mile driven than cycled. Are you seriously going to tell me that if we the roads had to be maintained to their current standard for cyclists, without any direct or indirect tax from motor vehicles, that there wouldn't need to be a new tax or charge of some sort to raise the money?

I've not once said that motorists have more right to the road because they pay more tax. I do not think that. You seem to keep reading it however?

I'll hand back over to your shouting.

In reply to wintertree:
So, you're not inferring any kind of pecking order, or anything at all to do with anybody having most right to have access to the road network, in mentioning how much drivers pay towards it's upkeep?

In reply to Timmd:


I am not. Doesn't stop other people from doing so.

Motoring taxation generates about £38Bn a year in the UK, approaching 7% of all tax. When for many years I had no car and cycled everywhere I thought this was great value for my money. I didn't think it gave me any more or less rights, as I'm not a moron and understand that my right to use the road is granted by the law and not by me paying or not paying directly. Kind of like hospitals and schools etc...

In reply to wintertree:
So that's where you're coming from. Fair enough.

Interestingly, it's thought that people cycling and walking to work saves money too, through reducing things like obesity and type two diabetes, and heart disease and stroke, and other things which can affect people who are unhealthily inactive.

In reply to Carless:

There is a type of junction designed to flow without holding anyone at a red light, it's called a roundabout. Unfortunately, a lot of councils seem to like putting traffic lights on those too. Why? Because the stats show that they reduce collisions.

If you were going to have an exemption for cyclists only, you'd have to have some pretty complicated insurance laws if the cyclist passed through a red light and was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle passing across on green.

I personally wouldn't really like to see it legalised as I don't like seeing people on bikes flying over the roofs of cars at junctions and I think that relying on the judgement of all cyclists, regardless of their experience would lead to more collisions, whilst traffic lights ate pretty simple to understand for all ability levels.

Big fan of the idea of spending a year or two on a bike before applying for a provisional licence, I think that the more experience you have of different modes of transport, the more you appreciate what other road users are experiencing from your actions.

In reply to teflonpete:

"Insurance laws"? Go on then, what are they exactly?

Any way, seems to me it'd simply be the same situation as someone crossing a 'give way' line when they shouldn't.

In reply to Carless:

YAY. I was sad when this topic ended

In reply to deepsoup:

If a cyclist gets injured in a collision after passing through a red light and wants to claim compensation from the motor vehicle driver crossing the junction on green, who had right of way? How would the court apportion the reduction in claim due to contributory negligence?

In reply to teflonpete:

Same way you would with a car pulling out of a give way junction. Red lights should, as I mentioned above, be 'give way' signs from a cyclists perspective.

A bike wont have insurance so the rider must pay damages him/herself if found guilty of causing the accident.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Not sure why this has been down-voted. Seems like common sense to me. That said, common sense seems to be rather lacking when it comes to anything to do with driving or cycling. After all, we are all perfect, law abiding drivers / cyclists and everyone else on the road is a moron.

In reply to teflonpete:

The same way they do in all sorts of situations now. There'd be no change in the law involved there.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Things might change if there were a lot of claims, but as it stands currently *lots* of cyclists have third party cover through their household insurance. (Even if they don't realise it themselves.)

In reply to deepsoup:


I don't think it could. At the moment, a cyclist who runs a red light and gets injured could make a claim for damages but the settlement would be reduced substantially due to the rider's negligence.
If the cyclist is legally allowed to run a red light then (s)he has as much right to be in a junction as someone crossing his / her path on green, therefore a claim for injury would put the full onus on the motor vehicle's insurer. I can't see the insurance companies wearing that and they have considerable lobbying powers with legislators. I just can't see the idea ever being legalised. I've personally got no problem with cyclists jumping a red if safe to do so, done it myself on occasion, but I can't see it being legalised.

In reply to teflonpete:

I don't see the difficulty, still seems to me just the same as a cyclist (or anyone else) crossing a 'give way' line into the path of oncoming traffic.