UKC

Recent survey by Motoring.co.uk

http://www.motoring.co.uk/cyclists-vs-drivers?utm_source=motoring.co.uk&...

In reply to Trangia: Tell me about it. The Tour de France is coming within 1 km of my house and every wannabee Wiggo and his mate is out on the roads. Its a bloody nightmare!

In reply to Trangia:

Interesting and not terribly surprising results either. As a cyclist and motorist one of my biggest gripes is other cyclists who ride without lights in the evening so I can sympathise with some of the results.

Good to see that more of us are cycling, that can only be a good thing.

Although I think we need to get away from the 'Cyclists v Motorist' rhetoric, it's ultimately unhelpful, especially seeing as many (most?) people who own a car also own a bike.

I'll admit to feeling slightly nervous when out on the roads, but this in the main is because I worry about how motorists perceive me as a cyclist (in the way, a menace, non 'road tax' paying pain in the ass etc etc). I'm slightly more relucant to take my space on the road as I'm concerned that other road users will hurl abuse at me even if I'm in the right and obeying the Highway Code.

In reply to Trangia: I think the biggest problem is how the debate is set up, as one against the other. I don't drive and ride my bike a lot but I have no dislike of drivers, nearly everyone drives after all so this would be an odd position to take. There are a few problems. The roads could be a lot more bike friendly, wider cycle lanes which don't run out when things get difficult for instance would be a nice start. I think many problems could be solved if cyclist behaved like cars, theres no excuse for jumping lights for instance. If drivers then reciprocated and didn't overtake into oncoming traffic (unless they can still leave a metre) that would be useful too. Once you ride enough you realise a calm approach see's you through most safely, you also see quite a lot of dangerous driving and cycling. Conjestion is also an issue, busy people being impeded is a recipe for disaster, hence why far more cyclists are killed at rush hour.

This whole thing is obviously a problem of circumstances, it doesn't come down to sides.

In reply:

The solutions to these problems is easy.

Cylists should pay a road tax. They will then have the moral high ground when it comes having equal rights to road use. Motorists will no longer be able to look down on them as non tax paying inconveniences. Enforcing the tax would be simple. Random stop and checks to be made by traffic wardens and clamping firms. Failure to produce a licence on demand will result in immediate confiscation of the bike, subject to a reclaiming charge of £100 plus admin expenses of £250 a day. Bikes not reclaimed within 7 days will be crushed.

Motorists who cut up or intimidate cyclists will be sent on a retraining course on which they will have to cycle through Delhi or Cairo at rush hour. Counselling/phsyciatric treatment will not be given at the end of the experience and the convicted motorists will have to pay their own air fares and hotel bills. It's unlikely however that they will want to return to driving (or even take up cycling) on their return to the UK

In reply to Trangia: Motorists don't pay a road tax... road funds come from general taxation (or they do in Ireland - presume it's similar in UK). So, any cyclist with a job is paying for roads...

In reply to Trangia:

Do motorists look down on drivers of VED band A cars as an inconveniece? Band A is nothing and band B os £20 a year, where are you going to put cyclists?

This wouldn't be another of your really badly thought out posts would it?

In reply to Papillon:


Do they? Do they actually identify a vehicle as band A? A cyclist on the other hand is easily identified as non road tax paying vermin.

In reply to dxbyrne:

Yawn, stop being a pedant

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Yes, agree.

One consequence of this is the weird collective responsibility that some blowhards (and yeah, in this case it is blowhard motorists, if only because it's relatively hard for a cyclist to seriously endanger someone in a car) seem to get - so that whenever anyone suggests a way of making life safer for cyclists, someone brings up cyclists who cycle without lights or don't signal or whatever. Brilliant, thanks, the fact that I'm getting cut up while cycling in an entirely sensible and legal fashion feels so much less upsetting now I remember that someone somewhere is probably jumping a red light on a bike.

In reply to Trangia:

I'd say I could easily spot cars that pay no or a fraction of the VED I do. I don't look down on them.

Yawn too much and you'll get flies in yer mouth. Take notice of what people say and you might learn something.

In reply to Trangia:

The "it's not called road tax anymore, ner ner ner" argument is infantile, but it distracts from the more salient facts that it a) isn't paid by all motor vehicles, b) doesn't pay for the building and upkeep of roads and c) doesn't confer the "right" to use the road any more than paying income tax means I can tell people who don't to get out of hospital when I need an operation.

In reply to Papillon:

Bully for you

In reply to Ramblin dave:

You know that and I know that, but the "motorist" doesn't

In reply to Trangia:

Easy to identify as a vulnerable road user too. One would hope this comes higher up in drivers thoughts than who pays what.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

and on this I agree.

IMHO, a lot of drivers are unsure abotu how to deal with cyclists, and some cyclists have a very passive(read wobbly) appraoch to cycling.

I take the view that it should be like the Col Regs - make a clear and apparent change of course and stick to it.

In reply to Timmd:

I wish it did, but sadly there are motorists out there who consider cyclists to be an inconvenience because in their simple minds they are "non tax paying vermin". Not my expression, but one I heard an irate motorist hurl at a cyclist in a road rage incident.

In reply to Trangia:

Are egret not some cars that have a zero "road tax" rate now-given that the "road tax"is based on emissions?

I dislike this idea for several reasons, including the fact that it's a ukip policy!

In reply to Trangia:
>

How would an eleven year old child cycling to school be expected to comply with this?

Rob

I am sick of this obligation to belong to either tribe - or need to declare war on the other.

In the real world, folk usually use a variety of transport options and are not members of exclusive species. Oh and I pay "road tax" £20 a year for what it is worth. </smug git mode>

In reply to Trangia:

I assume you are pissed, I advise not driving!

In reply to Trangia: i had an incedent on sunday riding back into leek.a car and caravan pulled out from the opposite side of the road causing me to avoid it so i gave his extended mirror a whack.it fell off and went under his car.he pulled along side me and his wife said why did you do that?
i told them they nearly knocked me off and dont get so close.they both said they were no where near me.
if that was the case i wouldnt have reached the mirror.
they stopped to collect his mirror,i carried on.

In reply to Trangia:

Leading to an increased burden on the NHS when they receive a massive influx of traffic wardens who've had their teeth kicked in when trying to nick someone's bike.

I pay road tax as a car owner, why the hell should I pay it twice for when I cycle too? Car drivers should be forced to go out on bikes every now & again though, it'll give them an idea of how terrifying it can be to be a cyclist at times.

In reply to Trangia:

Why? Motorists don't pay a road tax. And even if they did what about the cyclists who own cars - we'd be paying twice (it's hard to cycle and drive a car at the same time)

In reply to Trangia:

Doesn't matter. It still makes your 'road tax' argument null and void.

In reply to Toby S:

Care to expand?

In reply to Bean Head:

Parents?

In reply to TryfAndy:

What about a second car? If you had one which qualified then you'd pay twice. Same goes for putting a second driver onto an insurance policy or hire car. Only one of you can drive at a time, but in most cases you get charged extra. Life's unfair at times.

In reply to Trangia:
Should pedestrians pay a 'road tax' so that motorists don't feel entitled to mow them down if they cross a road?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Interesting question. Do as many motorists hold the same venom towards pedestrians as they seem to towards cyclists?

In reply to Trangia:

So you acknowledge the problem lies with motorists, it is a start.

In reply to The New NickB:

In most cases of course it does, although as the survey results show not all cyclists are angels.

In reply to Trangia:

Some drivers are inconsiderate or agressive. So are some cyclists. Equally, a good many riders / drivers aren't.

There seems to be a vested interest in the media, shared by some small minded idiots, to polarise opinion and keep up the "them and us" debate. It's pathetic.

Some UKC posters post total bollox all the time, some don't. Why don't you start threads about that? It would be about as useful.

Si

In reply to Trangia:

I think cyclists have gresaer ire for people that hold views like yours than they do for the average motorist

In reply to Trangia:

You argue that motorists pay a tax for using the road. They don't.

Whether other motorists know this or not doesn't make the point any less valid. You'd think, considering the large amount of money it costs to run a car, that most motorists would have at least some inkling about where their money goes.

In reply to SCC:

It's only contraversial issues that make interesting threads. Do they have to be useful? How about entertaining when it's raining and you've got FA else to do? No one has to join in if they don't want to.

In reply to Toby S:

They don't. They regard the disc as "tax" whether it is or not

In reply to Trangia:


Really? I'm a cyclist and I pay road tax (or vehicle excise duty). How would you be able to tell that I pay, when you see me cycling?

In reply to tlm:

Because in minds of some (like the one I described) you are not paying to use "their" road with "your" bike. I suggest that whether or not you own a car for which you pay "tax" is irrelevent to their thought process.

In reply to Trangia:

The thing about the original questionnaire is the lumping all cyclists together against all motorists.

When I am cycling, and I see a cyclist with no light and dark clothes, I feel the same concern for them that I do when driving.

When I am driving, and another car pulls out in front of me with no indication, I feel the same leap of adrenaline that I do when cycling.

I would think that on the whole, reckless and thoughtless cyclists are probably also reckless and thoughtless drivers, and vice versa. None of us like people who are inconsiderate and dangerous on the roads, no matter what form of transport they are using.

In reply to Trangia:

So do they think that pedestrians should pay tax to use the roads too? Particularly on roads with no pavements? All those nuisance ramblers in the countryside?

In reply to Trangia:

Reflecting on your language more than anything.

In reply to tlm:
>>

That's an interesting observation and could be very true.

In reply to tlm:

I touched on that above

In reply to The New NickB:

Does sarcasm cause you a problem then?

In reply to Trangia:

Couple of issues I can see - to implement this you would have to change the existing VED system, otherwise bikes would be band a and non-chargeable? That means dropping one of the key aspects of VED, lower carbon emitting vehicles pay less.

Or is this a separate system, in which case would the admin and running costs be recouped by the scheme?

I can’t remember the last time I saw a traffic warden on my commute, and rarely see any police – so who would enforce it?

At what point would children be eligible for this - would I be expected to pay for my 3 year old daughter?

Cars use the road ‘by licence’, whereas bikes, pedestrians, and horse riders have a right to use the roads – so are we suggesting all pedestrians and horse riders be included in this system as well, they all use the road but don't pay 'road tax'?

In reply to Trangia:

And it is a tax. On emmissions. Not road use. It's really not that difficult.

In reply to Trangia: Went out for 20mls circuit on bike on Tuesday, car reversed off driveway onto main road forcing me to brake hard & veer onto pavement to avoid collision... car just drove off(tw*t)... did get first "nice arse" of the year from 3 young ladies in red fiesta though.

In reply to Trangia:
Read through most of this thread, and, based your input to it, I have to ask - have you been eating meat again?

this is such and ancient argument, c'mon guys, there is NO such thing as road tax, it was abolished in something like 1937 and it shouldnt be brought back and neither should cyclists be taxed for riding. next you'll be taxed for co2 emmisions for breathing(ignoring the recent USA news on that one), get a grip.

What we are living through feels to me a rebalancing of how we use our roads, car drivers have been brought up believing they are the dominant vehicle. This elbowing for room is the friction as this balances out a little and cyclist numbers grow. Education for both sides is important to calm this down as well as better infrastructure.

In reply to scarter:

Nobody likes a show off

In reply to Toby S:

You seem to be trying to convince me? As I've already said, you understand it and I understand it, but there still seem to be people out there who consider the bottom line is that it's a tax to use your car on the roads. I've just had a chat with a car dealer friend who confirms this is a common misconception. And that I believe is an explanation why there are motorists out there with the attitude I referred to.

In reply to 999thAndy ansd others:

I took my medication this morning honest!

I'm going to have to give up because everyone seems intent on misunderstanding the point I have been trying to make. But a persecution complex is a bad sign isn't it?

In reply to Toby S:

Let's refer to it as "Emissions Tax" then or "Polluters Tax" - though the latter might fall in to the hands of that US politician who reckons that heavy breathing cyclists cause more pollution than cars.

ALC

In reply to Trangia:

You seem to think we should pander to people's ignorance. Most of us think education is a better idea.

In reply to Trangia: I cycle & drive on the roads, I pay for road fund licences on 3 vehicles(one is a van @ £210)... I believe this goes towards paying for maintenance & repairs to our roads etc... I also believe motor vehicles do the majority of damage to said roads, the weather being the other culprit, & cyclists possibly responsible for close to 0%....? I also see many inconsiderate motorists and very few inconsiderate cyclists... apart from those 3 abreast roadies, most cyclists tend to avoid conflict with other motorised road users(it hurts)... It seems to me most motorists think that when they bought their car they bought the road aswell.

In reply to Trangia:

What Chris said. We should be educating motorists rather than pandering to their ignorance. Getting Car dealerships to stop using 'road tax' in their adverts would be a start.

In reply to scarter:

To be honest for roads in and about town it's more likely to be your council tax that pays for their upkeep.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm not suggesting we pander to anyone. I agree that education might help, but i think that tim treally hit the nail on the head with his comment above

"I would think that on the whole, reckless and thoughtless cyclists are probably also reckless and thoughtless drivers, and vice versa. None of us like people who are inconsiderate and dangerous on the roads, no matter what form of transport they are using."

In reply to tlm:

Posts like this are why UKC needs a "like" or "+1" button.

Si

In reply to scarter:

Unfortunately, it goes into general taxation. Local roads are maintained by the local council from their budget and national trunk roads and motorways are maintained by the hugely inefficient Highways Agency.

In reply to Trangia:

You pay about £250 road tax, possibly less. The cost of a mile of single carriage way is approx £10 million. So by my calculations you have paid for about 4-5 cm of road. I hope you don't plan to drive any further, as you haven't paid for it....

In reply to Trangia:

Great debate on this again!

I don't cycle at all...not owned a bike since I was at school (a looong time ago)

I think we need to all share the road amicably and I don't agree cyclist should pay road tax. I do however think that if, as a community, cyclists want to be taken seriously by car drivers, then they need to wise up a bit and start obeying the rules of the road. Red lights mean stop, pavements are for pedestrians, the road is NOT the racetrack. When you get a bunch of giddy, lyrca'd, wiggoists in a peleoton on a narrow country road it causes delays to other road users and this can be frustrating. Driving through the peak on a sunday...oh dear...the buggers are everywhere!!

It does appear that cyclists want their cake n eat it. They want to be seen on an equal footing to car drivers at the same time as ignoring whichever rules of the road they dont like and (sometimes) behaving road hogs. This is only going to alienate them further and remove any credibility they may gain.

And on another point...there are some who should just not wear lycra...YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I mean everyone who wears all the gear looks like an idiot but those with a more ample frame....christ...its like stuffing a rhino into a balloon.

In reply to Pinged:

Pretty much agree with what you've said but would have said "some cyclists want their cake and eat it". Not all cyclists are as militant as some would have you believe just as not all motorists are knob-heads.

As for wearing lycra - if you are out for a fifty mile bike ride then there ain't much option.

ALC

IMO the majority of motorists arent really pished off with cyclists riding pavements, or even running red lights, or supposedly not paying tax, or riding abreast on the road (which is legal)...

...most are annoyed deep down inside simply because cyclists are in their way, an inconvenience, and they feel in some way 'its not fair, how can they be allowed to jump the queue in traffic, how can they hop a curb and cut a corner when I cant?' How can they jump a red light and get away with it? how come they get ahead of me.

Sure I'm playing devils advocate with some of this but there is truth in it for many of the motorists I see every day, not all, but a majority.

ohh but I do agree on the rhino's in lycra, should be banned!

In reply to ti_pin_man:

Motorists are sold a dream of being able to drive where and when they want. The reality is that once more than a handful in any particular location chose to do so then you get congestion.

Last month I had to drive to work (normally cycle) and one stretch that on a bike takes about 3 minutes without getting out of breath (it's a Strava segment) took 17 in the car! Why? Well like me, each car generally had only one person inside, all of us waiting (im)patiently in our second mortgages, all of us taking up a huge amount of room on the road because we are too anti-social to take public transport and too ignorant to consider other alternatives.

ALC

In reply to Trangia:


EFA - We hate them, but would prefer if all the other motorists would become pubic** trainsport users and leave the roads to those who can drive properly.

Basically I hate anyone, who is using MY road.

Cyclists, Buses, Trucks, Pedestrians, Horses (I particularly hate horses), other drivers.

(Despite the fact that I cycle a bit)

I think the only other road users I don't mind are milk floats, and motorcyclists (despite the fact that I last rode a motorbike in 1988 - an RD350LC)

** spelt wrong on purpose to describe my feelings about buses and trains.

In reply to Pinged:

EFA. I cycle in jeans and steel toed boots. I think that the Tour De France would be improved by such work wear.

In reply to Trangia:

Point being that roads are paid for through general taxation - if you pay tax you pay for roads, so it's not pedancy it's identifying a widely held misconception that helps feed this hunger for a cycling tax.

Even if vehicle duty is extended to cyclists, I already pay Vehicle Duty on my car. Do I have to pay twice? I only use one at any time!

Vehicle taxes are based on emissions and low emission cars cost £20 a year. So surely on this basis, zero emissions = zero payment (unless you're gonna charge me for farting...)

In reply to ThunderCat:

That's a non argument. I ride a motorbike as well as drive a car (and cycle). I have to get a tax disc for the motorbike and the car even though I can only use one at a time, why should it be any different for bicycles?

That said, I don't think bicycles should pay road tax, road fund licence, whatever you want to call it, but I do think there should be a cycling test/ licence and cyclists who ride in the dark without lights or jump red lights should receive on the spot fines or have their bikes confiscated, just the same as motorists who endanger cyclists should be fined / recieve penalty points for driving with undue care.

In reply to Pinged: I think treating cyclists as a community is odd, much like saying the pakistani community or whatever, its not like we al know each other. I wouldn't for instance say the motoring community needs to wise up. Id say some drivers do very stupid things occasionally, much like some cyclists. As someone who cycles a lot, I'm angered by cyclists who jump lights because it gives people who want an excuse to be angry a justification to drive aggressively around cyclists. But I'm more angry with motorists who try to run me off the road while screaming abuse out of their windows (this has only happened about three times, in a lot of cycling). This confrontational approach isn't helpful, I learnt this when I confronted a driver about above behaviour and ended up having to leap over a wall and cycle across a field on a road bike to get away from him, as he seemed intent on beating me up. He was a fatso though, so quickly got away. Which brings me onto fat people in lycra, this is a crime, as is wearing shorts in the summer without shaven legs. Just looks all wrong.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I'm sorry, but that just is not fair. We live in Stockport, my wife works in Trafford. Public transport takes about 1.5 - 2 hours and there is nothing wrong with it. It just isn't direct. She is not confident enough to cycle and any how, 11 miles each way is quite a tall order for someone who doesn't consider themselves to be a sporty person. Driving takes 30 minutes. Why would she do anything else?

In reply to EeeByGum: Stockport to Trafford may be about to speed up!

In reply to a lakeland climber:
>all of us taking up a huge amount of room on the road because we are too >anti-social to take public transport and too ignorant to consider other >alternatives.

Not all of us work in jobs that make using public transport a possibility, and even if I wanted to, there's not a bus anywhere near where I work now anyway.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Fair point on the 'community' label and on the fact that drivers do stupid things too - I'd go as far as 'often' rather than your diplomatic 'occasionally'!

Ive seen car drivers get enraged by cyclists because they dont stay within 2 inches of the kerb. Admittedly when a cyclist seems intent on using the middle of the lane and obstucting cars, it is frustrating...it tends to be on the uphill bits when they struggle to stay in a straight line. Personally I have never been abusive to any other road user...but you're right..all this does is justify angry feelings in those drivers who like getting angry.

In reply to Pinged:
Yeah, I think that the argument that drivers are basically jealous is a bit of a red herring, it's probably more just that some people are naturally angry at life, sitting in traffic makes them more angry, and cyclists are a convenient thing for them to be angry about. If there weren't any cyclists around they'd probably find something else to blame all the worlds ills on.

In reply to Trangia:


if you are bothered about that sort of thing then it isnt difficult to learn which car falls into which category. That people dont while yelling at cyclists says a lot about them.
As for licensing cyclists or insuring them considering the number of drivers reckoned to be on the roads without one or the other I have my doubts about its usefulness.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Damn right I am too anti-social to use public transport. Why would I cram myself on to a stinky bus, full of other seething people and sit staring at my feet for 90 mins when I can jump in my car whack the heater up, sip on a cuppa and have radio 4 comforting my sleepy brain. Its almost ike having a lie-in!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Spot on!

In reply to Pinged:


this particular issue comes up time and time again.
I think part of a driving licence should include familiarisation with other transport types since it might answer this.

In reply to Pinged:


See - the trouble is, that cyclists are actually individuals and so behave differently from one another. You shouldn't be blamed for other car drivers' poor driving skills - I shouldn't blame you for drunk drivers who have killed other road users, or caravans who cause massive traffic jams. I shouldn't think that you are able, somehow, to prevent other drivers from exhibiting bad driving behaviour or for being selfish or ignorant.





Once again, they are individuals. A three year old on their first bike, me on my commuting bike with mudguards and a rack, a lycra clad road racer, an offroad, gnarly mountain biker. Each one is different. Should the 3 year old really not be allowed to cycle on the pavement? After all, it is illegal. Most people really just don't mind, as long as they don't cause any damage to anyone else.

In reply to Papillon:

In what way?

In reply to Pinged:

To be fair, I often wonder why people stare at their feet when there is the wonderful world to be seen through the window (something you can't enjoy when driving) I sometimes see some of the most amazing sunsets on my way home on the train and almost no one is looking at them. Talk about not knowing what you have in this world.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Methinks he's playing up to his profile description.

ALC

In reply to tlm:

Come on now tlm...I don't think anyone is suggesting a 3 yr old should keep off the pavement!

Your points are spot on...we are all individuals...the fact is however that when someone behaves stupidly on the road - be they cyclists or drivers - they are percieved to be representing a group. A fool on a bike is a 'cyclist' a fool in a car is a 'driver'. When an angry person in a car gets obstructed by a cyclist the don't shout 'fking individuals' they shout 'fking cyclists'. Its a fact of life. Whether we agree with this perception or not doesn't really matter...its what happens and until both sets of people accept this it'll always be us v them.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Train to East Didsbury and then tram to Trafford Bar. (when the tram extension opens).

In reply to EeeByGum:

My commute is through some very rundown parts of a large city. At 6am Id rather not look!

In reply to Papillon:


Right..... So train from Stockport to Manch. Then train to East Didsbury. Then 5 - 10 min walk to tram. Then tram to Trafford. Hmmm - that seems much more progressive than just getting the tram from Manch to Trafford! It still takes 1.5 hours when you account for waiting around / walking to / from stations at each end.

In reply to Pinged:

No - I don't think that they are. However, if you start demanding that cyclists keep off the pavement, or that cyclists pay tax, then you are demanding that the 2 year old, as a cyclist, does those things. That is the danger with sweeping generalisations. If you talk about 'cyclists' you may well have a picture of a Lycra clad courier, dodging through the traffic, jumping red lights etc, but you will enforce those rules on the woman who has only just learned to cycle in her bid to improve the environment...

In reply to EeeByGum: My mistake... I thought East Didsbury was on the Stockport line, but of course it's the airport line, silly me.

In reply to EeeByGum: But hang on... surely Stockport to Pic, then Tram to Trafford wouldn't take 1.5hours! I went to Prestbury on Tram & Train recentley and it was less then that.

In reply to tlm:

Not at all. These are simply weak arguments put in the mouth of the original speaker by people who oppose their views. Since when did any debate specify the full details of any particular argument? There are always caveats and exclusions. To state that an argument is invalid because it can only be a one-size-fits-all is completely missing the point and is a weak defence.

In reply to tlm: I do think anyone over say 15 should be cycling on the road really. There are some cyclelanes which (stupidly) direct people onto pavements, but with this exception riding on the pavement isn't on. There are some sensible exceptions, where common sense may apply, but too many grown people ride on pavements

In reply to Papillon:

So it is 15 mins walk to the station. You then hang around for 5 - 10 minutes for the train. It is then 20 minutes to Manchester. 5 minutes to walk to the tram from the platform, up to 10 minutes wait for Altringham tram (if you are lucky), 15 - 20 minutes to Old Trafford and then 10 minutes to walk to the office = best part of 1.5 hours.

Several of my colleagues use the Metrolink and there is rarely a week where there isn't one or more incidents.

In reply to tlm:


Im not convinced you are reading the posts on this thread properly tlm.

I don't think cyclists should pay road tax and I appreciate that a gnarly city bike courier is a very different animal to your person (why you made it a women is another whole debate methinks!! just learning to cycle to do environmental bit.

My point was one of perception and the fact that people within each group need to face into this and have awareness that when they behave stupidly on the road they are - in the eyes of others - representing a group. I dont like this 'perception' thing anymore than you...but its a fact.

It is totally unacceptable for an adult to use the pavement on a bike, it is equally unacceptable for cyclists to jump red lights. These two facts in no way suggest that 3 year olds should be using the road and to suggest they do is somewhat daft.

In reply to Pinged:


I agree obviously as I stated above. But I think cycle lanes need to be designed more sensibly. For instance near where I live there is a cycle lane which takes cyclists the wrong way up a one way lane (it is at least on the left hand side, but even so), it then goes onto a pavement for a while and ends at an X junc. The cyclist then needs to dismount walk across the lights on the green man, walk into the road and re-mount. I don't use it. It sends mixed messages to design infrastructure in such a way and can confuse well meaning people as to whats acceptable.

This is not to excuse some roadie belting down a pavement, herding pedestrians one way then another at 30mph though.

In reply to Trangia:
How about another approach...

Where i live, there is a very clear road-users hierarchy which basically means that cars are king and if you're on a bike you had better watch out!
Certainly keeps you on your toes, as it were

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I cycle on pavements quite a lot. Maybe this comes under: "some sensible exceptions"? I cycle through underpasses where there is a particularly fast and dangerous multilane roundabout, ignoring the 'no cycling' signs. I cycle on the pavement to get to and from cycle lanes that end at a pavement, with no other way on to the road. I cycle on pavements to get past 3 lanes of traffic at one junction on the way to work.

Maybe I should get off my bike and walk at these parts?

I give way to any pedestrians, cycle at walking speed, rather than overtake them, etc, but don't really see any advantage to me walking when there is no one else around. If I cycled on the roads at these points, it would be more dangerous for me (or would be impossible, as there is no road, no cycle path and only a footpath) and more dangerous for cars as they might not see my fluorescent jacket, reflectors and bright lights.

In reply to tlm:

Every time you do this, a kitten drowns.

Keep up the good work

In reply to Pinged:


to highlight the variety - I don't think people often think of women cycling.


People have stereotypes? Yes, I know. And I think it is good to challenge them, especially when they are unhelpful.


even if that adult has a learning difficulty? Even if they are trying to get from a cycle path to the road and there is no other way to get there? Even if not to do so will mean that they will have to cycle an extra mile, rather than being able to cut through an ally way?


even if the lights won't change, because they are only set up for cars? Even if there is no one else around at all, at 3am, and the cyclist is turning left?

In reply to 999thAndy:


Mwahhh haaaa haaaaaa!!! Death to all kittens!

http://blog.nj.com/hudsoncountynow_impact/2009/08/large_kitten4.JPG

In reply to Pinged:
>

But apart from not doing anything stupid myself, what am I personally meant to do about it? Do I just have to wait for the idiots to sort themselves out before I can expect a reasonable degree of respect on the road, or do you expect me to be out there with a baseball bat enforcing it the hard way? I can't table a motion at the next AGM of All British Cyclists to reduce the red light jumping quota by 25% because there's no such thing...

In reply to tlm:

"I cycle through underpasses where there is a particularly fast and dangerous multilane roundabout, ignoring the 'no cycling' signs"

In a sensible world, there wouldn't be quite so many such signs. In Milton Keynes, all the underpasses are available to cyclists. Very sensible.

Neil

In reply to tlm:

I reckon you just being silly now tlm, which may mean you dont have a reasonable point to make.

Using a person with learning difficulties as an example is crass at best and suggests you know you're out of ideas but don't want to admit it.

The more you make such badly thought through comments, and the more you cycle on pavements/shoot lights, the more you are undermining the credibility of cyclists as both individuals and as a group.

In reply to Pinged:


Why? Are people who have learning difficulties not allowed to be part of our cycling community then?

In reply to Pinged:


ermm yes of course.
The problem is every cyclist might as well do the above since, to take red light jumping, despite its clear there is massive confirmation bias going on (just look at the properly run samples of people jumping red lights vs the claims).

In reply to Ramblin dave:

No I totally agree...it's about making sure one behaves in accordance to the Highway Code and hoping this leads to a step change in the mindset of others.

It wont...and there will ALWAYS be a cyclists vs motorists debate raging somewhere because dickheads will always exists in every walk of life. In cars, on bikes, in hot air balloons, in every office and place of work at every crag, gulley, mountain side, at every football match etc etc. These dickheads get everyones attention an have the ability to boil the blood of some folk.

I say f em.

In reply to tlm:

Oh dear, of course they are. But its rather crass and patronising to suggest that they can't follow rule of the road.

In reply to EeeByGum: Ok, makes sense. I did my journey off-peak. Just curious and nothing to do with the topic.

In reply to Pinged:


Ah well - in my life it doesn't work out like that. I often get cars waving me through, even though it isn't my right of way. I get pedestrians apologising for getting in my way as I cycle on the pavement. I get other bike riders waving and smiling at me. I get cars hovering behind me, because they don't want to squeeze past where it is too narrow. I get dog walkers and lollipop people waving a cheery hello. I even occasionally get a bluebird, sitting on my handlebars and singing to me. I love my cycle ride to work! Especially now the cherry blossom is making an appearance.

In reply to dissonance:


It might be me but I dont understand your point....

In reply to Pinged:

Wouldn't that rather depend on them as an individual? Or are you so not into individuals that you don't like to consider people with learning difficulties as individuals?

In reply to Pinged:


you want to lump law abiding cyclists into the same pot as wild rebel lawless ones. So we may as well all go wild!

In reply to Pinged:


simple not many cyclists when properly measured jump red lights.
However considering that every time cyclists get mentioned people start dribbling about red lights might as well start jumping them.

Especially if you then look at the stats for cars jumping red lights and, of course, the risk of serious injury posed by each.

In reply to tlm:

And I am one of those motorists waving you through with a smile. I am a calm and (like to think) considerate driver. I have Radio 4 warming me up and a nice cuppa in an insulated mug and in the winter I wear a silly earflappy hat that I never wear anywhere but in the car. I also drive past a lollipop lady who waves hello (she al;so works in my local..all I need is the birdsong!!

But, as many posters on this thread make it clear, some drivers and cyclists find the whole experience rather less lovely.

In reply to Pinged:

Maybe they live in less lovely parts of the country? Or maybe they have a different perception? Who can tell.

However, up my way, it is loveliness and light, with the odd fluffy bunny here and there.

In reply to dissonance:

Well, I drive to work every day, takes me about 20 mins and I go through approx 12 sets of lights. I have NEVER seen a cyclist stop at a red light..and i promise you I am not exaggerating. NEVER. They either shoot them or mount the pavement and cross the road. Don't get me wrong, I don't get annoyed by this at all...give it very little mind in fact. But it is wrong and it does get under the skin of many a motorist and, as you rightly pointed out, it is always raised by motorists every time this kind of debate happens. In my view, going back to the whole 'perception' piece, this is a problem for cyclists as, regardless of how 'general' it is..its stops cyclists arguments being taken seriously.

In reply to tlm:

but no kittens? )

In reply to Pinged:


What because many people are incapable of basic observation or fall prey to confirmation bias.
It would be amusing it is wasnt so daft.
I mean do you also discount all car drivers arguments on the grounds that they not only break the law frequently but also complain about being caught.

In reply to Pinged:

Sorry - I drowned them all by cycling on pavements...

In reply to Pinged:

It's ok. It doesn't cause me any problems at all.

In reply to tlm:

haha evidently

In reply to Pinged:

do you ever exceed the 70 mph motorway limit ? (you sound as though you probably don't !)

In reply to dissonance:

Reckon you're missing my point.

Motorists dont complain that they are not treated like proper road users. Cyclists do. Then - perhaps only a minority - fail to behave like proper road users.

Motorists are far from perfect but the unhappy fact is, they rule the road. Always have, always will. Cyclist just have to shut up and pedal! (yes, I am being deliberatley inflamatroy cos I am running out of ideas/interest/heart for this debate)!

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I do yes. Every time I use the motorway.

In reply to Pinged:

isn't that unacceptable ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

its somewhat unacceptable yes...do you have a point?

In reply to Pinged:


Hee hee!!!! I love it when there is a mahoosive traffic jam, or a bin lorry, or a load of snow, and I merrily cycle past the rulers of the road, waving as I go! Or as I lock my bike to the nearest lamppost, while watching the rulers of the road drive around and around, looking for a parking space.

In reply to Pinged:

only the obvious one !

In reply to Pinged:

When I'm cycling legally and safely and "like a proper road user", I expect to be treated like a proper road user. I don't give a wet damn if some idiot two blocks away is doing a wheelie through a red light. If some people in cars are too stupid to understand this and cause someone an injury as a result then I'd expect them to have their error explained to them in court.

In reply to tlm:

maybe you just like feeling superiour to others? Clearly gives you a kick!!

In reply to Pinged:

Sorry, you expect to be taken seriously with comments like that.

In my experience, cyclists running red lights is very rare, although a bit more common in city centres, but still a small minority.

In reply to Pinged:

I just enjoy life, whatever it brings. If I was in my car, I would enjoy the snug warmth....

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yeah me too...I have at no point advocated any kind of violence or damage to cyclists.

All Im saying is, cyclists have a very bad reputation amongst motorists and ditto motorists with cyclists. Neither group seem to want to do much about it...which is fine. I will continue to use the road as consideratley as I can (Im not perfect by the way)and will continue to see cyclists ignore basic rule of the road every day, every time I am in my car. Motorists will do the same... exceed speed limits, park illegally, get shouty at cyclists (I dont do this)...so dont listen to me...ignore me...everythings fked...we're doomed I tell you. Lets all start again on Mars.

In reply to Pinged:


I'm a motorist and I quite like cyclists.

I'm a cyclist and I quite like motorists.

In reply to Pinged:


That's because neither "group" is in any useful or meaningful sense capable of "wanting" to do anything, because both "groups" are completely unconnected sets individuals with no internal communication or influence.

The only people who can take large scale action are local / national government and the police, and if idiots then chip in with complaints about "why are we building more cycle lanes when some cyclists jump red lights" then they can either be ignored or told that they're idiots.

In reply to Ramblin dave: Cyclists don't cause motorists delays, the amount of other vehicles on the roads causes delays. End of!

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Agreed, but in traffic jams cyclists get ahead, and that is so unfair that it makes motorists hate them.....

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Im all for more cycle lanes and i agree that some motorists over react to cyclist using road badly. I am also not suggesting motorists are perfect. Far from it.

I now intend to stop posting on this thread and go to the climbing wall. In my car

In reply to Toby S: they so pay a tax. to use. the road, it just ian't ring fenced to maintain. the road

In reply to MG:

they pay vehicle excise duty, well when I say "they" I do of course mean on a sliding scale where those with low emissions or old cars dont.
Now bearing in mind bicycles will fall into the former exactly what would be the purpose of the extra costly admin for no return (at least for cars you have the MOT etc which already needs tracking and managing).

In reply to Trangia:

I'm with tlm on this, I have a lovely cycle commute, along a lovely route, with considerate road users.

Chillax everyone.

In reply to dissonance: I wasn't proposing tax for bikes - just pointing out motorist do pay to use the road, in the same way smokers pay disproportionate tax to smoke.

In reply to Trangia:

Does anyone know any cyclists who aren't actually motorists too? (and who are over 18)

In reply to tlm: Several although they can drive if need be

I am a cyclist, and have never jumped a red light. I have on occasions been reduced to pressing the pedestrian crossing button to get the lights to change at certain crossings where a bike will never trip the lights...

I have also once been sat in front of a large 4x4 at a set of lights which remained red for some time. The 4x4 then overtook me, and started to drive through the red light... (which then changed as it drove through the lights). I did recognize the irony :P

In reply to MG:

How do you mean, they can drive, but they aren't motorists???? I don't get that at all?

In reply to tlm:

have a licence but don't own a car?

In reply to tlm: I cycle but don't drive (I'm 29)

In reply to tlm: They don't have cars, don't use cars from week to week etc. but could if need be drive or hire one.

In reply to MG:

Some motorists, of course, do not and in addition its hardly disproportionate. The VED is rather small proportion of my tax bill.

In reply to elsewhere:

But doesn't that still make you a motorist, even if it is just an occasional one? I didn't own a car until I was 35, but I still considered myself a motorist - I hired cars, drove other people's cars etc.

In reply to Trangia:

Saying that cyclists hate motorists is like saying that cyclists hate themselves.

cyclists are probably scared of bad drivers - but isn't everyone?

In reply to tlm: I would say not. Much as I am not a horse-rider but could probably make one go if I really needed to. Anyway, minor point.

In reply to MG:

It doesn't really matter all that much anyway - everyone benefits from the existence of motor vehicles whether they happen to drive one or not. For instance, everything you buy is delivered in a van or lorry to the place you buy it from.

Neil

In reply to MG:

And cars that are exempt from VED?

They are taxed based on emmissions, not on their use of the road. Think of it as an environment tax rather than a road tax.

In reply to EeeByGum:

There's a section of my commute into London (Metropolitan Line) where if I take the train at the right time, 10 minutes after sunrise, and the conditions are right (cool night, morning dew, clear sky) I catch the sun rising through the morning mist across a moor with a river winding across it. For 10 seconds we could be crossing wilderness. It's magestic but I'm pretty certain I'm the only person that's ever noticed it