Cyclists

[TotalWebSolutions]

According to Google...

"Cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast! Rule 66 states you should never cycle more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads. This means cycles are perfectly legal to cycle side by side on most roads in the UK."

So when you see two GB Cycling Team members (I see their support vehicles in the area all the time) cycling side by side chatting away on a very busy main road holding the traffic up do you have room for complaint (presumably to GBCT) ??

 

[MikeJ]

Are there many roads in Britain that are neither narrow or busy?

 

[RPower]

I was talking about something similar today. Apparently it's not even legal for cyclists to wear helmets (despite the obvious safety benefits) nor is it a legal requirement to use cycle lanes where provided unless on a footpath. Bit mad, really.

 

[estwig]

Bl**dy cyclists, wheres their road tax and insurance??

Shouldn't even be on the roads!!!

 

[TotalWebSolutions]

Bl**dy cyclists, wheres their road tax and insurance??

Exactly. Our Government are missing a trick !

 

[Alan]

Well rule 66 is a 'should' rule not a MUST rule backed by a law, soI guess you can't complain to a Policeman, so your only course of complaint is to the cyclist.

 

[japancool]

How many points are they worth now?

 

[Alan]

3 to 11

• On indictment - 5 years imprisonment,
• On summary trial - 6 months imprisonment.
• Minimum mandatory disqualification -12 months.
• Mandatory endorsement 3 -11 points.
• Discretionary re-test (s.36(4) RTOA 1988

 

[japancool]

3 to 11

• On indictment - 5 years imprisonment,
• On summary trial - 6 months imprisonment.
• Minimum mandatory disqualification -12 months.
• Mandatory endorsement 3 -11 points.
• Discretionary re-test (s.36(4) RTOA 1988

Seems worth it.

 

[john1989]

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I dont have a problem with professional teams and GB, English ,Welsh or Scottish official teams blocking the road and being supported by team vehicles .I have problem with all the others that pretend to be Bradley Wiggins and dont actually know a thing about being on the road .
In my life i have done a lot of driving in Europe and I find it all acceptable there . If anything I like to see the cycling clubs in France and Belgium out training in big squads but over here I hate it . We just dont have the culture to enjoy this type of mass participation. Maybe its my athletics and boxing background that makes me dispise this sport in the UK but love it in France !!

 

[simon field]

I was talking about something similar today. Apparently it's not even legal for cyclists to wear helmets (despite the obvious safety benefits) nor is it a legal requirement to use cycle lanes where provided unless on a footpath. Bit mad, really

I assume you mean 'it's not the LAW for cyclists to wear helmets'. That's correct.

Allow me to explain: the chances of banging your head whilst riding a bicycle are extremely low. In fact, you stand a much higher chance of head injury when driving a car. Do you wear a helmet in your car, and if not, then why not? When you climb a stepladder to do some diy, do you wear a helmet, along with elbow and knee pads just in case you fall and hurt yourself?

I doubt it. The fact is, there are many activities which are far more likely to result in a head injury than riding a bicycle, and it pretty much comes down to an individual risk-assessment of that particular activity.

When you say it's 'a bit mad really' that cyclists aren't forced to use 'cycle lanes', are you sure about that? Here in Norfolk, the cycle lanes of choice are ones that are shared - sometimes with double decker buses & taxis, other times with pedestrians (these ones generally go across people's vehicular access to their homes.

When you see cyclists two abreast, they are deliberately preventing drivers from 'squeezing past' in a manner which is dangerous to both them & their passengers, any oncoming traffic, and the cyclists themselves.

Far safer (and twice as quick) to overtake something (in a proper manner) just one bicycle-length long but two abreast than something two, three, or more bicycles long you see

It is regrettable, but having spent the last year covering approx 4500 miles on the roads on my bike, that many drivers do not seem to know how to behave around cyclists, and therefore need to be forced into education. Which of course - they don't like!

How dare a silly bloke in lycra hold up their important mission for a few seconds!

They're not insured! (I am). They don't pay 'road tax'! Neither do you. Roads are funded from general taxation, not RFL (which I also pay, as a car driver).

Next?

 

[simon field]

Bl**dy cyclists, wheres their road tax and insurance??

Shouldn't even be on the roads!!!

Earwig, you will find it's cars that kill people, not bicycles. Far too many cars on the roads, you should all be sharing. Learn some manners man!

 

[estwig]

Earwig, you will find it's cars that kill people, not bicycles. Far too many cars on the roads, you should all be sharing. Learn some manners man!

I pay good money to use the roads, cyclists should either use the pavement or buy a car and pay road tax and insurance.

A cyclist knocks you over and breaks your leg, you have to have six months off work. will the cyclists insurance pay up? No because they don't fooking have any!!!

a menace on the road is all they are!!

 

[simon field]

I pay good money to use the roads, cyclists should either use the pavement or buy a car and pay road tax and insurance.

As do I, it is possible to be both a motorist and a cyclist you know.

A cyclist knocks you over and breaks your leg, you have to have six months off work. will the cyclists insurance pay up? No because they don't fooking have any!!!

I already told you, I do have insurance, as do the vast majority of club cyclists I know.

a menace on the road is all they are!!

Wrong again I'm afraid. Most of the 'menace on the road' as you put it is brought about by a significant minority of impatient, impolite, mannerless drivers who are largely unaware of the relevant highway codes, let alone spatial awareness .

This (thankfully shrinking) minority do not drive according to the conditions. They are the same kind who can be found gesticulating wildly when they see someone make a driving error and it makes them detract from their intended path by a good three feet, costing them precious lost seconds on their 'important mission'. A mission which also involves a good deal of playing with mobiles, twat-navs, doing their hair etc etc.

We've already established you're a speeder. No better than a drink-driver in my humble view - don't make it worse by being aggressive too!

 

[Voicebooth]

Cyclists don't pay "road tax" since it doesn't exist. Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on the other hand, which all car drivers pay is based on engine size and emissions, since a bicycle has neither, one would imagine there's a reason why they don't pay road tax.

The reality of course, is that most cyclists own a car anyway, and do pay "road tax", so the argument of "get off my road" is about as ignorant as it gets.

 

[john1989]

I think here seems to be much more ignorance of the Highway Code from cyclists than that of car drivers. Jumping red lights, for example.

How many cyclists have been killed on a junction by a lorry turning because they haven't given the lorry space or considered that the lorry driver cannot see them?

How many cyclists jump on the pavement when it suits them? I believe there is now a £50 fine for cyclists using the pavement. Not that many will be caught and fined, however.

I remember watching a programme a bit since about cyclists. A man was on saying "when I am on my bike, I will dictate the traffic behind me". I just thought what a tw4t he sounded. His attitude isn't uncommon amongst cyclists though.

Regarding cyclists not having to wear helmets ... they don't wear them at their own peril. If I crash in my car, I have a lot of steel and air bags to protect me. A cyclist has nothing. A helmet for a cyclist involved in an accident could be the difference between living or dying.

 

[simon field]

The bloke in a donkey jacket with a fag on cutting over pavements, going through red lights, the paperboy cycling along the pavement etc are not anywhere near typical of the average recreational cyclist who is both safe, courteous and confident.

Just as with motorists, a minority give the others a bad name.

 

[sirearl]

Just as with motorists, a minority give the others a bad name.

I suspect that with motorist the majority drive badly,judging by the amount of tailgating,undertaking,speeding and lack of signals I constantly see on motorways.

Not to mention using mobile phones,texting and a pretty apparent envy of cyclists.

I suspect the appallingly simple driving test the UK has that is not fit for purpose.IMHO

Anyhow cyclists were here first ,so cars must play second fiddle.

While I am having a bit of a rant WTF are all these 4x4's and other large vehicles doing on our roads ,they are not fit for purpose and are a menace to the more sensible motorist.

Even modern cars in the main have very poor visibility some even have black paint surrounds around the windows which reduces the vision even more,is this some styling thing for morons or what.

 

[14Steve14]

What I think ought to be changed is that all cyclists should at least pass some sort of road safety test, and they should also have some form of 3rd party insurance. Bikes should also come with lights fitted as standard, and not as an optional extra.

Saying that it will never happen because cyclists will object and make accusations that they are being picked on.

 

[john1989]

I suspect the appallingly simple driving test the UK has that is not fit for purpose.IMHO
The UK test is one of the hardest to obtain in the EU.

What is worrying is the number of EU drivers that are free to drive on our roads that have passed very easy tests.

 

[simon field]

What I think ought to be changed is that all cyclists should at least pass some sort of road safety test, and they should also have some form of 3rd party insurance. Bikes should also come with lights fitted as standard, and not as an optional extra.

Saying that it will never happen because cyclists will object and make accusations that they are being picked on.

A good idea Steve - I for one would be more than happy to take such a test, because I am a safe, competent cyclist.

As stated above, I do have liability insurance which as a member of British Cycling (the governing body) costs me all of 34 quid a year for cover up to £1,000,000.

(what does that tell you about the risk?)

Lights? I have two front and two rear lights, extremely bright, and aimed down so as not to dazzle oncoming traffic. They are turned on whether day or night. Along with lots of reflectives on my clothing and hi-vis stuff Icouldn't really be easier to spot - even in bad visibility.

Getting back to your test idea - many cyclists go along right at the edge of the road, in the gutter where all the debris (glass, flints, bits of metal etc) is. They do this because they feel safer, allowing motor vehicles to come past them even where there's oncoming traffic. This however is not safe. It encourages driver to 'squeeze past'. If the cyclist needs to manoeuvre out to avoid a pothole (of which there are many) then it presents a danger to both the cyclist and the motorist who's only inches away sometimes.

My point is, safety guidelines advise cyclists to be at least a metre out from the edge of the road. Many motorists do not seem to like this because they see the cyclist as simply 'in their way', an obstacle to be got past at any cost. I have lost count of the near-miss head-on's I've seen due to motorists who are ignorant of this and still attempt to squeeze through rather than wait just a few seconds for a gap in the oncoming traffic.

 

[john1989]

@simon field. I would be confident that if insurance was made compulsory for cyclists, the price wouldn't remain £34!

The price also doesn't necessary reflect the risk.
If a bike hits a car, the damage is likely to be scratches at best, and therefore relatively cheap to repair. Whereas when a car hits something, there is likely to be more damage, and therefore a high cost of repair.

 

[simon field]

You're probably right John. But the risk of me damaging someone (or something) on my bicycle is much lower than in a car, which is a big, heavy, motorised lump of metal & plastic going round at much higher speeds would you agree?

 

[john1989]

Collisions are usually caused because of driver error. Whether a cyclist or a driver, there is still a risk of error.
I don't know the % of bike collisions to bikes on the road, nor do I do know the % of car collisions to cars on the road. I'd be interested to see those figures though.

 

[simon field]

Despite the sensationalist media coverage on these things, I think you'll be surprised how safe cycling is compared to driving a car.

(with the possible exception of London, but that's full of mad people anyway )

 

[estwig]

Wrong again I'm afraid. Most of the 'menace on the road' as you put it is brought about by a significant minority of impatient, impolite, mannerless drivers who are largely unaware of the relevant highway codes, let alone spatial awareness .

This (thankfully shrinking) minority do not drive according to the conditions. They are the same kind who can be found gesticulating wildly when they see someone make a driving error and it makes them detract from their intended path by a good three feet, costing them precious lost seconds on their 'important mission'. A mission which also involves a good deal of playing with mobiles, ****-navs, doing their hair etc etc.

We've already established you're a speeder. No better than a drink-driver in my humble view - don't make it worse by being aggressive too!

A lot of conclusions jumped to there, I'm quite capable of fixing my hair and driving fast at the same time as completing my mission!!

As for "gesticulating wildly" that would be rather uncouth and that I am not!

My annoyance with cyclists is the lack of insurance. If one of these self-important, razor thin tyre death traps, look at me I'm so healthy in my day-glow lycra, menaces. Knocks over and hurts one of my children, is their insurance going to pay up? No because they haven't got any!

They should be made to have 3rd party insurance.

 

[simon field]

A lot of conclusions jumped to there, I'm quite capable of fixing my hair and driving fast at the same time as completing my mission!!

As for "gesticulating wildly" that would be rather uncouth and that I am not!

My annoyance with cyclists is the lack of insurance. If one of these self-important, razor thin tyre death traps, look at me I'm so healthy in my day-glow lycra, menaces. Knocks over and hurts one of my children, is their insurance going to pay up? No because they haven't got any!

How many times do you need me to tell you - I do have insurance. As do the vast majority of recreational cyclists that I know of. It is cheap.

Do your children have insurance - you know - in case they bumble into a cyclist and knock them off?

 

[john1989]

Pedestrians do not need insurance. It is up to the operators of the vehicle or cycle to insure (compulsory or voluntarily) and it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure they don't hit anything.
If a child 'bumbles' into a cyclist, it would indicate that the cyclist was going too fast to avoid collision and / or they were riding in an unsuitable place.

 

[simon field]

If a child 'bumbles' into a cyclist, it would indicate that the cyclist was going too fast to avoid collision and / or they were riding in an unsuitable place.

That's a very narrow-minded statement. Especially given that many bike paths are also pedestrian paths. Could it not also indicate that irresponsible parents have't taught their children to look out for moving traffic?

 

[simon field]

This is no different to me saying 'I like going to football matches'

And you (and earwig) saying 'You bleedin' hooligan'.

 

[Voicebooth]

I'd agree with that last statement though simon

 

[john1989]

That's a very narrow-minded statement. Especially given that many bike paths are also pedestrian paths. Could it not also indicate that irresponsible parents have't taught their children to look out for moving traffic?

If I am driving along and I see that there's a zebra crossing up ahead with pedestrians nearby, I reduce my speed so that I have time to stop if someone starts crossing.

If a cyclist is going on a cycle path and sees pedestrians, they should slow down so they can stop in good time.

 

[simon field]

This is getting silly.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that it's some cyclists who do silly things, just as it's some motorists who still insist on driving too fast, too close to the car in front, checking their facebook or talking on the phone.

Please tell me you realize that?

 

[john1989]

Exactly, Simon.

That was my point. It would be silly for pedestrians to carry insurance, when it the person operating the machine that should take responsibility and not 'bumbling children'.

 

[estwig]

That's a very narrow-minded statement. Especially given that many bike paths are also pedestrian paths. Could it not also indicate that irresponsible parents have't taught their children to look out for moving traffic?

So parents are expected to teach their children to, look out for moving traffic on a pedestrian path!!

Just so lunatic cyclists can tear about on their death traps!!!!

 

[simon field]

So parents are expected to teach their children to, look out for moving traffic on a pedestrian path!!

If it's also a cycle path, yes I'd say that was fairly obvious.

Just so lunatic cyclists can tear about on their death traps!!!!

Cars kill far more people than bicycles. Not doing too well are you

 

[john1989]

Of course cars more people than bicycles. There are much more cars on the road than bicycles. So you would expect more deaths on the roads attributable to cars rather than bicycles.

 

[simon field]

Exactly!

Therefore, more cyclists = less motorists = less death!

 

[john1989]

Or more accidents attributed to cyclists.