Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

The price of a cyclist's life: 240 hours unpaid work

142 posts in this topic

Well, we could introduce a cycling licence.  And cycling tests.

 

Bit like a driving licence.  And driving tests.

How would you know if a cyclist didn't have a licence? Who is going to pay for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know if a cyclist didn't have a licence? Who is going to pay for it?

 

It's victim blaming anyway.

 

The country would be a safer, healthier place if people in cars drove with greater awareness and in line with the easy-to-follow rules already in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know if a cyclist didn't have a licence? Who is going to pay for it?

 

Ask him.  Bit like the police ask to see drivers' licences.

 

Cyclists.  Could be a good fundraiser.  I'd set the fee at, say, couple of grand a year.

 

Surely this isn't all that difficult a concept ?  Not like we haven't had licences for things before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask him.  Bit like the police ask to see drivers' licences.

 

Cyclists.  Could be a good fundraiser.  I'd set the fee at, say, couple of grand a year.

 

Surely this isn't all that difficult a concept ?  Not like we haven't had licences for things before.

As you can imagine I am against licences for cyclists, not because it would affect me just that it would be too difficult to implement and enforce and the costs would outweigh the benefits. One of the main benefits of cycling is that it is a cheap means of transportation and I wouldn't want to charge people who can't afford a car or public transport. Also I'm assuming that this would mean an age limit to those who are allowed on the roads with their bike, who sets this?

A far simpler solution to this problem is to educate car drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen some right idiots on bike on shared use paths. On shared use paths I tend to ride slowly for the reasons you and Ray mentioned. But on my regular commute I've seen bikes treat them as they would a cycle lane.

 

Shared pathways are indeed dangerous. The walk in question alongside the River Mersey is popular for families with young children because of the play areas. I'm afraid many cyclists go down it at speed without any warnings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can imagine I am against licences for cyclists, not because it would affect me just that it would be too difficult to implement and enforce and the costs would outweigh the benefits. One of the main benefits of cycling is that it is a cheap means of transportation and I wouldn't want to charge people who can't afford a car or public transport. Also I'm assuming that this would mean an age limit to those who are allowed on the roads with their bike, who sets this?

A far simpler solution to this problem is to educate car drivers.

 

Yet it's cyclists who are allowed on the roads with no training whatsoever.

 

Makes no sense, Severus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok some cyclist are ignorant and impatient but does that mean that you can run them down.

Basically are we saying that being an idiot deserves the death penalty

Edit in the original case there was never any suggestion that the cyclist involved was at fault in any way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok some cyclist are ignorant and impatient but does that mean that you can run them down.

Basically are we saying that being an idiot deserves the death penalty

 

 

Of course not - this is about educating cyclists to ride safely.  They're very vulnerable, yet sometimes they want to be treated as vehicles and sometimes as pedestrians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not - this is about educating cyclists to ride safely. They're very vulnerable, yet sometimes they want to be treated as vehicles and sometimes as pedestrians.

I agree with what you are saying (and always ride that way).

However there are idiots in all walks of life and sensible people have to make allowances for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not - this is about educating cyclists to ride safely. They're very vulnerable, yet sometimes they want to be treated as vehicles and sometimes as pedestrians.

And yet in about 2/3 of cases it's the motorist at fault in occasion.

Of the remaining 1/3 the majority are no blame.

Still, better train those cyclists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an excellent cycle track on a road not far from where I live yet people still cycle on the busy road. Like someone has said, there are idiots that use all forms of transport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet in about 2/3 of cases it's the motorist at fault in occasion.

Of the remaining 1/3 the majority are no blame.

Still, better train those cyclists.

 

1. Where have you got those figures from ?

 

2. If I didn't take avoiding action, I'd mow down a dozen cyclists a year.

 

You're living in a dream world, jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're from Transport for London's analysis of incident reports, court cases etc.

 

At least once a week I have to take evasive action as a cyclist to avoid a motor vehicle doing something daft.  As a pedestrian it's more than that - often as basic as someone on a phone not noticing they should stop for a zebra crossing.  As a motorist I've had to take evasive action to avoid killing a cyclist twice, to avoid hitting another car ... well, a lot more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're from Transport for London's analysis of incident reports, court cases etc.

At least once a week I have to take evasive action as a cyclist to avoid a motor vehicle doing something daft. As a pedestrian it's more than that - often as basic as someone on a phone not noticing they should stop for a zebra crossing. As a motorist I've had to take evasive action to avoid killing a cyclist twice, to avoid hitting another car ... well, a lot more than that.

This.

Although it will not change my voting patterns on photo threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're from Transport for London's analysis of incident reports, court cases etc.

 

At least once a week I have to take evasive action as a cyclist to avoid a motor vehicle doing something daft.  As a pedestrian it's more than that - often as basic as someone on a phone not noticing they should stop for a zebra crossing.  As a motorist I've had to take evasive action to avoid killing a cyclist twice, to avoid hitting another car ... well, a lot more than that.

 

That rings true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we may be back to the original point, if people got custiodal sentences for a 'momentary lapse in concentration' then people would concentrate a lot more. Just like the automatic 'draconian' 12 month ban for driving whilst having one too many drinks.

Lets face it no matter how idiotoc or arrogant a cyclist or a pedestrian behaves it does not warrent a death sentence.

But back to the original post I'll ask again how many people think the cyclist was in any way at fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an excellent cycle track on a road not far from where I live yet people still cycle on the busy road. Like someone has said, there are idiots that use all forms of transport.

Saint I presume you are referring to the Rainford by pass 'cycle' track which is use by cyclists, runners, walkers, dog walkers etc. as a cyclist it it probably safer to cycle on the main carriageway than the track since that way you will not have to avoid pedestrians. And you have right of way at junctions.

That cycle track has give way marking on every junction, even tracks leading to a a farm shop. now as a cyclist if you are traveling in the same direction of the traffic, how can you safely give way to traffic coming up directly behind you?

Genuine question I would be grateful for an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an excellent cycle track on a road not far from where I live yet people still cycle on the busy road. Like someone has said, there are idiots that use all forms of transport.

Many cycle tracks aren't fit for purpose, are filled with debris/glass etc. and merge dangerously into normal roads. I tend to avoid them in these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet it's cyclists who are allowed on the roads with no training whatsoever.

Makes no sense, Severus.

No training is going a bit far. Cycle training goes on in schools and should be taught by parents when buying their child a bike. But a formal driving style test is just too difficult to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saint I presume you are referring to the Rainford by pass 'cycle' track which is use by cyclists, runners, walkers, dog walkers etc. as a cyclist it it probably safer to cycle on the main carriageway than the track since that way you will not have to avoid pedestrians. And you have right of way at junctions.

That cycle track has give way marking on every junction, even tracks leading to a a farm shop. now as a cyclist if you are traveling in the same direction of the traffic, how can you safely give way to traffic coming up directly behind you?

Genuine question I would be grateful for an answer.

 

That's the one. I appreciate cycle tracks are questionable, but I always used them when I could and never came to a mishap. That aside, I have been hit three times by people cycling on the pavement. And don't get me going on drivers of vehicles! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No training is going a bit far. Cycle training goes on in schools and should be taught by parents when buying their child a bike. But a formal driving style test is just too difficult to implement.

 

I say again, they're allowed out on the roads with no formal training whatsoever.  In other words, it's not illegal.

 

If the training is adequate, why do so many trundle down the wrong side of the road without lights at night ?  Or think No Entry signs don't apply to them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say again, they're allowed out on the roads with no formal training whatsoever.  In other words, it's not illegal.

 

If the training is adequate, why do so many trundle down the wrong side of the road without lights at night ?  Or think No Entry signs don't apply to them ?

 

Presumably you think the driving test is also sub standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say again, they're allowed out on the roads with no formal training whatsoever. In other words, it's not illegal.

If the training is adequate, why do so many trundle down the wrong side of the road without lights at night ? Or think No Entry signs don't apply to them ?

No one taking to the road has no road sense whatsoever. You get bad cyclists in the same way you get bad drivers and having formal training for drivers doesn't seem to eradicate this so why would it for cyclists. I really don't think there is that much of an issue with bad cyclists, the majority are fine. If someone wants to ride like an idiot then that is up to them, most likely they will get hurt. If a driver drives like and idiot people get killed as evident in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you think the driving test is also sub standard?

 

Indeed.  It should include some supervised motorway driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017