London cyclists dropping like flies

[plugwash]

It's strange that motorcyclists, and vehicle drivers have to take a test, yet cyclists can just buy a bike and take to the open highways.

It makes perfect sense if the purpose of the licensing laws is to protect OTHER road users rather than to protect people from killing/maiming themselves.

Motor vehicles pose a serious threat to other users of the road due to their high speed and high mass. So we require their drivers to be licensed. As the mass increases the threat increases and so the licensing requirements get more stringent.

Dumb cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders are mostly a threat to themselves. So they do not need to be licensed to protect others.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Yes, do please name the road.

Let's hope this time street view doesn't show people walking on it, or it just randomly terminating into a footpath, or having a bus stop in the middle of it.

I cycled, It was also dirt cheap, which was great as I was on minimum wage at the time.

Freeloader?????+??

Road is Tamworth Road, B6540. The section I described is Sawley Marina towards the A50.

Streetview is from before they put in the cycle lane signs.
They did alot of flood defence and ditch improvement and widened the path into the bank while they were at it, giving the cyclists a chance to get off the NSL road.

Yes it could be wider and better segregated from pedestrians, but no-one walks up there. Are cyclists unable to navigate around pedestrians? I know I can, I'd much rather do that than have a lorry pass me at 3".
There are very few interruptions and the tarmac is beautifully smooth.

Yes, there are interruptions, but cycling on the road there is bonkersl, I've ridden along that stretch on cycle as there's some good routes around there (and pubs!) but I wouldn't dream of being on the road there.

Even if it does mean potentially using the crossing island to get on the cycle path in heavier traffic, it's worth it!

The cyclists using the road here are putting themselves and other road users at risk.
They have a perfectly viable and in my eyes, preferential alternative.



Are you calling me a freeloader or do you think I'm another forum identity?

 

[AronSearle]

Just bringing the thread back to the safety aspect.

You mean after you derailed it with arguments about costs, and then went running away like a little girl when I shredded your arguments

yes, let's get back onto the topic of safety.

yet cyclists can just buy a bike and take to the open highways.

Nobody has presented any evidence that cyclists lack knowledge, lot's of "cyclists go through red lights" ranting, as if somehow they don't know what a red light is, they just don't have to impotently sit there when there is safe opportunity to go , BUT OH NO THE LIGHT IS RED!!!

The argument about licensing is just another example of the modern attitude that everything must be controlled and regulated, and simply resentment about cyclists rather than any honest belief it will make them safer. Lot's of people like LMB who want to see them taxed of the roads, cus **** poor people, that's why.

Yes it could be wider and better segregated from pedestrians, but no-one walks up there. Are cyclists unable to navigate around pedestrians? I know I can, I'd much rather do that than have a lorry pass me at 3".

So it's basically a footpath painted red, and let me guess, at every junction it terminates, with the cycle path having no right of way.

Navigate around pedestrians, sounds simple doesn't it, ignoring the argument that if you have to navigate around pedestrians then it's a footpath, but it's also not really possible to do that when so many people walk around with headphones, and walk in the middle of the path.

The cyclists using the road here are putting themselves and other road users at risk.

No, others are putting them at risk, I don't see how most drivers being dangerously impatient is their fault.

Are you calling me a freeloader or do you think I'm another forum identity?

Sigh, sarcasm

Last magic bean thinks you are a freeloader, do pay attention.

 

[jockscott]

Nobody has presented any evidence that cyclists lack knowledge, lot's of "cyclists go through red lights" ranting, as if somehow they don't know what a red light is, they just don't have to impotently sit there when there is safe opportunity to go , BUT OH NO THE LIGHT IS RED!!!

Aaron, your showing your complete ignorance of the Road Traffic Act, there. Do you think traffic lights are just there for car, motorbike and lorry/bus drivers? Cyclists are supposed to wait patiently at traffic lights, the same as any other road user. Next time your on yer bike. I suggest you keep an eye out for a set of traffic lights with a police car sat waiting at them and you cycle up and go straight though the red light. Let's see how impressed the police officer is with your excuse of "It was safe to do so."
No doubt your one of these bloody cyclists with a death wish. You know, the one's who undertake vehicles signalling to turn left, or overtake the poor motorist turning right. You undoubtedly ride on the pavements too, scattering unwitting pedestrians before you (all under the guise of "It was safe to do so." Fookin Clown.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

[quote="AronSearle]

So it's basically a footpath painted red, and let me guess, at every junction it terminates, with the cycle path having no right of way.

Navigate around pedestrians, sounds simple doesn't it, ignoring the argument that if you have to navigate around pedestrians then it's a footpath, but it's also not really possible to do that when so many people walk around with headphones, and walk in the middle of the path.
[/quote]

You didn't bother looking on a map or streetview after your request then?

There are 3 infrequently used junctions over the stretch of nearly a mile, all with good view and drop kerbs, no need to stop.

It isn't painted red, just designated for shared pedestrian and cycle use.

Yes, navigating around pedestrians is easy, you're acting like you are the only person ever to have ridden a pushbike! But as already said, it is not a path frequented by pedestrians. It is far preferential to navigating 60mph vehicles.

Yes the pushbikes are forcing a dangerous situation, they are there despite a perfectly adequete alternative, the road is too tight, therefore they force people to travel 20mph in a 60 or move into the opposite lane to give them safe passing room.
Yes, some people's impatience makes it more dangerous, but the fact is the cyclists are presenting an unnecessary obstruction in the first place.

The path was improved because it was acknowledged to be dangerous to share the road.

I imagine the cyclists are using the road because of their pigheaded sense of entitlement, it is dangerous and it isn't necessary.
Nothing is perfect, but its a vast improvement they choose not to take advantage of.
I think safety is above the 'principals' of these cyclists.

It's funny, because I am pro-cycling, and all for reduction in city motor vehicle traffic, but surely you must acknowledge some cyclists do themselves no favours.

I think you're just trolling anyway, arn't you?

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Are you calling me a freeloader or do you think I'm another forum identity?

Sigh, sarcasm

Last magic bean thinks you are a freeloader, do pay attention.

No, you quoted my post, followed by "Freeloader???"

Unless your linking it in to.someone else's comment that cyclists using the roads are somehow freeloading.
If so, you failed to make that clear.

 

[JBR]

Nobody has presented any evidence that cyclists lack knowledge, lot's of "cyclists go through red lights" ranting, as if somehow they don't know what a red light is, they just don't have to impotently sit there when there is safe opportunity to go , BUT OH NO THE LIGHT IS RED!!!

I can't believe the arrogance of some cyclists and, bearing in mind the above comment, Arsole must be one of them.

According to him, cyclists need not observe red traffic lights. I look forward to his next suggestions which may well be that cyclists need not carry lights at night and may venture on to motorways.

 

[jockscott]

Some cyclists , shouldn't use lights at night, dress in black and be allowed on to motorways. Scientists call this "Natural Selection."

 

[Norcon]

Glad I live in the sticks.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Glad I live in the sticks.

We all are.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Just bringing the thread back to the safety aspect.

You mean after you derailed it with arguments about costs, and then went running away like a little girl when I shredded your arguments

Shredded f*ck all.
You bored me with half a page of b*llocks about chocolate bars and dentists.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Answer the questions people need to know.

Why is there no safety/competency testing for cyclists unleashed onto the highway???

Why is it cyclists use the highway and pay f*ck all compared to the motorist.????

What's the lycra all about ?

Simple stuff.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Answer the questions people need to know.

Why is there no safety/competency testing for cyclists unleashed onto the highway???

Why is it cyclists use the highway and pay f*ck all compared to the motorist.????

What's the lycra all about ?

Simple stuff.

1)
There isn't sufficient need, a cyclist isn't going to flip it through a bus stop killing a dozen people at once. This however is very easy in a car.
(a mate of mine has actually flipped a car through a bus stop, despite having passed a test, etc etc. luckily it was 2am and no-one was there).

You'll be expecting pedestrian licenses next...

I do however, agree that some form of formal education is required, iirc we had a rozzer come into out school to talk about road safety. Simple enough.
Remember school swimming lessons? Maybe something towards that for pushbikes.

Then again I learned to swim at 2 and ride a pushbike at 3. So pretty redundant really. (I was 8 before learning to ride a motorbike, late starter...)

Maybe we should make children take expensive cycling tests so that they can play(!)

Perversely you need to pay waterways license and have insurance to use a canoe, bonkers.

2)

The motorist doesn't pay a direct road funding tax. Neither fuel or vehicle tax is directly linked to highways spending. Although cycling is about as damaging to tarmac as farting at it...

3)
They are perverts, I can't talk though, I wear lots of leather on a regular basis...

 

[sooey]

1)
There isn't sufficient need, a cyclist isn't going to flip it through a bus stop killing a dozen people at once. This however is very easy in a car.
(a mate of mine has actually flipped a car through a bus stop, despite having passed a test, etc etc. luckily it was 2am and no-one was there).

You'll be expecting pedestrian licenses next...

I do however, agree that some form of formal education is required, iirc we had a rozzer come into out school to talk about road safety. Simple enough.
Remember school swimming lessons? Maybe something towards that for pushbikes.

Then again I learned to swim at 2 and ride a pushbike at 3. So pretty redundant really. (I was 8 before learning to ride a motorbike, late starter...)

Maybe we should make children take expensive cycling tests so that they can play(!)

Perversely you need to pay waterways license and have insurance to use a canoe, bonkers.

2)

The motorist doesn't pay a direct road funding tax. Neither fuel or vehicle tax is directly linked to highways spending. Although cycling is about as damaging to tarmac as farting at it...

3)
They are perverts, I can't talk though, I wear lots of leather on a regular basis...

1) A cyclist is as capable as any other road user of causing a fatal accident. He wouldn't have to go near a bus stop to do it either, just pull out in front of another vehicle at the wrong time, the other vehicle then swerves through the bus stop taking out all the commuters.

2)Whether a cyclist causes wear on the roads is beside the point, they are road users the same as everyone. If there were no roads where would they cycle? They should pay like everyone else.

3)Agree with you on that one.

 

[JBR]

The motorist doesn't pay a direct road funding tax. Neither fuel or vehicle tax is directly linked to highways spending. Although cycling is about as damaging to tarmac as farting at it...

I don't care what the money is used for - we all know it's just another excuse to grab more money from us. The point is that the motorist is being stung, yet again, for the privilege of using the roads whilst the cyclist is not.

My other point is that I think cyclists should carry some form of identification, perhaps a number plate. Can anyone suggest any reason why this should not happen?