AK350Z Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Don't want to incriminate myself too much from my cycling days in Bristol ( ), but i've been nearly been cleaned up a few times on the streets. Most commonly at junctions and roundabouts where you are in the left hand lane to go straight on, and the car either tries to go through you to turn left, or try to get past and then turn in front of you! Having survived death, your thoughts certainly do tend towards "revenge", *Ahem*. Lets just say my three riding years at Uni resulted in a karma draw... But yes, as there are companies that already sell bike insurance against theft, so at least let them extend it to third party cover, I know me and Fran would take it out, after all, motorcycle insurance is somewhat of a bargin compared to cars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 cycle lanes work if they stay in them but they always have to cross over to other side etc if they want to turn right so thats were the danger bit comes in i think, guess its not big enough of a problem for anyone up there to worry about yet...imagine you had to to pay bicycle road tax that would be pretty mad Equally they require cars to stay out of them! IMO far better off that bikes integrate fully into the traffic flow as a proper vehical. Cars can only overtake if there is sufficent space so no more bikes getting squashed or bikes coming across the front of cars At the end of the day I tend to sway towards being bias towards bikes as cars are in just such a hurry to fly down to the next set of lights. The bike just catches them up on red again, so the car gains nothing but increasing stress levels for trying to beat the cyclist all the time. If everyone took it a bit easier then life would be so much more relaxed and safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I'm not a londoner and I don't commute in a city. I commute on country roads mainly so I see different dangers. Most 'serious' cyclists on my route have lights, helmets, proper bright reflective clothing etc and I just wait until it's safe to overtake. I do believe cylists can be on a road, I just think they should ride to a certain standard and have to pay insurance. Like all car and motorcycle riders do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebized Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 And who is paying for their cycle lanes, signs etc - yep, certainly not the cyclists whilst our car tax goes up with less of the road to use Oh forgot, round our way pavements are fair game for their use - perhaps that's why they don't have to pay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK350Z Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 And who is paying for their cycle lanes, signs etc - yep, certainly not the cyclists whilst our car tax goes up with less of the road to use Oh forgot, round our way pavements are fair game for their use - perhaps that's why they don't have to pay To be fair Colin, how much car tax gets spent on the roads anyway? Not enough judging by all the potholes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebized Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 And who is paying for their cycle lanes, signs etc - yep, certainly not the cyclists whilst our car tax goes up with less of the road to use Oh forgot, round our way pavements are fair game for their use - perhaps that's why they don't have to pay To be fair Colin, how much car tax gets spent on the roads anyway? Not enough judging by all the potholes! Agreed - that is why I did not specify what our car tax was spent on I should have added "with the bonus of dodging the increasing number of potholes on the remaining road that we can use" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 To be fair Colin, how much car tax gets spent on the roads anyway? Not enough judging by all the potholes! And even when they do try to repair it, it still doesnt work! There is strech of dual carridgeway that has been resufaced in Bracknell down by The Look Out / Swinley Forest which after roughly 2 days (YES 2 DAYS) they are resurfacing it as the surface has "failed" Also potholes add yet more danger to cyclists and other road users as they try to dodge them A lot of the country lanes I use to commute are absolutely screwed up where you should be riding the secondary position (~1m away from the curb), so I have to take primary all the time which I'm sure annoys other road users as if I was in secondary they could overtake, but I aint riding in the potholes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 Just to clarify the 'car tax' issue, nothing of that money goes directly to looking after the roads. The transit system is paid for out of your standard income tax. The 'car tax' is in fact an Excise Duty you pay for ownership of motor vehicles. So by working and paying income tax cyclists do pay towards the up keep of the roads. The pavements issue is a biggie though - often when the road gets too narrow for a bike to slip past a stationary car or traffic they jump onto pavements. This leads to a comment I read earlier about cars wanting to beat bikes, which is probably true, but what is also true is that bikes think that they need to beat slow moving or stationary motor traffic. The pavement is not an extra lane for bikes, if the gaps between cars is too small then bikes should wait just like everyone else, but often you find cyclists swerving across the road and up and down pavements in slow moving traffic to make their way through it which is downright dangerous and stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Fully agree chap - this is why they should use the same rules as motorcycles and filter down the right hand of traffic, taking the primary position when done. If everyone calmed down a bit, slow cyclists wouldnt hold anyone up much, especially in cities where you hit traffic lights again in another 100yrd. It does no one any favours IMO forcing cyclists to the left of the lane as it promotes cars to push past and also for cyclists to "undertake" down the inside or pavement when they feel they are pushed off the road (or being cheeky @*!# !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 Agree to a certain degree...I do though struggle to sit behind a cyclist in a car who is barely doing 5mph - even with traffic lights 100 yards down the road you can't have cars sat behind those lardies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangzoom Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I've been hit by cars whilst on my bike 3 times in roughly 3 years. All 3 occasions occured at junction wheres the car driver decided i wasn't there. Luckly all three incidents happened at low speed, so apart from 2 new front wheels, 3 cracked helmets, one scar down my left arm, and one on my left leg I've got nothing to show for it ....I've lost count the number of times i've nearly been hit or run over, this is despite me wearing a florescent jacket, lights etc Yes i run the odd red light, and occasionally will take to the pavement to avoid traffic etc....but before every one decides how bad cyclists are at following the highway code, you should all spend a few days commuting on a bike and your see how many bad car drivers there are on the roads, all of who I assume have passed their driving test....infact the last time i was knocked off my bike, it was by a car running a red light because "he didn't realise the light had turned red" and had the "shock of his life when he hit me" These days I cycle as aggressively as I can..I'll quite happily up hold up traffic if I feel there isn't safe space for a car to over take...my logic is simple, why should i be pushed into a kerb and fall off (which I've seen happen to other cyclists) just because some idiot wants drive a bit faster...Infact when ever I cycle I'm pretty much in "survial mode", I see every car as a potential threat to my life, I will happily shout at people, tap on windows, and generally do what ever it takes to stay alive... So as much as cyclists seem to annoy alot of people, just remember your surrounded by 1.5 tons of metal when you have an accident in you car, and the worst most you will ever have to deal with is phoning the insurance company or lossing your no-claims discount...but for a cyclist, skin/bone is very weak compared to tarmac and metal For the same reason I would never willing ride a motorbike on british roads...theres simply too many idiots driving around on the roads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Cyclists and motorcyclists have a lot in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 I think this demonstrates the point exactly though - a lot of the time cars do things which are wrong which is fine, if its done without deliberate intent. Cyclists do it but with total intent and knowing what they are doing. If I am driving at 20mph and a cyclists comes up the inside of my car and my car moves three or four inches to the left due to a road situation ahead of me I am sorry but bang on my window at your own peril. Like any overtaking (or dangerous undertaking) manouvre it is the responsiblity of the cyclist to make sure its safe to do so - if its not, then wait. In my experience I would say 80%-90% of cyclists in London break fundamental rules of the road every time they take to it. That number is no where near for cars in fact I would say again from experience that 70%-80% of cars drive from point of departure to point of arrival without breaking the law and using the roads sensibly. I used to subscribe to Cycling Plus and once read in there an interview with a leading spokesman for cyclists in the UK and he said it was ok for bikes to run red lights if safe to do so - its this sheep leading sheep mentality that is so dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I used to subscribe to Cycling Plus and once read in there an interview with a leading spokesman for cyclists in the UK and he said it was ok for bikes to run red lights if safe to do so - its this sheep leading sheep mentality that is so dangerous. This really pisses me off when people of such power blatently flaunt the law, as you say its leads people like sheep to do the same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 That's a total disgrace. 3 points on your license each time, 4 red lights and you're banned. Oh wait, hang on a minute........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangzoom Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 If I am driving at 20mph and a cyclists comes up the inside of my car and my car moves three or four inches to the left due to a road situation ahead of me I am sorry but bang on my window at your own peril. Like any overtaking (or dangerous undertaking) manouvre it is the responsiblity of the cyclist to make sure its safe to do so - if its not, then wait. So you're happly run someone over if they bang on your window to let you know their road position... isn't that close to manslaughter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangzoom Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 number is no where near for cars in fact I would say again from experience that 70%-80% of cars drive from point of departure to point of arrival without breaking the law and using the roads sensibly. Really? 70-80% of drivers never break the 30mph speed limit, signal every time they want to turn, leave enough space to the car in front to stop, don't talk on their mobile phone whilst trying to eat their breakfeast?? London drivers must be much bette than people here in Leicester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancer Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I used to get pretty pi**ed off with Cyclists.. but now I'm one of them I've got a 25min / 9 mile commute to work with a mix of roads and, given that I work 3 different shifts, a mix of traffic conditions. As someone on the first page has mentioned, I'm now probably a far more considerate and better driver for being a cyclist and I'm certainly a better cyclist for being a driver! Any cyclist running lights should be done for it unless they're on their way to p**s on a burning orphanage and in all honesty if I see any doing it whilst I'm at work I'm likely to stop them and summons them. Most of the guys and girls at work who use bikes would do the same. I can see both sides of the argument for cycle licenses and insurance - the main problem I have with that idea is that it would cost me more money and shortly followed by the fact that I, like many people, had a bike when I was a kid. I didn't have a motor vehicle though! Incidentally, cycling on the pavement is illegal and there are specific offences in the road traffic act for cyclists too. Many more people seem to be turning to cycling now, which I think is brilliant, but people need to be more aware of the law's governing cycling - lack of knowledge is no excuse for offending behavior. Cops need to do more too though. As for me personally, I look like a right idiot when I'm cycling. Day-glo clothing with reflective bandings, bright helmet and over £100's worth of lighting. I'd rather look like an idiot than look like a stain on the ground. I've seen enough cyclists severally injured by traffic at work to make me very aware at how vulnerable I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Running someone over is not mentioned in Coldels post. Maybe (like me) Coldel would be upset if someone banged on his window...... Anyway, I'm not putting words into someones mouth here. One question though Gangzoom as I'm interested. Do you have some kind of insurance for using your bike on the road? If so, how does it work? If not and you hit a car through a fault of your riding, how would you deal with it? Someone told me that 'all cyclists have insurance' but I didn't believe them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancer Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/ It's available, I'll freely admit that I don't have any. However I only use my bike for commuting to work at the minute, so as soon as I start my journey I'm on duty and have public liability cover.. tenuous, but it's there. I should probably get cycle insurance. If a cyclist damages your car, they are liable.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I know it's available but I just didn't believe that 'all cyclists have insurance' So they are liable, but if they don't stop or refuse to give details or give false details what can you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancer Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I know it's available but I just didn't believe that 'all cyclists have insurance' Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'd say most don't have insurance. So they are liable, but if they don't stop or refuse to give details or give false details what can you do? Even less than with a car unfortunately. At least with a car you can take the VRM. A cop can, in a roundabout fashion, arrest someone for not providing their details, but if there are no cop's around it's a pretty poor situation to be in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 Just wait at the same spot the following day and when he comes past drive over him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I know it's available but I just didn't believe that 'all cyclists have insurance' Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'd say most don't have insurance. So they are liable, but if they don't stop or refuse to give details or give false details what can you do? Even less than with a car unfortunately. At least with a car you can take the VRM. A cop can, in a roundabout fashion, arrest someone for not providing their details, but if there are no cop's around it's a pretty poor situation to be in. Just as I thought. Thanks for that info. Just means that if a cyclist were to hit my car and not play ball I would feel less guilty about hitting them with their bike as if it didn't hit my car it didn't hit them...... I still think that ALL road users should have insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 I guess by making it law that bikes need a licence or insurance, that if a bike causes a collision with a car then the aforementioned incident instead of the cyclist taking the guy for everything he has he will have to pedal off if uninsured - at least it prevents those sorts of spurious claims - even if it means you dont catch the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.