Jump to content
IGNORED

Cyclists


BigTone

Recommended Posts

Ok given the media coverage of that guy Charlie Alliston who killed a pedestrian while riding a bike with no brakes, I ask this question:

Should cyclists be required to take a test for a license, tax their bikes, MOT their bikes and have insurance in the same way that a vehicle driver must ?  Given my own experience of cyclists I have to answer with a very large YES.  One way streets are exactly that. Red lights are exactly that. Pavements are exactly that. Why is it different if you ride a bike ?

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by the number of cars and drivers who fail to meet the legal requirements (like no tax, no insurance, no licence  :bruce_h4h:, and apart from the poor standards on the road) I suspect that any attempt to enforce the laws on cyclists will still not eradicate the small percentage of those who are the cause.  :sunwon:

Demanding the same sort of regulation for cyclists as motorists do now is asking for a very big effort and whole new layer of bureaucracy - payable from the public purse, no doubt.

It really boils down to the old verity: the law is irrelevant unless it is enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Erithacus said:

 the law is irrelevant unless it is enforced.

Most cyclists seem to consider themselves above any law.  Use the roads then abide by the same laws as other users. Seems fair to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Erithacus said:

 

Demanding the same sort of regulation for cyclists as motorists do now is asking for a very big effort and whole new layer of bureaucracy - payable from the public purse, no doubt.

 

No, its payable by the cyclists in the same way as it is other road users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BigTone said:

No, its payable by the cyclists in the same way as it is other road users.

Yep.

Based on emissions.

Bikes have nada.

19 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Most cyclists seem to consider themselves above any law. 

Some cyclists do.

I do 100%.

One interface with Mrs Rimhole running my bike over in her death machine while I went into full break fall when I was obeying the law leads me to ...

Preserve life.

Use the pavement.

Use the red light.

I NAVIGATE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTone said:

Ok given the media coverage of that guy Charlie Alliston who killed a pedestrian while riding a bike with no brakes, I ask this question:

Should cyclists be required to take a test for a license, tax their bikes, MOT their bikes and have insurance in the same way that a vehicle driver must ?  Given my own experience of cyclists I have to answer with a very large YES.  One way streets are exactly that. Red lights are exactly that. Pavements are exactly that. Why is it different if you ride a bike ?

Rant over.

I'm 100% in agreement Tone.

Living in country as I do il'd add horses to those that should pay road tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Yep.

Based on emissions.

Bikes have nada.

Some cyclists do.

I do 100%.

One interface with Mrs Rimhole running my bike over in her death machine while I went into full break fall when I was obeying the law leads me to ...

Preserve life.

Use the pavement.

Use the red light.

I NAVIGATE.

Lady leaves shop and looks to walk across one way street. Cyclist coming in the wrong direction creams her and puts her in hospital. He can't see what he has done wrong and wants to leave the scene. Myself and several others prevent this until the police arrive. Lady in question suffers several fractures.

Don't use the old emissions excuse because it is bull shite and you know it.

Pavements are for pedestrians.  Red lights are to be obeyed. If you don't know or understand the rules of the road then don't use it. You NAVIGATE what exactly ?

You Sir are a classic example of why cyclists should be licensed and you quite happily admit to being above the law ........... unbelievable attitude.

Are you like the Alliston idiot who would then shout abuse at his dying victim in the road ?  Something tells me you probably would and would talk yourself into believing you are in the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Lady leaves shop and looks to walk across one way street. Cyclist coming in the wrong direction creams her and puts her in hospital. He can't see what he has done wrong and wants to leave the scene. Myself and several others prevent this until the police arrive. Lady in question suffers several fractures.

Don't use the old emissions excuse because it is bull shite and you know it.

Pavements are for pedestrians.

You Sir are a classic example of why cyclists should be licensed and you admit to being above the law ........... unbelievable attitude.

Nah..

Emissions is truth and you know it carbon head.

But its only health and asthma is no care of yours. 

The weapon of choice for a nutjob terrorist is now a vehicle.

Not a bike.

Turn the dial to left a bit and nutjobs are still there cocooned in their metal ... And behaving as they would never outside of their motor.

Get on your bike and that threat is always there.

The menace hangs with the carbon in the air.

Drivers want IQ testing and psychological profiling ... Lot of potential criminal yet to be apprehended the moment the motor kicks over.

I Sir on anther day am a classic could have been a fatality .. Got lucky that day ... Bike was beyond repair ... My torso is less resilient. ... PAVEMENT HERE I COME when my in built risk assessment says so.

Your car driven rage looking at fellow humans as targets is the reason why millions don't cycle, and millions cycle in manner to avoid those in vehicles stopping those from cycling.

No problem with cyclists REAL irresponsiblity being dealt with.

Will admit to a bit of community action myself when a van driver hurled rubbish at pedestrians heads.

Another who needed profiling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Nah..

Emissions is truth and you know it carbon head.

But its only health and asthma is no care of yours. 

The weapon of choice for a nutjob terrorist is now a vehicle.

Not a bike.

Turn the dial to left a bit and nutjobs are still there cocooned in their metal ... And behaving as they would never outside of their motor.

Get on your bike and that threat is always there.

The menace hangs with the carbon in the air.

Drivers want IQ testing and psychological profiling ... Lot of potential criminal yet to be apprehended the moment the motor kicks over.

I Sir on anther day am a classic could have been a fatality .. Got lucky that day ... Bike was beyond repair ... My torso is less resilient. ... PAVEMENT HERE I COME when my in built risk assessment says so.

Your car driven rage looking at fellow humans as targets is the reason why millions don't cycle, and millions cycle in manner to avoid those in vehicles stopping those from cycling.

No problem with cyclists REAL irresponsiblity being dealt with.

Will admit to a bit of community action myself when a van driver hurled rubbish at pedestrians heads.

Another who needed profiling.

 

You really should go back over what you have written and understand where you are going wrong.  You have an unbelievable attitude especially when comparing everything with a terrorist. There is only one nutjob here and you Sir are it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Yep.

Based on emissions.

Bikes have nada.

Some cyclists do.

I do 100%.

One interface with Mrs Rimhole running my bike over in her death machine while I went into full break fall when I was obeying the law leads me to ...

Preserve life.

Use the pavement.

Use the red light.

I NAVIGATE.

Dicks who mount the pavement should be charged with riding without due care and attention. Dicks who ride on the road where there is a cycle lane should be charged with being ******* stupid.

 

Next time you navigate the pavement then be prepared to navigate your way to hospital, class one cock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kevinmabbuttshair said:

Dicks who mount the pavement should be charged with riding without due care and attention. Dicks who ride on the road where there is a cycle lane should be charged with being ******* stupid.

 

Next time you navigate the pavement then be prepared to navigate your way to hospital, class one cock

Hardman eh ..

Tough guy.

Almost wishing harm on others.

Or did.

Hospital

Teeny weensy thoughts on a forum made you angry.

And that karma is allowed to drive.

And that is the problem.

The pavement frequently offers safety from that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BigTone said:

You really should go back over what you have written and understand where you are going wrong.  You have an unbelievable attitude especially when comparing everything with a terrorist. There is only one nutjob here and you Sir are it.

Simple analogy.

Bikes are not used as weapons.

Vehicles are.

Bike v car only one winner there.

Its the power your have.

Your merry first post.

No thought for why or kids or anything.

Don't like cyclists.

Hate even.

I like drivers .. Most of them. 

Don't hate anybody.

But cyclists have to contend with people who change the moment they sit behind that wheel. 

Its why Bristol is covered in speed bumps.

20 signs.

Cycle paths to go round you. avoid you.

People change the moment they sit behind that wheel.

The road is no communal space.

Because there is communal thought.

Many car drivers are contestants, contesting merging into lanes with anger in their minds, finger on the horn, hand signs at the ready ...  

And at times it is sensible to use what ever is there to avoid the really rotten ones.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attitude to cyclists depends upon where you live.

When I lived in central London I thought that cyclists were selfish, arrogant, and dangerous.  Because they were.

Now I live in a small town I find cyclists pleasant and considerate. Sure they cycle on pavements as it's safer for them, but slowly and even more slowly when coming up to people.  They will even stop.  Red lights are obeyed 

I have even been known to cycle myself.

 

So back to the OP I would require these things to ride bikes in zones in busy city centres but not as a general requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Simple analogy.

Bikes are not used as weapons.   - Tell that to the family of Charlie Allistons victim

Vehicles are.      - many things can be used as a weapon

Bike v car only one winner there.     - why so ?

Its the power your have.     - nonsensical comment 

Your merry first post.   - and your point is ?

No thought for why or kids or anything.   - kids should be taught how to ride and the rules of the road same as anyone else

Don't like cyclists.   - nonsensical comment

Hate even.   - nonsensical comment

I like drivers .. Most of them.   - good for you

Don't hate anybody.  - good for you

But cyclists have to contend with people who change the moment they sit behind that wheel.   - nonsensical comment

Its why Bristol is covered in speed bumps.   -  and your point is ?

20 signs.   - nonsensical comment

Cycle paths to go round you. avoid you.  - nonsensical comment

People change the moment they sit behind that wheel.  - nonsensical comment

The road is no communal space.  - nonsensical comment

Because there is communal thought.  - nonsensical comment

Many car drivers are contestants, contesting merging into lanes with anger in their minds, finger on the horn, hand signs at the ready ...   - and bike riders don't ??

And at times it is sensible to use what ever is there to avoid the really rotten ones.  - not if putting others at risk

 

 

 

 

Interesting posts always done in a Power Point format using bullet points to try and push the point of view home. Problem is most of the points make no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Your attitude to cyclists depends upon where you live.

When I lived in central London I thought that cyclists were selfish, arrogant, and dangerous.  Because they were.

Now I live in a small town I find cyclists pleasant and considerate. Sure they cycle on pavements as it's safer for them, but slowly and even more slowly when coming up to people.  They will even stop.  Red lights are obeyed 

I have even been known to cycle myself.

 

So back to the OP I would require these things to ride bikes in zones in busy city centres but not as a general requirement.

I would go along with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully the tragic accident referred to in the opening post is a rarity and most cycling accidents if fatal involve the cyclists themselves... (cycle at your own risk sort of thing as its always been).

By far the most annoying kind of vehicle/pedestrian/cycle incidents are of a more trivial nature (& if the law took more robust and positive action regarding law breaking cyclists... no lights, ignoring rules of the road, riding on footpaths etc... there would be far fewer of these incidents occurring) come on Police, when was the last time you actually took action in these cases? You see it everyday the same as the rest of us so get your bloody books out and start prosecuting/issuing fixed penalties... please!

For motorists the bloody annoying and expensive consequences of cycle/vehicle scrapes are usually busted light clusters, damaged paintwork and smashed off door mirrors, accidents often caused by anonymous cyclists when cars are parked, or in traffic when the unknown cyclist makes off leaving a driver helpless to stop them and with a costly repair bill.

I've often thought that cyclists should be registered and have compulsory third party annual insurance cover (shouldn't be too costly) . The insurance and registration being personal to the cyclist themselves not the bike.

Registered cyclists should have a personal registration id number (similar to the lucence plate on vehicles) and this number should be printed clearly onto hi vis vests which MUST BE WORN every time the cyclist takes to the road (an offence if caught riding without it) .... this way the anonymity of cyclists involved in minor, but costly, accidents would be less of an issue because hopefully there would be no point in riding off as chances are someone would have noted their reg number anyway.. and their third party insurance will pick up the tab..

Similarly other road 'offences' would be easier for police to follow up, and penalties for wearing false reg numbers should be severe, or riders without vests would be instantly stoppable and dealt with.

I'm sure a scheme similar to the above would work and is what is needed today on Britains hectic roads. (prob needs tweaking a bit but its workable) isn't it?

Most sensible and honest cyclists wouldn't have a problem (they'd be safer thanks to compulsory hi vis vests for one thing), they wouldn't necessarily welcome the small insurance charges but must see the sense and fairness to other road users of it, the idiot unregistered/insured cyclists would soon feel the deterrent effect once they get a fixed penalty or two.

Who knows it could even begin to make relationships between the various road users/payers a bit less resentful..

(car drivers who sometimes take to peddle power could prob have bike cover added to their existing car insurance for a nominal extra..)

Penalties for non compliance must be strict though and the police would have to be 'on it' ....

 

That's my thoughts anyway, for what they're worth... :sunwon:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

Thankfully the tragic accident referred to in the opening post is a rarity and most cycling accidents if fatal involve the cyclists themselves... (cycle at your own risk sort of thing as its always been).

By far the most annoying kind of vehicle/pedestrian/cycle incidents are of a more trivial nature (& if the law took more robust and positive action regarding law breaking cyclists... no lights, ignoring rules of the road, riding on footpaths etc... there would be far fewer of these incidents occurring) come on Police, when was the last time you actually took action in these cases? You see it everyday the same as the rest of us so get your bloody books out and start prosecuting/issuing fixed penalties... please!

For motorists the bloody annoying and expensive consequences of cycle/vehicle scrapes are usually busted light clusters, damaged paintwork and smashed off door mirrors, accidents often caused by anonymous cyclists when cars are parked, or in traffic when the unknown cyclist makes off leaving a driver helpless to stop them and with a costly repair bill.

I've often thought that cyclists should be registered and have compulsory third party annual insurance cover (shouldn't be too costly) . The insurance and registration being personal to the cyclist themselves not the bike.

Registered cyclists should have a personal registration id number (similar to the lucence plate on vehicles) and this number should be printed clearly onto hi vis vests which MUST BE WORN every time the cyclist takes to the road (an offence if caught riding without it) .... this way the anonymity of cyclists involved in minor, but costly, accidents would be less of an issue because hopefully there would be no point in riding off as chances are someone would have noted their reg number anyway.. and their third party insurance will pick up the tab..

Similarly other road 'offences' would be easier for police to follow up, and penalties for wearing false reg numbers should be severe, or riders without vests would be instantly stoppable and dealt with.

I'm sure a scheme similar to the above would work and is what is needed today on Britains hectic roads. (prob needs tweaking a bit but its workable) isn't it?

Most sensible and honest cyclists wouldn't have a problem (they'd be safer thanks to compulsory hi vis vests for one thing), they wouldn't necessarily welcome the small insurance charges but must see the sense and fairness to other road users of it, the idiot unregistered/insured cyclists would soon feel the deterrent effect once they get a fixed penalty or two.

Who knows it could even begin to make relationships between the various road users/payers a bit less resentful..

(car drivers who sometimes take to peddle power could prob have bike cover added to their existing car insurance for a nominal extra..)

Penalties for non compliance must be strict though and the police would have to be 'on it' ....

 

That's my thoughts anyway, for what they're worth... :sunwon:

 

 

You've got my vote  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

Thankfully the tragic accident referred to in the opening post is a rarity and most cycling accidents if fatal involve the cyclists themselves... (cycle at your own risk sort of thing as its always been).

By far the most annoying kind of vehicle/pedestrian/cycle incidents are of a more trivial nature (& if the law took more robust and positive action regarding law breaking cyclists... no lights, ignoring rules of the road, riding on footpaths etc... there would be far fewer of these incidents occurring) come on Police, when was the last time you actually took action in these cases? You see it everyday the same as the rest of us so get your bloody books out and start prosecuting/issuing fixed penalties... please!

For motorists the bloody annoying and expensive consequences of cycle/vehicle scrapes are usually busted light clusters, damaged paintwork and smashed off door mirrors, accidents often caused by anonymous cyclists when cars are parked, or in traffic when the unknown cyclist makes off leaving a driver helpless to stop them and with a costly repair bill.

I've often thought that cyclists should be registered and have compulsory third party annual insurance cover (shouldn't be too costly) . The insurance and registration being personal to the cyclist themselves not the bike.

Registered cyclists should have a personal registration id number (similar to the lucence plate on vehicles) and this number should be printed clearly onto hi vis vests which MUST BE WORN every time the cyclist takes to the road (an offence if caught riding without it) .... this way the anonymity of cyclists involved in minor, but costly, accidents would be less of an issue because hopefully there would be no point in riding off as chances are someone would have noted their reg number anyway.. and their third party insurance will pick up the tab..

Similarly other road 'offences' would be easier for police to follow up, and penalties for wearing false reg numbers should be severe, or riders without vests would be instantly stoppable and dealt with.

I'm sure a scheme similar to the above would work and is what is needed today on Britains hectic roads. (prob needs tweaking a bit but its workable) isn't it?

Most sensible and honest cyclists wouldn't have a problem (they'd be safer thanks to compulsory hi vis vests for one thing), they wouldn't necessarily welcome the small insurance charges but must see the sense and fairness to other road users of it, the idiot unregistered/insured cyclists would soon feel the deterrent effect once they get a fixed penalty or two.

Who knows it could even begin to make relationships between the various road users/payers a bit less resentful..

(car drivers who sometimes take to peddle power could prob have bike cover added to their existing car insurance for a nominal extra..)

Penalties for non compliance must be strict though and the police would have to be 'on it' ....

 

That's my thoughts anyway, for what they're worth... :sunwon:

 

 

As somebody involved in sport via employment one of the areas I want more people involved in physical activity.

The reality is that individuals such as myself who want kids to be playing football and sports that are multi lateral is we do not recommend cycling. Its a non activity, a non considerable for many parents. Bristol's roads are too dangerous for children.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

As somebody involved in sport via employment one of the areas I want more people involved in physical activity.

The reality is that individuals such as myself who want kids to be playing football and sports that are multi lateral is we do not recommend cycling. Its a non activity, a non considerable for many parents. Bristol's roads are too dangerous for children.  

Agreed, any 'parent' who allows their child to ride on Britains crazy roads nowadays deserve a visit from social services.

....& wtf those 'right on'  hippy throwbacks that tow their toddlers around town behind their bloody pushbikes in those dumb ass trailer carts (safe in the knowledge that the safety flag behind them held aloft on a flexi flag pole, is keeping little Tarquin perfectly safe) are thinking #### only knows!  ...  ''That's it Tarqs get a good healthy lungfull of 'fresh air''   cough, splutter.

  bike-trailer.jpg How are these even allowed in todays health and safety obsessed Britain?

 

Take the kids and their bikes along the relatively safe network of cycle paths but ffs keep 'em well away from and off the bloody roads.!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

Agreed, any 'parent' who allows their child to ride on Britains crazy roads nowadays deserve a visit from social services.

....& wtf those 'right on'  hippy throwbacks that tow their toddlers around town behind their bloody pushbikes in those dumb ass trailer carts (safe in the knowledge that the safety flag behind them held aloft on a flexi flag pole, is keeping little Tarquin perfectly safe) are thinking #### only knows!  ...  ''That's it Tarqs get a good healthy lungfull of 'fresh air''   cough, splutter.

  bike-trailer.jpg How are these even allowed in todays health and safety obsessed Britain?

 

Take the kids and their bikes along the relatively safe network of cycle paths but ffs keep 'em well away from and off the bloody roads.!!!

And the irony is you will often have to drive to the cycle paths.

As a family who own a vehicle and bicycles I am the only one who cycles on the road, my family are too fearful to do likewise, I do this in the knowledge that what I do is the most dangerous activity I will do in my life, because my safety is not determined by myself.

Nowhere in my life do I face such risk and draw others animosity. Drivers being aggressive to other drivers is something we will all frequently witness, but my experience is that this animosity is multiplied on a bicycle often for no reason beyond drivers territorial attitude to the road.

Grown up discussion should always start with what is the worst that could happen to you. In a car generally not a lot versus a cyclist, the cyclist versus any vehicle?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

 

Grown up discussion should always start with what is the worst that could happen to you. In a car generally not lot, on a bicycle?  

2 questions:

1) How many people do you know killed in a car ?

2) How many people do you know killed on a bike ?

The point of my original post was simply that cyclists should be treated no different to any other road users. They should be licensed and insurance should be mandatory as it is for all other vehicles.  As mentioned in a previous post I have witnessed an accident involving a bike that put an innocent pedestrian in hospital with possibly life changing injuries.

Answering my own questions above:

1) Well into double figures

2) Zero

But hey, I appreciate that's just my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BigTone said:

2 questions:

1) How many people do you know killed in a car ?

2) How many people do you know killed on a bike ?

The point of my original post was simply that cyclists should be treated no different to any other road users. They should be licensed and insurance should be mandatory as it is for all other vehicles.  As mentioned in a previous post I have witnessed an accident involving a bike that put an innocent pedestrian in hospital with possibly life changing injuries.

Answering my own questions above:

1) Well into double figures

2) Zero

But hey, I appreciate that's just my experience.

You ignored the points in my post.

None (knowing) in answer to both of your questions.

I know two people killed on motorbikes in collisions with cars. 

How many cyclist do I know who were hit by vehicles due to no fault of their own. Quite a few. How many cyclist do I know who came off worse v vehicles. All of them. How many cyclist do I know who were hit by vehicles due to no fault of their own and had serious injuries several. Drivers injured v bicycles? Nil.

Cyclists are seen by too many drivers as the enemy.  As I cyclist I experience that.  I have been abused by drivers for obeying the law on the road. I experience aggression from vehicle drivers for obeying the law on the road. I have had to evade vehicles being driven at speed through cycle paths, it is a common occurrence. Confrontation with vehicle drivers for no reason beyond you occupy their road goes with cycling. This is monthly, weekly. That is the reality.

Cycling around Cities is a test of what nerve you have. Some people are scared of heights. People (many) do not dream of cycling around a City and many Towns due to the risk.

As another poster stated crazy roads, no place for kids. Too dangerous. He was not making it up. That is the reality. That is what society has lost due to the attitude of too many drivers. 

There is no parity for the cyclist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conclusion.... Roads are dangerous places... avoid if possible, use appropriate forms of transport if not...

A nice walk along a beach in sandals us lovely... trekking uo a mountain path your likely to break a leg in those sandals, so keep off the mountain or wear appropriate boots...

In other words if there's a nice safe pavement -enjoy a walk ... 

If the road is too dangerous to safely cycle on... get off of yer bike and bloody walk, for your own and everyone else safety.

Driving motor vehicles of all descriptions on over crowded roads is a hazardous often unavoidable necessity, drivers often need eyes in the back of their heads, in poor light conditions especially when dark and drizzly it s hard enough as it is without unexpected almost invisible (even with oft missing cycle lights switched on)  cycles suddenly appearing out of the gloom from unexpected directions.... for Gods sake (& your own) get off your bikes and walk or jumps on a bus, why risk avoidable stress and injury 'just because you can'? 

If you want to walk uo that mountain in your sandals ( because you can & its your right, & no one can stop you) then go ahead ,  go bare foot if you want... but the fact remains is you'd be an idiot doing a risky thing..  Just because roads exist and its your right to use them doesn't mean its a sensible thing to do when conditions aren't good.

Got a boat? Great enjoy it, but when the sea gets rough only a tosser would leave the harbour just because you can.

It all boils down to that rare commodity, ..common sense & having respect for those around you and the circumstances they are dealing with.

Trouble ?... its ALWAYS best avoided when possible, regardless of rights and wrongs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

You ignored the points in my post.

None (knowing) in answer to both of your questions.

I know two people killed on motorbikes in collisions with cars. 

How many cyclist do I know who were hit by vehicles due to no fault of their own. Quite a few. How many cyclist do I know who came off worse v vehicles. All of them. How many cyclist do I know who were hit by vehicles due to no fault of their own and had serious injuries several. Drivers injured v bicycles? Nil.

Cyclists are seen by too many drivers as the enemy.  As I cyclist I experience that.  I have been abused by drivers for obeying the law on the road. I experience aggression from vehicle drivers for obeying the law on the road. I have had to evade vehicles being driven at speed through cycle paths, it is a common occurrence. Confrontation with vehicle drivers for no reason beyond you occupy their road goes with cycling. This is monthly, weekly. That is the reality.

Cycling around Cities is a test of what nerve you have. Some people are scared of heights. People (many) do not dream of cycling around a City and many Towns due to the risk.

As another poster stated crazy roads, no place for kids. Too dangerous. He was not making it up. That is the reality. That is what society has lost due to the attitude of too many drivers. 

There is no parity for the cyclist.

 

No, I didn't ignore the points in your post but instead answered them. You stated quite clearly that a lot less is likely to happen to someone in a car than on a bike. I simply asked the question to what was a somewhat generalised statement.

Anyway, back to the point of my original post which seems to have been lost with the "everyone hates cyclists" brigade. I have no concern over how many cyclists use the road, however I do believe that they should be licensed, taxed and have insurance.  I understand fully that roads are dangerous places hence the reason I believe this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...