94 Million set aside for cycling

[PerryGunn]

I agree that it is education that is needed and that's why I have been dogged on this thread fighting the cyclist corner. Now I very rarely come into contact with a set of traffic lights or ride on an A road and go out of my way to give respect to all other road users. What makes my blood boil is that when I or my law abiding cycling colleagues get tarred with the same brush with those idiots that cycle on pavements and jump red lights but as a minority group we seem to be an easy target for non-cycling motorists. I would not dream to blame a car driver for the sins of those motorists that consistently flout the law.
I hope that the £94 million is indeed spent wisely improving cycleways in built up areas but I feel that far more will be needed to bring them up to the standard required for safe cycling and give cyclists a reason not to cycle on A roads and other busy B roads.

problem you have lillywhite is your a considerate cyclist from the sounds of it. from your posts you sound like you ride with some consideration, are visible with lights vests etc and i see many cyclists on a daily basis that are the same. where i drive mostly is in the city and i have to say people like that are a minority. maybe its just where i am but i would say well over 60% of people on bikes jump lights, cross onto pavements to through lights, don't wear hats, don't have any lights on at all, will ride/pull out in front of you with no notice, don't use the cycle lanes that are there the list is endless. On a daily basis i see so many near misses involving cars and bikes where it is the bikes fault for going through a red or not looking when moving out. its very easy for people to get a bad attitude towards cyclists when your confronted with morons who do give you a bad name all the time.

Oh yes - I was on the way to the tip yesterday when a middle-aged bloke on a bike came out of a left-hand side road about 50 yards in front of me, turned right and cycled directly at me on the wrong side (my side) of the road (there was no traffic coming the other way), I immediately slowed expecting him to veer across into the correct lane but, instead, he carried on and went past me on my left i.e. between my car and the kerb then moved back out into the middle of 'my' lane and carried on cycling 'backwards' down the road - I was absolutely gobsmacked at the arrogant stupidity, I don't often feel like whacking somebody around the head with a length of 4x2 but....

People like that shouldn't be allowed on the roads - in fact i'm not convinced they should even be allowed to walk on the pavements

 

[Lillywhite]

I understand what you are saying and see a few cyclists when I visit Cambridge behaving like idiots, however whenever I'm in a city or town I see many more motorists also behaving like idiots with little consideration for other road users and they're the ones likely to kill someone.

 

[PerryGunn]

I understand what you are saying and see a few cyclists when I visit Cambridge behaving like idiots, however whenever I'm in a city or town I see many more motorists also behaving like idiots with little consideration for other road users and they're the ones likely to kill someone.

Sorry, I don't think that's a valid argument...

I completely accept that, as you say, cyclists have a right to use the roads but surely there should be no objection if there was a requirement for them to prove that they are safe to do so. Other road users face compulsory tests before they are allowed on the roads unsupervised so why shouldn't cyclists? You would still get a few 'idiots' just as you do with car drivers but compulsory training & licencing might reduce the number of fatalities...

 

[Lillywhite]

Other road users face compulsory tests before they are allowed on the roads unsupervised so why shouldn't cyclists? You would still get a few 'idiots' just as you do with car drivers but compulsory training & licencing might reduce the number of fatalities...

The point you appear to be missing is that motorists are in charge of a 'motorised vehicle' which lets face it is a lethal weapon in the hands of the wrong person. This is the basis for implementing a driving test after WW2. What you saying is that everyone else that uses the road should undertake some compulsory training and licensing? Sorry but that will never be considered by the politicians because it is far too impractical and would cost the taxpayer millions to implement and administer.

 

[domsz4]

sadly perry something along those lines is quite common I'm very surprised I've not seen an serious accident yet from all parties involved.

yes i also see my fair share of crap driving. people pulling out randomly, crossing lanes, parking inconsiderately etc. but in this context i referring specifically to bikes. Its not a few here its many (on all counts) i also see the same people doing the same stupid stuff day in day out. for me the issue isn't their right to be on the road its how cyclists use it and sadly my experience is mostly around here a large number behave badly. (not all)

 

[Lillywhite]

People like that shouldn't be allowed on the roads - in fact i'm not convinced they should even be allowed to walk on the pavements

A bit like the person that decided to ride to the pub on their bike, have a few sherbets, have a wobbly on the way home, fall off and cut their head on the road through not wearing a helmet. :wink:
Sorry Perry but I couldn't resist.

The bloke you saw the other day is a twat of the first order but would licensing stop them? No because it's the same as untaxed and uninsured motorists who very often also don't have a license to drive. This does not stop them getting into a car and driving. OK license all cyclists but it wouldn't stop those that flout the law.

 

[Lillywhite]

sadly perry something along those lines is quite common I'm very surprised I've not seen an serious accident yet from all parties involved.

How often does this inconsiderate behaviour by people on bikes actually cause an accident or worse still cause personal injury or death to other road users? In the case that Perry mentioned the bloke himself was more likely to get hurt.

 

[PerryGunn]

Other road users face compulsory tests before they are allowed on the roads unsupervised so why shouldn't cyclists? You would still get a few 'idiots' just as you do with car drivers but compulsory training & licencing might reduce the number of fatalities...

The point you appear to be missing is that motorists are in charge of a 'motorised vehicle' which lets face it is a lethal weapon in the hands of the wrong person. This is the basis for implementing a driving test after WW2. What you saying is that everyone else that uses the road should undertake some compulsory training and licensing? Sorry but that will never be considered by the politicians because it is far too impractical and would cost the taxpayer millions to implement and administer.

I'm not missing the point at all, I'm saying that anyone who is going to share the road space with 'potentially-lethal motorised vehicles', whose operators have been tested to ensure that they are safe to operate said vehicles should also have some compulsory training and testing to ensure that they are competent and safe to be mixing with said 'potentially-lethal motorised vehicles'. Roads are much more crowded now than they were after WW2 and it's well past time that all road users were tested to ensure that they are competent.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that someone who has never ridden a motorbike, driven a car or even been on a bike before can nip in Halfords, buy a bike, and then pedal off down a busy A-road, wobbling all over the place, without so much as a passing acquaintance with the highway code. Surely an incompetent cyclist is much more likely to end up under the wheels of a car and, in those circumstances, the cyclist might be dead but the driver (who may have done nothing whatsoever wrong) is going to have to live with that trauma for the rest of their lives (read up on some of the psychological problems suffered by train drivers who have hit people).

Cyclists always seem to raise objections when anyone mentions compulsory training/testing/insurance, but perhaps you can offer a cogent argument as to why would it not be in everyone's interest if all road users were tested before being allowed on the roads unsupervised?

To cover your final point, putting political considerations aside as a deus ex-machina argument that relies on the (non)intervention of politicians is completely out of place in the context of an Internet discussion, it wouldn't cost 'the taxpayer' anything, it would cost 'certain taxpayers' something as the testing and licencing would be paid for by the cyclists who would need to be tested and licenced in much the same way that car or motorcycle drivers currently pay the costs associated with their training and testing.

 

[PerryGunn]

People like that shouldn't be allowed on the roads - in fact i'm not convinced they should even be allowed to walk on the pavements

A bit like the person that decided to ride to the pub on their bike, have a few sherbets, have a wobbly on the way home, fall off and cut their head on the road through not wearing a helmet. :wink:
Sorry Perry but I couldn't resist.

Nope, I agree - I was an eejit... but I was an eejit on the right side of the road...

The bloke you saw the other day is a twat of the first order but would licensing stop them? No because it's the same as untaxed and uninsured motorists who very often also don't have a license to drive. This does not stop them getting into a car and driving. OK license all cyclists but it wouldn't stop those that flout the law.

Yes, some people break the law, but I bet you wouldn't accept that as an argument for removing the need for licencing car drivers?

 

[Lillywhite]

I found this article interesting in connection with the City of Westminster which is probably typical of built up city areas where there seems to be more conflict between cyclists and motorists.

http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says

 

[Adam D]

I have more than a casual interest in this topic and it concerns me each time the statistics are cut different ways or lacking in full context to suit political agendas...

In short behaviours need to change so all road users act more considerate to each other in sharing that finite resource - the road. Infrastructure can only do so much manage conflict, but only if its attractive and readily used. Typically incidents occur when each party fails to see each other, acts inconsiderately or makes an error of judgement, often going hand in hand with one party placing themselves in a compromised position (nothing unexpected there!). Other countries have different attitudes to cycling and strict liability laws.

The safest solutions (on paper) to protect a cyclist on the roads is likely to separate them in space or time and potentially could make their journey slower and more convoluted, junctions would become more complicated for all with less green time to share around. Riders which are more confident may find this frustrating and elect to non comply however the growth market is new cyclists - the ones which are most vulnerable and 'wobbly'. As a rider my momentum is hard earned and focus group research suggests that I am not alone in thinking that there is a strong reluctance to give up our momentum and road place easily unless challenged with a particularly dangerous situation. That danger threshold varies considerably with rider age, experience and gender.

 

[Lillywhite]

Excellent post, Adam. Couldn't agree more.

 

[JaEdBa]

I cycle a fair bit, used to cycle a lot more. I didn't give a jot about the law - I road defensively as I was smaller and less protected than anything else on the road.

I'm fully aware it's legal to ride 2 abreast on bicycles, but I always think that cyclists who do are a little bit stupid and inconsiderate; likewise time-trialists who ride in the middle of the road in the hope of getting sucked along and saving a few seconds.

unfortunately a lot of people on bikes can't look over their shoulder and maintain a straight line, so I think cycle ways are the best solution.