Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Cyclist victimisation
Posted by: Rach E Sep 2 2016, 08:23 PM
I live in Manor Park and work in Kingsclere and ride an (extended) route to the office every day (to avoid the A339). In the last few weeks, I have suffered the following abuse from drivers:
- A *full* can of Monster drink thrown at me. The drink hit my helmet and knocked off my glasses, meaning I couldn't get the registration number. Despite the drink can being retrieved, lack of CCTV meant nothing could be done according to the Police.
- A woman pulling up next to me at the Robin Hood roundabout when I was stopped at the lights hysterically informing me that I was going to "get myself killed". I had done nothing wrong and was stopped at the traffic lights just like the cars.
- A minimum of two "beeps" per journey (normally accompanied by revving) when cars are stuck behind me (despite me waving cars through when I can see round corners and being law abiding).
- Five cars brushing me passing too close within the last four weeks.
- Regular calls of "get on the cycle lane" (or, as this evening's driver said, "getting on the f***ing cycling lane you c*nt". This kind of phraseology is a regular occurrence).
I can normally take it, but this evening's driver - perhaps because it was raining and I was soaked - meant I got into my house and broke down. I do nothing wrong on my commutes and obey the law. I cycle in cycle lanes when they are on the road, but any which are shared use on pavements I avoid as they're dangerous when you've riding at speeds up to 30mph (the DVLA recommend any person moving faster than 18mph should not use shared cycle/footpaths).
Why is there so much hatred towards me? If a car gets stuck behind me - and it's rarely more than a few seconds - they overtake and catch up the car ahead of me.
It's really getting me down now.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2016, 10:30 PM
Invest in a helmet cam, but to answer your question and paradoxically, it is because some car drivers are c*nts.
Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 3 2016, 12:04 AM
Helmet cam. I try, lord knows I try to to treat cyclists with a degree of courtesy I really do but some of them do go out of their Lycra warrior way to be obnoxious. Doesn't mean you should be abused or put in harm's way. Cyclists were on the road before the car after all. Helmet cam will provide evidence for a prosecution.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 3 2016, 04:39 AM
QUOTE (Rach E @ Sep 2 2016, 09:23 PM) 
I live in Manor Park and work in Kingsclere and ride an (extended) route to the office every day (to avoid the A339). In the last few weeks, I have suffered the following abuse from drivers:
- A *full* can of Monster drink thrown at me. The drink hit my helmet and knocked off my glasses, meaning I couldn't get the registration number. Despite the drink can being retrieved, lack of CCTV meant nothing could be done according to the Police.
- A woman pulling up next to me at the Robin Hood roundabout when I was stopped at the lights hysterically informing me that I was going to "get myself killed". I had done nothing wrong and was stopped at the traffic lights just like the cars.
- A minimum of two "beeps" per journey (normally accompanied by revving) when cars are stuck behind me (despite me waving cars through when I can see round corners and being law abiding).
- Five cars brushing me passing too close within the last four weeks.
- Regular calls of "get on the cycle lane" (or, as this evening's driver said, "getting on the f***ing cycling lane you c*nt". This kind of phraseology is a regular occurrence).
I can normally take it, but this evening's driver - perhaps because it was raining and I was soaked - meant I got into my house and broke down. I do nothing wrong on my commutes and obey the law. I cycle in cycle lanes when they are on the road, but any which are shared use on pavements I avoid as they're dangerous when you've riding at speeds up to 30mph (the DVLA recommend any person moving faster than 18mph should not use shared cycle/footpaths).
Why is there so much hatred towards me? If a car gets stuck behind me - and it's rarely more than a few seconds - they overtake and catch up the car ahead of me.
It's really getting me down now.
- A *full* can of Monster drink thrown at me. The drink hit my helmet and knocked off my glasses, meaning I couldn't get the registration number. Despite the drink can being retrieved, lack of CCTV meant nothing could be done according to the Police.
- A woman pulling up next to me at the Robin Hood roundabout when I was stopped at the lights hysterically informing me that I was going to "get myself killed". I had done nothing wrong and was stopped at the traffic lights just like the cars.
- A minimum of two "beeps" per journey (normally accompanied by revving) when cars are stuck behind me (despite me waving cars through when I can see round corners and being law abiding).
- Five cars brushing me passing too close within the last four weeks.
- Regular calls of "get on the cycle lane" (or, as this evening's driver said, "getting on the f***ing cycling lane you c*nt". This kind of phraseology is a regular occurrence).
I can normally take it, but this evening's driver - perhaps because it was raining and I was soaked - meant I got into my house and broke down. I do nothing wrong on my commutes and obey the law. I cycle in cycle lanes when they are on the road, but any which are shared use on pavements I avoid as they're dangerous when you've riding at speeds up to 30mph (the DVLA recommend any person moving faster than 18mph should not use shared cycle/footpaths).
Why is there so much hatred towards me? If a car gets stuck behind me - and it's rarely more than a few seconds - they overtake and catch up the car ahead of me.
It's really getting me down now.
Scum like that are not worth it. It reminds me of the rather obnoxious man who would regularly get his dog to sh!t on my path each morning and not pick it up. Thought it was a right laugh. One day I followed him home as I was on holiday. After he had gone to work I picked up his dogs poo and deposited it through his letter box... Would love to have seen his face when he got home. Take care and don't let these animals get you down.😃
Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2016, 06:59 AM
It's a sad indictment of our 'me me' society today. I have to be in front and stuff everyone else. Frankly, we would be far better served if we used cameras etc to identify and punish bad attitudes rather than minor technical infringements. When it comes to cyclists, its worth remembering that if they'd chosen to use cars, you'd be much further back in the queue.
Take heart though, the indications are beginning to suggest we are getting tired of the unacceptable face of Toryisim, hopefully heralding a kinder more mannered future.
(PS, it took me ages to train that dog TDH and my neighbour in the downstairs flat is concerned and upset! )
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 3 2016, 07:23 AM
You have my sympathy Rach.
You suffer from the same issues as those by many motorcyclists.
That is your reputation is tarnished by others who ride like selfish idiots and invite the wrath of other road users.
This anger is then taken out on all cyclists / motorcyclists whether law abiding or not.
Unfortunately Turin M is correct in that many cyclists do not obey the laws of the road and cycle in a selfish, inconsiderate manner.
Many dress and behave like they are on the Tour de France on narrow country roads.
Others break the rules in many ways that have been discussed at heated length before on this forum.
This attitude becomes a generalisation in the minds of the motorists who then take out their frustrations on all.
The solution?........... Don't know!! 
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 3 2016, 07:50 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 2 2016, 11:30 PM)
Invest in a helmet cam, but to answer your question and paradoxically, it is because some car drivers are c*nts.
Every sympathy Rach but it's like Andy Capp says.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 3 2016, 08:38 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 3 2016, 07:59 AM)
Take heart though, the indications are beginning to suggest we are getting tired of the unacceptable face of Toryisim, hopefully heralding a kinder more mannered future.
What on earth does politics have to do with it? If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop posting nonsense like this.
Posted by: gel Sep 3 2016, 09:04 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 3 2016, 09:38 AM)
What on earth does politics have to do with it? If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop posting nonsense like this.
Here, here.
Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 3 2016, 09:13 AM
Quite. Be blaming Brexit next!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2016, 09:57 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 3 2016, 09:38 AM)
What on earth does politics have to do with it? If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop posting nonsense like this.
Perhaps you might wait for the reply to your question before hurling abuse?
Soddin' Tories; they're all the same!
Posted by: JeffG Sep 3 2016, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 3 2016, 10:57 AM)
Perhaps you might wait for the reply to your question before hurling abuse?
What question? And what abuse?
Edit: Ah - do you mean my rhetorical question in the same post? And a comment about posting obviously irrelevant nonsense is hardly abuse.
Posted by: x2lls Sep 3 2016, 10:16 AM
Yes, a camera is the answer, or even two. One forward facing, the other behind. As both a driver and cyclist, I agree wholeheartedly. I have a dashcam in the car and only last week I was able to provide a neighbour with evidence of a wing mirror being destroyed by some a$$hole who failed to stop.
Posted by: x2lls Sep 3 2016, 10:35 AM
You could always try this!! lol
https://www.facebook.com/4sarc/videos/1074865985926196/
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2016, 10:47 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 3 2016, 11:12 AM)
What question? And what abuse?
Edit: Ah - do you mean my rhetorical question in the same post? And a comment about posting obviously irrelevant nonsense is hardly abuse.
Edit: Ah - do you mean my rhetorical question in the same post? And a comment about posting obviously irrelevant nonsense is hardly abuse.
Telling some one what they should do without reasonable grounds is abusive behaviour; not that OTE would really care of course.
My take on OTE's comment is that a government can reflect the country's mood and it follows that if the country starts to tire of the Tories it clould suggest a move away from its overt intolerant, arrogant and selfish personality...assuming that he was drawing an analogy between the zeitgeist (aggressive car drivers) and the Monster Raving Tories.
I don't agree with OTE, but I wouldn't be so rude as to say he should stop posting as such. Or at least not until he's had a chance to explain.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2016, 10:57 AM
There is no excuse for the behaviour mentioned in the OP, in fact it is illegal, but it is frustrating being stuck behind a cyclist on a narrow twisty road and it only seems to happen when one is pushed for time. It is because of this I will sometimes cycle on the pavement when it seems safe to do so, or simply avoid certain routes.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 3 2016, 11:36 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 3 2016, 11:57 AM)
There is no excuse for the behaviour mentioned in the OP,
Agreed. But I was pointing out a reason
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 3 2016, 11:57 AM)
in fact it is illegal
Quite
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 3 2016, 11:57 AM)
It is because of this I will sometimes cycle on the pavement when it seems safe to do so, or simply avoid certain routes.
Whoops, so is that!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2016, 11:39 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 3 2016, 12:36 PM)
Whoops, so is that!!
Not always, but I don't care. Pavement cyclist very rarely cause me any concern. I realise others will have different experiences.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 3 2016, 01:39 PM
Breaking news! Young socialist says "I don't care" when committing crime! Stop the press!
Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2016, 02:40 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 3 2016, 09:38 AM)
What on earth does politics have to do with it? If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop posting nonsense like this.
Hurts does it?
Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2016, 03:01 PM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 3 2016, 10:13 AM)
Quite. Be blaming Brexit next!
Quite the reverse! Brexit might help improve our motoring manners. Do we really want to descend further to French or Italian standards?
Posted by: Rach E Sep 3 2016, 07:13 PM
Thanks for the support. There clearly aren't too many "cyclist haters" on this forum. Unfortunately - rather like cyclists who regularly run red lights and ride without lights in the dark - the behaviour of a few masks the (good) behaviour of a majority.
I have a Garmin Virb camera which freezes regularly and I'd stopped using, but I'll send it back to Garmin and get it fixed I think.
On the plus side, I enjoyed a lovely ride this morning before the rain - and not a single angry driver was encountered 
Posted by: newres Sep 3 2016, 07:28 PM
QUOTE (Rach E @ Sep 3 2016, 08:13 PM)
Thanks for the support. There clearly aren't too many "cyclist haters" on this forum. Unfortunately - rather like cyclists who regularly run red lights and ride without lights in the dark - the behaviour of a few masks the (good) behaviour of a majority.
I have a Garmin Virb camera which freezes regularly and I'd stopped using, but I'll send it back to Garmin and get it fixed I think.
On the plus side, I enjoyed a lovely ride this morning before the rain - and not a single angry driver was encountered
I have a Garmin Virb camera which freezes regularly and I'd stopped using, but I'll send it back to Garmin and get it fixed I think.
On the plus side, I enjoyed a lovely ride this morning before the rain - and not a single angry driver was encountered
You're wrong, some of the old posters on here are anti cyclist, but they're toning it down. If you read between the lines you'll see it.you have my sympathy. I've had the odd incident as a cyclist, but I don't do the miles you do or the speed for that matter so inevitably not as many. I'm actually on the verge of starting to cycle to work, but I'm worried I can't find a safe route.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 3 2016, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 3 2016, 08:28 PM)
You're wrong, some of the old posters on here are anti cyclist, but they're toning it down. If you read between the lines you'll see it. I'm assuming you're the Rachel from Parkrun, but anyway, you have my sympathy. I've had the odd incident as a cyclist, but I don't do the miles you do or the speed for that matter so inevitably not as many. I'm actually on the verge of starting to cycle to work, but I'm worried I can't find a safe route.
Please back that up with facts and quotes. You may well be correct and indeed I have sworn at cyclists when they have ridden past me at 40mph+ on the pavement walking down the Andover hill. The vast majority of cyclists and motorists are perfectly normal people. You will always get idiots though. My pet hate is the rich mummy's in there gigantic 4*4s who drive like no one else is on the road. When questioning one about her erratic driving I was told that she didn't care how she drove as the car made her feel very safe....Id compare her to the idiot bmw sales guys.... no one should put up with what the author of this thread went through though.
Posted by: DJE Sep 3 2016, 10:19 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 3 2016, 07:59 AM)
It's a sad indictment of our 'me me' society today. I have to be in front and stuff everyone else. Frankly, we would be far better served if we used cameras etc to identify and punish bad attitudes rather than minor technical infringements. When it comes to cyclists, its worth remembering that if they'd chosen to use cars, you'd be much further back in the queue.
Take heart though, the indications are beginning to suggest we are getting tired of the unacceptable face of Toryisim, hopefully heralding a kinder more mannered future.
(PS, it took me ages to train that dog TDH and my neighbour in the downstairs flat is concerned and upset! )
Take heart though, the indications are beginning to suggest we are getting tired of the unacceptable face of Toryisim, hopefully heralding a kinder more mannered future.
(PS, it took me ages to train that dog TDH and my neighbour in the downstairs flat is concerned and upset! )
Linking bad driving with Toryism is ridiculous.
And your doing so isn't 'kind' or 'mannered', which rather exposes your double standards.
For the record, I am not a Tory.
Posted by: newres Sep 4 2016, 01:56 AM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 3 2016, 09:41 PM)
Please back that up with facts and quotes. You may well be correct and indeed I have sworn at cyclists when they have ridden past me at 40mph+ on the pavement walking down the Andover hill. The vast majority of cyclists and motorists are perfectly normal people. You will always get idiots though. My pet hate is the rich mummy's in there gigantic 4*4s who drive like no one else is on the road. When questioning one about her erratic driving I was told that she didn't care how she drove as the car made her feel very safe....Id compare her to the idiot bmw sales guys.... no one should put up with what the author of this thread went through though.
Take a breath mate.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 4 2016, 06:37 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 02:56 AM)
Take a breath mate.
I'm not your mate, darling.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2016, 07:26 AM
QUOTE (DJE @ Sep 3 2016, 11:19 PM)
Linking bad driving with Toryism is ridiculous.
And your doing so isn't 'kind' or 'mannered', which rather exposes your double standards.
For the record, I am not a Tory.
And your doing so isn't 'kind' or 'mannered', which rather exposes your double standards.
For the record, I am not a Tory.
Why ridiculous? Does society simply change 'just like that' or is there another reason? You may also have made other wrong assumptions, am I kind or mannered and I may well be a Tory and I'm not even talking about driving! Actually, in the view of the drivers complained about, the driving was first class. The only issue they seem to have is that the subject of their aggression is in some way preventing them get ahead. Why else the aggression?
So then, if for the last how many years we've been inculcated with the idea that market forces should drive everything what do you expect? Its been said before on this forum that Mrs Thatcher was misquoted when she talked about society. Indeed she was, the nub of her message was .......and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. .....
In fact, that base ethos is quite natural; however, like it or not looking to yourself first has consequences. That's why we used to try and get our young people to think of others first. Which, after all, isn't socialism, its simply manners.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2016, 08:03 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 02:56 AM)
Take a breath mate.
He was.
You see all those dots and little squiggly things?
They are called full stops and commas.
When you are taught elementary english very early on in your education you are told that these allow written communication to be broken up into sentences and phrases. This allows the reader or orator to pause and "take a breath"!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2016, 08:52 AM
QUOTE (DJE @ Sep 3 2016, 11:19 PM)
Linking bad driving with Toryism is ridiculous.
And your doing so isn't 'kind' or 'mannered', which rather exposes your double standards.
For the record, I am not a Tory.
And your doing so isn't 'kind' or 'mannered', which rather exposes your double standards.
For the record, I am not a Tory.
Sounds like a nailed on Tory to me!
Posted by: newres Sep 4 2016, 08:59 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 4 2016, 09:03 AM)
He was.
You see all those dots and little squiggly things?
They are called full stops and commas.
When you are taught elementary english very early on in your education you are told that these allow written communication to be broken up into sentences and phrases. This allows the reader or orator to pause and "take a breath"!
You see all those dots and little squiggly things?
They are called full stops and commas.
When you are taught elementary english very early on in your education you are told that these allow written communication to be broken up into sentences and phrases. This allows the reader or orator to pause and "take a breath"!
Do you mean English?
Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 4 2016, 11:09 AM
Well Biker, that's you pwned! His erudition and blistering logic is simply too much, like an elemental force of nature sweeping all before it!
Posted by: newres Sep 4 2016, 12:06 PM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 4 2016, 12:09 PM)
Well Biker, that's you pwned! His erudition and blistering logic is simply too much, like an elemental force of nature sweeping all before it!
His erudition and blistering logic is simply too much, like an elemental force of nature sweeping all before it!I just happen to think that if someone is going to lecture on grammar, they really do have to be spot on with their own. Especially one who so clearly demonstrates their prejudice against cyclists in their earlier post.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 4 2016, 01:12 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 01:06 PM)
I just happen to think that if someone is going to lecture on grammar, they really do have to be spot on with their own. Especially one who so clearly demonstrates their prejudice against cyclists in their earlier post.
It must be tiring being so perfect....
Posted by: JeffG Sep 4 2016, 01:59 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 01:06 PM)
I just happen to think that if someone is going to lecture on grammar, they really do have to be spot on with their own. Especially one who so clearly demonstrates their prejudice against cyclists in their earlier post.
It's called McKean's Law.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2016, 02:05 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 01:06 PM)
I just happen to think that if someone is going to lecture on grammar, they really do have to be spot on with their own. Especially one who so clearly demonstrates their prejudice against cyclists in their earlier post.
Worth reading Biker's post again. He's actually 'anti' anyone who deliberately chooses to break the rules; that isn't predudice in my book. Indeed, in this case, quite the reverse.
Posted by: newres Sep 4 2016, 02:23 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 4 2016, 03:05 PM)
Worth reading Biker's post again. He's actually 'anti' anyone who deliberately chooses to break the rules; that isn't predudice in my book. Indeed, in this case, quite the reverse.
Which rule do you suppose he was referring to in this sentence?
"Many dress and behave like they are on the Tour de France on narrow country roads."
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 4 2016, 03:19 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 03:23 PM)
Which rule do you suppose he was referring to in this sentence?
"Many dress and behave like they are on the Tour de France on narrow country roads."
"Many dress and behave like they are on the Tour de France on narrow country roads."
And that is not true? Getting stuck behind middle aged men in Lycra riding 3 or 4 abreast can be infuriating. No need for any reaction though. I just laugh.
Posted by: newres Sep 4 2016, 03:44 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 4 2016, 04:19 PM)
And that is not true? Getting stuck behind middle aged men in Lycra riding 3 or 4 abreast can be infuriating. No need for any reaction though. I just laugh.
You laugh at people getting exercise and enjoying themselves? I think that says more about you.
But, in any case, they aren't breaking any rules that I know of.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2016, 04:04 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 04:44 PM)
You laugh at people getting exercise and enjoying themselves? I think that says more about you.
But, in any case, they aren't breaking any rules that I know of.
But, in any case, they aren't breaking any rules that I know of.
They may well have been riding recklessly, or disobeying lights at junctions, or etc. etc. Anyway, as in your response here, how do you know they were enjoying themselves? Fortunately I'm bald, so have very few hairs left to split.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 4 2016, 05:05 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 04:44 PM)
You laugh at people getting exercise and enjoying themselves? I think that says more about you.
But, in any case, they aren't breaking any rules that I know of.
But, in any case, they aren't breaking any rules that I know of.
If I said the world was round you'd say it was flat. Tiresome.
I hope you get stuck behind a peleton crawling along. I like cyclists and cycling. I doubt you actually do. Nothing more than a wum mate. Take a look in the mirror.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2016, 08:39 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 4 2016, 03:23 PM)
Which rule do you suppose he was referring to in this sentence?
"Many dress and behave like they are on the Tour de France on narrow country roads."
"Many dress and behave like they are on the Tour de France on narrow country roads."
Let me help............
Highway Code.
Rule 66You should
Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
Be considerate of other road users.
Rule 67 You should
Be aware of traffic coming up behind you.
Rule 68 You must not
Ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 4 2016, 08:48 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 4 2016, 09:39 PM)
Let me help............
Highway Code.
Rule 66You should
Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
Be considerate of other road users.
Rule 67 You should
Be aware of traffic coming up behind you.
Rule 68 You must not
Ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.
Highway Code.
Rule 66You should
Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
Be considerate of other road users.
Rule 67 You should
Be aware of traffic coming up behind you.
Rule 68 You must not
Ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.
You won't get an answer to that... Anyway have you not read the newres code? Its a replacement to the highway code...
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2016, 08:53 PM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 4 2016, 12:09 PM)
Well Biker, that's you pwned! His erudition and blistering logic is simply too much, like an elemental force of nature sweeping all before it!
His erudition and blistering logic is simply too much, like an elemental force of nature sweeping all before it!Yep, got me there.
My command of the English language is obviously far inferior to his and I stand, nay bow, admonished!
I hang my head in humble shame for that self demanding typo!
Oh, by the way, back on subject, they have temporary traffic lights at the old railway bridge on Enborne Road at present.
Nearly hit a cyclist who had decided to ignore them and was coming the other way straight at me!!
Sorry newres, good cyclists are good. Bad ones are bad.
Even the bad ones don't deserve the abuse suffered by the op though............and she is a good one!
Posted by: newres Sep 5 2016, 05:17 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 4 2016, 09:39 PM)
Let me help............
Highway Code.
Rule 66You should
Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
Be considerate of other road users.
Rule 67 You should
Be aware of traffic coming up behind you.
Rule 68 You must not
Ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.
Highway Code.
Rule 66You should
Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
Be considerate of other road users.
Rule 67 You should
Be aware of traffic coming up behind you.
Rule 68 You must not
Ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.
You never mentioned riding more than two abreast or any of the other issues. Your main issue seemed to be their dress which betrays your prejudice.
Posted by: Claude Sep 5 2016, 12:28 PM
As a cyclist I sympathise with the OP, but I'm fortunate I've not been subjected to similar kinds of abuse while enjoying my hobby.
I think everyone should be made to cycle so they can experience what it's like from the other side - I don't necessarily think it's the minority that set a bad example, just that some have no idea what it's like in the saddle. For example, when my OH overtakes cyclists I try and suggest it would be helpful to oncoming traffic if she indicated, and that it would make the cyclist feel safer if she gave them a bit more room but she fails to take it on board, and she is completely ambivalent to cyclists.
As an infrequent forum user I find the thread this thread has gone down quite sad and unwelcoming. Given the low number of posts and posters I'm amazed this forum still exists and am intrigued as to who funds it and why.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2016, 01:42 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Sep 5 2016, 01:28 PM)
As a cyclist I sympathise with the OP, but I'm fortunate I've not been subjected to similar kinds of abuse while enjoying my hobby.
I think everyone should be made to cycle so they can experience what it's like from the other side - I don't necessarily think it's the minority that set a bad example, just that some have no idea what it's like in the saddle. For example, when my OH overtakes cyclists I try and suggest it would be helpful to oncoming traffic if she indicated, and that it would make the cyclist feel safer if she gave them a bit more room but she fails to take it on board, and she is completely ambivalent to cyclists.
I think everyone should be made to cycle so they can experience what it's like from the other side - I don't necessarily think it's the minority that set a bad example, just that some have no idea what it's like in the saddle. For example, when my OH overtakes cyclists I try and suggest it would be helpful to oncoming traffic if she indicated, and that it would make the cyclist feel safer if she gave them a bit more room but she fails to take it on board, and she is completely ambivalent to cyclists.
I believe indicating when overtaking a cyclist is a good idea if in doing so you need to approach or cross the centre of the road, or to alert people behind who may benefit. Under certain circumstances failing to indicate is a fail.
QUOTE (Claude @ Sep 5 2016, 01:28 PM)
As an infrequent forum user I find the thread this thread has gone down quite sad and unwelcoming. Given the low number of posts and posters I'm amazed this forum still exists and am intrigued as to who funds it and why.
Perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone and start a new thread? As for why it is funded: it is so we don't go spoiling other forums with our inane wit.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2016, 03:58 PM
There is a simple explanation Claude; there may well be newer forms of social media, but this a ceremonial Forum. The only expenses are mothballs to protect the Web Master's robes and a tin of Brasso for his chain of office. Plus our annual get together called a NEWT. If you'd like to contribute, all donations are very welcome, simply because we can't just bung it on the rates these days.
Posted by: newres Sep 5 2016, 04:38 PM
QUOTE (Claude @ Sep 5 2016, 01:28 PM)
As an infrequent forum user I find the thread this thread has gone down quite sad and unwelcoming. Given the low number of posts and posters I'm amazed this forum still exists and am intrigued as to who funds it and why.
Agreed. Whenever I come on here, I have to put on a flame retardant jacket as the usual posters don't like someone with different views to their own.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2016, 07:26 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 5 2016, 05:38 PM)
Agreed. Whenever I come on here, I have to put on a flame retardant jacket as the usual posters don't like someone with different views to their own.
Not one for democracy then Newres!
Posted by: DJE Sep 5 2016, 09:52 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 4 2016, 09:52 AM)
Sounds like a nailed on Tory to me!
Perhaps in theirr worldview populated by one-dimensional stereotypes, maybe that fits some people's blinkered thinking. That's their problem.
In my original draft of my post, I said that conflating Toryism with selfish driving is idiotic. I now regret removing that comment.
Given that this thread is about cyclng and road safety, not irrelevant politics, lets keep it free of sniping and cheap political shots.
I will confess to being a cyclist. And being a driver.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2016, 10:09 PM
QUOTE (DJE @ Sep 5 2016, 10:52 PM)
Perhaps in theirr worldview populated by one-dimensional stereotypes, maybe that fits some people's blinkered thinking. That's their problem.
In my original draft of my post, I said that conflating Toryism with selfish driving is idiotic. I now regret removing that comment.
Given that this thread is about cyclng and road safety, not irrelevant politics, lets keep it free of sniping and cheap political shots..
In my original draft of my post, I said that conflating Toryism with selfish driving is idiotic. I now regret removing that comment.
Given that this thread is about cyclng and road safety, not irrelevant politics, lets keep it free of sniping and cheap political shots..
I think there's room for any comment. Indeed, I think his comment was buried until you resurrected it!
This thread is about aggressive behaviour towards people just trying to get on. I can see some comparison with that and the current Monster Raving Tories.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 5 2016, 10:31 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 5 2016, 11:09 PM)
I think there's room for any comment. Indeed, I think his comment was buried until you resurrected it!
This thread is about aggressive behaviour towards people just trying to get on. I can see some comparison with that and the current Monster Raving Tories.
This thread is about aggressive behaviour towards people just trying to get on. I can see some comparison with that and the current Monster Raving Tories.
Just wait and see what the loony tunes lefties have in store. How to bugger up a country in three easy steps.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2016, 11:31 PM
gahoonas
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 5 2016, 11:31 PM)
Just wait and see what the loony tunes lefties have in store. How to bugger up a country in three easy steps.
They are a part of the problem we currently have. Anyway, this is about anti-cycling thugs, not political ones!
Posted by: x2lls Sep 5 2016, 11:41 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 5 2016, 02:42 PM)
I believe indicating when overtaking a cyclist is a good idea if in doing so you need to approach or cross the centre of the road, or to alert people behind who may benefit. Under certain circumstances failing to indicate is a fail.
Perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone and start a new thread? As for why it is funded: it is so we don't go spoiling other forums with our inane wit.
Perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone and start a new thread? As for why it is funded: it is so we don't go spoiling other forums with our inane wit.
Indicators should be used whenever a maneuver from the straight is required. Do that and there would be a lot less anger on the roads. I always indicate, even if there is no other vehicle visible. You HAVE to assume there are others on the road that you cannot see.
OH, and btw Andy, I recently mentioned those being interviewed on radio, that had an academic input would usually start an explanation/response to a question, with 'So'. You said it was to consider the response before offering it. I have since listened to many such interviews, and not once was there a pause.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2016, 11:49 PM
QUOTE (x2lls @ Sep 6 2016, 12:41 AM)
OH, and btw Andy, I recently mentioned those being interviewed on radio, that had an academic input would usually start an explanation/response to a question, with 'So'. You said it was to consider the response before offering it. I have since listened to many such interviews, and not once was there a pause.
Eh???
Posted by: x2lls Sep 6 2016, 01:10 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 6 2016, 12:49 AM)
Eh???
Retrace your comment history.
Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 6 2016, 01:24 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 5 2016, 11:09 PM)
I think there's room for any comment. Indeed, I think his comment was buried until you resurrected it!
This thread is about aggressive behaviour towards people just trying to get on. I can see some comparison with that and the current Monster Raving Tories.
This thread is about aggressive behaviour towards people just trying to get on. I can see some comparison with that and the current Monster Raving Tories.
You were saying?
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2016, 05:02 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 5 2016, 06:17 AM)
You never mentioned riding more than two abreast or any of the other issues. Your main issue seemed to be their dress which betrays your prejudice.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2016, 06:53 AM
QUOTE (DJE @ Sep 5 2016, 10:52 PM)
Perhaps in theirr worldview populated by one-dimensional stereotypes, maybe that fits some people's blinkered thinking. That's their problem.
In my original draft of my post, I said that conflating Toryism with selfish driving is idiotic. I now regret removing that comment.
Given that this thread is about cyclng and road safety, not irrelevant politics, lets keep it free of sniping and cheap political shots.
I will confess to being a cyclist. And being a driver.
In my original draft of my post, I said that conflating Toryism with selfish driving is idiotic. I now regret removing that comment.
Given that this thread is about cyclng and road safety, not irrelevant politics, lets keep it free of sniping and cheap political shots.
I will confess to being a cyclist. And being a driver.
Ah, I must have misunderstood. I thought the thread was actually about a vile type of antisocial behaviour.
Other travellers also experience such bad behaviours from others, as this thread suggests even from cyclists. Round here, using the pavement, I've personally been subjected to gobbling off by cyclists. Similarly as a driver. I'm not alone; hence the polarisation of the debate. Whilst we can sympathise, before we can come up with sustainable solutions, we need to ask why this is happening.
Even if we boxed this issue, apart from just saying 'it's their problem', as I see it, the answer could only be for the victim to escalate robust responses. Arguably that, in some quarters would be seen as taking personal responsibility, but hardly satisfactory for many.
Therefore, like it or not, this is a socio-political issue; one about changing personal behaviours.
NB - I'm a pedestrian, cyclist (motor and peddle), driver, and passenger; like most on this forum.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2016, 07:14 AM
QUOTE (x2lls @ Sep 6 2016, 02:10 AM)
Retrace your comment history.
I would if I had any idea what you are on about and I knew what it had to do with the price of chips.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2016, 07:17 AM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 6 2016, 02:24 AM)
You were saying?
Not another cryptic challenge! 😕
Bleedin' swivel-eyed, temple-bursting, Monster Raving Tories!
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 6 2016, 10:49 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 6 2016, 07:53 AM)
"Round here, using the pavement, I've personally been subjected to gobbling off by cyclists."
I'm sure that must be against the decency laws!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2016, 10:50 AM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 6 2016, 11:49 AM)
I'm sure that must be against the decency laws!
Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2016, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 6 2016, 11:49 AM)
I'm sure that must be against the decency laws!
....might even still be a resignation matter.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2016, 02:59 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 6 2016, 07:53 AM)
Other travellers also experience such bad behaviours from others, as this thread suggests even from cyclists. Round here, using the pavement, I've personally been subjected to gobbling off by cyclists. Similarly as a driver. I'm not alone; hence the polarisation of the debate. Whilst we can sympathise, before we can come up with sustainable solutions, we need to ask why this is happening.
Therefore, like it or not, this is a socio-political issue; one about changing personal behaviours.
Therefore, like it or not, this is a socio-political issue; one about changing personal behaviours.
It's due to people nowadays not being brought up with a decent respect for their fellow persons.
Manners are not taught at home or much in schools I suspect.
It is a me, me, me society where you are more important than anyone else.
Add to this the pressures of modern life and there is a pent up anger in some.
Humility is not on the vocabulary of many it would seem.
The result is a society where there are arrogant drivers, cyclists, and motorcyclists.
Not to mention in most other walks of life.
It seems an acceptable part of modern life for many to be rude and arrogant, perhaps brought about by the "never had it so good" times we live in.
Only a culture change away from this attitude will bring about a solution.
Is that about to happen?..................No!
Posted by: JeffG Sep 6 2016, 06:11 PM
I have never forgotten something that happened once when I was waiting on a train platform in Tokyo. There, they have arrows on the platform exactly where the doors will be when the train stops (try that, GWR!), so people form orderly queues at these points. When the doors opened, a young lady already on the train was blocking the doorway, so she got off, walked to the back of the queue, then boarded again when it got to her turn.
Can you see that happening here?
Posted by: x2lls Sep 7 2016, 12:06 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 6 2016, 08:14 AM)
I would if I had any idea what you are on about and I knew what it had to do with the price of chips.
QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 13 2016, 12:54 AM) *
Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?
I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.
It doesn't stop it from being carelessness.
Verbiage like 'so' is often employed to enable the speaker to compose their thoughts.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 01:54 AM
QUOTE (x2lls @ Sep 7 2016, 01:06 AM)
QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 13 2016, 12:54 AM) *
Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?
I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.
It doesn't stop it from being carelessness.
Verbiage like 'so' is often employed to enable the speaker to compose their thoughts.
Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?
I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.
It doesn't stop it from being carelessness.
Verbiage like 'so' is often employed to enable the speaker to compose their thoughts.
It would have been handier if you would have posted the link to the comment. I have replied here: http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=3293&view=findpost&p=111468
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 01:55 AM
DP error.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 7 2016, 05:00 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 6 2016, 07:11 PM)
I have never forgotten something that happened once when I was waiting on a train platform in Tokyo. There, they have arrows on the platform exactly where the doors will be when the train stops (try that, GWR!),
The Japanese, since the war, have invested huge sums and effort into new high speed lines and modern trains.
Like I have said before http://stophs2.org/!
Either invest in modernising transport or don't complain at the outcome of not doing so.
Whoopps, sorry Andy, off topic AGAIN!!
Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2016, 06:18 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 7 2016, 06:00 AM)
The Japanese, since the war, have invested huge sums and effort into new high speed lines and modern trains.
Like I have said before http://stophs2.org/!
Either invest in modernising transport or don't complain at the outcome of not doing so.
Whoopps, sorry Andy, off topic AGAIN!!
Like I have said before http://stophs2.org/!
Either invest in modernising transport or don't complain at the outcome of not doing so.
Whoopps, sorry Andy, off topic AGAIN!!
A good point Biker, but we are investing aren't we? How many millions have we pumped into electrification, new stations, crossrail etc.etc. yet as the well shorn season ticket holders see year after year after year; what do we get in return? So, then, that might just suggest that someone is milking the captive users or we aren't investing in the right thing or indeed both.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 09:25 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 7 2016, 06:00 AM)
The Japanese, since the war, have invested huge sums and effort into new high speed lines and modern trains.
Like I have said before http://stophs2.org/!
Either invest in modernising transport or don't complain at the outcome of not doing so.
Whoopps, sorry Andy, off topic AGAIN!!
Like I have said before http://stophs2.org/!
Either invest in modernising transport or don't complain at the outcome of not doing so.
Whoopps, sorry Andy, off topic AGAIN!!
At least it is something reasonable and not completely irrelevant; threads will always meander.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 09:47 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 7 2016, 07:18 AM)
A good point Biker, but we are investing aren't we? How many millions have we pumped into electrification, new stations, crossrail etc.etc. yet as the well shorn season ticket holders see year after year after year; what do we get in return? So, then, that might just suggest that someone is milking the captive users or we aren't investing in the right thing or indeed both.
Or we are starting from so far back, it is simply work in progress.
The Japanese anecdote was a quite interesting one; however, I wonder if there is a civilisation around at the moment who would have been surprised at the rudeness of the Japanese who were queueing for not allowing that person to disembark the train and be first back on!
I remember when Americans found it quaint how the British would be so polite and would patiently queue for everything. Mind you, plenty af Americans had to get used to queueing in the 1930s.
I guess the moral of the story is that manners are relative. There would have been a time, when we were all good as gold and well mannered, we would doth our cap to the Lord of the manor. There was even a time back then when we would have at the drop of a hat waged war on another country because it was the wrong religion.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 7 2016, 11:04 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2016, 10:47 AM)
There was even a time back then when we would have at the drop of a hat waged war on another country because it was the wrong religion.
Now it's the other way round...
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 7 2016, 06:37 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 7 2016, 07:18 AM)
A good point Biker, but we are investing aren't we? How many millions have we pumped into electrification, new stations, crossrail etc.etc. yet as the well shorn season ticket holders see year after year after year; what do we get in return? So, then, that might just suggest that someone is milking the captive users or we aren't investing in the right thing or indeed both.
We are investing yes but in improving the old infrastructure which can only have a limited positive effect, so I agree with the last phrase of your post.
The Japanese, French, Germans, Italians and many others have built new and are reaping the benefits.
When we try to do the same there are crys of protest. Probably from the same people who complain about overcrowded trains.
Cross-rail (now named the Elizabeth Line) which is part new, will provide significant improvements to commuters to the East and West of London.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 8 2016, 08:40 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 7 2016, 07:37 PM)
Cross-rail (now named the Elizabeth Line) which is part new, will provide significant improvements to commuters to the East and West of London.
I would guess that if Southern had the franchise it would revert to (very)Crossrail
Posted by: Blake Sep 8 2016, 10:38 AM
I never ceased to be amazed by the depths of churlishness and vulgarity by some of the lowest class car drivers on our roads. A classic case in point was when riding my motorcycle through town some years ago in a 30mph zone. An awfully plebeian woman in a Renault Megane seemed ****-bent and full of bile that I, on two wheels was in front of her car. She then insisted on overtaking me, only to hit a set of red lights again ahead. She was yelling and abusive for no obvious reason other than self-importance.
On another occasion one January night, a half-wit in a Range Rover was enraged that I was in front of him while travelling at the 30mph speed limit through a town. He then broke the speed limit to get past me (probably only to hit some red traffic lights ahead).
But probably one of the most outrageous examples was four years ago while I was waiting on my Honda at a T junction set of lights on a side road. I heard the sounds of a revving engine behind me while the lights were red and I was waiting. I ignored it (what else could I do?) Those responsible looked like a gang of plebeian chavs. Then the engine was revved again...I was astounded then to see these idiots then mount the pavement and turn left THROUGH A RED LIGHT AND OTHER WAITING TRAFFIC!
As they say of the Police…”There’s never one around when you need one.”
Posted by: JeffG Sep 24 2016, 10:24 AM
Unusually for me, today I victimised a cyclist. Or I expect that's what the lycra-wearing imbecile thought.
Those of you who know the Andover Road will know that the cycle track opposite where the old hospital used to be goes seamlessly onto a clearly marked raised section. (I assume clearly marked even to him because it continued in green and had little bicycles painted on it.)
I was happily following said cyclist (who was in the green lane), waiting for a safe point to give him a wide berth to pass safely. But when I expected him to carry onto the raised section so I could pass, the idiot ignored it and carried on on the road. He was less than polite when I honked him and pointed to the cycle path.
As I said, I am completely tolerant of cyclists normally, but the crass behaviour of this one was too much! I suppose wearing lycra absolves a cyclist from behaving normally.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 12:18 PM
A very measured response JeffG!
Quite rightly you put this down to an errant individual. What's sad is that whilst we are spending a fair bit making it safe and promoting cycling, one idiot can undo much of that effort at a stoke so to speak. The trouble here seems to be that we have more than our fair share of these people.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2016, 09:50 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 24 2016, 11:24 AM)
Unusually for me, today I victimised a cyclist. Or I expect that's what the lycra-wearing imbecile thought.
I was happily following said cyclist (who was in the green lane), waiting for a safe point to give him a wide berth to pass safely. But when I expected him to carry onto the raised section so I could pass, the idiot ignored it and carried on on the road. He was less than polite when I honked him and pointed to the cycle path.
As I said, I am completely tolerant of cyclists normally, but the crass behaviour of this one was too much! I suppose wearing lycra absolves a cyclist from behaving normally.
I was happily following said cyclist (who was in the green lane), waiting for a safe point to give him a wide berth to pass safely. But when I expected him to carry onto the raised section so I could pass, the idiot ignored it and carried on on the road. He was less than polite when I honked him and pointed to the cycle path.
As I said, I am completely tolerant of cyclists normally, but the crass behaviour of this one was too much! I suppose wearing lycra absolves a cyclist from behaving normally.
Would you have done that on your driving test? And while you are remenstrating with cyclist you are not paying attention to the road around you.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 25 2016, 11:35 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 25 2016, 10:50 AM)
Would you have done that on your driving test? And while you are remenstrating with cyclist you are not paying attention to the road around you.
Let's start with you. What would you do differently on your driving test?
Posted by: GMR Sep 25 2016, 04:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 2 2016, 11:30 PM)
Invest in a helmet cam, but to answer your question and paradoxically, it is because some car drivers are c*nts.
That can be said about cyclists as well. I have been thinking of investing in a cycle cam.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 25 2016, 07:09 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 25 2016, 10:50 AM)
Would you have done that on your driving test? And while you are remenstrating with cyclist you are not paying attention to the road around you.
Pity cyclists don't have to take a riding test!
Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2016, 07:31 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 25 2016, 08:09 PM)
Pity cyclists don't have to take a riding test!
Probably a throw away remark Biker, but quite a sensible idea. Roads are very dangerous for cyclists and from cyclists. There is also a case to be made for taxation, which could cover the cost of cyclist identification and the cost of the special provision made for them. That might seem over the top, but it would also end or at least reduce the turf war between other road users and cyclists.
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 04:09 AM
I'm not aware that cyclists are under any obligation to use a cycle path. Many choose not to for a variety of reasons. To be honest I think it's quite outrageous to "remonstrate" with a cyclist for not doing something he doesn't have to do. I note that the true colours emerge now that Rachel has gone.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 06:21 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 05:09 AM)
I'm not aware that cyclists are under any obligation to use a cycle path. Many choose not to for a variety of reasons. To be honest I think it's quite outrageous to "remonstrate" with a cyclist for not doing something he doesn't have to do. I note that the true colours emerge now that Rachel has gone.
Perhaps that's also an issue. Why should it not be obligatory for cyclists to use the paths we provide for them? If they don't, then we've wasted a massive amount of money.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 26 2016, 08:21 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 05:09 AM)
I'm not aware that cyclists are under any obligation to use a cycle path. Many choose not to for a variety of reasons. To be honest I think it's quite outrageous to "remonstrate" with a cyclist for not doing something he doesn't have to do. I note that the true colours emerge now that Rachel has gone.
Oh where did Rachel go? If you are having a pop at me, did you not read my full post? I am normally extremely courteous to cyclists, wait patiently until it's safe to pass, and then give them a wide berth. This one individual, by pulling out into the road directly in front of me instead of continuing on the cycle path he was already on, nearly caused an accident. If there had been a collision, who do you think would have been blamed? Outrageous indeed! Crawl back under your rock.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 08:40 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 25 2016, 12:35 PM)
Let's start with you. What would you do differently on your driving test?
Not done what you did and misuse the car horn. I would have also tried to anticipate the rider would pull out at that point.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 08:42 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 07:21 AM)
Perhaps that's also an issue. Why should it not be obligatory for cyclists to use the paths we provide for them? If they don't, then we've wasted a massive amount of money.
Because many cycle lanes are poorly designed and a hindrance to many cyclists.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 26 2016, 09:36 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:42 AM)
Because many cycle lanes are poorly designed and a hindrance to many cyclists.
Diddums!
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 09:45 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:42 AM)
Because many cycle lanes are poorly designed and a hindrance to many cyclists.
I'd go with that; which means as we haven't the room or possibly the competence to design them properly, why do it at all? The cost isn't small, particularly if effective maintenance and Policing are added in.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 26 2016, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:40 AM)
Not done what you did and misuse the car horn. I would have also tried to anticipate the rider would pull out at that point.
Seeing as you are perfect, perhaps you can explain how warning the errant cyclist of my presence is misuse of the horn?
Posted by: biggus_richus Sep 26 2016, 11:28 AM
Cyclists are under no obligation whatsoever to use cycle paths, but if I've correctly identified the section of road described, that cyclist should have absolutely looked, signalled and waited until safe before pulling out.
I'll get back under my rock now.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 11:46 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 26 2016, 11:12 AM)
Seeing as you are perfect, perhaps you can explain how warning the errant cyclist of my presence is misuse of the horn?
I didn't say I was perfect, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Using a horn after the event and to gesticulate the position of a cycle path is more than warning of your presence; it is an 'aggressive' use of the horn and possibly contravenes the highway code.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 12:03 PM
QUOTE (biggus_richus @ Sep 26 2016, 12:28 PM)
Cyclists are under no obligation whatsoever to use cycle paths, but if I've correctly identified the section of road described, that cyclist should have absolutely looked, signalled and waited until safe before pulling out.
I'll get back under my rock now.
I'll get back under my rock now.
No stay out; it's more fun, specially if you give the rock a shove!
You are quite right though, the cyclist was entering the highway and should have complied with the rules.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 12:08 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 12:46 PM)
I didn't say I was perfect, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Using a horn after the event and to gesticulate the position of a cycle path is more than warning of your presence; it is an 'aggressive' use of the horn and possibly contravenes the highway code.
The best way of dealing with cyclists who find it difficult to use the cycle lane I've found is simply not to overtake and just drive at their speed behind them. It works quite well.
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 02:24 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 01:03 PM)
No stay out; it's more fun, specially if you give the rock a shove!
You are quite right though, the cyclist was entering the highway and should have complied with the rules.
You are quite right though, the cyclist was entering the highway and should have complied with the rules.
No, that's not the case. The cyclist was already on the highway. The path diverts onto the pavement for some strange reason. The motorist is out of order as the cyclist was just continuing along on the road. Personally, I take the strange diversion onto the pavement because I prefer the safety, but I am not obliged to and there is absolutely no reason to give way to cars.
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 02:25 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 26 2016, 09:21 AM)
Oh where did Rachel go? If you are having a pop at me, did you not read my full post? I am normally extremely courteous to cyclists, wait patiently until it's safe to pass, and then give them a wide berth. This one individual, by pulling out into the road directly in front of me instead of continuing on the cycle path he was already on, nearly caused an accident. If there had been a collision, who do you think would have been blamed? Outrageous indeed! Crawl back under your rock.
You would have been blamed and rightly so.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 03:19 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 03:24 PM)
No, that's not the case. The cyclist was already on the highway. The path diverts onto the pavement for some strange reason. The motorist is out of order as the cyclist was just continuing along on the road. Personally, I take the strange diversion onto the pavement because I prefer the safety, but I am not obliged to and there is absolutely no reason to give way to cars.
Too right.
Jonathan Jay
Died defending his right of way
He was right, dead right as he went along
Now he's as dead as if he was wrong.
Go boy, go, you keep safe!
Posted by: biggus_richus Sep 26 2016, 04:25 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 03:24 PM)
No, that's not the case. The cyclist was already on the highway. The path diverts onto the pavement for some strange reason. The motorist is out of order as the cyclist was just continuing along on the road. Personally, I take the strange diversion onto the pavement because I prefer the safety, but I am not obliged to and there is absolutely no reason to give way to cars.
Is this the spot? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3940225,-1.3280252,3a,75y,228.64h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOL5E_mePzUVflQvZb5qPWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If so, that's not how I read it. The cycle path doesn't divert at all, it carries on in a straight line, going up a dropped kerb in the process. In order to continue along the road, the cyclist has to move to the right across a broken white line, as per a lane change, and should signal their intentions and do so safely. Same as if passing the car parked in the cycle lane on the other side.
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (biggus_richus @ Sep 26 2016, 05:25 PM)
Is this the spot? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3940225,-1.3280252,3a,75y,228.64h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOL5E_mePzUVflQvZb5qPWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If so, that's not how I read it. The cycle path doesn't divert at all, it carries on in a straight line, going up a dropped kerb in the process. In order to continue along the road, the cyclist has to move to the right across a broken white line, as per a lane change, and should signal their intentions and do so safely. Same as if passing the car parked in the cycle lane on the other side.
If so, that's not how I read it. The cycle path doesn't divert at all, it carries on in a straight line, going up a dropped kerb in the process. In order to continue along the road, the cyclist has to move to the right across a broken white line, as per a lane change, and should signal their intentions and do so safely. Same as if passing the car parked in the cycle lane on the other side.
Yes it does divert, unless you are suggesting the pavement suddenly starts on the road. Look from here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****. If the cyclist carried on in a straight line he would stay on the road. Obviously the driver was irritated because he felt he was being held up.
If you look on the other side of the road, should an oncoming cyclist leapfrog the car parked on the path. (There are always cars parked there btw).
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 05:27 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 06:19 PM)
Yes it does divert, unless you are suggesting the pavement suddenly starts on the road. Look from here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****.
I'm sorry I don't agree: the path forms a part of the cycle lane the cyclist was on (I presume the council thought it cheaper to do that than rip the curb up and widen the road) the cyclist should have check and indicated to move into the road.
I note the parked car causing an obstruction on the other side of the road.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 05:28 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 06:19 PM)
Yes it does divert, unless you are suggesting the pavement suddenly starts on the road. Look from here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****. If the cyclist carried on in a straight line he would stay on the road. Obviously the driver was irritated because he felt he was being held up.
If you look on the other side of the road, should an oncoming cyclist leapfrog the car parked on the path. (There are always cars parked there btw).
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****. If the cyclist carried on in a straight line he would stay on the road. Obviously the driver was irritated because he felt he was being held up.
If you look on the other side of the road, should an oncoming cyclist leapfrog the car parked on the path. (There are always cars parked there btw).
Well, arguably, the driver was being absolutely correct. If he felt the cyclist was unaware of his presence, he should sound his horn. In fact, doesn't the Highway Code also ask cyclists to do the same with their bell to warn pedestrians of their presence?
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 05:31 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 06:27 PM)
I'm sorry I don't agree: the path forms a part of the cycle lane the cyclist was on (I presume the council thought it cheaper to do that than rip the curb up and widen the road) the cyclist should have check and indicated to move into the road.
I note the parked car causing an obstruction on the other side of the road.
I note the parked car causing an obstruction on the other side of the road.
How does he indicate straight ahead which is what he's doing?
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 06:28 PM)
Well, arguably, the driver was being absolutely correct. If he felt the cyclist was unaware of his presence, he should sound his horn. In fact, doesn't the Highway Code also ask cyclists to do the same with their bell to warn pedestrians of their presence?
You sound a horn to alert people of your presence, not to draw attention to your gesticulations or to remonstrate with someone: that can be considered aggressive use of the horn.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 06:31 PM)
How does he indicate straight ahead which is what he's doing?
My view is he's changing lane, so an indication is required.
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 06:33 PM)
My view is he's changing lane, so an indication is required.
Well if that's your view, that's your view. I'm not sure what an expert would say other than the driver should provide sufficient space and not to sound his horn in admonishment.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 05:48 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 06:42 PM)
The driver should provide sufficient space and not to sound his horn in admonishment.
I agree: it is aggravating behaviour.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 06:03 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 06:19 PM)
Yes it does divert, unless you are suggesting the pavement suddenly starts on the road. Look from here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****. If the cyclist carried on in a straight line he would stay on the road. Obviously the driver was irritated because he felt he was being held up.
If you look on the other side of the road, should an oncoming cyclist leapfrog the car parked on the path. (There are always cars parked there btw).
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3942292,-1.3276744,3a,60y,255.11h,69.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8VEBWlm4xSwj-5SwFdMBfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry, but the driver was being an ****. If the cyclist carried on in a straight line he would stay on the road. Obviously the driver was irritated because he felt he was being held up.
If you look on the other side of the road, should an oncoming cyclist leapfrog the car parked on the path. (There are always cars parked there btw).
Good post - it's clear from this angle that the cycle path diverts and that the continuation is actually to stay on the road. Quite staggering that a motorist would actually sound their horn and gesticulate at a cyclist doing just that.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 06:07 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 06:33 PM)
My view is he's changing lane, so an indication is required.
Yes, if I was on the bike I'd make it obvious what I was doing, but equally if I was driving the car I'd anticipate what the cyclist might be going to do.
Posted by: biggus_richus Sep 26 2016, 06:18 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 07:03 PM)
Good post - it's clear from this angle that the cycle path diverts and that the continuation is actually to stay on the road. Quite staggering that a motorist would actually sound their horn and gesticulate at a cyclist doing just that.
I can see now that the cycle lane diverts, but if the cyclist carried on in a straight line they would change lane, in which case I'd expect a cyclist to look, signal and move out when safe. Same as on the other side of the road for the parked car. If it were me, I'd be looking to make that manoeuvre as far in advance as traffic allowed.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2016, 06:28 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 06:42 PM)
Well if that's your view, that's your view. I'm not sure what an expert would say other than the driver should provide sufficient space and not to sound his horn in admonishment.
Have a look at the Highway Code Rule 63.
What do you think?
That's not a challenge, I'm just interested to see how your interpretation differs to mine.
(Although I will agree with you on Rule 140.)
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 06:41 PM
And Rule 112 - to warn of your presence. OK not aggressive, but if you feel another in your proximity is unaware of your presence, then its exactly the right thing to do.
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 07:24 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 26 2016, 07:28 PM)
Have a look at the Highway Code Rule 63.
What do you think?
That's not a challenge, I'm just interested to see how your interpretation differs to mine.
(Although I will agree with you on Rule 140.)
What do you think?
That's not a challenge, I'm just interested to see how your interpretation differs to mine.
(Although I will agree with you on Rule 140.)
Tricky one because really and truly it's not a proper cycle path is it? It's just a very narrow green lane on the regular carriageway. It's on the highway. Personally if I was the cyclist and intended to carry on I would not signal as I would just be staying on the road. But I would have used the cycle path and diverted onto the pavement. Probably because I'm not a frequent cyclist I never feel safe on the road.
There are some real dickheads on the road that resent bikes being there but would be just as annoyed with them on the pavement. I reckon Jeff is one of them.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 08:09 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 08:24 PM)
Tricky one because really and truly it's not a proper cycle path is it? It's just a very narrow green lane on the regular carriageway. It's on the highway. Personally if I was the cyclist and intended to carry on I would not signal as I would just be staying on the road. But I would have used the cycle path and diverted onto the pavement. Probably because I'm not a frequent cyclist I never feel safe on the road.
There are some real dickheads on the road that resent bikes being there but would be just as annoyed with them on the pavement. I reckon Jeff is one of them.
There are some real dickheads on the road that resent bikes being there but would be just as annoyed with them on the pavement. I reckon Jeff is one of them.
I found this: https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/using-cycle-lanes-and-other-cycling-facilities-safely
"If it's necessary for you to leave the lane, you must check behind, make eye contact with the driver of the vehicle behind and signal your intention clearly"
Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:09 PM)
I found this: https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/using-cycle-lanes-and-other-cycling-facilities-safely
"If it's necessary for you to leave the lane, you must check behind, make eye contact with the driver of the vehicle behind and signal your intention clearly"
"If it's necessary for you to leave the lane, you must check behind, make eye contact with the driver of the vehicle behind and signal your intention clearly"
The lane diverts onto the pavement. We'll have to disagree and/or accept that it is a confused cycle lane for a number of reasons, among which it is a continuation from a confusing cycle lane on St Johns Roundabout, it is really too narrow a road to have a separate lane in the usual sense and the natural route is to NOT follow the green lane. Whatever the case, the driver behaved badly as the cyclist must have been in front of him and any attentive driver would have seen what was happening and allowed exactly the same room as he would have allowed 50 foot earlier if the green lane was still on the highway. It's just an example of the type of driver Rachel described in her OP.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 09:02 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 09:30 PM)
The lane diverts onto the pavement. We'll have to disagree and/or accept that it is a confused cycle lane for a number of reasons, among which it is a continuation from a confusing cycle lane on St Johns Roundabout, it is really too narrow a road to have a separate lane in the usual sense and the natural route is to NOT follow the green lane.
It diverts to a path, but the lane on the road ends. It is a dodgy bit of road, but more so because of the unfortunate location of a drain.
QUOTE
Whatever the case, the driver behaved badly as the cyclist must have been in front of him and any attentive driver would have seen what was happening and allowed exactly the same room as he would have allowed 50 foot earlier if the green lane was still on the highway. It's just an example of the type of driver Rachel described in her OP.
I agree, the car horn is not for use as an instrument to advise of poor riding, or driving.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 09:26 PM
If the driver percieves a cyclist isn't aware of his presence, which he'd really only detect by the way the cyclist was riding, then use of the horn is appropriate and arguably a safety measure.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 09:41 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 10:26 PM)
If the driver percieves a cyclist isn't aware of his presence, which he'd really only detect by the way the cyclist was riding, then use of the horn is appropriate and arguably a safety measure.
Google says it best: "A horn should only be used when warning someone of danger, not to indicate your annoyance at a manner of driving. A horn should not be sounded when stationary on a road at anytime, other than at times of danger due to another vehicle on or near the road."
Without footage we cannot be sure of the events, but JeffG admitted to seeing something wrong then reacting, this suggests to me it was one of reaction rather than prevention. Meanwhile, the rider should have taken more care when exiting the cycle lane, but from my experience cyclists indicate less frequently than drivers of powerful German cars.
Posted by: newres Sep 27 2016, 03:00 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 10:41 PM)
Google says it best: "A horn should only be used when warning someone of danger, not to indicate your annoyance at a manner of driving. A horn should not be sounded when stationary on a road at anytime, other than at times of danger due to another vehicle on or near the road."
Without footage we cannot be sure of the events, but JeffG admitted to seeing something wrong then reacting, this suggests to me it was one of reaction rather than prevention. Meanwhile, the rider should have taken more care when exiting the cycle lane, but from my experience cyclists indicate less frequently than drivers of powerful German cars.
Without footage we cannot be sure of the events, but JeffG admitted to seeing something wrong then reacting, this suggests to me it was one of reaction rather than prevention. Meanwhile, the rider should have taken more care when exiting the cycle lane, but from my experience cyclists indicate less frequently than drivers of powerful German cars.
Whereas I still would not expect a cyclist to indicate there as he is going straight along the road. It is pedantry to expect any indication and the driver should have continued to allow width to pass. The driver was just irritated that he perceived the cyclist to be holding him up.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2016, 07:13 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 27 2016, 04:00 AM)
Whereas I still would not expect a cyclist to indicate there as he is going straight along the road.
Perhaps you unwittingly highlight a part of the problem?
QUOTE
It is pedantry to expect any indication
I'd call it self preservation, road manners, common sense and good cycling behaviour.
QUOTE
and the driver should have continued to allow width to pass. The driver was just irritated that he perceived the cyclist to be holding him up.
I believe so to, but that doesn't alleviate the cyclist's responsibility.
It wasn't you, was it?
Posted by: newres Sep 27 2016, 07:20 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2016, 08:13 AM)
Perhaps you unwittingly highlight a part of the problem?
I'd call it self preservation, road manners, common sense and good cycling behaviour.
I believe so to, but that doesn't alleviate the cyclist's responsibility.
It wasn't you, was it?
I'd call it self preservation, road manners, common sense and good cycling behaviour.
I believe so to, but that doesn't alleviate the cyclist's responsibility.
It wasn't you, was it?
But we weren't there. It's obvious anyway that a one sided view has been presented and perhaps in reality Jeff's car was further back than his description would indicate and perhaps the cyclist was right on the edge of the green lane or not in it at all and Jeff wanted him to clear off the road and onto the pavement?
In any case, if Jeff's car continued in a straight line there would have been no problem.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2016, 07:35 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 27 2016, 08:20 AM)
But we weren't there. It's obvious anyway that a one sided view has been presented and perhaps in reality Jeff's car was further back than his description would indicate and perhaps the cyclist was right on the edge of the green lane or not in it at all and Jeff wanted him to clear off the road and onto the pavement?
In any case, if Jeff's car continued in a straight line there would have been no problem.
In any case, if Jeff's car continued in a straight line there would have been no problem.
I have re-read his post and there is no complaint of a lack of signalling or having to swerve to avoid the cyclist, so perhaps they did check and indicate! Anyway I think we can safely say JeffG's behaviour was incorrect, possibly illegal, but we can be less certain about the cyclist. A later post suggest the cyclist 'nearly caused an accident', so perhaps he didn't indicate. A hard one to call.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2016, 08:55 AM
Well, here we have it. In micro terms the same insoluble dispute happening throughout the Country. Ever more pressure on our roads, together with ever more rules simply means it will escalate still further. In effect, we are increasing our mix of several very different independently managed heavy objects operating at independently variable speeds and still expecting no collision.
It's likely that driverless vehicles will being some relief but for the short term we need to simplify and strengthen our rules based approach. Frankly that does mean formally regulating cycling on public highways.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2016, 11:05 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 27 2016, 09:55 AM)
It's likely that driverless vehicles will being some relief but for the short term we need to simplify and strengthen our rules based approach. Frankly that does mean formally regulating cycling on public highways.
I see that as regressive. Perhaps we need fewer car journeys?
Posted by: newres Sep 27 2016, 11:18 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2016, 12:05 PM)
I see that as regressive. Perhaps we need fewer car journeys?
And anger management courses for some drivers.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2016, 12:36 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2016, 12:05 PM)
I see that as regressive. Perhaps we need fewer car journeys?
Yes it is, but as volume increases unless something gives we have an issue. Fewer car journeys is an option, but that's not likely to be practical or possible without an effective long term programme to win hearts and minds, so in reality becomes a long term solution - like driverless cars. The increase in town centre homes and the significant enhancement to the railways already underway would have helped had not the population growth cancelled that benefit out. Busses are extremely unpopular and any increase in use to cut car journeys are unlikely; there isn't even any investment in simple stuff like bus indicatior panels at even main stops.
Sadly, although they are by no means suitable or effective for most, cycling is likely to be our only alternative. As already mentioned, its usefulness is significantly hindered by muddle headed policy which has damaged cycle lane design. Similarly, the growth in the numbers of electric invalid trollies is further hindering the option of asking pedestrians share foot ways.
Regressive or not, it really is quite incredible that we still permit anyone, including school aged children, to cycle on the A roads through the district. Indeed, technically, anyone can cycle along the A34; even through the black spots.
Properly testing and licencing cyclists would at least give them a measure of self protection.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2016, 12:37 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 27 2016, 12:18 PM)
And anger management courses for some drivers.
Delete drivers and insert road users and we might be getting somewhere.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2016, 03:12 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 27 2016, 01:36 PM)
Properly testing and licencing cyclists would at least give them a measure of self protection.
Other than the cost of prosecution, this will just dissuade cycle use I think. Perhaps we may need to become car unfriendly, somewhat like the Netherlands.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2016, 03:44 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2016, 04:12 PM)
Other than the cost of prosecution, this will just dissuade cycle use I think. Perhaps we may need to become car unfriendly, somewhat like the Netherlands.
Possibly, but the Netherlands have a natural advantage; it's rather flat. Hills are a big disincentive. Equally, continental rules about very low powered cycles are somewhat more relaxed than ours.
There is a big body of opinion who think we are already 'car unfriendly'. The hot debates about Newbury's parking costs and arrangements being a good example. Similarly, Vodafone tried to discourage car use, albeit by WBC coercion, but even with significant help to employees, it's clearly not too much appreciated, again as local noise suggests.
Posted by: Rdg Sep 27 2016, 04:14 PM
Loking at that photo of the place in question - now look at this https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-markings, so that cycle lane is demarketed with a "Hazard warning line" long dash's short gaps, which is this "Rule 127
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off."
So as a car driver/cyclist or motorcyclist I would NEVER consider crossing tha tline without looking and indicating - or would a cyclist htink it okay for a car to pull left into it to park without looking and signalling ?
As such if a cyclist decides to leave his cycle lane as he wants to continue int he right lane and not th eleft lane which is now up on the pavement he should carry out all necessary checks for a lane change - if I spotted one in ftront of me stasrt to make the manouvre without checking I would sound my hooter to warn them of my presence and thus a possible danger to them.
Now Newres using the Highway code please explain why my actions would be incorrect and the cyclist's should have a right of way to continue in a straight line. A longditudinal line along tha carriageway is a lane marking - no vehicle can cross without making sure the way is clear. The fact there is a pavement (or rather a raised cycle path as that is not the pedestrian pavement) involved is irrelevant
Lane discipline.
Rule 133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.
Posted by: newres Sep 27 2016, 04:40 PM
QUOTE (Rdg @ Sep 27 2016, 05:14 PM)
Loking at that photo of the place in question - now look at this https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-markings, so that cycle lane is demarketed with a "Hazard warning line" long dash's short gaps, which is this "Rule 127
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off."
So as a car driver/cyclist or motorcyclist I would NEVER consider crossing tha tline without looking and indicating - or would a cyclist htink it okay for a car to pull left into it to park without looking and signalling ?
As such if a cyclist decides to leave his cycle lane as he wants to continue int he right lane and not th eleft lane which is now up on the pavement he should carry out all necessary checks for a lane change - if I spotted one in ftront of me stasrt to make the manouvre without checking I would sound my hooter to warn them of my presence and thus a possible danger to them.
Now Newres using the Highway code please explain why my actions would be incorrect and the cyclist's should have a right of way to continue in a straight line. A longditudinal line along tha carriageway is a lane marking - no vehicle can cross without making sure the way is clear. The fact there is a pavement (or rather a raised cycle path as that is not the pedestrian pavement) involved is irrelevant
Lane discipline.
Rule 133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off."
So as a car driver/cyclist or motorcyclist I would NEVER consider crossing tha tline without looking and indicating - or would a cyclist htink it okay for a car to pull left into it to park without looking and signalling ?
As such if a cyclist decides to leave his cycle lane as he wants to continue int he right lane and not th eleft lane which is now up on the pavement he should carry out all necessary checks for a lane change - if I spotted one in ftront of me stasrt to make the manouvre without checking I would sound my hooter to warn them of my presence and thus a possible danger to them.
Now Newres using the Highway code please explain why my actions would be incorrect and the cyclist's should have a right of way to continue in a straight line. A longditudinal line along tha carriageway is a lane marking - no vehicle can cross without making sure the way is clear. The fact there is a pavement (or rather a raised cycle path as that is not the pedestrian pavement) involved is irrelevant
Lane discipline.
Rule 133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.
Re: Rule 33, carrying straight on would not impact the driver at all as he should still be allowing a suitable gap, but in any case, he didn't toot his horn to alert the cyclist to danger, he did it in admonishment by his own admission.
There is another strange marking here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3959047,-1.32108,3a,75y,50.88h,75.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Fq95JejJCksx0pOWGJZwA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The cycle lane suddenly stops. I think the idea is that the cyclist gets on the pavement and uses the underpass - that's what I do. But what otherwise? Give way to cars behind?
The fact is that by the driver's own admission he told him off for not using the cycle lane. You can look up all the highway code you like, but it won't change the fact that the problem is the driver's attitude towards cyclists. His prejudice is on display in has opening statement: "Or I expect that's what the lycra-wearing imbecile thought."
And Jeff was holding back, waiting to overtake but when the cyclist continued on the road he had to wait a little longer.
"I was happily following said cyclist (who was in the green lane), waiting for a safe point to give him a wide berth to pass safely. But when I expected him to carry onto the raised section so I could pass, the idiot ignored it and carried on on the road."
Strange, because if the cyclist was in the green lane there is plenty of room to pass. I'm wondering whether the cyclist was actually in the lane.
Posted by: JeffG Sep 28 2016, 09:14 AM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 27 2016, 05:40 PM)
Strange, because if the cyclist was in the green lane there is plenty of room to pass. I'm wondering whether the cyclist was actually in the lane.
Yes he was in the lane, and if you have ever passed a cyclist in one of those lanes (apparently not), they are far too narrow to pass safely while giving the cyclist enough room without pulling out.
And seeing as I have been vilified here by the usual suspects, this is my last contribution to this thread.
Posted by: Rdg Sep 28 2016, 10:02 AM
I must admit to playing devils advocate a bit as I actually know the answer to this and it wil make no one happy.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
This has happened in Reading as well. The councils put in a lane to try and keep cyclist's happy but in making it the minimum proper width they would reduce the width of the main carriageway to below the allowed minimum so insted they put the "advisory" markings down. That is to allow HGV and buses to stray into it where otherwise they could not use the road. What it does mean however is that car drivers are just meant to avoid using it, straying into it is allowable and really the only office would be "undue care and attention" if you cause a cyclist to take avoiding action. For all intents and purposes you have to as a car driver treat all cyclist in it as if they are in the main carriageway and you are overtkaing them - thus you should give them ample room and not assume they are going to dissapear up onto the pavement.
So what we have is a typical council half way muck up which has cyclists getting angry at car drivers for not giving them space and car drivers getting angry and feeling their space is being stolen and the cyclists are not even using it. A far worse example is here in Reading https://goo.gl/maps/NNDsnRwhMDH2 except now the 20mph sign has moved to level with the end of the cycle bit - cars are braking to hit the 20mph (or stuck in a queue), drifting left to avoid the island and watching for cars emerging from the left, whilst cyclists are trying to get some speed up for hill ahead and not noticing/caring there little ibit of semi protected road space suddenly ends with no warning. Seen a few handlebar / mirror incidents here since the change happened.
Posted by: newres Sep 28 2016, 01:05 PM
QUOTE (Rdg @ Sep 28 2016, 11:02 AM)
I must admit to playing devils advocate a bit as I actually know the answer to this and it wil make no one happy.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
This has happened in Reading as well. The councils put in a lane to try and keep cyclist's happy but in making it the minimum proper width they would reduce the width of the main carriageway to below the allowed minimum so insted they put the "advisory" markings down. That is to allow HGV and buses to stray into it where otherwise they could not use the road. What it does mean however is that car drivers are just meant to avoid using it, straying into it is allowable and really the only office would be "undue care and attention" if you cause a cyclist to take avoiding action. For all intents and purposes you have to as a car driver treat all cyclist in it as if they are in the main carriageway and you are overtkaing them - thus you should give them ample room and not assume they are going to dissapear up onto the pavement.
So what we have is a typical council half way muck up which has cyclists getting angry at car drivers for not giving them space and car drivers getting angry and feeling their space is being stolen and the cyclists are not even using it. A far worse example is here in Reading https://goo.gl/maps/NNDsnRwhMDH2 except now the 20mph sign has moved to level with the end of the cycle bit - cars are braking to hit the 20mph (or stuck in a queue), drifting left to avoid the island and watching for cars emerging from the left, whilst cyclists are trying to get some speed up for hill ahead and not noticing/caring there little ibit of semi protected road space suddenly ends with no warning. Seen a few handlebar / mirror incidents here since the change happened.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
This has happened in Reading as well. The councils put in a lane to try and keep cyclist's happy but in making it the minimum proper width they would reduce the width of the main carriageway to below the allowed minimum so insted they put the "advisory" markings down. That is to allow HGV and buses to stray into it where otherwise they could not use the road. What it does mean however is that car drivers are just meant to avoid using it, straying into it is allowable and really the only office would be "undue care and attention" if you cause a cyclist to take avoiding action. For all intents and purposes you have to as a car driver treat all cyclist in it as if they are in the main carriageway and you are overtkaing them - thus you should give them ample room and not assume they are going to dissapear up onto the pavement.
So what we have is a typical council half way muck up which has cyclists getting angry at car drivers for not giving them space and car drivers getting angry and feeling their space is being stolen and the cyclists are not even using it. A far worse example is here in Reading https://goo.gl/maps/NNDsnRwhMDH2 except now the 20mph sign has moved to level with the end of the cycle bit - cars are braking to hit the 20mph (or stuck in a queue), drifting left to avoid the island and watching for cars emerging from the left, whilst cyclists are trying to get some speed up for hill ahead and not noticing/caring there little ibit of semi protected road space suddenly ends with no warning. Seen a few handlebar / mirror incidents here since the change happened.
Thanks for that. Very interesting and explains a lot actually. The roundabout is still confusing and the lanes off it aren't terribly helpful either.
Posted by: newres Sep 28 2016, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 28 2016, 10:14 AM)
Yes he was in the lane, and if you have ever passed a cyclist in one of those lanes (apparently not), they are far too narrow to pass safely while giving the cyclist enough room without pulling out.
And seeing as I have been vilified here by the usual suspects, this is my last contribution to this thread.
And seeing as I have been vilified here by the usual suspects, this is my last contribution to this thread.
I have obviously passed cyclists there and I've been passed as a cyclist there. As above, it isn't terribly wide, but I don't recall ever being held up as a motorist.
P.S. It's normally me being vilified. It never bothers me on here.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2016, 01:16 PM
QUOTE (Rdg @ Sep 28 2016, 11:02 AM)
I must admit to playing devils advocate a bit as I actually know the answer to this and it wil make no one happy.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
This has happened in Reading as well. The councils put in a lane to try and keep cyclist's happy but in making it the minimum proper width they would reduce the width of the main carriageway to below the allowed minimum so insted they put the "advisory" markings down. That is to allow HGV and buses to stray into it where otherwise they could not use the road. What it does mean however is that car drivers are just meant to avoid using it, straying into it is allowable and really the only office would be "undue care and attention" if you cause a cyclist to take avoiding action. For all intents and purposes you have to as a car driver treat all cyclist in it as if they are in the main carriageway and you are overtkaing them - thus you should give them ample room and not assume they are going to dissapear up onto the pavement.
So what we have is a typical council half way muck up which has cyclists getting angry at car drivers for not giving them space and car drivers getting angry and feeling their space is being stolen and the cyclists are not even using it. A far worse example is here in Reading https://goo.gl/maps/NNDsnRwhMDH2 except now the 20mph sign has moved to level with the end of the cycle bit - cars are braking to hit the 20mph (or stuck in a queue), drifting left to avoid the island and watching for cars emerging from the left, whilst cyclists are trying to get some speed up for hill ahead and not noticing/caring there little ibit of semi protected road space suddenly ends with no warning. Seen a few handlebar / mirror incidents here since the change happened.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
This has happened in Reading as well. The councils put in a lane to try and keep cyclist's happy but in making it the minimum proper width they would reduce the width of the main carriageway to below the allowed minimum so insted they put the "advisory" markings down. That is to allow HGV and buses to stray into it where otherwise they could not use the road. What it does mean however is that car drivers are just meant to avoid using it, straying into it is allowable and really the only office would be "undue care and attention" if you cause a cyclist to take avoiding action. For all intents and purposes you have to as a car driver treat all cyclist in it as if they are in the main carriageway and you are overtkaing them - thus you should give them ample room and not assume they are going to dissapear up onto the pavement.
So what we have is a typical council half way muck up which has cyclists getting angry at car drivers for not giving them space and car drivers getting angry and feeling their space is being stolen and the cyclists are not even using it. A far worse example is here in Reading https://goo.gl/maps/NNDsnRwhMDH2 except now the 20mph sign has moved to level with the end of the cycle bit - cars are braking to hit the 20mph (or stuck in a queue), drifting left to avoid the island and watching for cars emerging from the left, whilst cyclists are trying to get some speed up for hill ahead and not noticing/caring there little ibit of semi protected road space suddenly ends with no warning. Seen a few handlebar / mirror incidents here since the change happened.
In a nutshell then, little point in the Council spending these large sums of money, because they please no one, cyclists or drivers. Worse, the resentment and confusion they cause actually creates dangerous situations.
Posted by: Rdg Sep 28 2016, 01:34 PM
probably did it to leverage some sustainable transport funding out of a central pot - better to spend £50k of someone elses money on a pointless half attempt of a sceme than £10k of your own on resurfacing.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2016, 02:47 PM
QUOTE (Rdg @ Sep 28 2016, 02:34 PM)
probably did it to leverage some sustainable transport funding out of a central pot - better to spend £50k of someone elses money on a pointless half attempt of a sceme than £10k of your own on resurfacing.
Frankly, no. It's NEVER someone else's money! It's this irresponsibility that gets government, particularly local government such a bad name. A budget should never be taken as anything more than a plan to spend, not approval.
Posted by: Rdg Sep 28 2016, 03:42 PM
I know that you know that but councils don't.
Wokingham council used Sustrans (a sustainable transport consultancy) to get nearly £1m of central funding to put in a pointless cycle route from M4 J11 to Winnersh to save paying £90k to resurface the road. The 60mph relief rd is now 50mph with a wooden fence down the side and lovely shiny cycle path used rarely. When anyone breaks down they can't pull off the road (fence) so it jams up completely. Even the cyclists hate it as it keeps stopping for side roads
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/08/24/cycle-lanes/
Posted by: newres Sep 28 2016, 04:47 PM
QUOTE (Rdg @ Sep 28 2016, 04:42 PM)
I know that you know that but councils don't.
Wokingham council used Sustrans (a sustainable transport consultancy) to get nearly £1m of central funding to put in a pointless cycle route from M4 J11 to Winnersh to save paying £90k to resurface the road. The 60mph relief rd is now 50mph with a wooden fence down the side and lovely shiny cycle path used rarely. When anyone breaks down they can't pull off the road (fence) so it jams up completely. Even the cyclists hate it as it keeps stopping for side roads
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/08/24/cycle-lanes/
Wokingham council used Sustrans (a sustainable transport consultancy) to get nearly £1m of central funding to put in a pointless cycle route from M4 J11 to Winnersh to save paying £90k to resurface the road. The 60mph relief rd is now 50mph with a wooden fence down the side and lovely shiny cycle path used rarely. When anyone breaks down they can't pull off the road (fence) so it jams up completely. Even the cyclists hate it as it keeps stopping for side roads
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/08/24/cycle-lanes/
I reckon the first post in the comments is one of the posters on here:
"Cyclists do not pay toward the use of roads like other road users but expect not only to use them but to use them in a manner of their choosing. Although bicycles are ill designed for use on either roads that are built for motor vehicles or pavements that are designed for pedestrians they expect the duty of care and obedience to laws governing their use not their responsibility. Why do we pamper them with the way we do until they are prepared to pay for their use and and act in a more responsible manner?"
Brilliant!
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 05:11 PM
QUOTE (Rdg @ Sep 28 2016, 11:02 AM)
I must admit to playing devils advocate a bit as I actually know the answer to this and it wil make no one happy.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
That green cycle isn't - as in it is not wide enough to truly be a lane, that is why it has it's right hand side marked with a dotted line, a true cycle lane is marked with a solid line.
That is only half right, for reasons you go on to explain. A dotted line is to permit drivers conditionally to enter without breaching the highway code. A cycle lane with a dotted line, on its own, is not a sign it is not a cycle lane.
For cyclists
63 Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
For drivers
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply
Ref: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
To pass the driving test, you will be expected to show care for cyclists which includes them doing the unexpected. If the examiner judges you to not have made sufficient allowance for them, they may mark it against you.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 05:21 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 28 2016, 10:14 AM)
Yes he was in the lane, and if you have ever passed a cyclist in one of those lanes (apparently not), they are far too narrow to pass safely while giving the cyclist enough room without pulling out.
That is fair enough.
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 28 2016, 10:14 AM)
And seeing as I have been vilified here by the usual suspects, this is my last contribution to this thread.
You have been criticized for your actions. I think in most cases it has been reasonable criticism. If one is to accuse others of being imbeciles, as you did of the cyclist which included disparaging remarks about their clothing, then I suspect your actions are likely to come under closer scrutiny than it otherwise might.
In a nutshell, I believe the cyclist should have shown greater care when exiting the cycle lane, but the driver had no justification to remonstrate with the cyclist in the manner described.
There goes my smug bomb!
Posted by: newres Sep 28 2016, 07:35 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 28 2016, 06:21 PM)
That is fair enough.
You have been criticized for your actions. I think in most cases it has been reasonable criticism. If one is to accuse others of being imbeciles, as you did of the cyclist which included disparaging remarks about their clothing, then I suspect your actions are likely to come under closer scrutiny than it otherwise might.
In a nutshell, I believe the cyclist should have shown greater care when exiting the cycle lane, but the driver had no justification to remonstrate with the cyclist in the manner described.
There goes my smug bomb!
You have been criticized for your actions. I think in most cases it has been reasonable criticism. If one is to accuse others of being imbeciles, as you did of the cyclist which included disparaging remarks about their clothing, then I suspect your actions are likely to come under closer scrutiny than it otherwise might.
In a nutshell, I believe the cyclist should have shown greater care when exiting the cycle lane, but the driver had no justification to remonstrate with the cyclist in the manner described.
There goes my smug bomb!
Whereas I still think it was perfectly reasonable and quite normal (for some cyclists) to stay on the road.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2016, 07:44 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 28 2016, 05:47 PM)
I reckon the first post in the comments is one of the posters on here:
"Cyclists do not pay toward the use of roads like other road users but expect not only to use them but to use them in a manner of their choosing. Although bicycles are ill designed for use on either roads that are built for motor vehicles or pavements that are designed for pedestrians they expect the duty of care and obedience to laws governing their use not their responsibility. Why do we pamper them with the way we do until they are prepared to pay for their use and and act in a more responsible manner?"
Brilliant!
"Cyclists do not pay toward the use of roads like other road users but expect not only to use them but to use them in a manner of their choosing. Although bicycles are ill designed for use on either roads that are built for motor vehicles or pavements that are designed for pedestrians they expect the duty of care and obedience to laws governing their use not their responsibility. Why do we pamper them with the way we do until they are prepared to pay for their use and and act in a more responsible manner?"
Brilliant!
I'm glad you think so, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain?
If you think it right to make special provision for cycles, why are there no similar special provisions made for an even earlier form of transport; horses. I have to pass them, with great care, every day, so I think I'll be demanding a 'Horse Path' at our next ward meeting.
It's also quite incredible that even where they have the choice, many cyclists simply refuse to use them meaning if you believe in market forces, the market says don't put them in.
Posted by: newres Sep 28 2016, 07:50 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 28 2016, 08:44 PM)
I'm glad you think so, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain?
If you think it right to make special provision for cycles, why are there no similar special provisions made for an even earlier form of transport; horses. I have to pass them, with great care, every day, so I think I'll be demanding a 'Horse Path' at our next ward meeting.
It's also quite incredible that even where they have the choice, many cyclists simply refuse to use them meaning if you believe in market forces, the market says don't put them in.
If you think it right to make special provision for cycles, why are there no similar special provisions made for an even earlier form of transport; horses. I have to pass them, with great care, every day, so I think I'll be demanding a 'Horse Path' at our next ward meeting.
It's also quite incredible that even where they have the choice, many cyclists simply refuse to use them meaning if you believe in market forces, the market says don't put them in.
No need as Ian and many others did straight after:
Ian Pattinson
Posted August 24, 2015 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and Council Tax. If you think I’m exempt from paying the share that goes towards roads because I don’t own a car, please point me to the place where I can claim the money back. I could do with it.
Drivers pay Vehicle Excise Duty, not, as they like to pretend, Road Tax- which was abolished by Winston Churchill some time in the 1920s or ’30s. VED does not go toward road building etc., but into the general taxation pot. I do wish drivers would stop telling me that I “do not pay toward the use of roads”.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 08:06 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 28 2016, 08:35 PM)
Whereas I still think it was perfectly reasonable and quite normal (for some cyclists) to stay on the road.
"Whereas..."? I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 08:20 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 28 2016, 08:44 PM)
If you think it right to make special provision for cycles, why are there no similar special provisions made for an even earlier form of transport; horses.
Bridleways?
QUOTE
I have to pass them, with great care, every day, so I think I'll be demanding a 'Horse Path' at our next ward meeting.
A path will make no difference to the care you should take when driving past a horse.
QUOTE
It's also quite incredible that even where they have the choice, many cyclists simply refuse to use them meaning if you believe in market forces, the market says don't put them in.
A cycle lane is not always in the most convenient place and not all cyclists are equal; however, who said market forces should determine all that is done?
I find it hard to believe you don't know the answers to all you questions already, but the simple reason is roads and network infrastructure have not been built to suit the need for all users. The current situation could work fine if both sets of users would show each other courtesy.
Posted by: newres Sep 28 2016, 08:34 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 28 2016, 09:06 PM)
"Whereas..."? I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary.
Sorry, the distinction wasn't clear. I don't think the cyclist needed to signal as he was carrying straight on along the road. It should make no difference to any driver unless they were revving behind him with the intention of flooring it in anticipation of the cyclist going onto the pavement. If the driver was already passing it would make no difference either.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 09:05 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 28 2016, 09:34 PM)
Sorry, the distinction wasn't clear. I don't think the cyclist needed to signal as he was carrying straight on along the road.
Well From the point of view of the Highway Code he should.
QUOTE
It should make no difference to any driver unless they were revving behind him with the intention of flooring it in anticipation of the cyclist going onto the pavement. If the driver was already passing it would make no difference either.
No it shouldn't make any difference, but the codes we are taught are to allow for such lapses of judgement.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2016, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 28 2016, 08:50 PM)
No need as Ian and many others did straight after:
Ian Pattinson
Posted August 24, 2015 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and Council Tax. If you think I’m exempt from paying the share that goes towards roads because I don’t own a car, please point me to the place where I can claim the money back. I could do with it.
Drivers pay Vehicle Excise Duty, not, as they like to pretend, Road Tax- which was abolished by Winston Churchill some time in the 1920s or ’30s. VED does not go toward road building etc., but into the general taxation pot. I do wish drivers would stop telling me that I “do not pay toward the use of roads”.
Ian Pattinson
Posted August 24, 2015 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and Council Tax. If you think I’m exempt from paying the share that goes towards roads because I don’t own a car, please point me to the place where I can claim the money back. I could do with it.
Drivers pay Vehicle Excise Duty, not, as they like to pretend, Road Tax- which was abolished by Winston Churchill some time in the 1920s or ’30s. VED does not go toward road building etc., but into the general taxation pot. I do wish drivers would stop telling me that I “do not pay toward the use of roads”.
Absolutely BUT why single out one class of highway user for special treatment? Presumably using this logic, we ought to start seeing dedicated disabled trolley paths soon.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2016, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 28 2016, 09:20 PM)
Bridleways?
A path will make no difference to the care you should take when driving past a horse.
A cycle lane is not always in the most convenient place and not all cyclists are equal; however, who said market forces should determine all that is done?
I find it hard to believe you don't know the answers to all you questions already, but the simple reason is roads and network infrastructure have not been built to suit the need for all users. The current situation could work fine if both sets of users show each other courtesy.
A path will make no difference to the care you should take when driving past a horse.
A cycle lane is not always in the most convenient place and not all cyclists are equal; however, who said market forces should determine all that is done?
I find it hard to believe you don't know the answers to all you questions already, but the simple reason is roads and network infrastructure have not been built to suit the need for all users. The current situation could work fine if both sets of users show each other courtesy.
We've not built bridleways for many years. I wholly agree though that the current situation could work if BOTH sets of users show each other courtesy. How good would that be, we wouldn't then need cycle lanes. However, that's just not going to happen is it? In fact, the situation is getting steadily worse. Let's face it, the rules based system we have now is time expired. It's too complex for people to understand (if it wasn't we'd not have the endless interpretation arguments we have here) and it's not enforced rigorously or indiscriminately. When did you last hear of a cyclist prosecuted for no lights, or going through red lights, or ignoring no entry signs? All pretty common occurances; yet other users seem and claim to be pursued relentlessly.
By the way, I don't personally have a car, my wife does and uses it daily. I walk, cycle or use public transport. I'm also very much in favour of cycle paths BUT properly designed and used. If they are not, they are simply pointless.
Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 09:38 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 28 2016, 10:23 PM)
However, that's just not going to happen is it? In fact, the situation is getting steadily worse. Let's face it, the rules based system we have now is time expired. It's too complex for people to understand (if it wasn't we'd not have the endless interpretation arguments we have here) and it's not enforced rigorously or indiscriminately. When did you last hear of a cyclist prosecuted for no lights, or going through red lights, or ignoring no entry signs? All pretty common occurances; yet other users seem and claim to be pursued relentlessly.
I can't speak for anyone else, but given the circumstances, I prefer the way things are. Some behaviour needs to be rigorously enforced, other activities of a similar nature might not. I also see some enforcement is the result of a widening of the method of tax collecting.
QUOTE
By the way, I don't personally have a car, my wife does and uses it daily. I walk, cycle or use public transport. I'm also very much in favour of cycle paths BUT properly designed and used. If they are not, they are simply pointless.
I broadly agree.
Posted by: On the edge Sep 29 2016, 07:04 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 28 2016, 10:38 PM)
I can't speak for anyone else, but given the circumstances, I prefer the way things are. Some behaviour needs to be rigorously enforced, other activities of a similar nature might not. I also see some enforcement is the result of a widening of the method of tax collecting.
True, but who makes the decision and on what grounds? If that's done in a way that is discriminatory, it leads to increase the latent resentment you also righly perceive when enforcement is driven by other motives. Leaving things as they are simply means the present argument goes on. However, against the other issues we are confronting its pretty minor, nonetheless symptomatic of the broken state of our society.
Posted by: Biker1 Sep 29 2016, 08:32 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 28 2016, 06:21 PM)
If one is to accuse others of being imbeciles, as you did of the cyclist which included disparaging remarks about their clothing, then I suspect your actions are likely to come under closer scrutiny than it otherwise might.
Quite agree Andy. It's not on!
"Smuggling a budgie there are we sir?
Oooohh suits you sir"!!!
Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 29 2016, 10:16 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 27 2016, 01:36 PM)
Properly testing and licencing cyclists would at least give them a measure of self protection.
At what age? Or are you also considering children here?
Posted by: On the edge Sep 29 2016, 10:41 AM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Sep 29 2016, 11:16 AM)
At what age? Or are you also considering children here?
Yes, after all most other things society believes are dangerous are age related. So it makes sense to insist that children should not be cycling on the highway, particularly A roads below the age of sixteen. They aren't permitted to buy tobacco until they reach that age and that is as dangerous.
This may sound OTT, but as even demonstrated here, we are simply unable to share highways (and I mean the roads) reasonably and this results in aggression apparent in the reaction from both groups which sadly then causes accidents.
Put it another way, would you really be happy to let an unaccompanied 10 year old child ride along the A4 through Newbury during a busy working day, or along the 339 roadworks or otherwise?
Posted by: newres Sep 29 2016, 12:05 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 29 2016, 11:41 AM)
Yes, after all most other things society believes are dangerous are age related. So it makes sense to insist that children should not be cycling on the highway, particularly A roads below the age of sixteen. They aren't permitted to buy tobacco until they reach that age and that is as dangerous.
This may sound OTT, but as even demonstrated here, we are simply unable to share highways (and I mean the roads) reasonably and this results in aggression apparent in the reaction from both groups which sadly then causes accidents.
Put it another way, would you really be happy to let an unaccompanied 10 year old child ride along the A4 through Newbury during a busy working day, or along the 339 roadworks or otherwise?
This may sound OTT, but as even demonstrated here, we are simply unable to share highways (and I mean the roads) reasonably and this results in aggression apparent in the reaction from both groups which sadly then causes accidents.
Put it another way, would you really be happy to let an unaccompanied 10 year old child ride along the A4 through Newbury during a busy working day, or along the 339 roadworks or otherwise?
I agree. they should all be on the pavement. That's what I tell my son.
Aggression from cyclists on the road is pretty rare IME But I have had problems with cyclists on Greenham Common and in town.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 29 2016, 01:24 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 29 2016, 01:05 PM)
I agree. they should all be on the pavement. That's what I tell my son.
Aggression from cyclists on the road is pretty rare IME But I have had problems with cyclists on Greenham Common and in town.
Aggression from cyclists on the road is pretty rare IME But I have had problems with cyclists on Greenham Common and in town.
Its ok for them to ride slowly on the pavement. When one whizzes past you at 30mph+ missing you by inches as they freewheel down the Andover Road it is not on. And that happens... A lot.
Posted by: Rdg Sep 29 2016, 03:30 PM
Whilst i sort of agree with your thoughts i don't agree with the age limit. You can't leave it until 16 as at that age they can get a mpoed and therefore they need to have been able to gain road sense and real life experience before then.
How about - not recommended that they go on an A Road until they have done bikesafe/cycling proficciency test ? But I have seen plenty or irate cyclists taking frustration at finding their route cut off by a car or at a risky manouvre by deliberately vandalising/damaging the offending vehicle - passenger wing mirror or rear wiper arm seem to be the favourite targets along with a sharp kick to the passenger door. With no identifying numbe rplate or equivalent i guess they feel they are unlikely to be caught. I had one cycle into the back of me when I stopped at a red light on the motorbike, he cracked my rear light cover (c£50) and when I tried to get info he rode off stating I shouldn't have braked so hard a he thought I was carrying on - Plod said nothing they could do without witnesses and a name but wanted me to provide all documents etc as if I was the the transgressor
Posted by: newres Sep 29 2016, 04:29 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 29 2016, 02:24 PM)
Its ok for them to ride slowly on the pavement. When one whizzes past you at 30mph+ missing you by inches as they freewheel down the Andover Road it is not on. And that happens... A lot.
I find there are quite a few in town that are inconsiderate. You exaggerate though about Andover Rd. 30mph on the pavement would be suicidal. I expect the all out racing types could do that, but those are exactly the ones you'd never see on a pavement.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 29 2016, 10:39 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Sep 29 2016, 05:29 PM)
I find there are quite a few in town that are inconsiderate. You exaggerate though about Andover Rd. 30mph on the pavement would be suicidal. I expect the all out racing types could do that, but those are exactly the ones you'd never see on a pavement.
Lots of suicidal cyclists then. 3 or 4 times in the last few months this has happened to me. Cycing downill on the pavement is not on.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 2 2016, 06:04 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 29 2016, 11:39 PM)
Lots of suicidal cyclists then. 3 or 4 times in the last few months this has happened to me. Cycing downill on the pavement is not on.
Another annoying thing. When walking on the pavement cyclists coming up behind you and ringing a bell! Like its your fault you are in the way?...Happened today.
Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 2 2016, 06:30 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Oct 2 2016, 07:04 PM)
Another annoying thing. When walking on the pavement cyclists coming up behind you and ringing a bell! Like its your fault you are in the way?...Happened today.
Perhaps fewer pints before the walk home from The Gun?
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 2 2016, 06:48 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 2 2016, 07:30 PM)
Perhaps fewer pints before the walk home from The Gun?
Dont go in the Gun. Smelly drains.
Posted by: newres Oct 3 2016, 10:18 AM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Oct 2 2016, 07:04 PM)
Another annoying thing. When walking on the pavement cyclists coming up behind you and ringing a bell! Like its your fault you are in the way?...Happened today.
That is usually done to alert you to their presence, not for you to move out of the way. Honestly, you really are an old misery!
Posted by: On the edge Oct 3 2016, 03:13 PM
QUOTE (newres @ Oct 3 2016, 11:18 AM)
That is usually done to alert you to their presence, not for you to move out of the way. Honestly, you really are an old misery!
That's right TDH! It takes a bit of getting used to, but that's all the bell is for, so simply totally ignore them when you are walking; I do.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 3 2016, 03:16 PM
Deleted.
Misread previous post.
Sorry!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)