Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Cycling in West Berks
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 19 2012, 08:24 AM
There has been a concerted effort by West Berks Council in line with the message handed down from Central government to get us on our bikes and over the past ten years, this has meant an increase in cycle riding by 22%.
There is a down side to this however which is that cycle related accidents resulting in reporetd injuries has shown a 34% increase over the same period.
The question that springs to mind is that if the accident rate is increasing, is this a safe mode of transport for us in West Berks. Cars and HGV's pack the roads around the area which invariably are not wide enough to accomodate the additional cycles safely despite the green lanes and crazy roundabout markings that seem to offer safety. In a few instances these markings actually increase the risk, especially when cyclists automatically assume that if they are on a green lane they have right of way.
I'm not sure what the answer is but when planning applications require one cycle store position for every bedroom and offer vouchers towards cycle purchase, the statistics can only get worse .
Posted by: spartacus Jun 19 2012, 08:33 AM
yet we still get a rabid screeches for cyclists to get off the empty pavements and ride on the roads.............
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2012, 08:34 AM
It would be more helpful to understand what type of cycling injuries occur. I suspect many don't involve other road users.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2012, 09:24 AM
There's not enough detail in the OP say whether there is an underlying increase in the cycle accident rate, or whether there is just a systematic error in the measurement of the rate due to the accuracy with which cycling incidence is measured (it might be measured by journey and people are cycling further, or they might have counted the number of bikes passing a given point which has seen a disproportionately large increase is cycling), or a change in the way cycle accidents are reported, or simply the natural variation in the statistics of small numbers. A change in the underlying accident rate is possible if less experienced riders are taking to the roads, or if disproportionately more journeys are being made on more dangerous roads, or if roads have become more dangerous for cyclists, but the headline figure alone doesn't support the conclusion or the suggestion that the accident rate will continue to increase. Is there more analysis somewhere?
Posted by: Timbo Jun 19 2012, 11:20 AM
This thread will only go well......
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 20 2012, 06:54 AM
No, the point is that the LAW states that cycling on the pavement is illegal.
Either change the law or enforce it- one of the two.
(By the way, the pavements I see cyclists riding on at an alarmingly fast rate are NOT empty of pedestrians.)
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2012, 09:47 AM
Either change the law or enforce it- one of the two.
I prefer policing by discretion in this case. Riding on the pavement, like speeding on a motorway, doesn't always carry the same danger level.
It is rare that I see a cyclist on a pavement behaving in a way that I think is reckless.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 20 2012, 12:36 PM
It is rare that I see a cyclist on a pavement behaving in a way that I think is reckless.
I ride on the pavement if rising on the road is unsafe and there in no cycle path. I have never once been stopped.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 20 2012, 02:28 PM
How do you decide when riding in the proper place would be unsafe? If you feel unsafe, then perhaps it's time to put the bike away.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 20 2012, 02:44 PM
You should try riding along hambridge land in the rush hour or between burger king and sainsburys, much easier to go on the pavement. Never caused any issues or had any complaints.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2012, 02:59 PM
It is a fact the roads are not safe. All things being equal, a cyclist will come to less harm riding on a path. Saying that, I try to stay on the road as much as possible, but there are times when a path seems the best option for everyone. Hambridge Road for instance, or the Burger King Roundabout. When I cycle on the path, I always show consideration for other path users.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 20 2012, 03:45 PM
Finally the voice of reason!!!
Plus cyclists on Hambridge road almost inevitably cause HUGE tailbacks and there are hardly any foot pedestrians. The path and grassy area is wide enough to accommodate for both.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 20 2012, 05:00 PM
I like that phrase policing by discretion, but one over zealous copper could upset the balance. I would have to agree that cycles and cars don't mix and as pointed out, Hambridge Road is a good example. My preference as a motorist is that the cycles should always be on the path and that they should only be punished if they ride recklessly. I'm afraid though that I can't define 'riding recklessly'.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2012, 05:37 PM
My Preference is that roads are wide enough for a cars and cyclists.
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 20 2012, 07:26 PM
Plus cyclists on Hambridge road almost inevitably cause HUGE tailbacks and there are hardly any foot pedestrians. The path and grassy area is wide enough to accommodate for both.
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 20 2012, 07:28 PM
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.
“CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2012, 07:48 PM
On the Hambridge Road, there is often a tailback because the average cyclist can't reach the 30 mph speed limit and cars can't safely overtake.
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 20 2012, 08:53 PM
Cars need drivers. it's the driver who makes the decision to overtake or not.
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way.
The speed limit is not a target.
If you're in a motor vehicle and you're caught in a tailback which you allege is cause by a cyclist, blame yourself. You're taking up more space than the cyclist. No-one is forcing you to drive. Don't you see this?
Posted by: Timbo Jun 20 2012, 09:30 PM
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way.
The speed limit is not a target.
If you're in a motor vehicle and you're caught in a tailback which you allege is cause by a cyclist, blame yourself. You're taking up more space than the cyclist. No-one is forcing you to drive. Don't you see this?
Lol talk about tyranical!
You are wrong on so many levels. The amount of times I've been stuck behind a bicyclist on Hambridge Road, I've lost track of! And no it's not the fault of the car, it's the fault of the bicycle. There's no "alleging" in it - it's merely a fact.
Space taken up is not proportionate to the speed travelled, otherwise it would take a lot longer than 7 hours to fly to New York.
But you continue to cause a pool of salty liquid in your underpants, and arrive at work sweaty and smelling of B.O. I'll arrive with a bit of Bill Withers on the radio, in an air conditioned 18 degrees, smelling of eu de toilette.
I do not have an issue with bicylists on the road. My issue is when those bicyclists will not use an empty pavement when they are causing a tailback.
A bicycle is about 2 foot wide with ride on it. An average car 6 ft wide. Hambridge road is, I would estimate, 14-16ft wide, if that. It's enough of a squeeze when a lorry is coming down the road! In rush hour a single cylist causing traffic to tail back at 10-15mph is selfish. Don't you see this?
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2012, 09:44 PM
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way. The speed limit is not a target.
No, but to drive slower will be less fuel efficient and will increase travelling time by up to 50% or more.
No-one is forcing you to cycle.
Posted by: x2lls Jun 20 2012, 10:07 PM
You are wrong on so many levels. The amount of times I've been stuck behind a bicyclist on Hambridge Road, I've lost track of! And no it's not the fault of the car, it's the fault of the bicycle. There's no "alleging" in it - it's merely a fact.
Space taken up is not proportionate to the speed travelled, otherwise it would take a lot longer than 7 hours to fly to New York.
But you continue to cause a pool of salty liquid in your underpants, and arrive at work sweaty and smelling of B.O. I'll arrive with a bit of Bill Withers on the radio, in an air conditioned 18 degrees, smelling of eu de toilette.
I do not have an issue with bicylists on the road. My issue is when those bicyclists will not use an empty pavement when they are causing a tailback.
A bicycle is about 2 foot wide with ride on it. An average car 6 ft wide. Hambridge road is, I would estimate, 14-16ft wide, if that. It's enough of a squeeze when a lorry is coming down the road! In rush hour a single cylist causing traffic to tail back at 10-15mph is selfish. Don't you see this?
Try chilling out, there is no need to go as fast as possible for every driving minute.
BTW, if you get to work smelling of BO, then you didn't shower yesterday. BO is caused by stale sweat, not fresh.
Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 20 2012, 10:33 PM
Good comment. Every day I see people so impatient for the sake of a few seconds gained, only for poor driving to then take that gain away. We do not have the road environment that makes the attempt to rush worthwhile....
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 21 2012, 07:35 AM
No-one is forcing you to cycle.
You want to save money on fuel: don't drive.
Don't want to be held up: travel at a less busy time, so that there won't be so much traffic that you can't overtake a cyclist safely.
Don't want to be late - get up earlier.
I know. I do it because I love it.
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 21 2012, 07:42 AM
Back to my point.
If cycling on the pavement is acceptable (as most would appear to think here) then why not make it legal?
By the way Andy C I see far too many inconsiderate cyclists on pavements (as well as breaking other road laws) so I am afraid I disagree with you.
Maybe we walk on different pavements? 
Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 07:52 AM
If cycling on the pavement is acceptable (as most would appear to think here) then why not make it legal?
By the way Andy C I see far too many inconsiderate cyclists on pavements (as well as breaking other road laws) so I am afraid I disagree with you.
Maybe we walk on different pavements?
If you read what Betty Swollox posted it states that discression is to be advised. IE if the traffic is unsafe as it is on the Hambridge Road then footpaths may be used.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 08:49 AM
There is no reason why people cannot cycle on either the road or the pavement on Hambridge Road, I choose the path if I need to go that way as you just get in everybody's way on the road and the path is far easier. I would thnk the chance of a police car going past in the last 8 years of me cycling that route are quite high, howver common sense prevails and it seems it is not an issue for them.
Posted by: Penelope Jun 21 2012, 09:11 AM
I think it's Ok to use the pavement as long as it's safe to do so and so long as you give priority to pedestriens, anything to make it safer for everyone.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 09:20 AM
BTW, if you get to work smelling of BO, then you didn't shower yesterday. BO is caused by stale sweat, not fresh.
No there's not but 15mph is half the limit and therefore possibly dangerous and selfish, one bicycle holding up 50 or 60 cars at half their speed...
Now if a car was to block a bicycle lane the whole world would come to an end, but it's OK for bicycles to do basically the same???
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 09:30 AM
Now if a car was to block a bicycle lane the whole world would come to an end, but it's OK for bicycles to do basically the same???
It's not illegal, but it's certainly not considerate to block Hambridge Lane at rush hour.
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 21 2012, 01:19 PM
Now if a car was to block a bicycle lane the whole world would come to an end, but it's OK for bicycles to do basically the same???
Roads are for bicycles and cyclists too: they have as much right to use roads, as you do in your motor vehicle.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 01:23 PM
Oh do they now? Are we talking about what is said by Government or what "really" happens. Pedestrians have right of way in the road but you wouldn't walk out infront of a lorry would you... Because you as bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on the road does not mean you should use that as an excuse to create tailbacks and be a SELFISH [censored]
Because like I said if a car blocked an area used by cyclists you'd probably the first to have a good old moan about it
ps a chilled post.
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 21 2012, 01:50 PM
Because like I said if a car blocked an area used by cyclists you'd probably the first to have a good old moan about it
ps a chilled post.
I use roads to cycle on. It's my right. Unlike yours when you're in a motor vehicle: you use roads by licence.
Blame all the other cars taking up the space, not the cyclist.
Queues on Hambridge Road today today. And not a cyclist in sight, except me.
I scooted through and was away.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 01:59 PM
Blame all the other cars taking up the space, not the cyclist.
Queues on Hambridge Road today today. And not a cyclist in sight, except me.
I scooted through and was away.
It's my right to drive. I am required to meet a minimum standard to be on the roads. I must pay for road tax, I must also carry insurance incase I am injured or be involved in an accident. I must be free from debilitating illness and must be clear minded and sober to drive.
Where as any old fart can ride a bicycle regardless of their mental state, do not carry insurance or even any identification for if involved in an accident.
What irritates me the most about you is the fact that you do not admit that there are situations where bicycles refusing to ride on the pavement can cause issues.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 02:09 PM
Where as any old fart can ride a bicycle regardless of their mental state, do not carry insurance or even any identification for if involved in an accident.
What irritates me the most about you is the fact that you do not admit that there are situations where bicycles refusing to ride on the pavement can cause issues.
That does appear to be the law though
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 21 2012, 02:16 PM
Where as any old fart can ride a bicycle regardless of their mental state, do not carry insurance or even any identification for if involved in an accident.
What irritates me the most about you is the fact that you do not admit that there are situations where bicycles refusing to ride on the pavement can cause issues.
I do not give a hoot what irritates you.
I will continue to ride on the roads responsibly and obeying the laws, as is my right.
There will always be someone in your way in this crowded island of ours, whether it be in the shops, banks, post offices, or the roads. Don't expect them to get out of the way for you.
Get used to it.
And by the way: you don't pay "Road Tax': no-one does. It's called 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and no-one compels you to pay it. You do so out of choice. You can avoid paying it by using a vehicle which is VED zero-rated. One example of such a vehicle is a bicycle, but there are plenty of others.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 02:20 PM
I will continue to ride on the roads responsibly and obeying the laws, as is my right.
There will always be someone in your way in this crowded island of ours, whether it be in the shops, banks, post offices, or the roads. Don't expect them to get out of the way for you.
Get used to it.
I call riding on the pavement out the way of the rush hour traffic :
a) Considerate
Safe
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 21 2012, 02:31 PM
a) Considerate
SafeCycling is safe anyway.
Rush hour traffic is often at a standstill. A cycle will often be the fastest moving vehicle in these circumstances.
Rush hour also means that the pavement will be busier with pedestrians going home.
In such circumstances, cycling on a pavement would be highly inconsiderate.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 02:32 PM
I will continue to ride on the roads responsibly and obeying the laws, as is my right.
Well blocking the road is not responsible! It's also my right to ram you.
Get used to it.
Quite true, although you can mitigate your effect on everyone else by MOVING. Like when someone stops right in the middle of the entrace to some shops to check their phone, that's a completely avoidable delay by MOVING. Again the same as when someone is in the supermarket and leaves their trolley halfway across the isle infront of the milk. Selfish and thoughtless.
By the way, do not lecture me on the technical names of the tax. You, I, and my mate Bob all know it is Road Tax. Can I have some Coke? You don't assume the powdered substance, do you................... And as someone who does upwards of 30,000 miles a year, 20,000 of them business related, I would not be able to ride everywhere or drive in a stupid electric car as I would not get any business done.
All I am saying is that you can ride on the pavement at no negative affect towards you or anyone else, and at the same time helping to ease the flow of traffic on narrow roads during peak periods.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 02:33 PM
Rush hour traffic is often at a standstill. A cycle will often be the fastest moving vehicle in these circumstances.
Rush hour also means that the pavement will be busier with pedestrians going home.
In such circumstances, cycling on a pavement would be highly inconsiderate.
what pedestrians, never any when I cycle down the path. Your not the guy on the racer I see each day with the silly helmet ?
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 21 2012, 02:36 PM
Quite true, although you can mitigate your effect on everyone else by MOVING. Like when someone stops right in the middle of the entrace to some shops to check their phone, that's a completely avoidable delay by MOVING. Again the same as when someone is in the supermarket and leaves their trolley halfway across the isle infront of the milk. Selfish and thoughtless.
By the way, do not lecture me on the technical names of the tax. You, I, and my mate Bob all know it is Road Tax. Can I have some Coke? You don't assume the powdered substance, do you................... And as someone who does upwards of 30,000 miles a year, 20,000 of them business related, I would not be able to ride everywhere or drive in a stupid electric car as I would not get any business done.
All I am saying is that you can ride on the pavement at no negative affect towards you or anyone else, and at the same time helping to ease the flow of traffic on narrow roads during peak periods.
You post on a forum: you get what's coming to you. If you can't take the heat........
Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 02:38 PM
I am more than capable of taking what's "coming to me". What are you, part of the familes? Is big Tony going to come and kill my family.
The question is are you capable?
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 21 2012, 09:09 PM
Again many say it's OK and safe to ride on the pavement so again I ask - why is it not made legal then?
No-one has answered the question yet.
Again, just to make it clear, I am not arguing whether it is safe or acceptable or not, just why is it not legal??????
If it is safe and acceptable then why not make it legal????
I am sure most, if not all, who support pavement cycling on here do it responsibly but, as I have said before, many do not and I think this may be one of the reasons why.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2012, 10:04 PM
No-one has answered the question yet.
Again, just to make it clear, I am not arguing whether it is safe or acceptable or not, just why is it not legal??????
If it is safe and acceptable then why not make it legal????
I am sure most, if not all, who support pavement cycling on here do it responsibly but, as I have said before, many do not and I think this may be one of the reasons why.
I'm not saying it is always safe, I am saying that sometimes it is not dangerous to pedestrians to ride on the pavement.
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2012, 08:06 AM
Agreed, so why is it not legal?
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 22 2012, 08:11 AM
Because they sometimes collide with pedestrians. Isn't that dangerous?
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2012, 08:24 AM
At last, we're getting there!
Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 08:33 AM
What about when a car collides with a pedestrian?
Should we ban driving?
I guess it's all about the "common link" in accidents. The common link is always the pedestrian, so let's ban walking. See, problem solved.
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2012, 08:41 AM
Should be ban driving?
I guess it's all about the "common link" in accidents. The common link is always the pedestrian, so let's ban walking. See, problem solved.
A car is on the road legally.
A pedestrian is on the pavement legally.
A pedestrian can cross the road safely, legally.
Either cycling on the pavement is safe - then make it legal, or it is not - then keep it illegal and do something about it.
It would seem that many think it is safe, and many think it isn't.
Solution??
(Timbo, sensible arguments only please.
)
Posted by: x2lls Jun 22 2012, 08:46 AM
Where as any old fart can ride a bicycle regardless of their mental state, do not carry insurance or even any identification for if involved in an accident.
What irritates me the most about you is the fact that you do not admit that there are situations where bicycles refusing to ride on the pavement can cause issues.
Driving a motorised vehicle on public roads is a priviledge, not a right, hence a licence.
If I'm held up by a cyclist, I wait.
I get held up mostly by other car drivers who have no idea of the speed limit. How many idiots tootal along Hambridge road at 28mph in a 40 limit? or, on the A4 to Readiing, they cause a great deal of frustration.
Like I said, chill out
Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 08:49 AM
x2lls, I am chilled. The only thing that's making me unchilled is you telling me to chill.
A pedestrian is on the pavement legally.
A pedestrian can cross the road safely, legally.
Either cycling on the pavement is safe - then make it legal, or it is not - then keep it illegal and do something about it.
It would seem that many think it is safe, and many think it isn't.
Solution??
(Timbo, sensible arguments only please.
)Sensible is dull.
But it's a valid point. Things happen from time to time, accidents and what not. If that makes sense. Although it's technically illegal to ride on a pavement, as has been shown already it is enforced with discression and not really something you'd be fined for donig especially during rush hour!
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2012, 08:56 AM
Then make it legal!!!
It must be illegal for a reason????
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 22 2012, 09:02 AM
Should be ban driving?
Cars rarely travel on the pavement.
There are many accidents that don't involve pedestrians.
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 22 2012, 09:03 AM
It must be illegal for a reason????
See post No 45
Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 09:37 AM
It must be illegal for a reason????
It's like doing 80mph on a motorway. On a clear fairly quite day the police won't bat an eyelid. If it's foggy and icy and raining then they would probably do you!! It's easier to please more people by saying it's "illegal but discression to be used during peak periods" than to say "well it's legal but Mildred might get knocked off her zimmer frame."
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 22 2012, 10:01 AM
Well stop beating round the bush and spit it out!
Posted by: Penelope Jun 22 2012, 10:06 AM
BREAKING NEWS. Carr tax to increase
Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 10:12 AM
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 22 2012, 10:12 AM
Solution??
(Timbo, sensible arguments only please.
)I don't think that anyone is saying that it is always safe to ride on the pavement.
Like I said, sometimes cycling on the pavement is not dangerous to pedestrians, but sometimes it is.
To answer your substantive point: I think the situation should remain as it is: discretionary. Except, perhaps, there should be something done about the more 'aggressive' riders, but for me, this is a very low priority and doesn't merit any more legal investment.
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 22 2012, 10:16 AM
Like I said, sometimes cycling on the pavement is not dangerous to pedestrians, but sometimes it is.
To answer your substantive point: I think the situation should remain as it is, except, perhaps there should be something done about the more 'aggressive' riders, but to me, this is a very low priority and doesn't merit any more legal investment.
That' alright then.
Are you sure you're not IOMMI??
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 22 2012, 10:17 AM
Are you sure you're not IOMMI??
I'm not sure of anything, indeed, what does it matter if I am or not? What I will say is: I know who Iommi is in real life.
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 22 2012, 10:24 AM
Hummmmm, interesting.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 22 2012, 10:25 AM
Like I said: and your point is is what?
Posted by: badmummajamma Jun 22 2012, 10:51 AM
When I lived in Reading I used to cycle 3 miles (running the gauntlet) to work most mornings and tend to do quite a bit of long distance road riding these days - in fact, I cycled from Lowestoft to Land's End last week without using the pavement once.
Having said that, I also drive, love motorsport and am generally a massive petrol head so I'm certainly not a militant cyclist.
I think 95% of drivers are patient and respectful enough to wait long enough to be able to pass you with a wide berth (at least a car's width). In 500 miles last week, I only had one or two cars come within a few feet - after which they received wholly justified single finger jestures.
While getting stuck behind a cyclist on a winding country road can be frustrating, to my mind there is no point getting irate about it because to do anything that wait patiently for a safe place to overtake is dangerous and could threaten someone's life.
A lot of motorists, particularly those who don't cycle, lose appreciation of the effect of gradients, sustained effort, pothole/manhole avoidance, braking in a straight line before a corner, lack of stopping power in general etc that a cyclist has to deal with.
Getting "stuck" behind a cyclist on decent sized town roads is usually the result of a nervous or overly cautious driver - not the cyclist. Most roads are more than wide enough for a safe overtaking manouvre and it's the responsibility of the person making the manouvre to do it safely - which may mean waiting a few seconds.
In this scenario, the worst thing that will happen to the driver is mild inconvinience. The worst thing that will happen to the cyclist as a result of the impatient driver is life-long paralysis or death. Perspective needs to be maintained here.
Riding on pavements on a bike is not feasible - I've got a lightweight carbon road bike which does allow me to cycle quite comfortably at around 20-25mph on the flat - but this sort of speed would be dangerous to pedestrians (walking chicanes to cyclists) and, with skinny tires, I'd pick up endless puntures from the c**p/roots/glass/foliage on the pavement.
Cycle lanes are fine, but would cost so much to implement on a useable scale that they're unfeasible. As the cost of running a private vehicle continues to rise, more and more people are going to opt to cycle. Recreational cycling in the UK is growing at a massive rate at the moment as well, and, as a nation, we're pretty good at competitive cycling - which serves to promote the sport.
I think the only thing cyclists owe to motorists is consistency and to use the roads in a way that a car would. This means getting in the correct lane at roundabouts, waiting at traffic lights, being in the middle fo the road for right hand turns at junctions etc, maintaining a constant distance from the kerb etc. If all cyclists do this, then I really don't see that motorists have any cause for complaint.
Posted by: badmummajamma Jun 22 2012, 10:56 AM
On that last point about consistency, I think road use of bicycles in this manner (ie do as a car would) should be conditional on everyone completing a cycling proficiency test. (How you police this, I don't know.)
This should be compulsory at school (perhaps around year 6 age) and will actually help young people learn to drive safely as well when they're a bit older - not to mention giving all road users an appreciation of what it is like to cycle on the road.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 11:02 AM
It's nice that you posted up a well rounded post, as a biker I can understand where you're coming from but at the same time I guess your high speed carbon racing bike probably is a bit overkill for the majority of the time? Maybe get a normal bicycle to ride to work, if your commute included the hambridge road.
Posted by: badmummajamma Jun 22 2012, 12:17 PM
I don't cycle commute anymore - I'm afraid I now live an unsustainable distance from my new job - so have to drive (it's not on a feasible train or bus line).
My cycling is for pleasure/fitness only these days, so I tend to get me and my carbon road bike as far away from towns as quickly as I can. The West Berkshire/South Oxfordshire downlands are great for this.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 02:31 PM
On a slightly different note, why do bicyclists insist on wearing stupidly tight clothing?
You are not racing, you are riding to work.
The 0.02 drag co-efficient you'd save is not enough to counteract the fact you look like a device in churches which goes "ding" -end.
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 24 2012, 07:25 PM
You are not racing, you are riding to work.
The 0.02 drag co-efficient you'd save is not enough to counteract the fact you look like a device in churches which goes "ding" -end.
They don't insist: many don't wear tight fitting clothing, but it can be very practical. It might look 'stupidly tight' on you however.
But, it doesn't flap about, doesn't chafe and dries quickly.
This is important on long and/or fast rides, when comfort and maximising efficiency is important. Not so important on short rides - obviously.
Some folk might think (me included) that sitting in a tin box, stuck in yet another traffic jam or tailback, wasting hours and hours of your life away, looks pretty daft too.
You have a real 'thing' against cyclists or cycling or both, don't you Timbo - jealous?
Posted by: Timbo Jun 24 2012, 07:59 PM
They look stupidly tight on anyone. Regardless of whether they are tubby or athletic.
Neither do my jeans!!!
Just like it's nice to have a radio, and some comfy chairs, and some heating.
I have been a motorcyclist for close to 10 years now. I also spent 2 winters with only motorcycles, no cars during that time - I am more than aware of what it's like to be out in the fresh air. It's very nice. I also occasionally enjoy the odd pedal around with my mates, especially remembering back to when I was 14 or 15 on our little Apollos.... I also rode 2 miles to work and back every day for about 3 weeks.. till I gave up because I COULDN'T BE BOTHERED. After a hard day at work what I wanted was some comfortable, supportive chairs, insulation from the outside world and some Sade on the radio.
What I actually got was a sweaty face, stinky pits and a sore ****. Maybe you like that sort of thing but I for one do not!!
(Probably) unlike you - I can safely say I've had to see both words, and actually with all honesty that in most cases, apart from the once in a blue moon perfect day when the sun is out and it's not too hot, or too cold, or too windy, and the roads aren't busy (not really relevant for you on your pedal-powered crotch-box) that I'd rather be on a bike than in my car.
I prefer being on two wheels than I do on four, but I would rather have a car than a bike (powered or otherwise).
You waste hours and hours of your life away too probably, trying to squeeze into your romper outfit, or try to convince people you're interesting. So we both waste a similar amount of time, just on different things.
And let's be honest my commute by car doesn't really involve any queuing as it's not really into the normal rush hour flow (when I used to work in the centre of Newbury it only took me about 15 or 20 minutes from the far end of Thatcham anyway!!
The last time I got in a queue was heading towards Bournemouth for a day when it was that lovely hot weekend a fortnight or so ago - and let's face it even being stuck in traffic for half an hour I'd have made it there before you. Even if you did have a Chris Hoy Halfords special or whatever it's called.
Nope, nothing against them at all.
Except the odd militant one who hold up traffic flow or wobble between 1 inch and 4 feet out from the curb. Also the mentality of bikers. Yes you might have the right to use the road but at the end of it, you are the smaller and more feeble beings on the road so instead of trying to be top of the food chain you should settle down into the lower ranks.. Even as a motorcyclist being probably the fastest thing on any given stretch of road, the amount of times that having the "WELL IT'S MY RIGHT....." attitude could have killed me are beyond count.
I think you also take things a little too literally.. as will no doubt be evident by your reply to my clearly, 100% serious, nothing to do with being a bit hyper on Red Bull (yes it STILL affects me..even at my age)
Posted by: betty swollocks Jun 24 2012, 08:44 PM
Neither do my jeans!!!
Just like it's nice to have a radio, and some comfy chairs, and some heating.
I have been a motorcyclist for close to 10 years now. I also spent 2 winters with only motorcycles, no cars during that time - I am more than aware of what it's like to be out in the fresh air. It's very nice. I also occasionally enjoy the odd pedal around with my mates, especially remembering back to when I was 14 or 15 on our little Apollos.... I also rode 2 miles to work and back every day for about 3 weeks.. till I gave up because I COULDN'T BE BOTHERED. After a hard day at work what I wanted was some comfortable, supportive chairs, insulation from the outside world and some Sade on the radio.
What I actually got was a sweaty face, stinky pits and a sore ****. Maybe you like that sort of thing but I for one do not!!
(Probably) unlike you - I can safely say I've had to see both words, and actually with all honesty that in most cases, apart from the once in a blue moon perfect day when the sun is out and it's not too hot, or too cold, or too windy, and the roads aren't busy (not really relevant for you on your pedal-powered crotch-box) that I'd rather be on a bike than in my car.
I prefer being on two wheels than I do on four, but I would rather have a car than a bike (powered or otherwise).
You waste hours and hours of your life away too probably, trying to squeeze into your romper outfit, or try to convince people you're interesting. So we both waste a similar amount of time, just on different things.
And let's be honest my commute by car doesn't really involve any queuing as it's not really into the normal rush hour flow (when I used to work in the centre of Newbury it only took me about 15 or 20 minutes from the far end of Thatcham anyway!!
The last time I got in a queue was heading towards Bournemouth for a day when it was that lovely hot weekend a fortnight or so ago - and let's face it even being stuck in traffic for half an hour I'd have made it there before you. Even if you did have a Chris Hoy Halfords special or whatever it's called.
Nope, nothing against them at all.
Except the odd militant one who hold up traffic flow or wobble between 1 inch and 4 feet out from the curb. Also the mentality of bikers. Yes you might have the right to use the road but at the end of it, you are the smaller and more feeble beings on the road so instead of trying to be top of the food chain you should settle down into the lower ranks.. Even as a motorcyclist being probably the fastest thing on any given stretch of road, the amount of times that having the "WELL IT'S MY RIGHT....." attitude could have killed me are beyond count.
I think you also take things a little too literally.. as will no doubt be evident by your reply to my clearly, 100% serious, nothing to do with being a bit hyper on Red Bull (yes it STILL affects me..even at my age)
Well, when you're stuck in a tailback behind a cyclist, you can be happy because your jeans don't chafe.
It makes me happy too.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 22 2012, 08:38 AM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/west-berkshire-council-defend-cyclists-sign cracks me up!
As if Newbury's law breaking cyclists are going to take any notice of a futile sign!
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 22 2012, 10:50 AM
As if Newbury's law breaking cyclists are going to take any notice of a futile sign!
The sign is there to exonerate the council in case of any accidents.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 22 2012, 10:56 AM
Good point and probably true!
Perhaps that is the reason for most such signs as no-one takes much notice of them.
Not much consolation when you are walking through a subway and get rammed into by a riding cyclist next to a "cyclists dismount" sign!
Posted by: Exhausted Oct 22 2012, 06:52 PM
Victoria Park sign "Danger deep water" The kiddies are going to take a lot of notice of that one much like the cyclists but if the worst happens, the powers can say "Told you so!"
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 23 2012, 08:47 AM
The difference here, of course, is that the "Danger Deep Water" sign is a warning, whereas the signs for the cyclists are direct requests.
Are we saying here that cyclists are immune to all direction signs?
Posted by: Ron Oct 23 2012, 09:22 AM
Are we saying here that cyclists are immune to all direction signs?
Apparently ‘Yes’. Two cyclists arrive at the RED traffic light on the canal bridge from the Wharf. Hesitate then ignored them. Part way across they meet a small bus coming in the opposite direction. They just manage to pass it. On going down the slope to Park Way they meet a single deck bus. By the time they had mounted the foot path to allow the bus past the lights had changed at the ends. You can guess what happened next when the taxi came across the bridge from the Wharf!
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 23 2012, 09:44 AM
Those lights are useless when on a bike - a bike isn't big enough to trigger the sensor.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 23 2012, 11:32 AM
The lights on Parkway Bridge are triggered by proximity sensors (similar to the sensors on the security light on your house) which will change the lights even if a pedestrian enters the waiting zone.
Try it next time you pass.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 23 2012, 11:43 AM
Try it next time you pass.
I have tried it many times - sometimes they do indeed change, but often you just stand there.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 24 2012, 08:22 AM
Well you need to move a little bit!!
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2012, 09:04 AM
I do - straight through the red light........!
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 25 2012, 09:18 AM
Ah!, It was you was it??
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2012, 12:11 PM
nope.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Oct 25 2012, 04:42 PM
Hi, there are some mad cyclists out there. I was in my car the other day when a cyclist swerved in front of me. Lucky nobody was hurt. I think cyclist should have tests like other road users.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2012, 05:10 PM
I cycle nearly every day & I'd say in the last week I have come close to being knocked off 4 times. It is almost a daily occurence. Drivers are particularly bad at anticipating a cycle's speed - 3 of these near misses in the last week have involved cars pulling out of drive ways / side streets areas where they have clearly seen me coming but decided 'oh hes on a bike & therefore slow' and have no patience when behind a cyclist & often overtake, only to then be turning L 10m infront....
Best one was a taxi driver who got annoyed because a car infront of me had stopped to ask me directions - I was talking to the driver of the car & the taxi squeezed past almost knocking me off with his wing mirror. Taxi driver was most surprised when I caught him up ( I can go faster in rush hour ) and tapped on his window to give his a reminder abour the highway code....
Posted by: Timbo Oct 25 2012, 10:02 PM
Oh give over.
Every time someone posts up anything about bad cyclists someone lycra-wearing do-gooder comes on saying "OH MY GOD CARS ARE HORRIBLE".
I was out with my friend the other night and at the roundabout at the top of the link, near Newbury Retail Park, I saw 2 bicycles behaving STUPIDLY.
Firstly was an old man.
It was around 8:30pm so dark. Had NO LIGHTS on his bicycle and no reflectors neither. He rode around the roundabout from Newbury College Side and straight on (as if going to the retail park) WITHOUT ANY SIGNALLING WHATSOEVER.
An Audi driver going towards that Girls school nearly crashed into this old guy because well, it's unexpected and you couldn't see them!!
And then the same bicyclist veered across the oncoming lane, infront of a car (causing it to brake pretty hard judging from the pitch) to get onto the path.
At the next roundabout (where you either go into McDonalds or towards Tesco) another guy on a bicycle went THE WRONG WAY around the roundabout to ride across the road onto the path infront of oncomming traffic.
And the other night I nearly smashed into a bicycle. I was edging out of my drive (which backs onto a main road, it has a fence so I can't see the path admittedly until 10 meters away). I'm patient here and waited for a sec incase there was something in the 10m blind spot. Around 10 seconds after this, I SLOWLY edged out forwards (as I reverse in, in accordance with the highway code) and a maniac on a bicycle came flying down the path. (A small brown chap). Nearly into the side of my car. Now sorry but I understand sometimes you'd want to cycle on the path (hambridge road etc) but the main road in question actually has a cycle lane on the road and is perfectly wide enough for bicycles and cars to happily co-exist... ................................................................................
.............................
Nuff said really.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 26 2012, 08:15 AM
Yes there are SOME good cyclists out there and I am sure you are one of them Dannyboy.
But I suggest they are in a minority going by my observation. Only last night I was driving home and a approached a cyclist with NO light and only JUST saw them in time to avoid a nasty accident.
And before anyone says it, yes I know there are many bad motorcyclists out there as well, but even those rarely ride without lights, ignore red lights and ride the wrong way down one way streets.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2012, 09:41 AM
But I suggest they are in a minority going by my observation. Only last night I was driving home and a approached a cyclist with NO light and only JUST saw them in time to avoid a nasty accident.
And before anyone says it, yes I know there are many bad motorcyclists out there as well, but even those rarely ride without lights, ignore red lights and ride the wrong way down one way streets.
It depends if I am in traffic or not. If I am a behave as if I was in a car & will sometimes use as much road as if I was in a car ( especially if approaching a roundabout & need to change lanes etc etc ). If I'm in a car free environment then I often won't wait at red lights obey road signs etc etc.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2012, 09:43 AM
Nuff said really.
A bit of a rather hypocritical post.....
Posted by: Timbo Oct 26 2012, 09:48 AM
Not at all.
Considering that I have legal access to the path to exit my drive (hence the dropped down curb) and in addition a bicyclist should be using a cycle lane if provided. I checked down past the fence and then waited for around 10 seconds to allow any cyclists or people who were in the blind spot (10m long estimate) to emerge and this guy didn't.
When there's a cycle path on a wide road I have no compassion.
Nothing to do with failure to indicate or a lack of lights in the night.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2012, 09:51 AM
Considering that I have legal access to the path to exit my drive (hence the dropped down curb) and in addition a bicyclist should be using a cycle lane if provided. I checked down past the fence and then waited for around 10 seconds to allow any cyclists or people who were in the blind spot (10m long estimate) to emerge and this guy didn't.
When there's a cycle path on a wide road I have no compassion.
Nothing to do with failure to indicate or a lack of lights in the night.
no this bit - Oh give over.
Every time someone posts up anything about bad cyclists someone lycra-wearing do-gooder comes on saying "OH MY GOD CARS ARE HORRIBLE
Followed by a reciprocal rant.
Posted by: IanB Oct 26 2012, 12:39 PM
Roads were around before cars and bicycles. Vehicle of choice shouldn't be an issue, it is the common sense of the individual moving it.
Too many rules, not enough common sense...
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 27 2012, 10:14 AM
You have to have the rules due to the lack of common sense!
Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2012, 10:39 AM
.............................
Nuff said really.
If your view of the road and path is obscured, you should be using a banksman to reverse out.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2012, 10:50 AM
BanksPERSON!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2012, 11:34 AM
I wrote what I meant. Don't trust women with a man's job. Women should know their limits.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2012, 11:37 AM
Car stuck in ditch, with irate male driver & sheepish loooking filly stood in the road....
'I meant your left, darling'
Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2012, 11:38 AM
'I meant your left, darling'
Women with their delightful thoughts, the dear, sweet, fragile little things.
Posted by: Penelope Oct 27 2012, 01:19 PM
Women with their delightful thoughts, the dear, sweet, fragile little things.
Women! Know your place!
Posted by: Timbo Oct 27 2012, 01:42 PM
Sorry, I'm driving out forwards... Hence in accordance with the highway code which states you should not reverse out onto a main road.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)