Cycling with Lights

[Djuwenda]

Drivers are becoming accustomed to erratic behaviour by some cyclists.

 

so isnt that a good thing? as it fits your earlier point (the need to be predictable)?

 

 

 

I am not really sure what your point is anymore, maybe time for me to get back to work...

[Higgs]

so isnt that a good thing? as it fits your earlier point (the need to be predictable)?

 

 

 

I am not really sure what your point is anymore, maybe time for me to get back to work...

 

A bit like saying - that guy's predictably bad at his job. If that's a recommedation to follow suit.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Higgs

[Barry]

to avoid getting trapped into an argument about differing perception of our gallic neighbours.

The point I was originally making is its iften safer for cycists to jump the lights. Mostly in cities.

 

A lot of factors come into it, mostly the fact that you are better getting ahead of the traffic as you are slower getting to speed when the lights go green and become more visible to drivers when you do that.

 

being on a bike, you are out in the open and looking above car roofs, in a better position to hear cars and also more exposed, all of which combine to give you a better judgement than a car driver sat in his box, windows shut with music blaring, possibly passengers talking etc.

 

You dont need a driving license to ride a bike, so you dont tend to worry about possible points etc, just do what feels safest and most efficient, because you are also producing the power thats moving you!

 

I honestly struggle to see what problems car drivers have with this concept. Well I think people are only upset because they cant do it, like drivers who try to prevent motorbikes from filtering through stationnary traffic.

 

I can't make any sense of your thinking at all.

 

Red traffic lights do not mean "stop unless you think you are in a position to make a better judgement"

 

Red lights mean STOP....that's ALL wheeled traffic not just those with engines.

 

When I was taught to ride my bike I think they said you must obey all traffic signs, same as everybody else.

 

That seems to make perfect sense to me, is easy to understand and comply with.

 

I don't understand why cyclists choose to flout this unless they are completely arrogant, utterly complacent, simply don't give a shit, or are just plain foolish

 

 

 

Speaking from the point of view of a cyclist here, you understand

[NB Alnwick]

I can't make any sense of your thinking at all.

 

Red traffic lights do not mean "stop unless you think you are in a position to make a better judgement"

 

Red lights mean STOP....that's ALL wheeled traffic not just those with engines.

 

When I was taught to ride my bike I think they said you must obey all traffic signs, same as everybody else.

 

That seems to make perfect sense to me, is easy to understand and comply with.

 

I don't understand why cyclists choose to flout this unless they are completely arrogant, utterly complacent, simply don't give a shit, or are just plain foolish

 

 

 

Speaking from the point of view of a cyclist here, you understand

 

The point that I would make is that, generally, cyclists are no different to any other sample of the population. Most will be well behaved, respectful of others and happy to obey the law along with all the usual rules and regulations. As with all groups, a small proportion will choose to be different - even to the extent of breaking the law and trying justifying their actions. In the course of time they will suffer the consequences of their foolishness. You cannot judge someone on how they appear but you can make a reasoned judgement based on how they behave and what they say. There are idiots in all sections of society.

[John Holden]

I am no lover of the motor car and I do support the current taxation levels.

 

VED and fuel duty currently bring in £32 billions pa. I had not realised motorways cost £16 billions per mile.

 

VED alone is more than £4 billions so again far more than 2 miles of motorway.

 

Let us put it another way. Motorists pay a damned site more than cyclists.

 

Funny thing is, it normally doesn't bother me until I come across double breasted lycra louts hogging the centre of the road deliberately stopping reasonable overtaking chances. Then I tend to ask myself just how much cyclists contribute.

 

Please don't tell me cyclists pay council tax etc. They pay as ratepayers, not as cyclists just as I pay as a ratepayer. The difference is I also pay separately as a motorist.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Remember though that Vehicle Excise Duty does not give you the right to drive on the roads, it gives you the privilege of having a vehicle on the road. A rather large difference.

 

Motorways cost about £3 million a mile or about £30 million a mile for elevated sections - cyclists are not allowed to use them though so even if vehicle excise duty did pay for road construction, why should cyclists contribute to something they can't use?

 

Have you ever seen a pothole in the road caused by cyclists or broken up pavements or demolished street furniture caused by cyclists?

 

Oh, and what about owners of exempt vehicles who pay no duty? Or don't they count?

 

And would you rather all cyclists wore dark and unobtrusive clothing when riding?

[Djuwenda]

I can't make any sense of your thinking at all.

I don't understand why cyclists choose to flout this unless they are completely arrogant, utterly complacent, simply don't give a shit, or are just plain foolish

Speaking from the point of view of a cyclist here, you understand

 

 

as explained here

Are you suggesting a great part of the dutch population is "completely arrogant, utterly complacent, simply don't give a shit, or are just plain foolish"?

 

.the argument is broken down here as well as in the link I posted about the situation in Paris

 

Now, you might not agree with it, but the issue does exists. Another thing, I am not preaching for my own church here, I havent ridden a bike in a urban environment since I left Holland in 2010.

 

 

Can you now make sense of my thinking?

[Higgs]

as explained here

Are you suggesting a great part of the dutch population is "completely arrogant, utterly complacent, simply don't give a shit, or are just plain foolish"?

 

Can you now make sense of my thinking?

 

Horses for courses - your in the UK. Don't care how they think in France or Holland.

 

It's your turn to say - but it's all wrong.

[Djuwenda]

you're choosing to comment on the article that looks at the Dutch situation...

 

Thank you kindly for your geographical expertise.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Djuwenda

[Higgs]

you're choosing to comment on the article that looks at the Dutch situation...

 

Thank you kindly for your geographical expertise.

 

 

I didn't even read the article.

[Homer 123]

so isnt that a good thing? as it fits your earlier point (the need to be predictable)?

 

 

 

I am not really sure what your point is anymore, maybe time for me to get back to work...

 

What seems to be erratic cycling may not necessarily be so. Cyclists can be forced to swerve suddenly to avoid a pothole, a bee, any manner of things. Drivers should be aware of this and always be prepared for the unexpected whether its a cyclist, pedestrian or another vehicle.

[furnessvale]

Remember though that Vehicle Excise Duty does not give you the right to drive on the roads, it gives you the privilege of having a vehicle on the road. A rather large difference.

 

Motorways cost about £3 million a mile or about £30 million a mile for elevated sections - cyclists are not allowed to use them though so even if vehicle excise duty did pay for road construction, why should cyclists contribute to something they can't use?

 

Have you ever seen a pothole in the road caused by cyclists or broken up pavements or demolished street furniture caused by cyclists?

 

Oh, and what about owners of exempt vehicles who pay no duty? Or don't they count?

 

And would you rather all cyclists wore dark and unobtrusive clothing when riding?

 

Taking your points in order,

 

1. Thank you for acknowledging that my VED allows me to "have" a vehicle on a road, whatever that means. Now which payment by a cyclist, as a cyclist, allows him to "have" a cycle on a road, that is any road, not just a newly constructed motorway?

 

2. You brought up motorways in the first place with your silly comment that vehicle duties would buy a couple of miles of new motorway. You now produce figures which demonstrate just how many miles could be purchased.

 

3. I have seen many potholes etc but I cannot put the cause down to any individual vehicle. In fact, most road damage is caused by HGVs and frost damage. However, there is more to roads than repairing damage. Who pays for cycle lanes by the way?

 

4. Most tax exempt vehicles do pay duty on fuel. The very few allowed to use rebated fuel are normally involved in the upkeep of the road system.

 

5. No thank you. The 75% who currently wear dark clothing and the large number who ride at night without lights provide enough opportunities for my car to be damaged or bloodstained without adding to it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Higgs]

What seems to be erratic cycling may not necessarily be so. Cyclists can be forced to swerve suddenly to avoid a pothole, a bee, any manner of things. Drivers should be aware of this and always be prepared for the unexpected whether its a cyclist, pedestrian or another vehicle.

 

Dodging surface inconsistencies, seams and grates. Even traffic lines pose a hazard where a bike can lose grip and be sent off direction. The inside of a car is a pretty safe environment in comparison.

[furnessvale]

The resentment in your posts is just what a cyclist needs to help them feel safe. If you resent sitting behind an assertive cyclist and I don't wear lycra, then that behaviour is considered necessary because of resentful motorists who think nothing of taking liberties with our safety.

 

So the obstructive cyclist is just being assertive, now I get it. Not really the done thing when you have a 44 tonner behind you, where the driver KNOWS that if you were cycling reasonably he would be able to SAFELY overtake you.

 

It is not the wearing of lycra that makes someone into a lycra lout, it is the loutish bit.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Dodging surface inconsistencies, seams and grates. Even traffic lines pose a hazard where a bike can lose grip and be sent off direction. The inside of a car is a pretty safe environment in comparison.

 

Sounds like these things called bicycles are pretty dangerous things. If someone were to be newly inventing them now, I dare say they would be banned as dangerous, or at least banned from the roads.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Higgs]

 

Sounds like these things called bicycles are pretty dangerous things. If someone were to be newly inventing them now, I dare say they would be banned as dangerous, or at least banned from the roads.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Virtually anything can dangerous. The uneven surfaces are handled much better with four wheels. Nothing's perfect. The money isn't there to make the roads safer or segregated.

[KevMc]

What seems to be erratic cycling may not necessarily be so. Cyclists can be forced to swerve suddenly to avoid a pothole, a bee, any manner of things. Drivers should be aware of this and always be prepared for the unexpected whether its a cyclist, pedestrian or another vehicle.

And cyclists should travel at a speed that does not require them to make sudden unsignalled swerves into the path of overtaking vehicles... if a driver was to suddenly swerve into the path of a lorry overtaking them because they saw an obstruction there would be very little sympathy for them ... and if that obstruction was a cyclist avoiding a bee you can bet the bee would get off scot free

 

Dodging surface inconsistencies, seams and grates. Even traffic lines pose a hazard where a bike can lose grip and be sent off direction.

 

Not if you are travelling at a safe speed

[furnessvale]

And cyclists should travel at a speed that does not require them to make sudden unsignalled swerves into the path of overtaking vehicles.

 

Don't be silly, you are requiring cyclists to obey the rules that apply to all forms of wheeled vehicles on our roads. We know from this thread that at least some cyclists believe the rules don't apply to them.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NB Alnwick]

What seems to be erratic cycling may not necessarily be so. Cyclists can be forced to swerve suddenly to avoid a pothole, a bee, any manner of things. Drivers should be aware of this and always be prepared for the unexpected whether its a cyclist, pedestrian or another vehicle.

 

A good driver will always make appropriate allowances - indeed, a good driver will always drive safely and show appropriate consideration for the needs of of other road users. Sadly there are very few good drivers around these days. On balance, I would say that car drivers are just as likely to be law breakers as cyclists - it isn't the mode of transport that is at fault it is the individual in charge of it.

[Chris Pink]

So the obstructive cyclist is just being assertive, now I get it. Not really the done thing when you have a 44 tonner behind you, where the driver KNOWS that if you were cycling reasonably he would be able to SAFELY overtake you.

 

It is not the wearing of lycra that makes someone into a lycra lout, it is the loutish bit.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

 

Sounds like these things called bicycles are pretty dangerous things. If someone were to be newly inventing them now, I dare say they would be banned as dangerous, or at least banned from the roads.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

I would prefer to be a cotton lout if you don't mind.

 

"banned from the road" - that just about sums up your position. Again I say the greatest danger to people on the road is resentful drivers like you.

 

Steel louts? mobile phone using, pasty eating, music listening louts?

 

One point you raise: one the canal you pass somebody when they indicate it is safe for you to do so. Why should your behaviour on the road be different, simply because you stand more chance of surviving the consequences of your poor judgement?

Edited February 22, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Barry]

as explained here

Are you suggesting a great part of the dutch population is "completely arrogant, utterly complacent, simply don't give a shit, or are just plain foolish"?

 

.the argument is broken down here as well as in the link I posted about the situation in Paris

 

Now, you might not agree with it, but the issue does exists. Another thing, I am not preaching for my own church here, I havent ridden a bike in a urban environment since I left Holland in 2010.

 

 

Can you now make sense of my thinking?

 

I'm not suggesting that at all, as I suspect you well know. Plainly, in Holland, the situation is entirely different because the road management system, infrastructure, and regulations allow people to pass a red light in some circumstances. Therefore the Dutch are simply doing what their road system allows them to do.

 

Equally plainly that road management system does not exist in the UK in any form. So....the situation in Holland is irrelevant to the UK and therefore to attempt to draw a parallel is logically unsound, fallacious, a waste of time. Therefore the issue that you attempt to raise to justify going against the accepted system in the UK does NOT exist.

 

There is no issue. No matter how you try to make one, there isn't one.

 

No I cannot now make sense of your thinking.

 

 

It seems to me that sensible people read the traffic and road conditions around them and adjust their riding accordingly. If its dangerous, get off and walk in a place where it is safe to do so and get around the hazard that way. To pretend that jumping a red light is a safe option because you are in a better place to make that judgement is foolish in my opinion and cannot be justified.

 

Having two wheels with no engine is not akin to wearing your underpants outside your tights thus making you a superior kind of being, and when I see cyclists riding stupidly that is what they put me in mind of.

 

I think your arguments are based on trying to make the world how you think it should be, rather than accepting it for what it is and responding accordingly.

 

 

 

I think there is a case for the UK government changing the existing road management system, infrastructure, and regulations, to the way Holland does it. Everyone would benefit from it. Cyclists would be safer and car drivers would not be worried by cyclists in the way they are now. Until that happens the system is as it is

[furnessvale]

I would prefer to be a cotton lout if you don't mind.

 

One point you raise: one the canal you pass somebody when they indicate it is safe for you to do so. Why should your behaviour on the road be different, simply because you stand more chance of surviving the consequences of your poor judgement?

 

If you choose to be a lout then I have no problem calling you a cotton lout instead.

 

On the A6 on a sunday, when the Chris Hoy wannabes are out in force, I would wait a very long time to be signalled past and I mean at many locations where it is patently safe to overtake.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Djuwenda]

I'm not suggesting that at all, as I suspect you well know. Plainly, in Holland, the situation is entirely different because the road management system, infrastructure, and regulations allow people to pass a red light in some circumstances. Therefore the Dutch are simply doing what their road system allows them to do.

 

Equally plainly that road management system does not exist in the UK in any form. So....the situation in Holland is irrelevant to the UK and therefore to attempt to draw a parallel is logically unsound, fallacious, a waste of time. Therefore the issue that you attempt to raise to justify going against the accepted system in the UK does NOT exist.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16942781

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3414065.ece

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/should-cyclists-in-the-uk-be-allowed-to-go-through-certain-red-lights/

 

your point about Holland's infrastructure is valid, however there is case for red light jumping, and it is being made...

[John Holden]

 

1. Thank you for acknowledging that my VED allows me to "have" a vehicle on a road, whatever that means. Now which payment by a cyclist, as a cyclist, allows him to "have" a cycle on a road, that is any road, not just a newly constructed motorway?

 

2. You brought up motorways in the first place with your silly comment that vehicle duties would buy a couple of miles of new motorway. You now produce figures which demonstrate just how many miles could be purchased.

 

3. I have seen many potholes etc but I cannot put the cause down to any individual vehicle. In fact, most road damage is caused by HGVs and frost damage. However, there is more to roads than repairing damage. Who pays for cycle lanes by the way?

 

4. Most tax exempt vehicles do pay duty on fuel. The very few allowed to use rebated fuel are normally involved in the upkeep of the road system.

 

5. No thank you. The 75% who currently wear dark clothing and the large number who ride at night without lights provide enough opportunities for my car to be damaged or bloodstained without adding to it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

1. Much the same as a tv license allows you to own a television. Which payment allows a horse rider or pedestrian to use the roads?

 

2. I'm sorry, I thought the vast majority would recognise hyperbole - I was wrong. Excise duty still does not cover the cost of motorway building, let alone other roads or even highway maintenance.

 

3. That wasn't the question, how many pot holes are caused by cyclists? Yes, there is a lot more to roads than repairing damage, there is the cost of building and rebuilding roads so that they can carry high speed traffic to a standard and strength that wouldn't be needed for cycles. Most cycle lanes are paid for out of the general rate and not out of VED.

 

4. I used to work in the woods. I used about 5 or 6 litres of duty paid fuel in my saw every day and about 5 or 6 litres in my car every week, cycling was my preferred method of travel.

 

5. then why are you complaining about cyclists who make efforts to make themselves more visible?

[Homer 123]

The best way to make our roads safer for all is to ban motorists over 65. Once your eyesight goes, you're not safe to be in charge of a car. At 70+ driving licences are being renewed without even a medical, just a questionnaire. !

[furnessvale]

The best way to make our roads safer for all is to ban motorists over 65. Once your eyesight goes, you're not safe to be in charge of a car. At 70+ driving licences are being renewed without even a medical, just a questionnaire. !

 

Excellent idea! I use my bus pass most of the time now and that would be just the push I needed to get rid of the car and save a fortune.

 

Just remind me again, which compulsory test does a cyclist of any age have to take and which medical do geriatric cyclists have to pass?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Chris Pink]

If you choose to be a lout then I have no problem calling you a cotton lout instead.

 

On the A6 on a sunday, when the Chris Hoy wannabes are out in force, I would wait a very long time to be signalled past and I mean at many locations where it is patently safe to overtake.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Fair enough, and you can be the Pasty Lout. I'm assuming that you wouldn't use a mobile whilst driving.

 

And I do apologise, I hadn't realised you meant the A6 cyclists were on the wrong side of the road.