Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness

Daily Echo: Dilys Gartside Dilys Gartside

A BIKE safety group has called for more to be done to improve motorists’ attitudes to cyclists if safety is to be improved on the roads.

The Southampton Cycling Campaign believes a change in the law to create a presumption in favour of cyclists involved in collisions with motorists would help drive a change in behaviour.

The call comes after the Daily Echo revealed more cyclists were hurt on Hampshire’s roads last year than anywhere outside London .

A total of 816 riders were injured in 2011, up from 690 the previous year – and higher than every other police force area apart from the capital.

Olympic time trial gold medallist Bradley Wiggins sparked a safety debate after a 28-year-old cyclist was tragically knocked down by an official Olympic bus.

The Tour de France winner appeared to suggest that bike helmets should be the law, but later clarified his position saying he had not called for them to be made compulsory.

He said: “I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally if involved in an accident.”

Southampton Cycling Campaign spokesman Dilys Gartside said she also did not agree that cyclists should always wear a helmet, as they were designed to protect riders in low impact collisions and gave no protection against “more powerful vehicles”.

Her friend Mark Brummell was killed in an accident while cycling in the New Forest in May this year. He was wearing a helmet.

She said statistics showed motorists tended to give less space when overtaking a helmeted cyclist and that helmets deterred some people, particularly women, from cycling.

Ms Gartside added compulsory helmets in other countries had caused a “severe drop” in cycling which made the roads more dangerous for remaining cyclists.

She said there needed to be more awareness and respect for cyclists from motorists and a willingness to regard them as equal road users.

She called for better training of cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians to behave with others’ safety in mind; more segregated cycling lanes and better designed roads with cyclists given higher priority by planners; and the introduction of a “strict liability” law, such as in European countries, creating a presumption in favour of cyclists and pedestrians involved in collisions with other road users.

British Cycling, the sport's governing body, has already made better road infrastructure rather than helmets its main priority.

Edmund King, president of Basingstoke based AA, agreed “attitudinal changes" were needed from all road users to improve cycle safety, although did not support presumed driver liability.

Mr King said while the AA advised cyclists to wear helmets it was not convinced they should be compulsory.

Hampshire law firm Moore Blatch Resolve, which works with cycle accidents victims, has called for the Government to act and introduce a clear manifesto for how to reduce serious cycle injuries.

In one case it dealt with, a cyclist from Fareham suffered facial injuries and damage to his shoulder after being knocked off his bike on a Gosport road.

The injured cyclist, Innes Marlow, 49, said: “I strongly back any move to increase safety for cyclists. I’ve always been a keen cyclist but I regularly see near misses and drivers putting other road users at risk.

“When you are involved in an accident yourself it comes as a stark wake-up call. I was very lucky not to have been seriously injured but I have been left with a reminder in the form of an ongoing dislocated shoulder problem and scarring. I can’t believe people ride around without a helmet. It’s bonkers.”

Comments (255)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:16am Mon 6 Aug 12

bigfella777 says...

Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example.
Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.
Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example. Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone. bigfella777

10:24am Mon 6 Aug 12

On the inside says...

All good poinrs bar one. Helmets are a good idea as they protect the head in low impact collisions as most are. They also protect the head when you simply fall off. They may be no use if you are hit head on by a car at 70mph, but then neither is a car. They provide most protection to children who are more likley to be learners etc.
All good poinrs bar one. Helmets are a good idea as they protect the head in low impact collisions as most are. They also protect the head when you simply fall off. They may be no use if you are hit head on by a car at 70mph, but then neither is a car. They provide most protection to children who are more likley to be learners etc. On the inside

10:25am Mon 6 Aug 12

nedscrumpo says...

Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour. nedscrumpo

10:29am Mon 6 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while. hulla baloo

10:38am Mon 6 Aug 12

janfromshirley says...

I agree that the roads are becoming more dangerous. As a pedestrian I feel both motorists and cyclists should take more care whilst in built up areas. There have been several times when I have nearly been knocked down due to the inattention of motorists and cyclists not indicating their intentions at junctions of side roads
I agree that the roads are becoming more dangerous. As a pedestrian I feel both motorists and cyclists should take more care whilst in built up areas. There have been several times when I have nearly been knocked down due to the inattention of motorists and cyclists not indicating their intentions at junctions of side roads janfromshirley

10:38am Mon 6 Aug 12

wizard says...

hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told? wizard

10:40am Mon 6 Aug 12

tootle says...

Here we go again!!. There should be no presumption, there should be required insurance for cyclists and safety checks on bikes. Then they should be forced to learn to ride and take a test.

The roads are not safe for cyclists and something needs to be done. However there are as many bad cyclists as there are bad drivers.

To cyclists I would say - you are road users so obey the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively - 1 finger is rather difficult to see, use legal lights properly and remember car drivers are driving lethal weapons which take time to stop.
To drivers: Cyclists have as much right to the road as you, not more, not less. They need room.

Respect and understanding from both sides are needed.
Here we go again!!. There should be no presumption, there should be required insurance for cyclists and safety checks on bikes. Then they should be forced to learn to ride and take a test. The roads are not safe for cyclists and something needs to be done. However there are as many bad cyclists as there are bad drivers. To cyclists I would say - you are road users so obey the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively - 1 finger is rather difficult to see, use legal lights properly and remember car drivers are driving lethal weapons which take time to stop. To drivers: Cyclists have as much right to the road as you, not more, not less. They need room. Respect and understanding from both sides are needed. tootle

10:42am Mon 6 Aug 12

JerryActic says...

I can be sympathetic to cyclists as I both drive and cycle. It is becoming more dangerous to cycle but in fairness to all a large percentage of cyclists are a danger to themselves. Many wear dark clothes at night, more cycle without adequate lights than with; and what irritates me more than anything else as a driver, cyclists who insist on riding on the busy and dangerous roads when an expensive and adequate cycle path has been provided for their use.

What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?
I can be sympathetic to cyclists as I both drive and cycle. It is becoming more dangerous to cycle but in fairness to all a large percentage of cyclists are a danger to themselves. Many wear dark clothes at night, more cycle without adequate lights than with; and what irritates me more than anything else as a driver, cyclists who insist on riding on the busy and dangerous roads when an expensive and adequate cycle path has been provided for their use. What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs? JerryActic

10:51am Mon 6 Aug 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

I think the best thing to do would be to remove the problem in the first place, the cyclist. Make it compulsory for them to ride on cycle paths and remove them from the main roads all together.
.
As for attitudes of car drivers then yes! Think it should be made compulsory for them also to attend driver awareness training. There is a pandemic of bad driving on Britain’s roads today and it is about time the issue was raised.
.
I see the arguments from both sides and the solution is to provide adequate cycling facilities, the drivers that keep complaining about cyclists, if you would like to see less on the roads then don’t moan about having to pay for the infrastructure to be put in place.
.
As a cyclist myself I have literally been driving off the roads as after having a car door opened up on me when I was on a cycle path and having several near collisions I find it too dangerous to cycle the roads anymore.
.
It's about time the moaning from both sides was put to an end and solution put in place. These are people lives we are talking about, not just the lives of the people that get hit, but also the guilt of the driver or cyclist for that matter causing the accident.
I think the best thing to do would be to remove the problem in the first place, the cyclist. Make it compulsory for them to ride on cycle paths and remove them from the main roads all together. . As for attitudes of car drivers then yes! Think it should be made compulsory for them also to attend driver awareness training. There is a pandemic of bad driving on Britain’s roads today and it is about time the issue was raised. . I see the arguments from both sides and the solution is to provide adequate cycling facilities, the drivers that keep complaining about cyclists, if you would like to see less on the roads then don’t moan about having to pay for the infrastructure to be put in place. . As a cyclist myself I have literally been driving off the roads as after having a car door opened up on me when I was on a cycle path and having several near collisions I find it too dangerous to cycle the roads anymore. . It's about time the moaning from both sides was put to an end and solution put in place. These are people lives we are talking about, not just the lives of the people that get hit, but also the guilt of the driver or cyclist for that matter causing the accident. UKIPsouthampton

10:59am Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
please no more comments on "road tax" its just stupid and ignorant.

Upshot is if when driving I hit, injured or even killed a cyclist I would be devestated. Yes there are idiots on bikes but work out the proportion of road users who are cyclists and then the proportion of those who cycle dangerously. We are looking at a miniscule number compared to drivers.


The cyclist will alway come off worse.

Agree for the need for proficiency test and helmets should also be compulsory.

In a nation of fatties cycling should be encouraged.

But please no more comments about a "tax" that doesnt exist or the best comment ever on cycling - cyclists dont pay fuel duty.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]please no more comments on "road tax" its just stupid and ignorant. Upshot is if when driving I hit, injured or even killed a cyclist I would be devestated. Yes there are idiots on bikes but work out the proportion of road users who are cyclists and then the proportion of those who cycle dangerously. We are looking at a miniscule number compared to drivers. The cyclist will alway come off worse. Agree for the need for proficiency test and helmets should also be compulsory. In a nation of fatties cycling should be encouraged. But please no more comments about a "tax" that doesnt exist or the best comment ever on cycling - cyclists dont pay fuel duty. elvisimo

11:05am Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

tootle wrote:
Here we go again!!. There should be no presumption, there should be required insurance for cyclists and safety checks on bikes. Then they should be forced to learn to ride and take a test. The roads are not safe for cyclists and something needs to be done. However there are as many bad cyclists as there are bad drivers. To cyclists I would say - you are road users so obey the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively - 1 finger is rather difficult to see, use legal lights properly and remember car drivers are driving lethal weapons which take time to stop. To drivers: Cyclists have as much right to the road as you, not more, not less. They need room. Respect and understanding from both sides are needed.
there cannot be as many bad cyclists as there are drivers when cyclists account for 2 % of road users.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Here we go again!!. There should be no presumption, there should be required insurance for cyclists and safety checks on bikes. Then they should be forced to learn to ride and take a test. The roads are not safe for cyclists and something needs to be done. However there are as many bad cyclists as there are bad drivers. To cyclists I would say - you are road users so obey the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively - 1 finger is rather difficult to see, use legal lights properly and remember car drivers are driving lethal weapons which take time to stop. To drivers: Cyclists have as much right to the road as you, not more, not less. They need room. Respect and understanding from both sides are needed.[/p][/quote]there cannot be as many bad cyclists as there are drivers when cyclists account for 2 % of road users. elvisimo

11:09am Mon 6 Aug 12

10 Minute Man says...

There is a range of cyclist skill and behaviours, just as there are a range of motorists skill and behaviours.

Some are utterly unaware of road conditions, don't anticipate others' actions, fail to signal, ignore traffic lights, think that they are better road users than anybody else, decide that they must get there in the fastest possible manner (and insist on special equipment either ludicrous lycra or smoked glass and lowered suspension), and tut and huff at anyone who 'gets in their way'.

The list goes on and can be applied to either group.
There is a range of cyclist skill and behaviours, just as there are a range of motorists skill and behaviours. Some are utterly unaware of road conditions, don't anticipate others' actions, fail to signal, ignore traffic lights, think that they are better road users than anybody else, decide that they must get there in the fastest possible manner (and insist on special equipment either ludicrous lycra or smoked glass and lowered suspension), and tut and huff at anyone who 'gets in their way'. The list goes on and can be applied to either group. 10 Minute Man

11:15am Mon 6 Aug 12

saints4eva12 says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
i couldnt agree more cyclist are a mence dont obey road laws do what they want ride through RED LIGHTS , PAVEMENTS , if they did things might be different !
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]i couldnt agree more cyclist are a mence dont obey road laws do what they want ride through RED LIGHTS , PAVEMENTS , if they did things might be different ! saints4eva12

11:18am Mon 6 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind!
Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind! good-gosh

11:22am Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

saints4eva12 wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
i couldnt agree more cyclist are a mence dont obey road laws do what they want ride through RED LIGHTS , PAVEMENTS , if they did things might be different !
reported for inapropriate use of capital letters. Shop shouting.
[quote][p][bold]saints4eva12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]i couldnt agree more cyclist are a mence dont obey road laws do what they want ride through RED LIGHTS , PAVEMENTS , if they did things might be different ![/p][/quote]reported for inapropriate use of capital letters. Shop shouting. elvisimo

11:32am Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

saints4eva12 wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
i couldnt agree more cyclist are a mence dont obey road laws do what they want ride through RED LIGHTS , PAVEMENTS , if they did things might be different !
Can't say I've ever seen a cyclist ride through a pavement. That must've really taken some effort.
[quote][p][bold]saints4eva12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]i couldnt agree more cyclist are a mence dont obey road laws do what they want ride through RED LIGHTS , PAVEMENTS , if they did things might be different ![/p][/quote]Can't say I've ever seen a cyclist ride through a pavement. That must've really taken some effort. Georgem

11:41am Mon 6 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.
[quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax. hulla baloo

11:41am Mon 6 Aug 12

Nod says...

Could some of the safety campaigners please go to the M271/Brownhill Way junction at approx 5am and explain what lights are to the cyclists going across to Nursling Ind Est, please?
Could some of the safety campaigners please go to the M271/Brownhill Way junction at approx 5am and explain what lights are to the cyclists going across to Nursling Ind Est, please? Nod

11:46am Mon 6 Aug 12

TEBOURBA says...

I recall bigfella777, in the recent Wiggins post, trumpeting that he rides without a helmet and ignores traffic signs/signals!
So much for road safety.
I recall bigfella777, in the recent Wiggins post, trumpeting that he rides without a helmet and ignores traffic signs/signals! So much for road safety. TEBOURBA

11:46am Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

JerryActic wrote:
I can be sympathetic to cyclists as I both drive and cycle. It is becoming more dangerous to cycle but in fairness to all a large percentage of cyclists are a danger to themselves. Many wear dark clothes at night, more cycle without adequate lights than with; and what irritates me more than anything else as a driver, cyclists who insist on riding on the busy and dangerous roads when an expensive and adequate cycle path has been provided for their use.

What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?
In Southampton especially these "Expensive paths" are preexisting pavements which have a little blue sign added with a shared pedestrian and cyclist, this is not adequate. The biggest problem with this type of path is, there are small side roads, peoples driveways and randomly placed pedestrian crossings, bins, railings and other obstacles to get through not to mention pedestrians even when the path has been painted green to show this is a cycle lane people still walk in it and then look at you like a piece of dirt when you ring your bell or shout excuse me. proper cycle paths in busy areas are the only way to prevent crashes. also maybe signs on main roads without cycle paths just to make it known people are cycling in the road. Shirley High Street is a typical example of this. As you will get fined for cycling on the pavements (even though they are about 8 meters wide), but have to deal with cars, busses and the main culprit of cycle near misses the Taxi Driver on the road.

"What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?"

Less than the percentage of drivers who think amber means speed up and get through at any cost !
[quote][p][bold]JerryActic[/bold] wrote: I can be sympathetic to cyclists as I both drive and cycle. It is becoming more dangerous to cycle but in fairness to all a large percentage of cyclists are a danger to themselves. Many wear dark clothes at night, more cycle without adequate lights than with; and what irritates me more than anything else as a driver, cyclists who insist on riding on the busy and dangerous roads when an expensive and adequate cycle path has been provided for their use. What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?[/p][/quote]In Southampton especially these "Expensive paths" are preexisting pavements which have a little blue sign added with a shared pedestrian and cyclist, this is not adequate. The biggest problem with this type of path is, there are small side roads, peoples driveways and randomly placed pedestrian crossings, bins, railings and other obstacles to get through not to mention pedestrians even when the path has been painted green to show this is a cycle lane people still walk in it and then look at you like a piece of dirt when you ring your bell or shout excuse me. proper cycle paths in busy areas are the only way to prevent crashes. also maybe signs on main roads without cycle paths just to make it known people are cycling in the road. Shirley High Street is a typical example of this. As you will get fined for cycling on the pavements (even though they are about 8 meters wide), but have to deal with cars, busses and the main culprit of cycle near misses the Taxi Driver on the road. "What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?" Less than the percentage of drivers who think amber means speed up and get through at any cost ! babyhulk

11:46am Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

good-gosh wrote:
Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind!
Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind![/p][/quote]Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by? Torchie1

11:47am Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

hulla baloo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?
But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.
but it is based on emissions so unless the have bad breathe or bad wind then difficult to apply.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.[/p][/quote]but it is based on emissions so unless the have bad breathe or bad wind then difficult to apply. elvisimo

11:53am Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/motoring/own
ingavehicle/untaxedv
ehicle/dg_4022073

Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?
[quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/motoring/own ingavehicle/untaxedv ehicle/dg_4022073 Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality? Georgem

11:54am Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

elvisimo wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?
But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.
but it is based on emissions so unless the have bad breathe or bad wind then difficult to apply.
Is it possible that a keen cyclist in the appropriate Government Ministry is responsible for the removal of the MOT requirement for pre-1960 motor vehicles to go with the existing VED-free status of those produced prior to 1973? Just like bicycles there's nothing complicated that the home mechanic can't repair and the owner probably pays a lot of tax on other things that just goes in to the same pot as VED.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.[/p][/quote]but it is based on emissions so unless the have bad breathe or bad wind then difficult to apply.[/p][/quote]Is it possible that a keen cyclist in the appropriate Government Ministry is responsible for the removal of the MOT requirement for pre-1960 motor vehicles to go with the existing VED-free status of those produced prior to 1973? Just like bicycles there's nothing complicated that the home mechanic can't repair and the owner probably pays a lot of tax on other things that just goes in to the same pot as VED. Torchie1

11:59am Mon 6 Aug 12

ohec says...

I think before cyclist start having a go at motorist they should get their own house in order, yes there might be many good cyclist out there but they are outnumbered by all the idiots that think they can do as they like. Helmets need to be compulsory as well as vis-vests, when motorists see that legislation is attempting to make cyclist accept their responsibility as road users then the motorist might be more inclined to respect cyclist, but when you are taxed insured and M.O.Td and have all manner of other restrictions placed on you and you see cyclist totally disregard the law and rules of the road and the pavements then is it any wonder there is so much animosity towards them, when you are sat in traffic and you hear a handlebar scrap down the side of your car or a mirror get moved or broken or even leaning on your car at traffic lights. All of those people that advocate cycle paths i would agree with you provided that where there is a cycle path cyclist are banned from the road i know of area's where they have spent a fortune on cycle paths that are not used, one reason was that if was a little bit further another from a lycra queen was he couldn't ride fast enough, the ideal answer is to separate the two but can you imagine taxpayers money being used to build cycle paths that nobody uses, that really would help the relationship between cyclist and motorist. Lights and a bell to be fitted and working at all times helmets and a vis-vest or other high visibility clothing to be worn at all times and all bikes subject to inspection at anytime to ensure road worthiness would be a good cheap and effective start, look at the bike in the picture and compare that with most of the scrap you see on the road.
I think before cyclist start having a go at motorist they should get their own house in order, yes there might be many good cyclist out there but they are outnumbered by all the idiots that think they can do as they like. Helmets need to be compulsory as well as vis-vests, when motorists see that legislation is attempting to make cyclist accept their responsibility as road users then the motorist might be more inclined to respect cyclist, but when you are taxed insured and M.O.Td and have all manner of other restrictions placed on you and you see cyclist totally disregard the law and rules of the road and the pavements then is it any wonder there is so much animosity towards them, when you are sat in traffic and you hear a handlebar scrap down the side of your car or a mirror get moved or broken or even leaning on your car at traffic lights. All of those people that advocate cycle paths i would agree with you provided that where there is a cycle path cyclist are banned from the road i know of area's where they have spent a fortune on cycle paths that are not used, one reason was that if was a little bit further another from a lycra queen was he couldn't ride fast enough, the ideal answer is to separate the two but can you imagine taxpayers money being used to build cycle paths that nobody uses, that really would help the relationship between cyclist and motorist. Lights and a bell to be fitted and working at all times helmets and a vis-vest or other high visibility clothing to be worn at all times and all bikes subject to inspection at anytime to ensure road worthiness would be a good cheap and effective start, look at the bike in the picture and compare that with most of the scrap you see on the road. ohec

12:00pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

elvisimo wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?
But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.
but it is based on emissions so unless the have bad breathe or bad wind then difficult to apply.
Vehicle excise duty is based on emissions only for cars registered after March 2001. For older cars, it is based on engine size. For HGVs, it's based on size and weight-per-axle. For a whole range vehicles, including cars manufactured before 1973, trams, electrical vehicles, a bunch of construction and agricultural vehicles, and many others, it's based on a simple "no charge at all, thanks". And so on.

If you really must play the pedant, know your subject, or at least do a bit of research first.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]But as cycles do not have engines, then in theory it can be called a road tax.[/p][/quote]but it is based on emissions so unless the have bad breathe or bad wind then difficult to apply.[/p][/quote]Vehicle excise duty is based on emissions only for cars registered after March 2001. For older cars, it is based on engine size. For HGVs, it's based on size and weight-per-axle. For a whole range vehicles, including cars manufactured before 1973, trams, electrical vehicles, a bunch of construction and agricultural vehicles, and many others, it's based on a simple "no charge at all, thanks". And so on. If you really must play the pedant, know your subject, or at least do a bit of research first. Georgem

12:01pm Mon 6 Aug 12

bravebeth says...

Cyclists who cycle on the pavement are bullies on bikes. They are antisocial. I was knocked over recently by a cyclist on the pavement and the cost to me was horrendous. Cyclists have no insurance - he scarpered away and did not see if I was Ok. I lost my left hearing aid. My glasses were bent. I was on crutches for several weeks. I care for my 92 year old mother so she was inconvenienced for weeks. Most cyclists are anti-social.

Pedestrians need protection and somewhere safe to walk. The common is overrun by antisocial cyclists. They speed with no thought for animals or pedestrians.
Cyclists who cycle on the pavement are bullies on bikes. They are antisocial. I was knocked over recently by a cyclist on the pavement and the cost to me was horrendous. Cyclists have no insurance - he scarpered away and did not see if I was Ok. I lost my left hearing aid. My glasses were bent. I was on crutches for several weeks. I care for my 92 year old mother so she was inconvenienced for weeks. Most cyclists are anti-social. Pedestrians need protection and somewhere safe to walk. The common is overrun by antisocial cyclists. They speed with no thought for animals or pedestrians. bravebeth

12:03pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Chipster says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example.
Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.
Cue the usual anti-car comments.
I drive a car more than 5 miles a day in and around Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying!
There I am, waiting at the lights for a green to go when out from nowhere a cyclist ignores the red light he has approached and ridden straight through! I mean, this is bordering on road anarchy!
I want to drive on the road but in places it is far too dangerous, what with these cyclists having no lights when it is dark and also wearing dark clothing. Makes you want to drive on the pavement!
Make cyclists wear appropiate clothing, have lights fitted by law and perhaps have some form of insurance like we motorists have to pay for.
Give us proper provisions like that and we wont be a nuisance to anyone!.............
.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example. Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.[/p][/quote]Cue the usual anti-car comments. I drive a car more than 5 miles a day in and around Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying! There I am, waiting at the lights for a green to go when out from nowhere a cyclist ignores the red light he has approached and ridden straight through! I mean, this is bordering on road anarchy! I want to drive on the road but in places it is far too dangerous, what with these cyclists having no lights when it is dark and also wearing dark clothing. Makes you want to drive on the pavement! Make cyclists wear appropiate clothing, have lights fitted by law and perhaps have some form of insurance like we motorists have to pay for. Give us proper provisions like that and we wont be a nuisance to anyone!............. . Chipster

12:15pm Mon 6 Aug 12

TEBOURBA says...

When the compulsory wearing of seat belts was introduced it was very unpopular,as was the compulsory wearing of helmets by motor cyclists
Now it it is second nature to fasten the belt or don the helmet and the same would apply to the cycle helmet.
Statistics have proved that the measures have saved countless lives.
Ms Garttside claims that in other countries the compulsory wearing of helmets has caused a drop in the number of cyclists, making it more dangerous for the remainder and that motorists give a wider berth to cyclists not wearing a helmet ----- what utter twaddle --- to carry her argument to its ultimate conclusion -- cyclists would be safer if they rode around naked!!
Anyone who claims that cyclists are safer without helmets, high viz clothing, lights at night, etc. should book an urgent appointment with their psychiatrist.
When the compulsory wearing of seat belts was introduced it was very unpopular,as was the compulsory wearing of helmets by motor cyclists Now it it is second nature to fasten the belt or don the helmet and the same would apply to the cycle helmet. Statistics have proved that the measures have saved countless lives. Ms Garttside claims that in other countries the compulsory wearing of helmets has caused a drop in the number of cyclists, making it more dangerous for the remainder and that motorists give a wider berth to cyclists not wearing a helmet ----- what utter twaddle --- to carry her argument to its ultimate conclusion -- cyclists would be safer if they rode around naked!! Anyone who claims that cyclists are safer without helmets, high viz clothing, lights at night, etc. should book an urgent appointment with their psychiatrist. TEBOURBA

12:17pm Mon 6 Aug 12

bigfella777 says...

Chipster wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example.
Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.
Cue the usual anti-car comments.
I drive a car more than 5 miles a day in and around Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying!
There I am, waiting at the lights for a green to go when out from nowhere a cyclist ignores the red light he has approached and ridden straight through! I mean, this is bordering on road anarchy!
I want to drive on the road but in places it is far too dangerous, what with these cyclists having no lights when it is dark and also wearing dark clothing. Makes you want to drive on the pavement!
Make cyclists wear appropiate clothing, have lights fitted by law and perhaps have some form of insurance like we motorists have to pay for.
Give us proper provisions like that and we wont be a nuisance to anyone!.............

.
How is a cyclist going to injure you in a car?
This isn't anything to do with bikes or cars,it's just pure snobbery.You see cyclists as peasants because they dont pay this or that, you think they are just some bumper fodder getting in the way of your oh so important trip to tesco's or ikea with the missus telling you what to do.
I'll tell you what people need to do,commuting to work,fine it's necessary,but on Saturday and Sunday you just get in your cars for no reason at all and think where can I go and sit in a queue now.
You dont give a **** about the planet your children/grandchildr
en are going to have to live in at all.
I wonder why some people bother having legs or muscles in this country at all,you migh as well have your feet cut off and get some whells attached,bunch of lazy,obese,limp spined losers.
One life,live it.Dont waste it sat in a car!
[quote][p][bold]Chipster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example. Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.[/p][/quote]Cue the usual anti-car comments. I drive a car more than 5 miles a day in and around Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying! There I am, waiting at the lights for a green to go when out from nowhere a cyclist ignores the red light he has approached and ridden straight through! I mean, this is bordering on road anarchy! I want to drive on the road but in places it is far too dangerous, what with these cyclists having no lights when it is dark and also wearing dark clothing. Makes you want to drive on the pavement! Make cyclists wear appropiate clothing, have lights fitted by law and perhaps have some form of insurance like we motorists have to pay for. Give us proper provisions like that and we wont be a nuisance to anyone!............. .[/p][/quote]How is a cyclist going to injure you in a car? This isn't anything to do with bikes or cars,it's just pure snobbery.You see cyclists as peasants because they dont pay this or that, you think they are just some bumper fodder getting in the way of your oh so important trip to tesco's or ikea with the missus telling you what to do. I'll tell you what people need to do,commuting to work,fine it's necessary,but on Saturday and Sunday you just get in your cars for no reason at all and think where can I go and sit in a queue now. You dont give a **** about the planet your children/grandchildr en are going to have to live in at all. I wonder why some people bother having legs or muscles in this country at all,you migh as well have your feet cut off and get some whells attached,bunch of lazy,obese,limp spined losers. One life,live it.Dont waste it sat in a car! bigfella777

12:21pm Mon 6 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

Torchie1 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind!
Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?
Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind![/p][/quote]Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?[/p][/quote]Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait. good-gosh

12:29pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

good-gosh wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind!
Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?
Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.
So we go full circle and have to question why groups of people think it is fine to join the fray on the road with no knowledge of the rules or intention of understanding them, and expect tea and sympathy when they get hurt.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind![/p][/quote]Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?[/p][/quote]Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.[/p][/quote]So we go full circle and have to question why groups of people think it is fine to join the fray on the road with no knowledge of the rules or intention of understanding them, and expect tea and sympathy when they get hurt. Torchie1

12:42pm Mon 6 Aug 12

rightway says...

I have witnessed more cycles going through red lights than I have cars, even though there are more cars on the road than bikes, bikes are a continuous and dangerous nuisance on pavements and until cyclists start getting prosecuted the problem will continue. The police ignore them so it’s no wonder they think they’re above the law.
And before the usual suspects start, yes I drive as well as cycle.
I have witnessed more cycles going through red lights than I have cars, even though there are more cars on the road than bikes, bikes are a continuous and dangerous nuisance on pavements and until cyclists start getting prosecuted the problem will continue. The police ignore them so it’s no wonder they think they’re above the law. And before the usual suspects start, yes I drive as well as cycle. rightway

12:48pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Chas O'Bursledon says...

I just know that after the successes of our Olympians there will be 10,000 Bradley Wiggins on our roads. They will forget that when Wiggo rides on the roads he is careful, considerate and sensible. When he races he is on a marshalled route. The 10,000 wannabes will show little sense, ignore traffic lights and get cross if an insured motorist slows them down. Testing and insurance with high premiums is the only way to get this uncontrolled group of road users to behave. The cycle couriers in London are moronic. The thirty something commuters are careless and don't believe the law applies to them. There are bad drivers. I, as a driver, allow for them. It's a pity more cyclists don't do the same. Rant over!
I just know that after the successes of our Olympians there will be 10,000 Bradley Wiggins on our roads. They will forget that when Wiggo rides on the roads he is careful, considerate and sensible. When he races he is on a marshalled route. The 10,000 wannabes will show little sense, ignore traffic lights and get cross if an insured motorist slows them down. Testing and insurance with high premiums is the only way to get this uncontrolled group of road users to behave. The cycle couriers in London are moronic. The thirty something commuters are careless and don't believe the law applies to them. There are bad drivers. I, as a driver, allow for them. It's a pity more cyclists don't do the same. Rant over! Chas O'Bursledon

12:53pm Mon 6 Aug 12

southy says...

Nod wrote:
Could some of the safety campaigners please go to the M271/Brownhill Way junction at approx 5am and explain what lights are to the cyclists going across to Nursling Ind Est, please?
You noticed that too, car drivers also need to be aware at this spot as it is a area where pedestrians need to cross these roads, and as the bridge that crosses the M271 is closed it pushes more pedestrians up to this point at the Lordshill Junction to be able to cross the M271.
[quote][p][bold]Nod[/bold] wrote: Could some of the safety campaigners please go to the M271/Brownhill Way junction at approx 5am and explain what lights are to the cyclists going across to Nursling Ind Est, please?[/p][/quote]You noticed that too, car drivers also need to be aware at this spot as it is a area where pedestrians need to cross these roads, and as the bridge that crosses the M271 is closed it pushes more pedestrians up to this point at the Lordshill Junction to be able to cross the M271. southy

12:54pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Torchie1 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind!
Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?
Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.
So we go full circle and have to question why groups of people think it is fine to join the fray on the road with no knowledge of the rules or intention of understanding them, and expect tea and sympathy when they get hurt.
I would like to know how many drivers know the actual Highway code, and how many in this thread can pass a modern theory and practical test. Most people here were probably asked 5 questions on driving theory in their practical and didn't sit a proper test. But apparently driving for 20 years gives you the right to make comment and assumptions of other road users regardless of what they know or don't know. Did it ever occur to tell people politely what they were doing wrong, instead of just using a horn and a finger. And in regard to all the complaints about cyclists and traffic lights, the lights don't always give enough time for cyclists to get through especially on larger crossings and light systems on roundabouts, Which is still a mystery to me, but Southampton does have a large amount of very unnecessary lights and ridiculous "traffic calming" ideas.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind![/p][/quote]Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?[/p][/quote]Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.[/p][/quote]So we go full circle and have to question why groups of people think it is fine to join the fray on the road with no knowledge of the rules or intention of understanding them, and expect tea and sympathy when they get hurt.[/p][/quote]I would like to know how many drivers know the actual Highway code, and how many in this thread can pass a modern theory and practical test. Most people here were probably asked 5 questions on driving theory in their practical and didn't sit a proper test. But apparently driving for 20 years gives you the right to make comment and assumptions of other road users regardless of what they know or don't know. Did it ever occur to tell people politely what they were doing wrong, instead of just using a horn and a finger. And in regard to all the complaints about cyclists and traffic lights, the lights don't always give enough time for cyclists to get through especially on larger crossings and light systems on roundabouts, Which is still a mystery to me, but Southampton does have a large amount of very unnecessary lights and ridiculous "traffic calming" ideas. babyhulk

12:56pm Mon 6 Aug 12

shirley-bill says...

Just drove down Hill lane two cyclists when though red lights , May be cyclists should learn to stop at red lights .
Just drove down Hill lane two cyclists when though red lights , May be cyclists should learn to stop at red lights . shirley-bill

12:59pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Brusher Mills says...

Another group that do not know the highway code is the youngsters who suddenly appear on the roads with there scooters (mopeds), they have their L plates on but rides those things around like they are still on thier bmx's and have no regards for other road users.
Another group that do not know the highway code is the youngsters who suddenly appear on the roads with there scooters (mopeds), they have their L plates on but rides those things around like they are still on thier bmx's and have no regards for other road users. Brusher Mills

1:23pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Tottonion says...

Most drivers ARE aware of cyclists, aware that they jump red traffic lights, aware they scratch paintwork and aware they snap wing mirrors off while stopped at traffic lights or road junctions.
Most drivers ARE aware of cyclists, aware that they jump red traffic lights, aware they scratch paintwork and aware they snap wing mirrors off while stopped at traffic lights or road junctions. Tottonion

1:25pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

babyhulk wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind!
Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?
Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.
So we go full circle and have to question why groups of people think it is fine to join the fray on the road with no knowledge of the rules or intention of understanding them, and expect tea and sympathy when they get hurt.
I would like to know how many drivers know the actual Highway code, and how many in this thread can pass a modern theory and practical test. Most people here were probably asked 5 questions on driving theory in their practical and didn't sit a proper test. But apparently driving for 20 years gives you the right to make comment and assumptions of other road users regardless of what they know or don't know. Did it ever occur to tell people politely what they were doing wrong, instead of just using a horn and a finger. And in regard to all the complaints about cyclists and traffic lights, the lights don't always give enough time for cyclists to get through especially on larger crossings and light systems on roundabouts, Which is still a mystery to me, but Southampton does have a large amount of very unnecessary lights and ridiculous "traffic calming" ideas.
I think you are asking a fair question about drivers knowledge of the Highway Code but correctly you accept that they had to get a reasonable knowledge of it in order to satisfy the five or six questions that the examiner might ask. The test complies with the rules laid down by the Government which makes me wonder why there's a question over a 'proper test' as drivers had to satisfy the requirements at the time of their test. Can it be compared to the test sat by a cyclist, no it can't because their competence is never examined. The cyclist who can't cross on the traffic light sequence should ask themselves if they are fit enough or question whether the lights are going to still be in their favour as they approach, as motorist has to. I do agree totally about unnecessary lights but they are always installed for the benefit of groups other than motorists.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: Absolutely right. Give cyclists complete priority at all times on the road, the same as afforded to pedestrians, children and animals in the road, whether they are in the wrong or not. Motorists: just press the middle pedal and wait – the engine won't mind![/p][/quote]Sadly this attitude is probably responsible for many of the accidents. Try reading the Highway Code where you will find the rules for cyclists and pedestrians are littered with provisos like 'if/where it is safe to do so' which can be translated as not blindly walking on to the road and hoping that the waves of vehicles will part for you. Maybe the problem is made worse by cyclists and pedestrians having their own mental Highway Code which isn't the same as the Government version that motorists are guided by?[/p][/quote]Never assume that cyclists know the Highway Code, or are going to apply it. Drivers need to keep one metre clear or give way and wait.[/p][/quote]So we go full circle and have to question why groups of people think it is fine to join the fray on the road with no knowledge of the rules or intention of understanding them, and expect tea and sympathy when they get hurt.[/p][/quote]I would like to know how many drivers know the actual Highway code, and how many in this thread can pass a modern theory and practical test. Most people here were probably asked 5 questions on driving theory in their practical and didn't sit a proper test. But apparently driving for 20 years gives you the right to make comment and assumptions of other road users regardless of what they know or don't know. Did it ever occur to tell people politely what they were doing wrong, instead of just using a horn and a finger. And in regard to all the complaints about cyclists and traffic lights, the lights don't always give enough time for cyclists to get through especially on larger crossings and light systems on roundabouts, Which is still a mystery to me, but Southampton does have a large amount of very unnecessary lights and ridiculous "traffic calming" ideas.[/p][/quote]I think you are asking a fair question about drivers knowledge of the Highway Code but correctly you accept that they had to get a reasonable knowledge of it in order to satisfy the five or six questions that the examiner might ask. The test complies with the rules laid down by the Government which makes me wonder why there's a question over a 'proper test' as drivers had to satisfy the requirements at the time of their test. Can it be compared to the test sat by a cyclist, no it can't because their competence is never examined. The cyclist who can't cross on the traffic light sequence should ask themselves if they are fit enough or question whether the lights are going to still be in their favour as they approach, as motorist has to. I do agree totally about unnecessary lights but they are always installed for the benefit of groups other than motorists. Torchie1

1:28pm Mon 6 Aug 12

RRT says...

Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road.

It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.
Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road. It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't. RRT

1:28pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Brusher Mills wrote:
Another group that do not know the highway code is the youngsters who suddenly appear on the roads with there scooters (mopeds), they have their L plates on but rides those things around like they are still on thier bmx's and have no regards for other road users.
Totally agree with you on this one i was cycling through the New Forest and there were a bunch of about 6 weaving all over the road, beeping their horns for no reason, stopping in front of people and generally being idiots. I have seen other moped riders come off road and on to the paths where young children were with parents learning to ride.
[quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote: Another group that do not know the highway code is the youngsters who suddenly appear on the roads with there scooters (mopeds), they have their L plates on but rides those things around like they are still on thier bmx's and have no regards for other road users.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you on this one i was cycling through the New Forest and there were a bunch of about 6 weaving all over the road, beeping their horns for no reason, stopping in front of people and generally being idiots. I have seen other moped riders come off road and on to the paths where young children were with parents learning to ride. babyhulk

1:51pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

RRT wrote:
Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road.

It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.
Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]RRT[/bold] wrote: Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road. It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.[/p][/quote]Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists. babyhulk

1:57pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

babyhulk wrote:
RRT wrote:
Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road.

It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.
Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.
Then the law needs to be cleared on who has right of way in a cycle lane. Amsterdam deals with it just fine - you're at fault if you walk in a cycle lane and are hit.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RRT[/bold] wrote: Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road. It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.[/p][/quote]Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.[/p][/quote]Then the law needs to be cleared on who has right of way in a cycle lane. Amsterdam deals with it just fine - you're at fault if you walk in a cycle lane and are hit. Georgem

1:59pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Chipster says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Chipster wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example.
Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.
Cue the usual anti-car comments.
I drive a car more than 5 miles a day in and around Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying!
There I am, waiting at the lights for a green to go when out from nowhere a cyclist ignores the red light he has approached and ridden straight through! I mean, this is bordering on road anarchy!
I want to drive on the road but in places it is far too dangerous, what with these cyclists having no lights when it is dark and also wearing dark clothing. Makes you want to drive on the pavement!
Make cyclists wear appropiate clothing, have lights fitted by law and perhaps have some form of insurance like we motorists have to pay for.
Give us proper provisions like that and we wont be a nuisance to anyone!.............


.
How is a cyclist going to injure you in a car?
This isn't anything to do with bikes or cars,it's just pure snobbery.You see cyclists as peasants because they dont pay this or that, you think they are just some bumper fodder getting in the way of your oh so important trip to tesco's or ikea with the missus telling you what to do.
I'll tell you what people need to do,commuting to work,fine it's necessary,but on Saturday and Sunday you just get in your cars for no reason at all and think where can I go and sit in a queue now.
You dont give a **** about the planet your children/grandchildr

en are going to have to live in at all.
I wonder why some people bother having legs or muscles in this country at all,you migh as well have your feet cut off and get some whells attached,bunch of lazy,obese,limp spined losers.
One life,live it.Dont waste it sat in a car!
Do everyone a big favour Numnuts, and read carefully my post. Perhaps if you were take your big head out of your @rse you'd see some of my points were tongue in cheek, although my points about clothing and lights are appropriate to the discussion.
As for me being a snob, far from it. Again you're resorting to stereotyping, do you get out much? Why would I see cyclists as peasants? Quite a few of my friends actually ride bikes, but they adhere to road safety like most.
Now let me make this somewhat clearer for you, are you ready? Like some drivers there are cyclists who disregard everything and everyone on the road, and also insofar as cyclists, pedestrians on the pathway. Countless times I've witnessed an idiot on a bike cause a car to swerve, or they ridden through a red like luckily not to be crushed by an oncoming car! Do you get where I'm coming from now? Or is your head hurting?
As for me not using a bike, perhaps you're unaware that a lot of people work quite a distance from where they live. Just perhaps you're one of the fortunate who don't have to ride too far, but thats your business. Likewise its also none of your business why or why not I choose to cycle to work.
Now, at the end of your post you resorted to a tirade of name calling, I suppose its very easy for you to give it large and pretend to be the big man whilst hiding behind a computer. May I suggest you give it a rest and go and hug a tree, or whatever floats your boat. But above all, get a sense of humour because lifes far too short to be so bitter and twisted like yourself............
................
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chipster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example. Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.[/p][/quote]Cue the usual anti-car comments. I drive a car more than 5 miles a day in and around Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying! There I am, waiting at the lights for a green to go when out from nowhere a cyclist ignores the red light he has approached and ridden straight through! I mean, this is bordering on road anarchy! I want to drive on the road but in places it is far too dangerous, what with these cyclists having no lights when it is dark and also wearing dark clothing. Makes you want to drive on the pavement! Make cyclists wear appropiate clothing, have lights fitted by law and perhaps have some form of insurance like we motorists have to pay for. Give us proper provisions like that and we wont be a nuisance to anyone!............. .[/p][/quote]How is a cyclist going to injure you in a car? This isn't anything to do with bikes or cars,it's just pure snobbery.You see cyclists as peasants because they dont pay this or that, you think they are just some bumper fodder getting in the way of your oh so important trip to tesco's or ikea with the missus telling you what to do. I'll tell you what people need to do,commuting to work,fine it's necessary,but on Saturday and Sunday you just get in your cars for no reason at all and think where can I go and sit in a queue now. You dont give a **** about the planet your children/grandchildr en are going to have to live in at all. I wonder why some people bother having legs or muscles in this country at all,you migh as well have your feet cut off and get some whells attached,bunch of lazy,obese,limp spined losers. One life,live it.Dont waste it sat in a car![/p][/quote]Do everyone a big favour Numnuts, and read carefully my post. Perhaps if you were take your big head out of your @rse you'd see some of my points were tongue in cheek, although my points about clothing and lights are appropriate to the discussion. As for me being a snob, far from it. Again you're resorting to stereotyping, do you get out much? Why would I see cyclists as peasants? Quite a few of my friends actually ride bikes, but they adhere to road safety like most. Now let me make this somewhat clearer for you, are you ready? Like some drivers there are cyclists who disregard everything and everyone on the road, and also insofar as cyclists, pedestrians on the pathway. Countless times I've witnessed an idiot on a bike cause a car to swerve, or they ridden through a red like luckily not to be crushed by an oncoming car! Do you get where I'm coming from now? Or is your head hurting? As for me not using a bike, perhaps you're unaware that a lot of people work quite a distance from where they live. Just perhaps you're one of the fortunate who don't have to ride too far, but thats your business. Likewise its also none of your business why or why not I choose to cycle to work. Now, at the end of your post you resorted to a tirade of name calling, I suppose its very easy for you to give it large and pretend to be the big man whilst hiding behind a computer. May I suggest you give it a rest and go and hug a tree, or whatever floats your boat. But above all, get a sense of humour because lifes far too short to be so bitter and twisted like yourself............ ................ Chipster

2:04pm Mon 6 Aug 12

wizard says...

Georgem wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look

http://www.direct.go

v.uk/en/motoring/own

ingavehicle/untaxedv

ehicle/dg_4022073

Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?
You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH!

Thinking your the only idiot!!

http://ipayroadtax.c
om/
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/motoring/own ingavehicle/untaxedv ehicle/dg_4022073 Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?[/p][/quote]You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH! Thinking your the only idiot!! http://ipayroadtax.c om/ wizard

2:15pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Georgem wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
RRT wrote:
Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road.

It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.
Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.
Then the law needs to be cleared on who has right of way in a cycle lane. Amsterdam deals with it just fine - you're at fault if you walk in a cycle lane and are hit.
Amsterdam alone has 249 Miles (400km) of Cycle only lanes, which are properly marked, signed and free of any other traffic. This is true through most cities and roads in the netherlands. But we cannot compare the busy British roads with the relatively quiet roads in holland.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RRT[/bold] wrote: Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road. It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.[/p][/quote]Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.[/p][/quote]Then the law needs to be cleared on who has right of way in a cycle lane. Amsterdam deals with it just fine - you're at fault if you walk in a cycle lane and are hit.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam alone has 249 Miles (400km) of Cycle only lanes, which are properly marked, signed and free of any other traffic. This is true through most cities and roads in the netherlands. But we cannot compare the busy British roads with the relatively quiet roads in holland. babyhulk

2:22pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

wizard wrote:
Georgem wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look

http://www.direct.go


v.uk/en/motoring/own


ingavehicle/untaxedv


ehicle/dg_4022073

Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?
You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH!

Thinking your the only idiot!!

http://ipayroadtax.c

om/
Did you even read what I posted? Do you need some help with the longer words?
[quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/motoring/own ingavehicle/untaxedv ehicle/dg_4022073 Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?[/p][/quote]You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH! Thinking your the only idiot!! http://ipayroadtax.c om/[/p][/quote]Did you even read what I posted? Do you need some help with the longer words? Georgem

2:27pm Mon 6 Aug 12

teamgreen says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!!
60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!![/p][/quote]60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food teamgreen

2:27pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
RRT wrote:
Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road.

It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.
Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.
Then the law needs to be cleared on who has right of way in a cycle lane. Amsterdam deals with it just fine - you're at fault if you walk in a cycle lane and are hit.
Amsterdam alone has 249 Miles (400km) of Cycle only lanes, which are properly marked, signed and free of any other traffic. This is true through most cities and roads in the netherlands. But we cannot compare the busy British roads with the relatively quiet roads in holland.
True enough, but I never asked anyone to compare them. Just said that making it more clear who has right of way in a cycle lane will stop people moaning that they got hit by a cycle in the cycle lane.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RRT[/bold] wrote: Hampshire County Council (et el) have spent millions providing dedicated cycle ways beside some roads as a safe haven for cyclists away from the traffic (example Lee on Solent east and Stokes Bay) yet nearly every time I drive these roads there is at least 1 cyclist (yesterday 4 within 1/2 mile) who thinks it is safer on the road. It should be made a legal requirement that cyclists use dedicated cycle ways when they are adjacent to a road with heavy fines imposed on those that don't.[/p][/quote]Spending millions on cycle lanes is wasted money as pedestrians will walk on them and then blame cyclists for knocking them over and the cyclists will blame the pedestrians for walking in cycle lanes. The money would be better spent resurfacing and widening the existing roads to accommodate both the riders and drivers. Riding on the road is often safer than the paths, the A35 from Ashurst to Lyndhurst has a path but this is often overcrowded and barely wide enough for walkers to pass let alone cyclists.[/p][/quote]Then the law needs to be cleared on who has right of way in a cycle lane. Amsterdam deals with it just fine - you're at fault if you walk in a cycle lane and are hit.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam alone has 249 Miles (400km) of Cycle only lanes, which are properly marked, signed and free of any other traffic. This is true through most cities and roads in the netherlands. But we cannot compare the busy British roads with the relatively quiet roads in holland.[/p][/quote]True enough, but I never asked anyone to compare them. Just said that making it more clear who has right of way in a cycle lane will stop people moaning that they got hit by a cycle in the cycle lane. Georgem

2:44pm Mon 6 Aug 12

wizard says...

Georgem wrote:
wizard wrote:
Georgem wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look

http://www.direct.go



v.uk/en/motoring/own



ingavehicle/untaxedv



ehicle/dg_4022073

Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?
You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH!

Thinking your the only idiot!!

http://ipayroadtax.c


om/
Did you even read what I posted? Do you need some help with the longer words?
Nah your a bore!
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/motoring/own ingavehicle/untaxedv ehicle/dg_4022073 Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?[/p][/quote]You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH! Thinking your the only idiot!! http://ipayroadtax.c om/[/p][/quote]Did you even read what I posted? Do you need some help with the longer words?[/p][/quote]Nah your a bore! wizard

2:48pm Mon 6 Aug 12

AFrustratedCyclist says...

I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on. AFrustratedCyclist

2:49pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

wizard wrote:
Georgem wrote:
wizard wrote:
Georgem wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look

http://www.direct.go




v.uk/en/motoring/own




ingavehicle/untaxedv




ehicle/dg_4022073

Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?
You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH!

Thinking your the only idiot!!

http://ipayroadtax.c



om/
Did you even read what I posted? Do you need some help with the longer words?
Nah your a bore!
Don't respond, then. Simple enough.
[quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]Luckily, you understood what he meant by using the term 'road tax'. As does everyone else. Everybody still refers to their "tax disc", nobody calls it their 'vehicle excise duty disc'. Even the police will refer to 'untaxed vehicles'. So do the government themselves, look http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/motoring/own ingavehicle/untaxedv ehicle/dg_4022073 Gasp! What a bunch of idiots everyone in the country except you are, eh! I wonder if I can just not renew my 'vehicle excise duty disc', and when pulled over, can get away with it on this hilarious technicality?[/p][/quote]You cant drive on the road unless you have paid your excise duty! DOH! Thinking your the only idiot!! http://ipayroadtax.c om/[/p][/quote]Did you even read what I posted? Do you need some help with the longer words?[/p][/quote]Nah your a bore![/p][/quote]Don't respond, then. Simple enough. Georgem

2:57pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Richard 51 says...

Oh dear here we go again hard done motorists Vs the poor Cyclists this is going to run and run and run and run and run and run...........
Oh dear here we go again hard done motorists Vs the poor Cyclists this is going to run and run and run and run and run and run........... Richard 51

3:09pm Mon 6 Aug 12

TEBOURBA says...

Interesting to see that Ms Gartside, the campaigner for safe cycling, isn't wearing a helmet or high viz clothing!
Let's hope she doesn't hit one of the many potholes in our roads, fall off and fracture her skull.
Anyone who campaigns against compulsory helmets for cyclists is nuts!
Interesting to see that Ms Gartside, the campaigner for safe cycling, isn't wearing a helmet or high viz clothing! Let's hope she doesn't hit one of the many potholes in our roads, fall off and fracture her skull. Anyone who campaigns against compulsory helmets for cyclists is nuts! TEBOURBA

3:09pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Niel says...

Richard 51 wrote:
Oh dear here we go again hard done motorists Vs the poor Cyclists this is going to run and run and run and run and run and run...........
Actually running might be better than sitting in, or on, wheeled transport!
[quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Oh dear here we go again hard done motorists Vs the poor Cyclists this is going to run and run and run and run and run and run...........[/p][/quote]Actually running might be better than sitting in, or on, wheeled transport! Niel

4:14pm Mon 6 Aug 12

-stiv- says...

Good Lord.

NOBODY CARES IF A CYCLIST INCONVENIENCED YOU AT ONE POINT.

To base a whole tirade of misinformed angry, legislation based restrictive measures on a whole subset of road users would be idiotic.

NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

I know SOME cyclists can be bad. Usually the bad cyclists are the same anti-social kids getting ASBO's etc. A chav on a bike is not a cyclist.

I commute to work on a bike. I take literally the safest possible route. Through the common, over a zebra crossing, over a pavement for about 5m.

I take the safe route because if I get hit by a car I WOULD DIE AND LEAVE MY CHILDREN FATHERLESS.

I'm really sorry if I've briefly made you slow down at one point or you've had to go round me a bit wide, but oh no actually I DON'T GIVE A ****.

Just drive your car safely and don't kill anyone. Thanks. I have to drive a car and a van through the centre of London on occasion. Do you think I rant and shout and complain every time I'm inconvenienced slightly by:

Other drivers.
Pedestrians.
Zebra Crossings
Vans on yellows with hazards on.
Buses
Lorries
Traffic.

How often does the above inconvenience you as a motorist?

Now how often does a cyclist?

Please, please, please stop moaning about cyclists. Every cyclist is a potential car driver adding more traffic to the roads.

Sorry about all the shouting.
Good Lord. NOBODY CARES IF A CYCLIST INCONVENIENCED YOU AT ONE POINT. To base a whole tirade of misinformed angry, legislation based restrictive measures on a whole subset of road users would be idiotic. NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT. I know SOME cyclists can be bad. Usually the bad cyclists are the same anti-social kids getting ASBO's etc. A chav on a bike is not a cyclist. I commute to work on a bike. I take literally the safest possible route. Through the common, over a zebra crossing, over a pavement for about 5m. I take the safe route because if I get hit by a car I WOULD DIE AND LEAVE MY CHILDREN FATHERLESS. I'm really sorry if I've briefly made you slow down at one point or you've had to go round me a bit wide, but oh no actually I DON'T GIVE A ****. Just drive your car safely and don't kill anyone. Thanks. I have to drive a car and a van through the centre of London on occasion. Do you think I rant and shout and complain every time I'm inconvenienced slightly by: Other drivers. Pedestrians. Zebra Crossings Vans on yellows with hazards on. Buses Lorries Traffic. How often does the above inconvenience you as a motorist? Now how often does a cyclist? Please, please, please stop moaning about cyclists. Every cyclist is a potential car driver adding more traffic to the roads. Sorry about all the shouting. -stiv-

4:20pm Mon 6 Aug 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

I drive every day, and i am fed up with the BLOODY STUPID cyclists and Motorcyclists who weave in and out of the traffic.

Stop this stupid practice, how the hell are we supposed to see you if you weave, use the roads properly.

Overtaking up between to lines of traffic is madness cars have lanes to abide to and they are bloody there for cyclists too.

Yes we use our mirrors but sometimes it's difficult to see mindless idiots who weave and overtake at speed through stationary traffic.

And yes i agree cyclists need insurance too, i know someone who drives a car who was banned for 12 months because at a round-a-bout a cyclist came off the pavement and was going the wrong way along the cycle path and also road, so when she was looking right and started to go the cyclist flew over her bonnet as he was coming from her left. And thats the motorists fault i think not, but because cyclists have no insurance it cost her dearly, and was said to be her fault.

I cycle, DON'T overtake stationary traffic, accept by getting off my bike and pushing.

And also those cyclists who see traffic lights are red who then ride up on pavement then cross the road and get back on road the other side of lights you too are breaking the law.
I drive every day, and i am fed up with the BLOODY STUPID cyclists and Motorcyclists who weave in and out of the traffic. Stop this stupid practice, how the hell are we supposed to see you if you weave, use the roads properly. Overtaking up between to lines of traffic is madness cars have lanes to abide to and they are bloody there for cyclists too. Yes we use our mirrors but sometimes it's difficult to see mindless idiots who weave and overtake at speed through stationary traffic. And yes i agree cyclists need insurance too, i know someone who drives a car who was banned for 12 months because at a round-a-bout a cyclist came off the pavement and was going the wrong way along the cycle path and also road, so when she was looking right and started to go the cyclist flew over her bonnet as he was coming from her left. And thats the motorists fault i think not, but because cyclists have no insurance it cost her dearly, and was said to be her fault. I cycle, DON'T overtake stationary traffic, accept by getting off my bike and pushing. And also those cyclists who see traffic lights are red who then ride up on pavement then cross the road and get back on road the other side of lights you too are breaking the law. SAINTPAUL7

4:26pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Northamboy says...

Ban all bikes then we are all happy except lycraman.

Bikes are a pain on the roads and pavements, they jump lights and try to overtake on the inside. Ban them all and I will be happy
Ban all bikes then we are all happy except lycraman. Bikes are a pain on the roads and pavements, they jump lights and try to overtake on the inside. Ban them all and I will be happy Northamboy

4:37pm Mon 6 Aug 12

AFrustratedCyclist says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds. AFrustratedCyclist

4:40pm Mon 6 Aug 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

teamgreen wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!!
60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food
I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously!
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!![/p][/quote]60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food[/p][/quote]I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously! UKIPsouthampton

4:41pm Mon 6 Aug 12

sburman says...

I have seen arguments for both sides here.

The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault.

My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil.

My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all.

Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.
I have seen arguments for both sides here. The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault. My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil. My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all. Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`. sburman

4:42pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

JerryActic wrote:
I can be sympathetic to cyclists as I both drive and cycle. It is becoming more dangerous to cycle but in fairness to all a large percentage of cyclists are a danger to themselves. Many wear dark clothes at night, more cycle without adequate lights than with; and what irritates me more than anything else as a driver, cyclists who insist on riding on the busy and dangerous roads when an expensive and adequate cycle path has been provided for their use.

What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?
Strangely dark clothes can actually be more visible than hi-vis stuff in well lit streets, especially these days with the new lights they're putting up everywhere that direct all the the light down because a hi-vis vests reflective capabilities are far exceeded when under bright lights and reflective strips become mirrors that dazzle drivers, also most of these "expensive and adequate cycle paths" are just normal width footpaths turned into shared use paths, I also don't see any for the full length of burseldon road other than the stupidly short and stubby piece outside the eastpoint center, I mean what the hell's with that, if you're going to put it on one little 15 meter section, you should do the whole flipping road, for crying out loud, it's part of the national cycle network and yes I use lights, I have hi-vis, I even have a horn, I don't ignore traffic signals stop signs or give way lines, I stop at zebra crossings if someone's waiting, next I shall buy a camera and will post every single bad road user, whether they be cyclists, pedestrians, motorists or even people in wheelchairs/mobility scooters, if they put themselves or others in danger then they'll go up on youtube and if it's bad enough it will get reported to the police and if I have a lapse in judgment or concentration then I'll hold my hands up and apologize.
[quote][p][bold]JerryActic[/bold] wrote: I can be sympathetic to cyclists as I both drive and cycle. It is becoming more dangerous to cycle but in fairness to all a large percentage of cyclists are a danger to themselves. Many wear dark clothes at night, more cycle without adequate lights than with; and what irritates me more than anything else as a driver, cyclists who insist on riding on the busy and dangerous roads when an expensive and adequate cycle path has been provided for their use. What percentage of you cyclists ignore traffic lights and stop signs?[/p][/quote]Strangely dark clothes can actually be more visible than hi-vis stuff in well lit streets, especially these days with the new lights they're putting up everywhere that direct all the the light down because a hi-vis vests reflective capabilities are far exceeded when under bright lights and reflective strips become mirrors that dazzle drivers, also most of these "expensive and adequate cycle paths" are just normal width footpaths turned into shared use paths, I also don't see any for the full length of burseldon road other than the stupidly short and stubby piece outside the eastpoint center, I mean what the hell's with that, if you're going to put it on one little 15 meter section, you should do the whole flipping road, for crying out loud, it's part of the national cycle network and yes I use lights, I have hi-vis, I even have a horn, I don't ignore traffic signals stop signs or give way lines, I stop at zebra crossings if someone's waiting, next I shall buy a camera and will post every single bad road user, whether they be cyclists, pedestrians, motorists or even people in wheelchairs/mobility scooters, if they put themselves or others in danger then they'll go up on youtube and if it's bad enough it will get reported to the police and if I have a lapse in judgment or concentration then I'll hold my hands up and apologize. Ginger_cyclist

4:55pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
I have third party insurance too from British Cycling, great deal for just £24 a year but to answer your questions as a cyclist would be meaningless as my view is the same so as a learner driver I answer with this, nothing gives anyone the right to shout abuse or threaten to kill anyone who uses the road as in the end we're all just trying to get somewhere, nothing more, nothing less, abide by the rules of the road and follow the Highway Codes advice on things like passing parked cars etc and you'll be fine, also I too hate stupid people who come up to a red, ride up on the pavement and rejoin the road when they pass the lights on the other side, I lastly agree that if done safely and correctly, filtering is safe, I did some the other day to find a gap to get to the curb and get on the path to walk up a hill, it was safe, controlled and no harm or damage caused.
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]I have third party insurance too from British Cycling, great deal for just £24 a year but to answer your questions as a cyclist would be meaningless as my view is the same so as a learner driver I answer with this, nothing gives anyone the right to shout abuse or threaten to kill anyone who uses the road as in the end we're all just trying to get somewhere, nothing more, nothing less, abide by the rules of the road and follow the Highway Codes advice on things like passing parked cars etc and you'll be fine, also I too hate stupid people who come up to a red, ride up on the pavement and rejoin the road when they pass the lights on the other side, I lastly agree that if done safely and correctly, filtering is safe, I did some the other day to find a gap to get to the curb and get on the path to walk up a hill, it was safe, controlled and no harm or damage caused. Ginger_cyclist

5:05pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

sburman wrote:
I have seen arguments for both sides here.

The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault.

My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil.

My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all.

Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.
Actually putting ourselves in front of cars at lights is perfectly legal as long as we don't cross the car stop line when there is no ASL or the ASL line, as for cutting people up, I had the driver of a black SAAB 9-3 convertible cut me up at the lights on town side of Northam bridge the other day and guess where it got him... That's right, not even a foot ahead of me yet because I was forced to brake considerably, his driving would have been classed as careless or dangerous if he had knocked me down and caused injury, should have beeped at him like a car driver would have done... Actually no, that would just make motorists think even more that cyclists are just hot headed people.
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I have seen arguments for both sides here. The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault. My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil. My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all. Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.[/p][/quote]Actually putting ourselves in front of cars at lights is perfectly legal as long as we don't cross the car stop line when there is no ASL or the ASL line, as for cutting people up, I had the driver of a black SAAB 9-3 convertible cut me up at the lights on town side of Northam bridge the other day and guess where it got him... That's right, not even a foot ahead of me yet because I was forced to brake considerably, his driving would have been classed as careless or dangerous if he had knocked me down and caused injury, should have beeped at him like a car driver would have done... Actually no, that would just make motorists think even more that cyclists are just hot headed people. Ginger_cyclist

5:07pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Linesman says...

The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness."

As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road.

At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well.

Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across.

If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them.

If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law.

Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.
The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness." As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road. At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well. Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across. If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them. If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law. Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order. Linesman

5:16pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Linesman wrote:
The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness."

As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road.

At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well.

Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across.

If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them.

If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law.

Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.
I would agree with this in part, yes some cyclists need to be more aware of the rules, yes riding on pavements is illegal unless marked otherwise, yes red means stop, there are some crossing made for cyclists AND pedestrians though not very many in Southampton, listening to music while riding is a a no in my books but cycle lanes, most of them in Southampton I wouldn't use because they're just too narrow
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness." As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road. At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well. Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across. If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them. If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law. Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.[/p][/quote]I would agree with this in part, yes some cyclists need to be more aware of the rules, yes riding on pavements is illegal unless marked otherwise, yes red means stop, there are some crossing made for cyclists AND pedestrians though not very many in Southampton, listening to music while riding is a a no in my books but cycle lanes, most of them in Southampton I wouldn't use because they're just too narrow Ginger_cyclist

5:29pm Mon 6 Aug 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

Georgem wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!!
60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food
I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously!
Oh, lighten up you mindless old bigot. If you can't spot a joke when you see it by now, you failed at life some time ago.
Oh yes LOL, It's so funny when a Policeman has to visit somebodies wife, mother, husband, father and have to explain to them that their loved one has been killed in a RTA. I know you like to post belligerent, antagonising comments Georgem but this is no laughing matter. I am amazed comments like this one are allowed to be posted at all.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!![/p][/quote]60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food[/p][/quote]I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously![/p][/quote]Oh, lighten up you mindless old bigot. If you can't spot a joke when you see it by now, you failed at life some time ago.[/p][/quote]Oh yes LOL, It's so funny when a Policeman has to visit somebodies wife, mother, husband, father and have to explain to them that their loved one has been killed in a RTA. I know you like to post belligerent, antagonising comments Georgem but this is no laughing matter. I am amazed comments like this one are allowed to be posted at all. UKIPsouthampton

5:29pm Mon 6 Aug 12

teamgreen says...

lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then. teamgreen

5:34pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Georgem wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!!
60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food
I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously!
Oh, lighten up you mindless old bigot. If you can't spot a joke when you see it by now, you failed at life some time ago.
Oh yes LOL, It's so funny when a Policeman has to visit somebodies wife, mother, husband, father and have to explain to them that their loved one has been killed in a RTA. I know you like to post belligerent, antagonising comments Georgem but this is no laughing matter. I am amazed comments like this one are allowed to be posted at all.
I never said any of that was funny. I can't believe I have to actually explain this to a supposed adult, but Lone Ranger does not really go around killing people with a car and keeping score. It was made up.

I'm amazed you remember which order to breathe in. In case you need a reminder, it goes IN, then OUT, repeat.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!![/p][/quote]60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food[/p][/quote]I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously![/p][/quote]Oh, lighten up you mindless old bigot. If you can't spot a joke when you see it by now, you failed at life some time ago.[/p][/quote]Oh yes LOL, It's so funny when a Policeman has to visit somebodies wife, mother, husband, father and have to explain to them that their loved one has been killed in a RTA. I know you like to post belligerent, antagonising comments Georgem but this is no laughing matter. I am amazed comments like this one are allowed to be posted at all.[/p][/quote]I never said any of that was funny. I can't believe I have to actually explain this to a supposed adult, but Lone Ranger does not really go around killing people with a car and keeping score. It was made up. I'm amazed you remember which order to breathe in. In case you need a reminder, it goes IN, then OUT, repeat. Georgem

6:00pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

teamgreen wrote:
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.[/p][/quote]It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it? Torchie1

6:02pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?
It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.[/p][/quote]It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?[/p][/quote]It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it? Ginger_cyclist

6:49pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?
It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?
I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.[/p][/quote]It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?[/p][/quote]It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?[/p][/quote]I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me. Torchie1

6:57pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?
It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?
I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.
Retired? High income? Public transport? Company car? Please enlighten us.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.[/p][/quote]It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?[/p][/quote]It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?[/p][/quote]I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.[/p][/quote]Retired? High income? Public transport? Company car? Please enlighten us. Ginger_cyclist

6:58pm Mon 6 Aug 12

djl197 says...

So many motorists spouting the usual 'pay insurance', 'pay some tax'.
If I had insurance (which I do) would you give me more space on the road?
If I paid tax would you stop turning left through me?
No, whether I pay more money or not has no link to whether you or I drive / cycle better.
The article is about that very point. Arguing about money is just petty moaning, I fully appreciate driving is expensive. Charging cyclists more money will not make your driving cheaper it will just be spent by the useless government of the day.
The point is to make it safer for both parties and make both groups co-exist on the roads.
Making the cheapest form of transport more expensive will not solve that problem.
However cycling proficiency tests as part of the driving test would be a great way to teach people about the 'other' road users. And schools doing cycling tests before allowing you to cycle to school would also work.
I love cycling - and we all love seeing the success of cyclists in the olympics.
But things can be done to make it safer that dont involve making cycling more expensive! Leave that pointless debate to the small minded petty individuals.
So many motorists spouting the usual 'pay insurance', 'pay some tax'. If I had insurance (which I do) would you give me more space on the road? If I paid tax would you stop turning left through me? No, whether I pay more money or not has no link to whether you or I drive / cycle better. The article is about that very point. Arguing about money is just petty moaning, I fully appreciate driving is expensive. Charging cyclists more money will not make your driving cheaper it will just be spent by the useless government of the day. The point is to make it safer for both parties and make both groups co-exist on the roads. Making the cheapest form of transport more expensive will not solve that problem. However cycling proficiency tests as part of the driving test would be a great way to teach people about the 'other' road users. And schools doing cycling tests before allowing you to cycle to school would also work. I love cycling - and we all love seeing the success of cyclists in the olympics. But things can be done to make it safer that dont involve making cycling more expensive! Leave that pointless debate to the small minded petty individuals. djl197

7:09pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Linesman wrote:
The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness."

As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road.

At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well.

Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across.

If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them.

If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law.

Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.
I think you'll find the crossings come under the heading Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian crossings.

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/prod_consum_dg/
groups/dg_digitalass
ets/@dg/@en/@motor/d
ocuments/digitalasse
t/dg_191935.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness." As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road. At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well. Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across. If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them. If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law. Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the crossings come under the heading Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian crossings. http://www.direct.go v.uk/prod_consum_dg/ groups/dg_digitalass ets/@dg/@en/@motor/d ocuments/digitalasse t/dg_191935.pdf babyhulk

7:12pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

djl197 wrote:
So many motorists spouting the usual 'pay insurance', 'pay some tax'.
If I had insurance (which I do) would you give me more space on the road?
If I paid tax would you stop turning left through me?
No, whether I pay more money or not has no link to whether you or I drive / cycle better.
The article is about that very point. Arguing about money is just petty moaning, I fully appreciate driving is expensive. Charging cyclists more money will not make your driving cheaper it will just be spent by the useless government of the day.
The point is to make it safer for both parties and make both groups co-exist on the roads.
Making the cheapest form of transport more expensive will not solve that problem.
However cycling proficiency tests as part of the driving test would be a great way to teach people about the 'other' road users. And schools doing cycling tests before allowing you to cycle to school would also work.
I love cycling - and we all love seeing the success of cyclists in the olympics.
But things can be done to make it safer that dont involve making cycling more expensive! Leave that pointless debate to the small minded petty individuals.
This I totally agree with.
[quote][p][bold]djl197[/bold] wrote: So many motorists spouting the usual 'pay insurance', 'pay some tax'. If I had insurance (which I do) would you give me more space on the road? If I paid tax would you stop turning left through me? No, whether I pay more money or not has no link to whether you or I drive / cycle better. The article is about that very point. Arguing about money is just petty moaning, I fully appreciate driving is expensive. Charging cyclists more money will not make your driving cheaper it will just be spent by the useless government of the day. The point is to make it safer for both parties and make both groups co-exist on the roads. Making the cheapest form of transport more expensive will not solve that problem. However cycling proficiency tests as part of the driving test would be a great way to teach people about the 'other' road users. And schools doing cycling tests before allowing you to cycle to school would also work. I love cycling - and we all love seeing the success of cyclists in the olympics. But things can be done to make it safer that dont involve making cycling more expensive! Leave that pointless debate to the small minded petty individuals.[/p][/quote]This I totally agree with. Ginger_cyclist

7:21pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sburman wrote:
I have seen arguments for both sides here.

The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault.

My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil.

My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all.

Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.
Actually putting ourselves in front of cars at lights is perfectly legal as long as we don't cross the car stop line when there is no ASL or the ASL line, as for cutting people up, I had the driver of a black SAAB 9-3 convertible cut me up at the lights on town side of Northam bridge the other day and guess where it got him... That's right, not even a foot ahead of me yet because I was forced to brake considerably, his driving would have been classed as careless or dangerous if he had knocked me down and caused injury, should have beeped at him like a car driver would have done... Actually no, that would just make motorists think even more that cyclists are just hot headed people.
The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

it also states that mirrors and blind spots should be checked before signalling, and manoeuvring.

I think most would agree that if everybody too the time to properly mirror signal and manoeuvre there would be less accidents, of all kind regardless of what or who is involved. This could also lead to a reduction in insurance costs for all motorists. myself included
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I have seen arguments for both sides here. The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault. My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil. My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all. Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.[/p][/quote]Actually putting ourselves in front of cars at lights is perfectly legal as long as we don't cross the car stop line when there is no ASL or the ASL line, as for cutting people up, I had the driver of a black SAAB 9-3 convertible cut me up at the lights on town side of Northam bridge the other day and guess where it got him... That's right, not even a foot ahead of me yet because I was forced to brake considerably, his driving would have been classed as careless or dangerous if he had knocked me down and caused injury, should have beeped at him like a car driver would have done... Actually no, that would just make motorists think even more that cyclists are just hot headed people.[/p][/quote]The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. it also states that mirrors and blind spots should be checked before signalling, and manoeuvring. I think most would agree that if everybody too the time to properly mirror signal and manoeuvre there would be less accidents, of all kind regardless of what or who is involved. This could also lead to a reduction in insurance costs for all motorists. myself included babyhulk

7:34pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sburman wrote:
I have seen arguments for both sides here.

The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault.

My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil.

My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all.

Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.
Actually putting ourselves in front of cars at lights is perfectly legal as long as we don't cross the car stop line when there is no ASL or the ASL line, as for cutting people up, I had the driver of a black SAAB 9-3 convertible cut me up at the lights on town side of Northam bridge the other day and guess where it got him... That's right, not even a foot ahead of me yet because I was forced to brake considerably, his driving would have been classed as careless or dangerous if he had knocked me down and caused injury, should have beeped at him like a car driver would have done... Actually no, that would just make motorists think even more that cyclists are just hot headed people.
The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

it also states that mirrors and blind spots should be checked before signalling, and manoeuvring.

I think most would agree that if everybody too the time to properly mirror signal and manoeuvre there would be less accidents, of all kind regardless of what or who is involved. This could also lead to a reduction in insurance costs for all motorists. myself included
Exactly, too many people don't look, signal or use mirrors before moving, also just being courteous to other road users makes driving and/or riding less stressful, or it does for me at least, I like the feeling of getting a wave of thanks for letting someone make a turn or pull out if i know they want to pull out or letting buses pull out, i was even patient and waited for an extra long coach do a 3 point turn on the day the Olympic torch came to Southampton but 3 motorists couldn't wait and forced their way past, also people should look on both sides before swinging car doors open, a friend of mine got doored once because a plonker didn't look before swinging a van door open and sent my friend through their door window.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I have seen arguments for both sides here. The other week I misjudged my distance from a cyclist and nearly clipped him, would have been my fault. Today I see a cyclist going straight past a Red light at some road works and cut through the actual coned off area of the road works so he could get through ( against the flow of traffic ), any resulting mishap would have been somebody else’s fault. My main gripe has always been that if a cyclist comes up on my inside that’s his/her look out, I can’t be expected to react to their sudden and unexpected appearance, and as for coming upon my inside or outside and planting themselves in front of me at traffic lights well that makes my blood boil. My point is that it’s not only car drivers that need educating, the rules of the road are there for all. Actually, whenever I get frustrated/cut up by bike riders ( pedal & powered ) I obey the signs and THINK BIKE and it works, I feel so much better by just thinking to myself ` Bike, Bike, Bike`.[/p][/quote]Actually putting ourselves in front of cars at lights is perfectly legal as long as we don't cross the car stop line when there is no ASL or the ASL line, as for cutting people up, I had the driver of a black SAAB 9-3 convertible cut me up at the lights on town side of Northam bridge the other day and guess where it got him... That's right, not even a foot ahead of me yet because I was forced to brake considerably, his driving would have been classed as careless or dangerous if he had knocked me down and caused injury, should have beeped at him like a car driver would have done... Actually no, that would just make motorists think even more that cyclists are just hot headed people.[/p][/quote]The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. it also states that mirrors and blind spots should be checked before signalling, and manoeuvring. I think most would agree that if everybody too the time to properly mirror signal and manoeuvre there would be less accidents, of all kind regardless of what or who is involved. This could also lead to a reduction in insurance costs for all motorists. myself included[/p][/quote]Exactly, too many people don't look, signal or use mirrors before moving, also just being courteous to other road users makes driving and/or riding less stressful, or it does for me at least, I like the feeling of getting a wave of thanks for letting someone make a turn or pull out if i know they want to pull out or letting buses pull out, i was even patient and waited for an extra long coach do a 3 point turn on the day the Olympic torch came to Southampton but 3 motorists couldn't wait and forced their way past, also people should look on both sides before swinging car doors open, a friend of mine got doored once because a plonker didn't look before swinging a van door open and sent my friend through their door window. Ginger_cyclist

8:12pm Mon 6 Aug 12

clausentum says...

Road safety will only become a reality through segregation of modes of transport with each having their dedicated lane.

One lane for lorries, buses, white van drivers and all other commercial vehicles.

One lane for cars.

One lane for cyclists.

This would allow pavements to revert to their original purpose - pedestrian traffic.

Unrealistic? Fanciful? Uneconomic? Impractical?

Maybe in 2012 but a worthy goal to aim for.

At present cyclists share roads with lorries and other motorised vehicles. Sheer craziness for both drivers and cyclists.

At present cyclists share pavements with pedestrians. Sheer craziness for both cyclists and pedestrians.

There simply has to be a better way for all who use the roads or footpaths.
Road safety will only become a reality through segregation of modes of transport with each having their dedicated lane. One lane for lorries, buses, white van drivers and all other commercial vehicles. One lane for cars. One lane for cyclists. This would allow pavements to revert to their original purpose - pedestrian traffic. Unrealistic? Fanciful? Uneconomic? Impractical? Maybe in 2012 but a worthy goal to aim for. At present cyclists share roads with lorries and other motorised vehicles. Sheer craziness for both drivers and cyclists. At present cyclists share pavements with pedestrians. Sheer craziness for both cyclists and pedestrians. There simply has to be a better way for all who use the roads or footpaths. clausentum

8:20pm Mon 6 Aug 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM SAINTPAUL7

8:23pm Mon 6 Aug 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

Linesman wrote:
The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness."

As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road.

At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well.

Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across.

If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them.

If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law.

Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.
WELL SAID MATE
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The headline reads, "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness." As a motorist, I would suggest that the Southampton Cycling Campaign calls for cyclist to improve awareness of the rules of the road. At traffic lights, when a red light is showing, it meas STOP. Not just motorists, but cyclists as well. Pedestrian crossings are for Pedestrians ie people on foot, not for cyclist to ride across. If cyclists took their ear-plugs out and listened to the traffic instead of music, they would be more aware of what is going on around them. If there are cycle lanes - use them, not the pavement, which is breaking the law. Southampton Cycling Campaign should put it's own house in order.[/p][/quote]WELL SAID MATE SAINTPAUL7

8:27pm Mon 6 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how? IronLady2010

8:29pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?
It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?
I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.
Retired? High income? Public transport? Company car? Please enlighten us.
I can afford to pay the costs associated with my motor vehicles, what more do you need to know?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.[/p][/quote]It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?[/p][/quote]It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?[/p][/quote]I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.[/p][/quote]Retired? High income? Public transport? Company car? Please enlighten us.[/p][/quote]I can afford to pay the costs associated with my motor vehicles, what more do you need to know? Torchie1

8:39pm Mon 6 Aug 12

thedavie says...

Untill the Police & local authority understand & enforce bylaws / highway code we will have another generation of inconsiderate cyclists that grow up and become irresponsible car drivers that believe they do not have to abide by any regulations as nothing is enforced
Try walking over the pedestrian crossing by Eastleigh railway station with poor eyesight when you get older
Untill the Police & local authority understand & enforce bylaws / highway code we will have another generation of inconsiderate cyclists that grow up and become irresponsible car drivers that believe they do not have to abide by any regulations as nothing is enforced Try walking over the pedestrian crossing by Eastleigh railway station with poor eyesight when you get older thedavie

8:59pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Dragonqueen says...

I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty
I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty Dragonqueen

9:01pm Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you.

So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type. elvisimo

9:05pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

I think you might be the kind of person this refers too.
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. I think you might be the kind of person this refers too. babyhulk

9:12pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Poppy22 says...

elvisimo wrote:
SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.
My partner is a very experienced long distance road cyclist but got very annoyed recently when we were in our car in stationary traffic. A cyclist insisted on cycling up the inside, between the car and the pavement (not enough space!), when my partner had purposely moved over to let the cyclist overtake on the right hand side as he should have done The cyclist then bashed into our car, damaging it, would not stop, and started shouting at my partner that he was in the wrong, then - not surprisingly - wouldn't follow us into the police station a few yards up the road so that we could get the police to explain the Highway Code to the cyclist.
Makes my partner's blood boil when he cycles following the Highway Code and with due care to cars and other road users.
On a separate note, no child should be on the road without wearing a cyling helmet and children under a certain age should have to cycle with an adult.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.[/p][/quote]My partner is a very experienced long distance road cyclist but got very annoyed recently when we were in our car in stationary traffic. A cyclist insisted on cycling up the inside, between the car and the pavement (not enough space!), when my partner had purposely moved over to let the cyclist overtake on the right hand side as he should have done The cyclist then bashed into our car, damaging it, would not stop, and started shouting at my partner that he was in the wrong, then - not surprisingly - wouldn't follow us into the police station a few yards up the road so that we could get the police to explain the Highway Code to the cyclist. Makes my partner's blood boil when he cycles following the Highway Code and with due care to cars and other road users. On a separate note, no child should be on the road without wearing a cyling helmet and children under a certain age should have to cycle with an adult. Poppy22

9:13pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example.
Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.
Stupid comment. You riding on a pavement makes you as inconsiderate and dangerous as the motorists that pay no attention to the vulnerability of the cyclists on the road.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Cue the usual anti cycling comments.I ride at least 5 miles every day in Southampton, but it is absolutely terrifying.The only time I feel safe is on the pavement, I want to ride on the road but in places its just too dangerous like Charlotte place for example. Give us proper provision and we wont be a nuisance to anyone.[/p][/quote]Stupid comment. You riding on a pavement makes you as inconsiderate and dangerous as the motorists that pay no attention to the vulnerability of the cyclists on the road. Sir Ad E Noid

9:18pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
You do know that's what a neck is for right? Not just for tying your bib to.
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]You do know that's what a neck is for right? Not just for tying your bib to. Ginger_cyclist

9:20pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!!
60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food
I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously!
I think you need to grow up and quit the PC drivel. Mr Rangers comment was very tongue in cheek and I don't think he meant anything by the scores, he couldn't of, cyclists are worth at least ten points.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: 6 Points for a cyclist. 4 Points for a pedestrian 2 Points for a dog 1 Point for a cat. . I need to get my points score up ...... Cyclist everytime for me !!!!!!![/p][/quote]60 points for siver the horse and a extra 120 for the lone ranger and his boyfriend tonto.also sell the dead horse for glue and cat food[/p][/quote]I am actually quite sickened by this post by Lone Ranger. Are you actually making a joke of hitting cyclists or peoples pets on the roads? If so I would take a long hard think and just try to imagine what it must be like for a friend or relative that has lost a loved one from a road accident, seriously![/p][/quote]I think you need to grow up and quit the PC drivel. Mr Rangers comment was very tongue in cheek and I don't think he meant anything by the scores, he couldn't of, cyclists are worth at least ten points. Sir Ad E Noid

9:21pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Dragonqueen wrote:
I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty
Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast.

And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?
[quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty[/p][/quote]Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast. And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ? babyhulk

9:28pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other. Ginger_cyclist

9:28pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Poppy22 wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.
My partner is a very experienced long distance road cyclist but got very annoyed recently when we were in our car in stationary traffic. A cyclist insisted on cycling up the inside, between the car and the pavement (not enough space!), when my partner had purposely moved over to let the cyclist overtake on the right hand side as he should have done The cyclist then bashed into our car, damaging it, would not stop, and started shouting at my partner that he was in the wrong, then - not surprisingly - wouldn't follow us into the police station a few yards up the road so that we could get the police to explain the Highway Code to the cyclist.
Makes my partner's blood boil when he cycles following the Highway Code and with due care to cars and other road users.
On a separate note, no child should be on the road without wearing a cyling helmet and children under a certain age should have to cycle with an adult.
Taken straight from the Highway Code
http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_070309
151

In slow-moving traffic. You should
reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow
never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely
leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past

not change lanes to the left to overtake
allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side

Please note the bottom section. If you and your husband know the highway code so Fing well you should have known this.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.[/p][/quote]My partner is a very experienced long distance road cyclist but got very annoyed recently when we were in our car in stationary traffic. A cyclist insisted on cycling up the inside, between the car and the pavement (not enough space!), when my partner had purposely moved over to let the cyclist overtake on the right hand side as he should have done The cyclist then bashed into our car, damaging it, would not stop, and started shouting at my partner that he was in the wrong, then - not surprisingly - wouldn't follow us into the police station a few yards up the road so that we could get the police to explain the Highway Code to the cyclist. Makes my partner's blood boil when he cycles following the Highway Code and with due care to cars and other road users. On a separate note, no child should be on the road without wearing a cyling helmet and children under a certain age should have to cycle with an adult.[/p][/quote]Taken straight from the Highway Code http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_070309 151 In slow-moving traffic. You should reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past not change lanes to the left to overtake allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side Please note the bottom section. If you and your husband know the highway code so Fing well you should have known this. babyhulk

9:29pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
http://media.treehug
ger.com/assets/image
s/2011/10/caps-lock-
priveldges.jpg
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]http://media.treehug ger.com/assets/image s/2011/10/caps-lock- priveldges.jpg Georgem

9:31pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Georgem says...

babyhulk wrote:
Dragonqueen wrote:
I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty
Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast.

And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?
Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty[/p][/quote]Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast. And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?[/p][/quote]Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code. Georgem

9:36pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Dragonqueen says...

It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!!
It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!! Dragonqueen

9:37pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Poppy22 wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.
My partner is a very experienced long distance road cyclist but got very annoyed recently when we were in our car in stationary traffic. A cyclist insisted on cycling up the inside, between the car and the pavement (not enough space!), when my partner had purposely moved over to let the cyclist overtake on the right hand side as he should have done The cyclist then bashed into our car, damaging it, would not stop, and started shouting at my partner that he was in the wrong, then - not surprisingly - wouldn't follow us into the police station a few yards up the road so that we could get the police to explain the Highway Code to the cyclist.
Makes my partner's blood boil when he cycles following the Highway Code and with due care to cars and other road users.
On a separate note, no child should be on the road without wearing a cyling helmet and children under a certain age should have to cycle with an adult.
In the case you just provided I'd say both were partly at fault, your partner for even considering to move and the cyclist for being stupid and trying to go where there wasn't enough room but unless there are no vehicles turning left, no large vehicles and the lights are a fresh red then it's actually SAFER to go past on the left for a cyclist as it means they don't put themselves at risk of having a head on collision, any other time, I would suggest to myself and other cyclists to just wait behind the car in front for safety reasons.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.[/p][/quote]My partner is a very experienced long distance road cyclist but got very annoyed recently when we were in our car in stationary traffic. A cyclist insisted on cycling up the inside, between the car and the pavement (not enough space!), when my partner had purposely moved over to let the cyclist overtake on the right hand side as he should have done The cyclist then bashed into our car, damaging it, would not stop, and started shouting at my partner that he was in the wrong, then - not surprisingly - wouldn't follow us into the police station a few yards up the road so that we could get the police to explain the Highway Code to the cyclist. Makes my partner's blood boil when he cycles following the Highway Code and with due care to cars and other road users. On a separate note, no child should be on the road without wearing a cyling helmet and children under a certain age should have to cycle with an adult.[/p][/quote]In the case you just provided I'd say both were partly at fault, your partner for even considering to move and the cyclist for being stupid and trying to go where there wasn't enough room but unless there are no vehicles turning left, no large vehicles and the lights are a fresh red then it's actually SAFER to go past on the left for a cyclist as it means they don't put themselves at risk of having a head on collision, any other time, I would suggest to myself and other cyclists to just wait behind the car in front for safety reasons. Ginger_cyclist

9:38pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Dragonqueen says...

Ps why does wiggins think he's
Any better than anyone where when he admits to not where and helmet and jumping red light???? Before that I had respect for him npbut my views have change since them he is an idiot just like most of the rest, not all cyclists are bad but most are
Ps why does wiggins think he's Any better than anyone where when he admits to not where and helmet and jumping red light???? Before that I had respect for him npbut my views have change since them he is an idiot just like most of the rest, not all cyclists are bad but most are Dragonqueen

9:39pm Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

Dragonqueen wrote:
It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!!
And now breathe.
[quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!![/p][/quote]And now breathe. elvisimo

9:39pm Mon 6 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it. good-gosh

9:40pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
teamgreen wrote:
lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.
It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?
It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?
I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.
Retired? High income? Public transport? Company car? Please enlighten us.
I can afford to pay the costs associated with my motor vehicles, what more do you need to know?
That's all.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] wrote: lets hear the excuses for this little lot.goning into town at 4pm get told to move out of the way because two cars ignoring the buses taxis and cycle sign drive through.going down the avenue cars parked on the cycle path and when asked why told we cant block the footpath its against the law and also im loading pizzas so go away.using the cycle lanes down into town a dog owner lets the fleabag mess the cyclepath and said its no a footpath so why worry.apart from the im only going to be 5 mins or i have my hazards going, are you blind.also need to add two cars jumping red lights,another on the phone and smoking as well as a woman trying drive one handed whilst opening a can of drink.by the standards set by some of these posts all cars drivers are the same so should not be on the road.lets all get along and remember that the speed limits are set for the roads so cars do not need to go above 70mph so lets get cars fixed to not exceed the limit then.[/p][/quote]It's tough at the bottom of the food chain isn't it?[/p][/quote]It's tough for motorists having to pay so much just to travel a few miles isn't it?[/p][/quote]I'm in the fortunate position where it doesn't bother me.[/p][/quote]Retired? High income? Public transport? Company car? Please enlighten us.[/p][/quote]I can afford to pay the costs associated with my motor vehicles, what more do you need to know?[/p][/quote]That's all. Ginger_cyclist

9:43pm Mon 6 Aug 12

desirodave says...

as a pedestrian I must comment I am getting rather annoyed at cyclists ignoring the red lights at crossings - so far this year 5 have nearly hit me.

Cyclists want respect from motorists - well pedestrians want respect form cyclists
as a pedestrian I must comment I am getting rather annoyed at cyclists ignoring the red lights at crossings - so far this year 5 have nearly hit me. Cyclists want respect from motorists - well pedestrians want respect form cyclists desirodave

9:45pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Dragonqueen wrote:
I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty
Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast.

And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?
Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.
Actually you are obliged by law to follow the bits that have "MUST, MUST NOT, DON'T" in them because those ones are backed up by law, such as the one that says "you (as a motorist) MUST NO park on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes or tram ways", seen way too many ignoring that one even though it's actually backed up in law too.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty[/p][/quote]Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast. And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?[/p][/quote]Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.[/p][/quote]Actually you are obliged by law to follow the bits that have "MUST, MUST NOT, DON'T" in them because those ones are backed up by law, such as the one that says "you (as a motorist) MUST NO park on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes or tram ways", seen way too many ignoring that one even though it's actually backed up in law too. Ginger_cyclist

9:47pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Dragonqueen wrote:
It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!!
Its not a right of way thing cyclists have the same rights as a motorist, to get to a destination. If it was an old or disabled person on a mobility scooter would you cut in on them, if they were also 2 abreast would you be annoyed because you have to wait to find an appropriate place to overtake. Its not as though they are stopped at the side of the road and just have lunch they are cycling you cant always get past a friend on a hill we have to use human power not just press on the accelerator. Just use your common sense, and sense of decency, you can go 5mph faster to put yourself back on time, it's not that easy on a bike.
[quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!![/p][/quote]Its not a right of way thing cyclists have the same rights as a motorist, to get to a destination. If it was an old or disabled person on a mobility scooter would you cut in on them, if they were also 2 abreast would you be annoyed because you have to wait to find an appropriate place to overtake. Its not as though they are stopped at the side of the road and just have lunch they are cycling you cant always get past a friend on a hill we have to use human power not just press on the accelerator. Just use your common sense, and sense of decency, you can go 5mph faster to put yourself back on time, it's not that easy on a bike. babyhulk

9:52pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Dragonqueen wrote:
I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty
Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast.

And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?
Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.
Actually you are obliged by law to follow the bits that have "MUST, MUST NOT, DON'T" in them because those ones are backed up by law, such as the one that says "you (as a motorist) MUST NO park on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes or tram ways", seen way too many ignoring that one even though it's actually backed up in law too.
But these sections in the highway code are basically stating be aware of what is allowed, and cycling on the inside is allowed and is not against the law.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty[/p][/quote]Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast. And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?[/p][/quote]Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.[/p][/quote]Actually you are obliged by law to follow the bits that have "MUST, MUST NOT, DON'T" in them because those ones are backed up by law, such as the one that says "you (as a motorist) MUST NO park on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes or tram ways", seen way too many ignoring that one even though it's actually backed up in law too.[/p][/quote]But these sections in the highway code are basically stating be aware of what is allowed, and cycling on the inside is allowed and is not against the law. babyhulk

9:53pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Dragonqueen wrote:
It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!!
I'm glad to hear you decided not to hit them and that a copper ACTUALLY did something about it. *applauds the copper* But saying we can't ride 2 abreast is a bit silly, I see loads of motorcyclists do it but no one has a go at them, sure 3 abreast is pushing it but it's not impossible, all it means in both situations is you have to use the other lane to pass, which is why the central line is broken, not solid and also if a cyclist is in front of you and is the middle of the lane then they have priority over you, just like a car in front of you would so yes, cyclists DO have right of way.
[quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: It not just the new forest was at light to ight at bitterns by kick fit and the lights turned green so moved across only to be stopped by a lycra clad cyclists going throught a red light, had to break hard not to hit him, the large van behind me also had to break hard so did the cop car behind him, they where one a blue run so not impressed to be stop by a cyclists jumping a red light got he got a bollicking but scared the **** out of me was not sure weather to hit the cyclist or be armed us the **** by the large van, being disabled could not hit the cyclist but did not want to end up in a wheelchair, so what's is a girl to do I braked hard and hoped everyone else did knowing there was a blue ligh behind me, so I hate to think what that cyclist caused by jumping the red light I do hope everything turned out ok. As with regards to the forest why do they have to ride two or three wide its bad enought having to take care of ponies and cows who have no traffice sence and they do have right of way not like cyclists who just think they do!!!!![/p][/quote]I'm glad to hear you decided not to hit them and that a copper ACTUALLY did something about it. *applauds the copper* But saying we can't ride 2 abreast is a bit silly, I see loads of motorcyclists do it but no one has a go at them, sure 3 abreast is pushing it but it's not impossible, all it means in both situations is you have to use the other lane to pass, which is why the central line is broken, not solid and also if a cyclist is in front of you and is the middle of the lane then they have priority over you, just like a car in front of you would so yes, cyclists DO have right of way. Ginger_cyclist

9:54pm Mon 6 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-) IronLady2010

9:55pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

At great expense a cycle path was built between Lyndhurst and Ashurst, yet these fool cyclists still cycle on the road. I have no sympathy for them.
At great expense a cycle path was built between Lyndhurst and Ashurst, yet these fool cyclists still cycle on the road. I have no sympathy for them. binghammac

9:55pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads. Ginger_cyclist

9:59pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

desirodave wrote:
as a pedestrian I must comment I am getting rather annoyed at cyclists ignoring the red lights at crossings - so far this year 5 have nearly hit me.

Cyclists want respect from motorists - well pedestrians want respect form cyclists
I respect pedestrians who don't walk out in front of me and the ones who use crossings as they were designed for and just walking across them with traffic flowing and the red man showing, other than those idiotic examples, I respect pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]desirodave[/bold] wrote: as a pedestrian I must comment I am getting rather annoyed at cyclists ignoring the red lights at crossings - so far this year 5 have nearly hit me. Cyclists want respect from motorists - well pedestrians want respect form cyclists[/p][/quote]I respect pedestrians who don't walk out in front of me and the ones who use crossings as they were designed for and just walking across them with traffic flowing and the red man showing, other than those idiotic examples, I respect pedestrians. Ginger_cyclist

10:00pm Mon 6 Aug 12

elvisimo says...

binghammac wrote:
At great expense a cycle path was built between Lyndhurst and Ashurst, yet these fool cyclists still cycle on the road. I have no sympathy for them.
Cyclists using a road whatever next. Stupid comment
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: At great expense a cycle path was built between Lyndhurst and Ashurst, yet these fool cyclists still cycle on the road. I have no sympathy for them.[/p][/quote]Cyclists using a road whatever next. Stupid comment elvisimo

10:01pm Mon 6 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.
Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.[/p][/quote]Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you. good-gosh

10:03pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Dragonqueen wrote:
I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty
Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast.

And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?
Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.
Actually you are obliged by law to follow the bits that have "MUST, MUST NOT, DON'T" in them because those ones are backed up by law, such as the one that says "you (as a motorist) MUST NO park on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes or tram ways", seen way too many ignoring that one even though it's actually backed up in law too.
But these sections in the highway code are basically stating be aware of what is allowed, and cycling on the inside is allowed and is not against the law.
The ones I mentioned refer to law but some of the ones others have mentioned are admittedly only guidelines but are best followed.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragonqueen[/bold] wrote: I have not easer ad the above comments but how about cyclists not trying to cut in front of cars and being more aware that cars that more time to Stop and we have four walls around us, yes we do lot but if you sneak up on the blind side you can't blame us if we hit you. I have never hit a cyclists in all my time of driving, but hen I have never hit anything, until some one hit me from a side road and wrote of my car then drove away. No tax no insurance cost me my no claims bonus a few years back. Try driveing throught the new forests where cyclists ride tow three abreast and having no care for other road users, going through red lights riding on pavements list is endless but they blame the car user. Sorry to rant but they should take some responsetbilty[/p][/quote]Again The highway code states: 151 In slow-moving traffic. You(the motorist) should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side. In other words leave room either side and you may need to turn your neck and look through the windows provided by most manufacturers in the side walls of your car. I would also like to state that the highway code says you should leave at least as much room when passing a cyclist as you would a car. It also recommends cycling 1 meter from a kerb, most cycle much close so you can get round us. If you are finding it difficult wait a bit and overtake in a safe place, if your in Southampton then you are only going to overtake and then immediately stop at a set of lights. There is also no law against riding 2 abreast. And where are all these traffic lights and pavements in the new forest ?[/p][/quote]Bear in mind nobody's obliged to follow the Highway Code.[/p][/quote]Actually you are obliged by law to follow the bits that have "MUST, MUST NOT, DON'T" in them because those ones are backed up by law, such as the one that says "you (as a motorist) MUST NO park on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes or tram ways", seen way too many ignoring that one even though it's actually backed up in law too.[/p][/quote]But these sections in the highway code are basically stating be aware of what is allowed, and cycling on the inside is allowed and is not against the law.[/p][/quote]The ones I mentioned refer to law but some of the ones others have mentioned are admittedly only guidelines but are best followed. Ginger_cyclist

10:09pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that? Ginger_cyclist

10:13pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.
Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.
You're welcome and thank you.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.[/p][/quote]Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.[/p][/quote]You're welcome and thank you. Ginger_cyclist

10:14pm Mon 6 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand? IronLady2010

10:15pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

binghammac wrote:
At great expense a cycle path was built between Lyndhurst and Ashurst, yet these fool cyclists still cycle on the road. I have no sympathy for them.
You say cycle path at great expense this is not a cycle path it is a path, and it is for both cyclists and pedestrians. It is however not wide enough to give pedestrians any space, neither to give way to oncoming cyclists. I started using this path but it is incredibly dangerous and on more than one occasion i have seen people fall into the road, luckily they were not killed but it did cause cars to break heavily, if they cycled on the road in the first place, the cars could have slowed down and then overtaken. It takes little effort to depress the break or just remove you foot from the accelerator. There again my car comes with a competent driver, and I cant be sure about yours.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: At great expense a cycle path was built between Lyndhurst and Ashurst, yet these fool cyclists still cycle on the road. I have no sympathy for them.[/p][/quote]You say cycle path at great expense this is not a cycle path it is a path, and it is for both cyclists and pedestrians. It is however not wide enough to give pedestrians any space, neither to give way to oncoming cyclists. I started using this path but it is incredibly dangerous and on more than one occasion i have seen people fall into the road, luckily they were not killed but it did cause cars to break heavily, if they cycled on the road in the first place, the cars could have slowed down and then overtaken. It takes little effort to depress the break or just remove you foot from the accelerator. There again my car comes with a competent driver, and I cant be sure about yours. babyhulk

10:17pm Mon 6 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

Going back a few years, my driving instructor always said, when over taking a Cycle leave a cars space between you. Can Cyclists then do the same?
Going back a few years, my driving instructor always said, when over taking a Cycle leave a cars space between you. Can Cyclists then do the same? IronLady2010

10:19pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
I'm pretty sure the highway code was originally written for motorists which means that in a sense we already abide by the same rules.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]I'm pretty sure the highway code was originally written for motorists which means that in a sense we already abide by the same rules. Ginger_cyclist

10:21pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome.

When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome. When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car. babyhulk

10:22pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Going back a few years, my driving instructor always said, when over taking a Cycle leave a cars space between you. Can Cyclists then do the same?
Yes, well, I can at least, not sure about some of the numpties on bikes I've seen, seen some right plonkers riding right up alongside parked cars just asking to get doored.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Going back a few years, my driving instructor always said, when over taking a Cycle leave a cars space between you. Can Cyclists then do the same?[/p][/quote]Yes, well, I can at least, not sure about some of the numpties on bikes I've seen, seen some right plonkers riding right up alongside parked cars just asking to get doored. Ginger_cyclist

10:23pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

my comments made no reference to operating a vehicle. My comments made reference to the stupidity of cyclists using a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided. If the cycle path is difficult to negotiate, tough luck, but it is alot safer than the road.
my comments made no reference to operating a vehicle. My comments made reference to the stupidity of cyclists using a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided. If the cycle path is difficult to negotiate, tough luck, but it is alot safer than the road. binghammac

10:27pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

**** the road is there for all to use. just because you have to drive fully aware is not a bad thing.
**** the road is there for all to use. just because you have to drive fully aware is not a bad thing. babyhulk

10:28pm Mon 6 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

babyhulk wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome.

When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.
Don't be silly! What I'm suggesting is that ALL have the same rules, then we can share the Road equally. Should a Cyclist wish to overtake in slow traffic, they move out and over take on the right as a car would. It should be a mutual respect?
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome. When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! What I'm suggesting is that ALL have the same rules, then we can share the Road equally. Should a Cyclist wish to overtake in slow traffic, they move out and over take on the right as a car would. It should be a mutual respect? IronLady2010

10:29pm Mon 6 Aug 12

clausentum says...

babyhulk wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome.

When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.
You might want to briefly pause before using the word "Ignorant"?

you're x 4
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome. When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.[/p][/quote]You might want to briefly pause before using the word "Ignorant"? you're x 4 clausentum

10:30pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
my comments made no reference to operating a vehicle. My comments made reference to the stupidity of cyclists using a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided. If the cycle path is difficult to negotiate, tough luck, but it is alot safer than the road.
Cyclists are allowed on any road other than private roads without permission and motorways.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: my comments made no reference to operating a vehicle. My comments made reference to the stupidity of cyclists using a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided. If the cycle path is difficult to negotiate, tough luck, but it is alot safer than the road.[/p][/quote]Cyclists are allowed on any road other than private roads without permission and motorways. Ginger_cyclist

10:34pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

clausentum wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome.

When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.
You might want to briefly pause before using the word "Ignorant"?

you're x 4
Oh no my grammar isn't perfect I must be in the wrong on this one.
It's an online comment section get over yourself.
[quote][p][bold]clausentum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome. When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.[/p][/quote]You might want to briefly pause before using the word "Ignorant"? you're x 4[/p][/quote]Oh no my grammar isn't perfect I must be in the wrong on this one. It's an online comment section get over yourself. babyhulk

10:36pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

It is not a question of what is allowed, it is about prudence and safety and it is the height of irresponsibility to cycle on a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided at great expense.
It is not a question of what is allowed, it is about prudence and safety and it is the height of irresponsibility to cycle on a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided at great expense. binghammac

10:44pm Mon 6 Aug 12

clausentum says...

babyhulk wrote:
clausentum wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome.

When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.
You might want to briefly pause before using the word "Ignorant"?

you're x 4
Oh no my grammar isn't perfect I must be in the wrong on this one.
It's an online comment section get over yourself.
The other poster was simply offering their opinion, which is as valid as yours.

You may not agree with their point of view, that's okay but to resort to abuse ( the word "Ignorant" ) to promote your way of thinking on an issue, opens you to mild rebuke. Hence drawing your attention to: "you're x2 "

Learn. Be an adult. Move on.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clausentum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome. When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.[/p][/quote]You might want to briefly pause before using the word "Ignorant"? you're x 4[/p][/quote]Oh no my grammar isn't perfect I must be in the wrong on this one. It's an online comment section get over yourself.[/p][/quote]The other poster was simply offering their opinion, which is as valid as yours. You may not agree with their point of view, that's okay but to resort to abuse ( the word "Ignorant" ) to promote your way of thinking on an issue, opens you to mild rebuke. Hence drawing your attention to: "you're x2 " Learn. Be an adult. Move on. clausentum

10:47pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
It is not a question of what is allowed, it is about prudence and safety and it is the height of irresponsibility to cycle on a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided at great expense.
You do know that not even 0.5% all the taxes people pay goes towards cycle infrastructure don't you, until shared use paths are turned into segregated cycle and footpaths and that cycle lanes are made safe rather than just stupid paint on the road, then I'll keep using the road the way I do even if I have to ride on a dual carriageway which I do at times with 0 cycle infrastructure along it and no alternatives but thankfully those roads only have 30 limits.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It is not a question of what is allowed, it is about prudence and safety and it is the height of irresponsibility to cycle on a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided at great expense.[/p][/quote]You do know that not even 0.5% all the taxes people pay goes towards cycle infrastructure don't you, until shared use paths are turned into segregated cycle and footpaths and that cycle lanes are made safe rather than just stupid paint on the road, then I'll keep using the road the way I do even if I have to ride on a dual carriageway which I do at times with 0 cycle infrastructure along it and no alternatives but thankfully those roads only have 30 limits. Ginger_cyclist

10:49pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

binghammac wrote:
It is not a question of what is allowed, it is about prudence and safety and it is the height of irresponsibility to cycle on a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided at great expense.
After a quick google search i see you have many points and opinions on this website. many of them are foolish and insensitive. just get back on your boat. to quote you

"I have absolutely no compassion for people who are selfish enough to put other people's lives at risk. What if there was a cyclist there, instead of a bus?"

"There has been a series of deaths whereby the deceased has "suddenly" developed an infirmaty which has made the driver incapable of driving. One can only thank God that it was a truck that stopped this car's progress and not a cyclist, pedestrian or another car."

just a sanctimonious old git
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It is not a question of what is allowed, it is about prudence and safety and it is the height of irresponsibility to cycle on a dangerous road when a cycle path has been provided at great expense.[/p][/quote]After a quick google search i see you have many points and opinions on this website. many of them are foolish and insensitive. just get back on your boat. to quote you "I have absolutely no compassion for people who are selfish enough to put other people's lives at risk. What if there was a cyclist there, instead of a bus?" "There has been a series of deaths whereby the deceased has "suddenly" developed an infirmaty which has made the driver incapable of driving. One can only thank God that it was a truck that stopped this car's progress and not a cyclist, pedestrian or another car." just a sanctimonious old git babyhulk

10:54pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

I am constantly trying to point out an avenue of safety has been provided on the road between Lyndhurst and Ashurst and cyclists are displaying, both by using the road and on this board a degree of arrogance that equally diminishes any sympathy for their plight.
I am constantly trying to point out an avenue of safety has been provided on the road between Lyndhurst and Ashurst and cyclists are displaying, both by using the road and on this board a degree of arrogance that equally diminishes any sympathy for their plight. binghammac

11:03pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

if you read my first comment i point out that tis particular path is not for cyclists and is there for the use of pedestrians, if cyclists are to use the path they would have to get off the path or force others to get off the path to get past each other, bringing them back onto the road at random places along the path.

This article is "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness" looking at these comments it is obvious everyone needs to improve their awareness. I think its fair to say that all we need to do is be considerate of each other yes cyclists will hold you up and yes cars don't always give you enough space. Just be aware of these things going on
if you read my first comment i point out that tis particular path is not for cyclists and is there for the use of pedestrians, if cyclists are to use the path they would have to get off the path or force others to get off the path to get past each other, bringing them back onto the road at random places along the path. This article is "Southampton Cycling Campaign call for motorists to improve awareness" looking at these comments it is obvious everyone needs to improve their awareness. I think its fair to say that all we need to do is be considerate of each other yes cyclists will hold you up and yes cars don't always give you enough space. Just be aware of these things going on babyhulk

11:04pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
I am constantly trying to point out an avenue of safety has been provided on the road between Lyndhurst and Ashurst and cyclists are displaying, both by using the road and on this board a degree of arrogance that equally diminishes any sympathy for their plight.
But it's not safe if it's a shared use path because you always get 1 or 2 stupid pedestrians who insist on getting in the way on all of them.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I am constantly trying to point out an avenue of safety has been provided on the road between Lyndhurst and Ashurst and cyclists are displaying, both by using the road and on this board a degree of arrogance that equally diminishes any sympathy for their plight.[/p][/quote]But it's not safe if it's a shared use path because you always get 1 or 2 stupid pedestrians who insist on getting in the way on all of them. Ginger_cyclist

11:04pm Mon 6 Aug 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

elvisimo wrote:
SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you.

So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.
WHY DONT YOU WIND YOUR BLOODY NECK

SO I DIDN'T SPELL CORRECTLY OOOOOOOPPPPPSSSS


OLLOCKS

IT'S NOT ABOUT SPELLING JUST THE F.....G MINDLESS CYCLISTS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC NOT GIVING AS **** TO THE ROAD USERS THAT PAY TO BE THERE AND, END UP PAYING FOR THE IDIOTS ON BIKES THAT CAUSE ACCIDENTS.

YES I DO RIDE A BIKE

DON'T WEAVE IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC

DONT RIDE UP THE MIDDLE OF STATIONARY OR SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC

THATS WHAT CAUSES THE ACCIDENTS

USE WHATS BETWEEN YOUR EARS AND THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID MOVES OR YOUR BIKE. YOU MAY THINK IT'S CORRECT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC MAY BE STOPPED FOR OR IF A CAR OR CARS MAYBE NEEDING TO SWAP LANES FOR A REASON ...... OH AND THEN AN IDIOT RIDES HIS BIKE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS.


THINK BIKE!!!!!


IT'S MORE LIKE

THINK ONCE

THINK TWICE

THINK TW@T
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.[/p][/quote]WHY DONT YOU WIND YOUR BLOODY NECK SO I DIDN'T SPELL CORRECTLY OOOOOOOPPPPPSSSS OLLOCKS IT'S NOT ABOUT SPELLING JUST THE F.....G MINDLESS CYCLISTS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC NOT GIVING AS **** TO THE ROAD USERS THAT PAY TO BE THERE AND, END UP PAYING FOR THE IDIOTS ON BIKES THAT CAUSE ACCIDENTS. YES I DO RIDE A BIKE DON'T WEAVE IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC DONT RIDE UP THE MIDDLE OF STATIONARY OR SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC THATS WHAT CAUSES THE ACCIDENTS USE WHATS BETWEEN YOUR EARS AND THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID MOVES OR YOUR BIKE. YOU MAY THINK IT'S CORRECT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC MAY BE STOPPED FOR OR IF A CAR OR CARS MAYBE NEEDING TO SWAP LANES FOR A REASON ...... OH AND THEN AN IDIOT RIDES HIS BIKE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS. THINK BIKE!!!!! IT'S MORE LIKE THINK ONCE THINK TWICE THINK TW@T SAINTPAUL7

11:08pm Mon 6 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

Remember, you always get one! As above!
Remember, you always get one! As above! IronLady2010

11:10pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.
I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars. binghammac

11:12pm Mon 6 Aug 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.
Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.
EXPLAIN THEN THE CYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE IN SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC UP THE CENTRE OF THE ROAD WEAVING IN AND OUT FOR WHAT? NOT GETTING ANYWHERE QUICKER,

AND THEN THE SAME FOR MOTORCYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE ON MOTORWAYS WHEN THE TRAFFIC IS FLOWING AT AROUND 65MPH BETWEEN LANES 1-2 OR 2-3 JUST TO GET THAT LITTLE BIT FURTHER.


THATS WHATS CAUSES ACCIDENTS AND ANNOYS MOTORISTS THE MOST


THINK BIKE????


I DO

BUT WISH SOMETIMES THEY WOULD ALSO THINK
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.[/p][/quote]Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.[/p][/quote]EXPLAIN THEN THE CYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE IN SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC UP THE CENTRE OF THE ROAD WEAVING IN AND OUT FOR WHAT? NOT GETTING ANYWHERE QUICKER, AND THEN THE SAME FOR MOTORCYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE ON MOTORWAYS WHEN THE TRAFFIC IS FLOWING AT AROUND 65MPH BETWEEN LANES 1-2 OR 2-3 JUST TO GET THAT LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THATS WHATS CAUSES ACCIDENTS AND ANNOYS MOTORISTS THE MOST THINK BIKE???? I DO BUT WISH SOMETIMES THEY WOULD ALSO THINK SAINTPAUL7

11:18pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate.

Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that!

10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!?

One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine!

Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability.

Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year.

When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so.

Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.
Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC)

@SAINTPAUL7
what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me!
I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple!

This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No!

nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.
WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO

YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ?????

CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE.


AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM

YOU ****



I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM
If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you.

So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.
WHY DONT YOU WIND YOUR BLOODY NECK

SO I DIDN'T SPELL CORRECTLY OOOOOOOPPPPPSSSS


OLLOCKS

IT'S NOT ABOUT SPELLING JUST THE F.....G MINDLESS CYCLISTS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC NOT GIVING AS **** TO THE ROAD USERS THAT PAY TO BE THERE AND, END UP PAYING FOR THE IDIOTS ON BIKES THAT CAUSE ACCIDENTS.

YES I DO RIDE A BIKE

DON'T WEAVE IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC

DONT RIDE UP THE MIDDLE OF STATIONARY OR SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC

THATS WHAT CAUSES THE ACCIDENTS

USE WHATS BETWEEN YOUR EARS AND THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID MOVES OR YOUR BIKE. YOU MAY THINK IT'S CORRECT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC MAY BE STOPPED FOR OR IF A CAR OR CARS MAYBE NEEDING TO SWAP LANES FOR A REASON ...... OH AND THEN AN IDIOT RIDES HIS BIKE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS.


THINK BIKE!!!!!


IT'S MORE LIKE

THINK ONCE

THINK TWICE

THINK TW@T
Bikes of all description are allowed to filter, if the traffic is stationary or slow moving then it's unlikely there would be an accident, accidents where cyclists are at fault are normally caused by the idiots with bikes who don't do the "shoulder check, shoulder check, shoulder check, signal, maneuver" or the ones who weave in and out of traffic while said traffic is going at a reasonable pace, if there's an obstruction then a cyclist can easily find a gap at the curb, get off and walk along the path to get around it safely, if a car wishes to change lane then they should indicate their intentions rather than expecting people to mind read them and riding through stopped or slow moving traffic doesn't cause problems for most people, just hot headed idiots with a road rage problem, the real problem is that the roads are overflowing with cars, more cars on the road everyday equals longer journey times which is why i was surprised bluestar could boast about the 18 route having buses every 7 minutes.
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: I am a Cyclist. I abide by the rules I do not jump red lights. I have lights. I have fluorescents on me and my bike. I wear a helmet. I use cycle routes and roads where appropriate. Why do I deserve to be threatened and shouted at and have car/van/bus drivers insist on squeezing past with inches to spare at speed? Answer me that! 10-30 seconds to wait for a safe space to pass is not going to ruin your day is it!? One day it might just end somebody’s! possibly mine! Oh and I also drive a car (when I have to/need to). I see far more bad driving than I do bad cycling (though is exists no doubt). A cyclist is never going to be able to hurt you in your car, but you can very easily seriously injury or kill us. That’s why I’m for strict liability. Cyclist get very angry on the road a time, that’s because you keep killing us! Hundreds a year. When was the last you read the headline “motorist killed by cyclist”? … yeah I thought so. Cyclists are people not targets or a hindrance to you, start giving Cyclist some respect and we might start getting on.[/p][/quote]Oh forgot to say I do have third party insurance for cycling too (via CTC) @SAINTPAUL7 what 's dangerous about passing stationary cars? no risk to you or me! I do it and there's nothing wrong with it, if done safely and correctly. it's called filtering and it is legal for motorbikes and cyclist. you need to check your highway code. You just have to stop and rejoin in as and when the traffic starts going again. Simple! This nonsense smack of pure jealousy and spite "If I'm stuck in traffic then so should you" errr No! nobodys answering my questions above though. What gives motorist the right to threaten my safety with there bad driving for the sake of a few seconds.[/p][/quote]WHAT BLOODY ANNOYS ME IS MINDLESAS IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THINK LIKE YOU DO YOU SHOULD NOT BLOODY WEAVE AND OVERTAKE ON ALL SIDES AS HOW THE F.....G HELL ARE THE DRIVERS GOING TO SEE YOU ????? CAN;T BLOODY LOOK IN BOTH MIRRORS AT ONCE. AND WHY THE HWLL DO YOU THINK A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LORRY DRIVERS ARE PUTTING SIGNS ON THE REAR THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO OVERTAKE UP THE LEFT OF THEM YOU **** I GIVE WAY TO CYCLISTS BUT DONT GIVE THOSE IDIOTS THAT COME UP THE INSIDE ROOM[/p][/quote]If your driving is anything like your spelling I would suggest cyclists and also motorists should avoid getting anywhere near you. So you would drive into cyclists or squeeze them off the road if they come up the inside of you? As this normally only happens with lanes of stationary traffic I would suggest that you are the ****. Please note the use of capital letters. Dont drink and type.[/p][/quote]WHY DONT YOU WIND YOUR BLOODY NECK SO I DIDN'T SPELL CORRECTLY OOOOOOOPPPPPSSSS OLLOCKS IT'S NOT ABOUT SPELLING JUST THE F.....G MINDLESS CYCLISTS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC NOT GIVING AS **** TO THE ROAD USERS THAT PAY TO BE THERE AND, END UP PAYING FOR THE IDIOTS ON BIKES THAT CAUSE ACCIDENTS. YES I DO RIDE A BIKE DON'T WEAVE IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC DONT RIDE UP THE MIDDLE OF STATIONARY OR SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC THATS WHAT CAUSES THE ACCIDENTS USE WHATS BETWEEN YOUR EARS AND THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID MOVES OR YOUR BIKE. YOU MAY THINK IT'S CORRECT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC MAY BE STOPPED FOR OR IF A CAR OR CARS MAYBE NEEDING TO SWAP LANES FOR A REASON ...... OH AND THEN AN IDIOT RIDES HIS BIKE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS. THINK BIKE!!!!! IT'S MORE LIKE THINK ONCE THINK TWICE THINK TW@T[/p][/quote]Bikes of all description are allowed to filter, if the traffic is stationary or slow moving then it's unlikely there would be an accident, accidents where cyclists are at fault are normally caused by the idiots with bikes who don't do the "shoulder check, shoulder check, shoulder check, signal, maneuver" or the ones who weave in and out of traffic while said traffic is going at a reasonable pace, if there's an obstruction then a cyclist can easily find a gap at the curb, get off and walk along the path to get around it safely, if a car wishes to change lane then they should indicate their intentions rather than expecting people to mind read them and riding through stopped or slow moving traffic doesn't cause problems for most people, just hot headed idiots with a road rage problem, the real problem is that the roads are overflowing with cars, more cars on the road everyday equals longer journey times which is why i was surprised bluestar could boast about the 18 route having buses every 7 minutes. Ginger_cyclist

11:21pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.
Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.
EXPLAIN THEN THE CYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE IN SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC UP THE CENTRE OF THE ROAD WEAVING IN AND OUT FOR WHAT? NOT GETTING ANYWHERE QUICKER,

AND THEN THE SAME FOR MOTORCYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE ON MOTORWAYS WHEN THE TRAFFIC IS FLOWING AT AROUND 65MPH BETWEEN LANES 1-2 OR 2-3 JUST TO GET THAT LITTLE BIT FURTHER.


THATS WHATS CAUSES ACCIDENTS AND ANNOYS MOTORISTS THE MOST


THINK BIKE????


I DO

BUT WISH SOMETIMES THEY WOULD ALSO THINK
Actually it's impatient motorists who cause the most accidents, not cyclists and motorcyclists, also in city traffic you are more likely to get to your destination quicker by bike than by car or bus.
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]Cyclists on here shall now build a shrine of you and call you Saint Gosh of the roads.[/p][/quote]Thank you Ginger_C - and peace be with you.[/p][/quote]EXPLAIN THEN THE CYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE IN SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC UP THE CENTRE OF THE ROAD WEAVING IN AND OUT FOR WHAT? NOT GETTING ANYWHERE QUICKER, AND THEN THE SAME FOR MOTORCYCLISTS WHO OVERTAKE ON MOTORWAYS WHEN THE TRAFFIC IS FLOWING AT AROUND 65MPH BETWEEN LANES 1-2 OR 2-3 JUST TO GET THAT LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THATS WHATS CAUSES ACCIDENTS AND ANNOYS MOTORISTS THE MOST THINK BIKE???? I DO BUT WISH SOMETIMES THEY WOULD ALSO THINK[/p][/quote]Actually it's impatient motorists who cause the most accidents, not cyclists and motorcyclists, also in city traffic you are more likely to get to your destination quicker by bike than by car or bus. Ginger_cyclist

11:23pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.
I'd rather follow back roads.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.[/p][/quote]I'd rather follow back roads. Ginger_cyclist

11:28pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.
I'd rather follow back roads.
you could in that area but you might run into 'Dragonqueen' :)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.[/p][/quote]I'd rather follow back roads.[/p][/quote]you could in that area but you might run into 'Dragonqueen' :) babyhulk

11:31pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.
I'd rather follow back roads.
you could in that area but you might run into 'Dragonqueen' :)
If the dragon tries running me off the road then I'll shout, scream and toot my horn until my head explodes, would be a great teaching tool if I got it on camera too. ;)
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I would rather share a path with 5 mile an hour pedestrians than a road with 60 mile an hour cars.[/p][/quote]I'd rather follow back roads.[/p][/quote]you could in that area but you might run into 'Dragonqueen' :)[/p][/quote]If the dragon tries running me off the road then I'll shout, scream and toot my horn until my head explodes, would be a great teaching tool if I got it on camera too. ;) Ginger_cyclist

11:32pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

I am referring to the folly and irresponsibility of cyclists who insist on ignoring safety features, not which roads are of their preference.
I am referring to the folly and irresponsibility of cyclists who insist on ignoring safety features, not which roads are of their preference. binghammac

11:34pm Mon 6 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
If everybody drove and cycled like this man, this article would not have to be here
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]If everybody drove and cycled like this man, this article would not have to be here babyhulk

11:36pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
I am referring to the folly and irresponsibility of cyclists who insist on ignoring safety features, not which roads are of their preference.
You can't really call cycle paths "safety features", especially when they spit you out into traffic anyway, they're more like convenience features for motorists, that's the problem cyclists have, everything to do with roads is put into the motorists favor instead of it being in EVERYONES favor.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I am referring to the folly and irresponsibility of cyclists who insist on ignoring safety features, not which roads are of their preference.[/p][/quote]You can't really call cycle paths "safety features", especially when they spit you out into traffic anyway, they're more like convenience features for motorists, that's the problem cyclists have, everything to do with roads is put into the motorists favor instead of it being in EVERYONES favor. Ginger_cyclist

11:40pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.
If everybody drove and cycled like this man, this article would not have to be here
Agreed, courteous to all, if only all cyclists could follow the examples set by many of the camera cyclists from London like I do and that all motorists could follow the example set by good-gosh, then we wouldn't have this debate or the need for seperate cycle infrastructure.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I must be a saint, judging from some of the admissions on here. I have no problem letting cycles undertake and I give extra space for it if possible – and it's not prohibited in slow traffic. And I don’t mind stopping for cyclists who wander in my path. I check out all stopped traffic in all directions for rouge cyclists or pedestrians at green lights and give them way if need be. Why not? I enjoy the skill of being in full control. I regard all cyclists as potentially reckless (although most are not) and drive accordingly. I developed this exemplary patience by observing my children growing up and I find it fun to continue to watch over the safety of everyone else within 20 yards ahead or behind when I am driving. Therefore, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any drivers who don’t exercise the same unreserved patience for cyclists that I find natural instinctively. Sanctimoniously self-congratulating I may be, but then, I'm entitled to self-praise and will continue to earn it.[/p][/quote]If everybody drove and cycled like this man, this article would not have to be here[/p][/quote]Agreed, courteous to all, if only all cyclists could follow the examples set by many of the camera cyclists from London like I do and that all motorists could follow the example set by good-gosh, then we wouldn't have this debate or the need for seperate cycle infrastructure. Ginger_cyclist

11:45pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all. binghammac

11:46pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars. Ginger_cyclist

11:49pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

Perhaps most cyclists would like to revert to the year 1812, but sensible people have their feet firmly placed in 2012
Perhaps most cyclists would like to revert to the year 1812, but sensible people have their feet firmly placed in 2012 binghammac

11:54pm Mon 6 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
Perhaps most cyclists would like to revert to the year 1812, but sensible people have their feet firmly placed in 2012
Actually roads were built long before that, they date back to before the invention of the wheel.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: Perhaps most cyclists would like to revert to the year 1812, but sensible people have their feet firmly placed in 2012[/p][/quote]Actually roads were built long before that, they date back to before the invention of the wheel. Ginger_cyclist

11:56pm Mon 6 Aug 12

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene. freefinker

11:57pm Mon 6 Aug 12

binghammac says...

When roads were constructed has no bearing on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of cyclists.
When roads were constructed has no bearing on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of cyclists. binghammac

12:02am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC. Ginger_cyclist

12:03am Tue 7 Aug 12

picklepie0709 says...

cycling is a great idea but the roads are so dangerous....but as a car driver i get so angry to find so many cyclists buy expensive bikes helmets etc but buy no lights to use in the dark...& the ones who ride through the red lights & cut up the inside of you make me very angry....end off....love the tour de france though!
cycling is a great idea but the roads are so dangerous....but as a car driver i get so angry to find so many cyclists buy expensive bikes helmets etc but buy no lights to use in the dark...& the ones who ride through the red lights & cut up the inside of you make me very angry....end off....love the tour de france though! picklepie0709

12:04am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
When roads were constructed has no bearing on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of cyclists.
Nope, the fact that bicycles came before cars does though, this is why cyclists have more right to be on the road than motorists in cages, most of which look totally silly.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: When roads were constructed has no bearing on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of cyclists.[/p][/quote]Nope, the fact that bicycles came before cars does though, this is why cyclists have more right to be on the road than motorists in cages, most of which look totally silly. Ginger_cyclist

12:08am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

picklepie0709 wrote:
cycling is a great idea but the roads are so dangerous....but as a car driver i get so angry to find so many cyclists buy expensive bikes helmets etc but buy no lights to use in the dark...& the ones who ride through the red lights & cut up the inside of you make me very angry....end off....love the tour de france though!
First part about no lights I agree with, the point about red lights I agree with, if you're slow moving or stationary then I don't agree with your statement about filtering which is legal.
[quote][p][bold]picklepie0709[/bold] wrote: cycling is a great idea but the roads are so dangerous....but as a car driver i get so angry to find so many cyclists buy expensive bikes helmets etc but buy no lights to use in the dark...& the ones who ride through the red lights & cut up the inside of you make me very angry....end off....love the tour de france though![/p][/quote]First part about no lights I agree with, the point about red lights I agree with, if you're slow moving or stationary then I don't agree with your statement about filtering which is legal. Ginger_cyclist

12:12am Tue 7 Aug 12

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.[/p][/quote]..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD. freefinker

12:15am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.
And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.[/p][/quote]..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.[/p][/quote]And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel. Ginger_cyclist

12:22am Tue 7 Aug 12

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.
And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.
.. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public.
.. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point.
. but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road.
.. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.[/p][/quote]..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.[/p][/quote]And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.[/p][/quote].. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public. .. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point. . but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road. .. so, when precisely was the wheel invented? freefinker

12:27am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.
And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.
.. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public.
.. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point.
. but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road.
.. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?
Yeah, wikipedia is a failure, smithsonian website says that evidence suggests the wheel was invented by potters in 3500B.C and that the modern use of the wheel for transport came 300 years later.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.[/p][/quote]..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.[/p][/quote]And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.[/p][/quote].. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public. .. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point. . but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road. .. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?[/p][/quote]Yeah, wikipedia is a failure, smithsonian website says that evidence suggests the wheel was invented by potters in 3500B.C and that the modern use of the wheel for transport came 300 years later. Ginger_cyclist

12:39am Tue 7 Aug 12

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.
And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.
.. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public.
.. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point.
. but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road.
.. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?
Yeah, wikipedia is a failure, smithsonian website says that evidence suggests the wheel was invented by potters in 3500B.C and that the modern use of the wheel for transport came 300 years later.
.. anyway, as I said, roads came millennia before the car.

I'm on your side in this debate - being a pedestrian, cyclist and considerate car driver.

The first two means of travel I find increasingly frightening because of inconsiderate and law-breaking motorised vehicle users.

You only need to read some of the posts on here to see the attitudes of considerable number of vehicle users, and realise it is because of this that there are so many injuries and fatalities to cyclists and pedestrians.

Good on this campaign to educate motorists - but being the cynic I am I doubt it will change the bad habits and attitudes of those it actually should focus on.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.[/p][/quote]..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.[/p][/quote]And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.[/p][/quote].. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public. .. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point. . but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road. .. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?[/p][/quote]Yeah, wikipedia is a failure, smithsonian website says that evidence suggests the wheel was invented by potters in 3500B.C and that the modern use of the wheel for transport came 300 years later.[/p][/quote].. anyway, as I said, roads came millennia before the car. I'm on your side in this debate - being a pedestrian, cyclist and considerate car driver. The first two means of travel I find increasingly frightening because of inconsiderate and law-breaking motorised vehicle users. You only need to read some of the posts on here to see the attitudes of considerable number of vehicle users, and realise it is because of this that there are so many injuries and fatalities to cyclists and pedestrians. Good on this campaign to educate motorists - but being the cynic I am I doubt it will change the bad habits and attitudes of those it actually should focus on. freefinker

12:46am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.
Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.
.. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots?
Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.
Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.
..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.
And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.
.. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public.
.. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point.
. but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road.
.. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?
Yeah, wikipedia is a failure, smithsonian website says that evidence suggests the wheel was invented by potters in 3500B.C and that the modern use of the wheel for transport came 300 years later.
.. anyway, as I said, roads came millennia before the car.

I'm on your side in this debate - being a pedestrian, cyclist and considerate car driver.

The first two means of travel I find increasingly frightening because of inconsiderate and law-breaking motorised vehicle users.

You only need to read some of the posts on here to see the attitudes of considerable number of vehicle users, and realise it is because of this that there are so many injuries and fatalities to cyclists and pedestrians.

Good on this campaign to educate motorists - but being the cynic I am I doubt it will change the bad habits and attitudes of those it actually should focus on.
Indeed, even some of the comments from other cyclists are slightly disturbing, especially the ones who say you should jump lights.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: The path was constructed for cyclists and pedestrians and the road was built for vehicles. I am referring to the stupidity of cyclists not employing safety features, even for a limited distance. A 2 mile stretch of pathway sure beats none at all.[/p][/quote]Roads were originally built for pedestrians, not cars.[/p][/quote].. weren't they originally built for Roman chariots? Anyway, millennia before cars appeared on the scene.[/p][/quote]Nope, the Inca people built them before 5000BC.[/p][/quote]..nope, the Inca date from the early 13 century AD to their defeat in 1533AD.[/p][/quote]And that is a classic example of why you shouldn't trust wikipedia but the earliest know roads came long before the wheel.[/p][/quote].. er, I studied the Inca well before computers became available to the general public. .. if you are perhaps thinking of other pre-Inca Andean civilisations, you may have a point. . but then we have the definition problem of when does a track become a road. .. so, when precisely was the wheel invented?[/p][/quote]Yeah, wikipedia is a failure, smithsonian website says that evidence suggests the wheel was invented by potters in 3500B.C and that the modern use of the wheel for transport came 300 years later.[/p][/quote].. anyway, as I said, roads came millennia before the car. I'm on your side in this debate - being a pedestrian, cyclist and considerate car driver. The first two means of travel I find increasingly frightening because of inconsiderate and law-breaking motorised vehicle users. You only need to read some of the posts on here to see the attitudes of considerable number of vehicle users, and realise it is because of this that there are so many injuries and fatalities to cyclists and pedestrians. Good on this campaign to educate motorists - but being the cynic I am I doubt it will change the bad habits and attitudes of those it actually should focus on.[/p][/quote]Indeed, even some of the comments from other cyclists are slightly disturbing, especially the ones who say you should jump lights. Ginger_cyclist

1:03am Tue 7 Aug 12

clausentum says...

In the USA it is commonplace and perfectly legal for any road user to turn right at a red traffic light if there is no oncoming traffic using the road they want to turn into.

It works. It makes sense to make such a turn at a red light if the road is empty and thus speeds up the flow of traffic and avoids bottlenecks or gridlock.

If a similar Road Traffic Law was introduced over here it would create chaos as people would cheat!
In the USA it is commonplace and perfectly legal for any road user to turn right at a red traffic light if there is no oncoming traffic using the road they want to turn into. It works. It makes sense to make such a turn at a red light if the road is empty and thus speeds up the flow of traffic and avoids bottlenecks or gridlock. If a similar Road Traffic Law was introduced over here it would create chaos as people would cheat! clausentum

6:25am Tue 7 Aug 12

hemmi1965 says...

This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... !
This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... ! hemmi1965

6:52am Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

hemmi1965 wrote:
This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... !
Well that's not completely true, I had to do cycling proficiency test at primary school. It is still done at that school.
[quote][p][bold]hemmi1965[/bold] wrote: This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... ![/p][/quote]Well that's not completely true, I had to do cycling proficiency test at primary school. It is still done at that school. babyhulk

7:47am Tue 7 Aug 12

bigfella777 says...

1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9- bigfella777

8:04am Tue 7 Aug 12

nedscrumpo says...

wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
..and what is the definition of a vehicle?
" A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told!
[quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]..and what is the definition of a vehicle? " A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told! nedscrumpo

9:30am Tue 7 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Cycling equips you with a degree in sanctimony.......... you omitted that one!
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Cycling equips you with a degree in sanctimony.......... you omitted that one! Torchie1

10:10am Tue 7 Aug 12

-stiv- says...

babyhulk wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes.

All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this.

A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning.

We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?
Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.
A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)
So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?
A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads?

I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?
Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome.

When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.
Excellent comment!

It's almost as if these motorists want someone else to drive the car for them. Moaning about checking mirrors, moaning about changing speed, giving room etc.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: When we all learn to respect one another on the Roads, then we won't need special lanes. All parties are guilty, I'm certainly guilty! If I see a cyclist trying to undertake me I pull in to the kerb to stop them as they should be overtaking to my right. Yes, I am guilty, but so are the cyclists who do this. A classic example for those who know that silly mini roundabout at the top of Hill Lane and Winchester Road. I was coming off Winchester Road Yesterday heading toward Hill Lane, just as I approached the mini Roundabout an oncoming cyclist who was on the road suddenly ventured over the Zebra Crossing to go into the Common causing me to brake hard as he didn't signal or give any other warning. We are all to blame, but we need to learn to respect each other some how?[/p][/quote]Yes we should all respect each other but if you're stationary then it is legal for a cyclist to pass you on the left or right IF there's enough room and IF it's safe to do so, pulling in closer to the curb is dangerous because what if by the time you do so, the cyclist is at your front wheels and you crush them, guess who would be at fault... That's right, you would be, yes, I agree that sometimes mini RAB's are pointless, like the one at the hinkler road end of Warburton road but a place where 4 or more roads converge it's got a use, if that cyclist cut across in front of you then he's not a true cyclist, just an idiot with a bike but yes, lets just please all respect each other.[/p][/quote]A Cyclist should never undertake on a road. Whilst there may be a jam, you never know when the road ahead clears. If Cyclists used the same rules as cars etc we'd all get on fine :-)[/p][/quote]So motorists don't want us to be on the left when being so would mean the cyclist gets in front but motorists want cyclists to be on the left when it suits them? What sort of stupid logic is that?[/p][/quote]A car should always be on the left unless over-taking, this is where things go wrong as Cyclists don't abide by this rule. I'm not saying you are wrong, but surely if both cars and cycles had the same rules, it would be much easier when using roads? I mean, it's an offence for a car to undertake on a Road, If a Cycle is on the Road, should they not be subject to the same rule, then we all know where we stand?[/p][/quote]Not being funny but in most cases the Car is going to be overtaking the cyclist, so now your saying the cyclist should be on the right and the car should undertake on the left. If your being overtaken all the time by cyclists then you should stop driving in the velodrome. When a cyclist is passing on the left its because your in slow moving traffic, if your too Ignorant of you surroundings that you can look out of you windows and use you mirrors to their full extent then you should consider wether you are capable of driving a car.[/p][/quote]Excellent comment! It's almost as if these motorists want someone else to drive the car for them. Moaning about checking mirrors, moaning about changing speed, giving room etc. -stiv-

10:11am Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
..and what is the definition of a vehicle?
" A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told!
Why should people on bikes pay 'road tax' when there is a whole bunch of cars that no longer have to like vw blue motion the Fiat panda the Ford fiesta econnect the new BMW one series and the ecomotion Vauxhalls. if there not paying it then why should cyclists when the take up less space cause less damage in all respects and can't use the roads which cost the most to maintain and build, the motorways.
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]..and what is the definition of a vehicle? " A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told![/p][/quote]Why should people on bikes pay 'road tax' when there is a whole bunch of cars that no longer have to like vw blue motion the Fiat panda the Ford fiesta econnect the new BMW one series and the ecomotion Vauxhalls. if there not paying it then why should cyclists when the take up less space cause less damage in all respects and can't use the roads which cost the most to maintain and build, the motorways. babyhulk

10:32am Tue 7 Aug 12

cyclejim says...

binghammac wrote:
I am constantly trying to point out an avenue of safety has been provided on the road between Lyndhurst and Ashurst and cyclists are displaying, both by using the road and on this board a degree of arrogance that equally diminishes any sympathy for their plight.
It's a gravel track unsuitable for road bikes. I punctured on that stretch twice before giving up on it. If blessed with the time, there are some nice roads to the north and south of the A35
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I am constantly trying to point out an avenue of safety has been provided on the road between Lyndhurst and Ashurst and cyclists are displaying, both by using the road and on this board a degree of arrogance that equally diminishes any sympathy for their plight.[/p][/quote]It's a gravel track unsuitable for road bikes. I punctured on that stretch twice before giving up on it. If blessed with the time, there are some nice roads to the north and south of the A35 cyclejim

10:43am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

clausentum wrote:
In the USA it is commonplace and perfectly legal for any road user to turn right at a red traffic light if there is no oncoming traffic using the road they want to turn into.

It works. It makes sense to make such a turn at a red light if the road is empty and thus speeds up the flow of traffic and avoids bottlenecks or gridlock.

If a similar Road Traffic Law was introduced over here it would create chaos as people would cheat!
If they decided to copy that idea then they would have to change to turning left at reds, otherwise people would have head ons all the time and they become uninsurable.
[quote][p][bold]clausentum[/bold] wrote: In the USA it is commonplace and perfectly legal for any road user to turn right at a red traffic light if there is no oncoming traffic using the road they want to turn into. It works. It makes sense to make such a turn at a red light if the road is empty and thus speeds up the flow of traffic and avoids bottlenecks or gridlock. If a similar Road Traffic Law was introduced over here it would create chaos as people would cheat![/p][/quote]If they decided to copy that idea then they would have to change to turning left at reds, otherwise people would have head ons all the time and they become uninsurable. Ginger_cyclist

10:47am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

hemmi1965 wrote:
This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... !
I agree, I've not had formal training myself but I have good road sense so I should hope I don't need it but they should make it compulsory to put it into school curriculum from the time children enter school to the time they leave, even make it part of GCSE's as a test, either way Idon't care about the GCSE bit but the rest should be put into play.
[quote][p][bold]hemmi1965[/bold] wrote: This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... ![/p][/quote]I agree, I've not had formal training myself but I have good road sense so I should hope I don't need it but they should make it compulsory to put it into school curriculum from the time children enter school to the time they leave, even make it part of GCSE's as a test, either way Idon't care about the GCSE bit but the rest should be put into play. Ginger_cyclist

10:47am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

hemmi1965 wrote:
This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... !
I agree, I've not had formal training myself but I have good road sense so I should hope I don't need it but they should make it compulsory to put it into school curriculum from the time children enter school to the time they leave, even make it part of GCSE's as a test, either way Idon't care about the GCSE bit but the rest should be put into play.
[quote][p][bold]hemmi1965[/bold] wrote: This argument will go on and on ,,, but as a 47 year old ex driving instructor and keen cyclist ,, who has been using the roads from the age of 12 on bikes and 16 on motor bikes and 17 in cars .. maybe this comment will clear things up ,, lol maybe,, ,, from an early age holding our mums hand to cross the road and with a big campaign taught in schools back in the 70s onwards .. pedestrians are given some training on how to safely use the road ,, and as a driver taking lessons and passing a test we are given instruction on how to use the road ,, Cyclist's get no instruction ever !!!.. So we all hope that the cyclist we are approaching in our cars has good common sense, or is at least a driver as well.. !!! Accident can be reduced by training ... simples ... train all cyclists ......... ![/p][/quote]I agree, I've not had formal training myself but I have good road sense so I should hope I don't need it but they should make it compulsory to put it into school curriculum from the time children enter school to the time they leave, even make it part of GCSE's as a test, either way Idon't care about the GCSE bit but the rest should be put into play. Ginger_cyclist

10:56am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories. Ginger_cyclist

11:01am Tue 7 Aug 12

Shoong says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment.

You are not special.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment. You are not special. Shoong

11:05am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
..and what is the definition of a vehicle?
" A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told!
Anything that has wheels and uses the road and because bicycles don't produce emissions, even if we had to display a round piece of card, we wouldn't have to pay for it like electric, hybrid and super low emission cars such as bluemotion or the newer v40 volvos, I've even seen TNT delivery trucks that are electric which means they don't pay it.
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]..and what is the definition of a vehicle? " A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told![/p][/quote]Anything that has wheels and uses the road and because bicycles don't produce emissions, even if we had to display a round piece of card, we wouldn't have to pay for it like electric, hybrid and super low emission cars such as bluemotion or the newer v40 volvos, I've even seen TNT delivery trucks that are electric which means they don't pay it. Ginger_cyclist

11:07am Tue 7 Aug 12

binghammac says...

If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.
If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former. binghammac

11:08am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Shoong wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment.

You are not special.
Did I even mention anything about the environment? No, I stated that after the initial cost of the bike an accessories, a motorist who changes their car for that bike would quickly recoup the money spent on it because they then don't have to keep paying extortionate prices for Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel, MOT's or insurance.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment. You are not special.[/p][/quote]Did I even mention anything about the environment? No, I stated that after the initial cost of the bike an accessories, a motorist who changes their car for that bike would quickly recoup the money spent on it because they then don't have to keep paying extortionate prices for Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel, MOT's or insurance. Ginger_cyclist

11:10am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.
Ah, replace your car with a bike, you'll find you have a lot more money spare afterwards and be a lot happier.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.[/p][/quote]Ah, replace your car with a bike, you'll find you have a lot more money spare afterwards and be a lot happier. Ginger_cyclist

11:14am Tue 7 Aug 12

Shoong says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment.

You are not special.
Did I even mention anything about the environment? No, I stated that after the initial cost of the bike an accessories, a motorist who changes their car for that bike would quickly recoup the money spent on it because they then don't have to keep paying extortionate prices for Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel, MOT's or insurance.
Just stick your pink Lycra on and ride off.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment. You are not special.[/p][/quote]Did I even mention anything about the environment? No, I stated that after the initial cost of the bike an accessories, a motorist who changes their car for that bike would quickly recoup the money spent on it because they then don't have to keep paying extortionate prices for Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel, MOT's or insurance.[/p][/quote]Just stick your pink Lycra on and ride off. Shoong

11:17am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Shoong wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment.

You are not special.
Did I even mention anything about the environment? No, I stated that after the initial cost of the bike an accessories, a motorist who changes their car for that bike would quickly recoup the money spent on it because they then don't have to keep paying extortionate prices for Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel, MOT's or insurance.
Just stick your pink Lycra on and ride off.
Nah, I don't wear lycra, would give people nightmares if I did, also it wouldn't be pink if I had any.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]Oh crumbs, don't make out your special just because you're somehow good for the environment. You are not special.[/p][/quote]Did I even mention anything about the environment? No, I stated that after the initial cost of the bike an accessories, a motorist who changes their car for that bike would quickly recoup the money spent on it because they then don't have to keep paying extortionate prices for Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel, MOT's or insurance.[/p][/quote]Just stick your pink Lycra on and ride off.[/p][/quote]Nah, I don't wear lycra, would give people nightmares if I did, also it wouldn't be pink if I had any. Ginger_cyclist

11:22am Tue 7 Aug 12

cyclejim says...

binghammac wrote:
If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.
It says something about the standards of driving if your life is at risk cycling along a single carriageway straight road. But you'll also notice I listed safer alternatives for people able to do a longer cycle.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.[/p][/quote]It says something about the standards of driving if your life is at risk cycling along a single carriageway straight road. But you'll also notice I listed safer alternatives for people able to do a longer cycle. cyclejim

11:27am Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back. Georgem

11:29am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.[/p][/quote]Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes? Ginger_cyclist

11:30am Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.
Ah, replace your car with a bike, you'll find you have a lot more money spare afterwards and be a lot happier.
Good old sanctimonious cyclists. Gotta love 'em.

I don't need any spare money, do I get to keep my cars?

PROTIP: Assuming that something which works out for you, will work out for everyone, shows a profound lack of insight into how human beings work.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.[/p][/quote]Ah, replace your car with a bike, you'll find you have a lot more money spare afterwards and be a lot happier.[/p][/quote]Good old sanctimonious cyclists. Gotta love 'em. I don't need any spare money, do I get to keep my cars? PROTIP: Assuming that something which works out for you, will work out for everyone, shows a profound lack of insight into how human beings work. Georgem

11:33am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.
Ah, replace your car with a bike, you'll find you have a lot more money spare afterwards and be a lot happier.
Good old sanctimonious cyclists. Gotta love 'em.

I don't need any spare money, do I get to keep my cars?

PROTIP: Assuming that something which works out for you, will work out for everyone, shows a profound lack of insight into how human beings work.
Yeah you can keep them if you want, use the spare cash to get a racing licence and do the cars up for full blown racing. ;)
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: If their is a choice between one's life and a tyre that does not puncture on gravel any sane person would opt for the former.[/p][/quote]Ah, replace your car with a bike, you'll find you have a lot more money spare afterwards and be a lot happier.[/p][/quote]Good old sanctimonious cyclists. Gotta love 'em. I don't need any spare money, do I get to keep my cars? PROTIP: Assuming that something which works out for you, will work out for everyone, shows a profound lack of insight into how human beings work.[/p][/quote]Yeah you can keep them if you want, use the spare cash to get a racing licence and do the cars up for full blown racing. ;) Ginger_cyclist

11:34am Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?
That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman.

I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.[/p][/quote]Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?[/p][/quote]That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman. I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car. Georgem

11:45am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?
That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman.

I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.
That's one instance where a car is more suitable, agreed but what we're talking about is ABLE bodied people, not everyone including disabled people, I mean there are bikes that can take a person in a wheelchair and a dog but they are very large as you would expect, so I agree that for disabled people and those who are essentially their full time carers, a car is needed but if all these able bodied lumps of lard ditched their cars for bikes on SHORT journeys of less than 20 miles and followed the rules of the road, delivery times would be cut down drastically, buses would run on time, emergency vehicles would take less time to get where they're needed and most people would have more money from not buying fuel every week.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.[/p][/quote]Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?[/p][/quote]That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman. I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.[/p][/quote]That's one instance where a car is more suitable, agreed but what we're talking about is ABLE bodied people, not everyone including disabled people, I mean there are bikes that can take a person in a wheelchair and a dog but they are very large as you would expect, so I agree that for disabled people and those who are essentially their full time carers, a car is needed but if all these able bodied lumps of lard ditched their cars for bikes on SHORT journeys of less than 20 miles and followed the rules of the road, delivery times would be cut down drastically, buses would run on time, emergency vehicles would take less time to get where they're needed and most people would have more money from not buying fuel every week. Ginger_cyclist

11:46am Tue 7 Aug 12

binghammac says...

It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them. binghammac

11:49am Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
Buy Panniers, if it storage and carrying you need these will be one of your essential accessories.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.[/p][/quote]Buy Panniers, if it storage and carrying you need these will be one of your essential accessories. babyhulk

11:52am Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
Its not saying how to conduct your lifestyle its just an alternative. The debate, if you refer to the title of the article is about the lack of awareness from the motorist actually.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]Its not saying how to conduct your lifestyle its just an alternative. The debate, if you refer to the title of the article is about the lack of awareness from the motorist actually. babyhulk

11:52am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent. Ginger_cyclist

11:53am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
Its not saying how to conduct your lifestyle its just an alternative. The debate, if you refer to the title of the article is about the lack of awareness from the motorist actually.
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]Its not saying how to conduct your lifestyle its just an alternative. The debate, if you refer to the title of the article is about the lack of awareness from the motorist actually.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Ginger_cyclist

11:54am Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh is the motorist here that I'd feel safest sharing the road with.
good-gosh is the motorist here that I'd feel safest sharing the road with. Ginger_cyclist

12:04pm Tue 7 Aug 12

binghammac says...

Now these immature cyclists have to employ semantics to try and make their indefensible points, defensible. In this context the word "rules" is employed as a guide to safety, not as a law.
Now these immature cyclists have to employ semantics to try and make their indefensible points, defensible. In this context the word "rules" is employed as a guide to safety, not as a law. binghammac

12:09pm Tue 7 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh is the motorist here that I'd feel safest sharing the road with.
I'm still here, monitoring these replies cos it is an important topic, but I think some people are now getting confused between reality and computer games.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: good-gosh is the motorist here that I'd feel safest sharing the road with.[/p][/quote]I'm still here, monitoring these replies cos it is an important topic, but I think some people are now getting confused between reality and computer games. good-gosh

12:10pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
Now these immature cyclists have to employ semantics to try and make their indefensible points, defensible. In this context the word "rules" is employed as a guide to safety, not as a law.
Actually our points are defensible, it makes more sense to ride with the flow of traffic on the road than on a path where you constantly come into conflict with slow moving or oncoming pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: Now these immature cyclists have to employ semantics to try and make their indefensible points, defensible. In this context the word "rules" is employed as a guide to safety, not as a law.[/p][/quote]Actually our points are defensible, it makes more sense to ride with the flow of traffic on the road than on a path where you constantly come into conflict with slow moving or oncoming pedestrians. Ginger_cyclist

12:11pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
good-gosh is the motorist here that I'd feel safest sharing the road with.
I'm still here, monitoring these replies cos it is an important topic, but I think some people are now getting confused between reality and computer games.
Indeed.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: good-gosh is the motorist here that I'd feel safest sharing the road with.[/p][/quote]I'm still here, monitoring these replies cos it is an important topic, but I think some people are now getting confused between reality and computer games.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Ginger_cyclist

12:26pm Tue 7 Aug 12

binghammac says...

If a study was made on the road between Ashurst and Lyndhurst, any sane person would conclude, even though cyclists are moving with the flow of traffic, they act as an obstruction. It goes without saying, if they used the path, were considerate to pedestrians, their obstructive nature would be removed. It behoves the Hampshire County Council to erect a sign demanding all cyclists use the path that has been constructed for them.
If a study was made on the road between Ashurst and Lyndhurst, any sane person would conclude, even though cyclists are moving with the flow of traffic, they act as an obstruction. It goes without saying, if they used the path, were considerate to pedestrians, their obstructive nature would be removed. It behoves the Hampshire County Council to erect a sign demanding all cyclists use the path that has been constructed for them. binghammac

12:29pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?
That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman.

I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.
That's one instance where a car is more suitable, agreed but what we're talking about is ABLE bodied people, not everyone including disabled people, I mean there are bikes that can take a person in a wheelchair and a dog but they are very large as you would expect, so I agree that for disabled people and those who are essentially their full time carers, a car is needed but if all these able bodied lumps of lard ditched their cars for bikes on SHORT journeys of less than 20 miles and followed the rules of the road, delivery times would be cut down drastically, buses would run on time, emergency vehicles would take less time to get where they're needed and most people would have more money from not buying fuel every week.
I agree with this. It's somewhat different to your initial assertion, of course, but that's what my mildly facetious comments were aimed at doing.

We SHOULD be encouraging people to use their car less.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.[/p][/quote]Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?[/p][/quote]That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman. I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.[/p][/quote]That's one instance where a car is more suitable, agreed but what we're talking about is ABLE bodied people, not everyone including disabled people, I mean there are bikes that can take a person in a wheelchair and a dog but they are very large as you would expect, so I agree that for disabled people and those who are essentially their full time carers, a car is needed but if all these able bodied lumps of lard ditched their cars for bikes on SHORT journeys of less than 20 miles and followed the rules of the road, delivery times would be cut down drastically, buses would run on time, emergency vehicles would take less time to get where they're needed and most people would have more money from not buying fuel every week.[/p][/quote]I agree with this. It's somewhat different to your initial assertion, of course, but that's what my mildly facetious comments were aimed at doing. We SHOULD be encouraging people to use their car less. Georgem

12:30pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Act as an obstruction? Seriously? are you saying that motorists are driving scalectrix cars now that can't change lanes to overtake? Because cyclists being "obstructions" is total bollacks.
Act as an obstruction? Seriously? are you saying that motorists are driving scalectrix cars now that can't change lanes to overtake? Because cyclists being "obstructions" is total bollacks. Ginger_cyclist

12:32pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance.
2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car.
3-Bicycles produce no pollution.
4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear.
5-Bikes save you money.
6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money.
7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space.
8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil.
9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities.
10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced.
11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people.
12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work.
All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it.


9-
Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.
I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.
Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?
That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman.

I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.
That's one instance where a car is more suitable, agreed but what we're talking about is ABLE bodied people, not everyone including disabled people, I mean there are bikes that can take a person in a wheelchair and a dog but they are very large as you would expect, so I agree that for disabled people and those who are essentially their full time carers, a car is needed but if all these able bodied lumps of lard ditched their cars for bikes on SHORT journeys of less than 20 miles and followed the rules of the road, delivery times would be cut down drastically, buses would run on time, emergency vehicles would take less time to get where they're needed and most people would have more money from not buying fuel every week.
I agree with this. It's somewhat different to your initial assertion, of course, but that's what my mildly facetious comments were aimed at doing.

We SHOULD be encouraging people to use their car less.
Well it's what i originally meant but I worded it wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: 1-I can buy a new bike for the price you pay for insurance. 2-A bike has a tiny manufacturing footprint compared to a car. 3-Bicycles produce no pollution. 4-Bikes save taxpayers money by causing no road wear. 5-Bikes save you money. 6-Cycling improves your health and saves the NHS money. 7-You can fit a dozen bikes in one car parking space. 8-Bikes dont burn fuel reducing demand for oil. 9-Bicycles are faster than cars in cities. 10-Bikes are cheap to maintain,and dont generate toxic waste when serviced. 11-Bikes give transport to disadvantaged people. 12-Studies show that cyclists are more productive and less time off work. All in all there's not a lot motorists can argue about,I think cyclists should be given a tax break by the government,after all we save them money and we actually care about the environment we live and we are part of it. 9-[/p][/quote]Indeed, if motorists replaced their money eating cars with bikes they would find they had more money after the initial cost of buying the bike and essential accessories.[/p][/quote]I look forward to cycling back from the supermarket with a month's shopping on my back.[/p][/quote]Haven't you heard of cycle trailers that are pulled by bikes?[/p][/quote]That was one example. We can sit here all day, swapping ways in which a bike isn't always suitable, for lame workarounds if you like. How am I getting a disabled woman, and a wheelchair, and a dog, to the middle of the New Forest? Riddle me that, batman. I can predict your answer. Sorry, but if "change everything about your life so that a bike works" is the best you've got, I can only pray you don't work in sales. Although that would explain why you can't afford a car.[/p][/quote]That's one instance where a car is more suitable, agreed but what we're talking about is ABLE bodied people, not everyone including disabled people, I mean there are bikes that can take a person in a wheelchair and a dog but they are very large as you would expect, so I agree that for disabled people and those who are essentially their full time carers, a car is needed but if all these able bodied lumps of lard ditched their cars for bikes on SHORT journeys of less than 20 miles and followed the rules of the road, delivery times would be cut down drastically, buses would run on time, emergency vehicles would take less time to get where they're needed and most people would have more money from not buying fuel every week.[/p][/quote]I agree with this. It's somewhat different to your initial assertion, of course, but that's what my mildly facetious comments were aimed at doing. We SHOULD be encouraging people to use their car less.[/p][/quote]Well it's what i originally meant but I worded it wrong. Ginger_cyclist

12:33pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Act as an obstruction? Seriously? are you saying that motorists are driving scalectrix cars now that can't change lanes to overtake? Because cyclists being "obstructions" is total bollacks.
This was aimed at bingham.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Act as an obstruction? Seriously? are you saying that motorists are driving scalectrix cars now that can't change lanes to overtake? Because cyclists being "obstructions" is total bollacks.[/p][/quote]This was aimed at bingham. Ginger_cyclist

12:34pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though. Georgem

12:36pm Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

binghammac wrote:
If a study was made on the road between Ashurst and Lyndhurst, any sane person would conclude, even though cyclists are moving with the flow of traffic, they act as an obstruction. It goes without saying, if they used the path, were considerate to pedestrians, their obstructive nature would be removed. It behoves the Hampshire County Council to erect a sign demanding all cyclists use the path that has been constructed for them.
Will you look at the bigger picture and stop harking on about the piddly bit of road between Ashurst and Lyndhurst. there are plenty more dangerous roads in hampshire where there are no paths, bendier roads and many more cyclists. We get it there is a path there to use if you so choose. If everyone on this blog went and cycled along that path you would soon see why it is safer to use the road.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: If a study was made on the road between Ashurst and Lyndhurst, any sane person would conclude, even though cyclists are moving with the flow of traffic, they act as an obstruction. It goes without saying, if they used the path, were considerate to pedestrians, their obstructive nature would be removed. It behoves the Hampshire County Council to erect a sign demanding all cyclists use the path that has been constructed for them.[/p][/quote]Will you look at the bigger picture and stop harking on about the piddly bit of road between Ashurst and Lyndhurst. there are plenty more dangerous roads in hampshire where there are no paths, bendier roads and many more cyclists. We get it there is a path there to use if you so choose. If everyone on this blog went and cycled along that path you would soon see why it is safer to use the road. babyhulk

12:49pm Tue 7 Aug 12

binghammac says...

The road sited is being employed as an example of the idiocy of cyclists who put themselves in harms way because the path constructed for them is not to their pernickety liking. Fit tyres that tolerate gravel and be considerate to pedestrians, not just for this path but any other path going to be or has been constructed any where in the UK.
The road sited is being employed as an example of the idiocy of cyclists who put themselves in harms way because the path constructed for them is not to their pernickety liking. Fit tyres that tolerate gravel and be considerate to pedestrians, not just for this path but any other path going to be or has been constructed any where in the UK. binghammac

12:56pm Tue 7 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

I'm off out now to WestQ with the Missis. But don’t worry cyclists, I will give you all the space you need. And when I slow down for you all, what fun, all the cars behind me will also have to slow down too. And if they hoot me with their common impatience, I may even indulge myself to reply with my beautifully crafted two toned dual trumpet horns, perhaps with a Morse code expletive.
I'm off out now to WestQ with the Missis. But don’t worry cyclists, I will give you all the space you need. And when I slow down for you all, what fun, all the cars behind me will also have to slow down too. And if they hoot me with their common impatience, I may even indulge myself to reply with my beautifully crafted two toned dual trumpet horns, perhaps with a Morse code expletive. good-gosh

1:08pm Tue 7 Aug 12

TEBOURBA says...

Motorists should be more aware of cyclists and when sharing the same piece of road, wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and give them a wide berth when overtaking, that is commonsense.
Cyclists should show the same respect to pedestrians and ring their bell before passing them, not hurtle by, in total silence, a few inches away from them, at 40mph, as many do on Southampton Common.
Unfortunately, however much care is taken, accidents will happen motorists will hit cyclists and cyclists will hit pedestrians.
Surely the focus of this campaign must be to reduce the number of accidents and reduce the severity of injuries.
Pedestrians should use designated pedestrian crossings wherever possible and always wear something light at night.
Cyclists should wear a helmet, high viz clothing, display front and rear lights and reflectors, (those that stick out from the side of the bike about 18 inches are particularly good),have a bell fitted to their bikes and use the cycleways.
All the foregoing should be made compulsory by law.
Many cyclists choose to ride on the footpaths and the law should be clarified as to whether this is legal or not.
Because of our congested roads and pavements it is inevitable that collisions will occur,those involving a motorist and cyclist / pedestrian will be dealt with by the motorist's compulsory third party insurance.
Serious injuries can result from a cyclist hitting a pedestrian, particularly if the pedestrian is an elderly person or toddler and for that reason it should be made compulsory for all cyclists to carry third party insurance.
If these measures were adopted and motorists drove like they did on the day they passed their test, then Southampton would be a much safer place for us all.
I note that many cyclists contributing to this news item balk at wearing a helmet, high viz, having a bell etc. --- strange isn't it that 99.99% of all cyclists never leave home without their bicycle lock, ---- apparently content to risk injury and death but not risk losing their bike!!!
Motorists should be more aware of cyclists and when sharing the same piece of road, wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and give them a wide berth when overtaking, that is commonsense. Cyclists should show the same respect to pedestrians and ring their bell before passing them, not hurtle by, in total silence, a few inches away from them, at 40mph, as many do on Southampton Common. Unfortunately, however much care is taken, accidents will happen motorists will hit cyclists and cyclists will hit pedestrians. Surely the focus of this campaign must be to reduce the number of accidents and reduce the severity of injuries. Pedestrians should use designated pedestrian crossings wherever possible and always wear something light at night. Cyclists should wear a helmet, high viz clothing, display front and rear lights and reflectors, (those that stick out from the side of the bike about 18 inches are particularly good),have a bell fitted to their bikes and use the cycleways. All the foregoing should be made compulsory by law. Many cyclists choose to ride on the footpaths and the law should be clarified as to whether this is legal or not. Because of our congested roads and pavements it is inevitable that collisions will occur,those involving a motorist and cyclist / pedestrian will be dealt with by the motorist's compulsory third party insurance. Serious injuries can result from a cyclist hitting a pedestrian, particularly if the pedestrian is an elderly person or toddler and for that reason it should be made compulsory for all cyclists to carry third party insurance. If these measures were adopted and motorists drove like they did on the day they passed their test, then Southampton would be a much safer place for us all. I note that many cyclists contributing to this news item balk at wearing a helmet, high viz, having a bell etc. --- strange isn't it that 99.99% of all cyclists never leave home without their bicycle lock, ---- apparently content to risk injury and death but not risk losing their bike!!! TEBOURBA

2:02pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws. Ginger_cyclist

2:06pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

good-gosh wrote:
I'm off out now to WestQ with the Missis. But don’t worry cyclists, I will give you all the space you need. And when I slow down for you all, what fun, all the cars behind me will also have to slow down too. And if they hoot me with their common impatience, I may even indulge myself to reply with my beautifully crafted two toned dual trumpet horns, perhaps with a Morse code expletive.
LOL Love it, I should get myself some for the bike I'm going to get, power it with a 12v battery and I'll have a weeks worth of tooting at my disposal to deter the idiots who don't give enough space and cut me up.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: I'm off out now to WestQ with the Missis. But don’t worry cyclists, I will give you all the space you need. And when I slow down for you all, what fun, all the cars behind me will also have to slow down too. And if they hoot me with their common impatience, I may even indulge myself to reply with my beautifully crafted two toned dual trumpet horns, perhaps with a Morse code expletive.[/p][/quote]LOL Love it, I should get myself some for the bike I'm going to get, power it with a 12v battery and I'll have a weeks worth of tooting at my disposal to deter the idiots who don't give enough space and cut me up. Ginger_cyclist

2:23pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it? Georgem

2:31pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

TEBOURBA wrote:
Motorists should be more aware of cyclists and when sharing the same piece of road, wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and give them a wide berth when overtaking, that is commonsense.
Cyclists should show the same respect to pedestrians and ring their bell before passing them, not hurtle by, in total silence, a few inches away from them, at 40mph, as many do on Southampton Common.
Unfortunately, however much care is taken, accidents will happen motorists will hit cyclists and cyclists will hit pedestrians.
Surely the focus of this campaign must be to reduce the number of accidents and reduce the severity of injuries.
Pedestrians should use designated pedestrian crossings wherever possible and always wear something light at night.
Cyclists should wear a helmet, high viz clothing, display front and rear lights and reflectors, (those that stick out from the side of the bike about 18 inches are particularly good),have a bell fitted to their bikes and use the cycleways.
All the foregoing should be made compulsory by law.
Many cyclists choose to ride on the footpaths and the law should be clarified as to whether this is legal or not.
Because of our congested roads and pavements it is inevitable that collisions will occur,those involving a motorist and cyclist / pedestrian will be dealt with by the motorist's compulsory third party insurance.
Serious injuries can result from a cyclist hitting a pedestrian, particularly if the pedestrian is an elderly person or toddler and for that reason it should be made compulsory for all cyclists to carry third party insurance.
If these measures were adopted and motorists drove like they did on the day they passed their test, then Southampton would be a much safer place for us all.
I note that many cyclists contributing to this news item balk at wearing a helmet, high viz, having a bell etc. --- strange isn't it that 99.99% of all cyclists never leave home without their bicycle lock, ---- apparently content to risk injury and death but not risk losing their bike!!!
It's already a legal requirement for bikes to be sold with a bell or bulb horn, the bell is best for pedestrians, also what do you expect cyclists to do when they need to ride somewhere and the roads they need don't have cycle paths? are you going to expect them to walk their bikes until they find a cycle path? Agreed a cyclist could easily injure a pedestrian, that and the fact that riding on paths that aren't shared use is illegal is why I use the road, insurance for bikes being required by law is stupid because children ride bikes but they'd be unable to buy insurance, reflectors and lights for night riding is already a legal requirement, agreed that in low light (not under heavy street lighting as hi-vis then gets overpowered) hi-vis clothes or bags should be required but the helmet i think should be down to personla choice.
[quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: Motorists should be more aware of cyclists and when sharing the same piece of road, wait for a gap in oncoming traffic and give them a wide berth when overtaking, that is commonsense. Cyclists should show the same respect to pedestrians and ring their bell before passing them, not hurtle by, in total silence, a few inches away from them, at 40mph, as many do on Southampton Common. Unfortunately, however much care is taken, accidents will happen motorists will hit cyclists and cyclists will hit pedestrians. Surely the focus of this campaign must be to reduce the number of accidents and reduce the severity of injuries. Pedestrians should use designated pedestrian crossings wherever possible and always wear something light at night. Cyclists should wear a helmet, high viz clothing, display front and rear lights and reflectors, (those that stick out from the side of the bike about 18 inches are particularly good),have a bell fitted to their bikes and use the cycleways. All the foregoing should be made compulsory by law. Many cyclists choose to ride on the footpaths and the law should be clarified as to whether this is legal or not. Because of our congested roads and pavements it is inevitable that collisions will occur,those involving a motorist and cyclist / pedestrian will be dealt with by the motorist's compulsory third party insurance. Serious injuries can result from a cyclist hitting a pedestrian, particularly if the pedestrian is an elderly person or toddler and for that reason it should be made compulsory for all cyclists to carry third party insurance. If these measures were adopted and motorists drove like they did on the day they passed their test, then Southampton would be a much safer place for us all. I note that many cyclists contributing to this news item balk at wearing a helmet, high viz, having a bell etc. --- strange isn't it that 99.99% of all cyclists never leave home without their bicycle lock, ---- apparently content to risk injury and death but not risk losing their bike!!![/p][/quote]It's already a legal requirement for bikes to be sold with a bell or bulb horn, the bell is best for pedestrians, also what do you expect cyclists to do when they need to ride somewhere and the roads they need don't have cycle paths? are you going to expect them to walk their bikes until they find a cycle path? Agreed a cyclist could easily injure a pedestrian, that and the fact that riding on paths that aren't shared use is illegal is why I use the road, insurance for bikes being required by law is stupid because children ride bikes but they'd be unable to buy insurance, reflectors and lights for night riding is already a legal requirement, agreed that in low light (not under heavy street lighting as hi-vis then gets overpowered) hi-vis clothes or bags should be required but the helmet i think should be down to personla choice. Ginger_cyclist

2:35pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way. Ginger_cyclist

3:10pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text? Georgem

3:13pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is. Ginger_cyclist

3:21pm Tue 7 Aug 12

nedscrumpo says...

babyhulk wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
..and what is the definition of a vehicle?
" A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told!
Why should people on bikes pay 'road tax' when there is a whole bunch of cars that no longer have to like vw blue motion the Fiat panda the Ford fiesta econnect the new BMW one series and the ecomotion Vauxhalls. if there not paying it then why should cyclists when the take up less space cause less damage in all respects and can't use the roads which cost the most to maintain and build, the motorways.
I think the methane they emit from their backsides should cover that!
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]..and what is the definition of a vehicle? " A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told![/p][/quote]Why should people on bikes pay 'road tax' when there is a whole bunch of cars that no longer have to like vw blue motion the Fiat panda the Ford fiesta econnect the new BMW one series and the ecomotion Vauxhalls. if there not paying it then why should cyclists when the take up less space cause less damage in all respects and can't use the roads which cost the most to maintain and build, the motorways.[/p][/quote]I think the methane they emit from their backsides should cover that! nedscrumpo

3:27pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
wizard wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.
Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.
Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!!

I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh!

How many more times do you ned to be told?
..and what is the definition of a vehicle?
" A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told!
Why should people on bikes pay 'road tax' when there is a whole bunch of cars that no longer have to like vw blue motion the Fiat panda the Ford fiesta econnect the new BMW one series and the ecomotion Vauxhalls. if there not paying it then why should cyclists when the take up less space cause less damage in all respects and can't use the roads which cost the most to maintain and build, the motorways.
I think the methane they emit from their backsides should cover that!
Then with that logic pedestrians should also be charged VED and so should farmers for the methane their livestock produce, a cow produces more methane in a day than a human does in a year.
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: Why should their be a presumption in favour of the cyclist? Perhaps if all cyclists were tested for proficiency, licenced to ride on the road, pay road tax, get insured and get points for offences they might change their behaviour.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. And given they way a number of them ride, without thought or care to others, amsurprised a number of laws have not been introduced as a money spinner. Will give the persecuted motorists a respite for a while.[/p][/quote]Did you say pay road tax??? thats so funny, when did you last pay road tax? when did anyone for that matter!!! I pay vehicle excise duty for my car which is taxable on emmisions! roads are paid for by general taxation doh! How many more times do you ned to be told?[/p][/quote]..and what is the definition of a vehicle? " A device or structure used for transporting persons or things" How many more times do you need to be told![/p][/quote]Why should people on bikes pay 'road tax' when there is a whole bunch of cars that no longer have to like vw blue motion the Fiat panda the Ford fiesta econnect the new BMW one series and the ecomotion Vauxhalls. if there not paying it then why should cyclists when the take up less space cause less damage in all respects and can't use the roads which cost the most to maintain and build, the motorways.[/p][/quote]I think the methane they emit from their backsides should cover that![/p][/quote]Then with that logic pedestrians should also be charged VED and so should farmers for the methane their livestock produce, a cow produces more methane in a day than a human does in a year. Ginger_cyclist

4:01pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to? Georgem

4:05pm Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Considering the National stat for VED evasion is 249,000 according to the department of transport there are plenty of drivers who don't pay it either.

The compulsory for cycles should be visible clothing, a service once a year, (after the first 3 years for new bikes), lights reflectors and a bell. Would that make drivers happier? Probably not, but at least it would be a start. Personally i would have Helmet as well as i do a lot of downhill and off road i always wear mine. But like it has been said that could discourage cycling in some cases.
Considering the National stat for VED evasion is 249,000 according to the department of transport there are plenty of drivers who don't pay it either. The compulsory for cycles should be visible clothing, a service once a year, (after the first 3 years for new bikes), lights reflectors and a bell. Would that make drivers happier? Probably not, but at least it would be a start. Personally i would have Helmet as well as i do a lot of downhill and off road i always wear mine. But like it has been said that could discourage cycling in some cases. babyhulk

4:07pm Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
so is moving you head to check all blind spots before moving off, signalling, changing lane and turning, do you do this everytime you make a move in your car?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]so is moving you head to check all blind spots before moving off, signalling, changing lane and turning, do you do this everytime you make a move in your car? babyhulk

4:09pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths. Ginger_cyclist

4:47pm Tue 7 Aug 12

bernard7 says...

This thread seems to have got a bit too much about the do's and dont's of driving and cycling.

Now im a driver and a cyclist as most of us are and i know there are a lot of cyclists that are pretty stupid as well as a lof of motorists so at the end of the day we are all as bad as each other.

All that i would like to point out is at the end of the day cyclists are people too (unbelievable i know) and yes i may cause you to be 2 minutes late to get to work or home, but please consider my life as if it were as important as your own.

I may have kids i may have a family, my mother would be devastated if i did not get home after work because somebody could not be bothered to wait 30 seconds to overtake. My children would spend the rest of their lives without a father and the person who killed me would also have ruined their own life.

All im trying to say is we are all people and no matter how we choose to get from A to B we are all the same and are all just as important as each other so please just watch out for cyclists, it's not that hard just to wait to overtake.

I myself am a safe cyclist i stop at red lights and everything! I may not use cycle lanes but trust me if you cycled neither would you, it would be like trying to drive your car on a pavement it's a bit slow and so makes cycling redundant as a mode of transportation. A lot of cyclists are idiots and might cut you up but dont get angry at them, a lot of motorists do it too. Just give them room, carry on with your day and get over the fact your 30 seconds late because of that!

Why is everyone in such a rush! Just slow down, take in your surroundings and we all might live a bit longer!
This thread seems to have got a bit too much about the do's and dont's of driving and cycling. Now im a driver and a cyclist as most of us are and i know there are a lot of cyclists that are pretty stupid as well as a lof of motorists so at the end of the day we are all as bad as each other. All that i would like to point out is at the end of the day cyclists are people too (unbelievable i know) and yes i may cause you to be 2 minutes late to get to work or home, but please consider my life as if it were as important as your own. I may have kids i may have a family, my mother would be devastated if i did not get home after work because somebody could not be bothered to wait 30 seconds to overtake. My children would spend the rest of their lives without a father and the person who killed me would also have ruined their own life. All im trying to say is we are all people and no matter how we choose to get from A to B we are all the same and are all just as important as each other so please just watch out for cyclists, it's not that hard just to wait to overtake. I myself am a safe cyclist i stop at red lights and everything! I may not use cycle lanes but trust me if you cycled neither would you, it would be like trying to drive your car on a pavement it's a bit slow and so makes cycling redundant as a mode of transportation. A lot of cyclists are idiots and might cut you up but dont get angry at them, a lot of motorists do it too. Just give them room, carry on with your day and get over the fact your 30 seconds late because of that! Why is everyone in such a rush! Just slow down, take in your surroundings and we all might live a bit longer! bernard7

5:00pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
so is moving you head to check all blind spots before moving off, signalling, changing lane and turning, do you do this everytime you make a move in your car?
Yep. Sorry to disappoint.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]so is moving you head to check all blind spots before moving off, signalling, changing lane and turning, do you do this everytime you make a move in your car?[/p][/quote]Yep. Sorry to disappoint. Georgem

5:01pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks. Georgem

5:03pm Tue 7 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways. babyhulk

5:07pm Tue 7 Aug 12

bernard7 says...

Oh so Georgem, car drivers never speed because they are late?

Cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong. Always have been and always will be and will never get along so don't take into account how they choose to get from A to B, just respect their life as if it were your own or that of your child or parent and we would all be able to get home safely!
Oh so Georgem, car drivers never speed because they are late? Cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong. Always have been and always will be and will never get along so don't take into account how they choose to get from A to B, just respect their life as if it were your own or that of your child or parent and we would all be able to get home safely! bernard7

7:27pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

bernard7 wrote:
This thread seems to have got a bit too much about the do's and dont's of driving and cycling.

Now im a driver and a cyclist as most of us are and i know there are a lot of cyclists that are pretty stupid as well as a lof of motorists so at the end of the day we are all as bad as each other.

All that i would like to point out is at the end of the day cyclists are people too (unbelievable i know) and yes i may cause you to be 2 minutes late to get to work or home, but please consider my life as if it were as important as your own.

I may have kids i may have a family, my mother would be devastated if i did not get home after work because somebody could not be bothered to wait 30 seconds to overtake. My children would spend the rest of their lives without a father and the person who killed me would also have ruined their own life.

All im trying to say is we are all people and no matter how we choose to get from A to B we are all the same and are all just as important as each other so please just watch out for cyclists, it's not that hard just to wait to overtake.

I myself am a safe cyclist i stop at red lights and everything! I may not use cycle lanes but trust me if you cycled neither would you, it would be like trying to drive your car on a pavement it's a bit slow and so makes cycling redundant as a mode of transportation. A lot of cyclists are idiots and might cut you up but dont get angry at them, a lot of motorists do it too. Just give them room, carry on with your day and get over the fact your 30 seconds late because of that!

Why is everyone in such a rush! Just slow down, take in your surroundings and we all might live a bit longer!
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]bernard7[/bold] wrote: This thread seems to have got a bit too much about the do's and dont's of driving and cycling. Now im a driver and a cyclist as most of us are and i know there are a lot of cyclists that are pretty stupid as well as a lof of motorists so at the end of the day we are all as bad as each other. All that i would like to point out is at the end of the day cyclists are people too (unbelievable i know) and yes i may cause you to be 2 minutes late to get to work or home, but please consider my life as if it were as important as your own. I may have kids i may have a family, my mother would be devastated if i did not get home after work because somebody could not be bothered to wait 30 seconds to overtake. My children would spend the rest of their lives without a father and the person who killed me would also have ruined their own life. All im trying to say is we are all people and no matter how we choose to get from A to B we are all the same and are all just as important as each other so please just watch out for cyclists, it's not that hard just to wait to overtake. I myself am a safe cyclist i stop at red lights and everything! I may not use cycle lanes but trust me if you cycled neither would you, it would be like trying to drive your car on a pavement it's a bit slow and so makes cycling redundant as a mode of transportation. A lot of cyclists are idiots and might cut you up but dont get angry at them, a lot of motorists do it too. Just give them room, carry on with your day and get over the fact your 30 seconds late because of that! Why is everyone in such a rush! Just slow down, take in your surroundings and we all might live a bit longer![/p][/quote]Well said. Ginger_cyclist

7:33pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.[/p][/quote]Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane. Ginger_cyclist

11:19pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

bernard7 wrote:
Oh so Georgem, car drivers never speed because they are late?

Cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong. Always have been and always will be and will never get along so don't take into account how they choose to get from A to B, just respect their life as if it were your own or that of your child or parent and we would all be able to get home safely!
Please highlight where I have said anything even remotely resembling that. The Echo hivemind really does enjoy a good straw man, eh.
[quote][p][bold]bernard7[/bold] wrote: Oh so Georgem, car drivers never speed because they are late? Cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong. Always have been and always will be and will never get along so don't take into account how they choose to get from A to B, just respect their life as if it were your own or that of your child or parent and we would all be able to get home safely![/p][/quote]Please highlight where I have said anything even remotely resembling that. The Echo hivemind really does enjoy a good straw man, eh. Georgem

11:20pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.
But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.[/p][/quote]Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.[/p][/quote]But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame. Georgem

4:12am Wed 8 Aug 12

babyhulk says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.
But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.
Not totally true ginger cyclist said he does not use shared cycle lanes due to them being dangerous to both the cyclist and the pedestrian.Iif you are clipped into your pedals and someone meanders into your path it is extremely difficult to unclip to avoid falling into the road or into another pedestrian. the point is the roads in general flow better than a predominantly pedestrian area. The cycle path over the itchen bridge would be a good example of what is needed on all roads as it is regularly cleared of debris, segregated from the pedestrian foot path and wide enough to have a couple of foot either side of you. If all roads were widend to acomodate this style of cycle path we would not need this endless debating, but then we wouldn't be British.

In Southampton i believe, and this is only my opinion. The roads which could benefit most with the added green lane would probably include Shirley road, Romsey road, tebourba way, the avenue, Winchester road, West quay road, Thomas Lewis way, hill lane, and a couple of others but they would be a start. I'm sure this is never going to happen as it does not involve adding traffic lights which I believe is a requirement for all Southampton road planning applications. Please note this is an opinion and I know it would cause even more road works to add them at once but if the pay were added along with other upgrades of these roads in the first place it could ease congestion and help drivers and cyclists use the roads in harmony.

Roll on the comments telling me I'm a selfish cyclist, with a one track mind and I'm a total prik for even putting up this comment and I should ride off somewhere else and annoy the green party.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.[/p][/quote]Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.[/p][/quote]But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.[/p][/quote]Not totally true ginger cyclist said he does not use shared cycle lanes due to them being dangerous to both the cyclist and the pedestrian.Iif you are clipped into your pedals and someone meanders into your path it is extremely difficult to unclip to avoid falling into the road or into another pedestrian. the point is the roads in general flow better than a predominantly pedestrian area. The cycle path over the itchen bridge would be a good example of what is needed on all roads as it is regularly cleared of debris, segregated from the pedestrian foot path and wide enough to have a couple of foot either side of you. If all roads were widend to acomodate this style of cycle path we would not need this endless debating, but then we wouldn't be British. In Southampton i believe, and this is only my opinion. The roads which could benefit most with the added green lane would probably include Shirley road, Romsey road, tebourba way, the avenue, Winchester road, West quay road, Thomas Lewis way, hill lane, and a couple of others but they would be a start. I'm sure this is never going to happen as it does not involve adding traffic lights which I believe is a requirement for all Southampton road planning applications. Please note this is an opinion and I know it would cause even more road works to add them at once but if the pay were added along with other upgrades of these roads in the first place it could ease congestion and help drivers and cyclists use the roads in harmony. Roll on the comments telling me I'm a selfish cyclist, with a one track mind and I'm a total prik for even putting up this comment and I should ride off somewhere else and annoy the green party. babyhulk

8:02am Wed 8 Aug 12

bigfella777 says...

So many idiots on here think they know what's best for cyclists when they have never even ridden a bike.I expect most of these people are sat in an armchair with their kanga pants on waiting for bargain hunt to come on.Its just jealousy that we are still fit and active.
So many idiots on here think they know what's best for cyclists when they have never even ridden a bike.I expect most of these people are sat in an armchair with their kanga pants on waiting for bargain hunt to come on.Its just jealousy that we are still fit and active. bigfella777

9:00am Wed 8 Aug 12

bernard7 says...

Well Georgem, you did say that if someone is running late it is ok to break some rules.

Now i took this as if you were saying it to the person that mentioned avoiding cycle lanes as they slow you down, therefore i thought you were aiming it at cyclists. However, i pointed out that motorists are doing this 24/7; what is the number one excuse when pulled over for speeding?

"Oh sorry officer i was running late"

So just to make my point again, cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong, but in this scenario it is far more dangerous for a car to speed than a bicycle.
Well Georgem, you did say that if someone is running late it is ok to break some rules. Now i took this as if you were saying it to the person that mentioned avoiding cycle lanes as they slow you down, therefore i thought you were aiming it at cyclists. However, i pointed out that motorists are doing this 24/7; what is the number one excuse when pulled over for speeding? "Oh sorry officer i was running late" So just to make my point again, cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong, but in this scenario it is far more dangerous for a car to speed than a bicycle. bernard7

9:12am Wed 8 Aug 12

Georgem says...

bernard7 wrote:
Well Georgem, you did say that if someone is running late it is ok to break some rules.

Now i took this as if you were saying it to the person that mentioned avoiding cycle lanes as they slow you down, therefore i thought you were aiming it at cyclists. However, i pointed out that motorists are doing this 24/7; what is the number one excuse when pulled over for speeding?

"Oh sorry officer i was running late"

So just to make my point again, cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong, but in this scenario it is far more dangerous for a car to speed than a bicycle.
Well, bernard7, you also wrote those words. Now, did you mean them, or are you simply repeating what someone else has said?
[quote][p][bold]bernard7[/bold] wrote: Well Georgem, you did say that if someone is running late it is ok to break some rules. Now i took this as if you were saying it to the person that mentioned avoiding cycle lanes as they slow you down, therefore i thought you were aiming it at cyclists. However, i pointed out that motorists are doing this 24/7; what is the number one excuse when pulled over for speeding? "Oh sorry officer i was running late" So just to make my point again, cyclists and motorists are both in the wrong, but in this scenario it is far more dangerous for a car to speed than a bicycle.[/p][/quote]Well, bernard7, you also wrote those words. Now, did you mean them, or are you simply repeating what someone else has said? Georgem

9:58am Wed 8 Aug 12

bernard7 says...

What words is that? I don't think i have repeated what anyone else has said and apologise if i have but its a lot of comments to read to check if i have not repeated someone else.

Who cares even if i have? Does it really matter that much? I'm just trying to give my opinion on something here and perhaps it might be similar to that of someone else. I think this does happen though, sometimes people do have the same opinions on things.
What words is that? I don't think i have repeated what anyone else has said and apologise if i have but its a lot of comments to read to check if i have not repeated someone else. Who cares even if i have? Does it really matter that much? I'm just trying to give my opinion on something here and perhaps it might be similar to that of someone else. I think this does happen though, sometimes people do have the same opinions on things. bernard7

2:09pm Wed 8 Aug 12

lowe esteem says...

babyhulk wrote:
Considering the National stat for VED evasion is 249,000 according to the department of transport there are plenty of drivers who don't pay it either.

The compulsory for cycles should be visible clothing, a service once a year, (after the first 3 years for new bikes), lights reflectors and a bell. Would that make drivers happier? Probably not, but at least it would be a start. Personally i would have Helmet as well as i do a lot of downhill and off road i always wear mine. But like it has been said that could discourage cycling in some cases.
Add to that Mandatory possession of the Highway Code FOR ALL, so that you can read it back to the arresting officer etc. All road-users to have a proper appreciation and respect for other road users and an understanding of the Highway Code -first qualification for the Driving Test should be the ability to ride a bike.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: Considering the National stat for VED evasion is 249,000 according to the department of transport there are plenty of drivers who don't pay it either. The compulsory for cycles should be visible clothing, a service once a year, (after the first 3 years for new bikes), lights reflectors and a bell. Would that make drivers happier? Probably not, but at least it would be a start. Personally i would have Helmet as well as i do a lot of downhill and off road i always wear mine. But like it has been said that could discourage cycling in some cases.[/p][/quote]Add to that Mandatory possession of the Highway Code FOR ALL, so that you can read it back to the arresting officer etc. All road-users to have a proper appreciation and respect for other road users and an understanding of the Highway Code -first qualification for the Driving Test should be the ability to ride a bike. lowe esteem

6:49pm Wed 8 Aug 12

thedavie says...

Ok Low Esteem not just the Highway code but an understanding of local byelaws would help
As I am now a pedestrian I am more at risk from cycle riders than motorists
Eastleigh Council put up signs not to feed pigeons in the pedestrian precinct as it makes the pavement slippery but bike riders believe it is a cycleway & the bikes are more dangerous than pigeons in the pedestrian precinct
At least Southampton place signs in Portswood advising of fine for cycling where it is not permitted by byelaws
Anyone know who enforces byelaws
They seem easy to pass but no one appears to have authority to enforce them
Parking wardens can issue tickets for litter and parking
As they are on foot I expect they see more byelaw offences than a Policeman in a car
Ok Low Esteem not just the Highway code but an understanding of local byelaws would help As I am now a pedestrian I am more at risk from cycle riders than motorists Eastleigh Council put up signs not to feed pigeons in the pedestrian precinct as it makes the pavement slippery but bike riders believe it is a cycleway & the bikes are more dangerous than pigeons in the pedestrian precinct At least Southampton place signs in Portswood advising of fine for cycling where it is not permitted by byelaws Anyone know who enforces byelaws They seem easy to pass but no one appears to have authority to enforce them Parking wardens can issue tickets for litter and parking As they are on foot I expect they see more byelaw offences than a Policeman in a car thedavie

9:46pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

thedavie wrote:
Ok Low Esteem not just the Highway code but an understanding of local byelaws would help
As I am now a pedestrian I am more at risk from cycle riders than motorists
Eastleigh Council put up signs not to feed pigeons in the pedestrian precinct as it makes the pavement slippery but bike riders believe it is a cycleway & the bikes are more dangerous than pigeons in the pedestrian precinct
At least Southampton place signs in Portswood advising of fine for cycling where it is not permitted by byelaws
Anyone know who enforces byelaws
They seem easy to pass but no one appears to have authority to enforce them
Parking wardens can issue tickets for litter and parking
As they are on foot I expect they see more byelaw offences than a Policeman in a car
£30 FPN for riding on the pavement going over the Itchen bridge too but I still see idiots with bikes (I refuse to call anyone who breaks the law on a bicycle, a cyclist because they're not cyclists as I am a cyclist because I follow the laws) riding up and over the bridge on the pavement, the fact that it's an offence that carries a fine is clearly marked on either en of the bridge too.
[quote][p][bold]thedavie[/bold] wrote: Ok Low Esteem not just the Highway code but an understanding of local byelaws would help As I am now a pedestrian I am more at risk from cycle riders than motorists Eastleigh Council put up signs not to feed pigeons in the pedestrian precinct as it makes the pavement slippery but bike riders believe it is a cycleway & the bikes are more dangerous than pigeons in the pedestrian precinct At least Southampton place signs in Portswood advising of fine for cycling where it is not permitted by byelaws Anyone know who enforces byelaws They seem easy to pass but no one appears to have authority to enforce them Parking wardens can issue tickets for litter and parking As they are on foot I expect they see more byelaw offences than a Policeman in a car[/p][/quote]£30 FPN for riding on the pavement going over the Itchen bridge too but I still see idiots with bikes (I refuse to call anyone who breaks the law on a bicycle, a cyclist because they're not cyclists as I am a cyclist because I follow the laws) riding up and over the bridge on the pavement, the fact that it's an offence that carries a fine is clearly marked on either en of the bridge too. Ginger_cyclist

9:50pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.
But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.
My common sense tells me how to stay alive.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.[/p][/quote]Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.[/p][/quote]But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.[/p][/quote]My common sense tells me how to stay alive. Ginger_cyclist

9:51pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.
But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.
Not totally true ginger cyclist said he does not use shared cycle lanes due to them being dangerous to both the cyclist and the pedestrian.Iif you are clipped into your pedals and someone meanders into your path it is extremely difficult to unclip to avoid falling into the road or into another pedestrian. the point is the roads in general flow better than a predominantly pedestrian area. The cycle path over the itchen bridge would be a good example of what is needed on all roads as it is regularly cleared of debris, segregated from the pedestrian foot path and wide enough to have a couple of foot either side of you. If all roads were widend to acomodate this style of cycle path we would not need this endless debating, but then we wouldn't be British.

In Southampton i believe, and this is only my opinion. The roads which could benefit most with the added green lane would probably include Shirley road, Romsey road, tebourba way, the avenue, Winchester road, West quay road, Thomas Lewis way, hill lane, and a couple of others but they would be a start. I'm sure this is never going to happen as it does not involve adding traffic lights which I believe is a requirement for all Southampton road planning applications. Please note this is an opinion and I know it would cause even more road works to add them at once but if the pay were added along with other upgrades of these roads in the first place it could ease congestion and help drivers and cyclists use the roads in harmony.

Roll on the comments telling me I'm a selfish cyclist, with a one track mind and I'm a total prik for even putting up this comment and I should ride off somewhere else and annoy the green party.
Thank you my good sir.
[quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.[/p][/quote]Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.[/p][/quote]But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.[/p][/quote]Not totally true ginger cyclist said he does not use shared cycle lanes due to them being dangerous to both the cyclist and the pedestrian.Iif you are clipped into your pedals and someone meanders into your path it is extremely difficult to unclip to avoid falling into the road or into another pedestrian. the point is the roads in general flow better than a predominantly pedestrian area. The cycle path over the itchen bridge would be a good example of what is needed on all roads as it is regularly cleared of debris, segregated from the pedestrian foot path and wide enough to have a couple of foot either side of you. If all roads were widend to acomodate this style of cycle path we would not need this endless debating, but then we wouldn't be British. In Southampton i believe, and this is only my opinion. The roads which could benefit most with the added green lane would probably include Shirley road, Romsey road, tebourba way, the avenue, Winchester road, West quay road, Thomas Lewis way, hill lane, and a couple of others but they would be a start. I'm sure this is never going to happen as it does not involve adding traffic lights which I believe is a requirement for all Southampton road planning applications. Please note this is an opinion and I know it would cause even more road works to add them at once but if the pay were added along with other upgrades of these roads in the first place it could ease congestion and help drivers and cyclists use the roads in harmony. Roll on the comments telling me I'm a selfish cyclist, with a one track mind and I'm a total prik for even putting up this comment and I should ride off somewhere else and annoy the green party.[/p][/quote]Thank you my good sir. Ginger_cyclist

9:55pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

bigfella777 wrote:
So many idiots on here think they know what's best for cyclists when they have never even ridden a bike.I expect most of these people are sat in an armchair with their kanga pants on waiting for bargain hunt to come on.Its just jealousy that we are still fit and active.
More like a 1 legged stool for exercise and staying awake to watch bargain hunt.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: So many idiots on here think they know what's best for cyclists when they have never even ridden a bike.I expect most of these people are sat in an armchair with their kanga pants on waiting for bargain hunt to come on.Its just jealousy that we are still fit and active.[/p][/quote]More like a 1 legged stool for exercise and staying awake to watch bargain hunt. Ginger_cyclist

9:58pm Wed 8 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
babyhulk wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
binghammac wrote:
It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.
But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.
Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.
Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.
In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?
Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.
Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?
No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.
Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities.

So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?
Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.
Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.
No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.
Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.
But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.
Also what do you mean by "Hiding behind the letter of the law when it suits me and avoiding it altogether when it suits me", if you think I only abide by the law when it suits me then you are dead wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babyhulk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: It's astounding to read these immature posts from cyclists, telling any poster who differs with their views how they should conduct their lifestyle. It is presumptuous and arrogant, particularly when the debate is about cyclists ignoring basic safety rules, such as not using paths constructed for them.[/p][/quote]But we don't have to use them by law so those rules you speak of are non-existent.[/p][/quote]Well, that's an odd thing to say. Nobody's legally obliged to follow the Highway Code, either. Using that technicality to disregard rules that make sense, does nobody any good, though.[/p][/quote]Actually you do have to follow ones that have MUST, MUST NOT, DO or DON'T on them and underlined in bold writing as those are the ones backed up by laws.[/p][/quote]In which case you're following those laws, not the Highway Code. If I write a book that contains a bunch of rules, and one of those rules happens to say "don't murder people" it's not my book that people are obeying, is it?[/p][/quote]Not really the same though... Murder... Parking in a cycle lane... Nope, not the same because everyone knows you mustn't murder but not everyone knows it's illegal to park in cycle lanes, on pavements, on cycle paths or on tram ways, though I should hope no one would be stupid enough to park on a tram way.[/p][/quote]Ok, replace 'murder' with 'parking in a cycle lane". Is my book now an authoritative text?[/p][/quote]No because it's not endorsed by the authorities, the highway code is.[/p][/quote]Cycle lanes are also endorsed by the authorities. So how are you deciding which rules to obey and which not to?[/p][/quote]Partly by safety and partly by travel time, I tend not to use most cycle lanes or shared use paths because most cycle lanes are dangerous to me due to them being in the gutter where crap like broken glass gathers and I don't use shared use paths for the safety of the pedestrians, only places I'd use a cycle lane is going up on either side of the Itchen Bridge and going through the toll booths.[/p][/quote]Ok, so, if someone's in a hurry, it's ok to break some rules? Got it. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No rules are being broken. Cyclists are well within their right to use any road. Apart from private roads and motorways.[/p][/quote]Also many motorists see the blue cycle lane signs and think "that sign means cyclists MUST use the cycle lane/path and not get in my way" when it actually doesn't, not even when the cycle lane has a solid white line "separating" it from the other lanes, it's there to warn motorists that it's a heavily used cycle route, I asked a copper about it not long ago and he said that at no point on any road does a cyclist HAVE to use any cycle lane.[/p][/quote]But what does your common sense tell you? Hiding behind the letter of the rule when it suits you, and avoiding it altogether when it suits you, is a bit lame.[/p][/quote]Also what do you mean by "Hiding behind the letter of the law when it suits me and avoiding it altogether when it suits me", if you think I only abide by the law when it suits me then you are dead wrong. Ginger_cyclist

12:47am Thu 9 Aug 12

megacycle says...

as a cyclist and motorist, i have developed a healthy sense of disrespect for the law; along with a deep respect for each other...need i say more?
as a cyclist and motorist, i have developed a healthy sense of disrespect for the law; along with a deep respect for each other...need i say more? megacycle

8:30am Thu 9 Aug 12

tootle says...

No easy answer is there. Cyclists need insurance to cover motorists for the accidents they "may" cause. Just like motorists. Saw a bike come off the pavement crossing a junction rather than wait for a green light, how the motorcyclist already crossing the junction (on a green light) stayed on his bike I'll never know - so, yes in my opinion cyclists need insurance. They certainly need it to protect against the uninsured drivers out there.

Yesterday in one short trip I was cut up by a landrover type vehicle coming out of a side turning who decided he was bigger than me. Then there was the cyclist who decided to weave through traffic at road works - the one's going in the opposite direction to him rather than sit in a slow moving queue. 50:50 lads.

Cycling proficiency for all bikers - learn the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively, learn to take up enough road to be safe(you do so NOT have to hug the kerb) - above all stay safe.

To the best of my knowledge using the road whilst having earphones in both ears listening to music is illegal for both car drivers and cyclists. It really annoys me when a cyclist with earplugs pulls suddenly out in front of one to turn right, not having looked or wobbled and quite clearly oblivious to me clattering up behind them - I could easily have killed any one of you if I didn't watch you like hawks. Give us a clue as to your intentions please.
No easy answer is there. Cyclists need insurance to cover motorists for the accidents they "may" cause. Just like motorists. Saw a bike come off the pavement crossing a junction rather than wait for a green light, how the motorcyclist already crossing the junction (on a green light) stayed on his bike I'll never know - so, yes in my opinion cyclists need insurance. They certainly need it to protect against the uninsured drivers out there. Yesterday in one short trip I was cut up by a landrover type vehicle coming out of a side turning who decided he was bigger than me. Then there was the cyclist who decided to weave through traffic at road works - the one's going in the opposite direction to him rather than sit in a slow moving queue. 50:50 lads. Cycling proficiency for all bikers - learn the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively, learn to take up enough road to be safe(you do so NOT have to hug the kerb) - above all stay safe. To the best of my knowledge using the road whilst having earphones in both ears listening to music is illegal for both car drivers and cyclists. It really annoys me when a cyclist with earplugs pulls suddenly out in front of one to turn right, not having looked or wobbled and quite clearly oblivious to me clattering up behind them - I could easily have killed any one of you if I didn't watch you like hawks. Give us a clue as to your intentions please. tootle

11:04am Thu 9 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

tootle wrote:
No easy answer is there. Cyclists need insurance to cover motorists for the accidents they "may" cause. Just like motorists. Saw a bike come off the pavement crossing a junction rather than wait for a green light, how the motorcyclist already crossing the junction (on a green light) stayed on his bike I'll never know - so, yes in my opinion cyclists need insurance. They certainly need it to protect against the uninsured drivers out there.

Yesterday in one short trip I was cut up by a landrover type vehicle coming out of a side turning who decided he was bigger than me. Then there was the cyclist who decided to weave through traffic at road works - the one's going in the opposite direction to him rather than sit in a slow moving queue. 50:50 lads.

Cycling proficiency for all bikers - learn the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively, learn to take up enough road to be safe(you do so NOT have to hug the kerb) - above all stay safe.

To the best of my knowledge using the road whilst having earphones in both ears listening to music is illegal for both car drivers and cyclists. It really annoys me when a cyclist with earplugs pulls suddenly out in front of one to turn right, not having looked or wobbled and quite clearly oblivious to me clattering up behind them - I could easily have killed any one of you if I didn't watch you like hawks. Give us a clue as to your intentions please.
The earphones thing is why I've thought about a handle bar mounted speaker system... but then I thought against it as I wouldn't hear it over road noise but I too think cyclists, as a cyclist, think there should be some sort of formal training for it but from a young age, so make it a core subject all through school life and while at school they get a free BC "ride" membership when they're 14 as it comes with free third party insurance for just £24 a year and then before they leave school they get one more free membership and get reminded to renew it and for how much and also to make it possible to buy it in cycle shops and not just online.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: No easy answer is there. Cyclists need insurance to cover motorists for the accidents they "may" cause. Just like motorists. Saw a bike come off the pavement crossing a junction rather than wait for a green light, how the motorcyclist already crossing the junction (on a green light) stayed on his bike I'll never know - so, yes in my opinion cyclists need insurance. They certainly need it to protect against the uninsured drivers out there. Yesterday in one short trip I was cut up by a landrover type vehicle coming out of a side turning who decided he was bigger than me. Then there was the cyclist who decided to weave through traffic at road works - the one's going in the opposite direction to him rather than sit in a slow moving queue. 50:50 lads. Cycling proficiency for all bikers - learn the rules of the road, learn to signal effectively, learn to take up enough road to be safe(you do so NOT have to hug the kerb) - above all stay safe. To the best of my knowledge using the road whilst having earphones in both ears listening to music is illegal for both car drivers and cyclists. It really annoys me when a cyclist with earplugs pulls suddenly out in front of one to turn right, not having looked or wobbled and quite clearly oblivious to me clattering up behind them - I could easily have killed any one of you if I didn't watch you like hawks. Give us a clue as to your intentions please.[/p][/quote]The earphones thing is why I've thought about a handle bar mounted speaker system... but then I thought against it as I wouldn't hear it over road noise but I too think cyclists, as a cyclist, think there should be some sort of formal training for it but from a young age, so make it a core subject all through school life and while at school they get a free BC "ride" membership when they're 14 as it comes with free third party insurance for just £24 a year and then before they leave school they get one more free membership and get reminded to renew it and for how much and also to make it possible to buy it in cycle shops and not just online. Ginger_cyclist

10:04am Fri 10 Aug 12

AFrustratedCyclist says...

Twice! last night I was nearly run off the road by two motorists.

One coming within inches of me then turning left right across the front of me forcing me to brake suddenly.
Then the other squeezing up the Inside of me when I was signalling about to take a right turn. On a narrow road (30mph) with cars coming the other way oh and it's a blind crest of a hill and a blind bend. Stupid!!!
You were both complete Idiots! and should not be driving.

I was riding precisely where I was meant to be, checking over my shoulder and signalling clearly and correctly. Each time doing nothing wrong.

WHY!!!!!

All we want is a little space, is that too much to ask???
5-10 seconds is not going to ruin your day.

I just want to get home safely to my 8.5 month pregnant wife and to make it to our baby's birth without being seriously injured or killed

why do you think it's OK to threaten my safety/life because your in a car and I'm riding my bike

STOP IT! Pay attention when driving and show some basic respect to other human beings.

Is that really too much to ask?!?!?!?
Twice! last night I was nearly run off the road by two motorists. One coming within inches of me then turning left right across the front of me forcing me to brake suddenly. Then the other squeezing up the Inside of me when I was signalling about to take a right turn. On a narrow road (30mph) with cars coming the other way oh and it's a blind crest of a hill and a blind bend. Stupid!!! You were both complete Idiots! and should not be driving. I was riding precisely where I was meant to be, checking over my shoulder and signalling clearly and correctly. Each time doing nothing wrong. WHY!!!!! All we want is a little space, is that too much to ask??? 5-10 seconds is not going to ruin your day. I just want to get home safely to my 8.5 month pregnant wife and to make it to our baby's birth without being seriously injured or killed why do you think it's OK to threaten my safety/life because your in a car and I'm riding my bike STOP IT! Pay attention when driving and show some basic respect to other human beings. Is that really too much to ask?!?!?!? AFrustratedCyclist

10:46am Fri 10 Aug 12

tootle says...

Basically it appears that a resounding YES from some cyclists and motorists is the answer to your question.

Now I learnt to drive when one could drive 7.5t lorries on a normal license. One of the first things I was told was to give that cyclist twice as much room as I thought he needed and then check in the mirror to see he was still there because "I wouldn't feel the bump". I still operate on that adage today. Patience, room and check.
Basically it appears that a resounding YES from some cyclists and motorists is the answer to your question. Now I learnt to drive when one could drive 7.5t lorries on a normal license. One of the first things I was told was to give that cyclist twice as much room as I thought he needed and then check in the mirror to see he was still there because "I wouldn't feel the bump". I still operate on that adage today. Patience, room and check. tootle

2:28pm Fri 10 Aug 12

lowe esteem says...

shirley-bill wrote:
Just drove down Hill lane two cyclists when though red lights , May be cyclists should learn to stop at red lights .
Just seen a mature car driver do just the same on the eastbound exit of the M27 at Southampton Airport, same applies don.t you think Shirl?