2 Things I would change...

[Boris Bajic]

I'm sure that they would but if I want to ride something just a teensy bit more road orientated?

If the Exchequer were Donald Ducked and we'd run out of smooth blacktop, that WOULD be road-orientated.

If the roads changed, you'd have to change with them.

For the full TdF experience, you could lock out the forks and go with the long-stem, low bars and road saddle option.

Obviously, the triple chainring would have to be dumped from the hardtail.... Just as now, no proper road bike has more than two of those.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

 

[TheDoctor]

In that case you would have no problem with periodic testing of cyclists then, I assume ?

Yes, actually, I would.
Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists all use the road as of right. It's drivers who can potentially harm people and property, which is why they are examined and charged for the privilege of using the roads. A privilege that can be taken away.

 

[oldfatfool]

Cars and motorised vehicles only allowed on the roads mon-fri, non motorised vehicles sat-sun

 

[deanE]

I would like to see bike lanes that were fit for purpose, not an excuse to get cyclists out of the way of motorists. Properly segregated areas, good surface, with the same right of way as the main carriageway, and not ending at a pinch point after 100yds or so. And where these dream cycle lanes existed I would be appy to see them compulsory.
I would also suggest that car insurance companies spend their advertising money on public information films, updating motorists' and cyclists' knowledge, to replace the non funny TV commercials currently shown.

 

[TheDoctor]

Cars and motorised vehicles only allowed on the roads mon-fri, non motorised vehicles sat-sun

What, so I can't cycle to work, I've got to drive??
Along with the other hundred cyclists where I work?
Storming idea. Instant gridlock...

 

[lukesdad]

The thing is that our roads provide a facility for all of us, whether we pay VED, fuel duty etc directly or not. You will need to define what is in and what is out on both sides of your income and expenditure model

I'll define something in a minute !

 

[lukesdad]

Yes, actually, I would.
Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists all use the road as of right. It's drivers who can potentially harm people and property, which is why they are examined and charged for the privilege of using the roads. A privilege that can be taken away.

It has nothing to do with right, and everything to do with safety. Do you for one moment, think there would be roads but for motorists.

As for your suggestion about trains, who do you expect to pay for that ? Or is this another cyclists right ?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It has nothing to do with right, and everything to do with safety. Do you for one moment, think there would be roads but for motorists.

As for your suggestion about trains, who do you expect to pay for that ? Or is this another cyclists right ?

The Romans had roads, and folk before them, and everyone since, well before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Cycling campaigners were instrumental in getting roads metalled and improved.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I would like to see the adoption in civil law of the principle that motor vehicles are at fault in collisions with cyclist unless proved otherwise - (and probably also in vehicular law wrt pedestrians - if you hit a pedestrian with any vehicle its your fault unless proved otherwise)

Thats it - blame the driver of a motor vehicle and portion no resonsibility on other road users (cyclists or pedestrians) - i see people walk out on zebra crossings everyday in London, and yet it's my fault if i hit them is it?

This is the misunderstanding that seems always to arise when presumed (and strict) liability are raised. It's not appropriate to talk about "fault" and "blame" in respect of this issue. Presumed liability is not a criminal law issue, it is a civil law issue. In this context, criminal law is about blame and punishment, whereas civil law is about liability and reparations.
"Strict liability" is the principle that, irrespective of who was at fault, the driver of the motor vehicle should be liable for making reparations (and that is what motor insurance is for).
"Presumed liability" is slightly more relaxed than this and says that, unless the cyclist can be proven to have caused the incident, then the driver of the motor vehicle is held liable for reparations.
The question of whether the driver broke the law is unaffected by strict or presumed liability, and would be the subject of a separate criminal prosecution if appropriate.

 

[TheDoctor]

It has nothing to do with right, and everything to do with safety. Do you for one moment, think there would be roads but for motorists.

As for your suggestion about trains, who do you expect to pay for that ? Or is this another cyclists right ?

Roads existed long before motorists, and will exist long after them. And if motorists have the self proclaimed right to transfer risk away from themselves and onto more vulnerable road users, to the tune of 3000 body-bags a year, then I don't think a bookable (and yes, payable ) bike area on a train is too much to ask for.

 

[lukesdad]

They did indeed however, i dont think the carbon thoro'breds of today would have lasted long on them tho.

I assume you expect the fare for carriage of your bike to be subsidised, as your fares are now ?

I'm not surprised,you didn't like the suggestion of mine,to use the income from road users to pay for the upkeep of roads. After all if this were to be the sole use of this income, it would leave a pretty big hole in the finances to subsidise other forms of transport. I'm sure this dawned on you when it was suggested.

 

[TheDoctor]

Didn't even think of it. You do seem determined to have a row with me though...

 

[lukesdad]

Not at all, you' d know if i wanted a row i can assure you

The OP asked what people would like to see, I made my 2 suggestions which you plainly disagreed with, hence my ongoing interest.

 

[Steve Malkin]

I've read lots in this thread about how things should be 'enforced' or 'banned' or how we need to fundamentally change the road infrastructure to make it a better place for cyclists. None of that is practical or will work in my opinion.

I think the real issue here is that whether we like it or not cyclists are a small minority of road users at present, and our needs are not the driving force in determining policy and shaping attitudes.

However, I am hopeful that thing will improve in future. Like many others I find myself using my car less and my bike more as time goes by due to the rising costs of motoring and if this trend continues then the proportion of cyclists to other vehicles on the road will increase and if that happens then the balance will naturally shift in favor of the roads becoming more 'cycle friendly'.

So my advice would be simply to encourage as many people as possible to get out there and use their bikes on our dangerous potholed overcrowded roads. It may not get a lot better in my lifetime, but if enough of us do that then the roads will become a better place for our children to enjoy cycling on in future.