Half Cyclist????

[sanoffyhighstepson]

AAArgh. Thats what I'm getting at though. You are not mechanically propelled and can hit 60, the wee guy with the mechanically propelled can only hit 40-ish.
A bit like a footballer in a car who hits 110mph gets a 300 quid fine but Joe Schmo does 110mph and gets 2 months.
Just find a bit hard to understand thats all

 

[Noodley]

AAArgh. Thats what I'm getting at though. You are not mechanically propelled and can hit 60, the wee guy with the mechanically propelled can only hit 40-ish.
A bit like a footballer in a car who hits 110mph gets a 300 quid fine but Joe Schmo does 110mph and gets 2 months.
Just find a bit hard to understand thats all

Life ain't fair

Remember most cyclists are also drivers; some of us (like you) even have lots of driving qualifications and experience
Relax, enjoy, have "buns of steel".

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

Hehe. Will do my friend. If a dinna get squashed by a bus or somethin.

Equality is a dream really. Wont happen unless the law applies to both cars and cycles.

 

[Noodley]

Equality is a dream really. Wont happen unless the law applies to both cars and cycles.

Nah, they are entirely different. Accept that and ye'll be okay

There are laws for "mechanically propelled vehicles" for a reason. (can you tell I was Polis?)

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

Just a bit weird thats all. Could have a 20 stone guy going down a hill on a racer at 60, and a wee 7 stone ned on a putt-putt doin 40 and the ned will get done for no tread whilst the racer-boy dont need treads.
Wont get my head round it but will always make sure my trasty steed has some chunky rubber left on her. Piece of mind really.
Dont fancy flyin on my ass!!!!

 

[Noodley]

Just a bit weird thats all..

You'll learn with experience how it all works

Just accept the law is there for good reason and as a cyclist you can now fly down hills at 60mph with nothing more than a few mm of "bald" rubber between you and the tarmac

 

[Renard]

FTR 110psi tyres with the typical load on top of them actually displace water so that the contact patch(admittedly very small) is dry, or else we would all be skidding about on our arses!

 

[mickle]

But what I'm trying to get at, what everyone on here has missed by quite a margin so far, is that cyclist also have a responsibility to be courteous and careful, which a few people on here dont seem to grasp.

Stating the bleedin obvious. We are all obliged to have a duty of care for everyone else, whatever activity we are undertaking and wherever we are. Whenever I'm on the bike I obey the rules of the road, just as I do when I'm driving. It's a concious decision because I believe that if we cyclists are to expect respect from other road users we should be seen to be obeying the rules. Unfortunately there are many motorists who do not seem to accept that we have a right to use the road, incidents of dangerous and reckless behaviour are all too common. When I rode regularly in London and in Bristol I reckon that I experienced a dangerous incident on average once a day. I support your suggestion that all road users show courtesy and care but we are not equal, cyclists don't kill people drivers do.

And before you label me as a rabid car hater, I drive a Corrado and I used to own a V12 Ferrari. I also drive several thousand miles per annum in big vans towing big trailers.

 

[magnatom]

I think I have joined this a little late!

SOHSS, I see where you are coming from and you are using a lot of similar language to what I do. I think you are just coming from a slightly different angle.

I agree with you that all road users should be treated as equals, which is what I think you mean. However, all road users should not be treated the same, which I think is where mickle is coming from.

By that I mean that, each road user has their own issues and own requirements that differ from others. For example, the fact that cyclists if hit are at much higher risk of injury is a fact, so we need a little more 'respect' by other road users who are the ones that pose us that risk. However, in this instance 'respect' does not mean that cyclists should have more right to be there, what I mean by respect is that cyclists should be given more space time etc.

So I think that some people use respect to mean slightly different things and that is where part of the problem arises. When I say 'mutual respect' what I want is everyone to understand that we all have equal rights just as you say SOHSS. However, when other cyclists suggest that cyclists demand more respect they often just mean more space and time etc. Thus the misunderatanding.

One argument I don't like that mickle has used is the argument that cyclists have more legal rights to be on the road because we don't need a licence etc. I can see how that irritates drivers. Remember, a driver who has passed his test and has paid all of his dues has as much right as a cyclist to be on the road. No more no less. It is the drivers who drive without having a licence, insurance etc that we all need to worry about.

I personally agree that tests for cyclists would be a good idea. I also feel that the driving test would be better if there was an onroad cycling part to the test. i.e. you should have to pass a on road cycle proficiency test, before you were allowed to take a car test. This is probably not practical though....

 

[sanoffyhighstepson]

Yeah Magnatom, your right.
Instead of wasting time examining people to see if they know what parts of the engine are for, and where to top up oil etc, this time could be better used asking questions about how other road users react and use the road. Perhaps it should be a mandatory field in the theory test.
Theres no point knowing how to drive your own vehicle and being oblivious to how others use the road.

 

[mickle]

One argument I don't like that mickle has used is the argument that cyclists have more legal rights to be on the road because we don't need a licence etc.

Not really an argument, more a statement of fact.

 

[magnatom]

I completely agree SOHSS. Mutual respect, mutual understanding.

Oh, one thing SOHSS,the best type of tyres for bikes on the road are actually completely smooth tyres. They have the largest surface area in contact with the road. Cars and motor bikes have tread because of the risk of aquaplaning in the wet. However, due to the small surface area in contact with the ground on a bicycle there is no possibility of aquaplaning, so no tread is best.

Most on road bike tyres do have some tread, usually for aesthetic reasons, or because most users 'think' they need tread so the manufacturers feel obliged to supply it, or because the tyre was designed for off-road use where tread does help.

Just thought I'd clear that up!

 

[magnatom]

Not really an argument, more a statement of fact.

Yes, but I really don't think it is helpful. Does it matter who needs a licence and who doesn't so long as you have what is required? I think we all agree that drivers without licences and insurance etc are scum. However, as SOHSS says there are good and bad cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers etc. We need to focus on the bad road users in all of the groups, and forget about who has what rights. If we all respected each other on the road (my definition of it!) then no one would have to argue about who has what rights. In my opinion it is just an argument for an arguments sake. Just my opinion of course

 

[alecstilleyedye]

my two pence: make the cycling proficiency test a compulsory part of the learning-to-drive process. make the current theory/hazard perception stage 1, cycling proficiency (with a test) stage 2, after which you may take the driving test.

not only will it make new drivers (you've got to start with this somewhere) more aware of cyclists and their rights, issues etc, but it might make a few people choose bike over car that might otherwise have just taken the "no brainer" option of getting a car.

 

[hubgearfreak]

One argument I don't like that mickle has used is the argument that cyclists have more legal rights to be on the road because we don't need a licence etc. I can see how that irritates drivers. Remember, a driver who has passed his test and has paid all of his dues has as much right as a cyclist to be on the road. No more no less. It is the drivers who drive without having a licence, insurance etc that we all need to worry about.

as for irritated drivers, many of us cyclists also pay VED and insurance & etc. on our motors but decide to leave them at home. others of us are too young to do so. so most cyclists would fit into the category of child or low mileage motorist who's subsidises those wedded to their cars. so a driver who is irritated by who he views to be the freeloaders is really a dumbass, IMO.
a driver who gets irritated probably isn't the calm sort that should be in charge of something big and dangerous anyhow

however, their use of the road is a privilege, that can be revoked.
they can't ban you from cycling, can they?