How will cyclists ever get the respect of road users?

[wafflycat]

True, but many drivers (and a lot of non-drivers too, I'd wager) perceive there to be such a thing. They don't actually care that VED isn't Road Tax - to them it is. It's a tax which gives them a bit of paper which allows them to drive on the road, ergo, its Road Tax.

And we don't pay it.

Then they are this: terminally dim and they should not be indulged with their misplaced fantasy drivellings. They should be thwacked about the head forcefully and repeatedly with a copy of a rolled up Guardian until their re-education is completed. The bit of paper that allows me to drive a car is not some non-existant 'road tax' it's my driving licence. As the roads are paid for via general taxation, each and every tax payer pays for the roads, motorist and non-motorist alike.

 

[PBancroft]

Maybe motorists would prefer if we sent cheques with the value of 0 to the council, then we'd be paying it.

D'y'know... I really don't think that people would prefer it. They wouldn't prefer it up until, and probably beyond the point where cyclists are paying more than the average car.

The tax thing isn't a reason, its an excuse in my book. It validates a reason for the hatred in some people's minds, but it isn't the cause.

 

[PBancroft]

Then they are this: terminally dim and they should not be indulged with their misplaced fantasy drivellings. They should be thwacked about the head forcefully and repeatedly with a copy of a rolled up Guardian until their re-education is completed. The bit of paper that allows me to drive a car is not some non-existant 'road tax' it's my driving licence. As the roads are paid for via general taxation, each and every tax payer pays for the roads, motorist and non-motorist alike.

You know that, and I know that - but I would put large amounts of money on the fact that most people don't. Of course its more complicated than how its often outlined - VED goes into the general pot, so in a convoluted way it kinda does pay for the roads to some degree.

And the licence is a one off thing. "Road Tax" is an annual expense, without which people might lose their car! Shock!

 

[wafflycat]

All the more reason to re-educate the ignorant in the reality, rather than allowing them to stay in their state of ignorance.

*goes off to find an old copy of The Guardian and iron bar to tuck inside it..*

 

[purplepolly]

Indeed and those are accidents, accidents that are seldom caused by not following the rules. Yes a pedestrian may cross unexepectedly but its seldom deliberately without looking.
.

the rule in the highway code is to look before crossing the road. If you don't look, you're not following the higway code. And no, it is deliberate, they're deliberatley relying on their ears rather than looking, despite knowing that such things as bicycles exist. If they had a white stick or a labrador in a harness, that would be ok, otherwise you're always supposed to look before crossing. I had mastered this by the time I was 7 and could safely be sent to school be myself, despite the urban environment. I don't think it's expecting too much of adults to be able to follow the same process.

Discussing it with friends who also drive their main complaint about cyclists is jumping red lights and the belief that the highway code doesn't apply to them, as well as wondering why they don't wear helmets.
.

And my main complaint is that I'm fed up with being blamed by motorists for the behaviour of a few cyclists who I have no contact with, usually some spotty yoof who wouldn't take any notice of me even if we did know each other.

I don't expect a random motorist to be blamed for all the unisured drivers or the very high death toll caused by other drivers or those who keep trying to wipe me out on pedestrian crossings or the RLJing driver who shunted a man out of the way on a crossing or the drivers who pull out in fron of me when I'm on the bike, or the driver who ran me off the road because I was slowing down his turn into the macdonalds drivethrough
(I could go on for some time here).

I don't expect motorcyclists such as yourself to answer for all the times I've seen motorcyclists in the peak district doing about twice the speed limit while cutting a bend or going over a blind summit. Although please feel free to give an explanation as to why your fellow motorcyclists think that the highway code doesn't apply to them here, why they're putting other peoples lives at risk and why so much of local taxpayers money is having to be wasted on policing these roads.

We're not responsible for the behaviour of other people, all we can do is behave in a reasonable manner ourselves.

 

[diamondwhite]

We're not responsible for the behaviour of other people, all we can do is behave in a reasonable manner ourselves.

Agreed. And follow the highway code each and everyone of us pedestrian alike.

It's wrong of you to paint me as a motorcyclist. I am a 'person' who cylces, drives and holds a motorcycle license also. I am not any one thing.
I dislike all bad driving, cycling, bus driving etc for what it is not who I class them as.

This whole attitude of cyclists or car drivers or van drivers etc against each other is as much a part of the problem. If one wants to be in a clan that's your right but don't try to label me, I made no attempt to label you as the same as any particular group, only you have done that in reverse.

I think you are confusing the point I was trying to make with the chip on your shoulder you are carrying around with you. I have no such issues despite the situation I find myself in.

As much as there is a revulsion against drink/drug driving and education to counter it, I think the same education process should be targeted at RLJ cycling just as the green cross code man probably educated you as well as I on how to cross the road.

Reading through various posts on here, cycling is not much different from car driving for some. They see it as a personal challenge to get from A to B as quickly as possible just like motorcyclist/ car drivers. They swerve in and out of traffic (slip streaming one person put it), just like on a car race track. They make snap judgements on speed, risk and action just like car / motorcyclists. But as long as they are doing it safely and obeying traffic regulations I don't particularly have a problem if a car or a cyclist is at speed as long as it is safe for others to do so.

Should cyclists have their own form of VED I really don't know I don't think so, should they have a license that is endorseable? How could it be policed, I have no idea.
Perhaps because cyclists need neither of these things currently, the responsibility to ride safely is a right one should hold more dearly and if not perhaps the police should be able to enforce on the spot fines significantly higher than the £30 currently allowed say up to £1000, and be able to confiscate the bike of such transgressors?

Regardless, I have contributed my experience for the benefit of others as well as myself, debated some areas and I am grateful that it has had a positive impact on at least one poster here and perhaps others will think twice about RLJ'ing. That's all I hoped for, not to get into a mudslinging contest about us against them.

 

[hackbike 666]

Excellent! I've always stopped at red lights but I used to ride aggressively between them and give a lot of stick to any vehicle that was "in my way", whatever I considered that to be. Again, reading posts on CC made me think about the way I was riding and why it seemed to "attract" problems.

Ditto I was the same.I always rode too fast round peds as well when it really wasn't needed.Reading CC made me change my ways to less agressive.

Vastly more car drivers than cyclists jump red light. Cars pull out in front of cyclists all the time, and the fact that they're insured doesn't excuse it.

The first point I don't agree with and the second point happens to me rarely.

 

[HJ]

But any other road user, motorcyclist, bus, tractor, truck, street-cleaner, military vehicle, etc has insurance from which I could recover my costs.

Military vehicles, as with all other government owned vehicles do not have insurance. The government is exempt from the legal requirement to carry insurance...

 

[snorri]

I wonder if a small minority of people on motoring forums(fora) strive to bring their brethren into line in order that motorists be respected by other road users.
It seems unlikely.

 

[purplepolly]

It's wrong of you to paint me as a motorcyclist. I am a 'person' who cylces, drives and holds a motorcycle license also. .

ahem
"I'm a former cyclist and a motorcyclist I am also a driver."

I have contributed my experience for the benefit of others as well as myself, debated some areas and I am grateful that it has had a positive impact on at least one poster here and perhaps others will think twice about RLJ'ing. That's all I hoped for, not to get into a mudslinging contest about us against them..

but that's exactly the problem with your posts dear, you're starting off with the assumption that we do RLJ:-

"Next time you think about jumping a red light or breaking the highway code remember it's there for a reason "

it's not really the right way to join a forum and start off a constructive debate.

 

[Bollo]

Sorry to rewind back to this one, dellzeqq but there's so much worth thinking about that I'm positively firm....

This is really simple. Really, really simple. Cyclists will get the respect of car drivers when there are more of us than there are of them. Rights, wrongs, behaviour, it's all beside the point.

Agree, except that I'm uncomfortable with the 'them and us' bit. By the nature of us generating so much guff on this forum, I think you'll agree that most of us here are cycling enthusiasts. Sore knees, a tender arse and stocking-like tan lines are our stigmata. The wider community judges us a group with a distinct, separate and exclusive identity. A cyclist cannot be a motorist ("pay road tax!") or often a fellow human being (M Parris et al, passim). We're often guilty of this distinction ourselves, hence the term POB for example. The promised land will come, not when there are more of us than them, but when the distinction between 'them' and 'us' disappears. Despite a shift in the numbers, that distinction is as stark as ever.

Car drivers kill 1100 people a year in this country, for no reason. That has no bearing on the respect they are accorded, least of all by politicians who letch after the car-driving vote with a vigour that would put Casanova to shame. Cyclists, who do little damage to the world, and ask for very little are very often treated with disdain.

Agree totally, but I'd prefer to call "the car-driving vote" - "the vote". And politicians are animals that live on a diet of votes. The internal combustion engine is so ingrained in the country's infrastructure, industry and consciousness that it will take an apocolyptic change (and I picked the word very carefully) to usurp the car.

A few examples. I believe that next month the increase in petrol duty kicks in. This will almost certainly be top story on the news. The item will include vox-pops of mums picking their cherubs up from school and complaining that they will no longer be able to get to work. The AA will highlight the catastrophic effects on the UK economy, while lorry drivers will issue dark threats of blockades on road haulage forums.

My local paper's front page story this week covers the proposed "Car park tax", where it discusses the catastrophic effects on the UK economy and interviews poeple who will no longer be able to get to work. It does not put the proposals in context or offer any platform for a supporting voice.

A flawed but independent politician with a vision for changing the hegemony of the motorised attempts to reduce congestion in his city - a city where cyclists are becoming more numerous by the day - by introducing congestion charging. A politically motivated campaign by the right-wing press appeals to the prejudices of a receptive and largely pro-car electorate. As usual, the papers predict "a catastrophic effect on the UK economy" and interviews people who will no longer be able to get to work. The politican is replaced by a self-publicist media rent boy who freezes the congestion zones and opens cycle lanes to motorbikes.

Need I go on?

Only in one part of the country, where cyclists are clearly becoming more numerous day by day, are cyclists consistently treated with respect by politicians, the local press and by car drivers. And that is because very often there are more of us than there are of them. And the corollary (sp?) of that is that cyclists are beginning to feel this, and to be more assertive, which is all to the good.

I've thrown my toys out of the pram about this before. Going back to the start of the thread, there's still too much of the 'them and us' in febrile London's cycling landscape. Riding a bike is still seen as a statement, political, fashion or both. Its a model that doesn't translate well across the UK as a whole.

 

[diamondwhite]

Military vehicles, as with all other government owned vehicles do not have insurance. The government is exempt from the legal requirement to carry insurance...

yes but the point being they wouldn't be exempt from at fault and compensation as far as I am aware. I don't know exactly how they operate but companies like BT(GPO) never used to have insurance they used to provide a bond and pay out from that. Not sure if that's the case now or if that applies to military use but when it was owned by the government that's how it used to operate.

ahem
"I'm a former cyclist and a motorcyclist I am also a driver."

I do all of the above but I don't cycle everyday or week; I'll be more careful of my choice of semantics in future.

but that's exactly the problem with your posts dear, you're starting off with the assumption that we do RLJ:-

"Next time you think about jumping a red light or breaking the highway code remember it's there for a reason "

If I did then I apologise to all. The 'you' I took for granted referred to those that do jump reds, as admitted some have done, not implying everyone is a RLJ. I think most would accepted that from the overall tone of my posts.

it's not really the right way to join a forum and start off a constructive debate.

well 'dear' exactly how should one join, I wasn't aware 'dear' that you are a moderator and the forum had rules for how to post that precluded my posting in the manner I did. However I stand to be corrected otherwise but perhaps patronising should be in there, now I'll be in trouble too?

I'm struggling to make allowances, but this really betokens a complete lack of appreciation of reality.
...
And your attitude is offensive.

Really why exactly?


Aside from nit picking I hadn't set out to attack or classify anyone. I don't agree with anyone breaking the highway code, car drivers or cyclists, in particular RLJ'ing has consequences for whoever does it, the perpetrator and the victim, I merely set out to tell of my experience.

I'm no angel on the road myself I doubt any of us are, but I try to be a competent safe road user. I agree that I see more people jumping red lights than I ever used to see happen, by all types of road users. Why that is, I believe, is down to a general lack of respect in society translated to road use. But it's far easier to report a vehicle with a license plate to identify it, and cite another license plate of a witness to verify, than it is to report a cyclist who is less identifiable. And I say that as a statement not in accusation, we all think we can get away with it but it is easier for some than others and perhaps that's why it occurs also.

 

[purplepolly]

well 'dear' exactly how should one join, I wasn't aware 'dear' that you are a moderator and the forum had rules for how to post that precluded my posting in the manner I did. However I stand to be corrected otherwise but perhaps patronising should be in there, now I'll be in trouble too?.

I was trying to mitigate the tone of my post as an attempt at conciliation. There are of course no such rules, but anyone who starts off in such a manner should reasonably expect some debate to go on, and the heavweights haven't even appeared yet, let alone the sumo wrestlers.

 

[marinyork]

yes but the point being they wouldn't be exempt from at fault and compensation as far as I am aware. I don't know exactly how they operate but companies like BT(GPO) never used to have insurance they used to provide a bond and pay out from that. Not sure if that's the case now or if that applies to military use but when it was owned by the government that's how it used to operate.

If you are genuinely interested you'll find the start of your answer in the The Road Traffic Act 1988, part VI.

Btw I don't agree with this business of every other vehicle on the road has insurance (they don't as you've found out) so bicycles should. You're getting into an Apple and Orange Nobel territory for that unless you can argue some serious reasons why it should.

 

[diamondwhite]

If you are genuinely interested you'll find the start of your answer in the The Road Traffic Act 1988, part VI.

Btw I don't agree with this business of every other vehicle on the road has insurance (they don't as you've found out) so bicycles should. You're getting into an Apple and Orange Nobel territory for that unless you can argue some serious reasons why it should.

From what I read then my interpretation is correct. A security is posted (bond I called it) and they are liable for third party loss. Therefore every other vehicle on the road is securitised in some form for third part loss.
And for those that drive without insurance then those that do pay towards MIB. MIB was established in 1946 to compensate the victims of negligent uninsured and untraced motorists.

Invalid carriages are exempt and there's been some discussion of that point because of the incidents that have occurred.
I can see it is very difficult to enforce insurance on a person using a bike just as I posted earlier on how difficult enforcing a VED or license for cycling would be but perhaps on the spot penalties could be introduced sufficiently high enough to act as a deterrent for The Road Traffic Act 1988, part 1 section 28

I was trying to mitigate the tone of my post as an attempt at conciliation.

Conciliation accepted thank you purplepolly.
I am perfectly willing to debate but I have enough on my plate now without generating a personal level to the discussion. So if the big fish you refer to can't be human and non personal then I fear I won't remain to take part.