snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
I read the user name as Lardycardriver.
This is not a wind up!
- Thread starter Ladycardriver
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Yes, I certainly didn't think you would have fallen for it.
darkstar
New Member
Yes, I certainly didn't think you would have fallen for it.
I get myself in enough arguments to respond to trolls!
mr_hippo
Living Legend & Old Fart
Does she have a bike to lend to someone?
Russell Allen
Well-Known Member
I think the chancellor should apply fuel duty to energy gels, that would be a good start....bloody cyclists.....
Russell
Russell
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Somehow I don't think you're intentions are honerable 
classic33
Leg End Member
Also when was the last time you heard of a cyclist running over a car, writing off the car in the process.
JonnyBlade
Live to Ride
- Location
- Gosport-Hampshire
JonnyBlade
Live to Ride
- Location
- Gosport-Hampshire
To be honest, I'm sick of lady car drivers tailgaiting me when there's a shed load of room to get passed. This then pisses of the million and one other drivers in the ensuing jam....................... ironically they all like to give me crap, again ironically as they are passing me!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andy in Sig
Vice President in Exile
- Location
- Sigmaringen, Germany
Suppose that the OP does represent a genuine query? If so, then some of you have been unforgiveably rude to a perfectly innocent person. If the OP is not genuine, then at least (mostly) sensible points have been made.
I suspect that the average driver would never guess that cycle paths are routinely decorated with broken glass, something which I presume is deliberately done by yoof "for a laugh".
Responses to the query about fluorescent clothing along the lines of "you should be able to see me" are just arrogant. I see myself as a cyclist who also happens to be a car driver and on a couple of occasions while emerging in a perfectly correct way from a T junction, I have not seen cyclists until nearly too late simply because they are wearing clothing which blends them into the background. This might be less of an issue in urban areas but I do think that cyclists using roads have the onus on them to make themselves visible, if they think that there is a chance that other road users might not be as obsessed with their health as they themselves are.
I suspect that the average driver would never guess that cycle paths are routinely decorated with broken glass, something which I presume is deliberately done by yoof "for a laugh".
Responses to the query about fluorescent clothing along the lines of "you should be able to see me" are just arrogant. I see myself as a cyclist who also happens to be a car driver and on a couple of occasions while emerging in a perfectly correct way from a T junction, I have not seen cyclists until nearly too late simply because they are wearing clothing which blends them into the background. This might be less of an issue in urban areas but I do think that cyclists using roads have the onus on them to make themselves visible, if they think that there is a chance that other road users might not be as obsessed with their health as they themselves are.
PBancroft
Senior Member
- Location
- Winchester
I think that most of LCD's queries have been covered, but I'm going to go back to the cyclepath thing as its a bugbear of mine. Hopefully she's not trolling, and will actually come back and read this thread because I think it should be quite useful on both sides - however considering the slightly passive aggressive tone of the OP I doubt this. Regardless, and just in case she does want to read this, this is a slightly amended amalgamation of a couple of blog posts I made a few years ago.
LCD does raise a valid query: Local governments do spend tax payers money increasing cycling provisions, so why don't cyclists just get off the road and use those instead? Surely it is in everybody's interest if they didn't use the road at all - cyclists get off the road and stop annoying motorists, and cyclists will be safer.
Firstly, lets clear up an incorrect belief that I've heard a couple of times. Cyclists are not allowed to cycle on the pavement. It is illegal to do so, and cyclists caught may have to pay a fixed penalty fine (Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). It also completely disregards the needs of any pedestrians, who in comparison to cyclists are the more vulnerable party. Cyclists who do this (especially where pedestrians are present) are being selfish, but sometimes justify their actions in that they feel pressurised into using pavements to avoid the dangerous behaviour of a minority of motorists on the road.
Cycle lanes are often touted as a catch-all solution to this problem. Theoretically, a segregated cycle lane will allow a cyclist to be safe from other traffic, and also without the cyclist affecting other road users or pedestrians.
Sadly, many cycle lanes are so badly designed they are utterly unusable. Imagine a road which is too narrow for the traffic intended to use it, where the signposts are grounded in the middle of the lane, and whats more, a tree is planted there too! Ridiculous? For cyclists this is more common than you might think. Many cycle lanes are "advisory" meaning that other road users can use them to drive in, sometimes to park in or walk on, but give the impression that cyclists must remain in them at all times. This isn't the case. In fact, The Highway Code was recently amended to make this clear (rule 63).
Yet some cycle lanes are installed without any consideration for the impact that their placement may have. A cyclist is more vulnerable than many other road users. Cyclists are not protected in the same way that a car driver is. There is no tin box surrounding them, and when a motorist performs a close overtake which may simply clip a wingmirror on a passing car, the same maneouvre may have a greater impact on a moving cyclist, causing an "accident" (I dislike that term vehemently and prefer incident) and injury.
More to the point, what may be considered to be a small incident in a car, could be a serious or fatal one for a cyclist. A car passing too close isn't just a near miss. A car creates a lot of force through the slipstream it creates, not to mention the surprise factor of suddenly seeing a relatively big vehicle overtaking at speed just inches away. Sometimes these factors, and others like them, can be countered somewhat through the experience of a cyclist. Cycle lanes sometime give the impression that cyclists must use a position on the road which creates an illusion of safety, by pushing cyclists to the left of the road.
But if space is so important, surely it makes sense that a cyclist should be as far over to the left as possible, giving cars as much space as possible to overtake. However, there are several reasons why this position is not the best one for cyclists to take. Take a short break to have a look at the edge of a variety of roads in your area.
Seriously. Go look. I'll wait.
You'll see on many if not most roads that there are a number of potential hazards along the edges of roads. Drain covers, bumps, potholes, loose gravel, broken glass and other rubbish. The edge of the road is not a safe place to be for a cyclist. You will also have probably seen a white line at the side of the road. Beyond that, although probably made of tarmac, this is the gutter, and not intended for vehicles to use, including cyclists.
Therefore, we can see that it is in the cyclist's interest to position himself away from the gutter. It's dangerous, and not really part of the road. The cyclist needs to ride to the right hand side of that line.
But that's not all. as there are other hazards to the middle of the road as well. Traffic islands can be invaluable for pedestrians crossing busy roads, but thay can also be a potential accident for cyclists if a car driver decides to fit his car between both the island, and the cyclist. As we saw previously, a car passing too close, although a "miss" can affect the cyclist in other ways, either pushing the cyclist off-course or potentially causing them to wobble or generally unnecessarily alarm them. A cyclist may position himself to prevent a car from overtaking where there simply isn't room to do so safely.
Cycle lanes are also poorly maintained. It is not uncommon for them to have broken glass, and other debris scattered across them. They are often used for parking other vehicles (increasing the chance that a cyclist may be "doored"), or simply be a handy place to put road signage. Where cycle lanes are not a part of the road they are often treated as footpaths by pedestrians, a problem which is exacerbated by the proliferation of shared use paths and increases the problem of cyclists having to look out for potential dangers.
Similarly, cycle lanes are quite often not the most direct route. They often cover many more junctions than a road, with frequent "Cyclist Dismount" signs.
Cycle paths can be equated to drivers having to travel long journeys through housing estates and carparks. The route would be laborious, and the progress slow. Roads, on the other hand, provide more-or-less direct routes to the required destination, with rules that are followed by most users. Cyclists ARE allowed to use the road. If you don't like it, that's an issue you have to deal with within yourself, because its not going to change, however much you dislike cyclists "holding up the traffic". As a part of that inward looking examination you may want to consider how long you spend waiting at traffic lights, or in jams caused by "accidents", or queueing to get in the car park, or delayed by finding somewhere to park. Or, or, or. Now weigh these up against the few seconds you might spend behind a cyclist. Heck, raise it to a minute. Make it two. I bet that barely makes a dent in your travel time.
Don't get me wrong, a well designed cycle lane can be of great benefit to many cyclists. Sometimes they will be a handy route for avoiding heavy traffic, provide a shortcut (or even a longcut), give new or inexperienced cyclists somewhere to gain confidence without intimidation, or for leisure cyclists to have a gentle pedal.
But a cyclist may choose to use the road, not only because it is their legal right to do so, but for the same reason any motorist will choose to use a particular route - it is the easiest, quickest, or otherwise most beneficial way for them to get to where they are going.
LCD does raise a valid query: Local governments do spend tax payers money increasing cycling provisions, so why don't cyclists just get off the road and use those instead? Surely it is in everybody's interest if they didn't use the road at all - cyclists get off the road and stop annoying motorists, and cyclists will be safer.
Firstly, lets clear up an incorrect belief that I've heard a couple of times. Cyclists are not allowed to cycle on the pavement. It is illegal to do so, and cyclists caught may have to pay a fixed penalty fine (Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). It also completely disregards the needs of any pedestrians, who in comparison to cyclists are the more vulnerable party. Cyclists who do this (especially where pedestrians are present) are being selfish, but sometimes justify their actions in that they feel pressurised into using pavements to avoid the dangerous behaviour of a minority of motorists on the road.
Cycle lanes are often touted as a catch-all solution to this problem. Theoretically, a segregated cycle lane will allow a cyclist to be safe from other traffic, and also without the cyclist affecting other road users or pedestrians.
Sadly, many cycle lanes are so badly designed they are utterly unusable. Imagine a road which is too narrow for the traffic intended to use it, where the signposts are grounded in the middle of the lane, and whats more, a tree is planted there too! Ridiculous? For cyclists this is more common than you might think. Many cycle lanes are "advisory" meaning that other road users can use them to drive in, sometimes to park in or walk on, but give the impression that cyclists must remain in them at all times. This isn't the case. In fact, The Highway Code was recently amended to make this clear (rule 63).
Yet some cycle lanes are installed without any consideration for the impact that their placement may have. A cyclist is more vulnerable than many other road users. Cyclists are not protected in the same way that a car driver is. There is no tin box surrounding them, and when a motorist performs a close overtake which may simply clip a wingmirror on a passing car, the same maneouvre may have a greater impact on a moving cyclist, causing an "accident" (I dislike that term vehemently and prefer incident) and injury.
More to the point, what may be considered to be a small incident in a car, could be a serious or fatal one for a cyclist. A car passing too close isn't just a near miss. A car creates a lot of force through the slipstream it creates, not to mention the surprise factor of suddenly seeing a relatively big vehicle overtaking at speed just inches away. Sometimes these factors, and others like them, can be countered somewhat through the experience of a cyclist. Cycle lanes sometime give the impression that cyclists must use a position on the road which creates an illusion of safety, by pushing cyclists to the left of the road.
But if space is so important, surely it makes sense that a cyclist should be as far over to the left as possible, giving cars as much space as possible to overtake. However, there are several reasons why this position is not the best one for cyclists to take. Take a short break to have a look at the edge of a variety of roads in your area.
Seriously. Go look. I'll wait.
You'll see on many if not most roads that there are a number of potential hazards along the edges of roads. Drain covers, bumps, potholes, loose gravel, broken glass and other rubbish. The edge of the road is not a safe place to be for a cyclist. You will also have probably seen a white line at the side of the road. Beyond that, although probably made of tarmac, this is the gutter, and not intended for vehicles to use, including cyclists.
Therefore, we can see that it is in the cyclist's interest to position himself away from the gutter. It's dangerous, and not really part of the road. The cyclist needs to ride to the right hand side of that line.
But that's not all. as there are other hazards to the middle of the road as well. Traffic islands can be invaluable for pedestrians crossing busy roads, but thay can also be a potential accident for cyclists if a car driver decides to fit his car between both the island, and the cyclist. As we saw previously, a car passing too close, although a "miss" can affect the cyclist in other ways, either pushing the cyclist off-course or potentially causing them to wobble or generally unnecessarily alarm them. A cyclist may position himself to prevent a car from overtaking where there simply isn't room to do so safely.
Cycle lanes are also poorly maintained. It is not uncommon for them to have broken glass, and other debris scattered across them. They are often used for parking other vehicles (increasing the chance that a cyclist may be "doored"), or simply be a handy place to put road signage. Where cycle lanes are not a part of the road they are often treated as footpaths by pedestrians, a problem which is exacerbated by the proliferation of shared use paths and increases the problem of cyclists having to look out for potential dangers.
Similarly, cycle lanes are quite often not the most direct route. They often cover many more junctions than a road, with frequent "Cyclist Dismount" signs.
Cycle paths can be equated to drivers having to travel long journeys through housing estates and carparks. The route would be laborious, and the progress slow. Roads, on the other hand, provide more-or-less direct routes to the required destination, with rules that are followed by most users. Cyclists ARE allowed to use the road. If you don't like it, that's an issue you have to deal with within yourself, because its not going to change, however much you dislike cyclists "holding up the traffic". As a part of that inward looking examination you may want to consider how long you spend waiting at traffic lights, or in jams caused by "accidents", or queueing to get in the car park, or delayed by finding somewhere to park. Or, or, or. Now weigh these up against the few seconds you might spend behind a cyclist. Heck, raise it to a minute. Make it two. I bet that barely makes a dent in your travel time.
Don't get me wrong, a well designed cycle lane can be of great benefit to many cyclists. Sometimes they will be a handy route for avoiding heavy traffic, provide a shortcut (or even a longcut), give new or inexperienced cyclists somewhere to gain confidence without intimidation, or for leisure cyclists to have a gentle pedal.
But a cyclist may choose to use the road, not only because it is their legal right to do so, but for the same reason any motorist will choose to use a particular route - it is the easiest, quickest, or otherwise most beneficial way for them to get to where they are going.
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
In which case why can't motorways be made safe for cycle users?
Anyway I think the OP is a troll but whatever, (S)he will be buying a bike when Oil reaches its true price!
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
I don't think trying not to kill someone counts as being 'obsessed with their health'. Just not being careless and inattentive is enough. Considering how many drivers act as if we don't exist even when we're clad in hi-vis head to toe, I suspect it's very much more attitude than vision.
I think most people have been remarkably restrained, and answered her questions. I can't add any more to what's been explained, and anyway, I can't be bothered to respond to someone who can't use a shift key properly....
This is I am afraid stunning in its ignorance and arrogance.
The reason this is misunderstood is that drivers tend to simply ignore speed limits and speed.
The Department for Transport clearly states that at 15 mph or above cyclists should be using the road... please tell me that you are aware of this?
No point in answering that if you can't work it out for yourself
1.9 million car to car incidents per year where the other vehicle hasn't been "seen" - why do we allow dark coloured cars.... why can't cars be fluorescent?
If other road users are actually paying attention and observing properly it shouldn't be necessary
Stand at a kerb and watch the motorists.. in a few minutes you will see all of these activities displayed, and even worse, lets add speeding, loud music, tinted windscreens and parking on junctions, roundabouts and pavements.
Perhaps these people are simply cycling in the same poor way as they drive?[/url]
