JagLover said:
|
The petty rule that cycles shouldn't be on the pavement is more control freak nonsense that should be scrapped. |
It's probably the same rule that says that cars shouldn't be on the pavement even when they have tarmaced over the verges and then extended the pavement even further so a bus can hardly fit in the lane and then built out a bus boarder so that when the bus stops to pick up passengers it blocks both lanes.
parrot of doom said:
|
No. Book the ones without lights, but cycling on the pavement? Do me a favour.
Police time would be better spent pulling over the untaxed and uninsured masses. |
So that would be the cyclists then!
BliarOut said:
|
why should I stop at the lights and get beaten into the kerb by cars and lorries? Just because it's the law? |
See above about widening pavements/narrowing roads. Especially at junctions (eg at the lights)
BliarOut said:
|
Besides, pushbikes "should" be on the path most of the time IMHO. The speed difference is less between a bike and a pedestrian and if there is a coming together, the results are usually far less serious. |
See below about the results.
LRdriver II said:
|
Basically car drivers leave NO room for cyclists and clip them on purpose. |
See above.
LRdriver II said:
|
Besides the pushbike has existed on the roads before the automobile showed up so by birthright the bike wins.. |
If you check that out I'd hazard a very wild guess that the introduction of the bicycle as transportation was contempraneous with the introduction of the horseless carriage as transportation. However, I'd hazard an even wilder guess that the use of the carriage as transportation carriage predated it's fitting with a motor. I'd go for broke and even go so far as to guess that the roads are also known as carriageways, not bicycleways.
Whereas the side-walks at the side of the carriageways for people to walk on are probably also known as foot-paths. I'm just having wild stabs in the dark here though.
Graham said:
|
on the basis that a car/truck is harder than me and my bike, i'll cycle like a tt if i want to ( usually after a few pints) on the basis that i'll get hurt more than the car/truck... |
So, if it's your fault that you go through someone's windscreen at a combined speed of 80mph: that's alright then, as you're only 100kg, and his car is 1,0000kg?
I suppose it's even more alright if you don't go through his windscreen because he's swerved to avoid you and his 1,000kg car has flattened a bus queue?
Before going over a bridge parapet, derailing a train, and ending up on a river cruiser full of mothers and toddlers and disabled children?
D_Mike said:
|
The BMA think that less lives would be saved if helmets were made compulsory on cycles... the logic:
Helmets cost money and don't look cool. So at the moment not all cyclists wear them. If they were compulsory less people would cycle... so more people would die of heart attacks.
|
Alternatively, if people are reckless about their health and safety by not cycling with a helmet, and so stubborn about it to boot that they would stop cycling if they had to wear a helmet, then what are the odds of them taking other risks which would kill them in large numbers anyway?
heebeegeetee said:
|
The one thing that really comes across so very clearly on this site is that the law is there to be 'interpreted' by car enthusiasts, but the law is there to be obeyed by EVERY other type of road user, be it ped, cyclist, biker, vanman, trucker, you name it. Isn't it funny how 'speed matters' only to the car drivers? For everyone else the speed limits and other laws are to be obeyed. Its absolute blatant hypocrisy. |
No, motorists complain about draconian enforcement of increasingly lowered arbitrary limits without discretion for driving perfectly safely.
While existing laws meant to protect pedestrians, drivers and the cyclists themselves from real danger are ignored not just by cyclists, but by the authorities.
Therein lies the hypocricy.
heebeegeetee said:
|
All I know is, as someone who's on the road all day every day, is that I see, minimum, 10 cars go through red lights a month. Absolute minimum. |
But as cars cover a hundred times the mileage you should expect to see around one red light jumping cyclist a year.
Whereas you are more likely to see a minimum of 10 a day. Absolute minimum.
Heebeegeetee said:
|
you and I are part of the group who kill 3.5 k a year. The cyclists aren't. (Except when they're in their car). |
That would be road users then? Including those that kill themselves.
85% of pedestrians are responsible for their own deaths.
Buses knock down and kill more pedestrians pro rata than white van men.
The figures include everything from speeding cops to people stepping off buses, tripping, hitting their heads and dying.
Including more pedestrians killed per pasenger mile by cyclists than by motor vehicles.
Heebeegeetee said:
|
UK drivers kill far too many cyclists and pedestrians. I don't know the figures but I understand that whilst we kill fewer of ourselves compared to othewr countries, we kill more of the other more vunerable road users.
|
See above. Are you saying that cyclists don't kill enough, even though they kill more pro-rata?
Further, as we have the safest roads in the world, but a supposed imbalance between driver and pedestrian deaths, that would seem to indicate that the drivers are ultra safe in general, but that, for some strange reason, they sudenly become more dangerous when a pedestrian throws themselves in front of them.
Now, why might that be?
Could EU research which found that UK children are more likely to cross roads alone, or with their peers, than with adults, more likely to cross away from a safe crossing, and more likely to cross in a dangerous place, than in the rest of the EU, give us any kind of clue?
Perhaps?
And people wonder why I reiterate:
Do motorists get everything they deserve?
From:
Should cyclists be booked for cycling like idiots? [3]
They wouldn't dare, as people would just rubbish them in seconds. 
Streaky
? )pointed it out here, the obvious place, originally, what with it being on topic here I suppose. 
? 
!)!
Yesterday (22:21)