Cyclists killed and seriously injured on roads.....spmeone is being unreasonable

[GabbyLoggon]

Big news in todays independent.(and elsewhere)

They say 230 cyclists are killed or seriously injured on our
roads every month.

Really? I would like to see those figures broken down to serious injury/death
The report says HGV drivers are often involved.

Cycling is becomming more popular here

I've also just watched the video - what a prized cock.

Whatmeworry said "Bear in mind that technically its motorists that fund the roads, not cyclists."

This is just simply wrong. The roads are funded through general taxation: go look at your council's website.

It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to show stupidity and ignorance of one of the basics of tax spending.

I wonder if the police ever caught

you think it would be easy with the nuberplate and all?

this happens all the time!

This thread's pretty old.

I'm a cyclist and will continue to be as long as I possibly can.

Some great links:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720

www.bikebiz.com/news/read/to-increase-cyclist-safety-reduce-motor-vehicle-speeds/012278

www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/cycle_training/Effective_Traffic_Riding.pdf

:)

also @dearyme- yes there are bad cyclists. Luckily they tend only to kill themselves by being over bold and breaking the law. Drivers who are impatient and lazy (indicating is too much hassle, waiting for a safe place to overtake is just going to make them "late") kill cyclists.

@Janebirkin- sorry, wrong! "Road Tax" does not exist.
ipayroadtax.com/

Yes! You're right! I'm wrong! Someone already said that!

Look does it matter? Someone pays for the roads to be fixed and even if cyclists are part of that funding arrangement along with car and other vehicle users, there's so little damage caused by them that an exemption wouldn't be out of place.

Whatmeworry Tue 06-Dec-11 13:58:05
I think there are some terrible practices and lack of road etiquette by cyclists but in part that is because car drivers and lorry drivers etc, having overtaken them are then determined to stop the cyclists from making reasonable progress if the traffic flow slows (eg deliberately moving as far to the left as possible so that they cannot pass or get ahead at the lights)

It's called getting back into your lane after overtaking. It's not done to deliberately impede cyclists, its done so the oncoming traffic doesn't wallop you head on.

_

I'm not sure who you're quoting but you misunderstand. They're talking about moving over within your lane to stop cyclists getting through the small gap at the side of the road. I often move to the left in slow moving traffic but that's not to try and stop cyclists, it's to try and allow motorbikes past on the right.

Can't win really.

I agree there is a huge problem with road users. They slow you down, they fail to look where they are going, they disobey the rules of the road and they pull off crazy manoeuvres that put their life and mine in jeopardy.

Every one of us needs to make sure that we use the road with as much consideration for other users as we can, to remember that no-one has more right than anyone else to be on the road, and we all have a right to reach our destinations as safely as possible.

Two wrongs never make a right, so if you get irritated, upset or aggressive because of other people doing dangerous things, all you end up with is two dangerous idiots on the road. We all need to practice a little more zen on the roads.

This is just simply wrong. The roads are funded through general taxation: go look at your council's website. It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to show stupidity and ignorance of one of the basics of tax spending.

But thats just semantics - road tax, vehicle tax, call it what you like, you know what I mean - motor vehicles pay a tax to access the roads and have to display a licence every year to access those roads. Cycles do not.

If cycles want equal to access the roads, should they not pay a tax?

Also, if cyclists want to cycle on the road should they not be trequired to have driving licences? I think it explains a lot that some don't.

I'm not sure who you're quoting but you misunderstand. They're talking about moving over within your lane to stop cyclists getting through the small gap at the side of the road. I often move to the left in slow moving traffic but that's not to try and stop cyclists, it's to try and allow motorbikes past on the right.

No, I understand perfectly well. But, on narrow city roads with parked cars you move over left as far as you can so you are back on your side of the road, so as not to get collided wth. If a cyclist now can't get through on the left it is really not my problem, I value my lack of head on collision higher than their need to undertake.

One of the local school kids got hit last week, he rode his bike straight in to the road and in front of a car that had no hope of stopping, poor woman was so shaken.

I drive and I cycle and the same highway code applies to both, sadly a lot of people on bikes think it does not and they go through lights cut on and off the pavement and are oblivious to other road users

'No, I understand perfectly well. But, on narrow city roads with parked cars you move over left as far as you can so you are back on your side of the road, so as not to get collided wth. If a cyclist now can't get through on the left it is really not my problem, I value my lack of head on collision higher than their need to undertake.'

Yes but the prior conversation referred to lanes. You don't have lanes on narrow city roads with loads of parked cars. It's usually only one way traffic at a time.

You're still missing the point that poster was making, which was that sometimes drivers do move over deliberately and unnecessarily far to the left in a deliberate attempt to stop cyclists getting past on that side. For whatever reason.

this thread is from april

Yes, we realise that. But it seems it's still relevant as people clearly have a lot to say on the subject.

Whatmeworry You might want to read what the Highway Code actually says about undertaking. There is no specific offence of undertaking and it is accepted that there are times when a left hand lane (including a cycle lane) might be moving faster than a right hand lane. It is acceptable to continue to move with the flow of traffic in your lane at such times.

And unfortunately some people are deliberately trying to block cyclists. You are naive if you believe all drivers are too nice for this. I am not stating this as a cyclist (because I am too nervous to cycle on the roads) but as a driver who regularly witnesses it on the main road into the city including by some people that I have car shared with.

What does it matter if this thread is from April? Have cyclists, motorists, pedestrians all got so much better since then such that this is no longer an issue?

And unfortunately some people are deliberately trying to block cyclists. You are naive if you believe all drivers are too nice for this. I am not stating this as a cyclist (because I am too nervous to cycle on the roads) but as a driver who regularly witnesses it on the main road into the city including by some people that I have car shared with.

I drive into the city daily, and the last thing I want is some prat on a bicycle undertaking in my blind spot and jumping red lighst etc in complicated city traffic. If they want to use the roads they need to behave like other road vehicles.

Ah, so you block them deliberately then, do you? Is that what you're saying?

Ah, so you block them deliberately then, do you? Is that what you're saying?

No, I drive so that oncoming traffic doesn't hit me head on. I don't give a flying fuck if I therefore block a cyclist undertaking me, as they shouldn't be there.

Why shouldn't they be there? Did I miss a law or something?

Last night on the way home from work there was a cyclist going along a 50mile an hour road in the dark with no lights in dark clothing with a dog on a lead.

Isn't undertaking illegal?

Not specifically illegal at all (you could if cicumstances warranted it be done for dangerous driving or something like that potentially).

And positively recommended if you are moving with the flow of traffic in your own lane while other lanes have slowed.

Am I right in thinking that inwhatmeworry's situation the cyclist wasn't in a 'lane' though, just partaking of the same lane?

Why shouldn't they be there? Did I miss a law or something?

If there is another lane for them, fine - if not, they shouldn't be undertaking in my lane, that's dangerous driving. They should be behind me, in the lane.