AIBU in thinking that those on bikes should also be banned from using their mobile whilst cycling?

[Saltire]

A teenager today nearly ended up under the wheels of a lorry, he was weaving all over the road, no hands on the handlebars, chatting on his mobile. Another one had only one hand on handlebars, the other she was using to chat on her mobile and she too wasn't paying attention to what was going on around about her

They'd just ignore the ban, same as they ignore the laws on going through red lights, not cycling on pavements, etc. I nearly killed one yesterday as I drove across a junction when she sailed through the lights towards me without a thought. She glared at me too!

Same as you ignore the speed limits I assume.

I don't ingore any speed limits - I don't drive!

I was referring to AMumInScotland.

It's really not good to generalise about cyclists or drivers.

To be honest though what good has the mobile phone ban done for car drivers?
I still see people every single day flouting the law and carrying on regardless!!

EVERYONE should pay attention when using the roads doesnt matter what method they are travelling by

Someguy - was the comment about speed limits aimed at me? If so, you should know that I pulled out from the lights at the junction having carefully checked in all directions, and was doing about 15mph (in a 30 zone) at the time. Meanwhile, the cyclist continued through her red light at considerable speed, directly into my path. If I hadn't braked sharply, she would have been under my wheels, which would have been serious for her even at that low speed.

I have no problem with car drivers being required to obey the law, but I'd like it if cyclists were made to do the same, for all our safety.

totally agree - they should also be banned from using earphones while cycling as it limits their ability to hear traffic around them.

I'm just saying that pretty much every car driver breaks the speed limit. Illegal but still done.

Most cyclists do not jump red lights.

And as a metter of fact they set up traps in London for red-light jumping cyclists, who were fined. But obviously cars are very much more deadly than bicycles, and have number plates and registered owners so generally speaking it's a better and more practicable use of government resources to enforce road traffic laws against cars than bicycles.

I don't think I ever commute into work without seeing at least one cyclist go through a red light. I don't just mean going a little beyond the line before stopping - I can understand that is safer for them than being mixed up with the cars - but just going straight through as if it didn't apply to them.

And it causes accidents, not just to the cyclist but to the other road users. I'm glad to hear London has tried to raise awareness of the problem, and wish other cities would do the same.

I live in London and I would say that cyclists who do stop at red lights are in an overwhelming minority.

There does need to be some kind of legislation making them have insurance etc cos many many of them use the road/footpath in a very dangerous way.

Agree akhems. On our journey through central london every morning I would say that perhaps 2 out of 10 dont go through red lights.

I know people do do it, and probably commuters are worse than leisure cyclists. Unfortunately cities are dangerous for cyclists, with narrow streets, big articulated lorries that could kill you as they go round the bend, and some people think that going early is safer than getting caught up in the general throng of impatient drivers. I disagree them, but then I don't have to commute by bicycle, and put up with the fact that our cities are designed to encourage people to drive everywhere.

There's a video here:

hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/11/shopping-expedition.html of the Dutch approach

with another post on Dutch cycle lanes:

hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/04/tale-of-three-traffic-lights.html - massively wide, and running alongside a nasty main road

Elsewhere he notes that there are 850 cycle parking spots for 725 students at the school (and they are pretty much full).

The majority of people's journeys in this country should be done on foot or bicycle. Unfortunately that is not the case (in The Netherlands it is).

One of the benefits of proper cycling infrastructure would be fewer people shopping in out-of-town supermarkets (which are essentially massive car parks) and better use of our decaying high streets and the smaller shops you find there.

There does need to be some kind of legislation making them have insurance etc cos many many of them use the road/footpath in a very dangerous way.

The evidence wouldn't support your conclusion.

Cyclists kill on average 3 pedestrians per year. Ten times more people are killed by drivers on their mobile phones than by all cyclists.

13 times more pedestrians on pavements are killed by car drivers than by all cyclists. And cars definitely aren't supposed to be on the pavement (cyclists sometimes are, in shared use paths).

More cyclists means fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and fewer road deaths. Trying to deter people from cycling with insurance, when the evidence does not show a significant public liability issue from cycling, is not a good idea.

I'm a car driver but I have huge sympathy for cyclists in London as the narrowness of the roads and the number of lorries makes it incredibly dangerous. I fervently wish we could have one car free day a month in central london. Then my 3 kids and I could happily cycle the 1.5 miles to schools and I could then do the extra 2 miles to work.

Two things that drive me nuts about cyclists however are ones who cycle very slowly down the middle (rather than at the side) of a narrow street meaning you have to crawl along behind them at 5mph and secondly when you are indicating to turn right and they suddenly come racing up your right hand side - incredibly dangerous.

I think the reason they are cycling down the middle of the narrow street is obvious - it's narrow, and they don't want to be overtaken because it's dangerous.

Cycling in the middle of the lane is sensible, then you can move over to let cars past when it's safe.

If you cycle in the gutter you've nowhere to go if someone gets too close, and you're going to be riding over drain covers and such like.

Interestingly no one has said if IABU or not?

Someguy, I am not talking about cycling in the gutter but say 2-3 feet in (I have no trouble doing this when I cycle). I don't know how well you know London but there are millions of roads where it is by no means dangerous to overtake a cyclist but if one is bang on in the middle of the road, it's impossible to do so. It is unreasonable to expect car drivers to go along at 5mph for 200 yards or so.

Sometimes cyclists are dangerous when they go through a red light in the way AMuminScotland describes - sail through without a care for what may be coming or any pedestrians they may wound or disfigure if they hit them (it's not death or nothing, I'd rather not have my legs broken thanks all the same)

Others slow and red lights and then go through if it is safe for them to do so and there are no pedestrians. This is sensible, as it puts them ahead of the traffic once it all starts roaring off when the lights change.

I think it is reasonable for the rules of the road to be more liberally interpreted by cyclists, but I think it is crucial that cyclists treat pedestrians with the care that they expect (rightly) from motorists. The death figures are fine, but you can do someone serious damage knocking them down on a bicycle and you need to remember that. People on or in fast-moving hunks of metal need to take care of the well-being of others.

Also, if you must cycle on the footpath (not shared) don't you dare ring your bell at me to get out of your way. That is MY space if I'm walking, you are an uninvited (and unwelcome guest) and you don't get to boss people around.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect car drivers to slow down behind other vehicles that are travelling more slowly.

#One of the benefits of proper cycling infrastructure would be fewer people shopping in out-of-town supermarkets (which are essentially massive car parks) and better use of our decaying high streets and the smaller shops you find there#

I suspect that damage has been done: after all the out of towners are there now, as are the very many jobs focussed in them. DH used to work on a similar centre. You can't get people togothere for the weekly shop on bikes andfew places have dece3nt shops left- a better solution would be free buses provided from housing areas etc.

Society has already uilt itself around the engine and there's no point fighting it- sxhool catchemnts and working loves make car use a necessity for very many people. It's working with the realities of life and finding solutions- school bus routes should be explanded for examle- that we can moderate traffic.

Really? So you'd happily drive along in first gear at 5mph because a cyclist was pedalling very slowly in the middle of the road rather than moving say 2 feet to one side when it was perfectly safe to do so? Wuuld you be happy if a say a horse went walking down the midle of the road rather than to the side? What about a motorised wheelchair? Or how about a kid on a scooter?

I am perfectly happy with cycllists going 20mph as that is the right speed for most London backstreets. As I said in my post, I am referring to people who are cycling "very slowly".