Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Probably going to get slagged for this but oh well. I have a low opinion of cyclists anyways so if they're mad at me I don't really care!

So these days there are a lot of cyclists on the road. And I can't say I'm impressed. I've never seen one use a proper hand signal, I see them riding across crosswalks, in the middle of the lane, and in general taking the best of both pedestrian and motorist world's but not any responsibility!

I have long been displeased with sharing the road with such careless idiots but after last night's episode, I am going to do something about it.


I've decided to start a petition to require cyclists to hold a license and posses insurance and to be more strictly bound by the rules of the road. It only makes sense. All other vehicles using public roads must be insured and driven by licensed drivers. Why do cyclists get a free pass? Especially when they are so much more vulnerable to fatal harm! Plus, think of all the money that would make for insurance companies and police. Of course, this would require that children under a certain age be allowed to ride their bikes on the sidewalk to keep untrained, unlicensed and uninsured riders off the streets, but that's where children should be riding anyways. Much like a driver's license a cyclist license would require a written test for a learner's permit followed by a probationary period and then another written test as well as a road test for the full non restricted license. Of course there would have to be a zero intoxication policy for cyclists as well.

I think such measures need to be adopted immediately to keep everyone on the road safe. We would see a sharp increase in the ability of cyclists as those unfit to operate a bicycle would no longer be allowed to do so. The number of accidents involving cyclists would over time dramatically decrease as new riders would have the proper knowledge of road safety and the valuable experience only real world conditions can provide. We let 16 year olds drive cars. Is it really that much of a stretch to hold cyclists to the same legal standards as everyone else on the road? I hardly think so. Is it really so tyranical to keep unsafe people off the road?

License and insurance is a bit overkill I think. But they should definitely be cracked down more by law enforcement. Cyclists get away with violating rules of the road too often. They need to be held to the standards and rules that they are, on paper, subject to.

I remember cycling home to Watford after meeting a friend near Euston in the very early hours of the morning on a weekend. This was around the turn of the century +/- one year.

I was stopped by police while cycling on the main multi-lane trunk road, near the North Circular. I had been cycling legally, it was mild and dry, well lit and the road was mostly empty.

'I want you to cycle on the footpath' said the officer. I looked at him puzzled through the car window.

"It's not usual but I would like you to cycle on the footpath" he repeated.

I looked around, the road was clear little to no traffic.

"You are the third cyclist we have met tonight on this stretch of road. "Neither of the other two survived, I don't want to have to talk to a third family."

I cant remember how I replied but afterwards I picked up my bicycle placed it over the curb onto the pavement, and went on my way.

In the US, most places we just deal with the self-important donkey-caves who ride on public roads for exercise during busy traffic hours...exercising their "right" to cycle on the road at 15-20 mph while stacking up traffic behind them.

Yeah, it's pretty bad in various places I've been

Outside DC, they'd be on two lane roads during rush-hour as people tried to avoid the major arteries and back up traffic even more terribly.

In Boston, they were complete idiots that jumped from the road to the sidewalks, in front of street cars and through crosswalks with nary a thought or hesitation. The crosswalks always particularly bothered me, as on foot, you're either paying attention and moving when it changes, or you won't be across when it flips back. Adding aggro cyclists to the equation screwed things up massively.

Around where I am currently, the cyclists seem completely oblivious to the fact that they ride on backroads that are posted at 40 miles per hour with numerous blind curves (blocked by trees and hills). How we don't end up with deaths every week is a mystery to me, especially since the local drivers are usually at the speed limit +/- 10, and on the curvier roads, the lanes are taken as mere suggestions (and in a lot of cases the drivers can't handle the turns at the speed they're driving).

And unfortunately a lot of members of the state DMV are bicycle enthusiasts and want to encourage more people to cycle on the state's 'beautiful back roads.'

Where I am, cyclists don't REQUIRE a licence or insurance - BUT if they DO have a licence, then any road offences they get busted for (as they are subject to most of the same road rules as drivers are, including speed restrictions in certain areas), then those demerits will get racked up against their licence and if they accrue enough, they will have their driving licence suspended.

Things like not signalling properly for turns (I know of three cyclists in my area who DO know them, and who use them properly - hand signals just aren't TAUGHT anymore), riding on the footpath (when it's not a shared cycleway) if they are >12 and not supervising a child also on a bicycle, speeding, failure to give way (yield), run a red light, tag onto motor vehicles, etc.

The only way they usually get caught is if they manage to do something stupid in front of a police officer (on foot, in a car or on a bicycle as we have bicycle patrols in the inner city areas, too) or during a "blitz" when they target "known" trouble spots and do a crack down.

 darkcloak wrote:
I've decided to start a petition to require cyclists to hold a license and posses insurance and to be more strictly bound by the rules of the road. It only makes sense. All other vehicles using public roads must be insured and driven by licensed drivers. Why do cyclists get a free pass?

Because they are not driving a death machine that can kill on a catastrophic level in the right situation.

This is a pretty bad idea and it wont go anywhere.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
I've decided to start a petition to require cyclists to hold a license and posses insurance and to be more strictly bound by the rules of the road. It only makes sense. All other vehicles using public roads must be insured and driven by licensed drivers. Why do cyclists get a free pass?

Because they are not driving a death machine that can kill on a catastrophic level in the right situation.

This is a pretty bad idea and it wont go anywhere.

I agree it's kind of absurd to hold Cyclists to the same level as automobile drivers...

But then again cyclists are kind of gigantic ass hats a solid 75% of the time, and it would be really nice if we did something about it like citing them for not using proper signals, riding on the road when there's a perfectly good sidewalk/bike lane right there, and other blatantly irresponsible behavior.

Never had a problem with cyclists around here. But this is SoCal; there's so much road traffic chances are that any cyclists pushing it would be taught a very forceful lesson in natural selection.

Why the need for a license and insurance when you could, I dunno, make more cycling paths? Actually create a more bicycle friendly environment? Though I must admit I am not sure what the infrastructure in Canada and the US is like, so that might be a process that would take years if not decades.

So these days there are a lot of cyclists on the road. And I can't say I'm impressed. I've never seen one use a proper hand signal, I see them riding across crosswalks, in the middle of the lane, and in general taking the best of both pedestrian and motorist world's but not any responsibility!

I can tell you that I have yet to encounter a motorist that would take any responsibility whatsoever, the moment they can get away with not taking it. Granted, I do have the massive advantage of living in a country where there's a ton of cycling paths literally everywhere.

Of course, this would require that children under a certain age be allowed to ride their bikes on the sidewalk to keep untrained, unlicensed and uninsured riders off the streets, but that's where children should be riding anyways.

No no no no! Just because they're children does not mean they should be exempt from requiring a license and insurance in your plans. Children can either get the required license and ride their bikes on the road properly, or they can walk. Why should pedestrians have to share their sidewalk with someone using a vehicle dangerous enough to require a license?

Much like a driver's license a cyclist license would require a written test for a learner's permit followed by a probationary period and then another written test as well as a road test for the full non restricted license. Of course there would have to be a zero intoxication policy for cyclists as well.

This seems fair, despite drunk cyclists being more of a danger to themselves than anyone else. Much unlike drunk motorists I might add. On a related note, do make sure to include a few rules in regards to cyclists turning on their damn lights when it gets dark outside!

The number of accidents involving cyclists would over time dramatically decrease as new riders would have the proper knowledge of road safety and the valuable experience only real world conditions can provide.

Now we know this is untrue, seen as a good portion of said accidents also involve people who are driving a car. Now if the people who drive cars were to also start following the rules instead of ignoring them whenever they feel like it, we possibly would be seeing said dramatic decrease in accidents. Just think about it, no more speeding, no more ignoring red lights, no more drunk driving, no more driving away after causing an accident, that would be so good!

 Cruxeh wrote:
Why the need for a license and insurance when you could, I dunno, make more cycling paths?

That's too sensible a solution and would require government funds (aka "stop taxing me to death providing me with solutions to all the things I complain about I want the solutions and my money!") so it'll never happen.

Also to be fair where this is often the biggest problem are metro areas which are highly packed in the US and designed around car traffic, not cyclists, and it would be quite expensive to offer meaningful reconstruction to accommodate the growing trend.

I'd like to put forward that most of those "dangerous" cyclist stunts aren't. Because we combine high agility with a high awareness of the traffic around us that people in a sealed metal box can't even dream of, while also moving fast enough that our brains don't go in that oblivious, zombie-like trance that pedestrians suffer from.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'd like to put forward that most of those "dangerous" cyclist stunts aren't. Because we combine high agility with a high awareness of the traffic around us that people in a sealed metal box can't even dream of, while also moving fast enough that our brains don't go in that oblivious, zombie-like trance that pedestrians suffer from.

That's a very high horse you have there. Careful not to fall off dear chap.

I agree that cyclists need to take more responsibility, but licensing them is a bit much - insurance though is something I could support. If you share the road with another vehicle and you manage to accidentally damage a car etc. With your bike, then you SHOULD be held responsible.

My house is blocks off of Purdue University campus, I've lost count of the number of times cyclists and even pedestrians from the college have cause traffic issues, most of them being someone losing control of their car trying to avoid some idiot who just decides to cross traffic in the middle of the day away from an intersection without lifting their fething eyes from their smart phone. Yes, even while RIDING A fething BICYCLE. Those new BIRD scooters are only making it worse.

I totally agree with the OP. I work near Euston and even though it's a short walk, the number of cyclists who are ignorant of the highway code is quite worrying.

You get the light runners, the ones who go "if I just cruise through the light really slowly no-one will notice", ones who mount the pavement to go round a corner then rejoin traffic. I've almost been hit quite a few times, and on the rare occasion where I've been able to shout out at them stating that it was a red light, the looks I get from them, it's like I've just taken a crap on their mothers' grave.

It's wrong to paint all cyclists with the same brush, but it's the sheer arrogance I see from people who do this. I've seen the issue discussed in person and online and the overall feeling I've seen from cyclists is "well not as many people are killed by bikes" in a typical case of Whataboutism.

One particular example I saw was a cyclist complaining on Facebook about how a car went into him as he was approaching a roundabout. He was saying how his bike was ruined and he broke a couple of ribs, and then posted a photo indicating where he was hit on the road, which was a chevroned area that vehicles (including cyclists) are not allowed to enter. Despite this he was adamant that the driver was in the wrong.

I'm not sure licencing or insurance would work, as bikes as a whole are much easier to sell, steal and build yourself, and there may be a huge proportion who fall through the gaps, but overall there needs to be tougher laws on how they act on the road.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
I've decided to start a petition to require cyclists to hold a license and posses insurance and to be more strictly bound by the rules of the road. It only makes sense. All other vehicles using public roads must be insured and driven by licensed drivers. Why do cyclists get a free pass?

Because they are not driving a death machine that can kill on a catastrophic level in the right situation.

This is a pretty bad idea and it wont go anywhere.

I agree it's kind of absurd to hold Cyclists to the same level as automobile drivers...

But then again cyclists are kind of gigantic ass hats a solid 75% of the time, and it would be really nice if we did something about it like citing them for not using proper signals, riding on the road when there's a perfectly good sidewalk/bike lane right there, and other blatantly irresponsible behavior.

Cyclists should not ride on sidewalks. They are often not big enough for a biker and a pedestrian passing and it can be dangerous.

I'd be broadly opposed to this although I would like to see some form of cyclist training, perhaps as part of PE in schools or something similar so that cyclists are better aware of the rules of the road.

Unfortunately, having spent many years driving in London I find it hard to have much sympathy for cyclists since I've seen far too many who seem to regard the rules of the road as optional, ignoring red lights and no turn junctions, failing to signal and riding the wrong way up one-way streets are all pretty typical. One that does bug me is those who insist on riding on the road when there's a cycle path or lane for them.

But then again cyclists are kind of gigantic ass hats a solid 75% of the time, and it would be really nice if we did something about it like citing them for not using proper signals, riding on the road when there's a perfectly good sidewalk/bike lane right there, and other blatantly irresponsible behavior.

IIRC in the UK at least cyclists can be penalised as road users and even if they haven't got a driving licence they can be given points on it, meaning that if they decide to try for a licence they could find themselves starting out with points or an effective ban before their first lesson. It doesn't tend to happen much to be fair though since for the most part the Police have got more pressing things to deal with than a cyclist running a red light, but they can do it and I have seen cyclists pulled over.

I'd like to put forward that most of those "dangerous" cyclist stunts aren't. Because we combine high agility with a high awareness of the traffic around us that people in a sealed metal box can't even dream of, while also moving fast enough that our brains don't go in that oblivious, zombie-like trance that pedestrians suffer from.

I disagree. Partly because it seems that many cyclists don't take this traffic awareness to include things like the blind spots or turning circles of motor vehicles and I've seen more than a few who are either ignorant of the rules of the road and general good road use (What in the UK is covered in a publication called the Highway Code) or deliberately ignore them. I honestly don't care how agile you are or how good you think your situational awareness is, if you're under-cutting lorries and trucks on their blind side and running red lights you are behaving dangerously and illegally and I've seen stuff like that happen far too often.

I'm certainly not saying that all cyclists are like this (Or that all motorists are saints either, that's definitely not the case by any stretch!), but in my experience of over a decade of London driving it certainly seems that those cyclists who could be considered good road users are in the minority.

Perhaps a compromise might be mandatory training/retraining for those who are pulled up for traffic offences, followed by increasingly stiffer penalties for repeated infractions, but without going down the route of requiring licence plates for cycles, it would be very time consuming to enforce a licence and insurance scheme for riders.

While we are at it can we introduce harsher penalties for drivers who run red lights, drive while using their phones and break the speed limit.
Because I think all of those things are an order of magnitude more dangerous than anything a cyclist can do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 simonr1978 wrote:
I'd be broadly opposed to this although I would like to see some form of cyclist training, perhaps as part of PE in schools or something similar so that cyclists are better aware of the rules of the road.

Unfortunately, having spent many years driving in London I find it hard to have much sympathy for cyclists since I've seen far too many who seem to regard the rules of the road as optional, ignoring red lights and no turn junctions, failing to signal and riding the wrong way up one-way streets are all pretty typical. One that does bug me is those who insist on riding on the road when there's a cycle path or lane for them.
.

Go and have a close look at the state of some cycle paths near you. At best, they are completely impractical for actually trying to get anywhere and often downright dangerous.

Driving whilst using your phone is already 6 points meaning that the second time you do so is effectively up to a two year driving ban and depending on the amount you go over the speed limit by you can be instantly disqualified, all of these involve fines too. They seem reasonably tough to me.

Go and have a close look at the state of some cycle paths near you. At best, they are completely impractical for actually trying to get anywhere and often downright dangerous.

I was driving round London when the cycle highways were introduced, brand new separated safe paths especially for cyclists and more than a few still insisted on using the road even though there was a much safer, practical alternative right next to them. That's their choice I guess, but if you're going to cycle on the road that means that all the signs and signals apply to you too, even when it's inconvenient.

 simonr1978 wrote:
Driving whilst using your phone is already 6 points meaning that the second time you do so is effectively up to a two year driving ban and depending on the amount you go over the speed limit by you can be instantly disqualified, all of these involve fines too. They seem reasonably tough to me.

Could do with being enforced then.

Go and have a close look at the state of some cycle paths near you. At best, they are completely impractical for actually trying to get anywhere and often downright dangerous.

I was driving round London when the cycle highways were introduced, brand new separated safe paths especially for cyclists and more than a few still insisted on using the road even though there was a much safer, practical alternative right next to them. That's their choice I guess, but if you're going to cycle on the road that means that all the signs and signals apply to you too, even when it's inconvenient.

I used to cycle, and having a driving license, I was liable for anything the Highway Code said I was doing wrong. Being a driver too, I paid my road tax, the same as any driver.
I'd use the few cycle lanes there were, having to dodge pedestrians in them.
Where the road went the wrong way, I'd use the path, giving the pedestrians the right-of-way over me.
Hand signals were ignored by the drivers,. I'd follow a road round where the marking said it turned, and a car just kept going straight, turning off where he imagined I was going. There are no hand signals for 'I'm just following the road'.
Lights in dim light, not just in the dark. High-vis waistcoat and helmet.

But, I was in a small minority of cyclists. Most give the rest of us a bad name.
More cycle lanes is a good start, but the majority will ignore them. Most of the UK's city and town roads are old, and only really big enough for a large car at most. Buses and lorries have to squeeze through. There's no room for a small squishy vehicle to go up against that for long.

I see 1-2 police cars a month, and never see a car pulled over for whatever offense they were suspected of. Laws are a waste of time, as they're unenforceable, and all the cyclist has to do is say they don't have ID on them. There are no number plates for bikes, and nowhere to put one. Dash-cams cannot identify most cyclists without one.

Always love it when motorists get all Jeremy Clarkson about cyclists.

Has a cyclist ever spat at you as they rode past? Ever thrown stuff at you? Ever ridden right up on your back wheels and stayed there lurching forward and ringing their little bell? Ever sandwiched you in so close to parked cars that you had to emergency brake to avoid being taken out by a wing mirror? Because that's a sample of what motorists has done to me or folk I know who ride bikes just in the last year. One driver followed a colleague of mine home to her house after he decided she had affronted his god-given right to drive like a fething maniac.

It's genuinely amazing how warped the perceptions of motorists get, when the reality is most cyclists involved in accidents are victims of malice or incompetence on the part of car drivers. As to riding on pavements - yeah, a lot of us do sometimes, we've learned from experience that there are sections of road that it's too dangerous to risk sharing them with you lot. I mean seriously, how many folk are killed every year because of motorists? And how many because someone rode a bike on a pavement? Yeah, exactly.

If you want less accidents on the road involving cyclists, try training motorists to drop their imperious I Own The Road Puny Cyclists Make Way attitude problem.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Always love it when motorists get all Jeremy Clarkson about cyclists.

Has a cyclist ever spat at you as they rode past? Ever thrown stuff at you? Ever ridden right up on your back wheels and stayed there lurching forward and ringing their little bell? Ever sandwiched you in so close to parked cars that you had to emergency brake to avoid being taken out by a wing mirror? Because that's a sample of what motorists has done to me or folk I know who ride bikes just in the last year. One driver followed a colleague of mine home to her house after he decided she had affronted his god-given right to drive like a fething maniac.

It's genuinely amazing how warped the perceptions of motorists get, when the reality is most cyclists involved in accidents are victims of malice or incompetence on the part of car drivers. As to riding on pavements - yeah, a lot of us do sometimes, we've learned from experience that there are sections of road that it's too dangerous to risk sharing them with you lot. I mean seriously, how many folk are killed every year because of motorists? And how many because someone rode a bike on a pavement? Yeah, exactly.

If you want less accidents on the road involving cyclists, try training motorists to drop their imperious I Own The Road Puny Cyclists Make Way attitude problem.

I like this post.
I wasn't going to be so aggressive, but yeah, I cycle every day and am put in danger by impatient and careless drivers most days.
I can't think of any times I have ever put a car driver in danger.

A few thoughts:

1) I think that a licence might be unenforceable at a practical level. Cars at least have a licence plate and registration system so there's a bit more ability for police to potentially spot issues - ergo if a car is registered to a granny and yet the driver is a teenager there is clearly something going on. Police in the UK also have a lot more access in their cars now to the central databases for checking these things, its one reason that we don't have to display tax disks any more because now the police can instantly check based on the numberplate.
Yes people still get away with things, but at least the police have a means to track it.

Unless a number plate system for cycles were brought in, police would have no means to tell if a cyclist had or did not have a licence without pulling them over - and the road police force today just hasn't got the manpower to do that.

2) I would personally like to see a licence system and formal training system pushed through for cycling on the roads. Heck I personally think practical road driving theory (not just the theory test) should be taught in schools as a core subject, considering that barring a few major urban areas, most people will end up driving and if not cycling or at least using the roads. It's a core skill, yet to me its almost insanity that we don't actually each anything except "look both ways and then cross" until people are well into their older teenage years or past uni.

3) I think cyclists should learn road safety and road theory. This isn't just about them obeying the rules of the road, but its also about making things safer for them and other drivers. By teaching them how the road actually works and formally instructing them they lean invaluable information on how a car driver (the most dangerous thing to a cyclist) is going to think about road driving. How they are expecting traffic to behave (ergo how the cyclist should behave) as well as what they are and are not looking for at turnings, roundabouts etc...
Basically by arming the cyclist with the same level of training as a car driver when it comes to using the road and reading the road, the cyclist is thus able to be far safer. Not just because now they actually know how it works (rather than cobbling it together through trial and error and copy-catting other cyclists); but also because now they know how the other road users are expecting them to behave.
It makes for a far safer environment and also reinforces the importance of things like cycle lanes to cyclists.

4) I agree the best solution is more cycle lanes and wider roads and more provision for more cyclists and other road users. However the costs here are phenomenal (esp as just upkeep of many road networks is under pressure with increased weight and volume of traffic)

5) I agree its not all cyclists - there are bad drivers too who can cause many issues. eg the horseriding groups are having a lot more awareness campaigns in the UK due to heavier road use in the countryside and many people driving very fast around blind corners and the like; not to mention not behaving correctly when encountering a rider and horse (or even other livestock using the roads).

6) I further think that another way to improve things is to lower the number of cars on the roads. Better infrastructure and cheaper public transport is needed. Over the last 10-20 years the road traffic has gone quite nuts; even country villages and towns now often have one half of the road blocked up with peoples cars parked up. Car ownership is great, but at the same time many countries (esp in the UK) are putting far too much pressure on the network that just isn't designed to cope with it - and building more roads and wider roads isn't the solution, its a patch which comes with increased running costs and also continued loss of land to more tarmac.

7) I think cyclists should be legally allowed to use the pavement without needing a dedicated cycle path. I think it allows cyclists (riders and other none motorized road users) to move off the road and use a safer travelling pathway. Exceptions might be near things like traffic lights or such, but otherwise the pavement should be open to cyclists - its open to mobility scooters

 Valkyrie wrote:
I totally agree with the OP. I work near Euston and even though it's a short walk, the number of cyclists who are ignorant of the highway code is quite worrying.

I cycled near Euston a lot, but now a long time ago. I didn't cycle from 2002 to 2007, I had no need, and when I returned to the road I noticed a marked decrease in driver quality in London, I stopped and never restarted.

 Valkyrie wrote:

You get the light runners, the ones who go "if I just cruise through the light really slowly no-one will notice", ones who mount the pavement to go round a corner then rejoin traffic. I've almost been hit quite a few times, and on the rare occasion where I've been able to shout out at them stating that it was a red light, the looks I get from them, it's like I've just taken a crap on their mothers' grave.

I have done all of these things, regularly. Including unsavoury looks at people who shout at me.

Let me tell you why.

I might inconvenience you, but your (collective) crap driving might kill me.

 Valkyrie wrote:

It's wrong to paint all cyclists with the same brush, but it's the sheer arrogance I see from people who do this. I've seen the issue discussed in person and online and the overall feeling I've seen from cyclists is "well not as many people are killed by bikes" in a typical case of Whataboutism.

Bicycles can kill but it is rare. There was a case in London of a cyclist killing a pedestrian, it was odd enough it hit the news. The cyclist was pedalling flat out on an open section of road and the pedestrian was a phone zombie who stepped out on front of him.

Cars kill a lot of the time, and cyclist deaths only make the news if the victim is significant in most cases. Articulated busses are even worse.

 Valkyrie wrote:

One particular example I saw was a cyclist complaining on Facebook about how a car went into him as he was approaching a roundabout. He was saying how his bike was ruined and he broke a couple of ribs, and then posted a photo indicating where he was hit on the road, which was a chevroned area that vehicles (including cyclists) are not allowed to enter. Despite this he was adamant that the driver was in the wrong.

We consider those chevroned areas to be relatively safe zones, cars shouldn't be in them causing d6 impact hits. The car driver was still in the wrong.

 Valkyrie wrote:

I'm not sure licencing or insurance would work, as bikes as a whole are much easier to sell, steal and build yourself, and there may be a huge proportion who fall through the gaps, but overall there needs to be tougher laws on how they act on the road.

I break road rules in full sight of the police. Its a matter of how it is done. cyclists are on the quiet expected to run red lights at junctions. It is why you now have cyclist boxes in front on most traffic light zones. Where there isn't run the light and stop in front of the line. Car drivers only care about that red light turning back to green, not the guy with a 6+ save close to their car. If you run the light and stop the other side they will see you.

Car drivers also look only for car driver signals. The number of times I ended up making a left turn because some C-word in a car decided to turn left while parallel to me are beyond count. Once this took me onto a dangerous dual-carriageway because an old codger decided he would turn without slowing while parallel to me. It had to both brake and turn to avoid an accident, he didn't even notice. Car drivers don't give a feth, one has to match turn or go under their wheels.

There there are pot holes. Lot of those in London then as now. Wimbledon was very bad for potholes, deep enough to damage a cyclists wheels but not deep enough to more than inconvenience cars, so a low priority. Some of those were a quarter of the way into the road from the curve. I remember a curved section of road I travelled daily from Wimbledon to Acton where the road widened to two lanes at a junction. I had to cycle far enough into the road to avoid the potholes that some drivers would assume I am at the left hand side of the right hand lane, or heading that way and muscle in by overtaking on the inside.
Even been exposed on a bicycle when a White Van Man is trying to overtake you on the inside? It was about 8:30am he was probably trying to rush to make a delivery. He hit me overtaking on the inside with his wing mirror. Then carried on then pulled up directly in front of me forcing a hard break just beyond the junction and got out to demand my details. He said I was in the wrong lane for turning right, I wasn't turning right and didn't signal that either, I was in the left hand lane about two thirds of the way over due to potholes, and forced the rest of the way by being overtaken on the inside by several cars and and his van.

While on the subject of lanes, cyclists should never cycle near the curb, no matter what people say to the contrary. It is far more dangerous. Not only does the curb area not get sweeped so it has more broken glass to avoid, but it has more and worse potholes road edging etc. However the main reason is that if you are cycling near the curb people will overtake without slowing, if you cycle about a third of the way into the road cars have to take notice of you.
Police are now supportive of cycling further into the road for this reason. Trying to get out of the way of cars doesn't do any good, because it makes you easier to ignore.

As for pavement cycling, there are places where I will habitually do so. In Harrow through to Wimbledon there are some very old roads, and as a result they are rather narrow. Cars have zero patience for a cyclist on a narrow road, so a cycle on the pavement. Occasionally I get comments from some pedestrians, but I am careful around them and slow down as needed. Never had any problems from the police though, they know that road. Police ignore pavement cyclists if they do so with the proper helmet and are clearly slow ad careful around pedestrians.

Also town council s like to put in cyclepaths, but as a form of 'tick a box' publicity rather than coherent policy. This means that while cyclepaths are welcome they are often very short and only placed in where there was spare road width, not where they were needed, One set of dual lane cyclepaths in Bushey along the same route stopped and started on diagonal ends of a very busy four land double crossing. Yes cyclepaths are good but how the feth was I supposed to get from one section to the other, alive. If I did make it diagonally across all eight lanes the section of cyclepaths it was only dual lane for one hundred yards. So to obey road traffic to the letter I had to cycle on the cyclepath, cross eight lanes diagonally continue a hundred yards then cross four lanes back to cycle legally. So we just ignored it. Often cyclepaths are put in so a council they have gone green and included x hundred metres of cycle paths on roads. Whether they safely connect or not is not relevant to this statistic.


Yes, cyclists slow down urban traffic. Yes, cyclists break rules of the road. I make zero apologies for this. Bad car drivers kill cyclists and our priority is avoiding that, not making car drivers happy.

 simonr1978 wrote:
I'd be broadly opposed to this although I would like to see some form of cyclist training, perhaps as part of PE in schools or something similar so that cyclists are better aware of the rules of the road.

Unfortunately, having spent many years driving in London I find it hard to have much sympathy for cyclists since I've seen far too many who seem to regard the rules of the road as optional, ignoring red lights and no turn junctions, failing to signal and riding the wrong way up one-way streets are all pretty typical. One that does bug me is those who insist on riding on the road when there's a cycle path or lane for them.

Outside of a few special roads such as motorways, everyone - in a motor vehicle, on a bike, on foot, on a horse, a space hopper, etc is entitled to use the roads (and since vehicle excise duty isn't ring-fenced for road maintenance, the car drivers don't "pay for the roads"), although walking up the middle of a busy A road isn't advised. More importantly, a lot of cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose; they give way to every side road or private driveway, they're part-time or filled with parked cars, they don't go anywhere useful and they're full of potholes, drain covers, leaves and other detritus. In those cases, then I entirely understand why they ignore the white lines painted on the pavement by the council and cycle on the road. if they do so properly, there's no issue. they won't even hold drivers up much, given the low speeds of city-centre driving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Bicycles can kill but it is rare. There was a case in London of a cyclist killing a pedestrian, it was odd enough it hit the news. The cyclist was pedalling flat out on an open section of road and the pedestrian was a phone zombie who stepped out on front of him.

... on a fixie with no front brake. I don't know if it had a rear brake or if the cyclist just relied on the resistance of his own legs to slow his bike; my understanding is that is technically legal, but definitely not recommended. The article I read suggested that if his bike had had a front brake fitted, he would have been able to stop in time.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I totally agree with the OP. I work near Euston and even though it's a short walk, the number of cyclists who are ignorant of the highway code is quite worrying.

I cycled near Euston a lot, but now a long time ago. I didn't cycle from 2002 to 2007, I had no need, and when I returned to the road I noticed a marked decrease in driver quality in London, I stopped and never restarted.

 Valkyrie wrote:

You get the light runners, the ones who go "if I just cruise through the light really slowly no-one will notice", ones who mount the pavement to go round a corner then rejoin traffic. I've almost been hit quite a few times, and on the rare occasion where I've been able to shout out at them stating that it was a red light, the looks I get from them, it's like I've just taken a crap on their mothers' grave.

I have done all of these things, regularly. Including unsavoury looks at people who shout at me.

Let me tell you why.

I might inconvenience you, but your (collective) crap driving might kill me.

Ok I'll first state that I don't drive in London at all, not a dig at anyone but just clarifying that this is from a pedestrian viewpoint.

When you run a red light, you're not inconveniencing me, you're putting both our safety at risk. If I'm crossing the road at a red light, your decision to ignore it might severely injure both of us.

 Valkyrie wrote:

It's wrong to paint all cyclists with the same brush, but it's the sheer arrogance I see from people who do this. I've seen the issue discussed in person and online and the overall feeling I've seen from cyclists is "well not as many people are killed by bikes" in a typical case of Whataboutism.

Bicycles can kill but it is rare. There was a case in London of a cyclist killing a pedestrian, it was odd enough it hit the news. The cyclist was pedalling flat out on an open section of road and the pedestrian was a phone zombie who stepped out on front of him.

Cars kill a lot of the time, and cyclist deaths only make the news if the victim is significant in most cases. Articulated busses are even worse.

I mean this respectfully, but I wonder how many of these cyclist injuries/deaths are caused by not following traffic rules rather than the angry murderous motorist.

 Valkyrie wrote:

One particular example I saw was a cyclist complaining on Facebook about how a car went into him as he was approaching a roundabout. He was saying how his bike was ruined and he broke a couple of ribs, and then posted a photo indicating where he was hit on the road, which was a chevroned area that vehicles (including cyclists) are not allowed to enter. Despite this he was adamant that the driver was in the wrong.

We consider those chevroned areas to be relatively safe zones, cars shouldn't be in them causing d6 impact hits. The car driver was still in the wrong.

My recollection from the cycling handbook I had as a child was to cycle at least a metre (3') out from the kerb (or from the edge of a parked car, etc). When driving, I try to pull completely over into the next lane to pass cyclists - or as far over as I can get if that's not possible.

Still, there's not much you can do in the case of the fool I came across a few years ago - a grown adult on a kid's BMX wobbling about on the wrong side of the road in the dark with no lights. It's lucky I saw him at the brow of a rise silhouetted against the sky.

I'm in favor of cyclists paying for licenses. And insurance. And tax. And being required by law to use a cycle lane as much as possible.

There are two roads in my city that I frequent which have very good cycle lanes on them. And yet it's still not enough. Cyclists completely ignore them and ride out in the middle of the road anyway, slowing everyone else down...except when they come to a red light. Then they suddenly decide that the cycle lane is good enough after all and jump onto it asap. And they're always the sort who wear full cycling gear and stick cameras on their helmets. I don't care what anyone says, these ones are 'trouble makers' who are trying to make a point and bait others into a situation, hence the cameras.

I'll post pics of these cycle lanes asap. They're not just a bit of paint at the edge of the road. They're fething huge. They're actually two lanes with space for bikes to travel both ways. One of them is even separated from the road by a concrete divider. There's no reason for anyone cycling to not be using them.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
My recollection from the cycling handbook I had as a child was to cycle at least a metre (3') out from the kerb (or from the edge of a parked car, etc). When driving, I try to pull completely over into the next lane to pass cyclists - or as far over as I can get if that's not possible.

Still, there's not much you can do in the case of the fool I came across a few years ago - a grown adult on a kid's BMX wobbling about on the wrong side of the road in the dark with no lights. It's lucky I saw him at the brow of a rise silhouetted against the sky.

You cannot legislate for morons!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm in favor of cyclists paying for licenses. And insurance. And tax. And being required by law to use a cycle lane as much as possible.

There are two roads in my city that I frequent which have very good cycle lanes on them. And yet it's still not enough. Cyclists completely ignore them and ride out in the middle of the road anyway, slowing everyone else down...except when they come to a red light. Then they suddenly decide that the cycle lane is good enough after all and jump onto it asap. And they're always the sort who wear full cycling gear and stick cameras on their helmets. I don't care what anyone says, these ones are 'trouble makers' who are trying to make a point and bait others into a situation, hence the cameras.

I'll post pics of these cycle lanes asap. They're not just a bit of paint at the edge of the road. They're fething huge. They're actually two lanes with space for bikes to travel both ways. One of them is even separated from the road by a concrete divider. There's no reason for anyone cycling to not be using them.

What tax?

Do pedestrians need a licence for crossing the road too?