cyclists versus motorists

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

Failing to comply with a red light signal or a no-entry sign is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, (level 3 offence, for which the penalty under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is 3 points and discretionary disqualification) There's no exemption for pedal cyclists but in practice, I don't know of any case where the level 3 penalty has been applied though.


Kitty

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:31 PM

As LTS has said above, a cyclist can be charged with being drunk in charge of a bicycle, for which the penalty can be a fine or imprisonment. In the same way, a person can be charged with being drunk in charge of a pram (with child).
Also there are laws relating to bicycles equivalent to the Construction And Use rules relating to motor vehichles. (Now, you didn't know THEY existed, did you?)
The laws for bicycles relate to the carrying and maintenance of brakes, reflectors, lighs, bells or audible warning instruments, and the general safety of the cycle for the user and other road users.
There are also laws relating to the use of mobile phones (as with a car driver, not to be used while the vehicle is in motion) and headphones connected to a music or audio player of any description.

Unfortunately, thje majority of modern coppers are totally unaware of these laws, although most of them have been in force for in excess of 50 years.
Also, if a copper tries to bring a prosecution against little Jimmy for riding his bike with defective brakes, no lights after dark and while wearing headphones connected to his iPod, the whole of the local community would comment that the action would be a waste of time and public money.
However, if, the next day, little Jimmy was to have been killed by some motorist legitimately crossing a junction while Jimmy was crossing against the lights, as mentioned by some posters who seem to think that such action is acceptable, what would be the reaction if no action was taken against the motorist?

If people wish to put themselves in danger by ignoring the laws of the road then that is their privilege. Just don't complain when they are killed or injured.

Similarly, if some cyclist were to hit me while I am walking on the pavement, his feet would not touch the ground until after the Court case against him for as much compensation as I could wring out of him!

Colyn.
Pedestrian, cyclist and motorist, who has passed his HGV1, PSV1 and Police Class 1 tests.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM

Much of what's been described isn't REALLY about motoring, but other stuff.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:39 AM

Can we count cyclists who pull up to drivers at traffic lights and beat them about the head with a bicycle pump? :)

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 03:45 AM

A cyclist can be charged with 'drunk in charge of a pushbike' but how do you penalise them? It's not like they have a license you can revoke, or insurance costs you can hike up...

Now I have been, in my time, pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver. All four modes of transport have their problems, their a**holes and their shining heroes. One day we'll get a nice equillibrium between the four, but only when we stop being human beings.

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: The Walrus
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 03:40 AM

As a motorist I find it better to give cyclists a wide berth, just because the ba*ds are too bloody unpredictable - I don't think half of them have ever read the highway code, let alone read it (that said, I dislike 'psychic' drivers# and give them a wide berth too).

As a pedestrian, I have suffered from contact with the two wheel anii* who ecide that the footpath/pedestrian area is an extension of the cycle path.
There used to be one particular idiot who chose to ride at speed along the footpath (resticted by legal parking**) with no regard to the safety of those on foot - My practice was to carry a golfing umberella. Strangely enough, I discovered that even mad cyclists will stop if, the party they are aiming their bike at is holding a metal spike at cyclist eye height refusing to jump out of the way (not good manners, I admit, but desperate time breed desperate measures).
And before any militant cyclists get on their high horses, yes, there are some stupid ba*d & thoughtless motorists out there too, but that's a different story.

As to how to improve matters?
In my opinion, bring cyclists into the same system as other road users.
1) Mandatory Insurance
2) Cycle registration numbers (number plates)
3) Road fund licence (nominal sum, but it gets rid of the "We pay for the road" argument)
4) MoT inspections for cycles (on the same basis as motor cycles).
5) A (seperate)cycle 'driving licence' (perhaps based on the cycling proficiency test) with the same penalties as (and points carried over to) standard driving licences+.

Must stop before I start to rant.

Walrus


# 'Psychic drivers' - "I-know-where-I'm-going...Now-read-my-mind."
* Anii is the plural of anus, yes?
** Arranged to leave the (narrow) cycle path clear of parked vehicles
+ Offences carried out as a cyclist should impact on the (regular) driving licence (perhaps a number of cycling 'points' to equal one motoring point), but a driving ban should still allow cycling, unless the ban was based on cycling points.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:23 AM

"traffic lights which are activated by induction loops buried beneath the tarmac.
They show red light for the minor road and green light for the major road until the induction loop (in the minor road) gives the signal that starts the process of giving red to the major road, then green to the minor road. After a short time (1 or 2 minutes) they switch back to red on minor road and green on major road.

It needs a certain amount of metal moving over the loop to activate them - definitely more metal than in an average bicycle."


My 150cc Motor bike wouldn't activate a lot of them either.... :-)

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:43 AM

Here is what I observe each morning on my way to work; cyclist who ignore, stop signs, traffic signals and crosswalks. Cyclist who do not indicate when they are turning,cyclists who cross intersections diagonally,cyclits on cell phones, riding with headphones on so they can't hear horns or sirens, riding two or three abreast, riding in the opposite direction of traffic . But my biggest complaint, as a pedestrian, is the total disregard by many bikers for pedestrian areas, sidewalks, shopping areas and parks. I have never been struck by a car. I have been knocked down twice by bikers, neither of them stopped.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:30 AM

But it worked when I 'tested' the link!

Damned blicky things... mumble mumble....

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: MudGuard
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:55 AM

Liz, just remove the 0. from the end:
The Highway Code Rules for Cyclists

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:03 AM

It did work, honest!!

Try just searching highway code online, or highwaycode.gov.uk - click on the 'cyclists' header and read... then count how many times you see these rules broken daily.

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: goatfell
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:02 AM

I used to cycle and the number of times these idiots that drive cars and they try and kill you and one nearly did to me and another manged to knock me off my bike, and then he came out ask the stupid question "Are you all right?" I mean I've just been knocked off my bike, but car drivers and other vehichal drivers (pardon the spelling) think that they own the road becasue they pay road tax and insurnace or so they say, that give the right to kill any cyclist on the road.

WELL IT BLOODY DOESN'T RIGHT.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:46 AM

Here's what The Highway Code says about what cyclists should do. And despite what Captain Jack Sparrow and the rest of the pirating fraternity say, these ARE rules, not just guidelines.

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:40 AM

Some of these cyclists are worse than stealth bombers. I have a partial hearing problem anyway, and several times whilst walking from my office to the Underground station, I've had a cyclist practically in my pockets before I've heard him (and it's usually a him although not exclusively). All I get is a mouthfull of half heard abuse when I don't react to a noise I can't hear. How the very hard of hearing or those wearing headphones cope I don't know. Does no-one sell bicycle bells any more? In Denmark, the cycle lanes were separate from the pavements and those on it rang their bells to warn stupid English pedestrians they were in the way.

In the UK it is an offence to cycle along the pavement unless your wheels are less than a certain diameter (a get out clause for children on bikes), but I've yet to hear of anyone actually being prosecuted for this. I see offenders almost every day, but never anyone nabbing them for it.

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:38 AM

Grab, so I am not breaking a law if I swing a leg over and jog the bike across the red light.
What is the difference?
Also most bikes go at less than 15, amd most cars faster than 30, but I was comparing more on their relative threat and vulnerability.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Grab
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:12 AM

Cyclists pose no threat to other road users but are themselves utterly vulnerable.

They're a threat to pedestrians, who might assume that red light equals no traffic. They're even a threat to car drivers who'll swerve to avoid them and hit something/one else. But yes, mostly they're a danger to themselves, or other people are a danger to them.

Grab, non suicidal cyclists will not launch themselves into a space that they can not see far enough to be clear.

There's an awful lot of suicidal cyclists around then. Most cyclists I see jumping a red light don't even look. If there's no junction on their side, they assume that the traffic turning right is going to miss them. Well it might and it might not.

As a walker, do you never cross against the light when the road is clear?

Yes, but I don't think you'll find there's laws against that.

A cyclist is closer to being a pedestrian than a motor vehicle.

A pedestrian travels at 2mph. A cyclist travels at 15-20mph. A car travels at 30mph. In my mind, that makes the cyclist closer to a motor vehicle. It's also why cyclists shouldn't go on the pavement (or if they absolutely must break the law that way, go no faster than your average jogger).

Graham.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: EBarnacle
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:18 AM

Midchuck, try companion or lover as the designation. Either is more dignified.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:03 AM

I'm waiting for someone to start a post

   "What I do that's quite wrong is............"


   For other people (the obvious problem), WE are other people.


   Isn't self-righteousmess a ..............?





         Ivor

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: GUEST,punkkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:48 AM

"Only as bad as morons who cycle on footpaths, even in the town centres with no regard to old folks, blind people and women with prams.

Do you consider these cyclists ' twats ' then punkfolkrocker ?

eric"



YES !!!!!!

i loath the the selfish idiots..

particularly fully grown men who cycle at on pavements
overtaking pedaestrians at speed
from behind with less than a few inches clearance..





they anger me so much in fact


i kicked an older teenager off his bike..

and as he just toppled over sideways in the middle of a crowded
indoor shopping 'mall'

shoulda seen the look of shocked surprise on his face as he lay in a heap under his bike...

well he shouldn't have hit my arm hard from behind with his handlebars..



oh.. and more recently i got a stroppy 19 year old who was deliberately 'buzzin' me late at night in the middle of town..

got him in a stranglehold from behing and dragged him off his bike..

oh.. and for all his threats of being a kick boxing 'expert'

i made him walk home pushing his bike sensibly on the kerb..

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:22 PM

The Highway code used to state (haven't read it in a while, really ought to) that it is acceptable for bikes to overtake other vehicles in their lane as long as they do not cross over the white lines to do so. Overtaking should only be done to the right (offside) of any vehicle though...

I'm also annoyed with the amount of bike lanes that go directly through bus stops, over footpaths and have parked cars in them. Trouble is, the car driver is legion and rules in the UK. Until we adopt a road widening scheme to include sensibly sized pavements, cycle lanes and adequate car driving space, we're always going to have this problem.

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: HuwG
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:56 PM

An occasional hazard on the A57 across Britain's scenic "Peak District" (also known as the Snake Pass), are teams of racing cyclists, or cycling clubs indulging in a "burn".

I don't know whether attempting to race bicycles on public roads is a specific offence in Britain, but certainly it is unnerving to see one cyclist attempt suddenly to overtake another, especially as both are wobbling on steep gradients.

Some motorists do not exactly help matters. If the motorist immediately behind the cyclists hangs back and waits, sometimes interminably, for a safe opportunity to overtake, the driver of the second or third car in the growing queue will press hard on the loud pedal and try and overtake car, cycling club and all. Sometimes these drivers genuinely cannot see the bicyclists, and assume that the car instead is driven by a complete "plonker", "wally", "divvy" or "&$%^£.!", of which there are far too many on the roads, especially on public holidays.

Horses occasionally frequent the roads near me, and generally motorists treat them with great respect. The riders do help matters by wearing "lumojackets", in reflective yellow. (This might lack the social cachet of hunting "pink", but is useful.)

My pet hates, on which I have already ranted in other threads are, "Driving while gabbling on a mobile" (actually an offence in the UK, but far too rarely prosecuted), "Driving under the influence of testosterone", "Driving under the influence of peroxide" and "Possessing a car stereo system powerful enough to make the windows and bodywork pulsate".

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: MudGuard
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:13 PM

Here we have many traffic lights which are activated by induction loops buried beneath the tarmac.
They show red light for the minor road and green light for the major road until the induction loop (in the minor road) gives the signal that starts the process of giving red to the major road, then green to the minor road. After a short time (1 or 2 minutes) they switch back to red on minor road and green on major road.

It needs a certain amount of metal moving over the loop to activate them - definitely more metal than in an average bicycle.

So a cyclist does not have a chance to activate the things.

What is a cyclist to do? Especially at night, when there is very little traffic?
Does a cyclist then have to wait for several hours till a car comes by on the minor road activating the thing?
Or should he call a taxi for the sole purpose of activating the induction loop?
Or just wait for a pause in the (mostly non-existing) traffic on the main road and then jump the red light?



(I do not understand why those things cannot be build to recognize bicycles - or why they can't be switched off at night/at times of low traffic)

------------------------------------------------

Something I also do not understand about car drivers:

along many streets here they built cycling lanes so cyclists do not disturb car traffic in its lanes. But in very many cases cyclists are forced to use the traffic lanes for cars anyway as the cycling lanes are blocked








by parked cars ...

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Greg B
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 06:21 PM

Pedestrians have the right of way over equestrians.

However, as a practical matter, it's incumbent upon all travelers
sharing a narrow passage to which both have rights to aid in
sharing it safely. To do that in such a situation involving
horses and pedestrians, the pedestrians should stand quietly
aside and make an effort not to disturb the horses, which gives
the riders as much help as possible in keeping everyone safe.

You can choose to do otherwise; and you might even be 'in the
right' legally. But you might be 'dead right.' Or you might
contribute to the injury of a rider or horse.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:58 PM

A family friend is a physicist at Univ. of California at Berkeley. He's done some analysis of the stop sign question -- stop signs really do require a lot more energy on the cyclist's part. clicky

Not that this excuses them from disobeying the law...

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: lady penelope
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:53 PM

Rog Peek - "What gets my goat is, when money I pay in road tax is used to give cyclists their own cycle path off the road and then the selfish sods cycle on the road, because the cycle path takes them on a VERY SLIGHT detour away from a direct route accross the traffic lights. Then of course, to add insult to injury, they proceed to ignore red lights altogether. I wouldn't mind, but the crossing motor vehicles never seem to manage to run the swines over!"

FYI most cycle lanes in the UK are paid for by either local councils or organisations like Sustrans. So I, as a non driving cyclist, pay just as much tax towards them as any driver.

Cycle paths are supposed to be an aid to cyling safely in traffic, however there are no basic standards for cycle lanes nor are there any basic guidelines for where they should be used. Subsequently, cycle lanes are often too narrow to cycle in safely (according to the highway code you're supposed to be 3 feet away from the pavement, some cycle lanes are barely two feet wide!!!) and are quite often put in insane places. My personal favourite being the one near where I live that runs through a bus stop!!! Not to mention that at places like junctions where bikes get separate lights etc. the signs are quite often not signposted at all, and usually difficult to figure out at they operate contrary to normal signal systems.

But more to the point, there are relatively few cycle lanes compared to the amount of roads that bicycles are allowed to use. So they aren't always available to use in the first place.

As to red light jumping, I'm sorry, but I'm with the majority on this thread. Bikes should not jump red lights. In the last six months I've have twice had near misses with cyclists who have decided to jump red lights and have nearly cycled straight into me on [b]my[/b] bike!!! No one has yet given me a good reason why a cyclist should be allowed to jump a red light. Whining about having to stop or adding time to your journey is not a valid argument. I'm furious that the London Cycle Campaign refuse to come off the fence about this matter. It simply shouldn't be condoned.

But, as has been pointed out before on this thread, no one group of road users are, in general, any better than any other group. I've seen cars and vans happily troll thorugh red lights, not bother indicating, reverse into main roads. Just as I have seen bus drivers get out of their cabs to threaten me, for daring to ride where I'm supposed to. Just as I have been sworn at by cyclists for NOT cycling through a red light, which has meant they couldn't as they're behind me.

Essentially, there should be a lot less of the 'me' attitude on roads and a lot more learning to 'play nice and share'.....

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:23 PM

That has happened to me in both the UK and the USA. Comes down to downright selfishness.

There is case law in the UK re cycles/motor bikes riding between two lanes of stationary traffic. It has been referred to as being hazardous and puts a duty of care on the bike rider to ensure that he does not cause an accident.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:49 PM

"two or three abreast"

It conjures an image . . . .

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:28 PM

And how about a gang of bicycles all riding two or three abreast on the highway at 10 mph?

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:03 PM

When I'm driving a car, cyclists and pedestrians are all idiots.

When I'm riding a bike, motorists and pedestrians are all idiots.

When I'm walking, motorists and cyclists are all idiots.

Inconsistent? I don't HAVE to be consistent!

I'm a Senior Citizen now!

Neener, neener, neener!

P.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:52 PM

Sorry, but the same rules CANNOT possibly apply for cyclists and drivers. If that was the case the cyclist would be perfectly entitled to use the ENTIRE lane, like the driver does. If a cyclist is not allowed to pass a car when there is room then why should a car be entitled to pass a cyclist?

If we took this to the ultimate then the cyclist should position his or her cycle in the same position as a the outside edge of the car. If a cyclist is not allowed to pass stationary vehicles without breaking the law then what possible advanatge is there to cycling around the cities? Exactly what the government are encouraging people to do!

Just imagine how ridiculous it would be to have queues of cars with every cyclist taking up as much room as the car in front of and behind him! I can see the salesman in his BMW waiting nice and patiently to overtake the elderly man taking this position on his cycle as well!

I think there are different rules in the US and UK anyway but not allowing cyclists the freedom to move through traffic removes the one main advantage that the cyclist has!

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Rog Peek
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:35 PM

What gets my goat is, when money I pay in road tax is used to give cyclists their own cycle path off the road and then the selfish sods cycle on the road, because the cycle path takes them on a VERY SLIGHT detour away from a direct route accross the traffic lights. Then of course, to add insult to injury, they proceed to ignore red lights altogether. I wouldn't mind, but the crossing motor vehicles never seem to manage to run the swines over!

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:04 PM

I have long been of the opinion that everyone taking the driving test should spend a week or two on a pushbike and/or a motorcycle. It's amazing the different perspective you have when there is a steel box around you and the ability to hurtle off at 60mph.

LTS

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:01 PM

Midchuck your post says more about a fear of horses, perhaps
due to unfamiliarity, than it does about horses.

I'm familiar enough with 'em. I've ridden. But it always felt awfully high off the ground, and the horse has a mind of his own, even if not a very brilliant one.

I'd much rather encounter an equestrian on a shared trail than
an off-lead rottweiler or doberman. At least if the horse freaks
out, the rider is right there and sharing the risk to life and
limb.

Well, Lord, so would I! But encountering neither would be better.

A bit of common sense will ease the passage. Usually that
involves the pedestrian stepping to one side and quietly doing
absolutely nothing.

Why? Why should the horse's rights trump the pedestrian's? (Unless it's designated as a horse trail, which I already conceded was another matter entirely).

Oh, and I'd prefer to step in horse-poop than dog poop.

So would I. But not stepping in any poop at all is more preferable yet.

Peter

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Greg B
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:53 PM

Midchuck your post says more about a fear of horses, perhaps
due to unfamiliarity, than it does about horses.

Most pedestrians know as much about horses as they learned in
the movies.

I'd much rather encounter an equestrian on a shared trail than
an off-lead rottweiler or doberman. At least if the horse freaks
out, the rider is right there and sharing the risk to life and
limb.

A bit of common sense will ease the passage. Usually that
involves the pedestrian stepping to one side and quietly doing
absolutely nothing. This is something everyone knew 100
years ago.

Oh, and I'd prefer to step in horse-poop than dog poop.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:19 PM

What fries my ass about cyclists is the ones who insist on riding on a busy road where it is not safe to pass them. It's like they have a death wish.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:14 PM

Every Sat/Sun there is a group of approx 200 cyclists here Melbourne that do what is called the 'Hell-Ride" along the bay road. About 50km I guess. Last year they went straight through a red light ( normal practice ) at a pedestrian crossing. Hit an old bloke and killed him. Still in the courts.

JG / FME

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: The PA
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:11 AM

Did she have a bike?




Sorry - stupid joke.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:01 AM

As I pulled into a parking space at a local supermarket, a woman (not a young woman)in full biking regalia came out from between two cars and sped in front of me. I missed her by fractions of an inch. She continued darting through the lines of parked cars as if she were the only person in the lot. Lots of screaming brakes and FUs. Meanwhile, an elderly woman who saw what happened was leaning against a car in a panic. She was so upset at the near miss she almost fainted.

Shame on me, I was sorry no one hit her - the cyclist not the old woman.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: The PA
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:30 AM

Yep I agree it would be great if we didn't have to meet anyone else on our chosen path, but thats not going to happen - not in the UK anyway.

I am very careful when I meet other people out, walkers or cyclists. The sort of idiot I object to is the man I met on a bridle path in the woods recently, walking with an umbrella who stopped next to my horse and opened and closed it fast to shake off the water and then had a go at me because my horse was spooked and almost stepped on his dog! People like him should, in my opinion, be kept safety locked indoors.

Oh, and horse riders in the UK can face hefty fines for riding on public footpaths not only the ones across fields and open land but including the one at the side of the road.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:13 AM

What I object to is walkers and cyclists using bridle paths designated for horses and horse drawn vehicles - yes they still exist...

I don't blame you. I'd object to that, too. I was talking about horses on trails shared by pedestrians, cyclists and what all.

What we need is a highway system for motorized vehicles, and at least three separate path or trail systems: for bicycles; for pedestrians, and for horses. Obviously, we aren't going to get them, so we have to share.

No attempt to share will work unless everyone agrees on rules. Unfortunately for the equistrians, there's no good way to get agreement on what to do about the aftermath of a horse passing over a trail.

I have no really good answers. But that won't keep me from blowing off steam.

Peter.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: The PA
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:00 AM

Midchuck - I agree with you 100% that horses should not be on paths designated for walkers and cyclists.

What I object to is walkers and cyclists using bridle paths designated for horses and horse drawn vehicles - yes they still exist - and show no consideration for the horses and riders who have every right to be there. If you know you are walking a bridle path the very least you should expect to see is a horse. As you say they panic alot - if you dont want them to panic - dont spook them.

You respect my space and I'll respect yours.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:38 AM

Grab and Eric,
When driving I follow the rules. Not to do so would endanger others. That is why the rules were made.
Cyclists pose no threat to other road users but are themselves utterly vulnerable.
Grab, non suicidal cyclists will not launch themselves into a space that they can not see far enough to be clear.
In 50 years of cycling I have been hit twice, both times from behind by vehicles going my way.
As a walker, do you never cross against the light when the road is clear?
As a walker would you endanger yourself in preference to making a technical infringement?
A cyclist is closer to being a pedestrian than a motor vehicle.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:08 AM

I would say - try it on a horse!

Try it walking on a hiking trail that horses have used! Damn shit machines should be made to wear diapers, or turned into glue. At any rate, they shouldn't be on pedestrian trails. They can kill a person with one kick, and they panic a lot.

Yes, I know, they're traditional and natural and organic and all the rest...but why do you think the "horseless carriage" caught on so fast?

Peter.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Grab
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:04 AM

Keith: What point in stopping if the road is clear.
They are for vehicles that have a much more restricted view up and down the road. At lights, the game is survival

Cars can often see down the junction they're stopped at, too. But as a car driver, you don't jump a red light even if there's no-one there, do you? Things called "laws", perhaps. As a cyclist myself, the thing that most annoys me about other cyclists is the belief that the law doesn't apply to them.

And FWIW, you're *not* necessarily safest going then. On a pushbike, it'll take you several seconds to get across the junction, which is often enough time for someone to pull out of a driveway, U-turn or simply be speeding out of a junction. They'll go through their green light and they'll pancake you. And best of all, not only will you be hospitalised, but their insurance company can sue you for the damage your body caused to their car. And if the insurance company doesn't but the car owner's insurance premiums get pushed up, the car owner can. I know if I ever hit a cyclist and it's not my fault, he/she *will* be getting a bill in the post. Enjoy...

Graham.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: The PA
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:31 AM

Re cyclists problems with other traffic, generally I would agree its not much fun on the roads these days, but I would say - try it on a horse! Thats when it gets scary. We have a large woodland near our village which has cycle tracks and bridle paths. However very often have cyclists leaving the designated tracks and make their own paths through the woods often cutting across the bridle paths. Not much fun when your having a gallop in one of the only areas accessible to horses and then have a cyclist fly straight across your path.   Thats what cars seem to do to them but maybe they should think twice when they do it to others.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:17 AM

I was out the other day (in the USA), coming up to a right hand turn in the car. There was a cyclist, dressed in all the lycra gear and with his helmet on, riding at walking pace to my right.

We were come up to my turn but, as he was not indicating to turn right, there was not time to safely overtake and complete the turn so I had no choice than to slow down to his speed, about ten miles an hour, until he had gone past the turn. This meant holding up at least eight cars following me.

We got to the turn and the b@^$&*d turned right! No signal, no realisation, it seemed, that he was holding up other traffic.

Unfortunately, this is an attitude that seems to be demonstrated all too often by cyclists. I won't use a bike at all - I really don't think the roads are safe enough. Part of the reason is, IMHO, the frustration engendered by the anti-social attitude of cyclists out there, although I will concede that there are a lot of car drivers who don't even see other cars on the roads, let alone cyclists and pedestrians!

Maybe everyone should have to take a proficiency test every five years to be allowed to continue driving or cycling. That might concentrate the minds somewhat. :0)

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:16 AM

Dave, the cyclist was at fault. They have the same rules we do, and we are not allowed to ride the center line and pass cars. They belong in the lane like everyone else. Just because they can squeeze between two rows of cars doesn't give them the right to.

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 06:42 AM

Yeah thats a fine attitude, why should the law apply to you eh !

eric

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:30 AM

Re stop signs. What point in stopping if the road is clear.
They are for vehicles that have a much more restricted view up and down the road.
At lights, the game is survival. We are vulnerable and unprotected by belts, air bags and half a ton of steel.
I go when its safest for me. That is when nothing else is moving.
(Besides being a cyclist I have been driving for 40 years and drive trucks in the Reserve.)

Subject: RE: cyclists versus motorists
From: jonm
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:31 AM

In a car, I make extra effort to give cyclists and motorcyclists as much room as possible, having had a number of bad experiences in the past when I was in their helmets. I am made all too aware that I am in the minority of car drivers.

I worry especially about those who, after I have been following them for half a mile or so unable to pass, still have not looked behind them in all that time. How can they ride in safety without knowing what is behind them? Yes, I know motorcycles have mirrors, but they generally only give a view of the rider's elbows.

However, when I am on a bicycle (don't ride m/cycle any more) I do not jump stop signs or red traffic lights and I do not alternate riding on pavement (sidewalk) and carriageway without regard for other users of either. These guys (yes, mostly) tend also to be the most militant and offensive if they feel impeded by the actions of a car driver.

It's live, let live and stay living, really.