Not read it yet, but here's the linky:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...idable-road-deaths-to-be-stemmed-2268135.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...idable-road-deaths-to-be-stemmed-2268135.html
Independent - Big article on Cyclist Deaths...
- Thread starter BerthaPog
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
To be applauded as it's in a national and it might get some people to change their ways.
Problem is you get drivers there with the opinions "you don't pay road tax so you shouldn't be on the road" or "you got no insurance".
Doesn't help though when some cyclists blatently go through red lights etc despite appearing to be 'enthusiasts'. Tars absolutely everyone with the same brush.
Problem is you get drivers there with the opinions "you don't pay road tax so you shouldn't be on the road" or "you got no insurance".
Doesn't help though when some cyclists blatently go through red lights etc despite appearing to be 'enthusiasts'. Tars absolutely everyone with the same brush.
What troubles me, is it seems to be a perspective that's on the increase (ie the hostility from drivers, and perhaps society in general, towards cyclists).cornholio's RC200":32w0mhdo said:
Going back 10, 20 or 30 years, people, in general, didn't seem quite so peevish about cyclists.
It's been a sad realisation in recent years, for me.
Agreed, there are many cyclists not helping.cornholio's RC200":32w0mhdo said:
IMO, and IME, no more than drivers or pedestrians, though. Problem is, given where cyclists normally are in traffic, they tend to be most at risk.
The Indy site is down - must be all the retrobike traffic.
Think the 'bad cyclist' element is over stated. Yes there are some fools but they are far outnumbered by the 'bad motorists'. These 'bad motorists' quite regularly almost fetch me off my bike (and have done so in the past). The consequences for this are probably somewhat worse than some Daily Mail stereotype jumping a red light....
Think the 'bad cyclist' element is over stated. Yes there are some fools but they are far outnumbered by the 'bad motorists'. These 'bad motorists' quite regularly almost fetch me off my bike (and have done so in the past). The consequences for this are probably somewhat worse than some Daily Mail stereotype jumping a red light....
- Feedback
- View
John":291uz2xe said:
I agree completely John, I just see what I see myself as well. I'm no friend of inattentive drivers (see my sig - I was lucky I saw him pulling out and bailed just in time to see my Proflex disappear under the car) but I've lost count of the times a rider sails through red lights or bumps up a kerb in front of people with no concern when I'm on my commute. Maybe I just notice it more whilst I'm stopped at the lights.
And yes the potential consequences are indeed worse for someone on a bike than in a car. Especially if the drivers are on the phone, or putting makeup on or even reading a book steering with their legs as I saw the other day.
Why can't we all get along together? We are playing with people's lives here but everyone's in too much of a hurry to notice.
cornholio's RC200":13svtiht said:
...really?
i think being cyclists we know the niches and what have you, the bad cyclists. but looking in on us, is harder to tell hence the stereotype
i do think though as neil suggested in the past couple decades tolerance towards cyclists is becoming less
its hard to pinpoint why
could it just be that there are more opinionated drivers on the road now? after all the younger generation are quite 'righteous'
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
My Utopian cycling route system would keep all motorised traffic separate from cyclists and pedestrians.
London is pretty darn good in terms of being able to get from one side to the other without riding too much on roads, but I would like a lot more back streets being closed to all but cyclists and pedestrians, with separation between them.
Every new road should have a separate cycle path and pedestrian way made in parallel where none exist, and similar should be run alongside all possible existing routes.
They may say I am a dreamer.
London is pretty darn good in terms of being able to get from one side to the other without riding too much on roads, but I would like a lot more back streets being closed to all but cyclists and pedestrians, with separation between them.
Every new road should have a separate cycle path and pedestrian way made in parallel where none exist, and similar should be run alongside all possible existing routes.
They may say I am a dreamer.
Just playing devil's advocate, here, but there are many cyclists that are against cycle paths - as they encourage the attitude that cycles have no place on the road, and can cause other issues, in terms of how motorists use them, and how cyclists using them can interact with traffic.highlandsflyer":5pwgh94r said:
Personally, I see some of where you're coming from, these days, cycling in traffic is regularly unpleasant (that's a euphemism for: often downright dangerous), but I'm also of the view that it shouldn't be that way.
Is it ideallistic to think that all routes would have separate cycling provision, or to dream that cycles could integrate with traffic, safely and harmoniously.
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
Just what do you mean by integrated? How will that work exactly? How exactly would you change driver behaviour and the very nature of the beast to achieve this?
The separation of both types of traffic works in other countries, and to some extent here.
I don't have time for any argument that suggests using cycle paths is in some way promoting an attitude that bikes cannot use the roads.
How exactly does that happen? Does the motorist observe that less cyclists are on the road and think to themselves, "Thank God for the cycle paths carrying the other two wheeled menaces who would otherwise be cluttering up my road, now only if there was a way to get rid of these last few, they really shouldn't be on the road."?
There are indeed some idiotic cyclists using roads where there is an adjacent cycle path. I have a road near me like this. They raised the limit to 50mph once they completed the separated cycle way and pedestrian way.
Now I have the pleasure of rounding the long blind uphill corner and finding myself, being a considerate motorist who will not overtake a cyclist on a blind corner, sitting at <10mph waiting for a car doing the standard 65 in a 50 zone to hammer into my backside. My only option being to attempt an overtake on a blind corner, or ironically pull off the road onto the dedicated cycle path.
Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.
The separation of both types of traffic works in other countries, and to some extent here.
I don't have time for any argument that suggests using cycle paths is in some way promoting an attitude that bikes cannot use the roads.
How exactly does that happen? Does the motorist observe that less cyclists are on the road and think to themselves, "Thank God for the cycle paths carrying the other two wheeled menaces who would otherwise be cluttering up my road, now only if there was a way to get rid of these last few, they really shouldn't be on the road."?
There are indeed some idiotic cyclists using roads where there is an adjacent cycle path. I have a road near me like this. They raised the limit to 50mph once they completed the separated cycle way and pedestrian way.
Now I have the pleasure of rounding the long blind uphill corner and finding myself, being a considerate motorist who will not overtake a cyclist on a blind corner, sitting at <10mph waiting for a car doing the standard 65 in a 50 zone to hammer into my backside. My only option being to attempt an overtake on a blind corner, or ironically pull off the road onto the dedicated cycle path.
Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.
