Independent - Big article on Cyclist Deaths...

[highlandsflyer]

Haven't really got a clue what your point is, which you merely seem to have repeated.

Um, you wrote the following:-

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.

And on further discussion, wrote this - elaborating:-

If that driver were doing 65 and I am doing 30 odd I might be lucky to escape with a bit of a tap. If I am basically sitting there waiting I am possibly going to be involved in a fatality.

Were they adhering to the stated limit, there would still be a good chance of me being whacked and my car ending up sitting with my passenger exposed to a collision from oncoming traffic.

Real world scenario is that I expect a car coming at sixty five.

To which I've responded that if there could potentially be any number of either static or very slow hazards around that blind bend, then the behaviour that needs correcting, is any muppet who thinks they can drive around the corner (whether within the speed limit or not), regardless of it being blind, and regardless of whether there's a hazard just around the corner.

That is the behaviour that needs correcting, rather than simply hypothesising that we should just remove bikes from coexisting on the roads with motorised traffic - presumably, because after decades of coexistience, we can no longer expect motorised traffic and cycles to share the same roads any more.

All the while, losing the perspective that cyclists, and indeed pedestrians (and probably people on horses, too) are the only road users that actually have a right to be there (conveniently ignoring motorways or other classes of road where they are not permitted). Motorists merely have a privilege to be able to use motorised vehicles on road, not a right, like pedestrians, cyclists etc.

So because roads are busier, and it appears there's an argument that driving standards have dropped, and perhaps a contention that drivers are less tolerant, your claim is that we should remove one group of road users that actually have a right to be there, in favour of a group that don't.

I expect many "I've paid road tax, got a right to be here, get off the road and outta my way!" drivers would agree with you, but if ever there was a case of dumbing down and pandering to the inept vote, that is it.

Not just once have I told cyclists to use the path provided.

Had trouble parsing that line.

Are you saying that you have told cyclists more than once to use the cycle path?

You really had a problem making sense of it?

I said it didn't parse easily, that's all..

No, actually you asked for clarification.

I asked for clarification because I found it didn't parse easily. HTH.

You seem to think I need to be told what might happen to someone going around a blind corner at speed. I have not indicated anywhere that I do this, why are you labouring the point?

I take blind corners at the slowest speed I consider safe, which is a world away from the 5 mph a cyclist might force me to adopt. That is why in some places cycle paths have been provided, in recognition of the danger and of accident blackspots.

If some idiots choose to continue to risk their lives I am entitled to whine about it.

Talking as though there was a harmony between motorists and cyclists until recently is claptrap. I went into no depth about my suggestions but having lived in a country where cycle paths are done properly, I am all for them.

It is not a case of removing cyclists from the road, it is a question of giving them a safer alternative.

If you knew anything about driver behaviour, you would realise it is a dead end road attempting to alter the behaviour of all drivers overnight. I am in no way accepting of the speeds people drive; but I am firmly in the real world, we need to get more people on bikes faster than some enforced learning curve that won't guarantee anyone's safety. It only takes one daft driver to kill you, and where you have to cycle alongside thousands a day your chances are not great.

What we really need is to make cycling a safer and FASTER alternative, and in the short term at least that means closing roads and opening cycle ways. I have never suggested barring cyclists from roads in general, just giving them a choice.

(By the way, if you understood what I said after 'parsing' it, then I assume you chose to ask for clarification in some attempt to suggest I am not speaking the same language as you are.

Don't trouble yourself to attempt to 'parse' Shakespeare.)

 

[Neil]

You seem to think I need to be told what might happen to someone going around a blind corner at speed. I have not indicated anywhere that I do this, why are you labouring the point?

Because part of your argument about getting cyclists off the road, away from motorists, and on cycle paths was based around this "blind bend" scenario that you introduced, based - it seems - purely on the basis that having to wait until around the "blind bend" before overtaking a cyclist put you in clear and present danger of being hit up the chuff by an average motorist - that's why.

That automatic assumption that a collision was near inevitable.

If some idiots choose to continue to risk their lives I am entitled to whine about it.

And with that equity, people like me are just as entitled to whine about motorists in general, already having a perspective that cyclists have no place on the road, and don't deserve any further inept encouragement that their perspective has wings.

Talking as though there was a harmony between motorists and cyclists until recently is claptrap.

Eh?

Utter rot. I've cycled on the road since the late 70s, and things were considerably less confrontational, and more harmonious in years gone by, compared with current times.

And I'm not alone in saying that, either - I've read similar comments here, and elsewhere.

I went into no depth about my suggestions but having lived in a country where cycle paths are done properly, I am all for them.

And I have no problem with that - so long as the right of cyclists to use roads isn't fecklessly p1ssed away because the proper approach is deemed too much effort.

It is not a case of removing cyclists from the road, it is a question of giving them a safer alternative.

Completely agreed - so long as in doing so, society doesn't just deem them unworthy of care and attention if they decide to use a road, rather than a cycle path.

If you knew anything about driver behaviour

And if you valet-parket your high horse, slick, you'd consider that jumping to conclusions about what people know, is often fool's gold.

Rarely is hurbis convincing, no matter how forthright it is emitted - and yours is no exception.

you would realise it is a dead end road attempting to alter the behaviour of all drivers overnight.

Really?

When the gummint wants to, and is able to market a pariah they can look good at, they can - look at drink driving, look at "safety cameras".

 

[highlandsflyer]

You seem to think I need to be told what might happen to someone going around a blind corner at speed. I have not indicated anywhere that I do this, why are you labouring the point?

Because part of your argument about getting cyclists off the road, away from motorists, and on cycle paths was based around this "blind bend" scenario that you introduced, based - it seems - purely on the basis that having to wait until around the "blind bend" before overtaking a cyclist put you in clear and present danger of being hit up the chuff by an average motorist - that's why.

That automatic assumption that a collision was near inevitable.

If some idiots choose to continue to risk their lives I am entitled to whine about it.

And with that equity, people like me are just as entitled to whine about motorists in general, already having a perspective that cyclists have no place on the road, and don't deserve any further inept encouragement that their perspective has wings.

Talking as though there was a harmony between motorists and cyclists until recently is claptrap.

Eh?

Utter rot. I've cycled on the road since the late 70s, and things were considerably less confrontational, and more harmonious in years gone by, compared with current times.

And I'm not alone in saying that, either - I've read similar comments here, and elsewhere.

I went into no depth about my suggestions but having lived in a country where cycle paths are done properly, I am all for them.

And I have no problem with that - so long as the right of cyclists to use roads isn't fecklessly p1ssed away because the proper approach is deemed too much effort.

It is not a case of removing cyclists from the road, it is a question of giving them a safer alternative.

Completely agreed - so long as in doing so, society doesn't just deem them unworthy of care and attention if they decide to use a road, rather than a cycle path.

If you knew anything about driver behaviour

And if you valet-parket your high horse, slick, you'd consider that jumping to conclusions about what people know, is often fool's gold.

Rarely is hurbis convincing, no matter how forthright it is emitted - and yours is no exception.

you would realise it is a dead end road attempting to alter the behaviour of all drivers overnight.

Really?

When the gummint wants to, and is able to market a pariah they can look good at, they can - look at drink driving, look at "safety cameras".

I am not arguing to get cyclists off the road.

I am actually arguing where possible to get motors off the road.

I am also in favour of pedestrianising vast swathes of what is now road in towns and reducing access for vehicles across the board.

That is the perspective I am coming from.

There is a world of difference between being against cyclists using the roads and wanting safer alternatives where roads are dangerous.

I am not making assumptions about your knowledge, merely suggesting that if you know about driver behaviour you would not expect any change in driver behaviour to happen overnight.

It is plainly unrealistic.

I too was cycling the roads back in the 70s, and recall well the number of times I was nearly taken out by daft drivers, and nothing has really changed, cars have just got faster and the number of lorries has increased.

There is no better manner of underlining motorist's third class status than having them restricted from certain roads at certain times and making them wait longer for lights to let them cross a cycle way.

We have to make driving in towns and cities totally non viable.

At the same time we need to make cycling safe and practical.

It is a difficult balance, and arguing over the minutia here serves no purpose at all.

I have my part in campaigns to get designated cycle paths, and I have not heard anything from any counter argument that suggests more of them is not the way to go.

 

[David B]

Not read it yet, but here's the linky:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...idable-road-deaths-to-be-stemmed-2268135.html

A breath of fresh journalistic air there, especially in the light of yet another "Lycra louts"-themed article in last weekend's Blackmail on Sunday

David