Riding two or even three abreast on country roads, in large groups - making it impossible to pass safely. That does it for me...
Once again though, we are into an area of huge generalisation, tarring with the same brush etc.
|
Dee Jay I am with you on this one. I am a keen cyclist (road rider), in a club and almost all of the ones I know are responsible.
Riding a bike on the roads definately improves my road awareness when I get back in a car.
Patrick
|
|
Live to pedal, pedal to live! If you have to ask you don't understand. How about a range of t-shirts? Could be a winner.
|
|
|
|
I thought the highway code says it's ok to cycle 2 abreast? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Gareth
|
You're quite right, Garethj, but (if memory serves) it does go on to say that you shouldn't impede traffic flow by doing so.
Cheers
Rob
|
In Amsterdam cyclists have priority over everything - even pedestrians. When a cyclist nonchalantly strays into the path of a motorist or tram there is no reaction whatsoever. The driver just waits patiently and then gets on with it.
Unfortunately, I can't see that happening in the UK in a million years.
|
Do reckless cyclists ever cause serious damage? Yup: last March in St Albans a pedestrian on the pavement was hit by a cyclist and suffered a broken leg. The cyclist fled and probably hasn't been caught. This sort of thing is not uncommon.
No, not all cyclists behave badly; yes, there are sensible cyclists about; yes, there are plenty of car drivers who do not take enough care with cyclists. But I do despair because all the evidence I see suggests that, simply in terms of adhering to the Highway Code, the percentage of delinquent cyclists is far higher than that of delinquent motorists. And, as someone in the Telegraph correspondence column said not long ago, these people are "a curiously arrogant breed" -- is that all about the dubious fashion for "asserting my rights"?
And let's keep it in perspective: cyclists are a very small minority of road users and are also far outnumbered by pedestrians. It's all very well for the powers that be to encourage people to use bicycles, but they won't do it. Millions of pounds have been spent on special measures -- cycle lanes, etc. -- and they remain largely unused.
Pavements belong to pedestrians (I'll refrain from a rant about car parking on pavements); cyclists on the road should remember that they are a tiny percentage of road users and act accordingly.
End of rant.
|
Rob
Go back and read my post again, it\'s not about blame, it\'s about involvement. Cyclists are involved with the death of 3-7 other people each year (third parties), no blame attributed. Cars kill many, many more, no blame attributed. Effectively, cyclists don\'t kill other people, cars do.
[snip]
|
|
As we are on to statistics it would be interesting to know what percentage of cyclists are riding because they choose to ( keen cyclists , keep-fit fanatics , environmentalists ) and what percentage do so because they have absolutely no alternative ( the impoverished , the drinkers ,the banned, those poorly served by public transport ) . I expect the latter group would outweigh the former by a long way . Bear in mind that the unwilling cyclist is not only resentful but like the vast majority on bikes will have received no formal training for this quite hazardous activity at all . I suppose we should not be surprised if their behaviour falls short of our ideals .
|
If anyone is up for a full-blown discussion head over to the cycling website (link at bottom) where you can rant all that you want. Sometimes with the arrogant ones who cycle on the pavement and sometimes with reasonable people.
www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=5
Any problem, no matter how big can be solved with a little ingenuity and ... bungee cords.
|
Mind boggling. If Kate Hoey was after pandering to the already nailed down predjudices of a section of the population she struck paydirt with you lot, didn't she?
"90% of the cyclists I see have no lights on" "50% of cyclists ride on the pavement". Like you've done an analysis? Thought not.
I'm a cyclist and a motorist and a pedestrian. I am not in some way socially disadvantaged - i cycle because it keeps me fit and means i get into work quicker. I object strongly to cyclists who run red lights and ride on the pavement, but i am not for one minute going to apologise for riding past lines of stationary traffic, ignoring cycle lanes that are dangerous, pointles or too full of rubbish to be worth using and I'm particularly not going to apologise for riding smack down the middle of the road even if it holds a car up if I consider it unsafe to do otherwise. You should read Cyclecraft - an HMSO publication (just like the Highway Code) which says that when riding past a line of cars you should ride at least 1.5m out, to allow for the dope who opens his/her door. And it also says that if the road is narrow, the cyclist should ride even wider to discourage motorists from overtaking where there isn't sufficient room.
If more motorists simply thought about things from the cyclists point of view there'd be less accidents, less near misses and less stress all round.
|
Andy W
Quick thank you for articulating so succinctly all the points in response to this. Hoey's article is just a self assembly combination of every anti cyclist predjudice in existence. Right down to the pay no road tax myth. There is no such thing as road tax, the road fund came and went before the lifetime of most of us here, it's vehicle licence duty. Like the fuel tax (or duty on beer and ciggies or VAT on clothing)its an impost on pleasure/neccessity. Looking at the quality of kit being ridden here in Central London I would be surprised if more than a very small minority have to cycle, its just quicker cheaper and more reliable and convenient than the tube/bus.
|
Micky,
I have read your post again, and still feel strongly that you are apportioning blame. Maybe it is the wording, maybe I am misinterpreting what you write.
I'm not nit-picking, but I'd love to know where you get the figure of 3-7 third parties killed each year by a cyclist.
I do know what IMHO means, ta very much. But again your wording implies that it is fact.
>>You only drive 35 000 miles per year? Are you part-time then?
Rough guess, Micky. It's probably more. Sorry for not driving enough miles to be considered qualified to comment on the subject.
Do you have any statistics to back your claim that ">careful motorist far outnumbers the careful cyclist, just as the loony suicidal cyclist far outnumbers the loony suicidal motorist<" ... or is it just guesswork??
No I don't have statistics (maybe I should have used the magic IMHO). Nor is it guesswork. I thought it obvious that I was referring to what I personally see on the roads of South London every day. It is a fact that I see far more cyclists than motorists doing utterly stupid, dangerous (to themselves, but mostly to others) and reckless things. I cannot help what I see with my own eyes, can I?
Micky, we are never going to agree on this one, and there is nothing more tedious for the other folk here than to witness somebody else's argument. How about we just agree to disagree and discuss the matter over a virtual pint sometime? Mine's a Guiness ;-)
Cheers
Rob
|
Rob
">I have read your post again, and still feel strongly that you are apportioning blame.<"
You can "feel" what you like, makes no difference to the statistics.
">I'm not nit-picking, but I'd love to know where you get the figure of 3-7 third parties killed each year by a cyclist.<"
Various sources available, including Department of Environment, Transport and Regions and Office of National Statistics
"> I do know what IMHO means, ta very much. But again your wording implies that it is fact.<"
No, my wording states that it is my opinion.
"> Sorry for not driving enough miles to be considered qualified to comment on the subject.<"
I accept your apology.
"> No I don't have statistics<"
I'd worked that out.
"> we are never going to agree on this one,<"
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about getting the facts straight.
"> and there is nothing more tedious for the other folk here than to witness somebody else's argument.<"
Tedious perhaps, but it's important to ensure that the ranting is balanced by the facts.
">How about we just agree to disagree and discuss the matter over a virtual pint sometime? Mine's a Guiness ;-)<"
And mine is a pint of Old Dirigible..... ;-)
|
Micky,
Thank you for your faintly patronising reply.
I'd just like to point one thing out. At no time have I ever "ranted". I have merely stated things as *I* see them every day on the roads. I do not need statistics to back up what I see. To me, the whole point is not figures and statistics, but everyday occurrences that put mine and other peoples' lives in danger.
By the way, what job do you do that means you cover the huge amount of miles that is obviously necessary to comment on this subject?
Enjoy your Old Dirigible
Rob
(Note to Mods - this is *definitely* my last word on the subject. Promise.)
|
Rob
Nothing patronising or faint about my reply, just balancing the ranting with facts.
The title of the thread is "Rant:cyclists".
If you don't have statistics then you don't have facts, just guesswork .... but if guesswork is good enough for you ...
I'm a bus spotter.
M
|
Micky
8< Snip 8<
Please, if you wish to continue the cycling debate, e-mail me. I have updated my profile specifically for that purpose.
Rob
|
|
|
|
Sarah Kennedy mentioned on her show this morning (aged 30, and listening to radio 2, am I sad?) that she had an incident on the way to work. Black guy on a black bike, no lights, no flourescent vest, undertook her as she was about to do a left.
Exactly the same circumstances I seem to meet cyclists in.
|
|
This riding up the inside is a tricky one - I tend to ride up the middle of the road if there\'s a line for slow moving or stationary traffic, unless there\'s a cycle or bus lane - but you need to be really, really careful either way - so am. I wonder, however, if Ms Kennedy would have had the same problem turning left across a bus lane - I cycle down one most days, and have strangely never seen a car turn left across a bus driving down the lane at 20mph - but it happens to me a lot (and i ride in vile colours and have a front light on all the time). Like the advert said (about something else) - think bike. Most cyclists I know are incredibly cautious - we assume drivers will do something stupid. If everyone assumed that everyone else will do the daft thing then I suspect that there\'d be lots less near misses!
|
|
Maybe should be a different thread, but when turning left across a bus lane, who gets right of way? I would assume the bus, but that means the bus (or bike) is then undertaking a vehicle, and is not giving way to traffic to it's right, which is only there because it can't be in the bus lane.
|
|
In 1976 when I were a lad riding to school, my friend got fined £10 for riding on the pavement. I wasn't caught!
|
|
|
This is an interesting question. At a side road I too would assume the bus, its only undertaking because you have slowed down to turn. Not sure why it should give way to traffic from the right. The "hook" accident where a motor vehicle passes a cyclist then turns left across his bows is facilitated by this sort of setting, particularly where the bus lane continues right up to a major junction and prevents traffic following the usual sequencing.
In a sane and rational world there would be a facility for left turners to utilise the last 50 metres or so of the bus lane.
|
"In a sane and rational world there would be a facility for left turners to utilise the last 50 metres or so of the bus lane."
Good point - assuming people didn't abuse it and were careful about moving across that'd be a great solution.
Although (not wanting to use home made statistics!) judging by how far back (from the end) people start using the bus lane that I cycle down I suspect that before long it'd just become another lane.
|
|
A bus lane in Ashton-u-Lyne seems to be constantly used by cars who's drivers are too impatient to queue at the roundabout the road leads to. You can bet that the day I decide to use it will be the day the police cameras are out!!
|
I had an accident involving a cyclist whilst driving a bus on a late shift a few years ago.
I was driving an 11.3m long single decker which can require quite a lot of road when manouvering.
Time was 23.00ish.
I was making a left turn from a minor road into another minor road, the turn was very tight and the offside front corner of the bus would skim over the offside pavement edge of the road I was turning into as I swung in.
Still with me?!
As I turned in there were no vehicles in sight, I gently reapplied the throttle, steering on full left lock, nearside rear wheel missing the kerb by an inch, the offside front corner of the bus skimming the offside pavement and ....... who put that cyclist there?! Rapid brake application as the cyclist dived off his bike onto the pavement, leaving the bike to travel underneath the front of the bus and get crunched as the air suspension bottomed with the force of the emergency stop.
I was duly shocked. At first I thought I was at fault, but I soon realised that I'd had no chance of seeing him until it was too late as not only was he wearing almost black clothing, his bike had no lights whatsoever, and the angle in which I'd turned in meant his reflectors had not light to pick up on.
The rider was uninjured but his bike had a pedal sheared off by the underside of the bus sitting on it.
He refused point blank to give any details, apologised, and rode off into the night leaving me to fill an accident form in and go and change my underpants.
Only yesterday I witnessed two cyclists riding next to each other on a quite narrow 'A' road, meaning any traffic wishing to pass had to use the opposite carriageway to complete the manouvere, their totally inconsiderate attitude made my blood boil. They were being hooted at by almost every passing vehicle, to which they responded with a smug wave, I'm glad I can control myself!
They should have to at least display some kind of traceable indentity if they're on public roads.
PP
|
Enough. If you can\'t have a civilised discussion without resorting to name calling and personal insults; I\'ll simply pull the whole thread.
--
Dynamic Dave
Back Room Moderator
mailto:dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Dave,
Many apologies for letting myself cross the boundaries of the site. I know that you've enough work to do already without me adding to it....
Sorry
Rob
|
|
PP,
Please feel free to mail me (address in my profile). I'd like the chance to talk to you about the job as well as certain other irritations.
Cheers
Rob
|
Mailed you twice Rob, if your Hotmail is set up like mine I'll be in your junk somewhere!
PP
|
|
8< Snip 8<
blah blah blah blah blah.
MrG, not today thankyou. DD.
|
I was making a valid point - riding two abreast is both legal and frequently safer, in that two cyclists alongside each other can be overtaken in much the same way as a small car, forcing an overtaking vehicle to use the opposite carriageway rather than squeezing past while there is oncoming traffic.
[snip]
|
|
That's nice. And from somebody who only registered for the first time today???
|
I was making a valid point
MrG, there are different ways of doing so. Your first attempt was insulting, personal, and likely to cause arguments among other BR members.
Your second attempt is a 100% improvement; it\'s just a shame you had to finish off with yet more personal insults. Keep them up and your account will be locked. I take it you read \"The Small Print\" upon registering?
www.honestjohn.co.uk/credits/index.htm
One final thing, if you wish to discuss how the site is moderated, then by all means email the moderators at mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk with your comments, rather than posting them in the forum - which will only end up getting deleted.
|
hello, i'm new to this forum, does that mean you'll lock me out if i agree with mrG?
He does have a valid point!
As a new member to this forum, it seems to me that the only opinions you allow are those that conform with yours! not exactly free speech is it!
I drive a car, responsibly.
I ride a bike, responsibly.
I could give you 1,000,001 reasons for both sides of this debate, but i would like to know that it isn't just going to be discarded like so many other people's posts!
Its a shame really, coz it could have been a really good clear the air debate, but it seems like there's no rational leeway between the two side!
I'm sorry to read this, i really am.
maybe if people start reading ALL the posts for what they are, OPINIONS!! then things might get better.
If this post stays in the thread, i may be persueded to add a few opinions of my own, if not, i would like to know why not.
Kind regards
SIMPLESBHARRIS
Future TdF WINNER - you read it here second!
|
>>does that mean you\'ll lock me out if i agree with mrG?
I couldn\'t give a stuff who you agree with. But you\'ll voice your opinions in a way that the forum (i.e. the moderators) find acceptable or get deleted. Repeated deletion means I\'ll lock out your registration.
>>if not, i would like to know why not.
Its very simple, if something gets deleted its because we deleted it. I trust that is clear enough.
Until now Dave has been asking people politely to behave. Now I\'m telling you all, from either side of the debate.
I have deleted everything I find inappropriate.
Voice your opinions, but do it in a grown up, mature and polite way. Any more of this tripe and the thread goes.
Any more insult slinging, particularily in the direction of the moderators, and I will simply start barring registrations.
|
MrG is correct. riding bicycles two abreast is legal and, in certain circumstances, sensible. Much better to delay the car behind than to be squeezed into the gutter or a parked car. As for going by on the inside at traffic lights - well that's what the green tarmac is for.
I'm puzzled by the depth of hostility that a generous proportion of motorists feel toward cyclists - it's not the cyclist that creates the jams that create the undeniable frustration of urban driving. Cyclists cause very little by way of damage to people or property. The courts even take an exceptionally indulgent view of running them over. Perhaps it's resentment of the freedom that comes with being able to slide through traffic? Perhaps it's the fact that cyclists have that little edge in terms of height? Perhaps it's the feeling that they are doing something that, for the most part, drivers lack the fitness or the courage to do? Answers on a reply form please!
|
Thankyou for leaving my post as written. you have restored my faith in forum free speech(well my free speech anyway) i will conduct my research and get back to you all with my findings.
ME - future TdF winner - you read it here second!
|
Some cyclists here seem to have taken the thread rather personally whereas it is based one a generalisation. We often see threads based on a generalisation - women drivers, 4 x 4 drivers, people with Baby on Board stickers, BMW drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, reversed baseball cap drivers, personalised number plates, horse riders and so on - you name it, it's been here. And always I'd like to think that contributors DO realise what generalisations they are making. And both sides of the argument are usually discussed in a (fairly) balanced way.
Mind you, you can rest assured that while I bear no hostility whatsoever towards cyclists, neither do I envy that he is higher, more courageous or fitter than me. In fact, I don't even have an opinion about cyclists in general - sorry if that disappoints you.
I made a comment much earlier in this thread about riding two or more abreast in large groups and making overtaking unsafe. The point has been made that the Highway Code allows riding two abreast. I still maintain that it needs to be done with due regard and consideration to other road user...
|
I made a comment much earlier in this thread about riding two or more abreast in large groups and making overtaking unsafe. The point has been made that the Highway Code allows riding two abreast. I still maintain that it needs to be done with due regard and consideration to other road user...
I couldn\'t agree more Smokie. From my memories of childhood, I was told it\'s ok to ride two abreast, however if you hear an approaching car from behind then drop back to single file. I can\'t remember who told me though, might have been the school I attended occasionally, or when I did my cycling proficiency test.
|
|
I think that what should be borne in mind is that sometimes cyclists will deliberately hold motorists up to stop them overtaking in a place that'll mean they have to drive too close - it's a tactic recommended in 'Cyclecraft' which is an HMSO publication - riding a bike on busy roads requires you to be assertive in order to be defensive. Sometimes cyclists will be over-cautious, but what's a few seconds getting to the back of the next traffic jam compared with someone's life? However - I do agree that we all need to be considerate, and if going into single file when there's only two or three of you makes sense if it means someone can get past - big groups are a different matter, however - a club run of maybe 20-30 bikes will almost always stary grouped - it means a shorter time for cars to get round the whole group - in a long single file you run the risk of cars cutting in between bikes.
|
Sorry, I don't agree that riding two or more abreast is acceptable. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it safe, or, indeed, acceptable. I remember driving up a dual-carriageway, NSL section of the A24 a few years ago, to find to blokes on bikes riding at about 20 mph occupying the entirety of the inside lane, causing me to have to brake sharply.
Now, I know what people will say - "you had another lane to use, what's the problem?" "they're as entitled to use the road as you, you know!" "you should be paying more attention!" - the incontrovertible fact is that when you are driving up a dual carriageway at 60 mph you simply do not expect to encounter cyclists riding two abreast, doing less than one third of your speed. There's a difference between exercising a right to be on the road and compromising not only your own safety but that of others, and there are enough nutters out there these days who will knock cyclists off quite deliberately, if they perceive them to be a nuisance. Appalling but true.
Puts me in mind of a little saying my father taught me - "Here lies the body of Walker, Jay/Who died defending his right of way/He was right, dead right, as he crossed the road/But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong..."
|
the incontrovertible fact is that when you are driving up a dual carriageway at 60 mph you simply do not expect to encounter cyclists riding two abreast, doing less than one third of your speed.
Pity the passenger in your car when you are doing 60 and fail to see the RSJ that fell off the back of a lorry and is sat in your lane doing 0 mph.
If you can't stop before the next visible hazard, you are going too fast.
Let's assume there was one cyclist only. Would you have belted past in their lane at 60? I sincerely hope not. I know for a fact if I were the cyclist you overtook in that manner my thoughts would be along these lines:
1) Arrrgh ohmygooggodI'mgoingtodieeeeeee!
2) Blumpin' flip, I'm still alive
3) New pants please
4) What was that numberplate
5) Mental note to kick the driver of that car in the place where the sun doesn't shine if I ever see them (ok, I know it may take some time to get the driver to North Wales, but some things are worth the extra effort)
And as for the little rhyme about Walker, Jay..... So never a good idea to stand up for what's right? Had a classic only last week. Crossing a road with no traffic and no suitable crossing point. Elderly gimmer pulls out of side road without pausing in his XJ auto. Proceeds to accelerate at me whilst sounding horn.
Imagine his face when I stopped, turned to face him and held my hand out in the universally understood symbol for "stop" (whilst getting ready to dive for the pavement should it be required). I then wandered around to his window and enquired politely if he had read the highway code in this lifetime, before walking off without waiting for his incoherent and no doubt phlegm and false teeth-filled response.
|
paulb - what if it's a horse? Or a tractor? Or anything that's slow and wide but is just as entitled as you to use the road?
I quite agree with No Dosh that I wouldn't want to be the cyclist that you squeeze by in the same lane at 60, so I don't see how your argument holds water.
I was going to add something about all having consideration for each other etc, but Internet Explorer crashed the first time I was writing this post so I'm not in a good enough mood for that now ;)
|
Sorry, folks - I should perhaps have explained myself better!
1) The incident took place on the apex of a curve on an absolutely lethal stretch of dual carriageway along which, IMHO, no-one in their right mind would want to cycle in single file, let alone two abreast. I speak as a reasonably enthusiastic cyclist myself.
2) I didn't squeeze past in the same lane at 60. Nor did I sit 3 inches behind them, blasting the horn and gesticulating, as do some people I've seen. What I did (and indeed had to do) was brake very hard to avoid running up behind them/into them. Didn?t enjoy that much, as there was traffic coming up behind me in my lane. There were people coming past me in the outside lane, so I couldn't pull out round straight away. When the outside lane was clear, I went out round and gave them plenty of room.
3) I don't have the slightest problem with other people wishing to use the road. As you both correctly say, other slower-moving stuff has a perfect right to be there. I also agree wholeheartedly that we should all have consideration for each other - which means, in the case of the two chaps on the bikes in this example, not posing an unnecessary hazard to themselves and other road users.
My point was that whilst a given set of road users might have a perfect right to do something on the road in a particular way, there are going to be a lot of times (particularly these days, given how busy the roads are) when it's just not practical and/or safe to do that thing in that way. A right of way isn't much good to me if I'm dead.
Anyway, enough ranting. It's Monday morning and I have a headache.... :-(
|
(offers virtual cup of tea and some ibuprofen)
1) The incident took place on the apex of a curve on an absolutely lethal stretch of dual carriageway along which, IMHO, no-one in their right mind would want to cycle in single file, let alone two abreast. I speak as a reasonably enthusiastic cyclist myself.
I understand where you are coming from, but if you recognise that the stretch of road in particular is lethal, then a lower speed may be more suitable?
The A31 heading away from the M27 westbound is a 70 limit, but anyone trying to take the bend at the top of Rose Hill at 70 is looking to stack their car into slower moving traffic, into the ditch in the central reservation or take a graceful slide across the forecourt of the Q8 garage on the exit. Which comes back to your point about right not always meaning alive. "But honestly, Grim Reaper, I was allowed to do 70 so I did."
As it is, after reading your post again it is clear that you were driving within your visibility as you were able to stop in time, so full marks you and nil points for my observational skills.
sorry..... :o(
|
Thanks for that, ND - feel better now... :-)
I know exactly where you mean - used to drive that way regularly when business took me down west. Horrible bend, horrible camber (or certainly felt like it).
Funnily enough, lots of bits of the A24 have since had lower speed limits (60 & 50) put in on some of the particularly dodgy stretches - quite right too. Doesn't seem to stop the loons, though...
|
Dear Ms Hoey,
I was delighted to read your article today regarding those blasted lycra yobs that befoul our roads. How refreshing to find a Labour MP with such admirable right wing tendencies. Like glorious Maggie you are right to scapegoat the most vulnerable members of our society, the minorities who spoil it for the rest of us. Like Peter Lilly's infamous, "Little List" speech that railed against single mothers, pointing out what irresponsible social scroungers they are, it is noble of you to side against cyclists.
I guess you, like myself, are fed-up with their pompous ecological arguments, their holier than thou attitude when they don't even contribute to the economy or government coffers. They don't stop to think that if everyone cycled where would the poor NHS be then? OK, they'd be less need for it due to everyone being healthier, and I suppose there'd be less road traffic casualties but that's hardly the point. If the roads were filled with cyclists how would a patient be rushed to hospital - b***** rickshaw? I ask you.
I drive through central London, and having these cyclists on the road means I have to concentrate 100% on what I'm doing 100% of the time. They think nothing of sliding between lanes of traffic to the front of the queue despite the fact that I could be lane jumping, opening my door to let out bad odours, or swerving whilst touching up my make-up, answering my phone, feeding my child or attempting to re-tune the radio. I tell you, if I could catch one of the little blighters I'd giv'em what for.
Yours sincerely,
PS. get rid of the Mini, a big Range Rover or Shogun with bull bars is what you want. Have to show people who's the boss you know.
sadly can't claim to be the author.
|
Alternative motoring epitaph
" He passed a van
he passed a bike
he passed a cart of hay,
he tried to pass a swerving bus
and then he passed away..."
|
Joe,
In my experience, it is not buses that swerve all over the place, it\'s cyclists.
People may have got the impression that I am anti-cyclist. I\'d like to put that idea to rest once and for all. Am I quite definitely pro-cyclist as long as they ride sensibly and with regard for other road users. I am totally against the idiot element to which I have alluded before, just as I am against the idiot motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians etc. Im my book, everybody has an equal right to use our roads, regardless of whether they pay road tax or not, as long as they abide by the rules and treat everybody else with respect and tolerance.
Hopefully, I have made myself clear on this now.
Cheers
Rob
|
One of my earliest momories was whan i was 5 or 6 and went to the sweet shop (they had them in those days) with my mum.
The three small shops are set way way back from the road with a paved area in front and the road is wide but comes to a dead end and large parking area.
I had got my 10p mix and stepped outside the shop and was promply knocked flat on my face by a push bike. i only had my ballet clothes on and a tutu does not offer much protection i can tell you!!!
After the tears had stopped...... the cyclist picked himself and his bike up and walked home. My mum had given him a right telling off i can tell you!!! I was cut and brusied but im pretty sure the guy learnt his lesson! As a little kid i always rode on the pavement, as i big kid i ride in the road. I try think about other people when i am cycling or driving, be the other people on bikes, horses, walking frames, cars, vans lorries or buses. If everyone did the same we\'d all be alright!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
