|
I use my horn at pedestrians who impede me at pedestrian controlled crossings - I understand I'm perfectly within my rights to mow them down if they cross against a red man. I have to observe red lights, why shouldn't they?
I ignore cyclists on zebra crossings. I'm a cyclist who doesn't use pavements and observes traffic lights.
|
|
A cyclist on a Zebra is the epitomy of having cake and eating it too isnt it really? One minute they claim they're endangered and disrespected as road users, yet the next minute they wish to be treated as a pedestrian, not a road user.
WHICH IS IT?!?!?!!
unthrottled, good point, however i can safely say i use my indicators 99.9% of the time even if theres no sod there, at least if someone does leap out across my bonnet they cant claim i didnt indicate where i was going.
A problem i find as a pedestrain sometimes where i live is someone at the highways department has had a bright idea and have sent out a man with a can of paint. This man with a can of paint has, in busy towns, turned what used to be 3 lane junctions (two one direction, one another, the two lanes going in the direction of the bypass obviously) into one lane junctions to make room for a 30 yard cycle lane at the edges. Not only does this increase traffic ques, but also due to the fact this nations roads date back to when the Romans pitched up, they're really not made wide enough to accomodate such daft idea's, meaning the halfway island for pedestrians who wish to cross has had to be removed, meaning you either make it all the way across, or not at all.
Luckily local drivers just treat it as the two lanes it always used to be and use the cycle lane as a turn left lane now, you can always tell who lives locally and who doesnt by how they use these junctions. If they wait at the lights in the painted lane they're out of towners. If they go side by side and use the cycle lane as a turn left lane, they've lived in the area since before the painter came out.
Edited by jamie745 on 01/06/2011 at 03:59
|
It may be an anachronistic idea, but don't you think we might use some common source of guidance for all road users?
Perhaps someone should compile a set of rules and guiding principles for users of the highway, that would lay out how crossings, cycle lanes and road markings should be used?
We'd have to think of a suitable name for it.............
|
|
Maybe we could compile it in a book also! And CD Roms and freely available on the Internet.
I still think cyclists should have to pay some sort of road tax to use the roads just like all the rest of us.
|
I still think cyclists should have to pay some sort of road tax to use the roads just like all the rest of us.
And third party insurance!
|
|
It hasn't been a 'road tax' for decades, it's a vehicle excise licence. Perhaps,as a cyclist, I should get a rebate for the vehicle excise I pay on my two vehicles as I'm not able to drive them when I'm cycling.
I do have insurance.
|
|
I do get fed up of cyclists who the moment you mention road tax to them they come up with symantics of "its VED!! Not Road Tax!". Im not interested in the symantics of what its called, and cyclists who instantly point to that do it purposely to avoid the real point. The fact is with a car you have to pay tax to Mr Government in order to have it on the road, regardless of what its called, so stop avoiding the point cyclists. Just because they've changed the name of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Ive had loads of cyclists say "but road tax doesnt exist!!" Really? Whats that disc thing in my windscreen then? You can call it Mr Blobby's Round Spaceship if you want, its still road tax.
Why should you get a rebate for choosing to not drive the vehicles you choose to pay road tax/vehicle excise/VED or whatever the hell you want to call it (it all amounts to the same thing, tax paid to put vehicle on road, end of) Nobody told you to have two cars and cycle instead did they?
If every cyclist was charged £20 a year road tax, Government could raise millions, and stop ripping drivers off for a change. And cyclists should have some form of compulsory training (ie being told you cannot be on the road when the lights are green but use the pavement when its red!!!!), it should be law to wear a helmet and all cyclists should be insured.
If cyclists want to be treated as proper road users its about time they started acting like them.
Edited by jamie745 on 02/06/2011 at 16:03
|
|
Calm down dearie, it's only a forum! ;>)
|
|
When i come to power, cyclists better watch out! :P
|
|
Paying VED is not compulsory. All you have to do is buy a car with very low CO2 output. I cycle rarely, but as a previous poster has said, it means one less car holding up the traffic. Better to make car drivers wear helmets: they have a higher number of fatal head injuries. Proper helmets, like bikers. The egg-box creations sold as cycle helmets are useless except at very low speed, and there are serious concerns they do more harm than good.
Edited by nortones2 on 02/06/2011 at 18:05
|
|
Cycling does not mean one less car holding up the traffic. CARS IS TRAFFIC! Cars move in pace with the traffic. Cyclists are the ones who slow it down!
Ive had a look at cars with a very low co2 output but they cost a fortune (probably to cover the tax bill the government is losing) and they're all really rather s***. If we're being honest.
Cycle helmets are useless except at very low speed? So...cycle speeds then? Ive never found a cyclist who can keep up with the pace of traffic so they sound made fit for purpose.
Cars hold up traffic and cyclists make it move faster, thats a new one. *adds to my list of hilarious rubbish*
:)
|
|
Sorry Jamie.
When I cycle into town, I go via back roads to get onto a cycle track through the park and leave my bike at cycle racks on the edge of town.
That route wouldn't be any advantage in a car ( I couldn't drive it through the park anyway). So that's one car less in the queue to town and another kerbside parking place available.
I'm not doing it to be praised (I take the car if it's raining). I do it because it's quicker and more convenient for me, but it is one car further forward for everyone else who drives there.
Remind me, what's the average speed of traffic in London's rush hour?
|
|
And, in some places, bikes can certainly keep up with cars - it's 13 years since I moved out of London, but when I lived there, I regularly biked from the City to central Hertfordshire, and regular ly got as far as Barnet ahead of a colleague driving; even on the daily commute from Greenwich to the City, I beat cars. I suspect that car travel has not got any faster in the intervening years, and the the same would hold in other major cities.
Cycle helmets are light and rather flimsy because a heavy helmet like a M/bike one would be impossible to wear - too heavy and very difficult to get enough ventilation. Cycling is a physical activity to a degree greater than driving or m/biking and it is the mixture of being on the road with cars, truck etc, and the inability to be armour clad that make cyclists so vulnerable.
|
|
Ive never driven in London i wouldnt know what its like. But cyclists dont pay to contribute to using the road in any way, dont have to do any sort of training and think they have the god given right to gloss over the rules as and when it suits them. One minute they sit there moaning that they feel vulnerable as a cyclist (nobody told them to go on a road on an aluminium stick alongside buses and cars did they?) then the following minute they decide they're no longer road users, and end up skipping over lights, using the pavement and (this is the best one) using a zebra crossing. Your'e either a road user or you are a pedestrian. You cant be a pedestrian one minute, and then the following minute complain about being marginalised as a road user.
I still feel they should have to pay some sort of compulsory road tax (or VED or Blobby Spaceship or whatever you want to call it, its still the same thing). They should have compulsory training and a certificate of some sort. Wearing a helmet should be compulsory and doing things like using the pavement and riding over red lights should be treated as just as much a serious offence as if a car had done it. I know its buried in the back of the rules that there is a penalty which can be dished out for cyclists going over red lights but how often do you see the police bother to enforce it? seriously?
The worst ones are the kids, who should be banned from cycling on road or pavement for their own safety, no training, no helmets, no concentration, just appear out of nowhere and their parents would think its my fault if i squashed the little snot machine.
I stand by my comment from earlier, if cyclists want to be treated like road users, then act like road users.
|
|
Seconded-bar the helmets. I feel more vulnerable wearing one. A lot of cyclists feel an unjustified sense of worthiness that permits them to ignore the rules. When I cycle, I obey the rules as if I was driving a car, I even use the right lane at roundabouts. Not difficult at all.
|
|
Where do hold-ups occur? Where lines of cars meet to greet each others nether end. This may come as a surprise but most cyclists are also tax payers. Being a cyclist does not mean you have no other life. SFAIK it is not a calling, or vocation merely another way of getting about.. Doesn't stop a cyclist from using a car when needed. VED is NOT a road fund. Ergo, taxpayers pay for the roads and the cost of running them. On another aspect of your paranoia Jamie, I haven't been aware that car drivers are a class of road users immune from transgression:) Now, I know it's difiicult Jamie, but cyclists, excepting those too young to have driving licences, are very frequently car drivers too. How many car drivers "act like road users" whatever that stilted phrase means.
Edited by nortones2 on 03/06/2011 at 01:02
|
|
If VED isnt a road fund i take it i can ignore my renewal for my car then and drive without it?
|
|
