I don't think in all my previous posts on various subjects, that anyone has ever accused me of lying.
Perhaps you have never before claimed that cyclists bullying car drivers, shouting abuse, spitting, and thumping cars, is the typical on the stretch of the A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking?
And it's a bit over dramatic to claim that no one has ever accused you of lying. I could claim that you are accusing me of lying when I say it's not typical behaviour.
If people don't use the cycle path 99% of the time its because the cycle path is poorly designed.
It wouldnt be so bad if they paid road tax, lycra clad fools expecting to use the roads for free.
For those that use these routes regularly and notice glass and irregularities in surface, do you report them to the relevant authority to get them cleared?
I'm lucky enough to live close enough to walk to work. If I see something that needs fixing or cleaning I report it via the app of my local authority. One particular nuisance is dog crap in the alley I walk through (also a main route for kids going to the school). I don't like the thought of it being trod into the classrooms so I report it and the council are pretty good at responding and keeping on top of things.
This thread has definitely turned into "My anecdote is better / has more validity than your anecdote"
Maybe we should just see who can pee highest up a wall?
For those that use these routes regularly and notice glass and irregularities in surface, do you report them to the relevant authority to get them cleared?
Yes I do, and it's generally done the next week. But I usually stop and just move any bits of glass or debris into the side of the path anyway.
Maybe we should just see who can pee highest up a wall?
Can I request that this competition be held at 4am? My night wee urgency is ridiculous.
So where is it covered in glass and badly surfaced then? I've ridden it 9 times so far this week on a bike with 23mm tyres and didn't have any issues. There is a very small amount of glass on one bit that's easily avoided, unless you're blind, but that's it.
I have a funny feeling he hasn't read your original post properly and doesn't realise you're talking about the A77
Yeh that thought occurred to me too.
Drivers are being forced to slow rapidly and often un-safely because of the cyclists moving out into the centre of the road without warning. You can "read the road" to the best possible level but far too often you are left with no choice and nowhere to go when the road is busy, with vehicles both behind and alongside you leaving everyone holding their breath.
You (a motorist) are making an overtaking manoeuvre on other traffic (in this case, some cyclists).
It is incumbent on you, doing the overtaking, to make sure your overtaking manoeuvre is safe.
Just because you did not anticipate the actions of road users ahead of you soon enough, does not place those road users at fault.
Just because it is common practice amongst motorists to be unwilling to slow down, or leave sufficient space between vehicles, does not make this behaviour acceptable.
Cyclists do not have to grovel along in the gutter to 'make way' for motorists, in the same way that HGVs do not have to stick line-astern in the left-hand lane of a 3 lane motorway, only moving at the pace of the slowest vehicle.
Pull your head out of your conceited arrogant self-righteous backside.
I'm quite amazed that some on here managed to keep their licence for more than a handful of days.
#CameronsBritain *shakes head in disbelief*
hammyuk - Member
...The issue is the number of riders who quite often get bunched up and are then passing each other, causing havoc.
...
It's got nothing to do with how near anyone is when overtaking - having to slam brakes on because of the above is dangerous for everyone. A tractor gets passed as it takes the entire lane...
Cyclists are road users. They are entitled to pass each other. A following car driver has the responsibility to be travelling at a safe speed, which could be defined as one where you do not have to slam your brakes on suddenly. That's a sign of bad driving.
And yes, drivers should treat cyclists like tractors and not try to occupy the same lane. The consequences of a collision with a tractor are minor for the tractor and dire for the car driver, but it's the other way round when it's a bicycle. It behoves car drivers to drive safely both for themselves and for the safety of others. It is not an accident if you hit a cyclist from behind unless you are blind.
The sooner we get a presumption of liability in these cases, the sooner we'll see car drivers improve.
Selective use of the quote button by several posters again... as usual...
Perhaps you should drive that section.
On a wednseday evening..
Then decide if its acceptable that riders and organisers act and cycle in the manner they do.
It has nothing to do with the improvement of drivers but the complete unsuitability for this to take place where and when it does.
So what is a safe speed for a dual carriageway, national speed limit road then?
A road that sees HGV's at 56mph.
Cars at 70mph.
10? 20? 30mph?
Is it both acceptable and [b]SAFE[/b] for cyclists to be on that section of road?
At a peak time?
Competing in a time trial.
Or even on that section of road at all.
Police have been involved before now because of cyclists swerving out.
I love how its always the drivers fault here.
Of course the cyclists can't [i]possibly[/i] be wrong now can they... 🙄
Can't possibly be the one guilty of riding without due care and attention.
Guilty of poor lane discipline.
Guilty of failure to give way.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
And you want an automatic presumption of liability in these cases?
You can look a long way ahead, use good positioning and all the tricks you want to drive safely and considerately, overtaking safely, when safe to do so, etc but obviously certain riding gods think its perfectly ok to ride on a major A Road without consideration of the RTA1958, Highway Code and other road users but other road users should put them first.
Funny as it seems to be the ones that admit to RLJ and other stuff as fine when that pops its head up too thinking that this behaviour is ok.
As far as I'm concerned - the sooner cyclists are held liable for their actions when on the road in the same way all other road users are the better.
What makes them exempt from having to obey the rules the same as everyone else?
anotherdeadhero - you don't know me so I'd suggest winding that neck in of yours unless you can speak from first hand experience of this particular road.
Can you?
In a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist where it can be shown that the cyclist did nothing wrong (as is usually the case), the driver should be automatically guilty of at least careless driving. None of this leaving it to a jury to decide that's actually a perfectly normal thing to do, no excuses about sun in eyes. I don't see what's fundamentally unjust about that - because a competent driver wouldn't run into a cyclist
As far as I'm concerned - the sooner cyclists are held liable for their actions when on the road in the same way all other road users are the better.
You mean like the ones driving around lethal weapons who get a slap on the wrist for killing someone? Because even ignoring that drivers aren't held liable for their actions, there's a fundamental asymmetry here. You suggest cyclists are causing danger, yet if it was just cyclists on the road nobody would be killed. It's the big metal boxes travelling at speed which introduce the danger to the roads, hence it's incumbent on their drivers to actually avoid running into other road users whatever the other road users are doing.
I'm not disputing where it can definitively be shown aracer - regardless of who was on/in what fault is fault.
However - you can be the best driver in the world but if a cyclist decides they are going to swerve across a lane without warning how are you going to miss them? Make that a national speed limit road.....
Unless you're proposing massively reducing the speed differential between all road users of all types then the other party should not be automatically at fault.
One rule for cyclists and one rule for everyone else? Is that what you're proposing?
"I'm a cyclist and just because I jumped off the cyclepath and into your lane, its your fault because the laws says so"
As for the "sun in my eyes" excuse - that doesn't wash with me either. The motorcyclist who the young girl killed a while back because despite not being able to see, not hearing the motorbike and not waiting until she could be sure it was clear .... was a friend of mine.
Motorcyclists come right at the bottom of the pile where blame is concerned and are automatically deemed to have been at fault. (reckless, speeding, riding dangerously, etc) even when proof is shown to the contrary.
Cyclists get off lightly in comparison.
[quote=hammyuk ]One rule for cyclists and one rule for everyone else? Is that what you're proposing?
To some extent yes. Because the fundamental asymmetry means that if a cyclist rides carelessly that's not going to result in another road user losing their leg. Hence the penalty for driving carelessly should be significantly different, as it should reflect the difference in potential consequences (and I'd argue that the penalty for driving carelessly should reflect the worst likely consequences - if it doesn't result in somebody losing a leg then that's lucky, rather than the driver who does destroy somebody's leg being unlucky).
We come back to the point that a lot of these regulations would be unnecessary with roads filled with cyclists (you mentioned traffic lights - there would be no need for them, they're simply needed to regulate motor traffic).
hammyuk - Member
...but if a cyclist decides they are going to swerve across a lane without warning how are you going to miss them? ....
By not being in that lane when overtaking like most decent people do, and having slowed down to a sensible speed when there is the likelihood of causing injury or death to a vulnerable human.
Why should a car driver's journey be regarded as so much more important than the cyclist's that it is ok to risk injury to the cyclist?
Cyclists have an equal right to the road.
Just to pick up on this line, which shows one of the subtle little bits of ingrained entitlement that is part of the problem:
So what is a safe speed for a dual carriageway, national speed limit road then?
[i]roads[/i] don't have safe speeds, [i]conditions[/i] do.
The physical parameters of the road (width, bends, visibility, surface, camber etc.) are part of what makes up the conditions, hence classifications of road types and general [b]limits[/b] (note the emphasis) but there are other parts too, like weather, and erm... [b]other road users[/b]!
If there are a cyclists using the road, for whatever reason, commuting, TT or otherwise that changes the conditions, in the same way it would if there were a herd of cows on the road, or if it was tipping it down or snowing.
That doesn't mean the speed limit for the road is wrong, it is after all a maximum speed allowed under ideal conditions.
The point I'm trying to make is that observing that other users are there, vulnerable users in this case, possibly who might need to overtake other users, or swerve to avoid debris, potholes, or even getting caught by a gust of wind means that you drive accordingly, sometimes that means slowing down, or god forbid...waiting and NOT overtaking until it is safe.
...but if a cyclist decides they are going to swerve across a lane without warning how are you going to miss them? ....
As Epicyclo and others have said, by not passing so close that a small sideways movement means you hit them. Syclist's overtaking other cyclists will not swerve [b]into your lane[/b], they may move further out into[b] their lane [/b]to overtake another cyclist.
The only time they can come into conflict is if someone is trying to overtake them in the same lane, and that is pretty much by definition not a safe overtake.
If giving them the correct amount of room to overtake them, ie: over the line into the next lane then your scenario is nullified, or are you suggesting that TTers swerve completely out of lane 1, and into lane 2 while cars are trying to overtake them safely in lane 2?
the sooner cyclists are held liable for their actions when on the road in the same way all other road users[s] are [/s] should be the better
I absolutely 100% agree, but so far all you've given is examples of bad driving....
Whether or not you think it appropriate to run TTs or any other event, or even just letting people ride to work on those roads is irrelevant, the fact is it's happening, and so you have to drive safely around them, whether you think they should be there or not.
If the sole basis for banning cyclist on a road is 'because people cant drive safely enough around them' then I think that's a pretty poor argument.
amedias - Member
...If the sole basis for banning cyclist on a road is 'because people cant drive safely enough around them' then I think that's a pretty poor argument.
In fact it's a very good case for banning those people on the grounds they are not competent to be driving on a public road.
Cyclists have an equal right to the road
That's bullshit.
As a subject of her Royal Majesty you have the inalienable right to cycle on the queens highway, motorists are merely licenced which is a privilege the state may revoke at any time.
You have a right as a cyclist, the motorist doesn't.
As a subject of her Royal Majesty you have the inalienable right to cycle on the queens highway
So foreign aliens don't have an inalienable right to cycle on the Queen's highway.
How can you tell if they are one of Her Majesty's subjects if they don't look like this ?
[img] 
[/img]
Well an alien can be deported so that would remove any rights they had to use the highway.
anotherdeadhero - you don't know me so I'd suggest winding that neck in of yours unless you can speak from first hand experience of this particular road.
Can you?
Oh my neck is going stay pretty suck out ta. I happen to disagree with you. Suck it up buttercup.
I don't know that road no. I do know plenty of roads just like it, and I disagree with the notion that this road can be some kind of special case.
I spend quite a lot of time driving on roads just the same as the one you're on about, I spent a lot of my youth time trialling (unsuccessfully) on roads just like this one, I've done thousands of miles audaxing, road raced on open public roads, and now spend a lot of time doing competitive motorsport on open public roads.
I am not argueing that cyclists are somehow exempt from the rules of the road.
I am argueing that your line of reasoning is flawed. You have failed to demonstrate that cyclists are behaving irresponsibly, or are not observing any parts of the various road traffic acts (note plural) in force.
I am not argueing that cyclists are never to blame, I am argueing that the dangerous situations you report are brought about soley by the collective actions of motorists.
You have a right as a cyclist, the motorist doesn't.
I put this argument forward on a car forum that I play in, the response was that, while technically correct, it is wrong (in the eyes of the driver). Courts seem to back this up too.
The fundamental problem seems to be that some drivers believe they have the right of precedence.
I'm not sure how they assess their journey as being more valuable than the cyclist's or a pedestrian's, but it does seem to be the problem.
Fortunately for drivers, you can claim precedence if you have the right equipment on your car. If you don't have it, then you are just the same as any other road user such as cyclists. pedestrians, kids on tricycles, tractors, etc.
All you have to do is get a job that allows you to have blue flashing lights on your vehicle.
Otherwise, settle down, behave like a decent human and wait your turn.
The A24, one of a few roads that have inspired a song
'Boxhill, Boxhill 'ere we come,
I ain't 'appy till I've reached a ton,
a cup a splosh and a greasy dog,
I'm happy when I'm riding me hog'
Great lyrics
A bit of an update from when this was a hot topic a few months ago.
It looks like the chap who started the petition is being given some air time at a council meeting next week
Cycling Weekly article with a few details here:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/surrey-county-council-debate-banning-cycling-a24-theres-adjacent-cycle-path-297763
Agenda for Council Meeting here :
(although there is no mention of this specific petition)
Update from Cycling Weekly for those interested. Original local news article can be found through the CW link.
