[Closed] This Times Cycling Campaign

First I've heard of this..

Been running since last week.

Matthew Parris chairing, no doubt...

You being sarky KT?

I think its blimmin good. Weird time of year to try to encourage people to cycle though...

I have supported it on the basis anything along this nature needs support however it seems a bit of a strange list.

I’m not a fan of the cycle lanes that I have come across, they seem to be a way of getting cyclists out of the way of road users as opposed to helping cyclists.

What I would like to see is all big cities having a subsidised cycle to work initiative that would provide secure cycle storage, showers, decent sized lockers etc. That would be ace.

You being sarky KT?

Yip, we have had a couple of threads already.

[img] [/img]

For the OP to catch up on discussion:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/save-or-cyclists-in-a-murdoch-paper-whatever-next
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-bike-rant-on-bbc-radio-bristol-now#post-3466280

(some others too but can't be bothered searching)

Mostly a good thing on the whole (IMO) and I have pledged my support.
But it has introduced me to the phrase "[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate%27s_egg ]the Curate's Egg[/url]"

Just implementing number 5 on that list would do the job just fine. Maybe 2 as well, at a push.

6 is the crucial one for me.
It would mean many traffic lights could be removed and traffic speeds will increase and will stop the desperate "overtake the cyclist before the next jam" we get now as well as reduce casualties all round.

win / win as they say

5. The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.

By what percentage would you seek to improve the the training of cyclists over and above the existing statutory requirements? 🙂

I've got issues with the (un deliverable) requirements to add more and more gizmos to trucks. Trucks have a big blind spot but its not really worse than buses, coaches or vans (even small vans can have terrible blindspots). Its something else about trucks which causes the seriousness of the accidents when they happen. Its the coachwork, not the mirrors, that are the issue I reckon.

There is one thing above all others that would make the difference.

Introduction of "Strict Liability", the rule that says if a driver hits a cyclist, the driver is (almost always) considered guilty. It works on the continent and in a lot of US States as well.

maccruiskeen

A mirror that allows a truck driver to see a cyclist on the inside would be well worth having - a lot of new trucks have them anyway

Crazy - legs - I learnt on a previous debate on here its actually "assumed liability". not strict - the bigger vehicle is considered to be at fault unless they can show otherwise

mirrors could/would help - but so would some bodywork, so that when you're sideswiped by a turning vehicle you get pushed to the side rather than knocked down and under the wheels

Crazy - legs - I learnt on a previous debate on here its actually "assumed liability". not strict - the bigger vehicle is considered to be at fault unless they can show otherwise

Either way that'd be a bloody good start. Wouldnt take too many car drivers getting the book thrown at them before drivers started being more careful.

Introduction of "Strict Liability", the rule that says if a driver hits a cyclist, the driver is (almost always) considered guilty. It works on the continent and in a lot of US States as well.

works in what sense - i'd rather the accident didn't happen than that there was an arbitrary way of apportioning blame afterwards.

Theres a lack of road awareness amongst drivers as much as cyclists as to how to place yourself in traffic around a big vehicle. People frequently put themselves in a position where they can't help but be the victim of an accident, they'll still be the victim, the person driving will still be to blame. But with more road sense you can put yourself in a position where that accident can't happen.

Sadly, with the proliferation of cycle lanes, many of those lanes steer cyclists into exactly the kind of road positions they should be trying to avoid

4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.

This doesnt really make sense to me. Sure you want to invest more in cycling related infrastructure but the HA network deals with very different things to what a cycle network would. Surely it would make more sense to take it from city councils where the cycling infrastructure would be utilised.

I mean youre not going to cycle from London to Manchester on a specific cycle route nor transport goods on it either!

20mph speed limits are so damn annoying. No modern cars are geared to run effectively for prolonged periods at that speed, IMO.

Driving tests that promote actual driving skills and knowledge would be my first port of call. Re-tests for anyone found negligent, no questions asked.
Tougher proof of identity to prevent sham driving tests.
Tougher penalties for any driver found guilty of causing an accident through poor driving.
Bascially I think the police need a whole lot more power to take bad drivers off the road.
I'm starting to think that I see more people holding a phone to their ear whilst driving than those who arent on the phone.

Does anyone think it would be mad to fine/ban undertakers/ last minute lane changers / tail gaters caught on camera on the motorway?

My current favourite is passing the 'congestion stay in lane' signs lit up on the M25, which seems the point where 80% of drivers think they are being told to change lane as quickly as possible, whether a gap in the traffic presents itself or not.

Why do so many drivers think that turning on an indicator means they have done their bit, its time to turn?

And breath.

4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes,

I would honestly be over the moon if the Highways Agency actually spent 2% of their funds on the roads.
As far as im aware, some of that money is earmarked for bungs and dodgy maintenance contracts. Whilts the rest goes who know where?

slimjim = proven to be wrong - you use less fuel at 20 mph - you simply need to run one gear lower usually. You will actually increase av erage speeds normally and there will be far less need for traffic lights as at 20 mph junctions can be negotiated without - also improving traffic flow

It would make life far far safer for cyclists.

ban undertakers

Who will bury the dead cyclists?

slimjim = proven to be wrong - you use less fuel at 20 mph - you simply need to run one gear lower usually. You will actually increase av erage speeds normally and there will be far less need for traffic lights as at 20 mph junctions can be negotiated without - also improving traffic flow

It would make life far far safer for cyclists.

And you use even less fuel at 5mph?... I imagine less cyclists would die too

Im all for improving conditions for cyclists (I am one), I just personally hate 20mph zones.
Im also aware how to drive at 20mph, I just dont think modern vehicles are designed to do it comfortably/easily for extended periods is all.
Im not saying they are wrong, I just hate em.
Besides, where I live '20MPH' actually means 'drive as fast as you can get away with, but no lower than 50mph or your gipsy fraternity will not respect you'. apparently.

tough - it has no downside at all - average speeds will increase and it done across a lot of europe with no issues . Of course you r car can run at 20 mph - just change down a gear

There is a huge disparity of what makes a good cycle path / lane against what meets local /national guidelines, money is already there (but not enough) but why are we still seeing these utterly stupid designs that only make cyclists either confused or flounce the restructions, and the stupid design costs more.

A local authority can add up all these little bits of pathetic cycle lane and say they have 100km, but 90km is laughable at best, dangerous at worst.

My favourite-
[img] [/img]

Also, cyclists are human, humans are often stupid & jump red lights etc etc etc. I have no idea about fixing this. Maybe being flattened by a (well driven) truck may stop them.

FFS. I know how to drive. I just dont like driving Miss Daisy.
Some occassions undoubetdly call for it, but most 20mph zones are complete town planning madness.
As a decent citizen I will of courseobserve the limits, but to many others 20mph is simply a red rag.

Im all for improving conditions for cyclists (I am one), I just personally hate 20mph zones.
Im also aware how to drive at 20mph, I just dont think modern vehicles are designed to do it for extended periods is all.

Thing is so - in built up areas, where current 30mph are enforced how much of your time is spent at a steady 30mph? Its stops, starts, turns, roundabouts, junctions. Its rare that you reach and hold a 30mph speed on an urban journey, I can only think of one route that I drive where I might do that for more than a quarter of a mile. I think if you drop the urban max to 20mph it would hardly alter most urban journey times, it might even speed them up a bit if it made joining traffic easier

I guess so.
Im mainly thinking of a couple 1 mile or so stretches by me that are wide with great visibility, very straight, and littered with speed bumps..yet 20mph max. Its painful. (was a 40mph road when I moved to the area, then became 30mph, now 20mph).
And i'd say 10 to 15% of 'drivers' straddle the speed bumps and fly through at at least 50mph, probably making the route even more dangerous.

slimjim - it has to be done sensibly - and I would also make more 40s as well.

I was going to ask if scruff's pic was 'shopped, but I know it's not!

[i] Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.[/i]

I wonder how this would be measured too. My town put in loads of cycle lanes over the past 5 years. But they are all absolutely useless.
Wide roads get a big red stripe down the side, narrow roads? Nothing. Wide roads that narrow, get a "END OF CYCLE LANE"!

The car culture in this country means the Times campaign will go nowhere. I blame Clarkson (maybe).

FFS. I know how to drive. I just dont like driving Miss Daisy.

When I sat my driving test, five years ago, my instructor advised me that I shouldn't be doing more than about 20mph on any (properly) residential street and I'd likely fail my test if I did.

Seemed reasonable at the time. Feels incredibly slow now.
Perhaps another good reason for frequent retests?

Acpo have said they are not going to enforce the 20mph schemes being unveiled, also if it doesnt look like a 20 mph, eg [parked cars narrowing of the road etc, motorists wont obey.

What we as cyclists need is more on road cycle routes, designated with a kerb, so cars cant wander in or park on the lane.

It would be a huge skills and work generator, as well as being good for the environmnet.

As i understand it, the main through routes such as A-roads running into town centres etc will still be 30mph most of the time, its just 20mph will be the default on everything else. You're only doing 20mph on the connecting roads from your house.

When I sat my driving test, five years ago, my instructor advised me that I shouldn't be doing more than about 20mph on any (properly) residential street and I'd likely fail my test if I did.

That was some 27 years ago though.

On a related note, I liked this:
[url= http://wheelspedalsperson.posterous.com/100357466 ]Highways Agency TfL-style Road-planning (from Wheels, Pedals, Person)[/url]

20mph speed limits are so damn annoying. No modern cars are geared to run effectively for prolonged periods at that speed, IMO.

I'm in agreement with TJ (it's alright, I'll go wash my hands in a minute, and the dirty feelign will pass with time), my focus sits just fine at 30mph in 4th gear, which leaves me 3 othr gears to chose between for 20mph bits.

I just dont think modern vehicles are designed to do it comfortably/easily for extended periods is all.

My (driving) commute to work is approx an hour each way. It's on a motorway for all but 5 miles. I make my average speed around 25mph.

Two hours of driving means it's stationary for 22 hours at a time.

Neither of these extended sub-30mph activities have made it blow up yet.

my focus sits just fine at 30mph in 4th gear

Is it broken??

My Focus sits just fine at 30mph in 3rd gear. 😀

IMHO - one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.
Boils my p*ss watching how many cyclists - daily cyclists who ignore red lights, junctions, paths, solid white lines, etc and just do what they want with impunity.
See how long that lasts if they get on the spot fines, points on their car license, etc - not very methinks....

one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.

I'm pretty sure most of the things you mention are offences for all road users.

daily cyclists who ignore red lights

If you can get behind the paywall you may enjoy this article in The Times:
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3313817.ece ][b]"If it’s safer to run a red light on a bike, I’ll carry on doing it[/b]: Cyclists can’t be expected to abide by a law that makes them - at times - less safe" (Lech Mintowt-Czyz, The Times, 9th Feb 2012)[/url]

points on their car license

?? How would that work??

Can we also put points on car licenses for other non-car offences like shoplifting?

Re. training, and i'm possibly at risk of sounding like I'm victim blaming, but what are people's thoughts on training people how to set off from traffic lights? I've been riding into and out of Manchester for the past four years and I'm always amazed by the amount of people who set off during really busy traffic sat down in a piddly gear and are barely up to walking pace by the time they've crossed the junction. Meanwhile all the traffic are bunched up trying to pass where it's least safe. Obviously educating drivers to have a bit of patience etc is the priority but if you're sat in the blind spot of a 40tonne truck, maybe we should be trying to get in a more visible position as quickly as possible?

I can't help but stand up and sprint away from lights, I get a bit of a gap so it's easier for people to pass once the traffic is a bit more spaced out. Whenever i'm stuck behind a bimbler, i feel like a sitting duck with everyone waiting to turn behind or to try and squeeze past when it's not possible.

hammyuk - Member
IMHO - one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.
Boils my p*ss watching how many cyclists - daily cyclists who ignore red lights, junctions, paths, solid white lines, etc and just do what they want with impunity.
See how long that lasts if they get on the spot fines, points on their car license, etc - not very methinks....

hammyuk - Member
IMHO - one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for [b]motorists[/b] in line with those of other road users.[b]And actually enforce them more strrongley[/b]
Boils my p*ss watching how many [b]motorists[/b] - daily [b]]motorists[/b] who ignore red lights, junctions, paths, solid white lines, etc and just do what they want with impunity.
See how long that lasts if they get on the spot fines, points on their car license,[b]or take their club card points off them for the fuel they buy etc[/b] - not very methinks....

one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.

I'm pretty sure most of the things you mention are offences for all road users. - [/b]They well may be but its ignored and its not prosecuted at all.[b]

daily cyclists who ignore red lights
If you can get behind the paywall you may enjoy this article in The Times:
"If it’s safer to run a red light on a bike, I’ll carry on doing it: Cyclists can’t be expected to abide by a law that makes them - at times - less safe" (Lech Mintowt-Czyz, The Times, 9th Feb 2012)

[/b]Its a red light - deal with it the same as everyone else on the road[b]

points on their car license
?? How would that work??
[/b]Easily - more points leads to increased insurance and/or a ban[b]

Can we also put point on car licenses for other non-car offences like shoplifting?
[/b]Now who's being an arse? This is about being on the road and committing an offence - you want to be on the road then you obey the rules the same as everyone else has to. If you choose to ride/drive ON THE ROAD then tough sh*t if you don't like the consequences of breaking the rules.[b]

God forbid that anyone one a "cycling forum" would accept that their "right" to be on the road could have responsibilities to their actions. 🙄

hammyuk - Member
Can we also put point on car licenses for other non-car offences like shoplifting?
Now who's being an arse? This is about being on the road and committing an offence - you want to be on the road then you obey the rules the same as everyone else has to. If you choose to ride/drive ON THE ROAD then tough sh*t if you don't like the consequences of breaking the rules.

I don't have a driving license. Where would my points go? My nectar card?

6 is the crucial one for me.
It would mean many traffic lights could be removed and traffic speeds will increase and will stop the desperate "overtake the cyclist before the next jam" we get now as well as reduce casualties all round

Nah, not convinced. I have no problems with people driving around me at >30, none of the accidents I've ever nearly had on the road have been speed related and unmarked crossroads/junctions have far higher accident stats than ones with traffic lights. People don't slow down, they just pay less attention as they EXPECT there to be a sign if there's something that's a danger around.

"If it’s safer to run a red light on a bike, I’ll carry on doing it: Cyclists can’t be expected to abide by a law that makes them - at times - less safe" (Lech Mintowt-Czyz, The Times, 9th Feb 2012)

In these situations, cyclists stay close to the kerb and do not interfere with other flows of traffic.

Utter rubbish, if you cycle through a left turn or straight on at a T, as claimed in this article, you totally affect the other traffic by narrowing the lanes.

Sometimes I think the people who run the country have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm sure I could find times where it woudl have been safer for me to run a red in a car, can I ignore them in cars too?

How about redesigning car windscreens so you can see out of them more easily?

[img] [/img]

God forbid that anyone one a "cycling forum" would accept that their "right" to be on the road could have responsibilities to their actions.

I think you're missing the point entirely. Not everyone who cycles has a license to drive. Hence creating a two-tier unequal penalty system. Stupid idea.

Now who's being an arse? This is about being on the road and committing an offence

Yes, but what you are suggesting is punishing someone for cycling offences by penalising their license for driving a car.

I'm not "being an arse" - that makes no sense.

Apart from the obvious legal issues, and the obvious difficulty of enforcing it (i.e. identifying cyclists/bikes), what about folk without driving licenses? Will they just not be allowed to cycle on the roads then?

"A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists",

Matthew Parris, The Times, 27 December 2007

Still find it hard to trust this paper

Point's on the licence isn't a bad idea, it works for motorcycles and trucks, you only get 1 licence for all other vehicles, why should bikes be different?

The problem is, how do you enforce a ban on cycling? The threat of a ban from driving would work in most places, but I imagine a lot of Londoners don't drive at all and therefore could continue to accumulate fines indefinately.

It would also require everyone in the country to be issued with a driving licence.

Point's on the licence isn't a bad idea, it works for motorcycles and trucks, you only get 1 licence for all other vehicles, why should bikes be different?

Because, as you say, it means everyone would HAVE to have a driving license pretty much from birth, then due to the legal ramifications of being licensed etc you'd have to be insured, so another set of insurance would be required and add more cost to cycling, putting more people off it.

There's laws to stop people doing stupid things. We don't need more. They need to be enforced, that's all.

http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/

The problem is, how do you enforce a ban on cycling?

Also, how do you uniquely identify a bike? Car-style reg plates, front and back, big enough to be read by ANPR cameras? Mmmm.. nice.

Oh and not to mention setting up a new agency, at least twice the size of the DVLA, to handle registration of all the bikes in the UK (+ transfer of registration when you sell it obviously. Hmm.. What happens if you just sell the frame?)

would also require everyone in the country to be issued with a driving licence.

Including children.

Some classic stuff on here.

Of course it is safer at times to jump red lights - thats because of bad road design and illegal parking.

Chamley - wtf? Of colurse bimblers have a right of use the road as well FFS

Those of you that want to prosecute cyclists for everything lets see some proper management of cars as well- I almost never see a car driving in accordance with the highway code. You know giving enough room and so on let alone parking where ever they want or breaking speed limits.

Zero tolerence works all ways - every car on the roads would be stopped and prosecuted every journey near enough

Classic STW - even a campaign to make cycling better is no good for the STW petrol head tendency

GrahamS - Member
Now who's being an arse? This is about being on the road and committing an offence

Yes, but what you are suggesting is punishing someone for cycling offences by penalising their license for driving a car.

[b]EXACTLY![/b] So you're saying you have exemption from the Road Traffic Act 1958 because you are a cyclist? What makes it ok to commit an offence ON THE ROAD yet have zero repercussions? Because your are a cyclist it's now ok is it? Drive to work and do the same as on your bike and see how long you keep you freedom let alone your license![b]

I'm not "being an arse" - that makes no sense.

[/b]Makes perfect sense - on the road - liable for any offense REGARDLESS OF MANNER OF TRANSPORT.[b]

Apart from the obvious legal issues, and the obvious difficulty of enforcing it (i.e. identifying cyclists/bikes), what about folk without driving licenses? Will they just not be allowed to cycle on the roads then?

Why not? If you choose to cycle on the road then why should you not expect to be punished for breaking those rules in place. There are enough cameras to easily identify persistent offenders, police/CSO's to enforce and fine and if you keep doing it then why shouldn't that "right" be taken from you?

Has nothing IMHO to do with "petrol head" but simply enforcing the rules. There isn't one rule for motorists and another for cyclists in the Road Traffic Act...........

Of course it is safer at times to jump red lights - thats because of bad road design and illegal parking.

No it's not, the safest option is to get the drivers to drive to the law and sensibly. But I agree that generally car users are just as in need of paying attention to their techniques.

Classic STW - even a campaign to make cycling better is no good for the STW petrol head tendency

To be fair I'm both a petrol head and a cyclist who loves road riding and MTBing and from my point of view, I like to think I've got balanced views on this!

No-one should be flouting the law, cyclists shouldn't need their own lanes and special dispensation/road equipment if everyone used the roads correctly, which is perfectly possible (no matter how unlikely).

there are unquestionably places where it is safer to RLJ. then I will do it.

You keep saying that TJ and you are quite correct, but it dodges the real issue which is people ignoring red lights completely as a matter of course.

proven to be wrong - you use less fuel at 20 mph

Unsure about this. My car certainly does not. It does drive fine and I've no problem with 20mph limits but I am sure my car is not more economical at that speed due to having to be in a lower gear.

But anyway - yes to training, yes to better education and communication and yes to better cycle facilities. BUT cycle facilities need to be good. Something they could really do would be to add cycle filters at suitable junctions, which would potentially allow turning left on a red, say.

So how can you stop incidents like [url= http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1484357_cyclists-horror-as-road-rage-thug-mows-him-down-at-lights-in-fallowfield ]this[/url] happening?

More severe penalties for people who kill by driving dangerously would be a start.

All of these pleaded guilty and got 200 hours community service...

http://road.cc/content/news/25919-driver-worked-and-drove-all-night-fatal-collision-cyclist

http://road.cc/content/news/38525-driving-ban-and-work-order-hit-and-run-killer-lancs-cyclist

http://road.cc/content/news/50423-teenage-driver-who-killed-rob-jefferies-receives-community-order-and-18-month-ban

Molgrips its been tested. You are accelerating less so you use less energy. RAC tested it and even with loading the test as much as they could they could only get the cars to use less petrol kept to 20 mph in very unusual circumstances

hamm yuk - I do like your frothing. It's amusing. Do keep it up..!

More severe penalties for people who kill by driving dangerously would be a start.

Doubt it. For most people having to live with having killed an innocent person is far worse punishment than anything else.

Molgrips its been tested. You are accelerating less so you use less energy

Then I doubt their test set-up. Depends on many other factors. But I digress, this is not important here.

Chamley - wtf? Of colurse bimblers have a right of use the road as well FFS

Yeah fair enough i knew that wouldn't go down well, thats why i asked for thoughts. Everyone's got their own speed etc once they're moving, some faster than others but I feel setting off as slowly as possible is just stupid. If you're sat in an ASL and a trucks parked up behind you, there's a pretty good chance they can't see you from the cab. Given we're years away from any decent development of cycling infrastructure, it wouldnt take much to give people a bit of guidance about getting in a more visible position. Common sense I would have thought...

Sometimes I think the people who run the country have no idea what they're talking about.

Hmmm... I can't tell if you're just trolling or not hammy, so just in case...

So you're saying you have exemption from the Road Traffic Act 1958 because you are a cyclist?

Nope. In fact the [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents/enacted ]Road Traffic Act 1988[/url] contains specific rules for cyclists (sections 24, 28-32 and 81). And that's fine.

What makes it ok to commit an offence ON THE ROAD yet have zero repercussions?

Nothing. The existing rules can and are enforced. [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights ]Cyclists [u]are[/u] prosecuted for jumping red lights[/url] for instance.

So to be clear, I'm [u]not[/u] arguing cyclists should be exempt from any applicable road traffic laws.
I'm saying that punishing cycle offences with points on a driving license is completely unworkable.

[list][*]what about cyclists (like CaptJon) that don't have driving licenses, either because they are too young to drive or they just never have? Are you suggesting they'd be exempt from punishment or would they just not be allowed on the road any more?[/*]

[*]how would you identify bicycles/cyclists on sight to issue penalties from cameras or to catch the "disqualified cyclists" who are riding without a driving license? To work with current systems you'd need car-style reg plates on bikes. Where would we mount them? And who'd pay for the enormous new DVLA-style agency required to register all the bikes in the UK?[/*]

[*]legally speaking cyclists do not need a "license". They have the historic right to use the public road. Driver's must seek a special license from the crown (derived from the licence to [i]"drive"[/i] cattle). You'll need to rewrite a [u]lot[/u] of laws to bring cyclists under license. And presumably pedestrians and horse riders will also then need to be licensed?[/*]

[*]In road regulations [url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069869 ]"references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks"[/url]. So in your "fair" vision you could get your driving license taken off you for offences that were not even committed on a road. Upset a rambler, lose your driving license. Great.[/*]

[*]the penalties for motor vehicles are harsher for a good reason. In an average year there will be around 2000 people killed on the roads. Collisions with cyclists kills less than one person a year.[/*][/list]

Also none of this is actually a solution any way. Cars already have reg plates and get points on their license, yet the majority of drivers regularly break road traffic laws. And even when they are repeatedly caught, [url= http://road.cc/content/news/44102-courts-let-nearly-half-motorists-who-accrue-12-or-more-penalty-points-continue ]almost half of drivers with 12 points or more get to keep their license anyway[/url].

molgrips - Member

Molgrips its been tested. You are accelerating less so you use less energy

Then I doubt their test set-up. Depends on many other factors. But I digress, this is not important here.

it was a motoring organisation trying to show 20 mph limits would use more petrol - and failed

Just think about it - accelerating to 20 mph or acceleration to 30 mph which takes more energy? Driving at 20 mph or 30 mph - which has more friction?

Ok - so you might claim the engine is in a less efficient rev range - well use the gears to put it back in that efficient rev range

The reasons cyclists die under the wheels of HGV's is that they have put themselves in a dangerous position - and if you think otherwise go sit in the cab of one and see if you can spot the idiots trying to 'squeeze' though...

And its not just cyclists, m/c's and scooter riders do it also.

And 20mph, why not 10mph - or employ the man with a red-flag?

But if anyone has a problem with 20mph, just get an auto - they're fine for low-speeds.

Graham - no trolling at all! It's a genuine hate of mine - I have pretty much every category possible and spend a lot of money every year in fees, insurance, tax, etc YET the vast majority of both commuting and pleasure cyclists treat the road as their own private track. Sod red lights, give ways, solid white lines, paths and the rest.
Why shouldn't they be penalised in the same way as other road users? Just because historically the right is given to use the road shouldn't give carte blanche to ignore the law governing it.
There should be no exemption at all - there isn't for vehicles so why should there be for cycles? The odd story in the press doesn't count - sit with a coffee near any junction in any major city/town and watch how many break the law. Do it again the following day and see how many are the same people time and again yet they as often as not are drivers who wouldn't do it in the car but think its fine to jump the pavement/red light/etc on their pushbike.
As a driver - if I go through a red light or cross a solid white line then I fully expect to get penalised if caught.
So why should it be any different for a cyclist? Why should I expect to get treated differently because of the mode of transport - if I'm on the road then I should be governed the same.
All road users should be - ESPECIALLY if that cyclist has a driving license. If they don't then they should expect a fine and a requirement for mandatory training. Do it again and the punishment increases in the same way it does for a license holder. Works in other countries - commit any offence on the road and that offence is recorded and if you happen to have a licence then it's recorded on there - a cycle is treated the same as a car.
Why would there need to be a new agency - the rider is responsible so they carry the blame for their actions.
Treat those without a license the same as they are now ( illegal drivers, etc), any offenses go on record and any points go on your "license" held by dvla. Should they then choose to take their test, etc those points gained for the offenses committed become live and they suffer the consequences in the same way those who already have a license do( increased insurance, etc).
Persistant offenders get a court order keeping them off the road in the same way a curfew/tag works now.
Sounds harsh but it's how drivers are treated for offenses on the road and any cyclist doing so should be treated the bloody same.

Errmmm- two major issues with that

1) its not the vast majority of bike riders 16% in a recent survey and IME less than that

2) all road users are liable in the same way if caught Motorised or not.

How many car drivers do you see leaving adequate room? Obeying speed limits? using mobile phones? Using indicators and mirrors properly?

IME car drivers are far less likely to obey the highway code. Zero tolereance? all for it. No cars left on the roads on a few weeks. A car driven within the highway code is a very rare thing in deed

How many folk killed by cyclists? How many killed by cars.

Get some perspective on this

Was in that there London the other week on a quiet Sunday travelling from London City Airport to Canning Town.Even the bus I was on went through two red lights 😯

one of the biggest things they could do is introduce penalties for cyclists in line with those of other road users.

there are unquestionably places where it is safer to RLJ. then I will do it.

I'm struggling to think of one. It is late, but I can't seem to think of any time I'd rather RLJ, especially when you consider the latent hatred and anger it causes towards all of us which plays out in real-world incidents of cars purposefully causing danger to cyclists.

I would rather they be annoyed at me for RLJ that for getting int ehrir way or worse letting them squash me.

I'll find the google earth of one

http://g.co/maps/shwqz

You are coming off a cyle path thru a park. You get a green light at the same time as the cars from your right. Notice the parked cars ahead inthe cycle lane adn all the cars from your right want to go to the left lane. After the next junction I want to turn right.;

If I wait for the green as I reach the road the cars from my right are all swinging across in front of me despite my right of way and the cycle lane is almost always blocked with illegally parked cars - so I have to go along the road with cars coming from my right and squishing me into the kerb. at the next junction I have to get to the rightside of traffic and make a right turn. I have been run into a parked car hereby a car that came frommy right and simply changed lanes into me.

If I go on the red but when I can see the traffic from my left is clear I get a free run down to the next unction with no cars trying to squish me, I am at the front at the next junction so can make my right turn easily.

If there is no parked cars I will usually wait but its very rare there are not illegally parked cars one side or the other

edit

In this pic http://g.co/maps/5f5w9 yo can see the issue more clearly - I would be merging from the left there - there should be two lanes worth of room but look at where the cars are.

people get shouted at for RLJing there even if you wait for the green as cars from the right do not believe you got a green and the right of way

But as I said in my post, if the cars followed the rules and common sense on the road you shouldn't need to act illegally. Which has been my point all along - if all road users showed respect for the rules and each other we wouldn't have 99.9% these problems. And I don't think selecting which laws to obey and which not to is a viable option - you can't whine about illegally parked cars if you illegally run reds.

Purely pragmatic - its safer for me in that situation to go on the red. cars do not follow the rules of the road - I am all for zero tolerance - the roads would be car free in a couple of weeks. Just look at those pic and see - every car is in breach of the highway code - every single one.

edit - you said yo couldn't think of an instance when its safer to run a red - well there is one. I can see a hundred yards to my left where any cars would be coming from.

I do have some sympathy with the way Hammy feels, but not with his proposed methods of addressing the issues.

I spent a few days in Glasgow last year. One morning I sat at the hotel's bacony and enjoyed a coffee and a tab. I was surprised (my blood didn't boil and neither did my urine approach boiling point, my gast wasn't flabbered and I had no desire to change the laws of the land) by the huge shoals of cyclists running the red light of the pedestrian crossing below the balcony.

As a cyclist, it was embarassing. Cyclists were weaving between pedestrians through a red light - not one of them stopped. The next day was the same, and the next.

OK, so it seemed to be the accepted way of getting around - it's been normalised, drivers, cyclists and peds all expect it. Doesn't make it right.

he vast majority of both commuting and pleasure cyclists treat the road as their own private track. Sod red lights, give ways, solid white lines, paths and the rest.

May be different where you live, but round here it is a pretty small minority of muppets that ignore it to that extent. The majority of commuting and pleasure cyclists I see on the roads are pretty law abiding.

There should be no exemption at all - there isn't for vehicles so why should there be for cycles?

There isn't? What is it you think cyclists are exempt from exactly?

The laws applicable to all road users equally apply to cyclists.

sit with a coffee near any junction in any major city/town and watch how many break the law.

Yep. And I'm afraid you are likely to see far more drivers breaking the law than cyclists.

Why complain cyclists are "exempt" when those drivers are untouched and causing considerably more danger with their actions?

Jumping red lights in particular is definitely not a cyclist only problem:

(I particularly like the first one where the car honks the cyclist for not jumping the red light).

Why would there need to be a new agency

If you want to register/license bikes, then to cope with issuing registration plates, cycling licenses, ownership documents, etc for every single bike and cyclist in the UK then you'd need something at least the size of the DVLA (probably bigger, I seem to remember reading that bikes outsell cars two-to-one?). How would that be paid for? Cost is the main reason other countries have rejected bike registration.

Why should I expect to get treated differently because of the mode of transport

Because ultimately, cycling through a pedestrian precinct is considerably less of a crime than driving your HGV through a pedestrian precinct.

Cars and other motor vehicles kill or injure over 200,000 people a year in the UK. Bikes don't.

Why should the law not target those who do the most harm with the biggest penalties?