bradley wiggins/cycling

[malumbu]

Couldn't find anything on the site so apologies if this has already been discussed:

Facts are plain:

Most drivers and cyclists are resonable and decent*

Most cyclists in London are aware of the risks and cycle accordingly

15 time more dangerous cycling in the countryside - Yikes (think this is in part as city drivers are more aware)

But better cycling infrastucture please

And cycling proficency

And driver training (both tests, and the initiatives where HGV drivers for example have goes on bikes, and similarly cyclists have a look see in a HGV cab)

*Apart from post office vans racing themselves back to depot at 6.30 and all young driving instructors when on their own as they are so angry having such a s... job and young people in sporty coupes with loud music, at least you hear them coming.

Please post to throrougly agree with my wise words.

[silverfox]

What worries me is the presumption it is always the driver's fault when any half-wit can buy a bike and take to the road with no cycling proficiency test or insurance.

In any car/bike accident the question should be asked of the cyclist - "have you got insurance?"

personally I think The Times newspaper has made an ass of itself with it's cycling campaign.

[maxxi]

More worrying that any half wit can pass a driving test and then ignore/forget most of the things they are taught and drive like selfish morons who regard anything that doesn't weigh a ton and isn't covered in steel as a fucking nuisance.

But yeah - insurance is the key, of course it is. Just make sure you ask the cyclist while you're peeling them off your bonnet. Because as a driver all I really care about is my no claims bonus.

[silverfox]

Nonsense Maxxi.

Have you ever driven a car?

[Jeremy]

I think better infrastructure for cyclists is key. There's no point having cycle lanes if they're going to abruptly end at critical points. And shared cycle/bus lanes just don't seem like a good idea.

maxxi's right that there are a lot of ignorant selfish drivers on the road - London is full of them. But at the same time, almost every day I see a cyclist do something crazy, and I can't help thinking that they're going to end up seriously hurt.

[silverfox]

Fair points Jeremy.

A cursory look at the For Sale section on this forum shows it is possible to buy a bog standard bike or a state of the art carbon fibre, nano tube model worth several hundred pounds. People can buy such bikes and immediately hit the roads without any training/cycling proficiency instruction.

It should be mandatory that cyclists are taxed (say, ?20 a year) and insured (after successfully passing a cycling proficiency course) before they can cycle on the road.

[binary_star]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It should be mandatory that cyclists are taxied

Ermm, presumably you mean 'taxed'? And based on what? Current rules?

"Car vehicle tax rates are based on either engine size or fuel type and CO2 emissions, depending on when the vehicle was registered"

https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates

That'll be ?0 then. And how much will that cost the 'tax' payer to administrate!? Well done SF, bravo!

[northlondoner]

What Silver Fox said. It's churlish to quibble about the precise amount of tax whilst ignoring a sane and moderate principle.

[binary_star]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What Silver Fox said. It's churlish to quibble

> about the precise amount of tax whilst ignoring a

> sane and moderate principle.

The 'precise' amount of tax would be nothing it would be a pointless waste of time and money not a sane principle at all.

[Huguenot]

An excellent study made in the 90s* regarding the cost vs payments by sector for the UK road system made it clear that 75% of the costs of roads (in total around ?100bn at this time) are paid for by general taxation, and only 25% by motorists.

In terms of wear and tear, it is motorists that create the damage - not cyclists and pedestrians, who just aren't heavy enough.

General taxation isn't 'free money' of course, it's paid for by all taxpayers - including cyclists.

This means that cyclists currently pay disproportionately for the upkeep of road compared with the costs they incur.

Hence there is no moral or logical case to tax cyclists for road use.

That aside, taxation isn't always about sharing costs, sometimes we want to incentivise particular activities. In a world suffering a resource squeeze I can see every case to incentivise people to get on two wheels, and not one to encourage people to buy more cars.

*you can read it here: http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_subsidy.htm

[Jeremy]

Not convinced about tax and insurance. I think some sort of licence would be a good idea though, to ensure basic training has been completed, and as a means of banning repeat offenders.

[binary_star]

This whole thread is sadly predictable...

"cyclists use the road when my hard earned taxes have gone into providing cycle paths"

Direct quote from the Guardian's "Bradley Wiggins is hit by a car, then the cyclist haters pile in"

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/08/bradley-wiggins-cyclist-haters-cycling?cat=commentisfree&type=article

[Alec John Moore]

Some cycling campaigners think the focus should shift away from demanding safety for cyclists specifically, to call for safer cities and towns for all. Clearly that represents a broader approach but if successful would mean a reduction in car use through specific measures to achieve that and an increase in public transport, walking and, of course, cycling. The benefits are expected to be healthier living environments for everyone.

[binary_star]

What cyclist haters are failing miserably to understand is that:

1. Re tax: cyclists are heavily subsidising 'road' tax already

2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to be injured yet less likely to be at fault in road traffic accidents

If anyone was to ever to introduce a compulsory tax or insurance system it would likely be to the detriment of existing motorists. So. Get. Over. It. Or at least read up on it before spouting nonsensical vitriol. You hate cyclists. We get it. Get some facts, get some data, then be a bit embarrassed about the whole thing.

[silverfox]

"...2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to be injured yet less likely to be at fault in road traffic accidents..."

Where is the factual evidence for this?

Also binary_star, have you ever undertaken and passed a cycling proficiency test? (honest answer please).

[DJKillaQueen]

SF...it is estimated that as many as 1 million drivers on UK roads either have no insurance, licence or both - so a system of insurance, testing and licensing isn't a guarantee of anything.

Binary Star is correct. Cycle Tax would cost more to enforce than it raises and what would be the policy for under 18's exactly (who are exempt from tax)? Insurance too is formulated by outcome (i.e. cost to the insurers). Bad cylcing is not the main cause of cost to motor insurers. The hatred of cyclists that Binary alludes to is a real one, and like all hatred of any single group, disproportionate.

I have driven both cars and vans, and motorcycles for the past 20 years. I have also cycled (on public roads) for around 30 years. I've have been knocked off my bicycle by drivers a total of six times. Five of those occasions were drivers overtaking me and then turning left in front of me. I've had one motorcycle accident when a car pulled out of a side road in front of me. I've had two minor car accidents, neither of which were mt fault. Those experiences alone tell me that some drivers behave differently around cyclists than they do other vehicles.

My genuine view is that some drivers have an impatience with cyclists, because they travel at a slower speed. Those are poor drivers. And those drivers are often the same kinds of drivers that bully other motorists too. Increased congestion is probably the main factor in testing the patience of impatient drivers.

The first rule of the highway code is 'to avoid an accident if you can'. Cyclists are always going to be more vulnerable than vehicles. Yes there are bad cyclists, just as there are bad drivers, and just as it's unrealistic for every incidence of bad driving to be picked up and prosecuted, the same goes for cyclists. Safe driving/cycling is an attitude, but it's not one guaranteed by licensing alone.

[silverfox]

Some fair points DJKQ. I'm not trying to say all drivers are innocent angels and no doubt there are plenty of uninsured scoundrels out there. Nor am I a cyclist hater.

I am always pleased to see a cyclist look over their shoulder and give a hand signal before moving in front of traffic - it tells me that person knows what he or she is doing. Unfortunately it is very rare to see cycling skills.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree that hand signalling is important. For some cyclists though, the combination of signalling to turn right, whilst trying to look over the shoulder, to see if it's safe to manoevre to the centre of the road etc is very tricky, when traffic is busy. How it's supposed to work of course, it that when the cyclist signals, the follwing driver is supposed to slow down to allow the cyclist to move accross the road into position to make the turn safely. What I find though, is that often, you are waiting for a car that will let you move, to the point where you have to force the vehicle to let you make the manoevre. Yes, cyclists need to signal, but vehicles need to give way as they are supposed to as well.

On cycling proficiency courses, I did mine at school when I was 10 years old. It seems to me entirely sensible that all schools provide cycling proficiency courses for children.

The best thing I ever bought for my cycle was a wireless indicator set. I've had many drivers tell me how good they think they are. Maybe requiring something like that on cycles might be a more useful aid to safer cycling.

[Applespider]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "...2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to

> be injured yet less likely to be at fault in road

> traffic accidents..."

>

> Where is the factual evidence for this?

It's here in a 2010 TFL survey - page 22 gives a table that notes the contributory factors in cycle accidents where someone was injured. The top 3 reasons* summarise as follows - Attributed to cyclist 1860 times, - Attributed to motorist 4796 times - so yes, I'd say that there's evidence to show that motorists are more likely to drive into a cyclist than otherwise. And purely in physical terms - a cyclist has a thin layer of cotton/lycra and a chunk of polystyrene (certified to 12mph) for protection. A driver has a tonne or so of metal/plastic cage that's designed to save their lives at 70+mph. Is there any doubt who is going to be injured more in any accident?

* (1) not looking properly, (2) failing to judge another's speed/direction, (3) carelessness or recklessness

> Also binary_star, have you ever undertaken and

> passed a cycling proficiency test? (honest answer

> please).

Incidentally, there's no such thing as a cycling proficiency test any longer. There's Bikeability training where you get certified at different levels as a child or as an adult. And for reference, I did pass a cycling proficiency test as a kid - and I've done the Southwark current bikeability training too.

I'm not denying that there are idiot cyclists out there (they make me mad since their stupidity tends tar the more sensible amongst us) but they are more of a danger to themselves than others. Idiot drivers are more of a danger to every other road user. Thankfully both groups are in a minority. But as the nights get darker, it's only common sense for all road users (including pedestrians crossing at non-crossings) to take extra care to check that they are seeing everything.

[binary_star]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "...2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to

> be injured yet less likely to be at fault in road

> traffic accidents..."

>

> Where is the factual evidence for this?

There are plenty of studies, and stats available from the usual suspects, I'm bored of posting them tbh, they're easy enough to find if you really want to.

> Also binary_star, have you ever undertaken and

> passed a cycling proficiency test? (honest answer

> please).

Yes.

[silverfox]

It would be quite understandable for anyone involved in an accident to claim it wasn't their fault (and any lawyer worth their salt will tell you not to admit liability) so such studies must be of dubious validity.

I'm pleased to read that you have passed a cycling proficiency test though.

[Applespider]

Silverfox - the survey I linked to isn't based on people's claims. It's the police's assignment of blame after their accident investigation. Although given how limited some of those investigations are, at least some of the numbers will be dubious. Having said that, the proportions are so clearly divided, that it does indicate a fair likelihood that the theory holds water.

[silverfox]

Thanks Applespider, that TFL study was very instructive and does make the case that the majority of accidents are the fault of the vehicle driver and not the cyclist. The costs associated with such accidents are also quite disturbing.

Interesting also that the proficiency test has been replaced.

[binary_star]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting also that the proficiency test has

> been replaced.

Probably a good thig, the cycling proficiency was only ever aimed at kids.

In case it's your next question...I haven't taken whatever the replacement is.

[northlondoner]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What cyclist haters are failing miserably to

> understand is that:

>

> 1. Re tax: cyclists are heavily subsidising 'road'

> tax already

> 2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to be

> injured yet less likely to be at fault in road

> traffic accidents

>

> If anyone was to ever to introduce a compulsory

> tax or insurance system it would likely be to the

> detriment of existing motorists. So. Get. Over.

> It. Or at least read up on it before spouting

> nonsensical vitriol. You hate cyclists. We get it.

> Get some facts, get some data, then be a bit

> embarrassed about the whole thing.

Friend, you're sounding a little deranged. Most folk don't hate cyclists. They just want a lot of them to act more responsibly. You know, stop the red light busting , trying to overtake on the inside, riding at night without lights etc. Jeez.