Getting cyclists in order!!

[rgutsell]

Hi all

Here is a thread that probably has been thoroughly done before but her goes;

I am a cyclist, and car driver, and lorry and coach driver, and I believe;

1. All cyclists on certain designated main routes should have passed a basic road test

2. No untrained cyclists should be allowed on designated main routes. (ie A and many B routes)

3. All cycles on main designated routes should be registered, with clearly displayed registration details, and built to basic road safety standards including built in lights, working brakes, mud guards, and batteries (re charging). This means that track bikes, childrens bikes and mountain bikes etc would not be allowed on these designated roads, unless adapted.

4. Community wardens and Police etc should be able to stop and prevent cyclist without these in place from carrying on.

......and I'm not a whining old git! I just think that us cyclists have got to stop pretending that we are forces for anti authoritarian liberty, and bite the bullet.

4.

[macroban]

Which roads in East Dulwich would have these restrictions?

[PeckhamRose]

When you have ridden a motorcycle, and a tank, and taken sheep across a bridge, landed a helicopter on Goose Green, then you'll be an all rounder.

When Exhibition Road does it's number getting rid of all lines signs and people start paying attention on the road and pavement amalgamation, I think Southwark Council should get on the case and nominate Lordship Lane for experiment number two.

[lenk]

this is nonsense. Have you seen the standard of car driver that you get in London?

what have you got against track bikes? Do you even know anything about bikes?

When was the last time a car driver got killed by a cyclist?

I put it to you that you aren't a cyclist at all.

And police and community wardens - just try and catch me.

[Horsebox]

Built in lights? So most if not all bicycles would be unsuitable for road use under your scheme. And what purpose would mudguards serve other than to keep the cyclist a little cleaner?

Nope.

[macroban]

A205 Lordship Lane

A2214 East Dulwich Grove - East Dulwich Road

A2216 Dog Kennel Hill - Grove Vale - Lordship Lane

B219 Barry Road - Peckham Rye

B238 Forest Hill Road - Peckham Rye

These are the proposed restricted roads.

[Keef]

When was the last time a car driver got killed by a cyclist?

I don't have an answer for this, but just because a bike isn't going to total a car, doesn't mean that a cyclist can't cause an accident.

[jimbo1964]

What a lot of old tosh.

[skidmarks]

Half my team are out surveying the routes for the majors? new cycle super highway schemes today. I can?t wait to see how watered down and pathetic they will end up after the big media spin! They will end up as a few blue signs, some coloured surface course and some white lining as ultimately it seems in this country that one person in a car is more important than one person on a push bike.

This website has some great examples of bad cycle infrastructure!

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/

[woofmarkthedog]

lenk Wrote:

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

> this is nonsense. Have you seen the standard of

> car driver that you get in London?

>

> what have you got against track bikes? Do you even

> know anything about bikes?

>

> When was the last time a car driver got killed by

> a cyclist?

>

> I put it to you that you aren't a cyclist at all.

>

>

> And police and community wardens - just try and

> catch me.

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

I bet Lenk has a peg & a piece of cardboard that hits the spokes making a "motor sound" as he rides his bike ...

ohh and a lolly stick as a gear lever jammed between the cables..

[DaveR]

rgutsell, there doesn't have to be a choice between being 'anti-authoritarian' and imposing a load of rules without any real justification - and you don't seem to be offering any real justification.

Bicycles are more lightly regulated than cars because they create less risk (HGVs and buses are more regulated than cars because of the greater risk - funny that!)

There have been lots of threads on here where drivers have a moan about cyclists, but I haven't seen one yet that contains any suggestion of injury to a person or damage to property caused by a cyclist. That's not to say it can't happen, or even be potentially serious, but the risk is very small.

And, as others have observed - mudguards? WTF??

[Asset]

p'raps the mudguards would be to stop the cars getting dirty with the backspray......

[Horsebox]

Asset Wrote:

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

> p'raps the mudguards would be to stop the cars

> getting dirty with the backspray......

Indeed. Nothing worse than a dirrrrrty automobile.

[silverfox]

rgutsell, I agree with points 1 and 2. Cycling proficiency tests should be compulsory for all before being allowed on the road and some degree of knowledge of the highway code wouldn't do any harm. Far too many people think getting a bike and putting on a hi-vis vest and helmet is the way forward. Many cyclists are simply pests and a danger to themselves

[Muley]

The OP makes some valid points- having mudguards fitted to one's bicycle speaks of a certain refinement, no? Furthermore, by rights all cycles ought to be made by Pashley and have a nice wicker basket on the front.

And another thing, would you young people mind showing a little decorum and dispense with all that vulgar figure-hugging fluorescent lycra nonsense- there's nothing wrong with a nice Laura Ashley floral print.

I don't know what the neighbours will make of all this carry-on, I really don't...

[rgutsell]

Heh heh heh

I knew my post would stir stuff up!!

On the point of bikes not being dangerous; a month ago my partners (aged 83) father was crossing the road on a zebra crossing in Chiswick and was struck at full speed by a cyclist (helmeted and on a racer), and was taken to hospital with a fractured wrist and cheek and a broken nose. It has severely affected his abilty to live independently. He is unable to claim from the cyclist (no insurance). The Police "may" prosecute. (The cyclist was also hurt and was breathylysed).

The most dangerous thing about cylists is that they think they are smaller, lighter and less of a risk to others.

By "Main routes" I mean designated A roads and B roads, where the signs already have colour schemes etc. Of course kids should ride bikes which may not have full road equipment; but in residential areas, and off the main routes. And Mountain Bikes are for.......riding on mountains and off road environments. If they are ridden on roads amongst the public they should be up to a better standard with equipment, and have lights etc.

On the subject of mudguards; Cyclists have a hard enough job seeing where they are going in rain, without having to cope with the water being flung up by the front wheel; and how does have having your back being soaked by mud and cold rain improve your ability see danger and react?

By the way, much of this (regarding the suitablity of bikes on roads) exists in law anyway. It just is not applied by anyone. If you are riding an unlit bike at night or without effective brakes (at any time)on public roads, you can be arrested and your bike confiscated. If you ride your bike under the influence of alcochol (Hence the guy above was tested) you can be arrested and the bike confiscated. If your bike is unfit for safe use (for example, no saddle or clearly broken wheels, or no working barkes) and you use it in public roads, you can be stopped by the Police and charged. But of course no one acts on this. And here is something that you probably did not know; all of those LED flashing lights are technically illegal. They do not fall into the legal definition of a light suitable for road use, because a) they flash and b) they are too small and c) they are usually unfixed.

And remember..I am a cylist!!

Looking forward to more posts!!

[louisiana]

rgutsell

You are a whining old git.

How about instituting registration for pedestrians while you're at it. After all, pedestrians use the roads (A, B and many others) all the time.

Regulation is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't achieve very much. Just lots of people to adminster the regulations (that you and me will pay for @ three times their annual salary) plus those that manage the regulators (likewise).

Wrote:

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

> Hi all

>

> Here is a thread that probably has been thoroughly

> done before but her goes;

>

> I am a cyclist, and car driver, and lorry and

> coach driver, and I believe;

>

> 1. All cyclists on certain designated main routes

> should have passed a basic road test

> 2. No untrained cyclists should be allowed on

> designated main routes. (ie A and many B routes)

> 3. All cycles on main designated routes should be

> registered, with clearly displayed registration

> details, and built to basic road safety standards

> including built in lights, working brakes, mud

> guards, and batteries (re charging). This means

> that track bikes, childrens bikes and mountain

> bikes etc would not be allowed on these designated

> roads, unless adapted.

> 4. Community wardens and Police etc should be able

> to stop and prevent cyclist without these in place

> from carrying on.

>

> ......and I'm not a whining old git! I just

> think that us cyclists have got to stop pretending

> that we are forces for anti authoritarian liberty,

> and bite the bullet.

> 4.

[Louisa]

I often believe that it is simply a case of 'damage limitation' when it comes to the up keep and maintenance of our public paths and highways. The car driver does indeed use the roads and take up more space, and we cannot have an unlimited number on the roads forever, so it does in many ways make sense that we should pay insurance, road tax and other things for the luxury of car use, but I equally believe that cyclists should not be made to have it hassle free either. I do often see arrogant users of vehicles other than motor driven ones abusing the rules of the road, and so I believe that it is only fair that certain rules should apply to keep them on the straight and narrow. Milton Keynes (laid out somewhat different to London) has a very successful cycle route running the length and breadth of the town and thus keeps cyclists off of the major roads, which in turn creates a better situation for everyone. We need to do something - maybe a consulation on this issue would be helpful.

Louisa.

[andy_nD]

rgutsell Wrote:

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

> here is something that you probably did not know;

> all of those LED flashing lights are technically

> illegal. They do not fall into the legal

> definition of a light suitable for road use,

> because a) they flash and b) they are too small

> and c) they are usually unfixed.

BZZT! Wrong.

(see http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071)

[Horsebox]

andy_nd, you beat me to it.

and Louisiana - LOL!

RGutsell, you bleat on about stuff that you seem to know very little about. Either you are trolling (then well done) or you really need to get a life.

I'm still failing to understand your point about mudguards. I regularly ride in the rain (in pretty much all weather in fact) and surface water is thrown forward by my front wheel, not up into my face and I'm still trying to understand your point about 'a muddy, cold back affecting ones ability to see and react to danger'. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Oh, I ride a mountain bike on my commute to work. 9 miles each way and no problems so far. It gets me there just fine. Would you prefer to see everybody riding 'sit up and beg' shoppers? As a cyclist (...remember!!) you should know that London is not a flat city therefore shopper bikes = cyclefail.

[DaveR]

"The most dangerous thing about cylists is that they think they are smaller, lighter and less of a risk to others"

No - this is true. It is dangerous when cyclists think that they are of no risk to others, or do stupid, needlessly risky things. Even then, the risk of serious harm is substantially less than with car drivers. I'm sorry to hear about your partner's father, but it's a pretty rare occurrence compared to accidents involving cars. The cyclist can be sued - no insurance doesn't mean no cause of action - and if the cyclist was breathalysed then the police have at least taken some steps to investigate whether he should be prosecuted. The police don't routinely stop cyclists because they (consciously or otherwise) also recognise that the risk they pose to others are small - although there has been a crackdown recently on jumping red lights.

Most complaints from drivers are not really about harm caused by cyclists but annoyance, and deep down there is resentment about the fact that in a car you have to sit around in traffic a lot but on a bike (or a motorbike) you can nip through or round the queue and get on your way. It certainly annoys me when I'm in the car, but as I'm also a cyclist I can rationalise it. You should try it, rgutsell.

[rgutsell]

HI all

Whining old git back again! LOL

I am, and I do, cycle. Ive taken, and passed, nearly all of the tests you can to use the roads; Cycling proficiency (donkeys years ago) Ordinary Licence,(decades ago) PCV, HGV ( as it was then) and some specialist vehicle tests too. (I don't have a motor cycle licence) I do not "get" why cyclists think that any person can just pick up any bit of cycling junk and get on the road and pedal away without a thought about behaviour, equipment or compliance. You would not want your child knocked down by a dangerous large vehicle; but by the same token, you would not want your children to be riding around on crap bikes on crowded roads, doing stupid, untrained, ill informed things.

Its not that I think that either cyclists or vehicle drivers are particularly "to blame". I think that there are faults on both sides. Just to up my "right on " cred, I have also been regular a participant in the critical mass bike rides and "Reclaim the streets " actions.

However I do not share the commonly held sense that cyclists are "different", and that they should remain ostensibly outside of common road law. Which as how they are treated at the moment.

I want cycling to be more available, supported and developed; but I also want it to be properly regulated, and made safe, yes and legal, and I don't want to be embarrassed by uncaring, untrained, badly equipped idiots on two wheels, (Wearing lycra or not!!)

Looking forward to more posts!!

[Asset]

In the matter of bike aesthetics mudguards are a no-no sadly.

[skidmarks]

It looks like we could learn a thing or two here. (all expenses paid trip for someone at TfL i bet)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8102621.stm

[louisiana]

rgutsell Wrote:

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

>

> However I do not share the commonly held sense

> that cyclists are "different", and that they

> should remain ostensibly outside of common road

> law. Which as how they are treated at the moment.

>

Cyclists are not special but cycling is.

The roads were once considered safe places for seven-year-olds to cycle. I suspect many people today consider roads to be intergalactic super-highways only appropriate for those cradling large warp factors between their thighs. At least in the UK.

I challenge you to look at the roads of some of our (non-Mediterranean) continental neighbours and consider the possibility that they might be more pleasant places for all. The Hague, for example, or Munich.