They're not the motorist's roads.
 

So whose roads are these that we're driving around on? The favourite neanderthalic bellow from the knuckle draggers to cyclists is "pay some road tax!" or that idiot John Griffin who said:

Which so spectacuarly missed the point about the roads.

These are Public Highways. They are paid for, to be used by the public, as a means of getting around. As such pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders have a right to use them as they have paid for them.

Drivers of motorised vehicles are allowed on these public highways under sufferance. This is the literal definition of 'under licence': you're being allowed to use the public highways. To earn that licence (and I'm NOT talking about the piece of paper: that's just a 'certificate' to show you've earned your licence to use a motor vehicle on the public highway)

Actually, I think clarifying the definition of license is in order here:
from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...ritish/licenceI am referring to the second definition in my argument.

Anyone can use the public highways, we have that right as individuals; but to use a motorised vehicle on our highways you need to ask permission and prove you are capable of doing so.

So anyone driving a motor vehicle should have the attitude that they are using someone elses roads, they are there under sufferance. An example of is when pedestrians have right of way when they have started crossing a junction: the motorised vehicle has to wait for them. (rule 170 highway code), this is why the motorists should look on pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders as the priority on the roads as they have the right to be there, the motorist doesn't.

So you see: the whole argument being proferred by these people bellowing "get off our roads" is backwards. They're not THEIR roads at all, the motorist is there by permission: a permission that can be removed. Maybe if people drove like they were a guest on the roads things would be a little more tolerable for us all.

Its the Queen's highway, is it not? So maybe we should all write a letter to the Queen asking her? ;) :lol1:


I still prefer a change of law/rights of way to the size of road user. The smaller are more manouverable and can react quicker than say a 30ton laden HGV. :D Although that wouldn't cure the meleé I had with a cylcist tearing down a bridal path that nearly ran over my 1ft tall dog! ;)

I take it your a spandex cladded 40 summat who thinks he's an Eddie Merckx. or a Lance Armstrong ;), with your cloppy shoes and vision of being the next yellow vested hero on the way to / from work :lol1::lol1:


Mart :D:D

Trout you were describing me there! Well apart from the 40's bit, I'm only in my 30's

:lol1:

im more of mountain biker myself, but most cyclist are also car owners so pay road tax anyway.

I agree with OP, but would also add...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/attachm...1&d=1226532652

:D

And maybe if cyclists rode with a bit more respect for other rode users, i.e; stay off pavements, obey traffic lights, etc, the rest of us wouldn't think you were all such cnuts ;)

Not all homos I know are cyclists but every cyclist I know is a homo.

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

• Killed by cycles: 18
• Seriously injured by cycles: 434
• Killed by cars: 3,495
• Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport


Great Britain cycle safety statistics

• In 2008, pedal bikes made up 1.8% of urban, non-motorway traffic but were involved in just 0.25% of pedestrian deaths and below 1% of serious pedestrian injuries
• During the same year, there were 13,272 recorded collisions between cars and bicycles, resulting in the deaths of 52 cyclists and no car drivers or passengers
• A study of collisions between cyclists and other vehicles from 2005-07 found police allocated blame to drivers in 60% of cases, to the cyclist in 30% and to both parties in the remainder

Source: Department for Transport

Although having cyclists on the road can be tedious when they get in the way ( I don't swerve round them or overtake them when the road ahead is blind), I appreciate that they do have a right to be on the road much the same as horses with riders who are significantly more tedious.
Unfortunately a significant number of cyclists (unlike horseriders) behave like bell-ends, ignoring lights and signs, riding two or more abreast, having no lights at night etc.
Cyclists complaining about getting a raw deal is a bit like coloured accountants moaning about being tugged by the Police. In the accountant's case, if so many of his 'pals' weren't misbehaving all the time then he wouldn't get any more grief than you or I. Same applies to the OP, he might be very responsible but such a high number of cyclists aren't they all often get tarred with the same brush.
All this aside, one thing is without question a necessity if anything is to change; all roadusers should have insurance, because with this comes a need to act responsibly.

Point being: there is no such thing.

Surley if a cyclist is using the road then they should have to pay the same as cars, ie road tax, insurance etc

[quote=Kieran_Burns;10590344]Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

• Killed by cycles: 18
• Seriously injured by cycles: 434
• Killed by cars: 3,495
• Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport


This is somewhat irrelevant as I doubt many of those pedestrian casualties were killed or injured by cars whilst still actually on the pavement, and there are a far greater number of vehicles on the road (where higher speed differential between users will always increase the chance and seriousness of collisions) than cyclists anyway.

surely we can all agree that caravans have absolutley no right on the roads - period

Whilst I agree with the Original post, despite thinking that cyclists (except Kieran) are a big buch of gayers! ;) :D It's worth pointing out just how stats such as the above fall apart with an ounce of critical thinking.

1500KG car hits pedestrian at 30mph = higher probability of death/serious injury than 80KG hitting the same pedestrian at the same speed.....although chances are the bike will be doing considerably less than that, unless in the Tour De France at the time!

Source: Newton! :)

Cyclists causing less injury and death to pedestrians than motorists, well duh! BUT Can we reliably infer anything from the above statistics in terms of biker vs rider skill/observation/consideration in use of the highways ...... Not really!

There is also a HUGE confound in the police attribution of blame statistic....lets see who can get it for the Brucie Bonus!! :D

Couldn't agree more a those who do behave like arrogant tw4ts ensure that those of us who ride considerately get tarred with the same brush:mad:

You're missing a serious point Paul, and one alluded to in my original post: that motor vehicles are vastly more dangerous to all other road users (and unfortunatley NON-road users as well) which is one reason why people using a motor vehicle do so under licence.

Oh - and about Insurance: lack of insurance does not remove culpability. It just means that the person at fault has to pay for the damages out of their own pocket.

Oh, and a great many other people on the road HAVE 3rd party insurance through house insurance or club membership or directly.

+1 - it's a massive bone of contention with the more socially responsible people. It's kind of one the reasons why I do my damnest to be as courteous as I can. Seems to be working so far! :)

its the same with bikes as it is with cars
a few nobs spoil it for the rest of them

watched a bloke the other day cycling down the road in the pitch black with no lights on, no reflective stuff at all, i was going the other way and still didnt see him till i was fairly close

as for the ones who cycle down the path.... on my work home alot refuse to go around the roundabout outside the station as it adds 50m to their journey, so instead they come flying down the path and i dont particulary wanna have to jump into the road to avoid them!

saying that i work with a fair few cyclists, and 2 of them have been hit by cars in the last month, one of them was put into hospital at the start of the year as well, in neither case was it their fault it was the stupid blind drivers at fault...

Its the drivers that are idiots 90% of them cant drive :thumb:
Cyclists should have cycle lanes on all roads paid for by the vehicle users ;for this i suggest raising petrol tax duty by about 15% and a minimum of £1.99 a litre ;thus will create a safer commute for both cyclists and drivers as it will take about 40% of drivers off the road as they wont be able to afford fuel but the other 60% will be able to keep paying for the more important cycle lanes as these will get more busier
:D

Unfortunately Phil 90% of the cyclists round this way refuse to use the cycle lanes for some reason.

I agree with the OP then all manner of silly things were said :lol1:

Joking a side same around here they are littered with broken stella bottles and most probably needles :Suspiciou

So the basic fact - as there's been no counter position - is that the car (or other motorised means of transport) is a guest on a highway provided for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians, and therefore maybe they need to start acting as guests i.e. showing more consideration to PROPER road users...

Another bone of contention (for the cyclist by the way).

The cycle lanes are optional, not mandatory. They are very often poorly designed and actually put the cyclists into confrontation with pedestrians. They are littered with debris that cause endless punctures and require the poor sod on the bike to take repeated avoiding action, they are slow, often end for no apparent reason, appear in random places and enforce the (wholly incorrect) view that bikes should be separate from motorised traffic.

Apart from that, they're great ;)

Forgive me if i sound a bit thick here, but why is it wholly incorrect to separate bikes and motorised traffic?

So cycle lanes are a waste of money? (genuine question, as a non-cyclist i have no idea what they are like)

Fair question: refer back to the original post. The roads are provided for the public to use, the motorised vehicles are effectively the interlopers, and need permission to use them.

(you might be interested to see who was responsible for getting the the present road network started... I'll give you a clue: two wheels, no engine.)

The other point is that it is fixing the wrong problem: it's actually SAFE to cycle: in fact it's more dangerous to be a pedestrian, or be in a car! It's not the cycling is unsfae, it's unfortunately the motorists... hence my original post.

What a tedious thread.

In a huge amount of cases: yes. Unfortunately :(

A great deal of them are simply there to tick a box or get a grant / stat / brownie point.

Here's a place to see what I mean:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...-of-the-month/

On a shared cycle path the pedestrian has priority (something a lot of the more arrogant cyclists forget) so you HAVE to be slower. It's advised that if you expect to go above 18mph you should always use the road, it's too dangerous to cycle at that speed on a shared path (I think that figure is too high personally)