Topic ID 3096
It seems that cyclists seem to think that they can cycle: without lights; and the wrong way down the road; or on the pavement; or at any angle in any direction across a road I am getting more and more nervous driving around the streets of Hertford, especially with car headlights generally getting far too bright and dazzling these days and pedestrians being increasingly less disciplined [}:)]
Reply ID 44534
Please don't generalise. As a cyclist, motorist and pedestrian, I have the utmost respect for all road/pavement/towpath users. The problem you have is not with cyclists but individuals who think that the law does not apply to them and that have no respect for other people. I always ride with lights and never the wrong way down the street. However, I do ride on the pavement sometimes, but always respect the pedestrains right-of-way. This isn't about cyclists, it's about people who couldn't give a f...
Reply ID 44535
quote:As a cyclist, I do all those things too. I am trying not to generalise, but I have been driving around Hertford for 7 hours tonight and I have seen tens of cyclists without lights, cycling the wrong way, and *not a single one* with any lights, or even going the correct way. I am sure you are a dignified and legal cyclist, but you really seem to be in the minority, Steve. Please do not take offence, I am a cyclist too. I am also a commercial motorist afraid of hitting an unlit cyclist! I don't suppose there is enough police resource to enforce the rules for cyclists but I am sure they would find somebody to thoroughly investigate if I happened to hit one!
Originally posted by Steve
Please don't generalise. As a cyclist, motorist and pedestrian, I have the utmost respect for all road/pavement/towpath users. The problem you have is not with cyclists but individuals who think that the law does not apply to them and that have no respect for other people. I always ride with lights and never the wrong way down the street. However, I do ride on the pavement sometimes, but always respect the pedestrains right-of-way. This isn't about cyclists, it's about people who couldn't give a f...
Reply ID 44537
There are also some cyclist's who don't seem to think red traffic lights apply to them either, one went straight over Old Cross on red the other day, as we all know that is not an easy junction it is bad enough checking for pedestrians etc you don't expect a cyclist to appear in the middle of the road, between vehicles, against the lights..........now had a motorist hit him.....................!!
Reply ID 44538
There are some motorists who don't seem to think red lights apply to them, I see this regularly at Old Cross and the "Tesco" lights. Last weekend I had my heart in my mouth as my daughter scooted along the pavement as several vehicles mounted it (Ware Road) to get past a car trying to turn right. Madness. Hertford's professional drivers are not without blame either when it comes to obeying the rules of the road.
Reply ID 44540
What about helmets? They should be made compulsory as seatbealts are for motorists
Reply ID 44545
quote:And how old were these cyclists?
Originally posted by SallyB
I have been driving around Hertford for 7 hours tonight and I have seen tens of cyclists without lights, cycling the wrong way, and *not a single one* with any lights, or even going the correct way.
Reply ID 44546
quote:Are you saying that in 7 hours you didn't see a single cyclist going the correct way?
Originally posted by SallyB
........ I have been driving around Hertford for 7 hours tonight and I have seen tens of cyclists without lights, cycling the wrong way, and *not a single one* with any lights, or even going the correct way.
Reply ID 44547
I think there has been a change of attitude of both motorists and cyclist since cycling became a leisure activity, rather than transport. Car drivers rant at cyclists, motorcyclists, van drivers, horses, lorries, coaches and even other car drivers who drive something other than their own taste in vehicle. As a consequence, other groups feel "oppressed" and endangered in traffic. In the case of cyclists, they justify use of pavements, and the ignoring of other rules, using that excuse. Somehow, when there were many people going to work on bikes, they had more respect from other road users and returned it by their own behaviour.
Reply ID 44552
I think most road users, however many wheels or mode of power in Hertford are very good, unfortunately it only takes one to do something stupid and the consequences can rebound on others.
Reply ID 44557
Its an old chestnut but... insurance & some form of licence/tax disc. Nothing OTT, although I suspect the Govt love the idea of extra revenue but a few quid just to keep a check. You could even offset it against your car tax.. bike + car = good , car alone = bad. And before anyone hits on the extra burocracy button.. its probably both sustainable and cost neutral..
Reply ID 44562
quote:I agree with that. It's not like it isn't without precedence either. Just look at Australia - it's been a legal requirement to wear one for over 15 years now.
Originally posted by Earthmother
What about helmets? They should be made compulsory as seatbealts are for motorists
Reply ID 44564
quote:Yes..........and what about scooters, skateboards and buggies too. Such schemes would be extremely difficult to implement, virtually impossible to enforce, and at a time when we are supposedly meant to be encouraging more environmentally friendly modes of transport, at odds with current thinking.
Originally posted by Capitalist piglet
Its an old chestnut but... insurance & some form of licence/tax disc. Nothing OTT, although I suspect the Govt love the idea of extra revenue but a few quid just to keep a check. You could even offset it against your car tax.. bike + car = good , car alone = bad. And before anyone hits on the extra burocracy button.. its probably both sustainable and cost neutral..
Reply ID 44565
quote:Cycle helmets cause more injuries than they save. The Australian model was used to introduce them elsewhere because it seemed, at first that the accident rate had fallen. However it was later found that the introduction of the law had just discouraged many from cycling and that deaths and injuries per cyclist went up. This partly to do with with the effect that the helmet has on the way a cyclist falls from the machine and the likelihood of the head contacting the ground and several other factors too complex to explain here. Current research suggests cycle helmets increase the danger to cyclists significantly and have been falsely pushed on us by manufacturers. They should be considered a fashion item only.
Originally posted by Brockmanquote:I agree with that. It's not like it isn't without precedence either. Just look at Australia - it's been a legal requirement to wear one for over 15 years now.
Originally posted by Earthmother
What about helmets? They should be made compulsory as seatbealts are for motorists
Reply ID 44567
quote:Not so sure Ewoowar.. if it works for mopeds it'll work for bikes (clearly defined) we have the technology (!) & actually it could help reponsible bike owners ...as long (and this is the $64k question) if it was brought in without loads of red-tape ...[?]
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Yes..........and what about scooters, skateboards and buggies too. Such schemes would be extremely difficult to implement, virtually impossible to enforce, and at a time when we are supposedly meant to be encouraging more environmentally friendly modes of transport, at odds with current thinking.
Originally posted by Capitalist piglet
Its an old chestnut but... insurance & some form of licence/tax disc. Nothing OTT, although I suspect the Govt love the idea of extra revenue but a few quid just to keep a check. You could even offset it against your car tax.. bike + car = good , car alone = bad. And before anyone hits on the extra burocracy button.. its probably both sustainable and cost neutral..
Reply ID 44570
quote:No, go on, explain. I'm amazed. I used to commute by bike and ride for pleasure and unfortunately had to rely on my helmet more than once to avoid head injuries. I have no hesitation wearing a cycle helmet or advising my son to do so and certainly do not consider them a fashionable accessory. Perhaps seatbelts for cars and armour and helmets for motorcyclists should also be considered fashion items too.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Cycle helmets cause more injuries than they save. The Australian model was used to introduce them elsewhere because it seemed, at first that the accident rate had fallen. However it was later found that the introduction of the law had just discouraged many from cycling and that deaths and injuries per cyclist went up. This partly to do with with the effect that the helmet has on the way a cyclist falls from the machine and the likelihood of the head contacting the ground and several other factors too complex to explain here. Current research suggests cycle helmets increase the danger to cyclists significantly and have been falsely pushed on us by manufacturers. They should be considered a fashion item only.
Originally posted by Brockmanquote:I agree with that. It's not like it isn't without precedence either. Just look at Australia - it's been a legal requirement to wear one for over 15 years now.
Originally posted by Earthmother
What about helmets? They should be made compulsory as seatbealts are for motorists
Reply ID 44571
The jury is still out on the value of cycle helmets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
Reply ID 44572
I'll try to find the reports and post them. In the meantime, the gist is that the small weight of the helmet causes more heads to hit the ground, particularly with children, whereras the impact of falling off a bike is commonly born by the shoulder and forearms. It has also been found that motorists pass significantly closer to helmeted riders, assuming them to be more experienced. The rim of the helmet acts like a megaphone, biasing the wearers hearing forward and downward, reducing the brain's awareness of distance of sounds from behind. The standard test for cycle helmets is also very unrepresentative. When tested with dummies, rather than the current 10mm3 impact test, the helmet only helped in a head-on impact with a car, the least common type of accident. On top of that there is the loss of life by people giving up a useful and popular form of exercise, rather than wear a helmet. No, we should not give up seat belts, but on the introduction of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets the accident rate rose. Both will assist, if you have an accident, but both increase the likelihood. A simple experiment might be to try to drive your car in heavy traffic, whilst wearing a full face helmet, full leathers, body armour and thick gauntlets. It will soon become apparent why cycle helmets are so compromised in form over function. Indeed the jury is still out, but avoidance, rather then survival of accidents must surely be the best route.
Reply ID 44592
I'm a cyclist around hertford. 99% of the time I wear a helmet, I have lights and consider myself a respectful cyclist. I go through the red lights at Old Cross and Tesco traffic conditions permitting and ride the pavements. In cycling friendly countries such as Benelux, Holland, Japan this is pretty common practice. It's a mode of transport to get from A to B efficiently. I don't want to stop and breathe in car fumes in the rain waiting for lights to change or to lose momentum when I'm tired and want to get home. If there's nothing on the road or the traffic is slow I dont see the point in hanging around at these lights. In Hertford there's bugger all useful cycling paths through the town. Cycling around the roundabouts and Gascoyne way imo is far more dangerous.
Reply ID 44593
Sadly our roads favour car drivers at the expense of all other road users. It is true that modern traffic systems are not cycle friendly, but I'd urge cyclists not to feel forced onto the pavements, because dodging on and off paths presents a greater risk to the cyclist than remaining on the road. Cycle 3 feet from the kerb so that you can be seen and force drivers to wait and overtake properly, rather than squeezing past. You will also avoid the hazzard of kerbside ironware if you do not allow yourself to be forced into the gutter.
Reply ID 44595
quote:As a car driver I don't like having to lose momentum by stopping at lights, especially if there if there is no other traffic. So does that give me the right to jump the lights? No. And what happens if you jump a set of lights and find that your assessment of the junction was incorrect and that there was another vehicle after all. And what happens if the driver swerves to avoid you and hits someone else or smashes into a wall or streetlamp and is injured or worse. Your selfish act is dependent upon your assessment of each and every instance being 100% accurate. However, none of us can claim that.
Originally posted by roman
I'm a cyclist around hertford. 99% of the time I wear a helmet, I have lights and consider myself a respectful cyclist. I go through the red lights at Old Cross and Tesco traffic conditions permitting and ride the pavements. In cycling friendly countries such as Benelux, Holland, Japan this is pretty common practice. It's a mode of transport to get from A to B efficiently. I don't want to stop and breathe in car fumes in the rain waiting for lights to change or to lose momentum when I'm tired and want to get home. If there's nothing on the road or the traffic is slow I dont see the point in hanging around at these lights. In Hertford there's bugger all useful cycling paths through the town. Cycling around the roundabouts and Gascoyne way imo is far more dangerous.
Reply ID 44599
quote:Then you are: a) breaking the law b) giving cyclists a bad name c) a bad road user d) discourteous What gives you the right to pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to ignore? And what other laws do you ignore because they're inconvenient?
Originally posted by roman
I go through the red lights at Old Cross and Tesco traffic conditions permitting and ride the pavements.
Reply ID 44602
I have to agree with Steve. I don't know how Roman can call themself respectful while openly showing no respect for laws, other road users and pedestrians. I am a cyclist. I have commuted by bike into the centre of London, I have cycled for pleasure in and around Hertford, I have in many parts of the UK and abroad. I do not jump red lights or ride the pavements to avoid them. When I get on a bike I do so knowing that there are laws that are there to be obeyed by cyclists as well as other road users. It is quite simple. If you are worried about vehicle fumes, stay off the road altogether.
Reply ID 44637
I have also ridden in many parts of the UK and abroad. My actions depend on the conditions. I do get them right, it's not difficult. I do not cycle into the path of cars. Many cars however cycle into my path and occasionaly clipped by a wing mirror. If I'm cycling through the old cross and the lights are red and its 10.30pm and no cars around I'm not going to wait around for the lights to change. If its busy during the day I will. Many cyclists I know do exactly the same. At the tesco roundabout I'll go through the red lights dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian and continue cycling into town.
Reply ID 44638
quote:When the law is changed to allow cyclists to jump red lights at their own discretion then you and the many other cyclists you know will be in the right. Until then all of you are in the wrong. Would it be okay if a motorcyclist behaved in the same way?
Originally posted by roman
I have also ridden in many parts of the UK and abroad. My actions depend on the conditions. I do get them right, it's not difficult. I do not cycle into the path of cars. Many cars however cycle into my path and occasionaly clipped by a wing mirror. If I'm cycling through the old cross and the lights are red and its 10.30pm and no cars around I'm not going to wait around for the lights to change. If its busy during the day I will. Many cyclists I know do exactly the same. At the tesco roundabout I'll go through the red lights dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian and continue cycling into town.
Reply ID 44640
quote:It is the case in Hertford that a great majority of cyclists think that all aspects of road use, courtesy,highway code, common sense and spatial awareness do not apply to them at all. Come to think of it, on Thursday 13 August, I was waiting in traffic on the Ware Road by the Raj restaurant and idly watching a group of 3 young mums negotiating their way around the bins on the pavement with kids and buggies, when along the PAVEMENT, heading in the general direction of Caxton Hill, came a certain regular contributor to this forum. The mums had to move out of his way to allow him to pass on the pavement, by which time I had lowered my passenger window and yelled at him in a most lady-like fashion that he should be riding in the road! He didn't!
Originally posted by Stevequote:Then you are: a) breaking the law b) giving cyclists a bad name c) a bad road user d) discourteous What gives you the right to pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to ignore? And what other laws do you ignore because they're inconvenient?
Originally posted by roman
I go through the red lights at Old Cross and Tesco traffic conditions permitting and ride the pavements.
Reply ID 44643
And what sort of speed was this regular contributor doing when he passed the kids and buggies?
Reply ID 44644
quote:The regular contributor was cycling on the pavement with both feet on the pedals, having slowed down as he reached them. The pedestrians had to move out of his way. He then sped up as he passed by, continuing to use the pavement. The speed is immaterial, the fact of the matter is that this 'cyclist.' whom I am sure knows better, should have been cycling in the road, not on the pavement. [:(!]
Originally posted by Steve
And what sort of speed was this regular contributor doing when he passed the kids and buggies?
Reply ID 44645
quote:Though I agree entirely with your point, there is a difference. A motorcycle is powered and thus easier to stop and start, being less reliant on maintaining momentum. The motorcyclist's senses are also severely hampered by his helmet so he is less likely to be aware of other traffic, but more so than a car driver. The experience of riding a motorcycle could be said to fall somewhere between a car and a cycle, whereas a cycle falls between a motorcycle and a pedestrian. If the cycle has to behave in a way that was designed for motorised traffic, considerably more effort and energy is expended and the lower top speed and acceleration available means journey times are increased by each stop by a greater proportion. Cyclists must comply with road rules, but the excessive quantity of traffic controls and signals these days is a real nuisance to them.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:When the law is changed to allow cyclists to jump red lights at their own discretion then you and the many other cyclists you know will be in the right. Until then all of you are in the wrong. Would it be okay if a motorcyclist behaved in the same way?
Originally posted by roman
I have also ridden in many parts of the UK and abroad. My actions depend on the conditions. I do get them right, it's not difficult. I do not cycle into the path of cars. Many cars however cycle into my path and occasionaly clipped by a wing mirror. If I'm cycling through the old cross and the lights are red and its 10.30pm and no cars around I'm not going to wait around for the lights to change. If its busy during the day I will. Many cyclists I know do exactly the same. At the tesco roundabout I'll go through the red lights dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian and continue cycling into town.
Reply ID 44647
quote:Agreed, and worth remembering that at junctions etc cyclists may be coming in more than direction and if one takes the law into his own hands he/she may well be a hazard to other cyclists let alone other road users.
Originally posted by shunt Cyclists must comply with road rules, but the excessive quantity of traffic controls and signals these days is a real nuisance to them.
Reply ID 44648
quote:It still might be prudent to adapt road rules and design to favour car drivers less and other road users more. As a user of cars, cycles and motorcycles, I find the bias unacceptable.
Originally posted by Andrewquote:Agreed, and worth remembering that at junctions etc cyclists may be coming in more than direction and if one takes the law into his own hands he/she may well be a hazard to other cyclists let alone other road users.
Originally posted by shunt Cyclists must comply with road rules, but the excessive quantity of traffic controls and signals these days is a real nuisance to them.
Reply ID 44649
quote:Even when driving a car I find it a nuisance having to stop at traffic lights that have changed to allow right of way to absolutely no other traffic from other directions. Under the same principles that have been discussed here I should then be able to jump the lights.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Though I agree entirely with your point, there is a difference. A motorcycle is powered and thus easier to stop and start, being less reliant on maintaining momentum. The motorcyclist's senses are also severely hampered by his helmet so he is less likely to be aware of other traffic, but more so than a car driver. The experience of riding a motorcycle could be said to fall somewhere between a car and a cycle, whereas a cycle falls between a motorcycle and a pedestrian. If the cycle has to behave in a way that was designed for motorised traffic, considerably more effort and energy is expended and the lower top speed and acceleration available means journey times are increased by each stop by a greater proportion. Cyclists must comply with road rules, but the excessive quantity of traffic controls and signals these days is a real nuisance to them.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:When the law is changed to allow cyclists to jump red lights at their own discretion then you and the many other cyclists you know will be in the right. Until then all of you are in the wrong. Would it be okay if a motorcyclist behaved in the same way?
Originally posted by roman
I have also ridden in many parts of the UK and abroad. My actions depend on the conditions. I do get them right, it's not difficult. I do not cycle into the path of cars. Many cars however cycle into my path and occasionaly clipped by a wing mirror. If I'm cycling through the old cross and the lights are red and its 10.30pm and no cars around I'm not going to wait around for the lights to change. If its busy during the day I will. Many cyclists I know do exactly the same. At the tesco roundabout I'll go through the red lights dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian and continue cycling into town.
Reply ID 44650
quote:Not at all. I was questioning whether we need some lights at all, not encouraging unlawful behaviour.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Even when driving a car I find it a nuisance having to stop at traffic lights that have changed to allow right of way to absolutely no other traffic from other directions. Under the same principles that have been discussed here I should then be able to jump the lights.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Though I agree entirely with your point, there is a difference. A motorcycle is powered and thus easier to stop and start, being less reliant on maintaining momentum. The motorcyclist's senses are also severely hampered by his helmet so he is less likely to be aware of other traffic, but more so than a car driver. The experience of riding a motorcycle could be said to fall somewhere between a car and a cycle, whereas a cycle falls between a motorcycle and a pedestrian. If the cycle has to behave in a way that was designed for motorised traffic, considerably more effort and energy is expended and the lower top speed and acceleration available means journey times are increased by each stop by a greater proportion. Cyclists must comply with road rules, but the excessive quantity of traffic controls and signals these days is a real nuisance to them.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:When the law is changed to allow cyclists to jump red lights at their own discretion then you and the many other cyclists you know will be in the right. Until then all of you are in the wrong. Would it be okay if a motorcyclist behaved in the same way?
Originally posted by roman
I have also ridden in many parts of the UK and abroad. My actions depend on the conditions. I do get them right, it's not difficult. I do not cycle into the path of cars. Many cars however cycle into my path and occasionaly clipped by a wing mirror. If I'm cycling through the old cross and the lights are red and its 10.30pm and no cars around I'm not going to wait around for the lights to change. If its busy during the day I will. Many cyclists I know do exactly the same. At the tesco roundabout I'll go through the red lights dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian and continue cycling into town.
Reply ID 44652
quote:Wouldn't the pedestrians have had to move out of the way if the cyclist was pushing his bike, or on foot even? Whilst not condoning the actions of the cyclist, this does seem to be at the lower end of the scale when it comes to cycling misdemeanors, especially as you mention that the cyclist slowed down when passing.
Originally posted by Fish Wifequote:The regular contributor was cycling on the pavement with both feet on the pedals, having slowed down as he reached them. The pedestrians had to move out of his way. He then sped up as he passed by, continuing to use the pavement. The speed is immaterial, the fact of the matter is that this 'cyclist.' whom I am sure knows better, should have been cycling in the road, not on the pavement. [:(!]
Originally posted by Steve
And what sort of speed was this regular contributor doing when he passed the kids and buggies?
Reply ID 44655
quote:So were you the idiot that nearly took myself and some fellow pedestrians out at Old Cross last Friday? The traffic lights had gone red, the pedestrian lights were green. Some prat on a bike comes hurtling along St Andrew Street, through the red light and nearly collides with the pedestrians who are legitimately trying to cross the road. Very responsible I must say! [:(!]
Originally posted by roman
I have also ridden in many parts of the UK and abroad. My actions depend on the conditions. I do get them right, it's not difficult. I do not cycle into the path of cars. Many cars however cycle into my path and occasionaly clipped by a wing mirror. If I'm cycling through the old cross and the lights are red and its 10.30pm and no cars around I'm not going to wait around for the lights to change. If its busy during the day I will. Many cyclists I know do exactly the same. At the tesco roundabout I'll go through the red lights dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian and continue cycling into town.
Reply ID 44656
Hi Aelle, sorry to hear about your experience. I tend to come down from Port hill way so it wasn't me. In this case I would have stopped to let the pedestrians cross.I really am quite a nice chap. I don't say what I do is right, it's just what I do! If it is clear ahead and there is no danger I keep going. Driving a car is completely different to cycling. We are generally terrible in this country in our attitude towards cyclists hence I have no problem with my actions.
Reply ID 44658
quote:Driving a car is very different to cycling but the principle is the same. You jump the lights bcause they are an inconvenience. However they are an inconvenience for car drivers too.
Originally posted by roman
Hi Aelle, sorry to hear about your experience. I tend to come down from Port hill way so it wasn't me. In this case I would have stopped to let the pedestrians cross.I really am quite a nice chap. I don't say what I do is right, it's just what I do! If it is clear ahead and there is no danger I keep going. Driving a car is completely different to cycling. We are generally terrible in this country in our attitude towards cyclists hence I have no problem with my actions.
Reply ID 44659
quote:Being a motorcyclist, I also see many things which illustrate the bias and car drivers are statistically responsible for the vast majority of deaths in all other groups, but I reckon an angry car driver is even more dangerous. Best defense is to try to do everything right yourself and ride defensively, but legally. There are too many road users out there with a chip on their shoulder and some picky criticism of people using other means to get from A to B.
Originally posted by roman
Hi Aelle, sorry to hear about your experience. I tend to come down from Port hill way so it wasn't me. In this case I would have stopped to let the pedestrians cross.I really am quite a nice chap. I don't say what I do is right, it's just what I do! If it is clear ahead and there is no danger I keep going. Driving a car is completely different to cycling. We are generally terrible in this country in our attitude towards cyclists hence I have no problem with my actions.
Reply ID 44673
It's all about awareness. Cars provide a very secure, comfortable enviroment for their occupants who can turn the heaters up in tandem with their stereos and still have time for the odd phone call or text message whilst waiting in pauses in the traffic. This probably induces a slowing down of reflexes that make events outside of their car seem fast and erratic. Cyclists, conversely, have to maintain a high degree of awareness in order to negotiate the roads safely, and hone their reflexes to a level where the world around almost seems to be moving in slow-motion. Pedestrians aren't inclined to want to have to think about traffic of any sort when strolling through the town and are liable to be both exasperated by having to wait to cross roads and aggitated by the cyclists that weave between them. But if we all took a less selfish approach to road use, and simply showed more consideration for those around us - whether they're in cars or on bikes, riding horses, skateboards, invalid buggies or wheelchairs, then I'm sure the world would be a better place for it. [:)]
Reply ID 44742
Perhaps if all King's Highway users behaved as advised in the first Highway Code of 80 years ago life would be better. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7017796.stm
Reply ID 44879
quote:Yes, no doubt they would've had to move over a little to let the cyclist past had he been off his bike and pushing it - it being the case that pavements are for pedestrians....but he wasn't....he was cycling on the pavement so is therefore not a pedestrian and has no right to be using the pavement to make his journey to Caxton Hill easier than using the roads for which his bike was designed. [:(!]
Originally posted by Stevequote:Wouldn't the pedestrians have had to move out of the way if the cyclist was pushing his bike, or on foot even? Whilst not condoning the actions of the cyclist, this does seem to be at the lower end of the scale when it comes to cycling misdemeanors, especially as you mention that the cyclist slowed down when passing.
Originally posted by Fish Wifequote:The regular contributor was cycling on the pavement with both feet on the pedals, having slowed down as he reached them. The pedestrians had to move out of his way. He then sped up as he passed by, continuing to use the pavement. The speed is immaterial, the fact of the matter is that this 'cyclist.' whom I am sure knows better, should have been cycling in the road, not on the pavement. [:(!]
Originally posted by Steve
And what sort of speed was this regular contributor doing when he passed the kids and buggies?
Reply ID 53175
Useful link from BBC News (originally posted by SallyB): [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7478823.stm"]Road rules 'set against' cyclists [/url] "Cyclists who break the law and ride anti-socially only do so because the "rules of the road" are set against them, a cyclists' campaigner has said. CTC policy co-ordinator Chris Peck said it was important to ask why a minority of cyclists used pavements instead of the roads or went through red lights. "
Reply ID 53190
Cycle lanes, under 6" in width, increase the risk to cyclists and encourage poor driving practice, by suggesting a smaller error margin needs to be left when overtaking than has always been accepted as the minimum. They are no more than a political placibo. They also suggest that cyclists should be riding in the gutter.
Reply ID 53192
quote:Exactly. Most cycle lanes appear to be more for the benefit of motorists, not cyclists.
Originally posted by shunt
Cycle lanes, under 6" in width, increase the risk to cyclists and encourage poor driving practice, by suggesting a smaller error margin needs to be left when overtaking than has always been accepted as the minimum. They are no more than a political placibo. They also suggest that cyclists should be riding in the gutter.
Reply ID 53206
Maybe the government should make cyclist pay a contribution towards the running our roads - we motorists are being hammered at every turn - whilst they jump red lights and ride on the pavements willy nilly
Reply ID 53208
quote:I do pay a contribution. Like most cyclists I drive as well, only I choose to cycle sometimes to reduce my impact on the environment. Perhaps my road tax should be lower! [:D]
Originally posted by Kitty Kat
Maybe the government should make cyclist pay a contribution towards the running our roads - we motorists are being hammered at every turn - whilst they jump red lights and ride on the pavements willy nilly
Reply ID 53211
Maybe I'm missing something here but cycling on the path and cycling through red lights are illegal, or have I missed a change in the Law?
Reply ID 53212
I think the argument with regards to pavements is that when faced with a fine or being knocked off an killed by a car because of an inadequate provision for cyclists, then many will take the fine.
Reply ID 53214
quote:Unfortunately like a lot of laws, these are for most of the time egnored by the police, also littering and dropping fag end outside pubs, i thought they could fine the person littering and the pub/shop owner but havn't seen it happen. While i am ranting also saw the bin man lorry driver yesterday driving his massive bin lorry while on a mobile phone, how dangerous is that! and again have never seen anyone pulled over for using there mobile while driving. Rant over!
Originally posted by Sherlock
Maybe I'm missing something here but cycling on the path and cycling through red lights are illegal, or have I missed a change in the Law?
Reply ID 53927
I think you're all missing the point here. The reason that cyclists (I'm talking about those of us that use pushbikes as transport rather than those who like to dress up in matching lycra and fashion accessory crash helmets and think of cycling as some sort of 'leisure activity') ride on the pavements and jump red lights is that riding any form of two-wheeled transport on the roads of Hertford is a hazardous pursuit due to the lack of any sort consideration by road and traffic planners. There are no proper cycle lanes, only foot-wide green bits in the gutter designed to stop cyclists avoiding sunken drain covers. There is no provision for bikes at any of Hertford's traffic lights (or anywhere in the UK that I know of for that matter). And then there are roundabouts - if anyone knows a safe way of negotiating one on a pedal cycle I'd love to hear it. In short Britain's roads are designed exclusively for four or more wheeled motor vehicles. Of course the reason for this is obvious, the authorities want to encourage driving because of the revenue it generates.
Reply ID 53930
quote:Yep. The town I come from has a full network of cycle lanes and it's perfectly legal to ride of the pavement so long as there is no provision for cyclists. I've also been to Hull which has an amazing provision for cyclists; probably the best in the country. Hertford has by far the worst. I'd love to cycle to work; it'd be quicker and cheaper, but it would be so dangerous, it's not worth it. Also, a little bit of legal funniness for you. On North Road, where there is a grass verge between the pavement and the road, it's perfectly legal to ride on it; only when it begins to run concurrent with the road does it become illegal to ride on it.
Originally posted by Dillinquent
I think you're all missing the point here. The reason that cyclists (I'm talking about those of us that use pushbikes as transport rather than those who like to dress up in matching lycra and fashion accessory crash helmets and think of cycling as some sort of 'leisure activity') ride on the pavements and jump red lights is that riding any form of two-wheeled transport on the roads of Hertford is a hazardous pursuit due to the lack of any sort consideration by road and traffic planners. There are no proper cycle lanes, only foot-wide green bits in the gutter designed to stop cyclists avoiding sunken drain covers. There is no provision for bikes at any of Hertford's traffic lights (or anywhere in the UK that I know of for that matter). And then there are roundabouts - if anyone knows a safe way of negotiating one on a pedal cycle I'd love to hear it. In short Britain's roads are designed exclusively for four or more wheeled motor vehicles. Of course the reason for this is obvious, the authorities want to encourage driving because of the revenue it generates.
Reply ID 53932
quote:The fact that the roads are busy is no excuse for an adult cyclist to jump lights or ride on pavements to avoid them. Granted, cycle lanes are not as good as they could be and drains and other inconsistencies in the road can cause cyclists problems. But nothing, absolutely nothing grants cyclists the rights to jump lights. How can jumping red lights be justified on the grounds of safety for the cyclist. And on the point of no provision for bikes at traffic lights anywhere in the UK, you only need look as far as junctions such as College Road/A10 in Cheshunt to find them and there are plenty more. As for roundabouts............are you a cyclist?
Originally posted by Dillinquent
I think you're all missing the point here. The reason that cyclists (I'm talking about those of us that use pushbikes as transport rather than those who like to dress up in matching lycra and fashion accessory crash helmets and think of cycling as some sort of 'leisure activity') ride on the pavements and jump red lights is that riding any form of two-wheeled transport on the roads of Hertford is a hazardous pursuit due to the lack of any sort consideration by road and traffic planners. There are no proper cycle lanes, only foot-wide green bits in the gutter designed to stop cyclists avoiding sunken drain covers. There is no provision for bikes at any of Hertford's traffic lights (or anywhere in the UK that I know of for that matter). And then there are roundabouts - if anyone knows a safe way of negotiating one on a pedal cycle I'd love to hear it. In short Britain's roads are designed exclusively for four or more wheeled motor vehicles. Of course the reason for this is obvious, the authorities want to encourage driving because of the revenue it generates.
Reply ID 53937
Hands up who nearly got killed 4 times in as many minutes cycling to work this morning. 1. Turning right at GREEN traffic lights from Old Cross into St Andrew street and a car failed to stop coming from Castle Hall end of town and straight through the red to go down St Andrew Street. 2. Joining the A414 at Cross Lanes and turning right at the roundabout to head towards Welwyn. How foolish of me to think that any cars streaking straight through on the dual carriageway WANT to give way to a cyclist. This particular van lost control and slid to a stop with his bumper against my left knee. So that's OK. 3. Esso garage - that clever little manoeuvre drivers get involved in if they think they're fast enough to overtake you but then have to brake AND cut across you to pull in to make the turning. Normally results in collision with their left hand passenger side - unless of course you're expecting it. 4. Mimram road industrial estate - as if to reinforce the fact that bicycles are seen as an interruption to the flow of motorists getting from A to B through C, exactly the same cutting up behaviour with my front wheel knocked out by a van wildly swing straight across me to make it into the estate. There's no excuse for dangerous driving by ANY road user; however, as a cyclist I'm increasingly aware of 'hot spots' where a cyclist would literally be taking their life into their own hands if they stuck to the code of the road. Discipline has degenerated, but I don't think it's appropriate to blame just one party in the Cars v Bikes (v pedestrians in the second round) argument. Where do you start? Bad and inconsiderate parking, speeding, larger and more inappropriate vehicles combined with poor driving, badly laid out roads or poorly implemented traffic schemes? Cycling proficiency tests? I'm still amazed that as a pedestrian I can be run over by cars deciding to pull up onto the pavement without warning, or coming at you the wrong way down pedestrianised streets 'cos it makes their life easier to get to a cash point or miss some traffic coming out of town. Really, there's no end to this.
Reply ID 53938
quote:What's wrong with cycling for leisure? and wearing cycling clothing for erm......cycling?
The reason that cyclists (I'm talking about those of us that use pushbikes as transport rather than those who like to dress up in matching lycra and fashion accessory crash helmets and think of cycling as some sort of 'leisure activity')
Reply ID 53941
quote:You seem to be giving cylists a bad name here. Just because there is no provision for cyclist in Hertford (except for the perfectly good cycle lanes along the river of course) it doesn't mean you can flout the law by jumping lights etc. I also bet you are one of the many selfish cyclist who feel it perfectly OK to ride side by side too?
Originally posted by Dillinquent
I think you're all missing the point here. The reason that cyclists (I'm talking about those of us that use pushbikes as transport rather than those who like to dress up in matching lycra and fashion accessory crash helmets and think of cycling as some sort of 'leisure activity') ride on the pavements and jump red lights is that riding any form of two-wheeled transport on the roads of Hertford is a hazardous pursuit due to the lack of any sort consideration by road and traffic planners. There are no proper cycle lanes, only foot-wide green bits in the gutter designed to stop cyclists avoiding sunken drain covers. There is no provision for bikes at any of Hertford's traffic lights (or anywhere in the UK that I know of for that matter). And then there are roundabouts - if anyone knows a safe way of negotiating one on a pedal cycle I'd love to hear it. In short Britain's roads are designed exclusively for four or more wheeled motor vehicles. Of course the reason for this is obvious, the authorities want to encourage driving because of the revenue it generates.
Reply ID 53943
quote:How ironic in veiw of the topic that this is actually legal. I wouldn't recommend it, personally.
Originally posted by azzza I also bet you are one of the many selfish cyclist who feel it perfectly OK to ride side by side too?
Reply ID 53950
I find there's quite a lot of anti-cyclist mentality in Hertford. I've been physically assaulted on the tow path, and frequently come across those that absolutely refuse to give any space for cyclists, instead preferring to give "evil stares" and stand their ground, forcing me to stop. Idiots, the lot of them.
Reply ID 53952
quote:Nothing wrong with cycling side by side so long as you pull over if other traffic wants to overtake.
Originally posted by Ted Badgerquote:How ironic in veiw of the topic that this is actually legal. I wouldn't recommend it, personally.
Originally posted by azzza I also bet you are one of the many selfish cyclist who feel it perfectly OK to ride side by side too?
Reply ID 53953
I was cycling the London to Cambridge ride on Sunday and I witnessed some appalling driving by cars along the route. Overtaking on Solid White Lines. Sounding the horn (mostly from foreign registered cars) Forcing their way past bikes, many of them with young riders. According to the Highway code a Cyclist should be given the same space on the road as a Car. And yes the bikes were cycling 2 or 3 abreast and overtaking other slower bikes, but why should a cyclist be forced to slow down so that a car can overtake them. Perhaps azza is one of those selfish drivers who thinks that cyclists should ride in the gutter so as not to hold him up [;)]
Reply ID 53954
quote:Courtesy
Originally posted by jez_p
And yes the bikes were cycling 2 or 3 abreast and overtaking other slower bikes, but why should a cyclist be forced to slow down so that a car can overtake them.
Reply ID 53955
quote:You can overtake a bicycle when there are solid white lines so that's not appalling, unless you just meant other cars? Sorry you don't make it clear?
Originally posted by jez_p
I was cycling the London to Cambridge ride on Sunday and I witnessed some appalling driving by cars along the route. Overtaking on Solid White Lines.
Reply ID 53964
quote:I agree, along with a logical approach to cycling, i.e defensively.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Courtesy
Originally posted by jez_p
And yes the bikes were cycling 2 or 3 abreast and overtaking other slower bikes, but why should a cyclist be forced to slow down so that a car can overtake them.
Reply ID 53976
quote:Wrong. You're not allow to overtake on solid white lines period. The only way to pass a cyclist in that situation is to wait for them to pull over and stop. Any other manoveure is illegal and extremely dangerous – not just to the cyclist but to yourself and drives on the other side of the road.
Originally posted by ~Sarah~quote:You can overtake a bicycle when there are solid white lines so that's not appalling, unless you just meant other cars? Sorry you don't make it clear?
Originally posted by jez_p
I was cycling the London to Cambridge ride on Sunday and I witnessed some appalling driving by cars along the route. Overtaking on Solid White Lines.
Reply ID 53977
quote:From The Highway Code: 129 Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26] (my emphases)
Originally posted by Brockman
Wrong. You're not allow to overtake on solid white lines period. The only way to pass a cyclist in that situation is to wait for them to pull over and stop. Any other manoveure is illegal and extremely dangerous – not just to the cyclist but to yourself and drives on the other side of the road.
Reply ID 53980
quote:Totally wrong - see Steve's post.
Wrong. You're not allow to overtake on solid white lines period. The only way to pass a cyclist in that situation is to wait for them to pull over and stop. Any other manoveure is illegal and extremely dangerous – not just to the cyclist but to yourself and drives on the other side of the road.
Reply ID 53981
As much as it vexes me to agree with Steve, I'm afraid he's absolutely right on this occasion
Reply ID 53983
quote:Ah, my bad then... *Must remember to stay above 10mph or a bom... I mean cars will be allow to over take ;)*
Originally posted by Stevequote:From The Highway Code: 129 Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26] (my emphases)
Originally posted by Brockman
Wrong. You're not allow to overtake on solid white lines period. The only way to pass a cyclist in that situation is to wait for them to pull over and stop. Any other manoveure is illegal and extremely dangerous – not just to the cyclist but to yourself and drives on the other side of the road.
Reply ID 54015
To Clarify - Cars were overtaking bicycles crossing the central double white lines completely! And I was travelling above 10mph at the time.
Reply ID 54018
I did the London to Cambs ride on Sunday too. I have to say that I would rather a car give me a wide berth whilst overtaking me and cross the double white lines rather than give me no room at all when overtaking or just sit on my tail going slowly behind me. Most cyclists on roads travel above 10mph. I don't think it's feasible to expect cyclists to stop and pull over every time a car wants to pass. This would be more dangerous than allowing cars to overtake the double white lines in the first place.