Force all cyclists to register, says politician

Malvern Gazette: MEP Nikki Sinclaire MEP Nikki Sinclaire

A WORCESTERSHIRE politician is calling for compulsory registration for all cyclists - claiming too many "ignore the highway code".

Nikki Sinclaire has courted controversy by suggesting cyclists should be forced to wear fluorescent jackets emblazoned with a registration number, much like a car.

The MEP says the idea would increase accountability and reduce the number of cyclists breaking the rules.

Ms Sinclaire says she is an occasional cyclist herself, and often spots others flouting the highway code.

Her stance has been criticised as an unnecessary "state intrusion" that would encourage more people to take the car.

It comes as more and more cyclists are seen taking to Worcester's streets.

She said: "Often I see cyclists ignoring the highway code, endangering themselves and the lives of others.

"Wearing a fluorescent high-visibility vest not only makes them more visible to cars and pedestrians alike, but a registration number would ensure that cyclists are responsible for their actions.

"As an occasional cyclist myself, and someone who would like to see the concept of ‘Boris Bikes’ here in the West Midlands, I feel that it is time that cyclists could become more accountable.

"If a cyclist jumps a red light and causes damage to another road users car, they are able to cycle off with no way of tracing them.

"Registration of the cyclist themselves is a simple way of increased responsibility for all."

Worcester MP Robin Walker said: "It's the kind of state intrusion we're against unless it's absolutely necessary, in fact we've tried to go the other way for drivers by trying to get rid of the paper tax disc.

"On balance, I think we need to encourage people to be cyclists and forcing them to register would be very difficult and come at a cost.

"Where I do sympathise is that it can be enormously frustrating when you are in a car and see cyclists jump red lights.

"But when cyclists do break the law there can be severe consequences if they are caught.

"This would only discourage them from cycling."

Cyclists say they would rather ignore the policy than take part.

Colin Taylor, 45, a painter and decorator from Ombersley Road, Worcester, said: "I cycle from my house to work every day, unless it's more than about 15 miles away.

"I won't be giving the Government any of my details for something like this.

"It's none of their business."

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:35pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Geoffery1966 says...

Absolutely agree, well said that woman ! Push bikes in the main are a menace on the road.
Absolutely agree, well said that woman ! Push bikes in the main are a menace on the road. Geoffery1966
  • Score: -39

5:51pm Tue 21 Jan 14

david350uk says...

Yes well said, also a total menace when off-road on the hills and on the pavements.
Yes well said, also a total menace when off-road on the hills and on the pavements. david350uk
  • Score: -31

6:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

Maybe cyclists should carry cameras to record the moronic behaviour of some motorists.
reg plates on bikes will never happen, fortunately this is an idiot attracting policy suggestion to get votes.
There is currently a backlash against cyclists by the Clarkson Daily Mail brigade but there are so many people cycling to work and for fitness that in a few years everyone will be riding or have a close family member riding regularly.
What is important though is for cycle training in schools, some councils have extended it to adults now.
I get annoyed with idiotic behaviour that some on bikes seem to think is acceptable as well, ie pavement riding But often it is because the person is too wary of riding in traffic.
Maybe cyclists should carry cameras to record the moronic behaviour of some motorists. reg plates on bikes will never happen, fortunately this is an idiot attracting policy suggestion to get votes. There is currently a backlash against cyclists by the Clarkson Daily Mail brigade but there are so many people cycling to work and for fitness that in a few years everyone will be riding or have a close family member riding regularly. What is important though is for cycle training in schools, some councils have extended it to adults now. I get annoyed with idiotic behaviour that some on bikes seem to think is acceptable as well, ie pavement riding But often it is because the person is too wary of riding in traffic. pudniw_gib
  • Score: 41

6:05pm Tue 21 Jan 14

bmoc55 says...

As a keen cyclist I despair about the habits of many cyclists who think they needn't take any notice of the highway code. These are the ones who ignore traffice lights, one way systems and stop signs.
Yes, they are everywhere and apart form being inconsiderate they are a menace to others road users. ( I don't care if they are a menace to themselves. Any injuries they receive by their stupid actions are self inflicted)
Then there are those who cycle on pavements. IWhat wimps!
As a keen cyclist I despair about the habits of many cyclists who think they needn't take any notice of the highway code. These are the ones who ignore traffice lights, one way systems and stop signs. Yes, they are everywhere and apart form being inconsiderate they are a menace to others road users. ( I don't care if they are a menace to themselves. Any injuries they receive by their stupid actions are self inflicted) Then there are those who cycle on pavements. IWhat wimps! bmoc55
  • Score: 12

6:13pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Geep says...

Push bikes in the main are a menace on the road? Surely a bit of an overreaction there? For every menace you see, how many 'good' ones do you see? Or ignore?
Of course you do get inconsiderate/idiot cyclists - on commuting into work I'm amazed at those that don't use lights.
But at least cyclists aren't driving a ton or more of metal whilst on their mobile phone at 40mph in a 30 limit, as many car drivers seem to do. Which is going to cause the most damage?
I cycle, motorcycle, & walk, in case you think I am a fanatical lyrca loonie!
Push bikes in the main are a menace on the road? Surely a bit of an overreaction there? For every menace you see, how many 'good' ones do you see? Or ignore? Of course you do get inconsiderate/idiot cyclists - on commuting into work I'm amazed at those that don't use lights. But at least cyclists aren't driving a ton or more of metal whilst on their mobile phone at 40mph in a 30 limit, as many car drivers seem to do. Which is going to cause the most damage? I cycle, motorcycle, & walk, in case you think I am a fanatical lyrca loonie! Geep
  • Score: 19

6:19pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Geoffery1966 says...

There are good cyclists, I stand by my comment that in the main they are a menace. The lady suggests a sensible answer to them .
There are good cyclists, I stand by my comment that in the main they are a menace. The lady suggests a sensible answer to them . Geoffery1966
  • Score: -37

6:58pm Tue 21 Jan 14

logicalN says...

pudniw_gib wrote:
Maybe cyclists should carry cameras to record the moronic behaviour of some motorists.
reg plates on bikes will never happen, fortunately this is an idiot attracting policy suggestion to get votes.
There is currently a backlash against cyclists by the Clarkson Daily Mail brigade but there are so many people cycling to work and for fitness that in a few years everyone will be riding or have a close family member riding regularly.
What is important though is for cycle training in schools, some councils have extended it to adults now.
I get annoyed with idiotic behaviour that some on bikes seem to think is acceptable as well, ie pavement riding But often it is because the person is too wary of riding in traffic.
No one has suggested registration plates on bikes! The suggestion is that the rider should be identifiable by a personal number on hi-vis kit
Quite simple when kit is purchased it is marked with the owners NHS number (useful when they are taken to hospital)
Reasonable amnesty period , then on the spot fines for not showing a number , heavy penalty for using someone else's number
Can't stand Clarkson , hate the Daily Mail , just don't see why cyclists caught on traffic light cameras etc should be less identifiable than other road users
[quote][p][bold]pudniw_gib[/bold] wrote: Maybe cyclists should carry cameras to record the moronic behaviour of some motorists. reg plates on bikes will never happen, fortunately this is an idiot attracting policy suggestion to get votes. There is currently a backlash against cyclists by the Clarkson Daily Mail brigade but there are so many people cycling to work and for fitness that in a few years everyone will be riding or have a close family member riding regularly. What is important though is for cycle training in schools, some councils have extended it to adults now. I get annoyed with idiotic behaviour that some on bikes seem to think is acceptable as well, ie pavement riding But often it is because the person is too wary of riding in traffic.[/p][/quote]No one has suggested registration plates on bikes! The suggestion is that the rider should be identifiable by a personal number on hi-vis kit Quite simple when kit is purchased it is marked with the owners NHS number (useful when they are taken to hospital) Reasonable amnesty period , then on the spot fines for not showing a number , heavy penalty for using someone else's number Can't stand Clarkson , hate the Daily Mail , just don't see why cyclists caught on traffic light cameras etc should be less identifiable than other road users logicalN
  • Score: -8

6:58pm Tue 21 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

What a brilliant idea.

And why not design the hi-vis with blue and white stripes and your national insurance number on the front. So much easier to to take your photo before putting those horrible cyclists in the slammer, or knowing who they are when knocked over by a car or truck.

To be fair though shouldn't this apply to all road users. You know, those pedestrians that deliberately jump out in from of on-coming traffic for a laugh and those motorists who see speed limits as challenges and other elements of the highway code as impositions on their god given rights, cos they pay road tax and know better.

Yep lets fine or lock up everyone who breaks the Highway Code. It would help solve the national debt and unemployment at a stroke.

How do UKIP supporters/rejects come up with such wonderful ideas? Why are they not already in power?

Did the local Conservative MP that supported gay marriage really cause all those floods in his constituency? Are all women '****' designed for cleaning fridges? Should I be writing nasty things about racial minorities? Or pretending a certain German is my best mate?

Thanks Nikki. You've helped me decide who I'll be voting for at the next election.
What a brilliant idea. And why not design the hi-vis with blue and white stripes and your national insurance number on the front. So much easier to to take your photo before putting those horrible cyclists in the slammer, or knowing who they are when knocked over by a car or truck. To be fair though shouldn't this apply to all road users. You know, those pedestrians that deliberately jump out in from of on-coming traffic for a laugh and those motorists who see speed limits as challenges and other elements of the highway code as impositions on their god given rights, cos they pay road tax and know better. Yep lets fine or lock up everyone who breaks the Highway Code. It would help solve the national debt and unemployment at a stroke. How do UKIP supporters/rejects come up with such wonderful ideas? Why are they not already in power? Did the local Conservative MP that supported gay marriage really cause all those floods in his constituency? Are all women '****' designed for cleaning fridges? Should I be writing nasty things about racial minorities? Or pretending a certain German is my best mate? Thanks Nikki. You've helped me decide who I'll be voting for at the next election. i-cycle
  • Score: 2

7:27pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Hwicce says...

Much as I think there should be a crack down on cyclists riding on the pavement (£50 fine but have you ever heard on a prosecution) I can't see registering cyclists as being very cost effective (or likely).

I would rather it was left as it was and our impotent Police force took a course of Viagra and got on with trying to uphold the existing laws. They are welcome to do any car drivers they find breaking the law as well.
Much as I think there should be a crack down on cyclists riding on the pavement (£50 fine but have you ever heard on a prosecution) I can't see registering cyclists as being very cost effective (or likely). I would rather it was left as it was and our impotent Police force took a course of Viagra and got on with trying to uphold the existing laws. They are welcome to do any car drivers they find breaking the law as well. Hwicce
  • Score: 12

7:44pm Tue 21 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
Much as I think there should be a crack down on cyclists riding on the pavement (£50 fine but have you ever heard on a prosecution) I can't see registering cyclists as being very cost effective (or likely).

I would rather it was left as it was and our impotent Police force took a course of Viagra and got on with trying to uphold the existing laws. They are welcome to do any car drivers they find breaking the law as well.
Its good to see we agree.

All road users should obey the Highway Code or take the consequences.
Its also in everybody's interest to get away from stereotyping specific types of road user as 'bad' . There are good cyclists and bad cyclists, just as there are good motorists and bad ones.

Its important that we all learn to share our congested roads better and with understanding and respect for the needs, rights and responsibilities of all.

That said there are inconsistencies and a lack of clarity in the Highway Code which would benefit from being resolved. There is also ignorance (even amongst the police) about what is and isn't legal.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: Much as I think there should be a crack down on cyclists riding on the pavement (£50 fine but have you ever heard on a prosecution) I can't see registering cyclists as being very cost effective (or likely). I would rather it was left as it was and our impotent Police force took a course of Viagra and got on with trying to uphold the existing laws. They are welcome to do any car drivers they find breaking the law as well.[/p][/quote]Its good to see we agree. All road users should obey the Highway Code or take the consequences. Its also in everybody's interest to get away from stereotyping specific types of road user as 'bad' . There are good cyclists and bad cyclists, just as there are good motorists and bad ones. Its important that we all learn to share our congested roads better and with understanding and respect for the needs, rights and responsibilities of all. That said there are inconsistencies and a lack of clarity in the Highway Code which would benefit from being resolved. There is also ignorance (even amongst the police) about what is and isn't legal. i-cycle
  • Score: 1

7:57pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Dan the wise says...

Wise words.... but why cyclists

We had two drunks damaging cars in our street .....

A friend of mine had their car stolen and crashed, the thieves were seen running away ...

There was group of drunks walking down the high street swearing and shouting

In all thes cases -wearing a fluorescent high-visibility vest not only makes them more visible , but a registration number would ensure that cyclists are responsible for their actions.

Surely we should be looking at a much wider use of these vests.
Wise words.... but why cyclists We had two drunks damaging cars in our street ..... A friend of mine had their car stolen and crashed, the thieves were seen running away ... There was group of drunks walking down the high street swearing and shouting In all thes cases -wearing a fluorescent high-visibility vest not only makes them more visible , but a registration number would ensure that cyclists are responsible for their actions. Surely we should be looking at a much wider use of these vests. Dan the wise
  • Score: -4

8:38pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Richard of Wantage says...

We shouldn't be too hard on Nikki as all politicians, like us, they have their off days. Nikki’s suggestion is the same order of faux pas as the UKIP’s councillor suggesting that recent floods were due to the government support for Gay marriages.
What gets me is that some commenters actually support the idea of needing to be registered to ride a bike, what next having to be registered to play football with your mates down at the park?
We already live in a nanny state let’s not turn it into George Orwell’s 1984.
We shouldn't be too hard on Nikki as all politicians, like us, they have their off days. Nikki’s suggestion is the same order of faux pas as the UKIP’s councillor suggesting that recent floods were due to the government support for Gay marriages. What gets me is that some commenters actually support the idea of needing to be registered to ride a bike, what next having to be registered to play football with your mates down at the park? We already live in a nanny state let’s not turn it into George Orwell’s 1984. Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 11

8:51pm Tue 21 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

Some examples of crap driving from the last few Sunday pootles round the local roads with my girlfriend .... 3 incidents of very dangerous over taking, into oncoming traffic near Three Counties in one day, 4x4 towing a trailer pushing past on a lane and immediately turning left into farm.. some moron cutting us up near Bromyard when we were in single file on a wide straight bit of road and no other traffic then flicks the vs..
Apart from the last one, really we should have taken the middle of the carriageway and not allowed the drivers to overtake dangerously. Trouble is its bloody scary....
Always seeing clowns on bikes in the dark with no lights even in the unlight country main roads. But they are only probably going to hurt themselves.
Some examples of crap driving from the last few Sunday pootles round the local roads with my girlfriend .... 3 incidents of very dangerous over taking, into oncoming traffic near Three Counties in one day, 4x4 towing a trailer pushing past on a lane and immediately turning left into farm.. some moron cutting us up near Bromyard when we were in single file on a wide straight bit of road and no other traffic then flicks the vs.. Apart from the last one, really we should have taken the middle of the carriageway and not allowed the drivers to overtake dangerously. Trouble is its bloody scary.... Always seeing clowns on bikes in the dark with no lights even in the unlight country main roads. But they are only probably going to hurt themselves. pudniw_gib
  • Score: 7

9:17pm Tue 21 Jan 14

GeeRDee says...

As an experienced cyclist and driver of many years (with an I.A.M. examination pass) I have to say Ms Sinclaire appears to be jumping on a ridiculous "Daily Mail readers" band-wagon.

With the odd exception, starting to move when the lights are on red is the safest thing to do as it gets the bike away from the faster moving traffic behind (and is actually allowed by law in more bike-friendly countries like the Netherlands etc).

Registration has been discussed and dismissed. Move on. The administrative costs would be ridiculous. I'll tell you what though - I will be the first in the queue for the shiny jacket that she proposes once Ms Sinclaire has finished the task of getting every last car on the road registered, taxed and insured!
As an experienced cyclist and driver of many years (with an I.A.M. examination pass) I have to say Ms Sinclaire appears to be jumping on a ridiculous "Daily Mail readers" band-wagon. With the odd exception, starting to move when the lights are on red is the safest thing to do as it gets the bike away from the faster moving traffic behind (and is actually allowed by law in more bike-friendly countries like the Netherlands etc). Registration has been discussed and dismissed. Move on. The administrative costs would be ridiculous. I'll tell you what though - I will be the first in the queue for the shiny jacket that she proposes once Ms Sinclaire has finished the task of getting every last car on the road registered, taxed and insured! GeeRDee
  • Score: 3

12:02am Wed 22 Jan 14

Bufton Tufton says...

She is an MEP and so is probably aware that cycling is considered a considerably more "normal" method of transport in Northern Europe than in the UK. So far as I'm aware there is not a single country in the world that requires registration of cyclists and as these proposals would probably require harmonisation throughout the EU, we can rest assured that this idea is most unlikely to ever come to pass
She is an MEP and so is probably aware that cycling is considered a considerably more "normal" method of transport in Northern Europe than in the UK. So far as I'm aware there is not a single country in the world that requires registration of cyclists and as these proposals would probably require harmonisation throughout the EU, we can rest assured that this idea is most unlikely to ever come to pass Bufton Tufton
  • Score: -1

12:16am Wed 22 Jan 14

Bufton Tufton says...

pudniw_gib wrote:
Some examples of crap driving from the last few Sunday pootles round the local roads with my girlfriend .... 3 incidents of very dangerous over taking, into oncoming traffic near Three Counties in one day, 4x4 towing a trailer pushing past on a lane and immediately turning left into farm.. some moron cutting us up near Bromyard when we were in single file on a wide straight bit of road and no other traffic then flicks the vs..
Apart from the last one, really we should have taken the middle of the carriageway and not allowed the drivers to overtake dangerously. Trouble is its bloody scary....
Always seeing clowns on bikes in the dark with no lights even in the unlight country main roads. But they are only probably going to hurt themselves.
One of these idiot drivers was probably the Worcester News"s very so called health corespondent James Connell. "Cyclists are a Nuisance on the Road."
http://www.worcester
news.co.uk/features/
fairpoint/10800707.C
yclists_are_a_nuisan
ce_on_the_road/
[quote][p][bold]pudniw_gib[/bold] wrote: Some examples of crap driving from the last few Sunday pootles round the local roads with my girlfriend .... 3 incidents of very dangerous over taking, into oncoming traffic near Three Counties in one day, 4x4 towing a trailer pushing past on a lane and immediately turning left into farm.. some moron cutting us up near Bromyard when we were in single file on a wide straight bit of road and no other traffic then flicks the vs.. Apart from the last one, really we should have taken the middle of the carriageway and not allowed the drivers to overtake dangerously. Trouble is its bloody scary.... Always seeing clowns on bikes in the dark with no lights even in the unlight country main roads. But they are only probably going to hurt themselves.[/p][/quote]One of these idiot drivers was probably the Worcester News"s very so called health corespondent James Connell. "Cyclists are a Nuisance on the Road." http://www.worcester news.co.uk/features/ fairpoint/10800707.C yclists_are_a_nuisan ce_on_the_road/ Bufton Tufton
  • Score: -2

8:13am Wed 22 Jan 14

green49 says...

Anyone who rides a bike on the roads these days are mad, not only the a******* who drive cars like they are on racetracks but the raods in and around Worcester are littered with potholes and bad repairs after contractors works, the county council know how bad the roads are they use the same ones but its down to money, wheres the safety aspect for the public,?

There are cycle tracks for cyclists but by me i still see them on the roads in dangerous areas, cyclists need to have insurance as they can cause an accident just as bad as a car driver.
Anyone who rides a bike on the roads these days are mad, not only the a******* who drive cars like they are on racetracks but the raods in and around Worcester are littered with potholes and bad repairs after contractors works, the county council know how bad the roads are they use the same ones but its down to money, wheres the safety aspect for the public,? There are cycle tracks for cyclists but by me i still see them on the roads in dangerous areas, cyclists need to have insurance as they can cause an accident just as bad as a car driver. green49
  • Score: -4

8:44am Wed 22 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

green49 wrote:
Anyone who rides a bike on the roads these days are mad, not only the a******* who drive cars like they are on racetracks but the raods in and around Worcester are littered with potholes and bad repairs after contractors works, the county council know how bad the roads are they use the same ones but its down to money, wheres the safety aspect for the public,?

There are cycle tracks for cyclists but by me i still see them on the roads in dangerous areas, cyclists need to have insurance as they can cause an accident just as bad as a car driver.
Firstly a cyclist could cause an accident but it is usually minor and tends to be the cyclist coming off worse by a long way. Lots of the lycra brigade have insurance via British Cycling or CTC anyway.
We are not mad riding on the roads, a bit scared sometimes. As a very long time cyclist I have to say that even though there are still drivers who should be banned immediately the standard of driving in relation to cyclist safety has improved quite a lot. Awareness is greater, probably due to more folks pedalling about these days.
.
Some things that need addressing now are, the potholes..... road layouts need looking at; particularly roundabouts, look at that monster at Powick! Riding around that on your commute is awful.. Those pedestrian refuges are dangerous for bikes as riders tend to get squeezed by cars.
Driving... overtaking bikes on blind bends etc is extremely dangerous but it is so common and one of the most frightening aspects of cycling out of town. We saw a car go through a hedge a few years ago doing just this.
Passing too close is unacceptable, give at least a couple of metres, the rider may swerve round a pothole as you are passing.
Cyclists.... the red light jumping needs addressing.. one way or the other, pavement riding is a nuisance and hazardous.. Bikeability training is the way to go at a young age.
[quote][p][bold]green49[/bold] wrote: Anyone who rides a bike on the roads these days are mad, not only the a******* who drive cars like they are on racetracks but the raods in and around Worcester are littered with potholes and bad repairs after contractors works, the county council know how bad the roads are they use the same ones but its down to money, wheres the safety aspect for the public,? There are cycle tracks for cyclists but by me i still see them on the roads in dangerous areas, cyclists need to have insurance as they can cause an accident just as bad as a car driver.[/p][/quote]Firstly a cyclist could cause an accident but it is usually minor and tends to be the cyclist coming off worse by a long way. Lots of the lycra brigade have insurance via British Cycling or CTC anyway. We are not mad riding on the roads, a bit scared sometimes. As a very long time cyclist I have to say that even though there are still drivers who should be banned immediately the standard of driving in relation to cyclist safety has improved quite a lot. Awareness is greater, probably due to more folks pedalling about these days. . Some things that need addressing now are, the potholes..... road layouts need looking at; particularly roundabouts, look at that monster at Powick! Riding around that on your commute is awful.. Those pedestrian refuges are dangerous for bikes as riders tend to get squeezed by cars. Driving... overtaking bikes on blind bends etc is extremely dangerous but it is so common and one of the most frightening aspects of cycling out of town. We saw a car go through a hedge a few years ago doing just this. Passing too close is unacceptable, give at least a couple of metres, the rider may swerve round a pothole as you are passing. Cyclists.... the red light jumping needs addressing.. one way or the other, pavement riding is a nuisance and hazardous.. Bikeability training is the way to go at a young age. pudniw_gib
  • Score: 6

9:34am Wed 22 Jan 14

thesquirrel says...

If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?
If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference? thesquirrel
  • Score: -14

10:24am Wed 22 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

thesquirrel wrote:
If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?
Fair comment, however I think going through a red light is hazardous in that it is a bad habit to get into. Also the ability of the individual to assess the situation is bound to be varied. In countries where riders are allowed to pass through red lights, the practice is allowed by law and is expected by other road users as normal and lawful behaviour..
In this country its better to use caution if you must do it and try to avoid confrontation with other road users who might not see it your way.
[quote][p][bold]thesquirrel[/bold] wrote: If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?[/p][/quote]Fair comment, however I think going through a red light is hazardous in that it is a bad habit to get into. Also the ability of the individual to assess the situation is bound to be varied. In countries where riders are allowed to pass through red lights, the practice is allowed by law and is expected by other road users as normal and lawful behaviour.. In this country its better to use caution if you must do it and try to avoid confrontation with other road users who might not see it your way. pudniw_gib
  • Score: 1

10:38am Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.
common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too. liketoknow
  • Score: 1

10:44am Wed 22 Jan 14

Hwicce says...

thesquirrel wrote:
If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?
Jumping a red light on a bike is illegal, not waiting for the green man is not.

Fairly simple really, even for a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]thesquirrel[/bold] wrote: If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?[/p][/quote]Jumping a red light on a bike is illegal, not waiting for the green man is not. Fairly simple really, even for a cyclist. Hwicce
  • Score: 7

11:05am Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

green49 wrote:
Anyone who rides a bike on the roads these days are mad, not only the a******* who drive cars like they are on racetracks but the raods in and around Worcester are littered with potholes and bad repairs after contractors works, the county council know how bad the roads are they use the same ones but its down to money, wheres the safety aspect for the public,?

There are cycle tracks for cyclists but by me i still see them on the roads in dangerous areas, cyclists need to have insurance as they can cause an accident just as bad as a car driver.
It would be great to have a decent cycle network so we don't have to use the busy roads. Unfortunately we don't. What there is badly designed and poorly maintained with lots of barriers. In many case it is actually as safe and certainly quicker to cycle on the roads. The chance of injury on a bike is obviously a concern, but actually widely overstated. Statistically you're more likely to have an injury requiring hospitalisation doing one hours gardening than one hours cycling. There is one cycle death per 30 million miles. there are very few accidents actually caused by cyclists and certainly hardly any that cause serious injury. The majority of responsible cyclists also do have third party insurance and certainly every CTC member (as its free with membership) and this is likely to apply for all those involved in cycling clubs.
[quote][p][bold]green49[/bold] wrote: Anyone who rides a bike on the roads these days are mad, not only the a******* who drive cars like they are on racetracks but the raods in and around Worcester are littered with potholes and bad repairs after contractors works, the county council know how bad the roads are they use the same ones but its down to money, wheres the safety aspect for the public,? There are cycle tracks for cyclists but by me i still see them on the roads in dangerous areas, cyclists need to have insurance as they can cause an accident just as bad as a car driver.[/p][/quote]It would be great to have a decent cycle network so we don't have to use the busy roads. Unfortunately we don't. What there is badly designed and poorly maintained with lots of barriers. In many case it is actually as safe and certainly quicker to cycle on the roads. The chance of injury on a bike is obviously a concern, but actually widely overstated. Statistically you're more likely to have an injury requiring hospitalisation doing one hours gardening than one hours cycling. There is one cycle death per 30 million miles. there are very few accidents actually caused by cyclists and certainly hardly any that cause serious injury. The majority of responsible cyclists also do have third party insurance and certainly every CTC member (as its free with membership) and this is likely to apply for all those involved in cycling clubs. i-cycle
  • Score: -2

11:10am Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

liketoknow wrote:
common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.
As others have pointed out the risk of a cyclists actually causing serious injury to other road users or expensive damage to other people's property is massively less than that of a car/truck/bus.

It also actually makes sense to encourage rather than discourage more to cycle. If not there will be even more cars on the roads and more on NHS waiting lists in front of you!
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.[/p][/quote]As others have pointed out the risk of a cyclists actually causing serious injury to other road users or expensive damage to other people's property is massively less than that of a car/truck/bus. It also actually makes sense to encourage rather than discourage more to cycle. If not there will be even more cars on the roads and more on NHS waiting lists in front of you! i-cycle
  • Score: -2

11:24am Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.
As others have pointed out the risk of a cyclists actually causing serious injury to other road users or expensive damage to other people's property is massively less than that of a car/truck/bus.

It also actually makes sense to encourage rather than discourage more to cycle. If not there will be even more cars on the roads and more on NHS waiting lists in front of you!
point taken, but the fact remains any pedestrian hit by a cyclist has very little recourse in law . unregistered and uninsured it's an anomaly that needs to be addressed.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.[/p][/quote]As others have pointed out the risk of a cyclists actually causing serious injury to other road users or expensive damage to other people's property is massively less than that of a car/truck/bus. It also actually makes sense to encourage rather than discourage more to cycle. If not there will be even more cars on the roads and more on NHS waiting lists in front of you![/p][/quote]point taken, but the fact remains any pedestrian hit by a cyclist has very little recourse in law . unregistered and uninsured it's an anomaly that needs to be addressed. liketoknow
  • Score: 5

11:35am Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

thesquirrel wrote:
If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?
Here's the difference.

Firstly its not legal.

Second it give cyclists a bad name and an excuse for some of the more irresponsible and uninformed motorists to treat us like pests that even some so called responsible journalists think deserve to be driven at!

Whether we agree with rules of the road or not it is really important that all cyclists don't jump a red or cycle on pavements.

In doing so we can all start to focus on the real issues.
[quote][p][bold]thesquirrel[/bold] wrote: If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?[/p][/quote]Here's the difference. Firstly its not legal. Second it give cyclists a bad name and an excuse for some of the more irresponsible and uninformed motorists to treat us like pests that even some so called responsible journalists think deserve to be driven at! Whether we agree with rules of the road or not it is really important that all cyclists don't jump a red or cycle on pavements. In doing so we can all start to focus on the real issues. i-cycle
  • Score: 3

11:39am Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

liketoknow wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.
As others have pointed out the risk of a cyclists actually causing serious injury to other road users or expensive damage to other people's property is massively less than that of a car/truck/bus.

It also actually makes sense to encourage rather than discourage more to cycle. If not there will be even more cars on the roads and more on NHS waiting lists in front of you!
point taken, but the fact remains any pedestrian hit by a cyclist has very little recourse in law . unregistered and uninsured it's an anomaly that needs to be addressed.
To follow your logic, I therefore assume you think that all pedestrians should be forced to be registered and have third party insurance. Pedestrians and particularly children actually cause far more accidents than cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.[/p][/quote]As others have pointed out the risk of a cyclists actually causing serious injury to other road users or expensive damage to other people's property is massively less than that of a car/truck/bus. It also actually makes sense to encourage rather than discourage more to cycle. If not there will be even more cars on the roads and more on NHS waiting lists in front of you![/p][/quote]point taken, but the fact remains any pedestrian hit by a cyclist has very little recourse in law . unregistered and uninsured it's an anomaly that needs to be addressed.[/p][/quote]To follow your logic, I therefore assume you think that all pedestrians should be forced to be registered and have third party insurance. Pedestrians and particularly children actually cause far more accidents than cyclists. i-cycle
  • Score: -2

11:44am Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

not many pedestrians can do thirty miles per hour
not many pedestrians can do thirty miles per hour liketoknow
  • Score: 1

11:49am Wed 22 Jan 14

3thinker says...

liketoknow wrote:
not many pedestrians can do thirty miles per hour
Neither can most cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: not many pedestrians can do thirty miles per hour[/p][/quote]Neither can most cyclists. 3thinker
  • Score: 5

11:50am Wed 22 Jan 14

Richard of Wantage says...

liketoknow wrote:
not many pedestrians can do thirty miles per hour
Nor can the vast majority of cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: not many pedestrians can do thirty miles per hour[/p][/quote]Nor can the vast majority of cyclists. Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 1

12:26pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

no just seems like it
no just seems like it liketoknow
  • Score: -3

12:35pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

make it compulsory to wear a helmet
make it compulsory to wear a helmet liketoknow
  • Score: 1

12:43pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

I give up! I'm gonna get a bike
I give up! I'm gonna get a bike liketoknow
  • Score: -2

12:54pm Wed 22 Jan 14

3thinker says...

liketoknow wrote:
make it compulsory to wear a helmet
The case for pedestrians and even front seat drivers wearing helmets is actually as, if not more compelling according to the research.

I personally always wear a helmet when cycling and seatbelt when driving, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks forcing cyclists to wear helmets, hi-vis, register bikes, have third party insurance etc etc will simply discourage more people from cycling and won't make any noticeable difference in road or personal safety for cyclists or other road users.

As others have pointed out I'm much more dangerous to myself and other road users when driving half a ton of steel at speed. The advantage I have is that cars have been much safer for their occupants, but not for other vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Surely the way forward isn't about more legislation, but better education and training. And perhaps even more importantly that all road users obey the rules of the road and show respect and consideration for other road users.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: make it compulsory to wear a helmet[/p][/quote]The case for pedestrians and even front seat drivers wearing helmets is actually as, if not more compelling according to the research. I personally always wear a helmet when cycling and seatbelt when driving, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks forcing cyclists to wear helmets, hi-vis, register bikes, have third party insurance etc etc will simply discourage more people from cycling and won't make any noticeable difference in road or personal safety for cyclists or other road users. As others have pointed out I'm much more dangerous to myself and other road users when driving half a ton of steel at speed. The advantage I have is that cars have been much safer for their occupants, but not for other vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Surely the way forward isn't about more legislation, but better education and training. And perhaps even more importantly that all road users obey the rules of the road and show respect and consideration for other road users. 3thinker
  • Score: 2

2:59pm Wed 22 Jan 14

malverncyclist says...

After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...) malverncyclist
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

one got prosecuted and jailed in London a few months ago for riding through a red light . think someone got killed though
one got prosecuted and jailed in London a few months ago for riding through a red light . think someone got killed though liketoknow
  • Score: 3

6:06pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
[quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief, liketoknow
  • Score: 6

6:11pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
[quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief, liketoknow
  • Score: 2

6:22pm Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

liketoknow wrote:
malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code.

Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority.

The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum.

Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,[/p][/quote]Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code. Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority. The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum. Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel. i-cycle
  • Score: -2

6:35pm Wed 22 Jan 14

GroovyChick says...

I don't think making them register would help, but I do think they should be made to wear hi-vis clothing of some sort and be made to have lights,.
I don't think making them register would help, but I do think they should be made to wear hi-vis clothing of some sort and be made to have lights,. GroovyChick
  • Score: 3

6:35pm Wed 22 Jan 14

sunnside says...

about time someone in office got involved the only reason the cyclists don't want change is because it will cost them money if they don't tow the line welcome to the real world 0f the legal motorist
about time someone in office got involved the only reason the cyclists don't want change is because it will cost them money if they don't tow the line welcome to the real world 0f the legal motorist sunnside
  • Score: -6

6:46pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code.

Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority.

The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum.

Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.
how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,[/p][/quote]Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code. Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority. The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum. Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.[/p][/quote]how do you know most cyclist are car drivers? liketoknow
  • Score: -4

7:34pm Wed 22 Jan 14

daffy says...

"forcing them to register would be very difficult" but not impossible and anybody who objects to this obviously has something to hide, as it should only be the same as the driving license. even non drivers have a basic knowledge of the highway code - red light at traffic lights mean stop the amount of times i see all road users ignore this is uncountable, also wondering at the pelican crossing in lowesmoor worcester i thought the traffic had to stop if someone was waiting to cross the road - i had a near miss by a cyclist and he didn't even apologize. i was going home early evening and it was quite dark i saw 3 cyclists on the road in dark clothing with no helmets think these should be compulsory the helmets that is
"forcing them to register would be very difficult" but not impossible and anybody who objects to this obviously has something to hide, as it should only be the same as the driving license. even non drivers have a basic knowledge of the highway code - red light at traffic lights mean stop the amount of times i see all road users ignore this is uncountable, also wondering at the pelican crossing in lowesmoor worcester i thought the traffic had to stop if someone was waiting to cross the road - i had a near miss by a cyclist and he didn't even apologize. i was going home early evening and it was quite dark i saw 3 cyclists on the road in dark clothing with no helmets think these should be compulsory the helmets that is daffy
  • Score: 1

7:50pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Dan the wise says...

liketoknow wrote:
common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.
Wrong - the car is recognised, NOT The driver.

The case where the driver is not identified, the driver claims it was someone else, the car was stolen, someone is paid to take the points, (ad infinitum) and the driver is not prosecuted are all to common.

All road users should be wearing an easily identifiable registration numbers to avoid these cases. If the ANPR camera also unequivocally identified the driver then the job of the Police would be so much easier

Surely motorists should be equally as accountable as cyclists for their actions?

Just think how much money we could have saved if Chris Huhne had been wearing a registration number when caught speeding in in 2003?

Common Sense shurely?
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: common sense, if I commit an offence in my car my registration is taken and I'm prosecuted. should be the same for cyclists. let's go further , they should have third party insurance too.[/p][/quote]Wrong - the car is recognised, NOT The driver. The case where the driver is not identified, the driver claims it was someone else, the car was stolen, someone is paid to take the points, (ad infinitum) and the driver is not prosecuted are all to common. All road users should be wearing an easily identifiable registration numbers to avoid these cases. If the ANPR camera also unequivocally identified the driver then the job of the Police would be so much easier Surely motorists should be equally as accountable as cyclists for their actions? Just think how much money we could have saved if Chris Huhne had been wearing a registration number when caught speeding in in 2003? Common Sense shurely? Dan the wise
  • Score: -2

7:53pm Wed 22 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

daffy wrote:
"forcing them to register would be very difficult" but not impossible and anybody who objects to this obviously has something to hide, as it should only be the same as the driving license. even non drivers have a basic knowledge of the highway code - red light at traffic lights mean stop the amount of times i see all road users ignore this is uncountable, also wondering at the pelican crossing in lowesmoor worcester i thought the traffic had to stop if someone was waiting to cross the road - i had a near miss by a cyclist and he didn't even apologize. i was going home early evening and it was quite dark i saw 3 cyclists on the road in dark clothing with no helmets think these should be compulsory the helmets that is
Ok.. why have I have got something to hide just because I think being registered to ride a bike is ridiculous? Maybe all cars should be fitted with cameras to record incidents?
I agree it is foolish to ride without lights, and it is illegal but a compulsory helmet law would not be welcomed by most cyclists and has been proven to put people off riding bikes, the maths stack up against helmet compulsion in the health benefits cycling confers.
As has been mentioned earlier helmets would have better results inside cars so should be made compulsory there first.
[quote][p][bold]daffy[/bold] wrote: "forcing them to register would be very difficult" but not impossible and anybody who objects to this obviously has something to hide, as it should only be the same as the driving license. even non drivers have a basic knowledge of the highway code - red light at traffic lights mean stop the amount of times i see all road users ignore this is uncountable, also wondering at the pelican crossing in lowesmoor worcester i thought the traffic had to stop if someone was waiting to cross the road - i had a near miss by a cyclist and he didn't even apologize. i was going home early evening and it was quite dark i saw 3 cyclists on the road in dark clothing with no helmets think these should be compulsory the helmets that is[/p][/quote]Ok.. why have I have got something to hide just because I think being registered to ride a bike is ridiculous? Maybe all cars should be fitted with cameras to record incidents? I agree it is foolish to ride without lights, and it is illegal but a compulsory helmet law would not be welcomed by most cyclists and has been proven to put people off riding bikes, the maths stack up against helmet compulsion in the health benefits cycling confers. As has been mentioned earlier helmets would have better results inside cars so should be made compulsory there first. pudniw_gib
  • Score: -1

8:07pm Wed 22 Jan 14

daffy says...

so what some of you seem to be saying is ' let us carry on putting other lives at risk we don't give a **** about our own' so don't expect me to waste my time and money on you if you get knocked of your bike through your own stupidity, the cyclist who nearly went into me would have got away with hit and run if he had gone into me because no doubt he would have driven off going by the attitude of the near miss that he had had
so what some of you seem to be saying is ' let us carry on putting other lives at risk we don't give a **** about our own' so don't expect me to waste my time and money on you if you get knocked of your bike through your own stupidity, the cyclist who nearly went into me would have got away with hit and run if he had gone into me because no doubt he would have driven off going by the attitude of the near miss that he had had daffy
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Wed 22 Jan 14

sunnside says...

GroovyChick wrote:
I don't think making them register would help, but I do think they should be made to wear hi-vis clothing of some sort and be made to have lights,.
they should have lights by law but choose to ignore this rule as there is no punishment ,their bike should be taken away and scrapped
[quote][p][bold]GroovyChick[/bold] wrote: I don't think making them register would help, but I do think they should be made to wear hi-vis clothing of some sort and be made to have lights,.[/p][/quote]they should have lights by law but choose to ignore this rule as there is no punishment ,their bike should be taken away and scrapped sunnside
  • Score: 4

8:34pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Richard of Wantage says...

daffy wrote:
so what some of you seem to be saying is ' let us carry on putting other lives at risk we don't give a **** about our own' so don't expect me to waste my time and money on you if you get knocked of your bike through your own stupidity, the cyclist who nearly went into me would have got away with hit and run if he had gone into me because no doubt he would have driven off going by the attitude of the near miss that he had had
Let’s make it clear; having a licence to ride a bike will make no difference. Why? Just look at motorists; 60,000 drink driving convictions each year; 450 death by dangerous driving convictions each year; 420 pedestrians killed in 2012 by motor vehicles; 5,500 pedestrians seriously injured in 2012 by motor vehicles; 801 car occupants killed in 2012. The call for licencing of an activity is an attempt to stir up animosity against different user groups.
[quote][p][bold]daffy[/bold] wrote: so what some of you seem to be saying is ' let us carry on putting other lives at risk we don't give a **** about our own' so don't expect me to waste my time and money on you if you get knocked of your bike through your own stupidity, the cyclist who nearly went into me would have got away with hit and run if he had gone into me because no doubt he would have driven off going by the attitude of the near miss that he had had[/p][/quote]Let’s make it clear; having a licence to ride a bike will make no difference. Why? Just look at motorists; 60,000 drink driving convictions each year; 450 death by dangerous driving convictions each year; 420 pedestrians killed in 2012 by motor vehicles; 5,500 pedestrians seriously injured in 2012 by motor vehicles; 801 car occupants killed in 2012. The call for licencing of an activity is an attempt to stir up animosity against different user groups. Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

liketoknow wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code.

Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority.

The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum.

Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.
how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?
Statistics, but also local experience.

If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure.

It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong.
Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not.

I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,[/p][/quote]Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code. Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority. The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum. Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.[/p][/quote]how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?[/p][/quote]Statistics, but also local experience. If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure. It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong. Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not. I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil. i-cycle
  • Score: 4

9:20pm Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

daffy wrote:
"forcing them to register would be very difficult" but not impossible and anybody who objects to this obviously has something to hide, as it should only be the same as the driving license. even non drivers have a basic knowledge of the highway code - red light at traffic lights mean stop the amount of times i see all road users ignore this is uncountable, also wondering at the pelican crossing in lowesmoor worcester i thought the traffic had to stop if someone was waiting to cross the road - i had a near miss by a cyclist and he didn't even apologize. i was going home early evening and it was quite dark i saw 3 cyclists on the road in dark clothing with no helmets think these should be compulsory the helmets that is
There is actually a strong case for front seat car passengers wearing helmets.

That said I think it should be down to personal choice and especially as poor quality and badly fitted helmets are actually more dangerous than no helmet and for most accidents over a certain speed it makes absolutely no difference at all. The strongest case for wearing helmets is actually when mountain biking, off-road.

But when have facts ever got in the way of trying to stigmatise all cyclists as the pariahs of the road!
[quote][p][bold]daffy[/bold] wrote: "forcing them to register would be very difficult" but not impossible and anybody who objects to this obviously has something to hide, as it should only be the same as the driving license. even non drivers have a basic knowledge of the highway code - red light at traffic lights mean stop the amount of times i see all road users ignore this is uncountable, also wondering at the pelican crossing in lowesmoor worcester i thought the traffic had to stop if someone was waiting to cross the road - i had a near miss by a cyclist and he didn't even apologize. i was going home early evening and it was quite dark i saw 3 cyclists on the road in dark clothing with no helmets think these should be compulsory the helmets that is[/p][/quote]There is actually a strong case for front seat car passengers wearing helmets. That said I think it should be down to personal choice and especially as poor quality and badly fitted helmets are actually more dangerous than no helmet and for most accidents over a certain speed it makes absolutely no difference at all. The strongest case for wearing helmets is actually when mountain biking, off-road. But when have facts ever got in the way of trying to stigmatise all cyclists as the pariahs of the road! i-cycle
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

sunnside wrote:
GroovyChick wrote:
I don't think making them register would help, but I do think they should be made to wear hi-vis clothing of some sort and be made to have lights,.
they should have lights by law but choose to ignore this rule as there is no punishment ,their bike should be taken away and scrapped
Of course there is. Riding after dark isn't legal. Cyclists should have lights and should comply with the law.

Just as the 82% of motorists admitting to sometimes or frequently breaking the speed limit or 32% admitting to jump a red light and a large proportion admitting to using a hand held phone.

When you last passed a cyclist do you treat them amass if they were a car and give them just as much room. Probably not, but if you didn't you're also breaking the Highway Code.

The big issue is not about blaming or stereotyping certainties of road user it about ensuring we all stick to the Highway Code, respect all road users and learn to share the highways (including footpaths) with consideration for all other road users.
[quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroovyChick[/bold] wrote: I don't think making them register would help, but I do think they should be made to wear hi-vis clothing of some sort and be made to have lights,.[/p][/quote]they should have lights by law but choose to ignore this rule as there is no punishment ,their bike should be taken away and scrapped[/p][/quote]Of course there is. Riding after dark isn't legal. Cyclists should have lights and should comply with the law. Just as the 82% of motorists admitting to sometimes or frequently breaking the speed limit or 32% admitting to jump a red light and a large proportion admitting to using a hand held phone. When you last passed a cyclist do you treat them amass if they were a car and give them just as much room. Probably not, but if you didn't you're also breaking the Highway Code. The big issue is not about blaming or stereotyping certainties of road user it about ensuring we all stick to the Highway Code, respect all road users and learn to share the highways (including footpaths) with consideration for all other road users. i-cycle
  • Score: 2

9:33pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code.

Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority.

The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum.

Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.
how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?
Statistics, but also local experience.

If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure.

It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong.
Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not.

I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.
even at the figure you've quoted, that means 35 out of every 100 cyclists have not got qualified experience of travelling on the road. I find that frightening
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,[/p][/quote]Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code. Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority. The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum. Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.[/p][/quote]how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?[/p][/quote]Statistics, but also local experience. If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure. It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong. Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not. I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.[/p][/quote]even at the figure you've quoted, that means 35 out of every 100 cyclists have not got qualified experience of travelling on the road. I find that frightening liketoknow
  • Score: 1

9:35pm Wed 22 Jan 14

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

So we register every one who rides a bike? Does that include children? They ride on the roads, yet again Nikki engages mouth before engaging brain (she needs a new set of Sturmey Archers!)
So we register every one who rides a bike? Does that include children? They ride on the roads, yet again Nikki engages mouth before engaging brain (she needs a new set of Sturmey Archers!) imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 2

9:35pm Wed 22 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code.

Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority.

The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum.

Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.
how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?
Statistics, but also local experience.

If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure.

It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong.
Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not.

I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.
even at the figure you've quoted, that means 35 out of every 100 cyclists have not got qualified experience of travelling on the road. I find that frightening
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,[/p][/quote]Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code. Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority. The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum. Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.[/p][/quote]how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?[/p][/quote]Statistics, but also local experience. If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure. It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong. Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not. I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.[/p][/quote]even at the figure you've quoted, that means 35 out of every 100 cyclists have not got qualified experience of travelling on the road. I find that frightening liketoknow
  • Score: 1

10:02pm Wed 22 Jan 14

i-cycle says...

liketoknow wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
liketoknow wrote:
malverncyclist wrote:
After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)
that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,
Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code.

Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority.

The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum.

Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.
how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?
Statistics, but also local experience.

If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure.

It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong.
Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not.

I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.
even at the figure you've quoted, that means 35 out of every 100 cyclists have not got qualified experience of travelling on the road. I find that frightening
Almost all will have experience of travelling on the road, but there are some that find roads so dangerous, and with good reason, that they only cycle off road.

I think the point you make is that they haven't been trained to use the road. I quote 65%, but have just seen another figure at 82%. The article also pointed out that more cyclists actually pay 'road tax' than motorists (I assume because it tends to be the more affluent and educated that cycle and probably have less fuel efficient cars.

The basic fact is that the vast majority of cyclists do have training. Where the main gap may be is for younger people. They can't pass a driving test because they're not old enough, but hopefully most have had cycle truing at school.

As someone else has stated the AA support cycle training as they have found that trained cyclists make better drivers. Its also enables those not old enough to drive to develop road sense.

The other key factor in this is that the damage caused by cyclists is massively less than motorists and for two main reasons - speed and mass.

Other stats to help put the actual 'dangers' caused by cyclists into perspective (figures are for London).

Pedestrians injured by cyclists jumping a red 4%

Pedestrians injured by car drivers jumping a red 71%

Pedestrians inured by motorbikes jumping a red 13%

Number of drivers in confidential surveys admitting to jumping a red 32%.

The big issue is to focus on getting everyone to comply with the law, not to stigmatise a particular type of road user. Just as there are bad motorists there are bad cyclists, pedestrians, motorbikers, horse riders and pedestrians.

At a guess lots of the motorists that complain strongly about cyclists haven't ever cycled and don't know the problems we face. That's why cycling should be part of the driving test!
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]malverncyclist[/bold] wrote: After the somewhat ridiculous article a couple of months ago (or rather 'rant') now an elected politician coming up with not only an impractical idea but yet again singling out cyclists. I cycle every day from Malvern to Worcester and stick to the Highway Code. If this politician has any real evidence of cyclists flouting the highway code, she should put it on the table. Otherwise it's just pointless. Trouble of course is that number plates dont' stop motorists breaking the highway code ... And I see lots of that. And as for the 'menace' comment on here, let's not forget that this is often used to describe cyclists' behaviour enforced by lack of planning for cyclists, aggression by drivers and complete misunderstanding what it's like on the roads on two wheels (so motorists, get out of your cages once in a while and ride a bike ...)[/p][/quote]that's the point, they're not required by law to have any knowledge of the highway code.no test, no registration no insurance. they can buy a cycle and go straight on to the road . it beggars belief,[/p][/quote]Most cyclists are also car drivers so its not quite true to say they have no knowledge of the Highway Code. Fortunately Worcestershire now offers Bikeability training for school children The problem is that not all schools or parents are signing their children up. The funding is also a grant from the Government. All training will stop when it dries as its obvious the County no longer sees cycling as a priority. The cycling bodies including CTC, the national cycling charity and with support from the AA have lobbied parliament to make the funding permanent, but also to have cycle training as part of the national curriculum. Interestingly the AA support is because they have noticed that trained cyclists make better drivers! They also see it as a way of enabling young people to gain experience and 'road sense' before they are old enough to get behind a wheel.[/p][/quote]how do you know most cyclist are car drivers?[/p][/quote]Statistics, but also local experience. If I remember correctly 65% of cyclists nationally also drive, the same as myself and the majority of those I know. Its actually likely to be a higher percentage locally due to the poor public transport infrastructure. It also why those that bang on about cyclists not paying "Road Tax' are wrong. Apart from it being factually incorrect - "Road Tax" which did pay for roads was got rid of in the 30's. We now have VED. If you think about it even if VED applied to cyclists they wouldn't pay anything. The actual fact is that the majority do pay VED (because they have cars), but roads are paid out of general taxation which all cyclists pay whether they have car or not. I can actually see a strong case for cyclists getting a refund and especially when Worcestershire have reduced their cycle infrastructure budget to nil.[/p][/quote]even at the figure you've quoted, that means 35 out of every 100 cyclists have not got qualified experience of travelling on the road. I find that frightening[/p][/quote]Almost all will have experience of travelling on the road, but there are some that find roads so dangerous, and with good reason, that they only cycle off road. I think the point you make is that they haven't been trained to use the road. I quote 65%, but have just seen another figure at 82%. The article also pointed out that more cyclists actually pay 'road tax' than motorists (I assume because it tends to be the more affluent and educated that cycle and probably have less fuel efficient cars. The basic fact is that the vast majority of cyclists do have training. Where the main gap may be is for younger people. They can't pass a driving test because they're not old enough, but hopefully most have had cycle truing at school. As someone else has stated the AA support cycle training as they have found that trained cyclists make better drivers. Its also enables those not old enough to drive to develop road sense. The other key factor in this is that the damage caused by cyclists is massively less than motorists and for two main reasons - speed and mass. Other stats to help put the actual 'dangers' caused by cyclists into perspective (figures are for London). Pedestrians injured by cyclists jumping a red 4% Pedestrians injured by car drivers jumping a red 71% Pedestrians inured by motorbikes jumping a red 13% Number of drivers in confidential surveys admitting to jumping a red 32%. The big issue is to focus on getting everyone to comply with the law, not to stigmatise a particular type of road user. Just as there are bad motorists there are bad cyclists, pedestrians, motorbikers, horse riders and pedestrians. At a guess lots of the motorists that complain strongly about cyclists haven't ever cycled and don't know the problems we face. That's why cycling should be part of the driving test! i-cycle
  • Score: 1

11:22pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bufton Tufton says...

thesquirrel wrote:
If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?
Whatever you think about it, the law is the law, although I do agree it is often an ****. It is not against the law for pedestrians to cross when the red man is showing in the UK. However it IS against the law in several other European countries and pedestrians are regularly prosecuted when the police decide to have a purge. I have been stopped abroad myself for crossing the road when there was not a vehicle in sight but the red man was showing. When they realized I was a "stupid" foreigner I got let off the hook
[quote][p][bold]thesquirrel[/bold] wrote: If I'm cycling and at a red light and I can see it's safe to go then I'll go. Not all pedestrians wait for the green man in order to cross if they can see it's safe. What's the difference?[/p][/quote]Whatever you think about it, the law is the law, although I do agree it is often an ****. It is not against the law for pedestrians to cross when the red man is showing in the UK. However it IS against the law in several other European countries and pedestrians are regularly prosecuted when the police decide to have a purge. I have been stopped abroad myself for crossing the road when there was not a vehicle in sight but the red man was showing. When they realized I was a "stupid" foreigner I got let off the hook Bufton Tufton
  • Score: 5

11:32pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bufton Tufton says...

liketoknow wrote:
one got prosecuted and jailed in London a few months ago for riding through a red light . think someone got killed though
A cyclist was killed a few years ago after being in a collision with a skateboarder in Hyde Park.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: one got prosecuted and jailed in London a few months ago for riding through a red light . think someone got killed though[/p][/quote]A cyclist was killed a few years ago after being in a collision with a skateboarder in Hyde Park. Bufton Tufton
  • Score: 1

3:39am Thu 23 Jan 14

ideas4all says...

I got no problems with cyclists except the ones who ride side by side for chit chat and hold up many cars behind them but helmet and florescent jacket should b made compulsory for their safety and this would give police a alternative group to target instead of innocent motorists like me who's been stopped more than 30 times in less than 10 years and only once I was guilty of anything (my fog lights were on when there wasn't any need ) but to my amusement 2 cars went past with theirs on whilst I was being given £ 30 endorsement after being followed for 2 miles
I got no problems with cyclists except the ones who ride side by side for chit chat and hold up many cars behind them but helmet and florescent jacket should b made compulsory for their safety and this would give police a alternative group to target instead of innocent motorists like me who's been stopped more than 30 times in less than 10 years and only once I was guilty of anything (my fog lights were on when there wasn't any need ) but to my amusement 2 cars went past with theirs on whilst I was being given £ 30 endorsement after being followed for 2 miles ideas4all
  • Score: 1

7:52am Thu 23 Jan 14

Lyppard says...

Not read every single comment on here but would like to see more cyclists prosecuted for having no lights and also jumping red lights. Saw something from 'squirrell' that would appear to assume that they don't have to follow the same laws as car users when it comes to red lights. If the lights are on red and u are a road user then STOP
Not read every single comment on here but would like to see more cyclists prosecuted for having no lights and also jumping red lights. Saw something from 'squirrell' that would appear to assume that they don't have to follow the same laws as car users when it comes to red lights. If the lights are on red and u are a road user then STOP Lyppard
  • Score: 3

9:08am Thu 23 Jan 14

lovelyjubbly says...

I pass same 4 cyclists early every morning. Not one has lights on their bike!
I pass same 4 cyclists early every morning. Not one has lights on their bike! lovelyjubbly
  • Score: 5

10:14am Thu 23 Jan 14

3thinker says...

ideas4all wrote:
I got no problems with cyclists except the ones who ride side by side for chit chat and hold up many cars behind them but helmet and florescent jacket should b made compulsory for their safety and this would give police a alternative group to target instead of innocent motorists like me who's been stopped more than 30 times in less than 10 years and only once I was guilty of anything (my fog lights were on when there wasn't any need ) but to my amusement 2 cars went past with theirs on whilst I was being given £ 30 endorsement after being followed for 2 miles
Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast. In fact the DfT advise this as part of their Bikeability training and specifically where the road is too narrow or is about to narrow and there's not enough room for a car to pass safely. Safely means cars should give as much room as if there were passing a car by the way - something lots of motorists don't understand.

That said I fully support the view that cyclists need to be considerate and preferably ride in single file and leave gaps if there is a large group to facilitate safe overtaking.

The case for helmets and hi-vis is hotly debated, but there is strong evidence that it would actually make little difference. It certainly shouldn't be made compulsory.
[quote][p][bold]ideas4all[/bold] wrote: I got no problems with cyclists except the ones who ride side by side for chit chat and hold up many cars behind them but helmet and florescent jacket should b made compulsory for their safety and this would give police a alternative group to target instead of innocent motorists like me who's been stopped more than 30 times in less than 10 years and only once I was guilty of anything (my fog lights were on when there wasn't any need ) but to my amusement 2 cars went past with theirs on whilst I was being given £ 30 endorsement after being followed for 2 miles[/p][/quote]Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast. In fact the DfT advise this as part of their Bikeability training and specifically where the road is too narrow or is about to narrow and there's not enough room for a car to pass safely. Safely means cars should give as much room as if there were passing a car by the way - something lots of motorists don't understand. That said I fully support the view that cyclists need to be considerate and preferably ride in single file and leave gaps if there is a large group to facilitate safe overtaking. The case for helmets and hi-vis is hotly debated, but there is strong evidence that it would actually make little difference. It certainly shouldn't be made compulsory. 3thinker
  • Score: 0

10:37am Thu 23 Jan 14

itshimself says...

I don't get other cyclists flying past me at high speed but I certainly get many vehicles who do and have little or no consideration for the cyclist! Clearly any cyclist who breaks the highway code should be punished but how many motorists break the highway code by either speeding or dare I say it, drive through red traffic lights! The roads are for everyone and should be made safe for all users and not by the selfish who want to ignore all highway code rules.
I don't get other cyclists flying past me at high speed but I certainly get many vehicles who do and have little or no consideration for the cyclist! Clearly any cyclist who breaks the highway code should be punished but how many motorists break the highway code by either speeding or dare I say it, drive through red traffic lights! The roads are for everyone and should be made safe for all users and not by the selfish who want to ignore all highway code rules. itshimself
  • Score: -5

10:55am Thu 23 Jan 14

3thinker says...

itshimself wrote:
I don't get other cyclists flying past me at high speed but I certainly get many vehicles who do and have little or no consideration for the cyclist! Clearly any cyclist who breaks the highway code should be punished but how many motorists break the highway code by either speeding or dare I say it, drive through red traffic lights! The roads are for everyone and should be made safe for all users and not by the selfish who want to ignore all highway code rules.
32% of drivers admit to jumping a red.
82% of drivers admit to breaking speed limits

Quote from BBC:
Cycling campaigners insist the popular perceptions of rampaging cyclists are not supported by statistical evidence. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.

Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed.

80% of collisions involving cyclists occur in daylight
75% occur in urban areas
25% are children

In 2012 118 cyclists were killed, 3,222 seriously injured, 15,751 slightly injured. In all of these collisions
[quote][p][bold]itshimself[/bold] wrote: I don't get other cyclists flying past me at high speed but I certainly get many vehicles who do and have little or no consideration for the cyclist! Clearly any cyclist who breaks the highway code should be punished but how many motorists break the highway code by either speeding or dare I say it, drive through red traffic lights! The roads are for everyone and should be made safe for all users and not by the selfish who want to ignore all highway code rules.[/p][/quote]32% of drivers admit to jumping a red. 82% of drivers admit to breaking speed limits Quote from BBC: Cycling campaigners insist the popular perceptions of rampaging cyclists are not supported by statistical evidence. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities. Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed. 80% of collisions involving cyclists occur in daylight 75% occur in urban areas 25% are children In 2012 118 cyclists were killed, 3,222 seriously injured, 15,751 slightly injured. In all of these collisions 3thinker
  • Score: 1

11:49am Thu 23 Jan 14

Vox populi says...

Sigh, there is a simple solution:

1.) The cycle proficiency test is a legal requirement for all those above the age of criminal responsibility.
2.) Helmets become law for cyclists - these are issued and sold with a visible number on them which ensures cyclist safety, they are identifyable therefore can be tracked down in the event of an incident and a national database is kept.

This should result in better safety, a change in behaviour due to their accountability from bad cyclists and not impact anyone else.
Sigh, there is a simple solution: 1.) The cycle proficiency test is a legal requirement for all those above the age of criminal responsibility. 2.) Helmets become law for cyclists - these are issued and sold with a visible number on them which ensures cyclist safety, they are identifyable therefore can be tracked down in the event of an incident and a national database is kept. This should result in better safety, a change in behaviour due to their accountability from bad cyclists and not impact anyone else. Vox populi
  • Score: -5

11:58am Thu 23 Jan 14

3thinker says...

Vox populi wrote:
Sigh, there is a simple solution:

1.) The cycle proficiency test is a legal requirement for all those above the age of criminal responsibility.
2.) Helmets become law for cyclists - these are issued and sold with a visible number on them which ensures cyclist safety, they are identifyable therefore can be tracked down in the event of an incident and a national database is kept.

This should result in better safety, a change in behaviour due to their accountability from bad cyclists and not impact anyone else.
1) 25% of all cycling injuries happen to children under the legal age of responsibility.
2) The recommended 'life' of a helmet is 3 years. Less if it has suffered an impact.
How would you stop people lending each other helmets

Apart from lots of other reasons why this isn't a way forward, how do you propose we also address poor driver behaviour which is actually the root cause of the majority of collisions and deaths involving cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Sigh, there is a simple solution: 1.) The cycle proficiency test is a legal requirement for all those above the age of criminal responsibility. 2.) Helmets become law for cyclists - these are issued and sold with a visible number on them which ensures cyclist safety, they are identifyable therefore can be tracked down in the event of an incident and a national database is kept. This should result in better safety, a change in behaviour due to their accountability from bad cyclists and not impact anyone else.[/p][/quote]1) 25% of all cycling injuries happen to children under the legal age of responsibility. 2) The recommended 'life' of a helmet is 3 years. Less if it has suffered an impact. How would you stop people lending each other helmets Apart from lots of other reasons why this isn't a way forward, how do you propose we also address poor driver behaviour which is actually the root cause of the majority of collisions and deaths involving cyclists? 3thinker
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Vox populi says...

1.) Then parents take responsibility for their children like they should for any activity.
2.) You should not lend your helmet to anyone - this goes for ski helmets, child car seats etc etc that’s just stupidity. Everything in life has a shelf life, change it…

Erm this isn't about poor car drivers - there are laws that are enforced to address this however there simply isn't the same thing for cyclists. You miss the point, this isn’t a war between drivers and cyclists, I do both and take my responsibility and accountability for both activities. Car drivers generally do this through the law, cyclists do not. Call it equality if it helps you to understand it.
1.) Then parents take responsibility for their children like they should for any activity. 2.) You should not lend your helmet to anyone - this goes for ski helmets, child car seats etc etc that’s just stupidity. Everything in life has a shelf life, change it… Erm this isn't about poor car drivers - there are laws that are enforced to address this however there simply isn't the same thing for cyclists. You miss the point, this isn’t a war between drivers and cyclists, I do both and take my responsibility and accountability for both activities. Car drivers generally do this through the law, cyclists do not. Call it equality if it helps you to understand it. Vox populi
  • Score: -7

2:01pm Thu 23 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

If cyclists have to undergo training to ride on the roads then I suggest that all car drivers should do an advanced driving test before getting L plates removed.
The statistics would support this as being fair would they not?
Bike riders cause few injuries while car drivers though most are careful cannot really be said to be fully competent. This wouldnt be so bad if a car weighed as little as a bike but they weigh a ton and go quick....
.
As for riding 2 abreast, it isn legal and is often quite sensible. As has already been pointed out it can stop drivers overtaking dangerously. If I m out on narrow lanes I sometimes give way to cars and expect the same courtesy and often get it... Its just a few aggressive and dangerous individuals that seem to take pleasure in frightening people. I have reported them in the past, one driver had to go on a driving course after cutting a group of cyclist up, twice,,,.
If cyclists have to undergo training to ride on the roads then I suggest that all car drivers should do an advanced driving test before getting L plates removed. The statistics would support this as being fair would they not? Bike riders cause few injuries while car drivers though most are careful cannot really be said to be fully competent. This wouldnt be so bad if a car weighed as little as a bike but they weigh a ton and go quick.... . As for riding 2 abreast, it isn legal and is often quite sensible. As has already been pointed out it can stop drivers overtaking dangerously. If I m out on narrow lanes I sometimes give way to cars and expect the same courtesy and often get it... Its just a few aggressive and dangerous individuals that seem to take pleasure in frightening people. I have reported them in the past, one driver had to go on a driving course after cutting a group of cyclist up, twice,,,. pudniw_gib
  • Score: -2

5:30pm Thu 23 Jan 14

sunnside says...

lovelyjubbly wrote:
I pass same 4 cyclists early every morning. Not one has lights on their bike!
sit outside a factory on droitwich road in worcester at 6am and 10pm
(shift change)it will shock you how many idiots ride in and out with no lights.
[quote][p][bold]lovelyjubbly[/bold] wrote: I pass same 4 cyclists early every morning. Not one has lights on their bike![/p][/quote]sit outside a factory on droitwich road in worcester at 6am and 10pm (shift change)it will shock you how many idiots ride in and out with no lights. sunnside
  • Score: 2

6:19pm Thu 23 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

one thing that is patently obvious from the comments on here is that most cyclists don't want legislation.
one thing that is patently obvious from the comments on here is that most cyclists don't want legislation. liketoknow
  • Score: 1

8:20pm Thu 23 Jan 14

pudniw_gib says...

oops , I said that riding 2 abreast is illegal... which it certainly isnt... sorry about the typo ...
I always look out for the ninja cyclists at night... we have lots in our estate so I suppose most motorists are very aware of the pillocks dressed in black... no lights and usually hopping up and down kerbs . .. its such a common sight, well when you see em that is ..
oops , I said that riding 2 abreast is illegal... which it certainly isnt... sorry about the typo ... I always look out for the ninja cyclists at night... we have lots in our estate so I suppose most motorists are very aware of the pillocks dressed in black... no lights and usually hopping up and down kerbs . .. its such a common sight, well when you see em that is .. pudniw_gib
  • Score: -3

10:41pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Gingerwizard says...

For those who recommend compulsory hi-viz, helmets, registration etc, get yourself a bike, commute to work for a month, in winter, no excuses, and you will notice some shocking driving standards, all by people who have achieved the required standards! Now jumping a red light breaks the rules, no question, but on a bike, may result in death or serious injury for the bike rider. Using a mobile in a car/van also breaks the rules, but probably won't kill the car driver, it probably will kill or seriously injure a bike rider, Ah but if hi-viz was compulsory he'd have seen you right?
Like I said spend a month commuting, by bike, and come back and tell me who's more irresponsible, we are, after all , all just trying to get from A to B without getting killed?
For those who recommend compulsory hi-viz, helmets, registration etc, get yourself a bike, commute to work for a month, in winter, no excuses, and you will notice some shocking driving standards, all by people who have achieved the required standards! Now jumping a red light breaks the rules, no question, but on a bike, may result in death or serious injury for the bike rider. Using a mobile in a car/van also breaks the rules, but probably won't kill the car driver, it probably will kill or seriously injure a bike rider, Ah but if hi-viz was compulsory he'd have seen you right? Like I said spend a month commuting, by bike, and come back and tell me who's more irresponsible, we are, after all , all just trying to get from A to B without getting killed? Gingerwizard
  • Score: -1

11:26am Fri 24 Jan 14

bikepacker says...

I wonder how many times a day whilst driving do vehicle drivers break moving traffic offences? Any driver who says they don't would possibly also tell porkies about other things. Unfortunately we only ever have statistics of those who get caught.
I wonder how many times a day whilst driving do vehicle drivers break moving traffic offences? Any driver who says they don't would possibly also tell porkies about other things. Unfortunately we only ever have statistics of those who get caught. bikepacker
  • Score: 0

11:31am Fri 24 Jan 14

bikepacker says...

Should have added that, I think it is obvious to any rational thinking person. Ms Sinclaire has an election coming up and is attempting to publicise herself in anyway possible. I suppose courting the motorist is just one way of doing it.
Should have added that, I think it is obvious to any rational thinking person. Ms Sinclaire has an election coming up and is attempting to publicise herself in anyway possible. I suppose courting the motorist is just one way of doing it. bikepacker
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Sassy_Girl says...

As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate...

All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes.
On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this.
With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4..
Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.
As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate... All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes. On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this. With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4.. Only solution is to give every single a bike lane. Sassy_Girl
  • Score: -1

12:42pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Gingerwizard says...

Another thought on " annoyed" motorists desperate to overtake, how long does your commute take in a car.? I used to commute malvern to worcs on the A449, and it took me 20- 25mins, Link to river bridge,on a bike that is.... So is the dodgy overtake really worth the stress or are car drivers just getting frustrated cos the bike is quicker,?
Another thought on " annoyed" motorists desperate to overtake, how long does your commute take in a car.? I used to commute malvern to worcs on the A449, and it took me 20- 25mins, Link to river bridge,on a bike that is.... So is the dodgy overtake really worth the stress or are car drivers just getting frustrated cos the bike is quicker,? Gingerwizard
  • Score: 2

1:28pm Fri 24 Jan 14

deborah-coldicottcollins says...

Another stupid suggestion from "Wait a minute"!!!!!!!!! An MP well there's a surprise now I'm really laughing. Leave the cyclists alone and concentrate on some of the idiot motorists out there that are totally oblivious to them. For god's sake get a grip of yourselves you always seem to be condemning someone for some reason you really are sad.
Another stupid suggestion from "Wait a minute"!!!!!!!!! An MP well there's a surprise now I'm really laughing. Leave the cyclists alone and concentrate on some of the idiot motorists out there that are totally oblivious to them. For god's sake get a grip of yourselves you always seem to be condemning someone for some reason you really are sad. deborah-coldicottcollins
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Fri 24 Jan 14

DarrenM says...

I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.
I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years. DarrenM
  • Score: 2

5:20pm Fri 24 Jan 14

CBburn says...

Nikki Sinclaire is clearly an idiot and merely trying to get cheap headlines...pathetic

So Hi-Vis and registration sorts out tragic events like this does it? http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-258
16281
Nikki Sinclaire is clearly an idiot and merely trying to get cheap headlines...pathetic So Hi-Vis and registration sorts out tragic events like this does it? http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-258 16281 CBburn
  • Score: 1

5:52pm Fri 24 Jan 14

3thinker says...

DarrenM wrote:
I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.
Personally I don't think more legislation is the way forward if we are to improve road safety.

It certainly doesn't stop some cyclists from acting irresponsibly, but more often than not this only puts themselves at more risk. I'm not aware of any collisions in Worcestershire caused by a cyclist (others may be able to put me right) that resulted in a serious injury or death.

What is certain is that I constantly see motorists flouting the law and driving irresponsibly. I'm certainly aware of several cyclists (and pedestrians) being seriously injured and killed by motorists. there also appears to be growing evidence of the ill health effects caused by exhaust fumes, noise pollution, but also people using their cars too much and not bothering to get the exercise needed for a healthy lifestyle. All these factors create significant cost for us all as taxpayers.

Surely what is needed is better education, but also an increased sense of personal responsibility to understand and respect the needs of other road users and for us all to learn to share our congested roads more safely.

I'd also suggest that its actually in all our interests as motorists to encourage more to walk, cycle and catch the bus or train as this would reduce congestion and parking problems.

Perhaps time to see the bigger picture and move on from fuelling the growing and largely pointless antagonism between motorists and cyclists.

I say this as both a motorist, cyclist and walker.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.[/p][/quote]Personally I don't think more legislation is the way forward if we are to improve road safety. It certainly doesn't stop some cyclists from acting irresponsibly, but more often than not this only puts themselves at more risk. I'm not aware of any collisions in Worcestershire caused by a cyclist (others may be able to put me right) that resulted in a serious injury or death. What is certain is that I constantly see motorists flouting the law and driving irresponsibly. I'm certainly aware of several cyclists (and pedestrians) being seriously injured and killed by motorists. there also appears to be growing evidence of the ill health effects caused by exhaust fumes, noise pollution, but also people using their cars too much and not bothering to get the exercise needed for a healthy lifestyle. All these factors create significant cost for us all as taxpayers. Surely what is needed is better education, but also an increased sense of personal responsibility to understand and respect the needs of other road users and for us all to learn to share our congested roads more safely. I'd also suggest that its actually in all our interests as motorists to encourage more to walk, cycle and catch the bus or train as this would reduce congestion and parking problems. Perhaps time to see the bigger picture and move on from fuelling the growing and largely pointless antagonism between motorists and cyclists. I say this as both a motorist, cyclist and walker. 3thinker
  • Score: 2

6:51pm Fri 24 Jan 14

bikepacker says...

DarrenM wrote:
I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.
If the police enforce any new cycling regulations as ineffectively as they do motoring regulations, then cyclists having nothing to even consider.

My view is; enforce all motoring and cycling laws with greater effectiveness than is done at present. More traffic, speed and CTV cameras capable of catching drivers on their mobile's, should be the starting point.

Another thing that baffles me. If local roads are funded out of council tax should those who do not use road destroying motor vehicles, get a reduced rate or rebate?
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.[/p][/quote]If the police enforce any new cycling regulations as ineffectively as they do motoring regulations, then cyclists having nothing to even consider. My view is; enforce all motoring and cycling laws with greater effectiveness than is done at present. More traffic, speed and CTV cameras capable of catching drivers on their mobile's, should be the starting point. Another thing that baffles me. If local roads are funded out of council tax should those who do not use road destroying motor vehicles, get a reduced rate or rebate? bikepacker
  • Score: 2

7:07pm Fri 24 Jan 14

3thinker says...

bikepacker wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.
If the police enforce any new cycling regulations as ineffectively as they do motoring regulations, then cyclists having nothing to even consider.

My view is; enforce all motoring and cycling laws with greater effectiveness than is done at present. More traffic, speed and CTV cameras capable of catching drivers on their mobile's, should be the starting point.

Another thing that baffles me. If local roads are funded out of council tax should those who do not use road destroying motor vehicles, get a reduced rate or rebate?
I think you'll find that roads are funded out of general taxation - income tax, VAT and I assume things such as fuel duty.

Worcestershire as Highway Authority then get a large sum of money each year from the Government to maintain and improve the highways (that includes footpaths, pavements, road verges, potholes etc. WCC can also use their Council Tax and developer contribution to top up. There's alo occasional grant funding from Government and even Europe.

As to you point about those who don't use or damage the roads getting a refund, well whether we use them or not we still rely on them for getting from A to B, even on foot, but also for enabling companies and the council to deliver goods and services.

Whatever my mode of transport I certainly don't begrudge paying taxes for the services I get, but also to benefit the wider community. Just as anyone else I am however concerned to ensure taxpayers money is well spent. For me I'm more concerned about the collective good rather than personal gain, but each to their own eh!
[quote][p][bold]bikepacker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: I always find it amusing that cyclists are the first to complain about KSI's however as soon as any suggestion on regulation, safety equipment or training for their chosen mode of transport is made it gets the thumbs down in the comments. The first shoots of regulation are starting to appear and they're all going to be in for a nasty shock in the next few years.[/p][/quote]If the police enforce any new cycling regulations as ineffectively as they do motoring regulations, then cyclists having nothing to even consider. My view is; enforce all motoring and cycling laws with greater effectiveness than is done at present. More traffic, speed and CTV cameras capable of catching drivers on their mobile's, should be the starting point. Another thing that baffles me. If local roads are funded out of council tax should those who do not use road destroying motor vehicles, get a reduced rate or rebate?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that roads are funded out of general taxation - income tax, VAT and I assume things such as fuel duty. Worcestershire as Highway Authority then get a large sum of money each year from the Government to maintain and improve the highways (that includes footpaths, pavements, road verges, potholes etc. WCC can also use their Council Tax and developer contribution to top up. There's alo occasional grant funding from Government and even Europe. As to you point about those who don't use or damage the roads getting a refund, well whether we use them or not we still rely on them for getting from A to B, even on foot, but also for enabling companies and the council to deliver goods and services. Whatever my mode of transport I certainly don't begrudge paying taxes for the services I get, but also to benefit the wider community. Just as anyone else I am however concerned to ensure taxpayers money is well spent. For me I'm more concerned about the collective good rather than personal gain, but each to their own eh! 3thinker
  • Score: 1

9:59am Sat 25 Jan 14

Dan the wise says...

daffy wrote:
so what some of you seem to be saying is ' let us carry on putting other lives at risk we don't give a **** about our own' so don't expect me to waste my time and money on you if you get knocked of your bike through your own stupidity, the cyclist who nearly went into me would have got away with hit and run if he had gone into me because no doubt he would have driven off going by the attitude of the near miss that he had had
No what some of us are saying that is if you were to be the victim of a car in the same circumstances that it would not be possible to identify the driver

Of course we know in your little fantasy that no driver is ever irresponsible and it will always be the cyclist / pedestrian at fault, but when you visit this planet you will realise that it is not the case.

Why are you so afraid of drivers wearing these registration numbers, and being identifiable
[quote][p][bold]daffy[/bold] wrote: so what some of you seem to be saying is ' let us carry on putting other lives at risk we don't give a **** about our own' so don't expect me to waste my time and money on you if you get knocked of your bike through your own stupidity, the cyclist who nearly went into me would have got away with hit and run if he had gone into me because no doubt he would have driven off going by the attitude of the near miss that he had had[/p][/quote]No what some of us are saying that is if you were to be the victim of a car in the same circumstances that it would not be possible to identify the driver Of course we know in your little fantasy that no driver is ever irresponsible and it will always be the cyclist / pedestrian at fault, but when you visit this planet you will realise that it is not the case. Why are you so afraid of drivers wearing these registration numbers, and being identifiable Dan the wise
  • Score: 2

10:03am Sat 25 Jan 14

Dan the wise says...

Sassy_Girl wrote:
As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate...

All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes.
On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this.
With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4..
Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.
In my experience the drivers of Worcester are dyslexic

Cycle Path seems to be understood by all to may as an acronym for Car Park

They then totally remove any possibility of use by cyclists by illegally obstructing them
[quote][p][bold]Sassy_Girl[/bold] wrote: As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate... All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes. On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this. With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4.. Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.[/p][/quote]In my experience the drivers of Worcester are dyslexic Cycle Path seems to be understood by all to may as an acronym for Car Park They then totally remove any possibility of use by cyclists by illegally obstructing them Dan the wise
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Sat 25 Jan 14

playstation3 says...

well i for one think its a stupid idea,,,and secondly cars are easy enough cloned, so what chance does a hi viz jacket have
well i for one think its a stupid idea,,,and secondly cars are easy enough cloned, so what chance does a hi viz jacket have playstation3
  • Score: 2

2:19pm Sat 25 Jan 14

DarrenM says...

There will be a lot of extreme legislatory‎ ideas floated for pedal cycles in the next few years so that the cycle lobby will campaign against them, and think they've won a victory when in fact they'll just be settling for what was originally intended all along.

For example Mandatory RFID chips on cycles will be used to deter theft and enforce traffic regs which won't seem so bad as having to wear a Hi-Viz with a number on the back.

The motoring lobby is unlikely to complain when they're fitted to number plates as its not different to having the plate photographed by a speed camera or ANPR camera anyway.

The read range on passive Gen2 RFID is only 15 meters at the moment but by the time all this goes through the later Gen tags and readers are expected to have a much greater range.

Or for a second example, the idea of banning them off every road except 20mph and 30mph and dedicated cycles lanes, is going end up with them just banned from 50 and 60mph roads, unless part of an authorised event.
There will be a lot of extreme legislatory‎ ideas floated for pedal cycles in the next few years so that the cycle lobby will campaign against them, and think they've won a victory when in fact they'll just be settling for what was originally intended all along. For example Mandatory RFID chips on cycles will be used to deter theft and enforce traffic regs which won't seem so bad as having to wear a Hi-Viz with a number on the back. The motoring lobby is unlikely to complain when they're fitted to number plates as its not different to having the plate photographed by a speed camera or ANPR camera anyway. The read range on passive Gen2 RFID is only 15 meters at the moment but by the time all this goes through the later Gen tags and readers are expected to have a much greater range. Or for a second example, the idea of banning them off every road except 20mph and 30mph and dedicated cycles lanes, is going end up with them just banned from 50 and 60mph roads, unless part of an authorised event. DarrenM
  • Score: -4

3:35pm Sat 25 Jan 14

St Jon says...

So there's an election coming up, and you're looking for the easiest way to win some votes... So, single out a minority, and blame them for many of society's problems... Don't worry if this is unfair and contradicted by all objective evidence*, as hearsay that plays to blind prejudice, coupled with the thrill of being able to impose draconian restrictions on people other than themselves, will carry the ignorant masses with you... Next, force this minority to wear distinctive bright yellow symbols on their clothing, so everyone can spot them in the street... Then, insist they are numbered to make it easier to monitor them with an eye to arbitrary punishment to appease the baying crowds...

Any of this ring bells from history lessons?

For the far right to indulge in such divisive tactics is inevitable. For a politician who was too raving mad even for UKIP to stoop so low is not surprising. What is far more depressing, based on some of the comments above, is how swathes of the general public are so easily swept along a path of intolerance and hatred.

* anyone with a real interest in facts about cycle safety might start here: http://cyclinginfo.c
o.uk/blog/2636/cycli
ng/stats-uk/
So there's an election coming up, and you're looking for the easiest way to win some votes... So, single out a minority, and blame them for many of society's problems... Don't worry if this is unfair and contradicted by all objective evidence*, as hearsay that plays to blind prejudice, coupled with the thrill of being able to impose draconian restrictions on people other than themselves, will carry the ignorant masses with you... Next, force this minority to wear distinctive bright yellow symbols on their clothing, so everyone can spot them in the street... Then, insist they are numbered to make it easier to monitor them with an eye to arbitrary punishment to appease the baying crowds... Any of this ring bells from history lessons? For the far right to indulge in such divisive tactics is inevitable. For a politician who was too raving mad even for UKIP to stoop so low is not surprising. What is far more depressing, based on some of the comments above, is how swathes of the general public are so easily swept along a path of intolerance and hatred. * anyone with a real interest in facts about cycle safety might start here: http://cyclinginfo.c o.uk/blog/2636/cycli ng/stats-uk/ St Jon
  • Score: 4

11:03am Sun 26 Jan 14

liketoknow says...

Sassy_Girl wrote:
As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate...

All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes.
On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this.
With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4..
Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.
when they have designated cycleways on pavements some still prefer to use the road.
[quote][p][bold]Sassy_Girl[/bold] wrote: As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate... All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes. On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this. With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4.. Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.[/p][/quote]when they have designated cycleways on pavements some still prefer to use the road. liketoknow
  • Score: -1

12:19pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Dan the wise says...

liketoknow wrote:
Sassy_Girl wrote:
As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate...

All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes.
On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this.
With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4..
Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.
when they have designated cycleways on pavements some still prefer to use the road.
See the post above.... because all too many residents park on them!

Interesting hypocrisy though...

As this very journal pointed out last year:

"A SHOCKING 59 per cent of drivers in the West Midlands admit they park on the pavement, ...... "

In terms of costs both social and economic, to the individual and in loss of amenity cars on teh pavement is a much more common and despicable practice

Yet hypocritically this practice seems to be acceptable.

Perhaps we could ask our MEP to start a clampdown on ALL misuse of the pavements
Pavements are for pedestrians, not for parking your car!
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sassy_Girl[/bold] wrote: As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate... All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes. On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this. With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4.. Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.[/p][/quote]when they have designated cycleways on pavements some still prefer to use the road.[/p][/quote]See the post above.... because all too many residents park on them! Interesting hypocrisy though... As this very journal pointed out last year: "A SHOCKING 59 per cent of drivers in the West Midlands admit they park on the pavement, ...... " In terms of costs both social and economic, to the individual and in loss of amenity cars on teh pavement is a much more common and despicable practice Yet hypocritically this practice seems to be acceptable. Perhaps we could ask our MEP to start a clampdown on ALL misuse of the pavements Pavements are for pedestrians, not for parking your car! Dan the wise
  • Score: 4

12:19pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Dan the wise says...

liketoknow wrote:
Sassy_Girl wrote:
As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate...

All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes.
On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this.
With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4..
Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.
when they have designated cycleways on pavements some still prefer to use the road.
See the post above.... because all too many residents park on them!

Interesting hypocrisy though...

As this very journal pointed out last year:

"A SHOCKING 59 per cent of drivers in the West Midlands admit they park on the pavement, ...... "

In terms of costs both social and economic, to the individual and in loss of amenity cars on teh pavement is a much more common and despicable practice

Yet hypocritically this practice seems to be acceptable.

Perhaps we could ask our MEP to start a clampdown on ALL misuse of the pavements
Pavements are for pedestrians, not for parking your car!
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sassy_Girl[/bold] wrote: As both a cyclist and a car user, here's what I think is a solution, although it would take years and billions of pounds to incorporate... All roads should have a lane for cyclists.. At the moment, the only lanes in Worcester are along the tything..with a fewe cycle paths in St Peters and Warndon. What about for those people that cycle further afield to work like, droitwich, malvern and Upton.. There needs to be more cycle paths on the longer routes. On the odd occassion I've cycled to work, I've been aware that I'm holding traffic up, especailly when cycling up hill.. If all roads had some sort of cycle lane, then you wouldn't get the annoyed Motorist behind you. Alot of motorists that get frustrated behind cyclists take stupid risks when overtaking, just so that can get on with their journey.. They also drive too close to the cyclist.. I've actually come of my bike a few times because of this. With regard to the comment about wearing flurescents - this doesn't make a blind bit of difference to drivers. I was wearing bright orange once, when a 4x4 at an Island pulled right out in front of me.. she wasn't even looking at me, she was looking straight through me for her gap in the traffic.. I had break really hard almost went over my handlebars into her 4x4.. Only solution is to give every single a bike lane.[/p][/quote]when they have designated cycleways on pavements some still prefer to use the road.[/p][/quote]See the post above.... because all too many residents park on them! Interesting hypocrisy though... As this very journal pointed out last year: "A SHOCKING 59 per cent of drivers in the West Midlands admit they park on the pavement, ...... " In terms of costs both social and economic, to the individual and in loss of amenity cars on teh pavement is a much more common and despicable practice Yet hypocritically this practice seems to be acceptable. Perhaps we could ask our MEP to start a clampdown on ALL misuse of the pavements Pavements are for pedestrians, not for parking your car! Dan the wise
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree