cyclists

[snakey1]

i think its sensible to wear safety gear but i don't think it should be made compulsory by law (well maybe for children but not adults) afterall how much nannying do you think is necessary.at some point people will have to start making decisions and being responsible for their own actions.

its not compulsary for motorcyclists to wear hi-vis gear so why cyclists? it makes sense to but then its down to individual choice.

2 or 3 people on a bike made for one is probably illegal i would have thought and so should be prosecuted.

Not all cyclists enjoy taking risks that is why i packed in cycling to and from work as i considered after several near misses with pillocks driving cars as though they were blind(including one at approx 40mph on a busy dual carriage way where the dick in question decided to take a side turning to the left from the outside lane cutting across in front of me in the inside lane without looking while i was doing about 40mph and missing me by about 12 inches) that it was just to dangerous even with safety gear(little polystyrene bed pan on the head and hi vis waist coat,although i don't think either would have made any difference coming off at 40mph) to cycle on the busier roads at rush hour.

[Guest Ferret1959]

Hey Chesters.

How do you think I felt about having to tax,insure and mot my Cycle Master,Velosolex, MiniMotor and PowerPak?

 

 

That's why I have given them up.

[kleinboet]

As I said in an earlier post, you are perfectly entitled to sue them, so would I.

 

Obviously I don't know the circumstances of you near misses, but if you are having one a month it suggests that you need to use your vast experience and anticipate what is going to happen a little earlier than you are now doing. If you have time to see someone texting, you have time to keep clear of the idiot.

ColinW it was "my vast experience" as you put it, that saved me from having an accident. These idiots (I see you agree with the description) are becoming more and more common and when anybody suggests changes to stop the idiotic behaviour, the good cyclists jump in and say it isn't necessary!

 

Snakey - safety is not up the the individual - motorists had NO CHOICE about safety belts! Why one rule for motorists and another for cyclists, that's discrimination!!

[Guest Ferret1959]

i think its sensible to wear safety gear but i don't think it should be made compulsory by law (well maybe for children but not adults) afterall how much nannying do you think is necessary.at some point people will have to start making decisions and being responsible for their own actions.

its not compulsary for motorcyclists to wear hi-vis gear so why cyclists? it makes sense to but then its down to individual choice.

2 or 3 people on a bike made for one is probably illegal i would have thought and so should be prosecuted.

Not all cyclists enjoy taking risks that is why i packed in cycling to and from work as i considered after several near misses with pillocks driving cars as though they were blind(including one at approx 40mph on a busy dual carriage way where the dick in question decided to take a side turning to the left from the outside lane cutting across in front of me in the inside lane without looking while i was doing about 40mph and missing me by about 12 inches) that it was just to dangerous even with safety gear(little polystyrene bed pan on the head and hi vis waist coat,although i don't think either would have made any difference coming off at 40mph) to cycle on the busier roads at rush hour.

 

 

But they do wear crash helmets.

 

Remember even a fall off your bike at 5mph could be fatal.

[snakey1]

Tripping over and banging your head while walking can be fatal so why not wear a crash helmet all the the time(as I said i used to wear a polystyrene bed pan but the times i nearly came off were at relatively high speed,25mph + ,and on busy major roads in which circumstances i don't think they would have helped much) you can't wrap people in cotton wool, after all fire extinguisher systems, roll cages,fireproof suits and crash helmets would increase car drivers safety(motor racers have them for this reason) but no-one is calling for those to be made compulsory for drivers.

In old classic cars that do not have seat belts fitted(it became law in 1967 for all new cars in the UK to have front seat belts fitted) it is not compulsory to either fit or wear seat belts though said vehicle cannot be used for carrying children(and if you do fit seatbelts it is compulsory to then wear them).Having different laws regarding car safety and bicycle safety is not discrimination kleinboet, if it is then having a difference in safety law between HGV's and cars is also discrimination and yet i don't hear you calling for the motor car driving laws to be tightened to match the laws regarding HGV drivers.

Its like the difference between being able to fly a micro light and a 747 do you think both pilots should have the same licence and safety regs? Its not discrimination just common sense.

Edited April 20, 2007 by snakey1

[ColinW]

These idiots (I see you agree with the description) are becoming more and more common and when anybody suggests changes to stop the idiotic behaviour, the good cyclists jump in and say it isn't necessary!

 

The obvious decline in cyclists' behaviour is down to the government failing to educate them at an early age. When I was a kid we spent weeks doing the cycling proficiency test at age ten. Thankfully, the government has now realised that it (or the tories?) should never have let that die away and is bringing in the new scheme. That is the right way to address the problem (makes a change for the government, they'll probably screw it up by not putting the money in or something) not tax discs, registrations and all the other impractical suggestions.

If you think these kids are a problem now, just wait a few years for when they get cars.

 

PS. I am not particularly "pro cyclists", mine is rusting away in the yard. I am a motorcyclist and car driver, too fat and lazy for all that pedalling malarkey.

[Lid]

These idiots (I see you agree with the description) are becoming more and more common and when anybody suggests changes to stop the idiotic behaviour, the good cyclists jump in and say it isn't necessary!

 

I class myself as a good cyclist (and driver - but don't we all). However I'm not saying changes are unnecessary to protect the idiots both from themselves and others, but all we need to to for starters is enforce our existing laws.

 

Things have changed so much over the last 40 years that it is no longer safe to cycle on many of our roads. In the 70s I cycled to school, from the age of 11 to 18; it was a 5 mile one way trip for two of those years! We did not have helmets, they were unheard of and we were all fine. However I wouldn't dream of letting my 11 year old cycle to school now on the roads, which is a great shame.

[kleinboet]

Take a deep breath and answer:

 

ColinW - that answer is a cop out and you know it! This government was going to be tough on crime!!! PARDON????

 

Snakey, do you use a car? Do you use safety belts ?? Why???

Would you fly in a microlight as a paying passenger? Why not ??

Your comparing a 747 to a microlite has only 1 conclusion I can make and, that is BOTH need licences and registration marks, although a microlight and 747 in collision could only have one result!!! (I'm still laughing at the mental image of that one!), yet the microlight pilot wears a crash helmet!! Why??

 

We are in 2007!!! The roads are VERY busy, some even have gridlock as there are not enough road to support the amount of vehicles. There may have been in the 50's or 60's but not now! Cyclists MUST learn to update themselves and learn to live with the facts I've given you. ColinW says the police must enforce the laws HOW? cyclists cannot, at present, be instantly recognisable as other vehicles are.

 

Lid - I agree, but this is a modern world. Would you let her smoke? we now have much more knowledge, and don't "let him/her make up their own minds" anymore.

[snakey1]

To answer your questions kleinboet

yes, yes, because i don't fancy getting fined by the police(whilst in the back) and for my own safety(whilst in the front)

yes, i would so there is no why not.

the 747/microlite comparison was to show up why differences between licences and safety regs for different vehicles is not discrimination which you said it was, do you think that because someone held a licence to fly a microlite it is discriminating against them not to allow them to fly a 747(consider the amount of collateral damage each would cause if crashed into a busy shopping centre for instance as opposed to one crashing into another) .you said"why one rule for motorists and another for cyclists, thats discrimination!!" i could have stated the obvious and maybe i should have and said it can't be discrimination as have you ever tried fitting a seat belt to a bicycle! but i chose to illustrate the point in a different way.

Anyway it is plainly obvious that you and i will never agree on this subject so as its getting boring going around and around i think we should just agree to disagree.

[chesters1]

you mean bikes don't have safety belts i wondered why my circulation always cut off when i used the one across the seat on my 90