Bassman62 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 You can bet that most cyclists also run a car, so they will have passed their practical and theory tests and will have driving experience, so will generally be a road savvy bunch. They're not all angels of course, who is? Don't tell me you have you never sped up when approaching a traffic light on amber and JUST nicked through when it turned red. Statistics really are not the friend of the anti cycling brigade in terms of harm caused by cyclists compared to car drivers. Cycling is healthy, produces zero carbon emissions, has non existent noise pollution and negligible danger to pedestrians and other road users. Cycling is all good, and its just petty vindictive people annoyed at the rising cost of motoring that resent cyclists. If petrol was 70p a ltr tomorrow we wouldn't here a peep from the likes of you about cyclists. What a load of meaningless twaddle with no relation to the thead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 What a load of meaningless twaddle with no relation to the thead. What I've just said couldn't be more ON-topic, but it is a responce to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 And Bassman told you he expected the cyclist to look behind him to see that it was safe to carry out the manoeuvre, but plonkers like Cyclone said that the motorists should nursemaid the stupid cyclists who ride with their minds elsewhere. Bassman still hasn't said what he thinks the bike is going to do. Bassman has said he expects the cyclist to look behind and signal. (Which most car drivers don't do...) But regardless of any signal or not from the cyclist, we're still non the wiser as to where he thinks the bike may go when approaching a parked car at the side of a road... I'll help him out. The bike will almost certainly go round the parked car. It will probably not plough into the back of it... I thank you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Bassman still hasn't said what he thinks the bike is going to do. Bassman has said he expects the cyclist to look behind and signal. (Which most car drivers don't do...) But regardless of any signal or not from the cyclist, we're still non the wiser as to where he thinks the bike may go when approaching a parked car at the side of a road... I'll help him out. The bike will almost certainly go round the parked car. It will probably not plough into the back of it... I thank you... When Im cycling down a road past parked cars I don't weave in and out of them, I do what cars do which is go past them all (reasonably close to them) in a straight line. Edit: This depends of course on how far apart the parked cars are from each other, blah blah blah ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strikerPaul Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Here we go with yet another thread of cyclists protesting the requirement to be a little more responsible and courteous toward other people. Whether its red lights that they dont think applies to them or displaying adequate lights/visibility clothing during darkness or now, being held accountable for the admittedly infrequent but still tragic killing of pedestrians with their uninsured reckless riding. Given the amount of whining they do, its little wonder many people have little sympathy for them. Don't know why anyone even argues on here. There are far more dangerous drivers than there are cyclists. Can't afford to be dangerous on a bike, because 99 times out of a 100 you'll come out second best. And I hardly think cycling through a red light at about 3mph after a thorough check there are no pedestrians or vehicles is dangerous. Although you do make a good point I've nearly been killed by a cyclist on loads of occasions, most of my friends have too. They go sooooooo fast, and weigh at least as much as a 3 year old child. Careful people..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 One more time just for you 67 You should •look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see 'Signals to other road users')•look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path •be aware of traffic coming up behind you•take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features 162 Before overtaking you should make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead That includes other obstacles that the road user in front may need to pass 146 Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 My bold= That is incorrect please don't misquote me, I'm merely pointing something that idiots on here won't accept and that is that cyclists have a duty to other road users as well. The attitude of cyclone is that the highway code and common sense have no place in the cyclists mentality. That isn't my attitude at all. I signal on my bike as I do in my car as directed by the highway code. It isn't necessary to signal to stay in your lane and pass an obstruction, and even when using the other lane it isn't always necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 No it means exactly what it says, or don't you understand rule 67. I understand it perfectly. Do you understand it as well? Because you should have seen the obstruction as well and be expecting the cyclist to go around it. Unless you think they can fly. Do you think cyclists can fly Do you understand rule 162 are you only worried about rules that apply to other road users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 without wanting to be pedantic, how does this work? My bike is insured to cover damage/theft, but its ME thats insured 3rd party. So, I could ride any bike and have 3rdP insurance, you seem to imply that anyone could be riding your bike and be covered. Maybe its a typo, maybe its an alternative policy (which Ive never heard of), maybe youve made it up?? It's called a proper cycle insurance company. http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/home.asp?promCode=&affid= It's classed under public liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 It's called a proper cycle insurance company. http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/home.asp?promCode=&affid= It's classed under public liability. I'm not sure why you'd want to insure the bike against 3rd party liability, it's not likely to be the bike that gets sued... And what happens if you borrow someone elses bike for a day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.