Greengeek Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 If you wanted to make it mandatory to wear helmets, you'd have to ensure that people wear the right ones. Too many people have just gone and bought the cheapest and ended up with BMX ****-pot ones. Their heads will be incredibly hot, and it doesn't really offer the right level of protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Only when there are no numpty pavement riding cyclists around. When cyclists do use the pavements, even though technically its illegal. as long as they are not going fast, have you noticed how absolutely no one bats an eye lid - even the police? I can often be seen on the pavements on my bike pulling my 1 year old in a trailer behind me around our block at about 1 and a half mile an hour, all I get from people is smiles and "aaaah, look at her in there, how cute". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Why shouldn't pedestrians wear crash helmets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 When cyclists do use the pavements, even though technically its illegal. as long as they are not going fast, have you noticed how absolutely no one bats an eye lid - even the police? I can often often be seen on the pavements on my bike pulling my 1 year old in a trailer at about 1 and a half mile an hour behind me, all I get from people is smiles and "aaaah, look at her in there, how cute !". People have been killed by cyclists on pavements but you're quite right the police do nothing under normal circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 This is the post I was replying to when I put this Yes but an HGV driver may NOT actually be able to see a cyclist so then would have to make a manoevre presuming one was there. Not logical is it? However a think it would be fair to say a cyclist can see an arctic but still does stupid things like riding on inside of lorry which is clearly indicating left turn. Perhaps you could explain how I misinterpreted it "If you can't see me, I can't you" is about seeing the driver not the vehicle. The idea is that, when approaching a vehicle from behind you position yourself so you can see the driver's head in their mirrors. Then, assuming they look in their mirror, they'll be able to see you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 "If you can't see me, I can't you" is about seeing the driver not the vehicle. The idea is that, when approaching a vehicle from behind you position yourself so you can see the driver's head in their mirrors. Then, assuming they look in their mirror, they'll be able to see you. But my point was that the cyclist knew the lorry was indicating left turn but carried on cycling on inside of him anyway instead of waiting till lorry had completed his manoevre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 But my point was that the cyclist knew the lorry was indicating left turn but carried on cycling on inside of him anyway instead of waiting till lorry had completed his manoevre I was just explaining the "If you can't see me, I can't you" thing. Passing a vehicle on the left as it is or is just about to turn left is stupid. If they are four vehicles back at some red traffic lights a cyclist will be able to pass them before the lights change and it's not unreasonable to pass someone indicating left in those circumstances. Passing a vehicle at the front of the queue indicating left isn't reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 People have been killed by cyclists on pavements but you're quite right the police do nothing under normal circumstances The "normal circumstances" are that no harm comes to people from cyclists, these death's caused by cyclists are ultra rare, this is why most police aren't bothered, they've got better things to do. When it comes to cycling on the pavements, it needn't be strictly illegal in my view; If its a busy pavement and the cyclist is weaving in and out of pedestrians then this is clearly silly and the cyclist should either get on the road, or dismount and push; But when the pavement isn't particularly busy, only a total nob would moan at a cyclist riding past at a sensible speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 The "normal circumstances" are that no harm comes to people from cyclists, these death's caused by cyclists are ultra rare, this is why most police aren't bothered, they've got better things to do. When it comes to cycling on the pavements, it needn't be strictly illegal in my view; If its a busy pavement and the cyclist is weaving in and out of pedestrians then this is clearly silly and the cyclist should either get on the road, or dismount and push; But when the pavement isn't particularly busy, only a total nob would moan at a cyclist riding past at a sensible speed. But it is illegal so your view doesn't come into it. If police can stop and give ticket to man on disabled scooter why shouldn't cyclists be pulled as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 But it is illegal so your view doesn't come into it. If police can stop and give ticket to man on disabled scooter why shouldn't cyclists be pulled as well? What man on a disabled scooter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.