Are Bicycles Road Worthy?

[El Cid]

 

I think that paths should be widened removing grass verge strips that are no use to humanity and let the peddle bikes run on them, after all, cyclists do not pay road tax to be on the roads and are often in danger of doing some serious damage.

 

 

Perhaps this idea has some merit; but cyclists dont pay 'path' tax either

[Agent Orange]

Only if you ride round puddles into the path of cars.

 

I wouldn't normally mind cycling through puddles, but this is Sheffield we are talking about here. You never know how deep the pot-hole is under the water.

[Peer Gynt]

I wouldn't normally mind cycling through puddles, but this is Sheffield we are talking about here. You never know how deep the pot-hole is under the water.

So motorists must stop and measure the depth just in case a cyclist doesn't?

[Agent Orange]

So motorists must stop and measure the depth just in case a cyclist doesn't?

 

Aww that's good of you. Yes, maybe the kind motorists should do that for us cyclists

 

Hit a pot hole in a car and feel a bit of a bump. Hit a pot hole on a bike, you are gonna come off your bike.

[JFKvsNixon]

Only if you ride round puddles into the path of cars.

 

Is it too much to expect car drivers to drive to the highway code?

 

You're meant to give a cyclist the same room overtaking you would when overtaking a car. You're also meant to be aware that a cyclist may have to make a sudden change of direction to avoid an obstacle in the road, and drive accordingly.

 

Have you got a driving licence?

[Halibut]

 

Have you got a driving licence?

 

Peer Gynt is in his 70's, so if he has, I hope he's still in a fit state to use it.

[Cyclone]

Having past a few on the bus over the years, I have come to the conclusion that bicycles should be removed from the roads.

How many times must this ridiculous topic be raised?

 

They are a danger to other motorists as well as themselves on busy junctions and main roads.

No, they aren't, no more so than other road users.

 

I have past many going up City Road holding a fleet of vehicles behind including buses and trams.

Incapable of overtaking? Any different to other slow vehicles?

 

I dread to think what would happen if one of the bikes going up that road got their wheels wedged in the tram line grooves with vehicles behind, even worse if they got trapped at speed and fell sideways under a bus or worse tram wheels.

I assume you'd dread to think what would happen if a pedestrians tripped and fell under the tram as well, or a motorcyclist slipped on the wet tram track and went under.

Given how infrequently it happens it's not something you need to worry about though.

 

I think that paths should be widened removing grass verge strips that are no use to humanity

Yes, vegetation is of no use to humanity at all, lets pave the entire planet.

and let the peddle bikes run on them, after all, cyclists do not pay road tax to be on the roads and are often in danger of doing some serious damage.

Road tax doesn't exist. If cyclists paid VED it would be at the ZERO rate due to producing no pollution. And most adult cyclists are also motorists and so DO pay VED as appropriate.

Given that they never actually do any damage, they are clearly not at risk of doing any serious damage most of the time.

 

You have seen it in wet or windy conditions, cars come round the corner and there is some cyclist right in front struggling to power the bike up hill and is swaying side to side in the wind, very dicey.

Only if the car is being driven badly. It sounds like bad car drivers should be banned from the road for everyones safety.

 

So either charge cyclists an annual fee to be on the roads or make other safer and logical arrangements instead.

You'll have to explain how charging cyclists to be on the road will address ANY of the spurious claims you've previously made. Will it give them more powerful legs to go up hills faster, will it make them immune to being run down by trams? There was definitely no logic involved in this suggestion.

 

Don't get me wrong,

That would be difficult to do, you've made your prejudice quite clear.

I had a mountain bike and loved nothing more than to race around and get about, but I always hated going on main roads with cars behind me and felt that I need to speed up myself but in doing so enhancing more dangers to safety.

So you're not a very confident cyclist and somehow think that this means everyone else needs to be banned for their own safety.

 

I am looking for a new rugged light weight mountain bike to get around but am bleakly aware of the ever cluttered and dangerous highways in which I will need to travel.

How bizarre, after arguing that bikes should be banned from the road, and explaining how you're not a very confident cyclist, you then say that you're looking for a new bike in order to ride around, presumably in a wobbly way, slowly up hill, falling under the occasional tram...

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2013 at 10:41 ----------

 

Despite drivers being specifically trained, whereas for the most part cyclists are not,

Most cyclists are also drivers, so they have at least as much training, and more experience in a vulnerable situation.

drivers cause more vehicle/cycle fatalities than do cyclists. Yet the thread picks on the cyclist. I believe that cyclists are more aware of the risks, because of their own fragility in a crash. The reason that drivers are more responsible for fatalities is because they are less aware. Maybe their training isn't adequate. Whatever the reason, more lives could be saved by an improvement in driver behaviour than by an improvement in cyclist behaviour.

 

The rest I agree with.

[chipspice]

after all, cyclists do not pay road tax to be on the roads

 

 

Oh how wrong you are....

 

please check the facts on Road Tax before commenting

[Cyclone]

Having once accumulated 20 years’ experience, I know that all bicycles should possess: a white front light, a white front reflector, a red rear light, a red rear reflector, two orange reflectors in the spokes of each wheel or alternatively a white reflecting band on either side of each tyre, a functioning bell and two functioning brakes. Cyclists shall be fined a minor amount for not complying with any of these requirements (should be about 20 pounds).

There is no legal requirement to have a bell (there is a requirement that bikes are sold with one).

And I don't fit lights during the summer, why should I be fined for not having them when they aren't needed?

Cyclists on the countryside may use the pavement until the age of 12; cyclists in towns until the age of 9. In the rare cases where there is no designated cycling lane,

It's very common, not rare.

cyclists shall ride at the side of the road.

They should ride in the carriageway, as if they were a vehicle on the road. Not too close to the kerb where they have no room to manoeuvre if there is an obstacle or a car passes them too closely.

Where there are no bicycle traffic lights, the pedestrian lights count. In the absence of these, the lights for automobiles are valid.

 

That is how it was in my youth; I don’t know whether this still holds true 10 years and 3 stones later. Public transport should sport a health warning.

Cyclists are legally never allowed on the pavement, it wasn't true in your youth, it isn't true now. (Which doesn't mean that they shouldn't be, that's just the legal situation).

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2013 at 10:46 ----------

 

No cyclists on the roads would defiantly make the roads a better place for us motorists .

 

A busier road and a longer queue would somehow be an improvement?

[Zamo]

Head + sand = comments like that

 

So thousands of motorists are killed by fellow motorists each year and none by cyclists but you still think it is the threat from cyclists that needs to be addressed? Thick + sh*t = thinking like that.