Gideon Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Oh, and please, if you're going to do the whole "adopt the primary road position" thing, try and remember rule 169? Applies to everyone, not just big slow vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean9 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Suggesting that cyclists shouldn't use the road because of the danger is a variation of victim blaming isn't it. Instead of addressing the problem, you avoid it by restricting the behaviour of others. And of course you make it more congested, making it more dangerous, and you reduce the likelihood of seeing a cyclist whilst driving, making it even more dangerous for those who remain. The more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes (because drivers get used to driving safely around them), and the less congested it gets. It's a virtuous circle. Do all that you can to make cycling safer and to encourage it, not the opposite. as long as you stick to thr rules of the road !!! no red light running CYCLISTS, no close overtaking CARS.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey69 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 as long as you stick to thr rules of the road !!! no red light running CYCLISTS, no close overtaking CARS.. You are a eternal optimist then?. NEVER in a million years:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becky B Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Oh, and please, if you're going to do the whole "adopt the primary road position" thing, try and remember rule 169? Applies to everyone, not just big slow vehicles. Yes, certainly. Could we also remember rules 163, 166 and 167? Not to mention 211, 212 and 213... Oh, and 129! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Suggesting that cyclists shouldn't use the road because of the danger is a variation of victim blaming isn't it. Instead of addressing the problem, you avoid it by restricting the behaviour of others. And of course you make it more congested, making it more dangerous, and you reduce the likelihood of seeing a cyclist whilst driving, making it even more dangerous for those who remain. The more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes (because drivers get used to driving safely around them), and the less congested it gets. It's a virtuous circle. Do all that you can to make cycling safer and to encourage it, not the opposite. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Suggesting that cyclists shouldn't use the road because of the danger is a variation of victim blaming isn't it. Instead of addressing the problem, you avoid it by restricting the behaviour of others. And of course you make it more congested, making it more dangerous, and you reduce the likelihood of seeing a cyclist whilst driving, making it even more dangerous for those who remain. The more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes (because drivers get used to driving safely around them), and the less congested it gets. It's a virtuous circle. Do all that you can to make cycling safer and to encourage it, not the opposite. No, its not victim blaming. This topic is just like every other that leads to the cyclists taking an exception to a suggestion. I pointed out that it is a dangerous way to travel, due to the sheer flimsyness of a cycle, compared to a motor vehicle. I would never, ever like to see a cyclist injured or killed, and im sure that none of us decent people would, but it cannot go unsaid that however much people have a right to cycle, that DOES NOT take away the personal danger that goes with it, and no matter how many time people say that cars/lorrys/buses etc SHOULD be aware of a cyclists presence, that is a big ask. Far too many loons on the roads, so in the interest of safety, thinking twice about using your bike is a solution. Not an ideal one granted, but a solution for personal interest. ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 22:32 ---------- :thumbsup: /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 No, its not victim blaming. This topic is just like every other that leads to the cyclists taking an exception to a suggestion. I pointed out that it is a dangerous way to travel, due to the sheer flimsyness of a cycle, compared to a motor vehicle. I would never, ever like to see a cyclist injured or killed, and im sure that none of us decent people would, but it cannot go unsaid that however much people have a right to cycle, that DOES NOT take away the personal danger that goes with it, and no matter how many time people say that cars/lorrys/buses etc SHOULD be aware of a cyclists presence, that is a big ask. Far too many loons on the roads, so in the interest of safety, thinking twice about using your bike is a solution. Not an ideal one granted, but a solution for personal interest. Bikes are not a dangerous way to travel cause they're 'flimsy'- the danger comes from a) a gross excess of cars that has taken the road system well beyond breaking point b) a total disregard for cyclist safety by the govt. Bikes are the most efficient means of transport ever invented- The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including walking! If we compare the amount of calories burned in bicycling to the number of calories an automobile burns, the difference is astounding. One hundred calories can power a cyclist for three miles, but it would only power a car 280 feet (85 meters)! Cars contribute massively and directly to the world energy crisis, and our public health crisis (obesity, heart disease & diabetes), whereas bicycles cure both those crisises (or would, if the roads were made compatible with cycling safety). When it comes to transport, the only sane future is a bike-based one. That's going to take bold strategies to implement. In the meantime, it's vital that cycling number rise, rather than fall, as, the more cycles on the road, the safer cyclists are on them. And, despite the dangers from uncaring/inept motorists to cyclists, statistics clearly show, that when all relevant factors are taken into account, cyclist is safer than car driving, due to the benefits cycling confers with respect to health and longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 No, its not victim blaming. This topic is just like every other that leads to the cyclists taking an exception to a suggestion. I pointed out that it is a dangerous way to travel, due to the sheer flimsyness of a cycle, compared to a motor vehicle. I would never, ever like to see a cyclist injured or killed, and im sure that none of us decent people would, but it cannot go unsaid that however much people have a right to cycle, that DOES NOT take away the personal danger that goes with it, and no matter how many time people say that cars/lorrys/buses etc SHOULD be aware of a cyclists presence, that is a big ask. Far too many loons on the roads, so in the interest of safety, thinking twice about using your bike is a solution. Not an ideal one granted, but a solution for personal interest. ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 22:32 ---------- /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ Overall the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risk of personal injury or death. It's on average of course, when looking at a large population, but it's a useful statistic to know. You make your own decisions about personal safety, but that doesn't alter the fact that motorists should be required to drive safely. To tell other people they shouldn't cycle though, is not addressing the problem, it's blaming the (potential) victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUZIFACE Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 This is mainly for the road users of Sheffield, I have had the pleasure of being stopped twice by the Police in the last ten days for contravening red lights. This is very unusual behavior for the police as in both instances I was on my bicycle. In the last twenty years i have gone through lights at various stages and on plenty of occasions I have done this in the presence of police officers. This time though it was a police van and they actually turned around in the road to come after me. Instead of arguing about how the pressure plates and magnetic strips rarely pick up cyclists and change for them I said that I treated the junction that was controlled by the lights as a give way. It was perfectly safe, I was already stopped at the red light and waited patiently for the opposing traffic to pass before I ventured across the junction and with no other traffic in sight.This did not satisfy them and for a time i actually thought i was going to get a fine!!. Have the Police been given instructions to get fines for various misdemeanors ?. I know this is happening in other countries but the police there get to keep the revenue raised through such fines. Does the British police get to keep the money from fines that they issue? I cant believe you have even posted this. What on earth makes you think its ok to go thru a red light??? If you want to use the road then yu have to follow the highway code, this is just one reason why cyclist are disliked for their behaviour. So before you get killed or cause injury to third party, get a grip!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey69 Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 I cant believe you have even posted this. What on earth makes you think its ok to go thru a red light??? If you want to use the road then yu have to follow the highway code, this is just one reason why cyclist are disliked for their behaviour. So before you get killed or cause injury to third party, get a grip!!! I think you had better read the previous posts, it might make sense then (might) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now