alchemist Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I suspect that the law against cycling on the pavement would be entirely inappropriate still and that more appropriate law would be applied. The home secretaries should of course actually change the law, instead of just telling people to disregard it. And then we wouldn't have to have this discussion. I find it odd that you'd prefer cyclists to be killed by staying on the road, rather than no-one to be killed (as is the reality) by using the pavement when they don't feel safe on the road though. Is that really what you feel, are you just arguing as devils advocate? Is blind obedience to the law always the best approach in your opinion? Or should we think about what the law says? To use a historical example, were gay men who had sex morally wrong before the law was changed, or were they right to practice civil disobedience against an immoral and unjust law? I have no problem with cyclists using the footpath par se when they are safe, considerate and dont expect to have the path all to themselves. However, sadly this is not always the case as I have found to my cost I do NOT appreciate being told to get off of the path, riden at and sworn at by cyclists who think that they have more of a right to use the path instead of me Edited March 2, 2015 by alchemist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I've noticed that the speed cameras on the "managed motorway" section of the M62 near Brighouse has made a difference. Even when the NSL sign is showing, the speed camera signs seems to put people off doing more than 75. Those camera's are active even when NSL is showing tho aren't they?? Pretty sure it was in the paper not too long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Because much like pedestrians they are very vulnerable to being injured by motor traffic, and also like pedestrians they are highly unlikely to crash into other similar traffic and/or to cause much damage if they do. Cyclists have more in common with pedestrians than with motor vehicles, in terms of speed, resilience and damage causing potential. I can't come to terms with cyclists cycling on pavements or footpaths of any description. Common sense dictates that if a cyclist wants to use the pavement, they walk with the bike and get on again when they are ready to use the road. Take an example of a parent walking with a child. Children can get excited at something they see and suddenly run towards it. Cyclist comes along at the same time. Result, a bad situation for all, and just because police do it and a government minister says it's all right doesn't make it all alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 In a long line of traffic during rush hour, when this usually happens, the cyclist is usually long gone by the time the car makes it's way to the lights, so it's pointless. I think that this had got more to do with the car driver resenting the fact that the cyclist isn't stuck in traffic. Maybe I'm looking at this from a different scenario i.e. not one of a tailback (cause and length unknown). I certainly wouldn't try to hold up cyclists from getting ahead of me when I don't know how long the congestion will last. To me that WOULD be being a chump. I'm considering a a scenario where I've passed a cyclist/cyclists and I'm approaching a traffic light which is turning to red. Then I know that I will be held up for the duration of the red light only, after which I'll be on my way. Assuming I'm in the inside lane it makes little sense to me to sit out so far as to provide enough room for the cyclist/s to come up alongside and possibly swing out a foot or two so they are in front. People don't normally sit that far out from the kerb at traffic lights on a four-lane road when they have a car outside them also waiting. Two other reasons beyond that normality: 1) if I'm at the front of the queue and the cyclist come alongside and progressed further so as to push in front they're going to hold me up and 2) if they are alongside and we both take off together it will be a similar situation to me meeting and overtaking them with an inadequate gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I'm considering a a scenario where I've passed a cyclist/cyclists and I'm approaching a traffic light which is turning to red. Then I know that I will be held up for the duration of the red light only, after which I'll be on my way. Assuming I'm in the inside lane it makes little sense to me to sit out so far as to provide enough room for the cyclist/s to come up alongside and possibly swing out a foot or two so they are in front. People don't normally sit that far out from the kerb at traffic lights on a four-lane road when they have a car outside them also waiting. Two other reasons beyond that normality: 1) if I'm at the front of the queue and the cyclist come alongside and progressed further so as to push in front they're going to hold me up and 2) if they are alongside and we both take off together it will be a similar situation to me meeting and overtaking them with an inadequate gap. What do you think the purpose of the advanced stop lines have been put at many traffic lights over the last few years is? How do you think that fits with your 'logic' for preventing cyclists from passing on the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 What do you think the purpose of the advanced stop lines have been put at many traffic lights over the last few years is? How do you think that fits with your 'logic' for preventing cyclists from passing on the inside. If there is an area of the road marked up for the use of cyclists only I keep my car out of it. That's the 'logic' I apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Just wait till someone films HIM going through a red light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Just wait till someone films HIM going through a red light But its a well estsblished fact that cyclists dont go through red lights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But its a well estsblished fact that cyclists dont go through red lights Only in your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I can't come to terms with cyclists cycling on pavements or footpaths of any description. Common sense dictates that if a cyclist wants to use the pavement, they walk with the bike and get on again when they are ready to use the road. I don't see why that's sense at all. Take an example of a parent walking with a child. Children can get excited at something they see and suddenly run towards it. They could run into the road as well... Cyclists have eyes though and can see children running on the pavement as well as they could see them run into a road. Cyclist comes along at the same time. Result, a bad situation for all, and just because police do it and a government minister says it's all right doesn't make it all alright. Whereas if the government minister changes the law, then it does? ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 09:15 ---------- I have no problem with cyclists using the footpath par se when they are safe, considerate and dont expect to have the path all to themselves. However, sadly this is not always the case as I have found to my cost I do NOT appreciate being told to get off of the path, riden at and sworn at by cyclists who think that they have more of a right to use the path instead of me I wouldn't like that either. But as we've already established, there are idiots travelling by all modes of transport. ---------- Post added 03-03-2015 at 09:17 ---------- Maybe I'm looking at this from a different scenario i.e. not one of a tailback (cause and length unknown). I certainly wouldn't try to hold up cyclists from getting ahead of me when I don't know how long the congestion will last. To me that WOULD be being a chump. I'm considering a a scenario where I've passed a cyclist/cyclists and I'm approaching a traffic light which is turning to red. Then I know that I will be held up for the duration of the red light only, after which I'll be on my way. Assuming I'm in the inside lane it makes little sense to me to sit out so far as to provide enough room for the cyclist/s to come up alongside and possibly swing out a foot or two so they are in front. People don't normally sit that far out from the kerb at traffic lights on a four-lane road when they have a car outside them also waiting. Two other reasons beyond that normality: 1) if I'm at the front of the queue and the cyclist come alongside and progressed further so as to push in front they're going to hold me up and 2) if they are alongside and we both take off together it will be a similar situation to me meeting and overtaking them with an inadequate gap. If you move deliberately closer to the kerb than normal, in order to to impede the cyclist, then you're a chump. If you just stay in your normal road position, they will have room to pass you. I'm sure that the few seconds delay as you set off will have no overall impact on your journey, if as you describe, there is not general congestion at the time. 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