wotsit Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 riding round in your silly little headcams ignoring when you go through red lights or any illegal move and I have noticed a lot of you deliberately hold traffic up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexAtkin Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Another one that apparently does not want to read. I said I would not be a witness on the behalf of THAT cyclist. Which is true I wouldn't. And why the fuss anyway. I'm being quite open about it unlike many people in regard to many other incidents when people choose to not come forward as witnesses when asked because of the potential hassle it may cause them. . . That is still effectively "turning a blind eye", although admittedly it does not suggest you would be like this for all cyclists. riding round in your silly little headcams ignoring when you go through red lights or any illegal move and I have noticed a lot of you deliberately hold traffic up Please explain "deliberately hold traffic up" as that sounds a lot like someone asserting the primary position in the road to me. Something that is recommended and legal! Edited June 7, 2015 by AlexAtkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
native son Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 riding round in your silly little headcams ignoring when you go through red lights or any illegal move and I have noticed a lot of you deliberately hold traffic up You sad little man Is that all you can contribute. If so dont bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 In New Zealand the accident rate increased by 20% when they made it compulsory to wear cycle helmets. Accident figures increase whenever compulsory helmet laws are brought in for bicycles. Likely due to decreased numbers of cyclists, as greater numbers of cyclists on the roads is the best way to increase safety for cyclists. This is why every major cycling advocacy organisation opposes compulsory helmet laws for bikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Go on then I'll add my 2 p worth on the helmet debate. 1.Will it become law to wear one on a push iron yes it will 100% certain of that. 2.This will happen when about 90% of cyclists wear one voluntary, look at when motorbike crash helmets were introduced same happened there. 3.Do I agree with it, nope not at all we should have the freedom of choice to wear one or not there's a lot more dangerous things about than cycling without an helmet should we ban them as well. I’m not so sure I think it’s unlikely that any UK government will introduce a measure proven to decrease take up of cycling (statistically a healthy and pretty risk free activity) whilst we remain a nation with an obesity and heart disease crisis. That said when we reach 90% it’s possible some well-meaning MP will push to introduce the mandatory helmet law, maybe on the back of a high profile case. Of course that 90% will include all the weekend club riders and enthusiast who would go out anyway. What it will discourage is that quick trip to the shops / cash point / chippy by bike. The 1 mile trip that it is far too easy to get into the car and do. It’s the short journeys we need to encourage, the club riders will go out anyway. As many studies show (new Scientist only last week) a short burst of exercise such as cycling for 15 minutes is incredibly beneficial. You don’t have to go out on Sunday with a club run and do 100K to gain something. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20068083# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The merits of helmets are debatable but I am surprised that so few cyclists have mirrors on their bikes, especially inexperienced cyclists who cannot turn round without shooting across the road every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Accident figures increase whenever compulsory helmet laws are brought in for bicycles. Likely due to decreased numbers of cyclists, as greater numbers of cyclists on the roads is the best way to increase safety for cyclists. This is why every major cycling advocacy organisation opposes compulsory helmet laws for bikes. Your claim sounds a little ridiculous is it based on biased evidence perhaps, but I won't question its authenticity as I'm sure some a-hole on here will sooner or later. Apparently nobody listens to no helmet pleas when it comes to motor cyclists other than some US states where personal rights outweigh all other considerations in some cases. So pedal cyclists it you want to use the public roads for more than pedestrians do then not only did you ought to contribute more than pedestrians do, you are the only road users that have money spent to cater soley for you with no extra contribution from you rerquired. Sadly June 1st 1973 was when helmet wearing for motorcyclists was made compulsory no doubt much lobbying by the helmet producers was a contributory factor. It is inevitable pedalcyclists will have a similar compulsions soon, which will hopefully open the door to more. You will also have to start obeying some legislation like proper road users have to; like licence plates, 3rd party insurance, proof of competence for yourselves like the CBT and road worthiness like the MoT for your pedal cycles and of course start complying with some safety legislation including compulsory helmets. Adults having to stay off pavements and pedestrian precincts would also be a welcome compulsion too. On the up side all those pedal cyclists having to get their hands in their pockets like other road users would no boubt provide a small boost to the economy, whilst discouraging the irresposible. . . Edited June 8, 2015 by Tommo68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achorste Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Your claim sounds a little ridiculous is it based on biased evidence perhaps, but I won't question its authenticity as I'm sure some a-hole on here will sooner or later. Apparently nobody listens to no helmet pleas when it comes to motor cyclists other than some US states where personal rights outweigh all other considerations in some cases. So pedal cyclists it you want to use the public roads for more than pedestrians do then not only did you ought to contribute more than pedestrians do, you are the only road users that have money spent to cater soley for you with no extra contribution from you rerquired. Sadly June 1st 1973 was when helmet wearing for motorcyclists was made compulsory no doubt much lobbying by the helmet producers was a contributory factor. It is inevitable pedalcyclists will have a similar compulsions soon, which will hopefully open the door to more. You will also have to start obeying some legislation like proper road users have to; like licence plates, 3rd party insurance, proof of competence for yourselves like the CBT and road worthiness like the MoT for your pedal cycles and of course start complying with some safety legislation including compulsory helmets. Adults having to stay off pavements and pedestrian precincts would also be a welcome compulsion too. On the up side all those pedal cyclists having to get their hands in their pockets like other road users would no boubt provide a small boost to the economy, whilst discouraging the irresposible. . . Oh dear, someone hasn't read all the previous posts about how the road system is funded, how cyclists reduce congestion for other road users, and how they pay disproportionately more for the roads than other road users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Your claim sounds a little ridiculous is it based on biased evidence perhaps, but I won't question its authenticity as I'm sure some a-hole on here will sooner or later. Apparently nobody listens to no helmet pleas when it comes to motor cyclists other than some US states where personal rights outweigh all other considerations in some cases. So pedal cyclists it you want to use the public roads for more than pedestrians do then not only did you ought to contribute more than pedestrians do, you are the only road users that have money spent to cater soley for you with no extra contribution from you rerquired. Sadly June 1st 1973 was when helmet wearing for motorcyclists was made compulsory no doubt much lobbying by the helmet producers was a contributory factor. It is inevitable pedalcyclists will have a similar compulsions soon, which will hopefully open the door to more. You will also have to start obeying some legislation like proper road users have to; like licence plates, 3rd party insurance, proof of competence for yourselves like the CBT and road worthiness like the MoT for your pedal cycles and of course start complying with some safety legislation including compulsory helmets. Adults having to stay off pavements and pedestrian precincts would also be a welcome compulsion too. On the up side all those pedal cyclists having to get their hands in their pockets like other road users would no boubt provide a small boost to the economy, whilst discouraging the irresposible. . . At the risk of repeating myself - in New Zealand the accident rate increased by 20% when they made it compulsory to wear cycle helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Oh dear, someone hasn't read all the previous posts about how the road system is funded, how cyclists reduce congestion for other road users, and how they pay disproportionately more for the roads than other road users. When a thread is getting on for 50 pages worth of repetitive comments, then I suspect that could be said of most people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts