Safe Speed Forums

what you think?

could be something like a CBT test and you would have to display it on your bike. i hate cyclists as they always get in the way - especially in london.

surely they should be tested and taxed if they want to use our roads?!

_________________
2 fast, 2 furious!

I would have thought tolerance for other road users was a vital factor in using the roads safely.

Fanning the flames of the motorists vs cyclists debate is a tactic that the "opposition" like to engage in.

There are plenty of keen cyclists here - even a whole sub-forum devoted to cycling. I doubt whether they will be too impressed by being told "they always get in the way".

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

but do you think they should have to pass some kinda test? because it seems to me that they cause alot of crashes.

_________________
2 fast, 2 furious!

Take that to the limit and pedestrians also should have to "pass a test" before being allowed to cross the road.

Education and experience are what the slower road users need - and those of us with powered vehicles need to be tolerant of them.

If a cyclist takes a proficiency test this is a good thing. Making it compulsory is IMHO unworkable.

If there is no incentive to take a test, then most will ignore it.

I am also in favour of some sort of responsibility for cyclists - and I cycle as well as driving!
And as for pedestrians, it is high time they too acted responsibly, and at least read the highway code where it pertains to THEM.
More "Public information films" on TV would be a start - too many are ignorant of their role in better road safety.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Well said Ern!

By way Hapy New Year

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

So because you failed to make provision for somebody that you have (hopefully) already seen, your mistake is their fault?

How does that work exactly?


Yes cyclists can be a pain in the arse if you are in a bit of a rush to get somewhere, but why can you not "work around" them instead of crashing?

If you can't cope with other traffic that is moving considerably slower than what you are, maybe you shouldn't be on the road to start with!

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

All cycles used on the road should carry a number plate, be subject to road tax, and have an MoT.
All cyclists on the road should have a test and a licence, and compulsory liability insurance.
And yes, it's a mass of paperwork, and yes, it will cost (the cyclists) money, but welcome to the world of REALLY being a road user, hitherto paid for by those who have cars/motorbikes/lorries.
I have lost count of the number of accidents I've seen caused by cyclists who then disappear, leaving a bent car or a biker laying beneath his/her bent machine.

Excellent example this afternoon.
I made a left turn into a road which has railings for the first 12-15 feet, to prevent pedestrians straying onto the road.
6 feet into the road, was a pedestrian, stood still, talking on a mobile phone!!
I stopped, and he ambled TOWARDS the barrier and the busier road I had turned in from, and I started forward slowly to pass him, only for two more pedestrians to step purposfully in front of my car from the end of the barrier - not to CROSS in front of me, but to catch up their friend, who was by this time walking OUTSIDE the railings, around the corner onto the main road!!

It starts at a young age, because when I drop my son off at school in the morning, I see kids wondering two and three abreast in the gutter, or crossing at an angle to the road - sometimes so acutely that they appear to be walking along the middle of the road, not crossing it.

What on earth is the government doing, in not providing a means by which the public at large can be taught to protect themselves?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

But in most cases, if a cyclist makes a mistake, like going through a red light, it almost invariably becomes the drivers fault.
All road users should have to have at least 3rd party insurance, I did when I was cycling, and I got done for Without due care and attention whilst cycling as a kid, and my insurance provided me a solicitor in court.
And there should be parity in investigations, allowing for the fact that cyclist do seem to break the law with impunity and no fear of legal action against them.
Didn't we also have a case posted on here some time back where a pedestrian was found to be responsible for causing a car to crash?
That'll be a rarity though, because non motorists are seem to be bullet proof when it comes to breaking the law.
See Ernests post above as a prime example.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

yeah, and they're also killed or injured but hey, continue on your (and I'm including all on here who think they own the road) merry way of blaming the more vulnerable for your inadequacies.

Lieber Fellow Road Warrior Rebel Raging Bull - you are new here so may I draw your attention to the "Cycling Forum" where lieber Super Duper Chief Heap Big in Gears und his cowboy cadence distinguished shot with silver cat of helper und some moccasin stitches from Auburny Tiddles Wildy Squaw -cat have provided some half decent tip on safest pedal power in effort to have heap big exhaust pipe of peace with cyclists.


You never know - you may learn how to ride bike there


Und Ern ... Ist purrfekt!

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I am a car driver, and a Truck driver, and in my youth I was a keen cyclist, including taking part in racing, on the roads in time trials.
When I was cycling, I was required to obey the rules of the road, I even got stopped by my local plod because I only had a front brake fitted to my bike, I had to explain to him that the bike was fixed wheel and therefore didn't require a back brake.
In those days, cyclists and pedestrians were more than capable and willing to obey the rules of the road, there were exceptions, and on one occasion i was one of them, and got stepped on by plod.

These days, it appears to me that motorists are the only people required to obey the law, and pedestrians and cyclists are required to ignore the laws.
If a person is injured or killed by the fact that they in their infinite wisdom decided to ignore laws that are laid down to protect them and others, why do other people get the blame.
Only by the fact that I fully expect other road users, in particular cyclists and pedestrians to ignore the same laws that I am expected to obey, that a lot of these people are still alive.
I expect pedestrians to just step out into the road when I am almost on top of them, I expect cyclists to suddenly pull out in front of me to turn right, in front of me, but if I were to hit one of them, it would be me at fault, WHY?
Is it because I am in a motor vehicle, that these people expect to be able to stop instantly, probably.
If you're going to use the road, then you should be required to use the same rules applicable to other road users, otherwise the KSI toll will just increase, and of course the great satan, the motorist will be to blame.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I generally agree with the thrust of your argument, but one of the things it's important to remember is that there are a lot of vulnerable people that use the roads and it's important to to extra care, to the point of expecting them to do daft things. Children are obviously a prime example. But I don't think the motorists should automatically take all the blame, and accept there can be a too much assumption that is was the drivers fault at times.

you're kidding right? Have you actually bothered reading anything on this site? ie the only thing that motorists are expected to obey is the speed limit and not even that most of the time.

I guess as people can't make generalisations about people's race they have to find a new scape goat for their problems. What makes you think you can take the behaviour of a few cyclists/pedestrians/whatever and extrapolate that to all of them?


because you are OVERTAKING the cyclist and it is UP TO YOU to show due care while doing so. Would you overtake a motor vehicle while approaching a junction? No, I didn't think so.

Slowing down and taking care does NOT include making allowances for moronic behaviour. I would assume, johnsher that you are in the minority group known as 'competant cyclists' and therefore what is being said here does not apply to you, so please don't take it as any kind of personal insult.

In my own experiences there are more illegal and dangerous cyclists out there than legal safe ones - no lights, riding 3 abreast down the middle of the road and then scattering in every possible direction when faced with oncoming traffic complete ignorance of other vehicles around them. But there is absolutely NOTHING that anyone can do about it because unless these morons actually get stopped by a BiB then they will never be found.

If cyclists want to use the road then they should be expected to obey the rules. No arguement. If they don't want to play fair then get off the roads and stop complaining.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

i don't think i really care either way as of course i'm not on of the cyclists that causes a problem so if i had to take a test and have a license, i would, no problem.

driving licenses dont seem to stop drivers behaving badly so i'm not sure cycle licenses would !

i think alot of problem cyclists would be more careful if they thought there was a chance of them getting caught (licensed or not, same as bad driving i suppose) so before implementing licensing they need a viable enforcement framework.... real coppers out on the streets perhaps?

the other question of course is from what age do you require a license? do we ban kids from riding bikes until they're 16?

and making cyclists pay road tax sounds like political suicide.

The laws requires a young motorist who has passed his/her test to carry a fully qualified driver with them, if that young person drives on the public roads without a qualified driver, he/she will be prosecuted. I would expect any young cyclist who wants to ride on public roads be supervised until they have the necessary skills of observation necessary, and classed as competent riders.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

whilst I appreciate the reasoning for enforced professionalism in cycling it'd be both a massive undertaking and impinge yet more on our civil liberties.

what would be more effective is a goverment course & test that without having passed a cyclist is not given automatic benefit of the doubt and injury claim rights in accident situations.

another system would be to encourage cyclists carry voluntary insurance- without which they can't "make a claim" against a driver.

numberplates etc are all good in theory but like we see with cars the hooligans will circumvent the system while the law abiding cyclists will probably be persecuted.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction