|
Somewhere in Gloucestershire on an annual road race a cyclist was killed yesterday following an accident with a car, and the race was abandoned. Sky News is light on the details, apart from it being a 3-lap race that has been held annually since the 1960s. Condolences to the relatives of course, but I thought racing was illegal on the public highway? Or does this not apply to cyclists. And I wonder how an event like this could pass any sort of risk assessment assuming the road was indeed still open?
|
Must be legal. Only yesterday I saw a cycle race taking place on a circuit between the Maidenhead Thicket and Twyford/Wargrave roundabouts on the A4. Official marshals in high viz, the lot.
I find it bizarre that people would wish to race bicycles amongst fast moving heavy traffic on a main trunk road - not only from the safety point of view but from the point of view that you're breathing in a load of exhaust fumes very deeply. Weird.
At one point, I observed a Toyota Prius emerge from a turning on my right, overtake a cyclist, indicate left as if meaning to turn in to a side road on the left, and then stop dead at the kerb just past the turning. The cyclist very nearly became a boot mascot, and gave the Prius driver a mouthful (rightly) on passing her. I'm amazed he didn't physically assault the vehicle or its driver, to be frank.
Very strange stuff all round.
Commiserations to those who lost a loved one in Gloucestershire.
|
>> Sky News is light on the details, apart from it being a 3-lap race that has been held annually since the 1960s.
10 lap race. The cyclist died on the 3rd lap.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21651333
tinyurl.com/d4glqg7 - www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk
|
Probably a time trial, not a race.
They hold them round here on the A1! I've nearly had one on a roundabout - no signals - how was I to know he was doing a 180, he was in the LH lane all the way.
|
More detail here.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21658277
www.bristolroadclub.com/
Racing on the road (IIRC) requires permission, no doubt Robin or one ot our other members with an interest in the road discipline will advise. This event had apparently run for many years without trouble.
Never seen the joy in that sort of thing or time trialing but chapaeu to those who do.
|
In August there is a professional roadrace from the Olympic Park out into Surrey and back to The Mall. Some of the roads they will be using will be very narrow.
This one, which I just happened to be on yesterday, is narrow, windy and has vertical rock faces on both sides. goo.gl/maps/z4ptU
It is also significantly downhill and so the pros will be going into blind bends at over 40mph.
In a car it makes you nervous at much slower speeds so I hope they all make it safely.
Earlier in the day 20,000 ordinary cyclists will be following the same route. The chances of all of them getting home safely is very small indeed.
|
>> Earlier in the day 20,000 ordinary cyclists will be following the same route. The chances
>> of all of them getting home safely is very small indeed.
That's the same sort of number as do the London to Brighton (L2B) every year. There are inevitable accidents mostly people unused to riding in proximity to lots of others. Some roads are closed to cars as presumably they will be for this race/ride in the summer.
Fatalities on the L2B have, over more than 30 yrs, been vanishingly small in number.
|
>>>> I've nearly had one on a roundabout
>> - no signals - how was I to know he was doing a 180, he
>> was in the LH lane all the way.
You mean he doubled back? Poor practice/positioning. The correct drill for a right turn or double back is as in a car - occupy the inner (RH) lane of the roundabout and give clear signals*. Going round the outside is lethal - asking to be 'left hooked' yet some Councils use green paint to encourage such a line.
*signalling can be problematic as you also need hands for directional control, balance and brakes.
|
I've often seen them on the A1. I met this particular Darwin case on the Buckden roundabout goo.gl/maps/98Kf3 . They were using it as the northern end of their course.
Used to see them on the A422 around Newport Pagnell, haven't for years.
|
Shouldn't there have been a warning for motorist that a bicycle race was going on? Signalling on a racing bike of course its a problem you are concentrating on winning a race.
A roundabout with car traffic is the last place you want to be on on a racing bike.
Sad to hear about him losing his live condolences to his family.
|
The time trials I see locally all seem to be signed, and marshalled at junctions. I've never been in any doubt there was an event going on.
The club ones do tend to be early evening in the summer. I've never very happy about that - too many in attentive people rushing home, and catching up on phone calls in many cases.
|
>> Probably a time trial, not a race.
>>
>> They hold them round here on the A1! I've nearly had one on a roundabout
>> - no signals - how was I to know he was doing a 180, he
>> was in the LH lane all the way.
>>
Highway Code, rule 77.
Though it does have a caveat that drivers might assume, incorrectly, that they have right of way to cut across in front of you to leave the roundabout.
|
|
The trouble is you can still be dead when you were completely in the right of it.
|
I live quite close (<8 miles) to where this happened, very remote spot but as I understand the event was clearly signed up and marshalled.
local paper story here
tinyurl.com/cyfm7sz
and this was I believe the location
tinyurl.com/dxqwvyx
|
"smaller" pro races (as in qty in field) are easy and safe to run and legal. Short peleton, few stragglers, outriders form a kind of moving safety cell.
|
|
I imagine the cyclists are concentrating so hard they push cars to the back of their consciousness. A favourite venue is the dark, narrow part of the A35 leading to Bere Regis. In general, I think cyclists have become more arrogant and assume priority.
|
>>I think cyclists have become more arrogant and assume priority.
>>
Couldn't agree more....and that is exceptionally foolish when you are the vulnerable one.
|
|
You can see the mind set of motons here. Don't you know that the circumstances of this death are as yet unclear?
|
>> >>I think cyclists have become more arrogant and assume priority.
>> >>
>>
>> Couldn't agree more....and that is exceptionally foolish when you are the vulnerable one.
>>
>>
If you've got priority then you take it. Failing to do so risks accidents because you behave unpredictably. Keep visible and give yourself enough space to have an escape route if it goes wrong.
As I've said before I struggle with Westpig's assertion that being vulnerable means cyclists should.... and my particular problem is grasping what follows should. It reads uncomfortably like keep out of the way of the cars and you'll be safe..
It's not that simple. Out of way is too often out of sight and out of mind.
The reports in this case suggest the cyclist collided with a car travelling in the opposite direction . Until there's an inquest and/or a prosecution of the driver we know little more than that.
|
>> The reports in this case suggest the cyclist collided with a car travelling in the
>> opposite direction . Until there's an inquest and/or a prosecution of the driver we know
>> little more than that.
Wow, that says so much about your "cyclists can do no wrong" mindset. Instant assumption the driver is at fault and will be prosecuted, even tho you admit little is known.
|
>> Wow, that says so much about your "cyclists can do no wrong" mindset. Instant assumption
>> the driver is at fault and will be prosecuted, even tho you admit little is
>> known.
Which words in my post comprise an assumption that motorist is at fault?
For clarity to the hard of thinking:
There will be an inquest. If there is evidence against the motorist he/she could be prosecuted.
|
>> Which words in my post comprise an assumption that motorist is at fault?
>>
>> For clarity to the hard of thinking:
>>
>> There will be an inquest. If there is evidence against the motorist he/she could be
>> prosecuted.
>
Nothing wrong with my hearing, your words were
>>Until there's an inquest and/or a prosecution of the driver we know
>> little more than that.
I dont see an if in there, or a could be? do you? Think my ears are fine thanks. Hows your eyes?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Mar 13 at 21:49
|
>> Wow, that says so much about your "cyclists can do no wrong" mindset. Instant assumption the driver is at fault and will be prosecuted, even tho you admit little is known.
The cyclist can't be prosecuted even if evidence suggests they were at fault (he's dead).
If there is sufficient evidence the driver was at fault he/she will likely be prosecuted.
Not quite seeing the bias you are suggesting Z, other than yours towards the poster.
|
>>cyclists have become more arrogant and assume priority.
I can't say I've noticed. Perhaps it's true to say that cyclists have been encouraged to be more assertive, which I am convinced is better for everybody. I exclude the minority of militants who are no worse, and far less dangerous, than the minority of nutters in cars.
I really hate to see a family of timid occasional cyclists, with the children being carefully herded close to the kerb at snail's pace by nervous parents, and cars squeezing by.
The cyclists should be riding confidently using the space they need and the drivers waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic to overtake properly and safely. Much better for the cyclist, and no pressure on the car driver to acknowledge the cowering deferral by passing dangerously.
None of this has any direct relevance to this incident as we don't yet know the cause - but while we're doing generalisations, SMIDSY is the one we all fear the most - and that is down to drivers. Blaming cyclists in the abstract just won't do.
|
>> Probably a time trial, not a race.
>>
>>
No, the event was a massed start road race. Quite legal provided the event and the course have been approved by the police, whose criteria on marshalling and escorts is very strict. I rode time trials and road races for many years and have been part of the motorcycle escort group on a few occasions. No event I had any involvement with ever suffered a serious accident, though of course they do occur from time to time.
Despite the increase in cycling brought about by Olympic and Tour de France success massed start road racing on the public highway is dying at grass roots level, the number of marshals and escorts the police now insist on makes it very hard for ordinary clubs to promote these events.
|
And incidentally.....
Walking into the office this morning I ran into John, one of the lawyers in another outfit that shares our building. He used to ride in on a lovely old Dawes Galaxy. I commented on it's absence and he explained that after yet another near miss he had, after 30 years, given up cycling to work.
He was coming in from the suburbs though. A different ball game to my 10-15 minute dash from Euston to Lincoln's Inn.
|
>Walking into the office this morning I ran into John,
Which one of you had right of way?
:-0
|
>> >Walking into the office this morning I ran into John,
>>
>> Which one of you had right of way?
>>
>> :-0
The cyclist, of course.
|
I passed comment on this thread, not specifically about this death...but about cycling in general.
During my now 32 year driving/riding I have noticed a gradual change in the road usage. Many, many more cyclists take 'ownership' of the road than ever used to be the case. I've heard the arguments about safety and to a small degree agree ON THE ODD OCCASION...but... it doesn't tend to be the odd occasion now, does it?
Whatever road I ride/drive down and there's more than one cyclist the chances are they'll be two abreast...or they so reluctantly and gradually merge back into one, there wasn't really much point.
In the past, people were simply not that rude.
It's the same with horse riders...it's now the norm to just do as you please and sod everyone else.
Trouble is...cyclists by definition ARE vulnerable. If a huge chunk of the car/van driving public do not have the faintest idea why a cyclist might temporarily 'own' the road..or like me think this 'ownership' has morphed into a 'p' take...then there will be conflict, there's bound to be.. and why would anyone on something as flimsy as a cycle want conflict with several ton of car/van/lorry etc?
It's like me on my motorcycle saying to by self 'Sod it, it's my right of way, I'm coming through'...I don't...because I want to live and as irritating as that can be sometimes, I have to ride for them as well as me, otherwise a SMIDSY will punt me off.
You ride/drive to the conditions and give yourself as much of a safety zone as you can...some/many cyclists have taken a safety idea and changed it into a selfish one..and one that leaves them vulnerable at that.
|
There's a bit of a difference between cyclists SHOULD take precautionary action and cyclists NEED to take precautionary action.
Seems to be there is no give and take on the road. Hardly the end of the world if I have to slow down and wait to pass a bike, not catastrophic if he and his mate have to go single file for a while.
I've met idiots on bikes, I've probably met rather more in a car. But in my experience, if you're not getting in people's faces about it, most people are pretty reasonable and work around each other.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 4 Mar 13 at 22:48
|
>> You ride/drive to the conditions and give yourself as much of a safety zone as
>> you can...some/many cyclists have taken a safety idea and changed it into a selfish one..and
>> one that leaves them vulnerable at that.
(tic) I'm playing bingo with WP's posts on cycling. On this one I've scored rude, vulnerable and selfish (/tic)
Seriously, riding out does not leave you more vulnerable. In the absence of a cage you're vulnerable whatever. I've had far more near passes, left hooks and pull outs while kerb hugging either as an inexperienced youngster or nursing a sick bike home than when riding my usual brisk primary/secondary.
The Smidsy thing is slightly different between pedal bikes and motorcycles as two way eye contact is possible on a push bike. In conflicting movements that eye/eye non verbal negotiation is crucial. Ditto with pedestrians which is why I constantly flick the bell to catch their attention and then their eye.
|
Riding assertively properly means your intentions are clear, and you (usually) get noticed.
Doing so in an arrogant manner is a very fine line and some actions that make some car/bus/lorry drivers cross, others will just say "fair enough". But as the cyclist always come off worst in any accident, regardless of who's fault it is, riding assertively is justified.
|
Another on tragically killed on a local event on a busy dual carriageway:
m.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story.html?aid=18556013&category=news
Would appear to be a caravan involved.
|
|
How come cyclists are allowed to race on the road? Are they a special case ?
|
Crickey ON, what is it with you and bikes eh?
:-)
|
>> Crickey ON, what is it with you and bikes eh?
>>
>> :-)
>>
I have no problem with the vast majority of cyclists. Just like elsewhere you will get the odd pratt, instantly forgotten if he survives the incident.
Prodding you lot with a sharp stick sometimes has an amusing result. :-)
|
>> How come cyclists are allowed to race on the road? Are they a special case
>> ?
>>
When it comes to racing on the roads, yes they are.
Most deaths in races are to riders in time trials (as is the case here) where the riders start at one minute intervals and ride the course solo, the start list seeding designed to reduce overtaking and bunching as much as possible. Virtually every one I heard about in over 40 years involvement with the sport involve a rider being hit from behind by a motor vehicle when they were on a road they would have been perfectly entitled to use whether racing or riding their sit up and beg to work. So in truth this type of accident is nothing to do with racing, just another of the many road accidents with fatal consequences.
Proper mass start road racing has an excellent safety record, deaths and serious injuries involving other vehicles are very rare.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 29 Mar 13 at 22:10
|
You do occasionally get proper closed road races round a circuit, usually a town centre. I've watched a Criterium in Hertford, many many years ago.
The IG London Nocturne is a regular summer event with closed roads around Smithfield.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Fri 29 Mar 13 at 22:31
|
Many many moons ago when I was time trialing we used to start 25 mile runs at 06:00 so with 120 max riders most were back at the start soon after 09:00
50 mile trials started an hour earlier so same sort of time to finish.
Traffic is obviously much much heaver now but at that time on a Sun morning, traffic is not likely a distraction for car drivers.
Not sure if mid week evening 10 & 15 mile trials are still run but those obviously would be higher risk.
My quitest time trial was on 25 December but we had a dispensation to start a little later :-)
My longest " reliability" run was Hounslow to Barnes to start a London to Bath and back and then back home to Hounslow.
( In February as an under 16 we were not allowed to go too fast )
How things have changed.
|
It is not a road I would want to ride a pedal cycle on at the best of times. 70 MPH main arterial road leading up to M62 Motorway.
If you were asked the question,"Would you allow your 10 year old to ride their bike on a stretch of road?" and your answer was, "No it's too dangerous". Then the answer should apply to an adult.
|
|
I drive on this road regulary nothing wrong with the road.But 150 cyclist racing on a 70mph road with car and lorry traffic?
|
>> www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/A63-closed-Brough-cyclist-hit-caravan/story-18556013-detail/story.html#axzz2OyH9jcFG
>>
>> Certainly looks a fast road but pretty straight giving a good view ahead.
>>
There was an accident near here on a similar road where a truck rear ended a tractor which had two rotating beacons on its roof, what chance a cyclist ? The tractor was flat out at 25mph, the truck also flat out at just short of 60.
|
So in truth this type of accident is nothing to do with racing,
>> just another of the many road accidents with fatal consequences.
For me, that is a sweeping statement too far.
It might be the case it's a tragic coincidental accident.
It might also be the case that a time trial/race whatever you call it, had a competitor do something, because of his wish to keep his speed up, that was not as wise as it should have been, taking in to account the road conditions and road type.
You cannot possibly tell me that a competitor in a race/time trial/practice etc rides as sensibly and courteously as someone out for a Sunday afternoon punt?
It doesn't matter whether you have the right of way or are in the right, if you are vulnerable you have to allow for others and take action accordingly....does that properly happen in a race?
|
>>
>> For me, that is a sweeping statement too far.
>>
>> It might be the case it's a tragic coincidental accident.
>>
>> It might also be the case that a time trial/race whatever you call it, had
>> a competitor do something, because of his wish to keep his speed up, that was
>> not as wise as it should have been, taking in to account the road conditions
>> and road type.
>>
My point was that almost all time trial fatalities are caused when a rider is struck from behind by a motor vehicle. In such cases, it is the concentration and wisdom of the driver you should be questioning, not the cyclist.
|
>> How come cyclists are allowed to race on the road? Are they a special case
>> ?
>>
My thoughts exactly.
Why on earth are cycles allowed to race on open public roads?
Accidents looking for somewhere to happen - a cycle ridden competitively is extremely unstable.
|
In the every day world of working with HSE Risk Assessments, maybe someone should do one on this activity.
Pat
|
Yes indeed, let's have some more rules. We haven't got nearly enough of them yet have we?
Let's have some more for trucks too. Restrict them to lane 1 on the motorways for example. Oh and maybe caravans, how about they are only allowed on the roads between midnight and 6.00 AM?
Just think of the boost to the economy which would be created by the increase in sales of clipboards !
Or, we could live and let live...
|
>> Or, we could live and let live...
Or we could let natural selection take its course?
|
Oh I don't know so much Z. These people have to be protected from themselves you know.
In fact, it's high time there were other rules too, it's urgent to have a total ban on tobacco and alcohol sales isn't it? I mean, who could argue any resistance to that?
Let's ban all drivers who wear glasses shall we? Be safer. Oh and all motorcycles of course, that'd have to stop. Pensioners driving? Don't think so, too doddery.
As for fat people, not only should they not be driving due to their increased risk of heart failure, they shouldn't be allowed on pavements either because they take up too much room and slow the progression of other users y'see?
Or, we could live and let live.
|
A colleague was injured when cycling.
He was changing lane and noted it looked clear after the next car behind and in the lane he wanted. He didn't spot it was towing an empty car trailer and moved sideways into it as he saw the car pass.
He admitted it was entirely his fault for being less than fully observant, but it's easily done.
|
>> ....... but it's easily done.
Twenty years or so ago I did a lot of towing of a 17 foot car trailer. I was very aware of this issue and often saw, in my mirrors, all types of vehicles try to pull into the "space" of the trailer.
When empty, extra care was needed as the trailer was below the sightline of most road users and so almost invisible in a SMIDSY way.
|
>>Let's have some more for trucks too. Restrict them to lane 1 on the motorways for example. Oh and maybe caravans, how about they are only allowed on the roads between midnight and 6.00 AM?
>> a total ban on tobacco and alcohol sales <<
>>Let's ban all drivers who wear glasses shall we? Be safer. Oh and all motorcycles of course, that'd have to stop. Pensioners driving? <<
>>As for fat people, not only should they not be driving due to their increased risk of heart failure<<
Got me guilty on all of the above Humph if you can call a size 14 at 5' 2'' fat but at least I'm happy I managed to rattle your cage:)
Cycling on the road is one thing, time trials, which is another word for racing, should NOT be allowed. Cars can't do it, lorries can't do it and neither can motorbikes so pray tell me why a cyclist should be treated any different?
If cyclists want the same consideration as all other road users then they have to accept the same book of rules....end of story.
The amount of deaths when doing this on major roads absolutely proves this.
Pat
|
Pat,
I'm not sure how time trialling is any different from other forms of individual riding. As RR says upthread the riders start individually and are seeded so as to avoid multiple overtakes. Rides are usually signed and marshalled.
The motor vehicle speed limit is unlikely to be breached.
No different from riding my own bike against a pb for a given route.
The number of deaths is small given the numbers taking part every weekend.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 Mar 13 at 17:33
|
>I'm not sure how time trialling is any different from other forms of individual riding.
I'd pay good money to see a time trial for 150 Dominoes delivery riders.
|
A time trial is a race, as is a car rally which is in time trial format.
And not allowed on public roads unless they are closed.
|
Exactly ON, a time trial means the rider is focussed on time and not safety.
Pat
|
|
If the broader picture indicated an issue of unacceptable risk, perhaps time-trial arrangements should be looked at. But this is but one incident, where the causal factors are, as yet, unknown. That of course doesn't stop the anti-brigade from pronouncing. IIRC, the driving of HGV's in cities is an issue of greater moment, given that the drivers in certain sectors are " focussed on time and not safety"?
|
All drivers in towns, cyclists included, as well as a lot of pedestrians, are focused on time rather than safety. Everyone must look out for themselves and try not to take excessive risks with anyone else's neck. This is not challenging stuff really, just commonsense.
I have noticed that some cyclists seem to flaunt their vulnerability, sort of daring motor vehicles to hit them. There's a subtle but crucial difference between that and the decisive, assertive riding style that cyclists need in (say) the busy West End.
It's so tight and flowing there that everyone - everyone - gets it a bit wrong quite often and has to cope seamlessly with that.
Every time I drive at night I pass one or two cyclists with no lights and wearing dark clothing. No one wants to look like a geek but there are times when it may be a good idea.
|
>> A time trial is a race, as is a car rally which is in time trial format.
>> And not allowed on public roads unless they are closed.
Yes they are. Club twelve car rallies are frequently held (not that I agree with them).
|
>> If cyclists want the same consideration as all other road users then they have to
>> accept the same book of rules....end of story.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Cyclists taking part in time trials do accept the same rules as anyone else - and the rules state that time trials on the highway are allowed.
>> The amount of deaths when doing this on major roads absolutely proves this.
>>
So how many deaths per annum would that be then Pat, for example compared to those caused by truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel?
|
Why that particular comparison RR, or is it just sarcasm?
If you read the link above you will see it happens quite a lot on dual carriageways
>>Today's fatality comes less than four weeks after 23-year-old Herbalife Leisure Lakes rider Junior Heffernan was killed during the Severn Bridge Road Race after colliding with a vehicle on a descent.
In recent years several cyclists have been killed while taking part in time trials on dual carriageways, including Karl Austin, hit from behind by a lorry on the A50 in Derbyshire in June 2011, Cathy Ward of Solihull Road Club, struck by a car on the A46 near Stratford-upon-Avon in August 2010, and Major Gareth Rhys Evans, who was hit by a car on the A1 near St Neots, Cambridgeshire, in May 2009.
<<
Now, if you go a bit further down and read the comments you will see a lot of them are from sensible time trial cyclists who actually agree with me and argue their point sensible...but that won't happen on car4play when cyclists are mentioned!
Pat
|
>In recent years several cyclists have been killed while taking part in time trials on dual carriageways, including Karl Austin, hit from behind by a lorry on the A50 in Derbyshire in June 2011, Cathy Ward of Solihull Road Club, struck by a car on the A46 near Stratford-upon-Avon in August 2010, and Major Gareth Rhys Evans, who was hit by a car on the A1 near St Neots, Cambridgeshire, in May 2009.
The common feature of these events is that the accidents happened on A-roads. While not knowing the details, I presume that the traffic was reasonably heavy at the time. I have been out of the time-trial scene for some time now bit even 20 years ago, there was a movement to move these off the main trunk roads. While there are people who wish to set a personal best and as a result are attracted to the races on the A-roads where they can be sucked along by the traffic, anyone with any sense would avoid these races and stick to those taking place on the smaller side roads. After all, if every one rides the same course, it doesn't matter if there are a few hills or you need to brake from time to time.
Closing the roads for events is almost an impossibility but is possible if the course is chosen correctly. The locals tend to get a bit annoyed though if they are not allowed to go to the shops to buy their Sunday paper.
|
>> knowing the details, I presume that the traffic was reasonably heavy at the time. I
>> have been out of the time-trial scene for some time now bit even 20 years
>> ago, there was a movement to move these off the main trunk roads. While there
>> are people who wish to set a personal best and as a result are attracted
>> to the races on the A-roads where they can be sucked along by the traffic,
>> anyone with any sense would avoid these races and stick to those taking place on
>> the smaller side roads. After all, if every one rides the same course, it doesn't
>> matter if there are a few hills or you need to brake from time to
>> time.
>>
>> Closing the roads for events is almost an impossibility but is possible if the course
>> is chosen correctly. The locals tend to get a bit annoyed though if they are
>> not allowed to go to the shops to buy their Sunday paper.
What a sensible, reasonable post.
|
>> What a sensible, reasonable post.
It's certainly a rational point of view form the perspective of those who've decided TT on trunk roads is outside their personal risk limit.
It's not an area of cycling I've the remotest interest in myself and can see both sides.
The other perspective is that a dual carriageway, with all traffic going in one direction, excellent sightlines and easy overtaking might be a good place for a TT. Doing the same thing on minor roads brings in different risks with junctions, opposing traffic in same carriageway, dangerous overtakes etc. The route being used in this case is a recognised and very well used TT course (V718) signed, marshalled and well known to drivers regularly in the area.
There's an interesting debate over on cyclechat:
www.cyclechat.net/threads/racing-cyclist-killed-a63.127284/
|
I agree, what a reasonable point of view and makes me respect cyclist a lot more.
Pat
|
My cage remains totally unrattled Pat. I was merely, and apparently unsuccessfully, trying to draw attention to how preposterous it might seem to agonise over and suggest legislation against a problem which doesn't statistically exist when seen from the standpoint of one not prejudiced against a given sub group of road users, and that it might be to all of our benefits in the long run to resist yet more restrictions before it becomes illegal to "break wind" while using the highway.
|
>> before it becomes illegal to "break wind" while using the highway.
'The accused then emitted a sound not unlike tearing calico, m'lud, and shortly afterwards a stench of incommunicable gravity suffused the area, causing me to falter in the execution of my duty.'
|
>> when seen from the standpoint of one not prejudiced against
>> a given sub group of road users
Is it prejudice for people to think a given sub group of road users should comply with any laws and act sensibly, like the rest of us?
Why do some seemingly broad minded, sensible, easy going people...have all those traits go out the window when their sub group of road users are discussed.
|
Aw shucks, really? And here was me thinking you'd never come around !
:-))
|
See above Humph, it does statistically exist.
I didn't suggest legislation, I suggested a Risk Assessment, which if you are to believe the rubbish handed out by HSE, should voluntarily stop anything happening that presents a risk.
We all have to live and work with these now on a daily basis, if the PDF do any type of charity 'event' it has to be risk assessed first.
I had my training session audited a couple of weeks ago and got a glowing report for training skills and course content, but was marked down because I had a speaker lead running across a part of the floor 'uncovered', despite the fact no-one went anywhere near it.
I don't agree with it, but I do have to conform with it just to get basic insurance and be allowed to do both PDF stuff or to earn an income, so why would any other activity be different?
Pat
Last edited by: Webmaster on Thu 4 Apr 13 at 08:55
|
Pat,
The same insurance pressure applies to organised rides just like any other activity. I'm sure that if you spoke to Simon Legg who organises the Friday Night Ride to the Coast fnrttc.blogspot.co.uk/ he could tell you all about his risk assessments and the CTC insurance all riders must show. He will have ridden the route in daylight before and identified dangerous junctions etc. I did the same two years ago organising a training ride for the works team in the London to Brighton.
I assume you googled to find the TT related deaths listed above. There seem to be about one or two a year. That is an acceptable risk bearing in mind the numbers participating. The probability can be managed down by mitigations such as high viz, signing and marshals.
|
>>There seem to be about one or two a year<<
One death a year in any industry results in a long enquiry, a court case, a massive fine and a ban from that ever happening again.....I rest my case.
Pat
|
|
While driving today I passed a non Lycra clad pair of recreational cyclists, riding in single file on a B road. They both had very bright LED strobe type rear lights on, easily visible from a long way back even in the bright sunlight. Why don't road racing bikes have them, all you can normally see is a black clad bum and when you may be approaching at 60mph+ late spotting of cyclists could cause problems.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 31 Mar 13 at 17:53
|
Any shiny black clad bum can distract a red blooded female driver....trust me, I know!
Pat
|
>> >>There seem to be about one or two a year<<
>>
>> One death a year in any industry results in a long enquiry, a court case,
>> a massive fine and a ban from that ever happening again.....I rest my case.
>>
>> Pat
Sorry Pat but that is, at it's most diplomatic, well wide of the mark. I seriously doubt it happens in haulage except in the most egregious cases of negligence. Are there really long inquiries and large fines every time a truck is in a fatal? I see very little sign of it when trucks who kill cyclists in London. As I've pointed out before the skip driver who killed Eilidh Cairns was only fined over breaches of eyesight rules. He drove again and killed an elderly pedestrian in Marylebone Road.
In another field of transport it took years to pin down the employer of that trainee loader who died on a ship in Shoreham docks a few years ago. Many other employers, in the eyes of the victim's family, get off scot free.
But in any event industry is a straw man.
Were talking here of people pursuing a legal leisure activity on her majesty's highway. Exactly the same as taking part in an outing by car. Unfortunately, there is an irreduceable minimum of cases where injury or fatality might occur just as there is on the mountain path, rugger field or swimming pool.
As long as the participants know and accept the risk and the organisers do what is needed to mitigate (signage, hi-viz, marshals etc) then there's little for the law to interfere with.
|
>Were talking here of people pursuing a legal leisure activity on her majesty's highway.
A somewhat superficial statement. Racing of any form used to be banned. Only after much effort was time trialling allowed on British roads, with road races following later. Cyclists have no god given right to race - society has decided that it may be allowed under certain circumstances. If as a result of changes in traffic conditions (e.g. more HGVs on the roads) it is considered too dangerous on open roads, it can be simply banned again.
One of the best races I ride is on closed roads with 10 000 participants. With that degree of participation, tourism and business considerations can make road closures more acceptable compared with 120 sad creatures following each other at one minute intervals.
|
"Were talking here of people pursuing a legal leisure activity on her majesty's highway."
Indeed we are BUT the bottom line it's not a safe place to be.
|
>>Were talking here of people pursuing a legal leisure activity on her majesty's highway<<
Actually we're not Bromp, we're talking about whether it SHOULD be legal, and it's my opinion that it shouldn't be.
Times change and laws change with them....I used to ride a Tiger Cub without a helmet, but I wouldn't do it now.
Pat
|
>>.....I rest my case.
Oh please do !
:-))
|
>> >>Were talking here of people pursuing a legal leisure activity on her majesty's highway<<
>>
>> Actually we're not Bromp, we're talking about whether it SHOULD be legal, and it's my
>> opinion that it shouldn't be.
But why? As in other sports, including football and particularly rugby there are a tiny number of fatalities. The participants know that is a risk they take. So long as they accept that risk and the cost to the rest of society is proportionate to other sports there's no need for the state to interfere.
The danger in deaths per annum per mile cyled is greater when pootling on non trunk rural A roads - the sort used to link the quieter bits of the ride than for TT.
>> Times change and laws change with them....I used to ride a Tiger Cub without a
>> helmet, but I wouldn't do it now.
The technology changed too allowing the modern plastic helmet. The risks/death toll from being unhelmeted on a powered bike are of a different magnitude to those in a TT on a dual carriageway.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Apr 13 at 17:25
|
>> The participants know that is a risk they take<<
If that risk involved only them, then fair enough. It doesn't, it involves others with the same rights to use the highway in the vehicle they see fit to drive.
Horses, in my book, have the absolute right of way, and I'm the first to stop a lorry and kill the engine while they manoeuvre past me, however much it inconveniences those behind me.
It irks me when I'm in a hurry and I never fail to think to myself, why ever don't they just go in a field, but I don't resent them at all. They always thank me with a smile and a wave.
They have the same 'rights' as you see cyclist as having but you don't see them on the A1 or the A64, do you?
They have a sense of looking after their own personal safety and are grateful for the consideration given when they have to use a major route.
The more I try and look into the cyclist problem (which does exist), the more I come to the conclusion that at the bottom of the problem is the cyclists attitude, which I have to say I can see in your replies Bromp.
Pat
|
|
Losing the argument Pat. You started with risk assessment. This does not lead to a ban, as I think you wished for, but is intended to concentrate on measures to reduce risk. It is never possible to eliminate risk entirely, as you know full well. Having had counter-arguments, well put, you retreat to your fall-back of unquantified shroud waving. then bring out the old hobby-horse of cyclists "attitude" coupled with a personal slight against Bromptonaut. Dear me, it's pitiful...
|
It's not pitiful NIL, it's fact.
It's also the reason so many cyclist are killed but if they can't see it then how can we help them?
Minimising risk is what it's all about, not standing up for your rights...they're a fat lot of good to you when you're dead.
...and that is what's happening more and more these days.
If you try and make an effort to help the situation and dare to suggest the fault may just be a little to do with the cyclist, you're branded as being anti-cyclists.
....end result is that all other road users just give up on them, quite rightly so.
Pat
|
>> It's not pitiful NIL, it's fact.
>>
>> It's also the reason so many cyclist are killed but if they can't see it
>> then how can we help them?
>>
>> Minimising risk is what it's all about, not standing up for your rights...they're a fat
>> lot of good to you when you're dead.
>>
>>
>> ...and that is what's happening more and more these days.
>>
>> If you try and make an effort to help the situation and dare to suggest
>> the fault may just be a little to do with the cyclist, you're branded as
>> being anti-cyclists.
>>
>> ....end result is that all other road users just give up on them, quite rightly
>> so.
>>
>> Pat
I give up. this is stuff is beyond logical refute.
Have a Happy Birthday Pat.
|
|
Pat. I think you should be clear that it is quite evident that it you who are anti-cyclist, seeing assertion as arrogance, and danger as an absolute instead of a nuanced issue, for the purpose of blaming one sector. Your arguments on risk, such as they are, are anecdotal, without context and research and they cannot be taken seriously. If you represented vehicle occupant deaths in the same way you would be asked: where is the evidence of an unacceptable risk? Are you saying, reasoning on the same basis presented here, that because there were several deaths on A roads this week, vehicle driving on such roads should cease? If not, why not?
|
Horses, like industry, are a straw man in this debate but let's just look at them.
They're living sentient beasts. Like you I give them every consideration whether in the car or on a bike and am thanked for it. Personally I'm rather scared of them but even if I did mount up of course I wouldn't ride on a trunk road but that's about the horse as much as the space it takes up (which is a lot more than a bike!).
I'm still struggling to see the statistical or intellectual argument against cyclists who are aware of the risk taking part in a TT on a trunk road. Unless of course it's their unwillingness to see their place as forelock touching second class road users.
I'm actually a courteous cyclist who will offer a wave of thanks to the motorist who treats me the same way. But if I need to don the badge of 'Cyclist with Attitude' I'll wear it with pride.
|
>> "Were talking here of people pursuing a legal leisure activity on her majesty's highway."
>>
>> Indeed we are BUT the bottom line it's not a safe place to be.
Neither is Crib Goch, a Mirror Dinghy on Lake Bala, or the middle of a rugger scrum. My personal riskometer goes off scale for the last but that doesn't mean I want to ban it for those who want to.
The point is that the risk can be and is managed down to an acceptable level for an adult or an adolescent riding with parental consent then people should be allowed to get on.
The 'ten year old' test you suggest above is far too simplistic. My ten year olds wouldn't have been alone, or in the company of another of similar age, on a mountain or dinghy. At sixteeen they were.
|
>>as forelock touching second class road users. <<
That remark confirms cyclist have attitude:)
>> Dear me, it's pitiful<<
He dug the hole, not me!
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 1 Apr 13 at 18:45
|
>> >>as forelock touching second class road users. <<
>>
>> That remark confirms cyclist have attitude:)
>>
>
>>
From that post you obviously think that cyclists should be forelock touching second class road users.
|
Not at all...that remark does prove they have a chip on their shoulder though and expect to be treated differently to everyone else.
If you see yourself as 'below' others you will be treated like that.
See yourself as one of them and you will be accepted.
But that takes give and take on both sides and despite attempts by us, as a group representing lorry drivers, to assist and address the problem of the deaths of cyclists all attempts have been either ignored or rebuffed.
My personal attitude to cyclists, to set the record straight, is much like my attitude has always been to female lorry drivers.
Do it because you love it, forget the 'female' bit, accept the same job exactly the same way as the lads have always done and you won't find any prejudice.
If cyclist thought of themselves as just another road user and followed the above advice they would be accepted without prejudice or resentment...I always have been.
Pat
|
>> If cyclist thought of themselves as just another road user and followed the above advice
>> they would be accepted without prejudice or resentment...I always have been.
And if they abided by the laws of the road, they would, as I have said before, earn respect.
Yes, I am aware that some car drivers, motorcyclist etc do flout the laws, the difference being those that do are regarded as idiots, where as cyclists always seem to find an excuse...
It is very rare to see one cyclist point out the errors of another.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 06:37
|
|
It's even rarer for one car driver to point out the errors of another, not least because they are sealed off:) However, look at CycleChat to see how cyclists do criticise others. Bear in mind that most cyclists on that board are also drivers, but fewer drivers cycle, in the UK.
|
You know what really strikes me on all this? Is that I hadn't really realised that there was so much "opinion" on the subject.
I've been cycling since the 1960s, first of course as a child playing and then as a practical means of getting to and from school in a busy capital city. Later in life I've continued to use bikes as a means of convenient urban transport and indeed as a hobby although that element is mainly confined to off road activities these days.
I've been a driver since the 1970s too and a pedestrian all my life and I really hadn't twigged that there were so many of those who had a problem with any of my means of propulsion.
I really can't remember the last time I felt the need to sound the horn in my car or ring the bell on my bike. You just have to accept that cities in particular are busy places full of distracted people and conduct yourself with courtesy and care no matter how you are currently moving around them.
Conflict of any kind usually requires a minimum of two willing combatants. If you decide not to come into conflict with others despite them maybe "deserving" it you usually won't.
I'm not a member of any "action" group or "club" so maybe I've neve previously noticed how aerated others are on the subject and I do have to say I'm quite taken aback at how strong some people's feelings here seem to run on the matter.
Judging by the number of "ticks" and "gongs" flying around this thread it seems so anyway. By the way, I thought a "gong" was to register "offence" being taken? Well, either some folk are very easily "offended" or maybe some are using that facility simply to indicate disagreement with a post? Perhaps we should ask for some clarification on that one as I'm certainly confused by some of them.
Anyway, to return to my dronings if you're still there... :-)
What I do notice is that internet forum "discussion" rarely changes anyone's "opinion". The result is almost always conflict between those with the most entrenched prejudices (whichever side of a debate they stand) and the loudest voices and which eventually just becomes an embarrassing written brawl.
I guess we all have our views on things but having expressed them, if that's what we feel we want to do, we could decide to live and let live. It's usually the best way.
I'm done here. Thanks for reading !
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 10:18
|
|
Thanks for update Martint. Long time no hear :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 14:47
|
"You know what really strikes me on all this? Is that I hadn't really realised that there was so much "opinion" on the subject."
As someone who has followed the various cycling debates with some bemusement I''m absolutely with you there. I've never see any particular set of road users as "the enemy". Once you acquire this particular minds set and start believing all truck drivers or BMW drivers or cyclists are some sort of homogenous group you are going to find problems where there aren't any.
I've seen some stupid behaviour by some cyclists but I've seen a lot more by car drivers. I can't remember ever feeling put at risk by the actions of a cyclist, pedestrian or horse rider - their stupidity tends to lead to personal injury rather than to third parties. It doesn't take much effort however to recollect the last time a car driver took chances with my life.
Best way to improve safety on the roads is to concentrate on our own failings rather that get hung up on the perceived attitudes of others.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 11:56
|
I've read your comment Humph and understand where you'r coming from.Not only on the road but on my last job working on water people will have conflict.
The little mooring boat on my last job was about ten meters roughly thirty feet.I used to have to deal with harbour tugs giving us room to work.Some tug skippers where fine and eased off on their engine whilst we collected the ropes to moore the ship.Others couldn't care less and I used to call the pilot to ask the tug to give us room.We often had to work in rough conditions, the Humber is a estuary and wind against the tide can create decent waves.
We had three men on board and if anything went wrong I was responsible for them.What I'm trying to say,our mooring boat was small in comparison with the Tugs..
Same for bicycles a car will always beat a bike in a accident.
|
>> Judging by the number of "ticks" and "gongs" flying around this thread it seems so
>> anyway. By the way, I thought a "gong" was to register "offence" being taken? Well,
>> either some folk are very easily "offended" or maybe some are using that facility simply
>> to indicate disagreement with a post? Perhaps we should ask for some clarification on that
>> one as I'm certainly confused by some of them.
I sometimes use the scowly face as a negative as an opposite to the green thumb being a positive. I cannot remember the time when something has truly offended me.
IMO the site needs a red downwards thumb as well.
|
I'd prefer to do away with both. If someone is truly offended they could type "I'm offended" or if pleased with a comment then "I agree". It all gets a bit childish otherwise sometimes I feel. No biggie though. Thanks for your clarification. Perhaps I'll feel less "offended" next time I get a gong if I know that it's maybe just someone who simply disagrees with me but can't be bothered to say why.
|
>> Perhaps I'll
>> feel less "offended" next time I get a gong if I know that it's maybe
>> just someone who simply disagrees with me but can't be bothered to say why.
>>
Open a new cycling thread and i'll sprinkle a few in there.
|
Heh heh ! No, I think we've maybe had enough on that one for a bit, well for me anyway. Others may differ of course.
You know the funny thing? I really don't generally like road bikes or road bikers much. Most mountain bikers don't actually. Lycra clad mean spirited whippets in the main! Only time I use my bike on the road is when I need to or it's the most convenient option. Never for fun. That's what forests were invented for !
I don't especially defend "cyclists", some of them are right twonks of the highest order but I hate to see them singled out as some subversive clan. Some, but only some, are indeed a disgrace but many of my aquaintance are just pretty normal people who take due care and either need or want to use their bikes, just want to be left alone to do so, and are happy to comply with the law as it stands.
I just hate bigotry at any level, no matter who it's directed at and I'll defend that position to the end. Banter and jokes are one thing and are in my view part of life's richness but vitriol and hatred are a dangerous place to be in your head no matter what group, tribe, race, gender or activity you're directing it at.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 22:33
|
>> You know the funny thing? I really don't generally like road bikes or road bikers
>> much. Most mountain bikers don't actually. Lycra clad mean spirited whippets in the main!
That's only because you can't keep up with us on your two wheel tractor ;-)
|
|
Aye? Depends on what surface and at what angle !
|
>> I don't especially defend "cyclists", some of them are right twonks of the highest order
>> but I hate to see them singled out as some subversive clan. Some, but only
>> some, are indeed a disgrace but many of my aquaintance are just pretty normal people
>> who take due care and either need or want to use their bikes, just want
>> to be left alone to do so, and are happy to comply with the law
>> as it stands.
>>
>> I just hate bigotry at any level, no matter who it's directed at and I'll
>> defend that position to the end. Banter and jokes are one thing and are in
>> my view part of life's richness but vitriol and hatred are a dangerous place to
>> be in your head no matter what group, tribe, race, gender or activity you're directing
>> it at.
>>
I couldn't disagree with any element of that, in fact it mirrors my own thoughts.
My angle has always been the unnecessary support of the twonk within a sub group, by others in that sub group who are not twonks, but feel obliged to support them, because someone else is having a pop.
In my view, they are having a pop because they are a twonk first...and a member of that sub group second...although sometimes the sub group has relevancy to the twonkness.
So it's not the sub group that you have the problem with..it's the 'sub group twonk'.
Think of the bad press others sometimes get...e.g. within religion/race etc...all because some acquiesce with their silence or stick up for their 'own' incorrectly.
|
>> I couldn't disagree with any element of that, in fact it mirrors my own thoughts.
>>
As it happens I've no time for red light runners, for the 'bringing the game into disrepute' angle as much as the danger posed. Saw one get nicked in Montague St this morning. £30 fixed penalty. I make that £5 for the offence and £25 for failing to spot the cop car!!
But the discussions here are rarely, I'd almost say never, about an isolated twonk.
It's the same suspects who've little if any experience of riding themselves accusing cyclists in general of being twonks or an 'out' group. Swiss Tony for example lecturing us above on respect being earned.
Then there are more specific complaints about lane positioning, use of cycle lanes or the risks posed by lorries. Many reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cyclist sees/does, what the Highway Code says and the methods taught by instructors. And that's before the shroud waving and belief in the magical properties of helmets and high viz or even licencing/registration and insurance that some demonstrate.
And you know what. I'm going to go on challenging that sort of stuff and explaining why riders do what they do. If that makes me a twonk in some eyes then I welcome twonkdom and wear it with pride!!
I'm still waiting for Pat to make a proper ratioonal case against TT on the highway or to explain the proposals on lorry safety and the identitiy of 'the cyclists' who rejected/ignored them.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 14:26
|
The cyclist on the A64 made my case for me about time trials Bromp.
It was TFL who didn't even do us the courtesy of a reply despite asking for 'input'.
It was discussed among our Trustees and none of the others wanted to get involved with it. I stuck my neck out and said I would deal with it and all the ensuing paperwork/visits etc that usually ensues (at my own expense and my own time).
I don't have that time to spare now, but would have gladly made it somehow if it had helped look at the problem from a different point of view and ultimately gain some middle ground between cyclists and lorries in London.
Pat
Not: To the person who called me bigoted yesterday, I think this proves I'm not ( as Bromp recognises)
|
>> The cyclist on the A64 made my case for me about time trials Bromp.
That's the bit I still don't get. Somebody died participating in a sport with an element of danger. Something similar seems to happen slightly less then annually. Other sports with occasional fatalities are available.
If the participants know that risk which is assessed and managed down by mitigation (signs, marshalls hi-viz etc) then there's no need to ban it.
This looks like a bad case of head down and go. Not unknown in other fields of cycling. Aged 16 I rode into a parked car, fortunately I was labouring up a Yorkshire hill on a boneshaker so no harm either way.
But it's a well known pra tfall
|
I'm not saying time trials shouldn't be allowed...just not on a public highway.
There are loads of unused stadiums around the country that could be utilised, and the danger to everyone minimised. Who knows, it may even become a spectator sport with a lot of supporters.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 17:15
|
>>just not on a public highway.
Why not?
We live in a society, calling for new laws to make it more how you want it to be is silly. Compromises are needed within a society, on both sides.
And to outlaw something because one person died is ridiculous and reactionary. Which is not to say that they didn't die and that their life could not have been saved if TT on the road was banned.
But really, do you want life sanitised that far? Because that is the basis of George Orwell's fears; the State controlling all activities, extending into thoughts, purportedly for the protection and well -being of its members.
Seems that calling for a more tolerant attitude on one hand, and then for more rules on the other is somewhere between hypocritical and silly.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 17:34
|
>>calling for new laws to make it more how you want it to be is silly. Compromises are needed within a society, on both sides.
<<
I haven't called for any new laws.
Cyclists are concerned about the amount of deaths among themselves on the public highway.
My answer is that they ride by the same book of rules as all other road users.
Simple and obvious to all but a few die-hards!
Pat
|
Time trialing is legal. So they *ARE* following the same laws as everybody else.
If you wish to compulsorily stop it, then you would have to make a law about it.
Simple and obvious to all but a few that choose to be blind.
|
Okay...got that...we'll go out on the GS1400 at the weekend and do abit of 'time trialing'
Can I point Plod in your direction Mark for our defence?
Pedantry does you no justice.
This is about preserving cyclists safety, not what a cyclists 'rights' are, or is it??
Pat
|
>>Pedantry does you no justice.
And patronising sanctimony with an inability to understand reality does you no favours either.
You say it is against the law, I say its not, and you believe that disagreeing is pedantry. When you've finished with the law book, try a dictionary.
>>This is about preserving cyclists safety,
b***** is it.
Its about now you rattle on about how you've argued with roughty-toughty lorry drivers and you have no fear of me, but you're too busy right now with important stuff and will get to it later.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 18:00
|
What a silly terrible two's tantrum Mark....grow up for goodness sake!
It really gets you that I won't back down to you doesn't it:)
Pat
|
>>It really gets you that I won't back down to you doesn't it:)
Pat, I couldn't give a crap one way or the other. You've put yourself on a pedestal I'm afraid, and certainly attributed far more value and credibility to your opinion than i have.
>>What a silly terrible two's tantrum Mark
I kind of thought that you believed that people should be allowed their opinions without insult. Or is that just opinions you approve of?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 18:30
|
Oh for goodness sake Mark, go back to bed and get out again the other side.
Pat
|
>>Oh for goodness sake Mark, go back to bed and get out again the other side.
Really that's your stock line of defence, isn't it.? Somebody disagrees with you and you just resort to silly little girl stuff. Oh you're so mean, oh let people think what they want, oh can't you be tolerant, oh why can't everybody be nice, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
What with that and endless comments about how tough you are and how you can cope with roughty toughty truck drivers its all getting a bit samey. And I've never met anybody who was tough, or good, or clever, or anything else who also kept saying it about themselves.
If you cannot cope with logically and constructively defending your own comments or criticising those of others, then perhaps you should reconsider your approach.
You haven't tried the "I'm not leaving and you can't make me so there" line for a week or two. - About due, I'd guess.
|
Reading your post above Mark, and the one above that, I find they have no content whatsoever about cycling.
They just attack me as the poster, not the subject.
It's your trademark, isn't it?
Bring it down to a personal level, be abusive about the poster then sit there all self satisfied when the person wanders off for a few weeks because they come on a forum to discuss things not put up with that.
Some never return.
One thing I have learned in my time on car4play is that there are a lot of people on here with far more knowledge, wisdom and wit than I have.
Some, I may not like, but I have a huge amount of respect for them.
The majority I simply feel like are old friends. On occasions I disagree with them, I can say so quite openly but there is a mutual respect which will always prevent personal remarks being made.
You come into neither category....that says far more about you than it does me.
Pat
|
Every time you go the same way;
You have points challenged, start making sarkie comments, don't like it when they come back and then bring out the same tired old statements about people being driven from the forum.
I also don't understand the point of your last post, if indeed there was one.
|
>>I also don't understand the point of your last post, if indeed there was one<<
I was replying to you!
I thought I made that clear.
Pat
|
Pat,
I did have a go at you and I shouldn't, so I apologise for doing that.
However, I would also suggest that you look at your own comments when arguing about something since you do tend to drop in little remarks inappropriately.
Nonetheless, I do still strongly disagree with your approach, varying standards and dogma.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 4 Apr 13 at 15:10
|
Apology noted but absolutely no need for it...it makes me feel like I'm back at 'proper' work again:)
My approach is as always, to try and find a happy medium that suits and protects everyone concerned.
From the view of a lorry cab I have come up behind a cyclist on a major trunk road ( I think it was the A39 in Cornwall), long twisty and short sharp hills.
I have been fully loaded and when an opportunity to overtake safely occurred, being fully freighted I had lost my momentum and couldn't pick up speed quick enough.
After finally managing to pas, I then find another one and have the same problem...and again and again.
Now that in itself doesn't worry me, the scenery is always good in Cornwall but had I had known there had been more than one I would happily have stayed behind the lot of them, even though it would have caused some crazy overtaking manoeuvres from the cars behind me.
That's the reason I asked RR what the time span was....I'm thinking maybe a Marshall car behind the one at the rear with a flashing beacon would be useful?
But I'm open to suggestions.
Pat
|
>> That's the reason I asked RR what the time span was....I'm thinking maybe a Marshall
>> car behind the one at the rear with a flashing beacon would be useful?
>>
>> But I'm open to suggestions.
>>
>> Pat
>>
The driver would probably be booked for obstruction.
CTT rules state that all riders in time trials must show a reflective number on the back of their jerseys, if you come on one with such then it's easy to work out that an event is taking place.
|
It is....if you're aware of that information!
Pat
|
>> Pat,
>>
>> I did have a go at you and I shouldn't, so I apologise for doing
>> that.
No FM2R,
Not that I am anyone in particular, but I thank you for your apology.
I like using this site and one of the reasons for that is the general civility (I am no shrinking violet and can quite easily hold my own when I have to..but..in my leisure time prefer not to).
I think it is important that this site remains polite, so credit where credit is due, the apology although needed, was freely given.
|
>>
>> This is about preserving cyclists safety, not what a cyclists 'rights' are, or is it??
>>
>> Pat
>>
Before you pass a law banning any activity you have to ask yourself "Is this activity causing a problem"?
In the context of the number of people who take part in cycle sport one or two deaths a year is a statistical irrelevance. You and I are both smokers which cause far more deaths, you probably drink as well, another activity with a relatively high fatality rate. Are you calling for those little pleasures to be outlawed too? If you're not you're being spectacularly inconsistent in your logic.
|
Bromp
Can you explain to me why cyclists are anti time trialing on a track? It's a genuine question and one I find hard to understand.
My thinking is that there are so may tracks and stadiums underused and we all know that those will end in closure and demolition for a housing estate.
Pat
|
>> Can you explain to me why cyclists are anti time trialing on a track? It's
>> a genuine question and one I find hard to understand.
>>
Because track racing and road racing are entirely different disciplines with different sets of skills required - the reason you will never see Chris Hoy ride the Tour de France or Bradley Wiggins become world sprint champion.
|
Thanks RR, but I would really appreciate an explanation of how different.
I'm not being pedantic or awkward, I just don't see it and to look at things from a cyclists point of view I need to!
Pat
|
>> Thanks RR, but I would really appreciate an explanation of how different.
>>
>> I'm not being pedantic or awkward, I just don't see it and to look at
>> things from a cyclists point of view I need to!
>>
>> Pat
>>
The track is a sterile environment, there are no hills to climb, no winds to worry about, the number of competitors are limited by the size of the track and the equipment used is highly specialised and not road legal (no brakes).
The closest analogy I could use is one between the Isle of Man TT and speedway. Both use motorcycles, but the machines, distances and skillsets are planets apart.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 19:02
|
Thanks RR, being both a Speedway and a TT fan I can relate to that analogy.
How many would typically take part and what's the time lapse between the first and last setting off?
Pat
|
!20 is the maximum field in most time trials, some events allow 150 with the riders setting off at 1 minute intervals (that is the minimum legal gap allowed between riders). The start list is seeded to cut down overtaking and bunching.
Most events start at stupid o'clock, I've been pushed away at just after 5am in the past.
|
>> Bromp
>>
>> Can you explain to me why cyclists are anti time trialing on a track? It's
>> a genuine question and one I find hard to understand.
I cannot add much to RR's explanation. I've never be a competitive cyclist while I think he has. I rie to get about and for the pleasure of touring
Road and track cycling are completely different. Different bikes and different skills. Different people and physique. Not much overlap though some like Wiggins and Boardman start on track and move to TdeF.
A TT is a ride against the clock on proper roads with riders starting at regular intervals. Hills, weather etc are part of the challenge. A change in wind/weather between first and last start can completely change the outcome.
We've seen the risks of running a TT on a trunk road in this thread. Those risks are less than they would be on minor roads with much less space for passing (and dangerous overtakes) side roads and opposite direction traffic on same carriageway.
|
pda: You haven't produced a reasoned argument to disallow time trialling.
I suspect you are unwilling, not unable, to grasp the concept that before something can be banned, there has to be evidence. One incident does not constitute evidence. Nor two or three! As I pointed out earlier, "Your arguments on risk, such as they are, are anecdotal, without context and research and they cannot be taken seriously." Truckers on the M25 have recently been arrested for dangerous driving, where 2 people in smaller vehicles were killed. Presumably you would wish the drivers of smaller vehicles to be banned from the M25. No, of course you don't. You'd switch back to rational on that!
|
NIL
Likewise, you seem to ignore my answers to you and keep asking the same questions and making the same accusation against my attitude.
I have not said time trialling should be banned, simply it shouldn't be allowed on the public highway where a mix of traffic and speeds isn't conducive to safety.
Note that agricultural vehicles travelling on these roads have to have a flashing beacon.
Two or three incidents may not constitute evidence but then again we're not trying to prove a case in court here, simply to echo the concerns of the cycling community and find out where the risk lies.
Prevention is far better than cure. In this case prevention would mean it didn't need banning when a ban would most certainly cure the problem.
So please don't be so defensive!
You always revert back to truckers (I call them lorry drivers!), having accidents and expect me to defend them.
Defend them when it's justified but most certainly I wouldn't defend them when it isn't, which is so often the case.
However, I withdrew from a discussion about a lorry accident a few weeks ago because I happened to know that the driver was taken ill at the wheel before the accident happened and this is so often the case.
It's not pleasant to sit and read accusations of 'driver fallen asleep/watching a DVD/texting' when you have information that isn't appropriate to post in defence.
My fellow lorry drivers are equally guilty of making these accusations, and I have driven past accidents myself and done exactly the same thing, but I do try to remember that there may be another explanation.
I'm trying to be rational and understand why one group of road users are allowed to race on the highway when no other group can do this.
Pat
|
|
A fine distinction between not allowed and banned that escaped me. However, you still would have to justify either imposition by evidence, and you haven't got any.
|
Pat,
Like NIL I cannot find the distinction between banned and not allowed.
Approaching this wearing my Civil Servant’s hat……..
Were legislation to prohibit time trials on highway proposed it would be a straightforward exercise for the draftsman. Probably no more than a repeal of the permissive clauses that presently allow them.
Parliament would also need an explanatory document (ED). This sets out the context of and rationale for the new law. It explains the ‘mischief’ the proposal addresses or the benefits it will bring, any alternatives that have been considered and reasons why they were rejected.
That’s where I’m struggling. There are a handful of deaths but they’re willing participants who knew the risk. The cycling community, while concerned to reduce deaths, accepts the ‘knew the risks’ line for TT. It is much more concerned about urban traffic, construction vehicles and ordinary leisure or utility cyclists on rural A and B roads.
What else have we got?
You rightly say that other road users are not allowed to race (though as somebody has pointed out certain types of rallies, etc are permitted). Those laws, along with registration, insurance and driver testing recognise motor vehicles as high mass high energy objects easily capable of causing death and life changing injury not just to their occupants but to bystanders as well.
Cycles are low mass and low energy and very rarely kill bystanders. Therefore, and quite logically, they’re not subject to such tight controls. If, and I suspect this is where you’re coming from, you want to add those burdens to cycles then the reasoning needs to be better than ‘those cyclists are getting away with something’.
So what are the other reasons/evidence?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 4 Apr 13 at 11:16
|
>> But the discussions here are rarely, I'd almost say never, about an isolated twonk.
>>
>> It's the same suspects who've little if any experience of riding themselves accusing cyclists in
>> general of being twonks or an 'out' group.
When I mention 'cyclists'. I don't mean each and every one (on the odd occasion I am one myself and my son now has one)...I mean those that come to light for being arrogant, pushy, rude, self centered, etc...you know, the ones that you notice in a negative light.
I've got no intention of putting that proviso on every post...(but have mentioned it before).
The bit I don't understand is why others automatically support them...virtually regardless.
I cannot imagine why we aren't both singing from the same hymn sheet. I only object to the obnoxious in life...and fully agree that not everyone is the same. I actually think it is a good thing for people to cycle, to keep fit....only don't forget your manners and the principle of sharing the roads with others...as everyone else should do.
|
>> It's the same suspects who've little if any experience of riding themselves accusing cyclists in general of being twonks or an 'out' group. Swiss Tony for example lecturing us above on respect being earned.
I would hardly say I was 'lecturing' about earning respect.
What I meant was by blatantly disregarding laws then other road users will lose respect for that group - be it cyclists, horse riders, motor cyclists or Audi drivers... ;-)
Unfortunately, it appears to be cyclists who jump lights, and ignore give way signs etc, than other road users, apparently because they can, and do, get away with it (unless hit by a car/van/truck)
>>
>> Then there are more specific complaints about lane positioning, use of cycle lanes or the risks posed by lorries. Many reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cyclist sees/does, what the Highway Code says and the methods taught by instructors.
As for not understanding what the cyclist sees/does, I do ride a bicycle, as well as a motorbike, and a car.
I have also often driven all types of van, as well as the odd 7.5 tonner (grandfather rights)
The one thing I do whilst using the road, in or on any vehicle (or walking!) is to think of other road users, and try to imagine their physical view, and the way that vehicle operates... ie handling, acceleration, braking etc.
That way, I believe that I reduce the risk to myself, and others.
|
>> But that takes give and take on both sides and despite attempts by us, as
>> a group representing lorry drivers, to assist and address the problem of the deaths of
>> cyclists all attempts have been either ignored or rebuffed.
Genuine questions.
(a) What did the attempts to assist and address mentioned above comprise?
(b) Who were the cyclists who rejected or rebuffed?
My own recollection is of being in favour of training for both sides with that for cyclists targeted on the young/female who represent the bulk of the victims.
I opposed a prescription of licencing, registration and insurance as being unnecessary and disproportionate.
|
>> I opposed a prescription of licencing, registration and insurance as being unnecessary and disproportionate.
Cyclists should be taxed and insured. They cost the country money in accidents and road improvements / facilities, so your opposition is indefensible. You want to do it? you pay for it.
|
|
Its not a matter of not biting, its indefensible.
|
If some cyclists drove cars the same way as they cycled they would be in jail.
Equally if some car drivers drove the way they did near a police officer , they would be in jail..
I refuse to cycle as it is too dangerous..
Last edited by: madf on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 13:10
|
I'm insured on a cycle - as are all other members of the CTC (Cyclists Touring Club). The London Cycling Campaign also gives the insurance benefit and I suspect they are are not the only clubs to offer it. Bearing in mind club membership is a pretty usual figure, the cost per person must be pretty small.
As for road tax, some cars are free, so should a cyclist pay more? Hardly joined up thinking. Cycles and clothing attract VAT, as do cars.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 13:40
|
>> I'm insured on a cycle - as are all other members of the CTC (Cyclists
>> Touring Club). The London Cycling Campaign also gives the insurance benefit and I suspect they
>> are are not the only clubs to offer it. Bearing in mind club membership is
>> a pretty usual figure, the cost per person must be pretty small.
>>
>> As for road tax, some cars are free, so should a cyclist pay more? Hardly
>> joined up thinking. Cycles and clothing attract VAT, as do cars.
clearly your thinking is not as joined up as you thought, cars pay tax for fuel, ie they pay as they drive and how many cyclists are int he CTC % wise? less than 20%?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 14:40
|
|
Most people with householders content cover have public liability insurance, including liability arising from riding a bike, included in their cover.
|
>> Most people with householders content cover have public liability insurance, including liability arising from riding
>> a bike, included in their cover.
I dont. I have liability on my property, but nowhere else.
|
|
Are you sure - usually under the Contents section as Personal Liability. Certainly included in my Tesco policy and from my dim and distant memory of selling the stuff it used to be a standard feature.
|
>> Are you sure - usually under the Contents section as Personal Liability. Certainly included in
>> my Tesco policy and from my dim and distant memory of selling the stuff it
>> used to be a standard feature.
Defintely. I checked. Its included in various add on bits that I declined.
|
If you must buy cheapo insurance - seriously unless you have the cover elsewhere I would say personal insurance is essential cover. If you were to cause an accident as a pedestrian or your dog was to bite someone would you be covered?
I'm surprise that it isn't include as standard but as an optional extra in your policy - who are these cheapskates?
|
>> If you must buy cheapo insurance - seriously unless you have the cover elsewhere I
>> would say personal insurance is essential cover. If you were to cause an accident as
>> a pedestrian or your dog was to bite someone would you be covered?
Personal third party insurance is not vital, not by a long way.
The dog is covered by dog insurance, because house insurance does not cover all the vital bits you need for a dog.
|
Perhaps not vital but desirable in this litigious age.
You didn't mention which company you were with. Would be interested to know which company is only offering the cover as an option.
|
|
Churchill, public liability is connected with the property only.
|
I think you are misreading the policy. You are covered for personal liability under Section 2 G 1
I won't need to worry abut you now ;-)
www.churchill.com/pdf/CHH164_1211_WEB_PDF.pdf
|
>> Defintely. I checked. Its included in various add on bits that I declined.
So you and Mrs Z are riding your bikes uninsured and that's a risk you're prepared to take?
|
Indefensible ( some might say )
:-)
I know, I know but I couldn't resist...
|
>> Indefensible ( some might say )
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I know, I know but I couldn't resist...
See my reply below smartass.
|
>> See my reply below smartass.
Oh ok fair enough...
:-)
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=7414&m=164415&v=e
|
>>
>> >> See my reply below smartass.
>>
>>
>> Oh ok fair enough...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=7414&m=164415&v=e
>>
And it stayed int he garage because the brakes are crap. Nicole rarely uses hers either, certainly not in London. And if we did I would pay for insurance.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 18:26
|
Ah right. Glad that's cleared up then...
:-))
|
>> >> Defintely. I checked. Its included in various add on bits that I declined.
>>
>> So you and Mrs Z are riding your bikes uninsured and that's a risk you're
>> prepared to take?
We dont ride bikes. If we did we would be insured.
|
I pay tax on my fuel for cycling... Mars bars have VAT!
So far, electric cars only pay 5% VAT on their electricity.
|
>> clearly your thinking is not as joined up as you thought, cars pay tax for
>> fuel, ie they pay as they drive and how many cyclists are int he CTC
>> % wise? less than 20%?
Neither fuel duty nor motor vehicle license duty are or were within recent memory ring fenced to funding roads. They're paid for either by the Highways Agency or County/District Councils. We all pay one way or another.
Your 20% guesstimate for CTC membership is as good as mine. Others, though not all, will have some element of third party cover from household insurance or from other sources such as membership of a professional body or trade union.
The only beneficiaries from compulsory cycle insurance wil be insurers. The level of damage a bike can do to property is miniscule and while there are accidents with peds most are of the 'bumps and bruises' variety. Fatalities are approx biennial and are invariably a matter of chance head injury where the deceased falls awkwardly.
|
>>
>> >> clearly your thinking is not as joined up as you thought, cars pay tax
>> for
>> >> fuel, ie they pay as they drive and how many cyclists are int he
>> CTC
>> >> % wise? less than 20%?
>>
>> Neither fuel duty nor motor vehicle license duty are or were within recent memory ring
>> fenced to funding roads. They're paid for either by the Highways Agency or County/District Councils.
>> We all pay one way or another.
No-one mentioned ring fencing. The roads come from the general fund, and so do cycle lanes. Why should I pay for something I don't use? Why do cyclist expect the country to pay extra for their facilities? their bike sheds, the cycle lanes, the special crossings, its all EXTRA cost that those who use them should pay for.
>> Your 20% guesstimate for CTC membership is as good as mine. Others, though not all,
>> will have some element of third party cover from household insurance or from other sources
>> such as membership of a professional body or trade union.
>>
>> The only beneficiaries from compulsory cycle insurance wil be insurers. The level of damage
>> bike can do to property is miniscule and while there are accidents with peds most
>> are of the 'bumps and bruises' variety. Fatalities are approx biennial and are invariably a
>> matter of chance head injury where the deceased falls awkwardly.
They cycle under lorries, and have shown a tendency to die. Why should not the cost of blame and consequential financial loss be shared by those at fault?
As I said, there is no defence for not making cyclists pay.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 18:08
|
@Zeddo 18:07 post:
So you'd apply the same principle to rugger players, mountain walkers and people who trip over fences while trying to film trains?
|
>> @Zeddo 18:07 post:
>>
>> So you'd apply the same principle to rugger players, mountain walkers and people who trip
>> over fences while trying to film trains?
They tend not to fall under lorries or demand cycle lanes, special crossings, cycle shelters and security, and refuges in front of traffic lights. Not getting cyclist to pay for these facilities that only cyclists use is indefensible. Nothing you have said has changed that.
|
>> I refuse to cycle as it is too dangerous..
As I would with the game of rugby or anything involving high ropes etc. We all have an appetite for risk which is personal to each of us.
Commuting four miles a day in central London over thirteen years I've had one contact accident with a vehicle. A gentle push from behind by a car that suddenly changed direction. One very near miss with a pedestrian; tourist who looked right and stepped out into my path. Steered the bike and stopped dead as my wheel caught in a storm drain with inlets at 45 degrees to the kerb. Fortunately the Brompton has no cross bar.....
Few real near misses either. Taxis and particularly Addison Lee's vehicles are the worst for being in my 'bubble' - bad enough for bell/words perhaps once a week.
Last contretemps with a driver was June 12. Another private hire driver trying to force through non existent space in Melton St where Euston taxis exiting and entering, pedestrians and a car share bays dictate a need to occupy one's lane and look all ways at once. Eighteen inches behind trying to get through on my offside. No scope to move as any further left and I'm in door zone so I signal and move further to right. Soon as we're past the share cars hes tooting and effin and jeffin about the highway code. My suggestion he read the section on vulnerable road users was not appreciated.
|
>>Anyway, it looks like the cyclist rode into the back of the stationary caravan.
<<
As no-one else has said it I will be brave enough to point out that surely this is proof indeed that time trialing cyclists have their head down and a goal in sight.
The caravan was clearly showing hazard lights from the photo in the link but even those were not seen. How does the car driver feel now?
Pat
|
>>>>
From that post you obviously think that cyclists should be forelock touching second class road users>>
RR posted the above.
On reflection, I have to mention that I would much prefer them to simply look where they are going, like the rest of us road users have to.
Pat
|
>> On reflection, I have to mention that I would much prefer them to simply look
>> where they are going, like the rest of us road users have to.
Exactly Pat, stopping at give way signs, and going the correct way down one way streets would be nice too....
|
>> >> On reflection, I have to mention that I would much prefer them to simply
>> look where they are going, like the rest of us road users have to.
>>
You mean like the truck drivers who plough into a stationary traffic queue or flatten some poor guy who's stranded on the hard shoulder?
|
>> You mean like the truck drivers who plough into a stationary traffic queue or flatten
>> some poor guy who's stranded on the hard shoulder?
That really wasn't necessary RR, but i will answer it.
If by their neglect or incompetence a person at the wheel of a lorry cause the mayhem you speak of then i will be the first to condemn them and disown them, they are not lorry drivers nor will they ever be as long as they a rear orifice.
Now if some cyclists could only admit that all of their legion are not perfect..;)
|
>> That really wasn't necessary RR, but i will answer it.
>>
>> Now if some cyclists could only admit that all of their legion are not perfect..;)
>>
The point I was making GB was that "Not looking where they're going" applies to users of all types of vehicle (and pedestrians) on occasions, whereas Pat seemed to regard it as just a cyclists problem. I wasn't having a dig at truckers as such.
And as for cyclists not admitting that some of their legion are far from perfect, do as Brompt has suggested further up the thread and log on to a cycling forum. You will see just as diverse a bunch of opinions on cyclist's obligations as you would those of drivers here. Sure, you get the holier than thou nutters, the same as on any group, but most riders have a grown up attitude to the safety of themselves and others. After all, most cycling enthusiasts today are middle aged and over and are themselves car drivers.
|
>>
>> >> I refuse to cycle as it is too dangerous..
>>
>> Few real near misses either.
How is your hip now?
Remind me how it happened?
was it rugby? paragliding? hill climbing?
|
>> >>
>> >> >> I refuse to cycle as it is too dangerous..
>> >>
>> >> Few real near misses either.
>>
>> How is your hip now?
>> Remind me how it happened?
>> was it rugby? paragliding? hill climbing?
Fine thanks.
My accident was a solo effort on a surface (car park deck in wet steel plate) where I would have been better waking and using the bike as a support.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 20:53
|
>> My accident was a solo effort on a surface (car park deck in wet steel plate) where I would have been better waking and using the bike as a support.
>>
So would you agree that cycling in inappropriate places/conditions perhaps requires careful thought before proceeding?
|
>> So would you agree that cycling in inappropriate places/conditions perhaps requires careful thought before proceeding?
>>
Yes and I failed in that regard. I knew it was risky but thought my cycling skills were sufficiently advanced to cope.
Then I touched the brake.......
Bit like the dozen or so cars a year that fail to take the double bend between this village and the next and end up in ditch or field.
|
>> Cyclists should be taxed and insured. They cost the country money in accidents and road
>> improvements / facilities, so your opposition is indefensible. You want to do it? you pay
>> for it.
>>
>>
>>
So do pedestrians. You want to have shoes taxed and insured too?
|
>> >> Cyclists should be taxed and insured. They cost the country money in accidents and
>> road
>> >> improvements / facilities, so your opposition is indefensible. You want to do it? you
>> pay
>> >> for it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> So do pedestrians.
Council tax pays for footpaths. FOOT paths, I use them I pay for them.
|
>> Council tax pays for footpaths. FOOT paths, I use them I pay for them.
>>
The point is Z that VED and fuel tax entitle you to nothing. They are part of the general taxation system which goes into the same pot the VAT on your TV or your carpet went into in order to fund all the systems HMG administer. Car tax is just another tax, it gives you no privileges not afforded to anyone else, it is just a tax and if you don't pay it you go to jail.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 19:37
|
>> >> Council tax pays for footpaths. FOOT paths, I use them I pay for them.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> The point is Z that VED and fuel tax entitle you to nothing. They are
>> part of the general taxation system which goes into the same pot the VAT on
>> your TV or your carpet went into in order to fund all the systems HMG
>> administer. Car tax is just another tax, it gives you no privileges not afforded to
>> anyone else, it is just a tax and if you don't pay it you go
>> to jail.
>
I said above I am aware of that. I have to pay, individually, for many privileges and facilities I use, so there is no reason why i should not be forced to pay individually for the facilities required for cycling. Its not a matter of tax hypothecation, its just putting money in the pot. The more you use the pot the more you pay.
|
>>The more you use the pot the more you pay.
Ah right so, if someone has six kids they should pay six times more tax towards education than someone who has one then? Or if someone is childless they should get tax relief on the element of their tax which goes towards education?
Doesn't work like that. Maybe it should but it doesn't.
|
>> >>The more you use the pot the more you pay.
>>
>> Ah right so, if someone has six kids they should pay six times more tax
>> towards education than someone who has one then? Or if someone is childless they should
>> get tax relief on the element of their tax which goes towards education?
>>
>> Doesn't work like that. Maybe it should but it doesn't.
But there is no social reason why it shouldn't apply to cyclists, being a non vital pass time, unlike education.
|
>>being a non vital pass time...
Ok so what other non-vital pass times should be subject to a specific tax then? Or is it just cycling? How about entry to public parks? Not vital but enjoyed by many and I'm really glad that is, so far, free at the point of use. What about kids kicking a ball around on a public beach? Shall we charge their parents on an individual basis for that or be glad that we have a society which continues to embrace the notion that fun and leisure activities should, where possible, remain available to all?
|
>>being a non vital pass time...
>>
Like filming trains?
How about £300 a year to access the trackside with a camera. Same again for premium access to platforms etc.
Oh, and a royalty to all train operators filmed (not just the steamer, but they get double) as well.
|
>> >>being a non vital pass time...
>>
>> Ok so what other non-vital pass times should be subject to a specific tax then?
>> Or is it just cycling? How about entry to public parks? Not vital but enjoyed
>> by many and I'm really glad that is, so far, free at the point of
>> use. What about kids kicking a ball around on a public beach? Shall we charge
>> their parents on an individual basis for that or be glad that we have a
>> society which continues to embrace the notion that fun and leisure activities should, where possible,
>> remain available to all?
None of those need special requirements and extra expense to protect them from lorries.
Some gardens do charge BTW, and some beaches are not free in other countries. Many 5 a side pitches round these parts are now pay to use. If a new railway line is laid down, or a new tram link is laid down people pay to use it. If a new cycle lane is employed why should people not pay to use that?
There is no reason why cyclists should not pay to use the roads and the facilities provided.
|
>> a non vital pass time
Er... transport? To and from work/family or social obligations?
Just a thought.
|
|
Careful AC. There could be a move for more tax on thinking. Takes up vital room does thinking, if you pause to do it in public.
|
>> Careful AC. There could be a move for more tax on thinking. Takes up vital
>> room does thinking, if you pause to do it in public.
Hardly pertinent or appropriate to the facts here.
|
|
Quite, just thought I'd join in y'know.
|
>> >> a non vital pass time
>>
>> Er... transport? To and from work/family or social obligations?
>>
>> Just a thought.
Indeed.
And the Australian experience where compulsory helmets have halved cycle usage while the injury/fatality rate per cycle mile has risen illustrates the law of unintended consequence when regulating a virtuous activity.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 20:40
|
>> >> >> a non vital pass time
>> >>
>> >> Er... transport? To and from work/family or social obligations?
>> >>
>> >> Just a thought.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> And the Australian experience where compulsory helmets have halved cycle usage while the injury/fatality rate
>> per cycle mile has risen illustrates the law of unintended consequence when regulating a virtuous
>> activity.
I havent proposed regulating it, merely paying for it.
|
>>I havent proposed regulating it, merely paying for it.
Ok so would someone who pretends not to cycle but in reality actually does but does it "rarely" (and outside London of course) have to pay as much as someone who does it regularly?
Gosh yes we could use all the cctv cameras to monitor them ! That's what we need.
Or not.
Or we could live and let live.
I really don't want any more "rules" for now. Whether to do with cycling or otherwise. We have enough to keep us going for quite a while.
|
"...Doesn't work like that. Maybe it should but it doesn't."
Poll tax came close :S
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 21:04
|
>>You want to have shoes taxed and insured too?
Right son, you're nicked. You clearly haven't got a valid MOT for those Hush Puppies and what's more they're not insured. I have no alternative but to confiscate them and crush them. You'll have to make your own way home....Phew ! Put 'em back on for gawd's sake Mr G...
:-)
|
>> >>You want to have shoes taxed and insured too?
>>
>> Right son, you're nicked. You clearly haven't got a valid MOT for those Hush Puppies
>> and what's more they're not insured. I have no alternative but to confiscate them and
>> crush them. You'll have to make your own way home....Phew ! Put 'em back on
>> for gawd's sake Mr G...
Hush puppy wearers should be fined.
|
Indeed. Indefensible. But I suppose it's ok if they only do it "rarely"...and outside of London
:-)
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 19:16
|
|
You dont need any special facilities to ensure the safety of Hush Puppy wearers, but they should be fined anyway.
|
I've heard, although it may only be a rumour of course, that there are those who actually do wear them, albeit rarely, but who deny it...Can you believe that? They shouldn't really be fined. Pitied maybe but not scolded...
:-)
|
|
Primark or Hush Puppies. Which is worse? :o)
|
>> Cyclists should be taxed and insured. They cost the country money in accidents and road
>> improvements / facilities, so your opposition is indefensible. You want to do it? you pay
>> for it.
They're also fitter through exercise. Some sources suggest regular cyclists have the body of a person ten years younger.
Yours ever
Bromp with a 43 year old body.
|
|
They get their legs over a lot more too...
|
>> They get their legs over a lot more too...
Sometimes with the wives of those who've gone to seed........
|
>> They get their legs over
a bike
-:)
|
>> Bromp with a 43 year old body.
And a broken hip....
|
....and Humph getting his legS over, which just means he falls of the other side.
Pat
|
|
bicycle crossbars are a genetic evolution, ive smashed my plums on them many times..it just made me a bit weary..on the other hand... a girl bike just makes you realise what a precious thing a woman is...
|
Olympic gold medallist knocked off her bike, thankfully just cuts and bruises and a wrecked bike.
tinyurl.com/cfp268j
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 6 Apr 13 at 22:01
|
Cyclist killed racing - Alanovich
