FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Cyclists are annoying.

Cyclists are annoying.

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimson_RoseWoman over a year ago

Tamworth

Yes it is allowed.

I want until it's safe to over take.

No, I don't use my horn in as situation that doesn't require it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So are motorists with no patience!

Especially when horsing riding, they don’t slow down!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Didn't you post this earlier?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Completely allowed as long as there are two lanes (one each way) and you should allow a meter passing room. The cyclist must be within a meter of the curb too I think.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Didn't you post this earlier?

There was a similar post x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimson_RoseWoman over a year ago

Tamworth

"Completely allowed as long as there are two lanes (one each way) and you should allow a meter passing room. The cyclist must be within a meter of the curb too I think. "

There's actually no set distance for a cyclist and in fact you're safer when you're further out

Secondary and primary position... a good, considerate, cyclist knows where to place themselves to suit the traffic and stay safe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My bike wasn’t fitted with a bell when I bought it either!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Completely allowed as long as there are two lanes (one each way) and you should allow a meter passing room. The cyclist must be within a meter of the curb too I think.

There's actually no set distance for a cyclist and in fact you're safer when you're further out

Secondary and primary position... a good, considerate, cyclist knows where to place themselves to suit the traffic and stay safe. "

Too true! I hate nothing more than being passed close, major gripe is being rev’d at or bibbed!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimson_RoseWoman over a year ago

Tamworth

"Completely allowed as long as there are two lanes (one each way) and you should allow a meter passing room. The cyclist must be within a meter of the curb too I think.

There's actually no set distance for a cyclist and in fact you're safer when you're further out

Secondary and primary position... a good, considerate, cyclist knows where to place themselves to suit the traffic and stay safe.

Too true! I hate nothing more than being passed close, major gripe is being rev’d at or bibbed! "

It makes me long for some sort of James Bond style weapon system on my bike.

Perhaps I just found a way to spend my quiet Saturday?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol."

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Bicycle invented in 1817 so two hundred years of the history of cycling

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just a right hand bar end mirror as mandatory equipment.

Add that and 99% of my issues with cycalists disappear.

Its a tiny addition doesnt slow down your race bike (buy rizoma for sexy) but improves safety for all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn? "

The simple rules of the road whoch say cycalists must not ride side by side on a busy road a narrow road or round corners. They should always be aware of traffic behind them and that they must be considerate to other traffic?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

The highway code is quite specific about "must" and "should" .... must is a direct order that is mandatory to obey, should its advisory.

Rule 66 lists a number of shoulds for cyclists including you should never ride more than 2 abreast and in single file on narrow or busy roads. This is advisory, but not enforceable ..

But again, tolerance is a wonderful thing ... from all road users

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

The highway code is quite specific about "must" and "should" .... must is a direct order that is mandatory to obey, should its advisory.

Rule 66 lists a number of shoulds for cyclists including you should never ride more than 2 abreast and in single file on narrow or busy roads. This is advisory, but not enforceable ..

But again, tolerance is a wonderful thing ... from all road users"

Rule 68

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

The highway code is quite specific about "must" and "should" .... must is a direct order that is mandatory to obey, should its advisory.

Rule 66 lists a number of shoulds for cyclists including you should never ride more than 2 abreast and in single file on narrow or busy roads. This is advisory, but not enforceable ..

But again, tolerance is a wonderful thing ... from all road users

Rule 68"

Is about amongst other things riding in an inconsiderate manner .. but what is deemed inconsiderate? Who decides?Especially when you read rule 67

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

The highway code is quite specific about "must" and "should" .... must is a direct order that is mandatory to obey, should its advisory.

Rule 66 lists a number of shoulds for cyclists including you should never ride more than 2 abreast and in single file on narrow or busy roads. This is advisory, but not enforceable ..

But again, tolerance is a wonderful thing ... from all road users

Rule 68

Is about amongst other things riding in an inconsiderate manner .. but what is deemed inconsiderate? Who decides?Especially when you read rule 67"

Sorry, rule 66

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

[Removed by poster at 28/03/19 20:19:44]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *urls and DressesWoman over a year ago

Somewhere near here

Lack of lights frustrate me, had near misses from local youth late at night and see them last minute. No lights on their bikes, no street lights and dark clothes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Bicycle invented in 1817 so two hundred years of the history of cycling

Not really in 1817 it was a velocipede not a bicycle...no pedals and no form of drive..you walked along sitting on it there were no pedal driven 2 wheel machines til the 1860's and even then it was pedals fixed to the front wheel of a velocipede

The first 'safety bicycle' that is the basic form of modern bikes ie: 2 wheels the same size and driven by a chain was actually invented in 1885.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *d59michelleTV/TS over a year ago

walsall

"Lack of lights frustrate me, had near misses from local youth late at night and see them last minute. No lights on their bikes, no street lights and dark clothes

Poor guy riding to work lights on usually the one who gets hit

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

The highway code is quite specific about "must" and "should" .... must is a direct order that is mandatory to obey, should its advisory.

Rule 66 lists a number of shoulds for cyclists including you should never ride more than 2 abreast and in single file on narrow or busy roads. This is advisory, but not enforceable ..

But again, tolerance is a wonderful thing ... from all road users

Rule 68

Is about amongst other things riding in an inconsiderate manner .. but what is deemed inconsiderate? Who decides?Especially when you read rule 67

Sorry, rule 66"

Thank fuck the highway code is a compleltey non binding non legal document eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements"

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement? "

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etitesaraTV/TS over a year ago

rochdale

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol."

Cycles may legally use the FULL width of the lane as they are legally defined as 'carriages

Taylor V Goodwin 1879.

Cycles may ride 2,3,4 abreast, there is no law preventing that & the aforementioned ruling comes into effect.

"It's not the responsibility of the road user ahead to facilitate a safe overtake by the user behind. They will drive/ride to ensure their own safety and use a road position to suit or deter danger. You adapt your driving/riding plan accordingly, they don't change to suit yours"

West Midlands Road Harm Reduction Unit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?"

Exactly this, and you don't see cyclists hooning down the pavement bemoaning the fact there are people walking.

What is wrong with courteous driving, with the outcome of keeping everyone safe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etitesaraTV/TS over a year ago

rochdale

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

Please show where in the HC it says "must" given that "must" in the HC is backed up by Law.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?"

They certainly should, all road users should expect to be safe as should pedestrians what I'm saying is that 2 wrongs dont make a right

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etitesaraTV/TS over a year ago

rochdale

"Completely allowed as long as there are two lanes (one each way) and you should allow a meter passing room. The cyclist must be within a meter of the curb too I think. "

Nope.

Taylor V Goodwin 1879 again.

Operation close pass (devised by West Miss traffic police) defines a close pass as less than 1.5m

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

Please show where in the HC it says "must" given that "must" in the HC is backed up by Law."

Teue it says shpuld bwvwr

never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bend

However it also says

You MUST NOT

ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner

So any inconsiderate cycalists is breaking the law in your view?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 rule 68.

So that means most cyclaists arw criminal depending on your view of considerate.

Good to know

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

------

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

-----

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?"

I agree, there is a bizarre hatred of cyclists, often to the extent of drivers deliberately being intimidating and aggressive towards us... (even starting threads on forums about it).

I cycle ten miles each way to work and back most days, I regularly have drivers pass too close or cut me up... but I've also been pushed off my bike by a driver whilst I was waiting to turn right, I've had things thrown at me out of car windows, been spat at & sworn at. All because I'm riding my bike.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You can explain to some people....but you can't make them understand,never argue/debate with an idiot,they'll just bring you down to their level....and beat you with greater experience

People,cyclists,drivers,pedestrians display bad behaviour,and others don't

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

been on 2 wheels all my life,cycle and motorcycle and seen cars,bikes and cycles do stupid things.bring out a license for them all and make them renewable every 2 year or so like the cbt on motorcycles.regardless of wether its a full license or not.see how many dont pass

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *corpio67Man over a year ago

hillingdon

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol."

You follow them at 20 mph for 20 mins

Overtake

Then come to a set of lights

And follow them again for another 20 mins!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"been on 2 wheels all my life,cycle and motorcycle and seen cars,bikes and cycles do stupid things.bring out a license for them all and make them renewable every 2 year or so like the cbt on motorcycles.regardless of wether its a full license or not.see how many dont pass"

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *corpio67Man over a year ago

hillingdon

"So are motorists with no patience!

Especially when horsing riding, they don’t slow down! "

Always slow down when passing and get a thank you salute for being polite!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal"

Under 16 ride on pavement over 16 do your cbt ride on road.

Who gives a fuck if it puts people off aftwr all it "saves lives" the environmental impact of every cycalist cycling is writen off by every new aircraft in service

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *corpio67Man over a year ago

hillingdon

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements"

Well that one is out of the window!!!

Road.pavement. pedestrian crossing. Road. Just to avoid a red light!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecretpantyTV/TS over a year ago

lisburn

When I was a kid you kept as close to the kerb as you could. Why have things changed so much?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *corpio67Man over a year ago

hillingdon

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement? "

I take it you have never been to Tokyo or Kyoto!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

what they should do it have a Cyclists line like they have in Amsterdam where they have it then no one get cross with them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"what they should do it have a Cyclists line like they have in Amsterdam where they have it then no one get cross with them

You mesn like all the bus lanes in Chester

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

Well that one is out of the window!!!

Road.pavement. pedestrian crossing. Road. Just to avoid a red light!"

Elbow, face, a&e, police, fine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal"

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

I also dont understand the reluctance to have their bikes registered or to have insurance like every other road user. Im not saying they should have to pay for any form of VED im just asking why there is this reluctance on their part to abide by what every other road user has to abide by.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ENGUYMan over a year ago

Hull

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements"

Unless it is signposted as a shared pedestrian and marked cycling area. Problem is that the inconsiderate cyclists now deem ALL pavements to be it this way!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

Unless it is signposted as a shared pedestrian and marked cycling area. Problem is that the inconsiderate cyclists now deem ALL pavements to be it this way!"

I’m one of those, I even bought a full suspension bike to make it more comfy going up and down pavements.

I’m a bad human being

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *corpio67Man over a year ago

hillingdon

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

------

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

-----

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?

I agree, there is a bizarre hatred of cyclists, often to the extent of drivers deliberately being intimidating and aggressive towards us... (even starting threads on forums about it).

Cal"

I don't think it's because your riding a bike!

You buy a bike go on the roads job done

You buy a car ...

Pass a test

Insurance

Road tax

MOT

Fuel

Servicing

Replacing parts

Plus VAT

and the rest!!!!

Motorists pay for the roads

Cyclists just use them free of charge!

Accident.. don't worry the car is insured for a claim

The cyclist is uninsured!

And people wonder why motorists get a bit annoyed!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided"

If you think, you can work it out.

They currently are not required to by law, so why would they be enthusiastic to pay something they don’t have to pay? Nevertheless, thousands of cyclists choose to pay to have insurance, and choose to pay to have their cycles registered.

If car drivers had a similar choice not to pay, do you think most would choose to pay?

As a society, we need to both encourage cyclists for health and environmental reasons, and discourage car ownership for health and environmental reasons. One of the ways our government seeks to achieve this is by making the ability to cycle less costly and administratively onerous than driving, and vice versa.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ENGUYMan over a year ago

Hull

My brother cycles to and from work each day. Recently, he was knocked over by a guy in his car who didn't allow sufficient overtaking room; the car's wing mirror actually knocked into my brother!

The driver thought he had allowed enough room, didn't apologise and drove off after ranting abuse.

A few miles up the road, he was found talking to police officers; he'd apparently skimmed parked cars when passing, knocking off their mirrors and causing panel damage to each car.

He still disputed that he'd allowed enough room! Wonder how he'll convince a court with that?

But some car drivers don't know the size of their vehicles let alone how to drive them!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

------

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

-----

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?

I agree, there is a bizarre hatred of cyclists, often to the extent of drivers deliberately being intimidating and aggressive towards us... (even starting threads on forums about it).

Cal

I don't think it's because your riding a bike!

You buy a bike go on the roads job done

You buy a car ...

Pass a test

Insurance

Road tax

MOT

Fuel

Servicing

Replacing parts

Plus VAT

and the rest!!!!

Motorists pay for the roads

Cyclists just use them free of charge!

Accident.. don't worry the car is insured for a claim

The cyclist is uninsured!

And people wonder why motorists get a bit annoyed!!!"

Cyclists also pay for nearly all of those.

What do you think fuels a bicycle? Magic?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However rule 64 is important and cyclists should take note:

You MUST NOT cycle on pavements

I'd rather take my chances breaking this law than take my life in my hands on the road hearing the attitude of some

------

I understand what you are saying but what about the lives of the pedestrians including children and OAP's who arent expecting a cyclist on the pavement?

-----

Shouldn't cyclists also expect to be safe on the road?

I agree, there is a bizarre hatred of cyclists, often to the extent of drivers deliberately being intimidating and aggressive towards us... (even starting threads on forums about it).

Cal

I don't think it's because your riding a bike!

You buy a bike go on the roads job done

You buy a car ...

Pass a test

Insurance

Road tax

MOT

Fuel

Servicing

Replacing parts

Plus VAT

and the rest!!!!

Motorists pay for the roads

Cyclists just use them free of charge!

Accident.. don't worry the car is insured for a claim

The cyclist is uninsured!

And people wonder why motorists get a bit annoyed!!!

Cyclists also pay for nearly all of those.

What do you think fuels a bicycle? Magic?

Insurance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided"

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

As for registering bikes, no country on the world does this and there's a quite obvious reason for that, it would be impossible to do. Are children exempt? Is my track bike exempt? What about a mountain bike that I only use off road? Where would the number go? Who would check it and how? It's impossible

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes, they are annoying (anything that messes with the flow of traffic is a hindrance), but also a nessesity - there just needs to be more cycle paths to get them off the roads made for cars.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There are already too many shit drivers around, messing things up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

Actually I disagree, at the moment if you dont use a vehicle on any public road it doesnt need to be registered, if you do it does. And if a moped or motorbike can have a registration plate fitted how is a bicycle different, As for checking plates the only time any road user normally gets his plates checked is if they have broken any rules. As for how the same way every other road user has his plates checked nowadays by ANPR. And finally if a child uses his bike on the road then why would they be exempt? As I said im not saying cyclists need to pay any VED so what difference would it make to cyclists other than making them able to be traced and checked the same as everyone else. As for most cyclists having insurance I dont know. What I do know however is that every other road user has to have it regardless not some or most but all. As I said previously perhaps I'm wrong I have been before and no doubt will be again but if I am can somebody please explain to me where and why I am wrong in this instance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

"So are motorists with no patience!

Especially when horsing riding, they don’t slow down! "

I read a story of a horse rider getting clipped by a close passing car, it didn't hit the horse but bent the foot part of the stirrups.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"what they should do it have a Cyclists line like they have in Amsterdam where they have it then no one get cross with them

You mesn like all the bus lanes in Chester "
nope because they still ride of the sidewalk

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So are motorists with no patience!

Especially when horsing riding, they don’t slow down!

I read a story of a horse rider getting clipped by a close passing car, it didn't hit the horse but bent the foot part of the stirrups."

Eh? That makes no sense given how a striup is made

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

"Especially when you drive as some of them are using the whole lane, the same goes when they are 2 they are beside eachother and dont move, is it allowed, what do you do, do you beep at them? Lol.

I think maybe you need to consider are you a safe motorist?

Why do you think you have primacy over them? Why do you not know simple rules of the road?

And why the LOL? Do you think it is funny to try and intimidate vulnerable road users by using your horn?

Side by side doesnt bother me tbh but i can see why its others especialy when its contra indicated by the highway code.

The highway code is quite specific about "must" and "should" .... must is a direct order that is mandatory to obey, should its advisory.

Rule 66 lists a number of shoulds for cyclists including you should never ride more than 2 abreast and in single file on narrow or busy roads. This is advisory, but not enforceable ..

But again, tolerance is a wonderful thing ... from all road users"

Let's not forget these rules.

Rule 211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

Rule 211: Look out for motorcyclists and cyclists at junctions

Rule 212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

Rule 213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

[Removed by poster at 28/03/19 23:51:18]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

I'll be working on the assumption that policy-making is a rational tool to create a better society, not a punishment for perceived irritants. This isn't always the case but it's a necessary premise: if you simply have a gut feeling that cyclists should be taught some sort of lesson and you're not interested in the evidence then there's no point even starting.

And finally: just because I'm against regulating cyclists doesn't mean I approve of reckless riding or believe it shouldn't be policed. I'd also encourage cyclists to be trained (Bikeability is the gold standard in the UK) and insured.

But I wouldn't seek to compel them. Why? The (very) short answer is that it would bring remarkably few benefits while causing a lot of harm.

Cycling and cyclists are good for society; good for everyone, in fact. You might not like our funny, Lycra-wearing ways, but it's an undeniable truth. If 50% of a hypothetical city's car drivers abandoned their vehicles overnight for bikes it would slash pollution and congestion (for the remaining drivers, too), also bringing less wear to the roads and better health for the new cyclists. It would additionally, at a stroke, dramatically cut the numbers of people killed or badly hurt on the roads, saving millions of pounds and – more importantly – reducing the number of lives lost or devastated through grief or grave injury.

Everyone's a winner. And what would be the best way of discouraging people from cycling? Making them leap through a host of bureaucratic hoops first.

Cycling's appeal is that it is gloriously simple and impulsive, a habit usually acquired in childhood. It's been shown time and again that even compulsory helmet wearing reduces cyclist numbers. Imagine what would happen if you introduced a registry of bikes and riders, which you'd need to make any licence and insurance scheme viable. Only the truly committed would trek to the test centre, fill in the forms for number plates and screw them onto the frame.

And would you make it obligatory for adults only? If not, teenagers would need to carry proof of ID with them every time they rode to the shops.

Bike use would plummet, and suddenly you have a deadlier, less healthy, more congested city.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

I'm a motorist and a cyclist.

In my option all rd cyclist should have to take a highway code practical a bit like a driving test. Cyclist who use the rd should also adhere to the highway code ie stop at traffic lights etc.

All rd cyclist should be insured should they be involved in an accident.

Cars that park in cycling lanes should get tickets the same as parking on double yellow lines.

There were police cyclist out recently who were fining motorist who didn't leave appreciate overtaking space.

I dont know the answer but I do know why are people sweating the small stuff...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'll start with a bit of clarification. Some of the bikes-need-regulating brigade mention a lack of road tax. I'm going to avoid that particular argumentative cul de sac, not least because we've cleared it up previously on the blog.

Secondly, I'll be working on the assumption that policy-making is a rational tool to create a better society, not a punishment for perceived irritants. This isn't always the case but it's a necessary premise: if you simply have a gut feeling that cyclists should be taught some sort of lesson and you're not interested in the evidence then there's no point even starting.

But I wouldn't seek to compel them. Why? The (very) short answer is that it would bring remarkably few benefits while causing a lot of harm.

Everyone's a winner. And what would be the best way of discouraging people from cycling? Making them leap through a host of bureaucratic hoops first.

And would you make it obligatory for adults only? If not, teenagers would need to carry proof of ID with them every time they rode to the shops.

Bike use would plummet, and suddenly you have a deadlier, less healthy, more congested city."

Insurance should be mandatory.

Say a cycalist runs a red and takes me out who is paying the 18k for my bike?

Who is paying the potential hundreds of thousands for my injuries or life changing damsge

You need id to biy a can of redbul ffs so thats a bs argument

Saying numbers would plummet with regulation is an utter nonsense argument.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?"

Over the last 5 years an average of 2.5 million cars have been registered per annum. So I cannot see how registering 1/2 million bikes retrospectively or not would be an issue as for an overseas bike it would be exactly the same as someone bringing an overseas car into the country.

This is precisely my point though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows. "

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

[Removed by poster at 29/03/19 00:04:47]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Man i wish i could say mt 250cc ninja isnt worth thousands so it didnt need insurance.

I bet most car drivers in old bangers would feel the same too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

Yeah currently being law isnt an argument for future laws.

Otherwise we wouldn't have gay marriage and hate crime against ts would be legal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Slavery would still be legal too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue"

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

Yeah currently being law isnt an argument for future laws.

Otherwise we wouldn't have gay marriage and hate crime against ts would be legal"

But it stops the whining car drivers, as it states clearly motorised vehicles need insurance, licenses, and pay a duty if the vehicles are used on public highways.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you."

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you."
hes on one tonight isnt he

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 29/03/19 00:10:48]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

My vehicle insurance isnt cheap either and I dont have to have vehicle insurance to replace or repair my vehicle if its damaged. I have to have insurance to repair or replace someone elses or god forbid pay for someone's care and hospital bills if they get hurt. So the value of your vehicle is actually pretty irrelevant "

Exactly your insurance has nothing to do with your vehicle it has to Do with the life changing injuries you can inflict upon others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact"

What I said is maybe thats why some cyclist dont see the value. I dont know why because if you look up the thread I said it should be mandatory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.hes on one tonight isnt he

Aww im sorry boo did i upset you by not declaring dirty talking fantasits nasty dangerous perverts ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

What I said is maybe thats why some cyclist dont see the value. I dont know why because if you look up the thread I said it should be mandatory."
it should be mandaptory yes but your point is invalid and stupid iregardless

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.hes on one tonight isnt he

Cyclists are not using an engine, there for no insurance.

Cyclists are not using an engine, therefore no vehicle excise duty.

Cylists are not using a motorised vehicle, so no need for a license.

Only motorised vehicles need these.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.hes on one tonight isnt he

Cyclists are not using an engine, there for no insurance.

Cyclists are not using an engine, therefore no vehicle excise duty.

Cylists are not using a motorised vehicle, so no need for a license.

Only motorised vehicles need these."

Slaves arent people hence no rights

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

What I said is maybe thats why some cyclist dont see the value. I dont know why because if you look up the thread I said it should be mandatory. it should be mandaptory yes but your point is invalid and stupid iregardless "

Whatever buttercup

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it."
why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Interesting point, I haven't actually objected to it.

Another interesting point you can't explain how a system would work just how you want it to work.

And as no country anywhere on the world operates such a system I again ask why you think it is necessary? Particulaly as you've already said cyclists shouldn't pay for it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it.why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Because when you paralyze me or destroy tend of thousand of pounds of my property i would like to be compensated at more than 2 pound a week

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it.why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Do you use the rds? Do you have insurance? Just out of interest?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup"

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance."

Ao when your on your motorbike a cycalist runs a red light hits you, you come hit the curb your paralyzed.

You get nothing as the cyclist has nothing to pay for you

Your happy?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it.why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Because when you paralyze me or destroy tend of thousand of pounds of my property i would like to be compensated at more than 2 pound a week "

Are there a lot of accidents caused by cyclists that leave other road users paralysed? Can the 17lb of carbon fibre I ride really do that much damage to another vehicle?

Are you not maybe being a little over dramatic here?

And what happens when I get hit by an uninsured motorist?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

At 30 or 40 mph a cyclist hitting a pedestrian could and probably would cause life changing injuries if not even loss of a human life. How can you possibly say thats petty?

As for the rest I have stated several times that im not asking or saying cyclists should pay any form of VED. Neither have I said that I dont know the legalities of why they dont need a test or insurance. I'm simply asking why they should be treated differently to any other road user.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pider-WomanWoman over a year ago

Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth, Truro

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance."

I think you should move your bed against another wall tonight then tomorrow get out a different side.

Your tone is uncalled for and unpleasant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it.why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Do you use the rds? Do you have insurance? Just out of interest?"
no I'm not a fan of insurance managed to avoid it most of my life in all its forms, had to have it to drive a car of course legal requirement .Insurance is based on the premise ' if ' something happens and it's never happened

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it.why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Because when you paralyze me or destroy tend of thousand of pounds of my property i would like to be compensated at more than 2 pound a week

Are there a lot of accidents caused by cyclists that leave other road users paralysed? Can the 17lb of carbon fibre I ride really do that much damage to another vehicle?

Are you not maybe being a little over dramatic here?

And what happens when I get hit by an uninsured motorist?

The MIB pays you.

And motorbikes sunshine. 17lb of cf with 80kg of human on it if perfectly capable of killing us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance.

I think you should move your bed against another wall tonight then tomorrow get out a different side.

Your tone is uncalled for and unpleasant.

"
ok i was a cunt spider womans sound

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance.

Ao when your on your motorbike a cycalist runs a red light hits you, you come hit the curb your paralyzed.

You get nothing as the cyclist has nothing to pay for you

Your happy?

Actually I am very satisfied with it.

I am fucked off with the car driver that knocked me off my bike, broke my leg and arm, lied to the police and got away scot free.

Get off your soapbox and tell me what you intend to do with the motorists who don't pay vehicle excise duty on their cars, don't have a valid driving license, doing have any insurance. As these are MANDATORY, not just someone stupid idea of what should be mandatory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nobMan over a year ago

newport

I'm a cyclist but I cycle alone!

I let motorist past but I still get harassed!

The reason for that is there are far too many selfish annoying anacist cyclist out there that ride in groups or clubs who have no regard for other road users!

I glad sometimes when hear they get there comeuppance!

However it's usually safe sensible respectful cyclist like myself ( easy targets) that get it!

If your wondering I do dislike lorry drivers, van drivers, bus drivers,BMW,Audi, Mercedes, 4x4/SUV, Pick up truck,Volvo drivers and possibly some more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

At 30 or 40 mph a cyclist hitting a pedestrian could and probably would cause life changing injuries if not even loss of a human life. How can you possibly say thats petty?

Do you know how many cyclists can manage to travel at 30-40mph. The while premise of this thread is that they are slow and cause congestion but now they are all riding around at 40mph!

And the reality is cyclists cause very very few fatalities or life changing injuries. While motorists kill or injure thousands of other road users every year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm a cyclist but I cycle alone!

I let motorist past but I still get harassed!

The reason for that is there are far too many selfish annoying anacist cyclist out there that ride in groups or clubs who have no regard for other road users!

I glad sometimes when hear they get there comeuppance!

However it's usually safe sensible respectful cyclist like myself ( easy targets) that get it!

If your wondering I do dislike lorry drivers, van drivers, bus drivers,BMW,Audi, Mercedes, 4x4/SUV, Pick up truck,Volvo drivers and possibly some more.

Really on the lorry driver aspect?

Ive found artic drivers to actually be really curetious to my as a motorcyclist, but i do always give them room

And im forever grateful to the artic driver who formed a roadblock for me after a bad motorway accident. At the time i thought he was gonna take my legs as i crawled out of the lane but he Did some godamn voodo to block two lanes and give me time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

whenever someone mentions cycling proficiency tests for road using cyclists or insurance or registering bikes there is always a cyclist objecting to it and I still dont understand why...Why is it or should it be different for cyclists as opposed to any other road user. As I've said before I'm not saying they should pay VED of any form just that they should be treated the same as all other road users why does that seem to be such an issue or problem. I simply dont get it.why does everything have to be paid for ,what's the philosophy behind that ?I've always cycled but got so sick of driving because of the constant fines for speeding 31 in a 30 being one that I decided to ditch the very expensive to run car ,I now walk ,cycle and use train and the benefits are amazing I'm healthier better off and free of the stigma of fines ,speed awareness courses points on your licence ,road rage then ,MOTs, road tax ,parking tickets ,fines and parking wardens .Cycling is truly freedom from beurocracy and the legal system I recommend it to small minded pedantic car users who can't stand paying all the aforesaid so want to see us the cyclist stifled by the same crud ,get on a bicycle and experience it's true freedom you can wear normal clothes ya know and you get fit doing it

Because when you paralyze me or destroy tend of thousand of pounds of my property i would like to be compensated at more than 2 pound a week

Are there a lot of accidents caused by cyclists that leave other road users paralysed? Can the 17lb of carbon fibre I ride really do that much damage to another vehicle?

Are you not maybe being a little over dramatic here?

And what happens when I get hit by an uninsured motorist?

When you get up and wrap it round the driver's head, I think that does a lot of damage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance.

Ao when your on your motorbike a cycalist runs a red light hits you, you come hit the curb your paralyzed.

You get nothing as the cyclist has nothing to pay for you

Your happy?

Actually I am very satisfied with it.

I am fucked off with the car driver that knocked me off my bike, broke my leg and arm, lied to the police and got away scot free.

Have thier car crushed.

You know like we do now

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Theirs a few people on soap boxes here ,get a bicycle get healthy and ditch beurocracy, it's truly freedom of the road that saying has had its day for the motorist

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

At 30 or 40 mph a cyclist hitting a pedestrian could and probably would cause life changing injuries if not even loss of a human life. How can you possibly say thats petty?

I think he/she was referring to the fact that cyclists can go as fast as cars.

I read it as the pettiness of the unnecessary insurance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

At 30 or 40 mph a cyclist hitting a pedestrian could and probably would cause life changing injuries if not even loss of a human life. How can you possibly say thats petty?

Do you know how many cyclists can manage to travel at 30-40mph. The while premise of this thread is that they are slow and cause congestion but now they are all riding around at 40mph!

And the reality is cyclists cause very very few fatalities or life changing injuries. While motorists kill or injure thousands of other road users every year "

On the 30 to 40 mph bit, I hit that most days on my training rides.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance.

Ao when your on your motorbike a cycalist runs a red light hits you, you come hit the curb your paralyzed.

You get nothing as the cyclist has nothing to pay for you

Your happy?

Actually I am very satisfied with it.

I am fucked off with the car driver that knocked me off my bike, broke my leg and arm, lied to the police and got away scot free.

Have thier car crushed.

You know like we do now"

no matter the vehicle,every 2 years take a safety test to make sure the person is safe to use said vehicles.if this was done then maybe the car that caused my crash and screwed up my leg(they didnt stop at a junction)maybe could have been avoided or the car that pulled out of a carpark that then decided to drive over my son(yes,over him)then again maybe could have been avoided.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Theirs a few people on soap boxes here ,get a bicycle get healthy and ditch beurocracy, it's truly freedom of the road that saying has had its day for the motorist

I never know whether to hug you or beat you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Maybe it's because cycling insurance isn't cheap. So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value. Who knows.

Err 3rd party is the requirement

The cost of your peice of shit bike isnt the issue its the person you damage thats the issue

Excuse me. I have cycling insurance to cover myself and a motorist should there be an accident. Life cover is important to me how dare you.

Yeah you cant say "So most people who have a bike not worth thousands dont see the value." Then get arsey about people being pissed by that fact

Whatever buttercup

But there is no need for them to have insurance, just because you think it is mandatory doesn't mean it is right.

Road traffic act clearly states motorised vehicles used on public highways need insurance, cyclists don't have an engine therefore no need for insurance.

Ao when your on your motorbike a cycalist runs a red light hits you, you come hit the curb your paralyzed.

You get nothing as the cyclist has nothing to pay for you

Your happy?

Actually I am very satisfied with it.

I am fucked off with the car driver that knocked me off my bike, broke my leg and arm, lied to the police and got away scot free.

Have thier car crushed.

You know like we do now

Sure. I mean insurance seems a more sensible step but im all for regular testing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

On the 30 to 40 mph bit, I hit that most days on my training rides."

Hah bloke i work with sets of the 30 warning sign every day on his push bike.

Dudes a machine....has Insurance too through his club though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

[Removed by poster at 29/03/19 00:45:52]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

On the 30 to 40 mph bit, I hit that most days on my training rides.

Hah bloke i work with sets of the 30 warning sign every day on his push bike.

Dudes a machine....has Insurance too through his club though"

I have a mate who likes to speed up as a car comes up to him, especially as they approach a speed camera. After all bikes don't get done for speeding.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Theirs a few people on soap boxes here ,get a bicycle get healthy and ditch beurocracy, it's truly freedom of the road that saying has had its day for the motorist

I never know whether to hug you or beat you"
lol hey hug me i may be bigger than you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Theirs a few people on soap boxes here ,get a bicycle get healthy and ditch beurocracy, it's truly freedom of the road that saying has had its day for the motorist

I never know whether to hug you or beat youlol hey hug me i may be bigger than you

"
hmm good point.

I will reluctantly share lemon drizzle cake with you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Theirs a few people on soap boxes here ,get a bicycle get healthy and ditch beurocracy, it's truly freedom of the road that saying has had its day for the motorist

I never know whether to hug you or beat youlol hey hug me i may be bigger than you

hmm good point.

I will reluctantly share lemon drizzle cake with you"
omg it's a fav of mine I don't eat cake but a friends mum makes this love it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

On the 30 to 40 mph bit, I hit that most days on my training rides.

Hah bloke i work with sets of the 30 warning sign every day on his push bike.

Dudes a machine....has Insurance too through his club though

I have a mate who likes to speed up as a car comes up to him, especially as they approach a speed camera. After all bikes don't get done for speeding."

Haha. Hes about 30% titainium at this point though.

Weirdly more mc crashes than me but its the cycle crashes that got him

I just want bar end mirrors on cycles and insurance but id settle fkr bar ends

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The issue with that is that it will firstly put people off what is a healthy and environmentally conscious method of travel, but also brings the question of what you do about children.

Cal

Why should it put people off? If they are a responsible road user it shouldnt. And if I remember my youth I had to take a cycling proficiency test before my mum and dad let me on the road

I dont have any axes to grind we are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

What I dont understand though is the reluctance of cyclists to take some form of cycling proficiency test to see if they are safe to be on the road the same as all the other road users.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a little one sided

You do know that many cyclists do actually have insurance?

So say there are half a million bikes around the country. How do you register them all retrospectively?

And if a cyclist from overseas brings their bike here what then?

This is precisely my point though

Easy answer.

It is stated in the road traffic act that

a) Motorised vehicles that are used on public need insurance.

b) Motorised vehicles need the user to pass a test and hold a valid license.

c) Motorised vehicles that are used on public roads need Vehicle excise duty.

The key being motorised, just cause a cyclist can do 30 to 40 mph, they don't have a motor, therefore none of the petty things you highlighted are relevant.

At 30 or 40 mph a cyclist hitting a pedestrian could and probably would cause life changing injuries if not even loss of a human life. How can you possibly say thats petty?

Do you know how many cyclists can manage to travel at 30-40mph. The while premise of this thread is that they are slow and cause congestion but now they are all riding around at 40mph!

And the reality is cyclists cause very very few fatalities or life changing injuries. While motorists kill or injure thousands of other road users every year "

It doesnt matter whether its a few or thousands every life changing injury or loss of life is a tragedy!!!

I wasnt the one who said 30-40 that was a cyclist on here, as for the slow cyclist premise you are talking about at no point have I slagged or derided cyclists in any way in fact my premise has already been stated that all road users be they motorists cyclists or pedestrians are all using the roads and we should all use them responsibly and safely whether we are driving cycling or walking.

As for statistics yes cyclists do cause a lot less injuries but then there are approx 1.7 million daily cyclists in the uk. Whereas there are 37.5 million registered vehicles so yes while cars undoubtedly cause more injuries at a ratio of approx 22:1 its not surprising. But as I said every single life changing accident or loss of life no matter how it is caused is a tragedy

All I have been asking is why does it seem to be such an issue to cyclists to have the questions raised about cycling proficiency registration and insurance and to be the same as every other road user

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

On the 30 to 40 mph bit, I hit that most days on my training rides.

Hah bloke i work with sets of the 30 warning sign every day on his push bike.

Dudes a machine....has Insurance too through his club though

I have a mate who likes to speed up as a car comes up to him, especially as they approach a speed camera. After all bikes don't get done for speeding.

Haha. Hes about 30% titainium at this point though.

Weirdly more mc crashes than me but its the cycle crashes that got him

I just want bar end mirrors on cycles and insurance but id settle fkr bar ends"

Personally I would like to see more drivers follow the highway code, when near vulnerable road users.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

On the 30 to 40 mph bit, I hit that most days on my training rides.

Hah bloke i work with sets of the 30 warning sign every day on his push bike.

Dudes a machine....has Insurance too through his club though

I have a mate who likes to speed up as a car comes up to him, especially as they approach a speed camera. After all bikes don't get done for speeding.

Haha. Hes about 30% titainium at this point though.

Weirdly more mc crashes than me but its the cycle crashes that got him

I just want bar end mirrors on cycles and insurance but id settle fkr bar ends

Personally I would like to see more drivers follow the highway code, when near vulnerable road users."

Remove the vunerable users problem solved!!!

Humans are humans hence insurance