Typical Cyclist

[Desert Region]

Here’s a novel idea, let’s all (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) learn and adhere to the Highway Code which would have an immediate impact on casualty numbers.

Motorised vehicle riders / drivers have to pass a theory test based on the Highway Code before they can take their driving test also they have to comply with age restrictions.

In theory, cyclists have no age restrictions, do not have to undergo any training (practical or otherwise) to share the same space as motor vehicles.

Also with the amount of poor / dangerous riding being witnessed is it time to make a minimum of 3rd party insurance compulsory for all road users.

Yes, but you're overlooking The PNP's endless demand for special exemption status to be afforded the oppressed victim group that is cyclists.

[Steed]

Yes, but you're overlooking The PNP's endless demand for special exemption status to be afforded the oppressed victim group that is cyclists.

True, and I was also applying some “common sense” which will probably not sit well with certain parties.

[The PNP]

Tell me, no explain to all of us just why cyclists insist on riding up the nearside of left turning traffic, because that’s were your crushed cyclists come from, don’t say, because they can.

It's not only riders who have moved up the left of standing traffic, who are hit. It's riders who have correctly stopped on a red, then had a line of traffic form behind them......What do you suggest an innocent law-abiding rider does, when the massive truck behind them gets a green light and hits the gas pedal - pray?

[The PNP]

A) Here’s a novel idea, let’s all (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) learn and adhere to the Highway Code which would have an immediate impact on casualty numbers.

B) In theory, cyclists have no age restrictions, do not have to undergo any training (practical or otherwise) to share the same space as motor vehicles.

C) Also with the amount of poor / dangerous riding being witnessed is it time to make a minimum of 3rd party insurance compulsory for all road users.

A) Totally agree.....I would also like to see all currently licensed drivers be required to sit and pass a Highway Code theory test periodically, or have their license suspended. Because the Highway Code is regularly updated and I'll bet many drivers are either rusty and/or unaware of the changes/additions. E.g. how many know they should give bikes 1.5m clearance when overtaking?

B) Fyi, cyclists receive on-road training whilst at primary school.

C) Third-party insurance isn't much use when some clown knocks you off your bike.....I'd suggest a comprehensive life-insurance policy (which includes loss of limbs, sight, etc) would be of more value.

[Desert Region]

It's not only riders who have moved up the left of standing traffic, who are hit. It's riders who have correctly stopped on a red, then had a line of traffic form behind them......What do you suggest these innocent law-abiding riders do when the massive truck behind them sets off - prey?

A Freudian slip attesting to your Critical Road User Doctrine (CRUD), with drivers as predators and cyclists as prey.

[Hamble]

You downplay a comment about a cyclist hitting a pedestrian by contrasting it to a cyclist being crushed by a car or artic. Back to the emphasis on the cyclist as victim, never really the perpetrator, and drivers as perpetrators, never really the victims.

You comment on road users as though via a Critical Race Theory style prism, where cyclists are the oppressed minority group, while drivers are the oppressor majority group.

That lumpy approach plays a part in why so many of your posts are disliked.

It is a good point.
Cars can not be replaced they are the best thing since sliced bread!
Bikes are a luxury item for pleasure and only when there is no alternative do they become a necessity.

[silver fox]

I'll say it then: because they can.

In that case it's their own damn fault.

[silver fox]

It's not only riders who have moved up the left of standing traffic, who are hit. It's riders who have correctly stopped on a red, then had a line of traffic form behind them......What do you suggest an innocent law-abiding rider does, when the massive truck behind them gets a green light and hits the gas pedal - pray?

If a cyclist is already at the front of the queue, no truck could possibly out drag the bike to then turn across the path, I would also doubt that anyone would attempt to turn across the front of a bike which is already in front of the traffic, your comment doesn't make sense.

I don't wish injury to anyone, but any damn fool who rides up the nearside of a left turning vehicle is asking for trouble, end of, quoting Highway Code or anything else doesn't fix broken legs or worse, so why do it?

[SteveandLois]

Amazing how many times the PnP replies to a thread regarding any motor vehicles,in this thread alone he has so far made 52 comments........Awaits for yet another one.....

[The PNP]

A) Cars can not be replaced they are the best thing since sliced bread!

B) Bikes are a luxury item for pleasure and only when there is no alternative do they become a necessity.

A) They could well be redesigned though....I know there are families who need four (or more) seats in their cars. But where's the logic in producing only four to six seat cars, when there's also a market for single/twin occupant cars. Not infrequently, one person is all a bulky multi-seat car ever conveys.

There's also plenty of scope for car-sharing, particularly with regular commuters. If every commuter car carried two (or more) people, traffic queues would be greatly reduced, along with greenhouse emissions.

B) Disagree.....While there are 'luxury bikes' costing upwards of £10k, perfectly good used bikes can be bought for as little as £40. There are cargo/delivery bikes, e-bikes, commuter bikes and sports bikes for road and mountain.

I myself have a 'stable' of bikes for multiple purposes. When I take a bike out instead of driving, I'm not only saving money/wear and tear of a vehicle - I'm emitting no CO2. Most commonly I cycle for shopping, but also to keep fit and for pleasure/touring.

[Desert Region]

Amazing how many times the PnP replies to a thread regarding any motor vehicles,in this thread alone he has so far made 52 comments........Awaits for yet another one.....

You waited one whole minute!

[Desert Region]

Letter in this weeks Champion about being hit by a bike on a pelican crossing on Lord St when rider came through red light and also being clipped by a bike on Chapel St. There are just as many morons riding bikes as there are driving motor vehicles but hitting someone on a crossing after ignoring the Red light and carrying on riding takes it up a few notches.

Yes, but in the context of the religious zealotry of this thread, no-one needs to be apprised of the particulars of those incidents. All you need to know is:

Cyclists = good, perhaps even angels
Drivers = bad
Pedestrians = irrelevant

Just remember: The Good, the Bad and the Irrelevant.

If you forget, don't worry: The (F)PnP's posts will always remind you.

[Desert Region]

[The PNP]

A) If a cyclist is already at the front of the queue, no truck could possibly out drag the bike to then turn across the path, I would also doubt that anyone would attempt to turn across the front of a bike which is already in front of the traffic, your comment doesn't make sense.

B) I don't wish injury to anyone, but any damn fool who rides up the nearside of a left turning vehicle is asking for trouble, end of, quoting Highway Code or anything else doesn't fix broken legs or worse, so why do it?

A) Disagree.....A trucks cab may have already overlapped/drawn alongside a bike, a minute or more before the lights go green. What chance does a puny bike in the blindspot have, wobbling away from a standstill when a forgetful truckdriver swings a left?

B) I understand what you're saying. Best solution by far, provide a decent bike path/lane, separated from the traffic by kerbing. Provide a 'legal' left-filter and pref a 'green bike' button. Failing that, a rider must use his/her own judgement in any given situation.

Personally, I feel happier sailing up the outside of a line of standing traffic, than trying to squeeze through between vehicles and kerb. Of course, there's always the option of staying put and 'draughting' the car in front when it sets off - if you've got the legs!

[sandGroundZero]

Presuming perhaps rather a lot here but, I suspect many posters on this & similar (i.e. motor vehicle operators versus cyclists) threads are:

1. comfortably well-off,
2. approaching or in many cases past retirement and
3. have become thoroughly dependent upon their vehicles even for short journeys, or when an alternative would do.

Understandably, it is difficult to conceive of life without the easy access to and use of a personal automobile. Many households have multiple vehicles.

There is no denying that cyclists and pedestrians habitually disregard (road use) conventions for which, when a motor vehicle operator similarly disregards, s/he is liable to fines, penalty points, licence suspension.

The lethality of a ton, or more of mass combined with an engine sufficiently powerful to accelerate quickly and propel it at high speeds has been downplayed as a factor in apparent differential treatment of motorists vis-à-vis other road users. It should be remembered that the Highway Code developed over years with a presumption that modern roads were primarily for motor vehicles and other road users did so at their own risk, with mortal danger always in mind!

The presumption of motor vehicle priority has, at last, become passé. High time. Motorists' lingering resentment (oftentimes accompanied by aggression of one sort or another) is something people need to deal with.

Get over it!