Road tax for cyclists

[Brando7]

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Government-in-talks-over.5642372.jp

What will the goverment come up wi next :grr: :grr:

[Hibbyradge]

This looks like just a sensationalist story about someone's "blue-sky" idea, which could never come to pass, imo.

It would cost more to police the scheme than it would raise, much like the old dog license.

Edit: I just read the last 2 paragraphs;

"It would be completely impractical. Something like that would cost ten times the total investment in cycling to administer. The message missing from this plan is thatit is a great way of getting around that's pleasurable."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Scottish ministers have no plans to charge cyclists for using the roads in Scotland."

[Judas Iscariot]

I don't agree with road tax for cyclists but if they are road going they surely MUST have to be insured..

They are a constant menace, i know of at least 10 incidents where the cyclist has damaged a car, totally their fault and all through to them having zero road sense..

Stay on the pavements..

[Hibbyradge]

I don't agree with road tax for cyclists but if they are road going they surely MUST have to be insured..

They are a constant menace, i know of at least 10 incidents where the cyclist has damaged a car, totally their fault and all through to them having zero road sense..

Stay on the pavements..

Keep your distance when passing a cyclist.

[Judas Iscariot]

Keep your distance when passing a cyclist.

Indeed..

If they didn't spend so much of their time trying to undertake people on the blindside they wouldn't get wiped out..

[Woody1985]

This looks like just a sensationalist story about someone's "blue-sky" idea, which could never come to pass, imo.

It would cost more to police the scheme than it would raise, much like the old dog license.

Edit: I just read the last 2 paragraphs;

"It would be completely impractical. Something like that would cost ten times the total investment in cycling to administer. The message missing from this plan is thatit is a great way of getting around that's pleasurable."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Scottish ministers have no plans to charge cyclists for using the roads in Scotland."

I agree, that was my first thought.

It's a small part of the proposal to make sure that all aspects are covered. Without the question being raised it would be half assed and making assumptions that they shouldn't.

No one should be allowed to use the roads without having passed a theory test.

People cycling to work in their work clothes e.g office and shop assistant staff should be banned from the roads. How can anyone do that? Cycling to work, getting sweaty, dirty etc before going to work and meeting people. YOU SICKEN ME. If anyone on here does that then you need to have a good look at your personal hygiene.

[Darth Hibbie]

I agree, that was my first thought.

It's a small part of the proposal to make sure that all aspects are covered. Without the question being raised it would be half assed and making assumptions that they shouldn't.

No one should be allowed to use the roads without having passed a theory test.

People cycling to work in their work clothes e.g office and shop assistant staff should be banned from the roads. How can anyone do that? Cycling to work, getting sweaty, dirty etc before going to work and meeting people. YOU SICKEN ME. If anyone on here does that then you need to have a good look at your personal hygiene.

I bet there are many on here (including me) that have never sat a theory test. Back in the day we used to learn the highway code without having to sit a test on it.

IMO it is not that people do not know the theory or the highway code they just choose to ignore it that includes motorists and cyclists.

Totally agree with that last part. I know a guy that used to put trainers on with his suit and run to work and change his shoes when he got there :wtf:

I occasionally cycle to work, however I have showers available to me and certainly do not cycle in my work clothes.

[Just Jimmy]

I agree, that was my first thought.

It's a small part of the proposal to make sure that all aspects are covered. Without the question being raised it would be half assed and making assumptions that they shouldn't.

No one should be allowed to use the roads without having passed a theory test.

People cycling to work in their work clothes e.g office and shop assistant staff should be banned from the roads. How can anyone do that? Cycling to work, getting sweaty, dirty etc before going to work and meeting people. YOU SICKEN ME. If anyone on here does that then you need to have a good look at your personal hygiene.

As a cyclist, I agree. I would never imagine cycling in anything other than proper cycling gear. shorts, top, helmet and cycling shoes as a basic, I see folk going to work in the morning in suits etc and cringe. I'm all for welcoming and encouraging to the sport or hobby, but don't be bloody stupid about it.

It's a sport but it's life or death if not treated with respect.

[J-C]

I'd like to know how much it's going to cost to make sure every bike has a license, the police have enough to do already without checking out thousands if bikes for their tax discs. Surely a better thing would be for all bikes to have some form of insurance incase of accidents, how many accidents do you know about that was caused by a cyclist cycling between cars, or cutting through junctions.

[BravestHibs]

I used to be a bicycle courier in Edinburgh and I agree alot of cyclists tend to ignore the rules of the road, myself included. I used to fly through red lights without even slowing down, cut cars, buses, taxis as well as other cyclists up, but this was purely for the adrenaline rush as I ended up having to do more and more risky manouvers to get the same enjoyment. And I didn't even wear a helmet. I was only young at the time and when I look back at some of the stuff I used to do I cringe to myself. I honestly can't believe I never had a very serious accident.The introduction of road tax for cyclists would only make less people cycle as well as criminalising those who didn't get it. For a government who bang on about a greener country this would be a ridiculous thing to introduce.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't agree with road tax for cyclists but if they are road going they surely MUST have to be insured..

They are a constant menace, i know of at least 10 incidents where the cyclist has damaged a car, totally their fault and all through to them having zero road sense..

Stay on the pavements..

I agree, I was saying the same thing driving through the meadows yesterday. It's an old bugbear, but I also think that the police should be enforcing the laws people who cycle without lights on their bike.

[speedy_gonzales]

I've not read the original article (yet), but we have to clarify if this is tax or VED. If it is the latter, it will be classed as a zero emission vehicle, which is £0.
As for insurance, a lot of household insurance policies have legal and 3rd party cover these days, you might find their is cover there.
I agree that ALL road users should have some sort of compulsory understanding of the highway code. I dunno if I'd go as far as a test but certainly some sort of proficiency should be demonstrated. I'd even go as far to get everyone, as part of a driving test, to have an hour on a bike, an hour on a scooter(motorbike), and heck, why not even an hour on a horse! That way, everyone can appreciate other road users postioning and perspective.

[blackpoolhibs]

I agree, tax discs, MOT and insurance too.:devil:

[LeithWalkHibby]

Whether cycling or driving a car I tend to use traffic lights as a "guide". Quick glance around, check no police or other cars are about, then plough through regardless of the colour. Life's too short for waiting at traffic lights. Never been in an accident either (apart from once when I sent a pensioner over the bonnet - her fault).

[Monts]

How about just providing more, better maintained and accessable cycle lanes? :dunno:

[MB62]

I don't agree with road tax for cyclists but if they are road going they surely MUST have to be insured..

They are a constant menace, i know of at least 10 incidents where the cyclist has damaged a car, totally their fault and all through to them having zero road sense..

Stay on the pavements..

cycling on PAVEMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A bicycle is for roads NOT pavements. Why should pedestrians have to spend their time dodging lunatics on bikes because they can't abide by the rules of the road?

I believe in Germany they cycle on the pavements but they actually have designated cycle lanes on the pavements, which is fine.

I don't agree that bikes should have to pay road tax but I certainly believe that every bike owner should register their bike and be insured. If it was run by the government rather private companies, it might work better that way.

[PiemanP]

Whether cycling or driving a car I tend to use traffic lights as a "guide". Quick glance around, check no police or other cars are about, then plough through regardless of the colour. Life's too short for waiting at traffic lights. Never been in an accident either (apart from once when I sent a pensioner over the bonnet - her fault).

:faf:

[Speedy]

It seems like a complete nothing story. A bit like the one about Ryanair charging a pound for the toilet

[Woody1985]

How about just providing more, better maintained and accessable cycle lanes? :dunno:

Providing it is not funded by road tax...


Here's my situation, I drive (previously to work, social etc) and I now cycle to work. I'm not going to pretend I give a **** about the environment when it comes to my cars emissions, if I could drive to work every day I would.

The bottom line is I cycle to work because it's cheaper and it's helping me get fitter (apart from breathing in fumes from buses :grr:). Personally I go through red lights when there is no one crossing / there's no danger / when the green man is showing.

I also cycle to work because it is quicker than public transport and I have the bonus of not sitting next to some fat stink blowing their nose and listening to marylin manson. You will never see me on public transport going to and from work again.

I always try to be courteous to car drivers and give them right of way, speed up when I'm causing them to slow down, pull over to the side as far as possible etc etc.

The majority of cyclist going into work tend to be people with good bikes, kitted out properly and respect the roads IMO. I suspect most are drivers as well.

My impatience for idiot drivers and cyclists is equal.

There are people who look like they've never seen a bike before on our roads. Swaying all over the place, barely keep the bike stable etc etc.

I think people need to do some kind of highway code. I agree to an extent about insurance but it will be hard to police.

Personally if cars drivers weren't so ******ed to park 1 foot away from the kerb then their mirrors wouldn't get clipped. If you pass a cyclist and are going towards lights, make sure you leave enough room for them to get past. Again, not particularly because you give a ****, but purely to protect your car from damage.

[Barman Stanton]

How about just providing more, better maintained and accessable cycle lanes? :dunno:

I agree. The roads in Edinburgh can be a nightmare to cycle on, with cars parked there is sometimes no space to stay at the side of road.

Only in Scotland though would people want to make it difficult for those who want to cycle. It really is no wonder we are such an unfit fat nation!

[Lucius Apuleius]

Whatever happened to the Cycling Proficiency Certificate????? It still around?

[Killiehibbie]

Whatever happened to the Cycling Proficiency Certificate????? It still around?

Still going but looks like a lot of these adult cyclists were off that day.

[MB62]

Personally I go through red lights when there is no one crossing / there's no danger / when the green man is showing.

Why do you feel it is ok for a bicycle to go through a red light under ANY circumstances, never mind those you mentioned above. There are plenty occasions where I could do the same in my car, especially at temp lights, but a red light means STOP.
BTW a GREEN light doesn't necessarily mean GO either, although I suggest most car users seem to think it does, ending up with blocked off roads and road rage as a consequence.



I think people need to do some kind of highway code. I agree to an extent about insurance but it will be hard to police.

It would be initially but it has to start somewhere. Any new bike bought, the owner has to register his/her details with the bike shop who then pass the info on to police to be held in a data base. Any bike sold on, it is the responsibility of the seller to inform the policeas to the details of the new owner, otherwise he/she is held responsible for any future misdemeanors, a bit like the new car laws.

You could also make it law that all bike owners MUST register their bikes with the police, responsible bike owners will do so. Those that don't will only be caught when pulled up by police for cycling on pavements, through red traffic
lights, the wrong way down a one way street etc etc.



Personally if cars drivers weren't so ******ed to park 1 foot away from the kerb then their mirrors wouldn't get clipped. If you pass a cyclist and are going towards lights, make sure you leave enough room for them to get past. Again, not particularly because you give a ****, but purely to protect your car from damage.


Or cyclists could simply wait in the queue of traffic, like they are meant to do anyway, rather than try and sneak up the inside of cars or weave in between them. Batter my wing mirror doing that, be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[lapsedhibee]

Or cyclists could simply wait in the queue of traffic, like they are meant to do anyway, rather than try and sneak up the inside of cars or weave in between them.

Not reasonable imho to expect cyclists to sit directly behind vehicles breathing exhaust fumes straight in to lungs. And not sure that they are "meant to do" that - the existence of so many pinky orangey patches with cartoons of bikes painted on them by the local authority at the front of traffic queued at lights suggests otherwise, non? :dunno:

[MB62]

Not reasonable imho to expect cyclists to sit directly behind vehicles breathing exhaust fumes straight in to lungs. And not sure that they are "meant to do" that - the existence of so many pinky orangey patches with cartoons of bikes painted on them by the local authority at the front of traffic queued at lights suggests otherwise, non? :dunno:

Yes, they certainly do, but not all roads have these.
Fair enough the ones that do have them, I give the lanes a wide berth.

Not reasonable or simply. ach, my bike can sneak up the inside so what's the point in me waiting?

[Sergio sledge]

I don't agree with road tax for cyclists but if they are road going they surely MUST have to be insured..

They are a constant menace, i know of at least 10 incidents where the cyclist has damaged a car, totally their fault and all through to them having zero road sense..

Stay on the pavements..

Unless the pavement is designated a cycle lane, then this is illegal I'm afraid. The police can issue an on the spot fine to cyclists on the pavements.

With regards to tax, why should cyclists have to pay tax when so called "zero emission vehicles" don't have to pay?

The insurance I agree with, in fact I actually do have insurance on my bike, its covered by my home insurance, although I don't know whether it covers me for damage to other vehicles. Definitely covers me for repairs to my bike though.

I did my cycling proficiency when I was in P7, and always wear a helmet and hi-vis stuff, and have good lights on my bike. I try not to run red lights, although I must admit, if there is no-one on the pedestrian crossing it is very tempting to go straight through. I agree some cyclist can be idiots, and I have experienced this first hand whilst driving, however some drivers can be idiots too, and have experienced this whilst cycling. For example when I was waiting to turn right into a side road, and was sitting in the middle of the road waiting to cross the carriageway, a driver came up behind me and started tooting his horn at me. When I didn't try to cross in front of a fast moving oncoming vehicle which would probably have hit me, the driver saw red, started shouting at me and leaned on his horn constantly until I had enough time to cross. When he turned into the junction himself, he roared past me very close to me, and cut right in in front of me.

In summation, some cyclists are idiots, and some drivers are idiots. I don't see why cyclists should be allowed to use the road without some sort of test like the cycling proficiency test, and I think cyclists should be insured. Road tax however, no way.....

[Woody1985]

Why do you feel it is ok for a bicycle to go through a red light under ANY circumstances, never mind those you mentioned above. There are plenty occasions where I could do the same in my car, especially at temp lights, but a red light means STOP..

IMO bicycles are less dangerous, lower speeds, cyclists have better visibility, more agile etc. Nothing will stop me going through a red light on my bike. I'm not taliking about crossroads etc. Just pedestrian crossings etc when some prick has pushed the lights and then crossed over when the road is empty and the lights change to red after they've crossed.

I wouldn't do the same in my car because I'd get points on my license. Going back to FilledRolls point on another thread about how the law should act as a deterrent and not a punishment.

If there was a law that stated I'd get points on my 'bike' license then I wouldn't do it. It's too hard to police. The HC states that you can't get off your bike, push it and get back on at lights. Does some **** think they're gonna come up and tell me when I can and can't get off my bike when I choose. They'd get telt to GTF.



BTW a GREEN light doesn't necessarily mean GO either, although I suggest most car users seem to think it does, ending up with blocked off roads and road rage as a consequence.

I assume that was a generic point?



It would be initially but it has to start somewhere. Any new bike bought, the owner has to register his/her details with the bike shop who then pass the info on to police to be held in a data base. Any bike sold on, it is the responsibility of the seller to inform the policeas to the details of the new owner, otherwise he/she is held responsible for any future misdemeanors, a bit like the new car laws.

You could also make it law that all bike owners MUST register their bikes with the police, responsible bike owners will do so. Those that don't will only be caught when pulled up by police for cycling on pavements, through red traffic
lights, the wrong way down a one way street etc etc.

I agree that something needs to be done but the costs/resource associated would be too much IMO. It would also be hard to prove incidents such as a scraped car unless you make a citizens arrest and then potentially get yourself arrested.




Or cyclists could simply wait in the queue of traffic, like they are meant to do anyway, rather than try and sneak up the inside of cars or weave in between them. Batter my wing mirror doing that, be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Someone's covered this already re the boxes. To expect people to wait at the back of the queue on some roads and not others is silly IMO.

Again, I'm cycling to work for speed and convenience. I'm not sitting at the back of a queue. I'd be aswell taking the car.

Also, Edinburgh doesn't have the landscape or roads for a fully integrated car/bike system to work so there needs to be some give and take.

Personally, if I can't get down the inside I'll hop up on the pavement if it's clear, go down the outside or simply wait. Each situation is unique and handled accordingly.

Re your point about mirrors, I completely agree. If someone is wreckless and were to hit my car they'd be getting chased after and dragged to a cash machine. A little scuff with a backpack on a wing mirror whilst trying to push past because I've parked too close to the kerb is no big deal. Equally, if someone tries to come at me for scuffing their mirror when they've done the same they'll get telt to GTF as well. :greengrin

[speedy_gonzales]

Personally, if I can't get down the inside I'll hop up on the pavement if it's clear, go down the outside or simply wait.
Going down the inside of queued traffic is probably the biggest killer of cyclists that I can think off. Last year, I read off at least 4 instances where cyclists crept down the inside of stationary traffic, only to be wiped out by a truck or large vehicle turning left.
Once a driver passes a bike, they can sometimes erase that person from their memory as they 'know' there's no way they'll see that person again, being a lot faster than them, so it can give some non-observant drivers a start as you fly down the inside. This is frowned upon also as technically it's under-taking. The best thing to do is either wait, or filter past the traffic. This is a perfectly legal maneouvre whereby you can come down the outside of stationary or slow moving traffic, you can even come down the middle of 2 lanes as technically you are over-taking those vehicles in lane 1.
Again, as always, you have to watch out for non-observant drivers that may pull out without an over the shoulder check. Sometimes they get a bit red in the face as you pass them, amazing how your progress can illicit such reactions!?!

[Woody1985]

Going down the inside of queued traffic is probably the biggest killer of cyclists that I can think off. Last year, I read off at least 4 instances where cyclists crept down the inside of stationary traffic, only to be wiped out by a truck or large vehicle turning left.
Once a driver passes a bike, they can sometimes erase that person from their memory as they 'know' there's no way they'll see that person again, being a lot faster than them, so it can give some non-observant drivers a start as you fly down the inside. This is frowned upon also as technically it's under-taking. The best thing to do is either wait, or filter past the traffic. This is a perfectly legal maneouvre whereby you can come down the outside of stationary or slow moving traffic, you can even come down the middle of 2 lanes as technically you are over-taking those vehicles in lane 1.
Again, as always, you have to watch out for non-observant drivers that may pull out without an over the shoulder check. Sometimes they get a bit red in the face as you pass them, amazing how your progress can illicit such reactions!?!

I only go down the inside if the traffic is stationary. Never when moving, always back off when a left turn approaches as people don't indicate.

Most of it is common sense. Basically, trust nae **** on the road!

Same applies when overtaking parked cars, will the driver open the door etc cos they've not seen you etc etc.

[The_Todd]

On my daily journey to and from work, I see at least 2-3 occurances of cyclists bombing through a red light without even looking and more often than not without even wearing a helmet. And yes, I mean it. EVERY DAY I see it happen.

Now think, traffic lights usually come with junctions. In Edinburgh they're busy junctions. Not only does this blatant ignorance of the law endanger themselves but also pedestrians and car drivers too. I've seen pedestrians almost knocked over by cyclists because they simply can't be bothered to follow the rules and stop at a light.

Now imagine you're the driver of a car and you hit a cyclist who's come bombing through a junction after ignoring the traffic lights. Imagine that you hit that cyclist and they get seriously hurt. Imagine how that makes you feel. Forget the damage to your car, just imagine how you live with yourself knowing a cyclist may be in a critial condition after a collision you were involved in but wasn't your fault? This is another reason cyclists ignorance of traffic laws is selfish - that driver will be full of guilt.

So in short - cyclists: red lights mean stop, not "here's a chance to make up some time".

[Hibbyradge]

IMO bicycles are less dangerous, lower speeds, cyclists have better visibility, more agile etc. Nothing will stop me going through a red light on my bike. I'm not taliking about crossroads etc. Just pedestrian crossings etc when some prick has pushed the lights and then crossed over when the road is empty and the lights change to red after they've crossed.

I wouldn't do the same in my car because I'd get points on my license. Going back to FilledRolls point on another thread about how the law should act as a deterrent and not a punishment.

If there was a law that stated I'd get points on my 'bike' license then I wouldn't do it. It's too hard to police. The HC states that you can't get off your bike, push it and get back on at lights. Does some **** think they're gonna come up and tell me when I can and can't get off my bike when I choose. They'd get telt to GTF.



I assume that was a generic point?



I agree that something needs to be done but the costs/resource associated would be too much IMO. It would also be hard to prove incidents such as a scraped car unless you make a citizens arrest and then potentially get yourself arrested.




Someone's covered this already re the boxes. To expect people to wait at the back of the queue on some roads and not others is silly IMO.

Again, I'm cycling to work for speed and convenience. I'm not sitting at the back of a queue. I'd be aswell taking the car.

Also, Edinburgh doesn't have the landscape or roads for a fully integrated car/bike system to work so there needs to be some give and take.

Personally, if I can't get down the inside I'll hop up on the pavement if it's clear, go down the outside or simply wait. Each situation is unique and handled accordingly.

Re your point about mirrors, I completely agree. If someone is wreckless and were to hit my car they'd be getting chased after and dragged to a cash machine. A little scuff with a backpack on a wing mirror whilst trying to push past because I've parked too close to the kerb is no big deal. Equally, if someone tries to come at me for scuffing their mirror when they've done the same they'll get telt to GTF as well. :greengrin

That attitude is really disappointing, Woody, and it illustrates perfectly why cyclists like me, who obey the rules of the road, get a bad rep with folk like Burnsie.

A bicycle is traffic just like any other vehicle and cyclists should obey traffic lights. It's against the law not to do so, license or no license.

Rules are there to make systems work better, not to hinder them, and abiding by them is good and positive.

But, I know this is falling on deaf ears.

[Lucius Apuleius]

That attitude is really disappointing, Woody, and it illustrates perfectly why cyclists like me, who obey the rules of the road, get a bad rep with folk like Burnsie.

A bicycle is traffic just like any other vehicle and cyclists should obey traffic lights. It's against the law not to do so, license or no license.

Rules are there to make systems work better, not to hinder them, and abiding by them is good and positive.

But, I know this is falling on deaf ears.

:agree: Absolutely gobsmacked that Woody thinks it is OK to do it on a bike but not in his car as he would get points on his license. It is illegal no matter which way you look at it. Crazy, and IMO a total lack of respect for his own safety.

[Woody1985]

That attitude is really disappointing, Woody, and it illustrates perfectly why cyclists like me, who obey the rules of the road, get a bad rep with folk like Burnsie.

A bicycle is traffic just like any other vehicle and cyclists should obey traffic lights. It's against the law not to do so, license or no license.

Rules are there to make systems work better, not to hinder them, and abiding by them is good and positive.

But, I know this is falling on deaf ears.

I appreciate that and I also appreciate the point above yours. And you're correct, it has fallen on deaf ears but it puts that thought into your mind which is why it's good to raise it.

Personally I've become more wary/responsible since both of my incidents, both involving filter lights that were not visible to me on the other side of the road. One incident involved a car who was going to fast and not paying attention (both were to blame IMO) and the other no vehicles were involved but it was the realisation that there could have been.

I would never go through a traffic light without looking or do anything to put other road users in a situation where they would have to change their actions because of me.

I thought on the cycle home I'd analyse my run. Here goes :duck: :


Leave work on Lothian Road.
Cycle all the way up to Lothian Road stopping at 3 sets of lights.
Enter the meadows, lights are at red, people crossing. The lights were still red but on one was there. Progress through lights, lights change to green approximately 5 seconds later.
Approaching right turn towards the grange, my pace is pretty slow, take a look over my shoulder, no cars coming behind me so I wave out car at the junction so they don't have to wait.
Progress through green light, pedestrians pushed the button and walked over before the green man.
Get to the top of the street at the cross roads, red lights on all side, people crossing the road, pedestrians cleared and I progress through the lights whilst they're all still at red.
Reach the cross roads at the Uni (scene of one the latter incident above), at the front of the traffic, lights turn to red, I cross the road onto the pavement and down the kingsbuilding side, when traffic is clear on both sides I enter the road again.
Crossroads at the bottom of Liberton, I approach the front of the traffic, cross over at the pedestrian crossing, cycle on pavement up until the fire station (the road is quite tight at the bottom of the hill).
Progress up Kirk Brae, get to red light at crossroads at the top and stop. Progress when green.
Make it to the end of lasswade road and home with no lights or issues.
In summary.

1 red lights at pace of 5mph approx.
3 pedestrian crossing used (still on bike).
2 pavements used, one with stationary pedestrian waiting at lights and the other no pedestrians.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------


:agree: Absolutely gobsmacked that Woody thinks it is OK to do it on a bike but not in his car as he would get points on his license. It is illegal no matter which way you look at it. Crazy, and IMO a total lack of respect for his own safety.

Again, I appreciate where you are coming from. Since the incidents described above I don't feel that I have jeopordised mine or anyone elses safety during my actions.

[Monts]

Whats the difference between a bike going through a red light at an empty pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian crossing an empty road when there is a red man?

[Hibbyradge]

Whats the difference between a bike going through a red light at an empty pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian crossing an empty road when there is a red man?

One is against the law, the other isn't.

Why shouldn't a car, bus or lorry go through a red light when no-one is there?

---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------


I appreciate that and I also appreciate the point above yours. And you're correct, it has fallen on deaf ears but it puts that thought into your mind which is why it's good to raise it.

Personally I've become more wary/responsible since both of my incidents, both involving filter lights that were not visible to me on the other side of the road. One incident involved a car who was going to fast and not paying attention (both were to blame IMO) and the other no vehicles were involved but it was the realisation that there could have been.

I would never go through a traffic light without looking or do anything to put other road users in a situation where they would have to change their actions because of me.

I thought on the cycle home I'd analyse my run. Here goes :duck: :


Leave work on Lothian Road.
Cycle all the way up to Lothian Road stopping at 3 sets of lights.
Enter the meadows, lights are at red, people crossing. The lights were still red but on one was there. Progress through lights, lights change to green approximately 5 seconds later.
Approaching right turn towards the grange, my pace is pretty slow, take a look over my shoulder, no cars coming behind me so I wave out car at the junction so they don't have to wait.
Progress through green light, pedestrians pushed the button and walked over before the green man.
Get to the top of the street at the cross roads, red lights on all side, people crossing the road, pedestrians cleared and I progress through the lights whilst they're all still at red.
Reach the cross roads at the Uni (scene of one the latter incident above), at the front of the traffic, lights turn to red, I cross the road onto the pavement and down the kingsbuilding side, when traffic is clear on both sides I enter the road again.
Crossroads at the bottom of Liberton, I approach the front of the traffic, cross over at the pedestrian crossing, cycle on pavement up until the fire station (the road is quite tight at the bottom of the hill).
Progress up Kirk Brae, get to red light at crossroads at the top and stop. Progress when green.
Make it to the end of lasswade road and home with no lights or issues.
In summary.

1 red lights at pace of 5mph approx.
3 pedestrian crossing used (still on bike).
2 pavements used, one with stationary pedestrian waiting at lights and the other no pedestrians.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------



Again, I appreciate where you are coming from. Since the incidents described above I don't feel that I have jeopordised mine or anyone elses safety during my actions.

If it was 4.00 am and you drove through the lights on St john's Road when no-one was around, you'd get 3 points having been caught on camera.

As I type this, I realise the futility of it.

You're above the law when you're on your bike.

Simple.

[Monts]

One is against the law, the other isn't.



Why?

Its not illegal in north america, so long as the road is clear...that goes for vehicles too.

[speedy_gonzales]

Why?

Its not illegal in north america, so long as the road is clear...that goes for vehicles too.

This is all going to get a bit silly if we start quoting laws from other countries, it's bad enough mayor Boris of London want's to allow bikes to 'legally' go through red lights and the 'wrong way' on 1-way streets. Where does London end, is it the city, westminster, M25.
My point being is, are folk going to have to refer to their sat-nav in future so that they know what rules road users are following this week?

[Monts]

This is all going to get a bit silly if we start quoting laws from other countries, it's bad enough mayor Boris of London want's to allow bikes to 'legally' go through red lights and the 'wrong way' on 1-way streets. Where does London end, is it the city, westminster, M25.
My point being is, are folk going to have to refer to their sat-nav in future so that they know what rules road users are following this week?

Im only asking what purpose the law is serving when a more common sense approach in other countries seems to work perfectly well.

[Hibbyradge]

Im only asking what purpose the law is serving when a more common sense approach in other countries seems to work perfectly well.

Shooting people is legal in the USA too, as long as common sense applies. :agree:

[Woody1985]

One is against the law, the other isn't.

Why shouldn't a car, bus or lorry go through a red light when no-one is there?

---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------



If it was 4.00 am and you drove through the lights on St john's Road when no-one was around, you'd get 3 points having been caught on camera.

As I type this, I realise the futility of it.

You're above the law when you're on your bike.

Simple.

It certainly is futile.

I appreciate your points and your thought on the matter. As a driver and a cyclist as far as I'm concerned if I'm not putting anyone at risk then I'll continue to go through events such as the ones I listed above.

I also appreciate your point about the crossing when in a car. As I say, there is enough of a deterrent and enfocement of the law to prevent me from going through the lights. If the same applied to a bike I probably would stop at every set. There isn't, so I don't.

[Monts]

Shooting people is legal in the USA too, as long as common sense applies. :agree:

Hardly comparable, really.

[Hibbyradge]

Hardly comparable, really.

It wasn't a comparison, it was another example of a different law to ours in North America.

Your point seemed to be that if it was ok to cycle through red lights in North America, it should be ok here too.

Why choose just that law?

I guess I just don't understand your point.

[Monts]

It wasn't a comparison, it was another example of a different law to ours in North America.

Your point seemed to be that if it was ok to cycle through red lights in North America, it should be ok here too.

Why choose just that law?

I guess I just don't understand your point.

I chose that law because thats the one we're discussing :confused:

My point is that pedestrian crossings with nobody at them cause traffic to stop unnecessarily. If the law allowed people to go through them when there is no pedestrians then where is the risk?

Incidently, stopping needlessly cause more exhaust emissions, more petrol usage and more engine wear in vehicles.
It causes much quicker fatigue in cyclists.

I can see what Boris is getting at :agree:

[Hibbyradge]

I chose that law because thats the one we're discussing :confused:

My point is that pedestrian crossings with nobody at them cause traffic to stop unnecessarily. If the law allowed people to go through them when there is no pedestrians then where is the risk?



The risk is when someone makes a mistake.

e.g. A pedestrian runs to catch the green man and an impatient/careless/unobservant driver thinks the crossing is clear.




Incidently, stopping needlessly cause more exhaust emissions, more petrol usage and more engine wear in vehicles.



Not my car. :wink:

However, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a wee change in the law to allow cyclists to, for example, turn left on red if the crossing is clear.

But, it's against the law just now so folk should just abide by it.

If we all ignored laws we either didn't agree with or we thought were pointless, we'd have mayhem.

[Allant1981]

A lot of people are saying cyclists should have insurance but how is this going to work. Say I decide one summer morning(yes I know its past what was supposed to be summer) to cycle rather than drive, how am I supposed to get insured at 6 in the morning? Or am I supposed to have everything pre planned? Would this insurance have to cover random days out with the wife and kids? Its never going to work

[Hibbyradge]

A lot of people are saying cyclists should have insurance but how is this going to work. Say I decide one summer morning(yes I know its past what was supposed to be summer) to cycle rather than drive, how am I supposed to get insured at 6 in the morning? Or am I supposed to have everything pre planned? Would this insurance have to cover random days out with the wife and kids? Its never going to work

Compulsory insurance for all bikes would work. It could cover theft, loss and damage to the bike as well as third party costs in case of an accident.

If a cyclist hit a car and scratched it, their insurance would cover it. If they didn't have insurance, they'd have to cough up themselves.

That's the theory anyway.

However, I agree that it won't be introduced as it would go against all the carbon footprint work and health initiatves, by making cycling more expensive.

Also, the amount of damage caused by cyclists must actually be relatively miniscule.

[Woody1985]

Has no one on this thread ever went over 30mph in 30 zone etc etc.

Have you abided by every law there is?

People make common sense judgements.

Some laws are ******ed, not referring to going through red lights in cars/motorbikes, but I heard that our super state is introducing another law that says if you take a holiday from work and happen to be sick whilst on holiday you can claim your holidays back and claim sick pay from your employer!!! No wonder industry is crippled.

[The_Todd]

Has no one on this thread ever went over 30mph in 30 zone etc etc.

Have you abided by every law there is?

People make common sense judgements.

Some laws are ******ed, not referring to going through red lights in cars/motorbikes, but I heard that our super state is introducing another law that says if you take a holiday from work and happen to be sick whilst on holiday you can claim your holidays back and claim sick pay from your employer!!! No wonder industry is crippled.

I still don't see how bombing through red lights at crossings and junctions is a "common sense judgement".

[Hibbyradge]

Has no one on this thread ever went over 30mph in 30 zone etc etc.

Have you abided by every law there is?

People make common sense judgements.

Some laws are ******ed, not referring to going through red lights in cars/motorbikes, but I heard that our super state is introducing another law that says if you take a holiday from work and happen to be sick whilst on holiday you can claim your holidays back and claim sick pay from your employer!!! No wonder industry is crippled.

Most people break motoring laws, but they don't seek to justify doing so in the way you are.

There is no common sense in going 40mph in a 30 zone, just risk.

There is no common sense in going through a red light, when everyone else on the road thinks red means stop.

A change in the law, allowing cyclists to turn left on red if it is safe to do so, might be a good thing, but until that happens, there can be no justification for doing so.

Do you feel that cars which go flying down the bus lane in rush hour, when you're patiently waiting your turn in the right hand lane, are merely excercising a similar type of commion sense judgement too?

[Woody1985]

Most people break motoring laws, but they don't seek to justify doing so in the way you are.

There is no common sense in going 40mph in a 30 zone, just risk.

There is no common sense in going through a red light, when everyone else on the road thinks red means stop.

A change in the law, allowing cyclists to turn left on red if it is safe to do so, might be a good thing, but until that happens, there can be no justification for doing so.

Do you feel that cars which go flying down the bus lane in rush hour, when you're patiently waiting your turn in the right hand lane, are merely excercising a similar type of commion sense judgement too?

That's because their justification wouldn't add up. Going through a pedestrian cross, or using a green man whilst on a bike is completely different from someone going 40mph in a 30. Reaction speeds are different, can't see if a child walks out behind a parked car etc etc. Anyone trying to justify speeding in comparison with going through a red light at a few mph on a bike would be ridiculous.

Bus lanes are a whole different arguement. The councils basically take away part of the road infrastucture paid for us via road tax to provide bus lanes. If everyone used public transport and there were no cars I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't have the money to spend on bus lanes.

However, aside from that, I tend not to use them, again, mainly due to the fine / potential points for doing so. That is enough of a deterrent for me not to.

[Woody1985]

I still don't see how bombing through red lights at crossings and junctions is a "common sense judgement".

Exagerration of the century. Bombing through lights, no, approaching lights at a slow speed. If no one is crossing then I'll go through.

Nothing any of you say will change that so come down from that horse. :blah::blah::blah:

[lapsedhibee]

If everyone used public transport and there were no cars I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't have the money to spend on bus lanes.

Why would they need money to spend on bus lanes in those circumstances? :confused:

[Hibbyradge]

Woody, you really shouldn't put yourself above the law just because you don't agree with said law and because you think you can get away with it.

However, I'm not your morality mentor so I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, I found this (http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18053279), which makes interesting reading on a number of different levels.

[Woody1985]

Why would they need money to spend on bus lanes in those circumstances? :confused:

Not bus lanes specifically but road infrastructure and maintenance in general.

[Woody1985]

Woody, you really shouldn't put yourself above the law just because you don't agree with said law and because you think you can get away with it.

However, I'm not your morality mentor so I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, I found this (http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18053279), which makes interesting reading on a number of different levels.

Typical police tactic, hide and then pounce to generate fines. If the police cared about cyclists going through red lights they would be visible and act as a deterrent.

[Hibbyradge]

Typical police tactic, hide and then pounce to generate fines. If the police cared about cyclists going through red lights they would be visible and act as a deterrent.

:faf:

Sorry, that's funny.

If cyclists cared about anyone but themselves, the police wouldn't be there in the first place.

If the police were there, you wouldn't go through. If they weren't there, you would.

You've said that several times.

Hiding and pouncing, so you don't know if they are there or not, seems to be the only way to control (deter) you.

Unless you think the police should be at every set of traffic lights?

[The_Todd]

Exagerration of the century. Bombing through lights, no, approaching lights at a slow speed. If no one is crossing then I'll go through.

Nothing any of you say will change that so come down from that horse. :blah::blah::blah:


It's not an exageration. I see this every single day, and frankly these cyclists are a danger to others and mostly to themselves. Red lights mean nothing to many cyclists who seem to think they're invincible.

I've witnessed road traffic accidents where cyclists were involved and they ain't pretty. When you see one actually happen right in front of your very eyes you don't tend to forget it.

[Woody1985]

:faf:

Sorry, that's funny.

If cyclists cared about anyone but themselves, the police wouldn't be there in the first place.

Why?

People just care about themselves, not cyclists.
The police did the same thing at the junction at prestonfield (buses only) through road when they ****ed up the traffic flow when they started the gas works on Dalkeith Road.

The queues were going from Camerson Toll right up to Newington. Some people were going through the bus only route. Rather than act as a deterrent they sat in the side street like sleekit ***** waiting for people to go through and fining them. Alternatively, they could have opened the bus only route to prevent people from wating for 1.5 hours in traffic. But no, we can't have that, any chance to raise a bit of revenue.

Those were unique circumstances that day and they knew people would be desperate to get out the traffic.

Rather than do the right thing they clocked up the fines.

[Woody1985]

It's not an exageration. I see this every single day, and frankly these cyclists are a danger to others and mostly to themselves. Red lights mean nothing to many cyclists who seem to think they're invincible.

I've witnessed road traffic accidents where cyclists were involved and they ain't pretty. When you see one actually happen right in front of your very eyes you don't tend to forget it.

It was an exagerration in terms of my approach to it, which you quoted my 'common sense judgement', that indicates you think I bomb through lights when that's no the case. Ohers do, I don't, I go through them if they are clear at slow speed and no one about to cross.

Sorry that you've seen something like that but since the two incidents above I've never put myself or anyone in danger on my bike and have always been curteous to drivers.

Think what you like, it's not going to change how I go about getting to and from work.

[Betty Boop]

Why?

People just care about themselves, not cyclists. It applies to every and everyone who uses transport.

The police did the same thing at the junction at prestonfield (buses only) through road when they ****ed up the traffic flow when they started the gas works on Dalkeith Road.

The queues were going from Camerson Toll right up to Newington. Some people were going through the bus only route. Rather than act as a deterrent they sat in the side street like sleekit ***** waiting for people to go through and fining them. Alternatively, they could have opened the bus only route to prevent people from wating for 1.5 hours in traffic. But no, we can't have that, any chance to raise a bit of revenue.

Those were unique circumstances that day and they knew people would be desperate to get out the traffic.

Rather than do the right thing they clocked up the fines.

I care about everybody! :love ya!: :faf:

[Hibbyradge]

Why?

People just care about themselves, not cyclists.
The police did the same thing at the junction at prestonfield (buses only) through road when they ****ed up the traffic flow when they started the gas works on Dalkeith Road.

The queues were going from Camerson Toll right up to Newington. Some people were going through the bus only route. Rather than act as a deterrent they sat in the side street like sleekit ***** waiting for people to go through and fining them. Alternatively, they could have opened the bus only route to prevent people from wating for 1.5 hours in traffic. But no, we can't have that, any chance to raise a bit of revenue.

Those were unique circumstances that day and they knew people would be desperate to get out the traffic.

Rather than do the right thing they clocked up the fines.

Read the rest of my post, not just the part you quoted.

If the police were there, you wouldn't go through. If they weren't there, you would.

You've said that several times.

Hiding and pouncing, so you don't know if they are there or not, seems to be the only way to control (deter) you in the longer term.

Unless you think the police should be at every set of traffic lights?

[Hibbyradge]

People just care about themselves, not cyclists.



Please speak for yourself.

If everyone had that selfish attitude, no-one would do charity work and there would be no good samaritans.

What a world that would be.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------


It was an exagerration in terms of my approach to it, which you quoted my 'common sense judgement', that indicates you think I bomb through lights when that's no the case. Ohers do, I don't, I go through them if they are clear at slow speed and no one about to cross.

Sorry that you've seen something like that but since the two incidents above I've never put myself or anyone in danger on my bike and have always been curteous to drivers.

Think what you like, it's not going to change how I go about getting to and from work.

The Police would though.

Shame.

[Woody1985]

Read the rest of my post, not just the part you quoted.

If the police were there, you wouldn't go through. If they weren't there, you would.

You've said that several times.

Hiding and pouncing, so you don't know if they are there or not, seems to be the only way to control (deter) you in the longer term.

Unless you think the police should be at every set of traffic lights?

I did read your post. You must have saved and then edited it.


Please speak for yourself.

If everyone had that selfish attitude, no-one would do charity work and there would be no good samaritans.

What a world that would be.

The Police would though.

Shame.

I was talking in general terms, as you were when you said the below, I didn't meant every person.

If cyclists cared about anyone but themselves, the police wouldn't be there in the first place.

Unless you were including yourself aswell and every other cyclist.


The Police hiding round the corner may act as a deterrent but a fine being the maximum that can happen is pretty irrelevant if it's only £30. More serious penalties such as points would be the only deterrent for me personally.

People still speed all the time, things can act as a deterrent as much as they like but without a tangible punishment then the whole enforcement of the law with regards to cycling is pointless.

Look, the reason I came on this thread was to give my viewpoint, give an open and honest opinion on my cycling habits, why I make the decisions I do and give insight into what may change my behaviour. No one else has given an insight like I have, unless everyone on here is sticks to the letter of everylaw in the land.

I thought it would be valuable to the discussion but all I've received is ****. You guys can finish the discussion on yer own. :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Look, the reason I came on this thread was to give my viewpoint, give an open and honest opinion on my cycling habits, why I make the decisions I do and give insight into what may change my behaviour. No one else has given an insight like I have, unless everyone on here is sticks to the letter of everylaw in the land.

I thought it would be valuable to the discussion but all I've received is ****. You guys can finish the discussion on yer own. :greengrin

I appreciated your input W1985, and agree with much though not quite all of your philosophy/strategy.

[Hibbyradge]

I did read your post. You must have saved and then edited it.

[/B]

I most certainly did not. You either missed it, or chose to ignore it.

You still haven't answered it, though.

[QUOTE=Woody1985;2175675]


The Police hiding round the corner may act as a deterrent but a fine being the maximum that can happen is pretty irrelevant if it's only £30. More serious penalties such as points would be the only deterrent for me personally.



I bet you wouldn't cycle through a red light if the police were there. Only a £30 fine or not.



Look, the reason I came on this thread was to give my viewpoint, give an open and honest opinion on my cycling habits, why I make the decisions I do and give insight into what may change my behaviour.

I thought it would be valuable to the discussion but all I've received is ****. You guys can finish the discussion on yer own. :greengrin

All everyone else has done is give their opinions on what you have said.

Don't run/cycle away just cos you don't like where it's going. :wink:

[Woody1985]

I most certainly did not. You either missed it, or chose to ignore it.

You still haven't answered it, though.

I bet you wouldn't cycle through a red light if the police were there. Only a £30 fine or not.

All everyone else has done is give their opinions on what you have said.

Don't run/cycle away just cos you don't like where it's going. :wink:

Well when i hit quote that's all that was shown.

I've covered the points re a deterrent. If you're talking about the traffic light then you're obviously being a litte obtuse pressing for an answer to that silly question. Of course there should be police on every light. :faf:

I've done it more than once and they didn't give a ****. I also cycled over the 'No cycling' path at the Blockbuster end of the meadows, over the grass/pavement and onto the road last Thursday whilst a 4x4 Police Land Rover was sitting waiting at the same pedestrian crossing. :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

I'm not running away from anything, you've made your point, as I say I thought I'd be open and honest rather than everyone having a cyclist bashing thread on how bad they are etc etc. I've gave an insight into why I do it and the reasons why I won't stop without any real enforceable measures. Whether that pricks on your morality or not I couldn't really give two ****s.

If I get run over or hurt someone going through a pedestrian crossing at 5mph then you can take the moral high ground and I might admit it was wrong. Should any of the above happen I'll come on here and let you know (I'll also use a tail between legs smilie if there is one). :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

(I'll also use a tail between legs smilie if there is one). :greengrin

You might not have any legs, but let's not dwell on that.

[Allant1981]

Has no one on this thread ever went over 30mph in 30 zone etc etc.

Have you abided by every law there is?

People make common sense judgements.

Some laws are ******ed, not referring to going through red lights in cars/motorbikes, but I heard that our super state is introducing another law that says if you take a holiday from work and happen to be sick whilst on holiday you can claim your holidays back and claim sick pay from your employer!!! No wonder industry is crippled.


You have been able to do this for years

[Woody1985]

You have been able to do this for years

Is it not dependant on your employer?
Was it previously EU wide?

TBH I'm not that bothered about it, unless I was seriously ill and was in hospital for example I wouldn't have the cheek to go back to work and say I had a cold for 3 days and ask for my holidays back.

Don't know the specific rules on it but it's ******ed IMO.

[Allant1981]

Is it not dependant on your employer?
Was it previously EU wide?

TBH I'm not that bothered about it, unless I was seriously ill and was in hospital for example I wouldn't have the cheek to go back to work and say I had a cold for 3 days and ask for my holidays back.

Don't know the specific rules on it but it's ******ed IMO.


Not sure of its your employer or not, I worked for the NHS and I know a few guys who have done this

[lyonhibs]

A quick question - in full awareness that it would be very difficult to enforce due to the lack of a requirement to have a licence to ride a bicycle, but as bicylists use the road - or at least they should as they are legally obliged to and the pavements in Edinburgh are narrow enough as it is - should they not contribute something to the maintenance and upkeep of these roads??

I appreciate that the bicycle lane provision in a lot of towns in Britain is nothing more than an afterthought and a token lick of paint near traffic lights, but there is also a (hopefully expanding/improving??) network of cycle paths in the UK that will not be free to construct.

Shouldn't cyclists pay a degree of road tax, even if it is not much more than a token contribution?? :duck:

Tin hat firmly on

[lapsedhibee]

Shouldn't cyclists pay a degree of road tax, even if it is not much more than a token contribution?? :duck:


No. There's no more reason to charge cyclists road tax than to charge pedestrians road tax. Both flit across the surface of roads without wearing them out, both would have no need of traffic lights etc if it wasn't for motor vehicles, :blah::blah::blah:

[Hibbyradge]

A quick question - in full awareness that it would be very difficult to enforce due to the lack of a requirement to have a licence to ride a bicycle, but as bicylists use the road - or at least they should as they are legally obliged to and the pavements in Edinburgh are narrow enough as it is - should they not contribute something to the maintenance and upkeep of these roads??

I appreciate that the bicycle lane provision in a lot of towns in Britain is nothing more than an afterthought and a token lick of paint near traffic lights, but there is also a (hopefully expanding/improving??) network of cycle paths in the UK that will not be free to construct.

Shouldn't cyclists pay a degree of road tax, even if it is not much more than a token contribution?? :duck:

Tin hat firmly on


No. There's no more reason to charge cyclists road tax than to charge pedestrians road tax. Both flit across the surface of roads without wearing them out, both would have no need of traffic lights etc if it wasn't for motor vehicles, :blah::blah::blah:

I pay car tax.

I can drive my car 24 hours a day and wear the road out as much as I want.

Do I really need to pay more cos I use my bike instead?

[HibsMax]

I don't agree with road tax for cyclists but if they are road going they surely MUST have to be insured..

They are a constant menace, i know of at least 10 incidents where the cyclist has damaged a car, totally their fault and all through to them having zero road sense..

Stay on the pavements..

The thing I hate about some cyclists is that they want to be treated as a vehicle sometimes and as a pedestrian at others....depending on the situation. Red lights? "Pah, they don't apply to me!". Grrrr.

[Barman Stanton]

A quick question - in full awareness that it would be very difficult to enforce due to the lack of a requirement to have a licence to ride a bicycle, but as bicylists use the road - or at least they should as they are legally obliged to and the pavements in Edinburgh are narrow enough as it is - should they not contribute something to the maintenance and upkeep of these roads??

I appreciate that the bicycle lane provision in a lot of towns in Britain is nothing more than an afterthought and a token lick of paint near traffic lights, but there is also a (hopefully expanding/improving??) network of cycle paths in the UK that will not be free to construct.

Shouldn't cyclists pay a degree of road tax, even if it is not much more than a token contribution?? :duck:

Tin hat firmly on


No, the government should be encouraging people to get out and cycle, not making it more difficult. I personally a % of the tram money would have been far better spent creating proper cycling routs in Edinburgh.

Some of the attitudes towards cyclists in this country is very odd.

[Andy74]

As a cyclist, I agree. I would never imagine cycling in anything other than proper cycling gear. shorts, top, helmet and cycling shoes as a basic, I see folk going to work in the morning in suits etc and cringe. I'm all for welcoming and encouraging to the sport or hobby, but don't be bloody stupid about it.

It's a sport but it's life or death if not treated with respect.

In Amsterdam fior example the balance is the other way and I must admit I quite like seeing people on the bikes all decked out in their suits and birds in their short skirts.

It just looks much more civilised and relaxed than here where you have to be decked out in something ridiculous just to ride a bike.

Granted they don't have hills to climb and it must be more easy going and they also have major lanes dedicated to bikes to make it less hazardous.

[hstn747]

People are perfectly able to decide when something is acceptably safe. I can judge better than a set of computer controlled lights when it is safe to progress or not. I manage it at round abouts.

When I cycle I don't take excessive risks with vehicles as I am clearly going to come off second best. Probably more careful on a bike as I know that the consequences of a mistake are going to be significant. I have to be very careful when changing lanes or overtaking on a bike.

It is much safer for a cyclist to be at the front of a queue of traffic than to be stuck between trucks & buses when they are pulling away. Therefore I will always make an effort to get to the front of the queue. However, I would only do it if there is room as I would be very unhappy if someone hit my car with their bike.

[Brando7]

Imo all cyclists are more of a danger on the road than on pavements

[CropleyWasGod]

Imo all cyclists are more of a danger on the road than on pavements

... but then so are car drivers. :wink: