I would guess then, that your semi-rural environment was a lot better served than most. I've just moved out of a village to which the bus service was unreliable and overcrowded (particilarly at peak times). I certainly wouldn't have liked to have been relying on it to get anywhere in a timely fashion.

The reality is that, unless you live in London, public transport is often less than adequate. Oh, and, good luck getting a bus/cab/train to allow you to ride with two labradors.

Because everyone is a pedestrian.


I think you've put your finger on it there, many aren't happy with a commuter bike and want to go the whole hog.

Also, especially in London, the culture of the carefree courier, jumping lights, zooming through pedestrians and unfettered by the laws and normal courtesies sets a different standard of behaviour.

Outside London, only last week, I obeyed a red light at some pedestrian lights and stopped my car, only to see that it was a thirty-something bloke on a mountain bike who had obviously got there via the footpath and wanted to cycle on the opposite footpath.
Having crossed, he wove his way through pedestrians on the other side.
The sheer irony of his action was probably lost on him.

If we had the infrastructure, @rses like him would have no excuse.

I think the lack of identification is a factor here, if bikes had to be registered and the reg displayed, it would cut down on an awful lot of misbehaviour.

Where I live, we get many cyclists in large groups, especially at weekends, who seem to think it's fine to ride abreast along the only valley-bottom road ... it's like the Grand Depart some weekends but at least they are doing 30-ish, so that's not much of an issue.
The hills usually thin them down to single file, anyway.
However, even they tend to weave through pedestrians in the clearly-signed pedestrians-only zones in the town to get to the cafe of their choice.

In the same way that is is found in the likes of the other European states that I have mentioned - by means of a slight shift in planning attitudes, which need cost no more to a new road marking scheme than would otherwise be expended.

The likes of Londons super cycle highway would be nice in every city but that takes a lot of new money and it isn't absolutely necessary (although nice), we don't do too bad in this country for cycle lane provision and guidance is already in place for planners to consider cycle lanes, there are certainly plenty in my home city, but we could do a lot more and make it the norm rather than a nice side benefit of new schemes.

As a "for instance", and I appreciate you won't know the route, but the road that I used to commute down was Meanwood Road, it runs from the suburbs right down onto a major highway junction at Sheepscar and during peak times is solid with motor traffic - a couple of years ago someone in the planning department decided that the road was a little too wide, not wide enough to have two "official" lanes in each direction but wide enough to encourage motorists to try to form two lanes during peak times, so they discouraged that by painting white hatchings for a width of about four feet to the left of each side of the road and thereby missed an ideal opportunity to provide a decently wide cycle lane for a good couple of miles on a major commuter route which is used by hundreds of cyclists.

Strange enough though they did make cycle by-pass lanes around a set of traffic lights and a roundabout when they were constructed so they are obviously following some guidance when roads have new construction work but not when simple line painting works are carried out.

It just needs some joined up thinking.

Cyclists don't annoy me. Road users - all road users, that is - who do not observe the rules of the road annoy me.

Possibly the first time I've ever (almost) fully agreed with one of your posts. Aside from the lycra mafia bit, this is also my grumble with many cyclists. I dislike the attitude of many motorists that think cyclists have less rights on the road, but by the same token I have a problem with the amount of cyclists who seem to think they have less obligations.

I don't think that cyclists should have to contribute to the upkeep of the roads/infrastructure, but I do think that they should be more accountable for their actions and require some sort of insurance. Every other road user does.

Pedestrians? Walking uninsured is a thing now?

Or the rules of the pavement, as is the case with a large number of cyclists.

The only place a cyclist should be seen in public, is zooming around a very expensive Velodrome winning much needed medals for the UK.

Dally's observations are spot on regarding the antics of a great majority of these people, and remind me of an incident I witnessed a couple of years ago in Leeds.

I was waiting outside a large office building in the town centre when one of the plastic hat brigade came cycling down the wrong way in a one way street. Unfortunately for him, there was a 30 yard trench being excavated down one side of the street restricting it to single file, and coming the other way was a white van. In traditional white van mode, its driver took umbrage at this display of bad manners, and asserted his right of way which resulted in the cyclist coming off his bike in the roadworks.
Did I laugh....yes I did, especially when the cyclist indignantly appealed to the other pedestrians. When it was pointed out that he was actually in the wrong, his reply was if he followed the designated route he would take twice as long to get anywhere in Leeds!

Karma can be a bitch.

We're classing pedestrians as road-users now? Is that when they cross the road, or the rare occasions when there isn't a footpath?

If it suits you better, substitute road-user for vehicle pilot.

Users of the highways and byways then

Better.

As a law abiding motorist, cyclists will only gt my respect when they, the cyclists, respect the laws of the roads.... Ignoring traffic lights Ignoring other trafic signs e.g. no entry, and one way streets. Assuming that they always have right of way, irrespective of the situation. Switching between footpath and road, as it suits. Using pelican / zebra crossings as a cyclepath. (I'm perfectly OK with them dismounting and wheeling the bike across) Perhaps if there were a couple of well publicised 'test cases' attitudes / actions may change? www.criminal-solicitors.com/bicycles.htm =#0000FF"Bicyles It is against the law to ride on footpaths or pavements by the roadside. Magistrates can fine £1000. A £200 fine is set for furious cycling. The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage) on a highway or in a public place. Magistrates can hand down a 1 month prison sentence and a £200 fine" I appreciate that there are cyclists who pedal by the rules , but sadly they appear to be in the minority. By the same token, a appreciate that some motorists don't do as they should, however, they are also in the minority. Thats the difference.

As a law abiding motorist, cyclists will only gt my respect when they, the cyclists, respect the laws of the roads.... Ignoring traffic lights Ignoring other trafic signs e.g. no entry, and one way streets. Assuming that they always have right of way, irrespective of the situation. Switching between footpath and road, as it suits. Using pelican / zebra crossings as a cyclepath. (I'm perfectly OK with them dismounting and wheeling the bike across) Perhaps if there were a couple of well publicised 'test cases' attitudes / actions may change? www.criminal-solicitors.com/bicycles.htm =#0000FF"Bicyles It is against the law to ride on footpaths or pavements by the roadside. Magistrates can fine £1000. A £200 fine is set for furious cycling. The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage) on a highway or in a public place. Magistrates can hand down a 1 month prison sentence and a £200 fine" I appreciate that there are cyclists who pedal by the rules , but sadly they appear to be in the minority. By the same token, a appreciate that some motorists don't do as they should, however, they are also in the minority. Thats the difference.

Most of the cyclists I see are on the pavement.

As a pedestrian I don't have a problem with cyclists on the pavement. They are a lot closer in size and speed to pedestrians so I think it's far more appropriate they share the pavement than them sharing the road with buses, trucks and cars.

They just need to make sure they aren't bombing round blind corners on a hill, like some stupid kid did a couple of months ago. I'd have no problem sticking my fist into a stupid kids head if he was going to hit me.

Some cyclists seem to be more aggressive nowadays, especially the Bradley Wiggins wannabes but I put that down to the clothes they wear being too tight around the crotch area.

In general, I'd say it isn't the cycle that's to blame, more the person using it and perhaps Dave and co could enact laws that mirror legislation brought in to control aggressive animals such as the dangerous dog act.

If you ride your cycle like a pit-bull, you get put down but if someone is daft enough to enter your property unbidden, you have the right to batter them with the bike pump, spare wheel, or even the bike frame for as long as you like and this whilst wearing your cycling gear. It's a win, win for the responsible cyclist.

Don't you know, they are saving the planet.

You can even get the tax man to assist your purchase if you CHOOSE to cycle to work, but if you HAVE to drive to work, you get nowt.

Saftey standards managers in the industry i work in will never deem any accident between a car driver and a bus driver as 50/50 for disciplinary purposes, the reason being that the bus driver is trained to a higher standard and therefore is 'more' culpable than the car driver.
It's been that way for as long as i've worked in the industry. Accident are deemed blameworthy or not blameworthy there is rarely, if ever, shared blame.

...so a fairly bog standard response then, "jumping red lights", "wrong way down a street" and one that I haven't seen before "using pedestrian lights to cross the road".

Did anyone read the article linked to on the original post ?

Have you read how different things are in Holland and how things could be here if cycling was treated as "the norm" for short journeys (lets say up to ten miles) rather than cars be treated as "the norm" and cycling a bit of a weird thing to do ?

And why does jumping red lights get under so many peoples skin, is it jealousy - lets face it, any cyclist who decides to take on a motor vehicle in a head to head (or sideways swipe as the case will be), is going to die, so why are so many motorised drivers so bitter about seeing cyclists gamble with their own lives so recklessly ?

Do you feel the same about motorbike riders who drive down the outside of traffic queues too, do you suddenly realise that the problem with the queue of traffic that you are sitting stationary in is actually YOU and your chosen form of single user transport and that if you'd all used two wheels instead then probably everyone would get to their destination twice as quickly ?

Pedestrians will only get my respect when they obey traffic lights.

Because until the cycle community address the quite sizeable minority of cyclists who think they are perfectly entitled to jump lights, use pavements and ride like loonies, you are always going to get this brought up.



Because there is always some poor bugger in a car who has to live with the consequences of these idiots actions through no fault of their own. The questions, the breath tests, the ramp up in insurance and the thoughts of "what if".

Read the article on the first page & if you ever have the chance compare to what happens in a country where the majority of the population would ride a bike to a nearby appointment, there is a tipping point where the sizeable minority becomes a tiny minority, where, as the article says, most cyclists don't dress up in special clothes to ride a bike and don't wear helmets because they feel safe in their separation from motorised transport.



See above, it wouldn't happen if the situation were handled properly - and why would you have a ramp up in insurance if its not your fault ?

Possibly because insurance companies operate a no CLAIM bonus and not a no BLAME bonus?

They also offer a protected no claims bonus do they not, and if you are the sort of motorist that drives around without that or without doing a price and features comparison on your insurance at least once a year, then frankly sir, you are a fool.

But to get back to the original point - why the bitterness and predictable jibes about something that can be fixed by a bit of imagination and simple road markings and which might even lead to an increase in citizen health - why not follow the lead set by other european countries and recognise that the pedal cyclist has a legitimate right to use the road system without the ever present danger of being crushed by someone who's line of defence is always "sorry mate, didn't see you" ?

Just to clarify, when driving down narrow country lanes I usually stop and pull in for cyclists approaching (same for horses, dog walkers and people with children). Mind you, the di[ic[/ikhead Eddy Merckx wannabe that I nearly cleaned out on Wednesday ain't going to be cycling for too much longer. On a single track, narrow lane in Wiltshire, I was driving uphill when this clown came careering round a blind bend, in the middle of the road. He just managed to avoid my van and went scooting down the hill, gesticulating like a loon.

Its OK, he'll probably kill himself soon enough, Darwins Law is invoked far quicker on such cyclists than on motor vehicle drivers.

It should be permitted for any car driver to mow down pairs of cyclists riding side by side chatting, rather than in single file.