I despair of my fellow man sometimes. The BBC has an article that distils comments about reducing cycling deaths on our roads. The usual “ban it” mentality abounds.
When I was at school, it was a requirement that I passed my cycling proficiency test in order to be allowed to ride my bike to and from. That’s fine – they had an entry requirement and that was their prerogative. I would also have no particular qualms about cyclists being required to pass it to ride on the public highway – a shared resource is just that; a shared resource. Being required to demonstrate competence before using it would be reasonable – motorised vehicles fall within that category, so why not other types of vehicle? And, frankly, an upping of the level of competence on our roads would be no bad thing. But, in general, I am not in favour of compulsion or bans.
“What about requiring that in order to get a driving licence, every driver has to cycle for three miles along a dual carriageway. This seems to me the best way to make drivers realise that cyclists have a right to use the road and not to be squeezed into the gutter. Most cyclists are drivers too or have been at one time but most drivers have no experience of what it’s like to cycle in traffic and don’t seem to believe that cyclists have any right to be on the road.” Pedal Pusher, London
No, you fucking twat! Quite apart from the ignorant assumption based upon nothing more substantial than the writer’s own massive prejudice, this is fuckwittery of the first order. Not everyone is capable of riding a pushbike and forcing someone to do something that is dangerous is not the way to ensure competence. I would not – ever – ride a pushbike on a dual carriageway. Ever, under any circumstances. This does not mean that I mow down those who do, nor does it make it even remotely likely. I am in control of my vehicle and have demonstrated that control before being allowed to use it unsupervised. I do not need to put myself in unnecessary danger in order to do so and only a moron would suggest that I should.
“A real radical solution? Any person sitting a driving test should have to sit a practical test on a bike. In traffic, in an urban area and also on a country road (the problems are very different), at night, in bad weather. It might not convert them to cycling, but at least they’ll appreciate the other point of view a bit better.” Graeme Allan, Keith, Scotland
As with the previous nutter. What is required is that people using the roads are competent in using the vehicle they are driving or riding – not that they are able to use others. Although, of course, understanding the difficulties others face is fair enough – you don’t have to take a test on one in order to do that, though. So, Greame Allan is an unmitigated pillock as well.
“One way to overcome the problem would be to make city centre roads one way, where possible and provide cycle lanes which would face the oncoming traffic. Cyclists and vehicle drivers would be able to face each other and reduce confrontation.” S Bolton, Cowes, Isle of Wight
Oh, great. Even more idiotic one-way systems. Twat!
“Ban cyclists from passing traffic on the left, i.e. under-taking, particularly near junctions. From what I’ve read a huge proportion of accidents involve vehicles turning left, which if the cyclist wasn’t there would never occur. Personally I believe I’m safest when I position myself in the middle of the lane, rather than squashed up against the curb, and in queuing traffic overtake on the outside like any other vehicle would.”David, Denmead, UK
Ah, yes, “ban it”. That always works. Now, I would always advise very strongly against this practice, but given that cyclists routinely ignore the Highway Code and road traffic act with impunity, this ban would be really, really effective, won’t it?
“It should be law to wear some hi-vis while cycling. You cannot always blame the motorists.” TC, Walthamstow, London
Ah, yes, more force. No, cyclists should not be forced to wear Hi-Viz (the arseholes will be trying to make me do it on my motorcycle next), nor should they be forced to wear helmets. We do not need more laws.
The prize for biggest wanker of the lot has to go to this cunt:
“If any collision between a bicycle and a motor vehicle was dealt with by a mandatory prosecution for the motorist, then this would immediately cut accidents between cars and bicycles.” Steve Canning, Plymouth, Devon
Yes, of course, because it is always the driver’s fault and never the cyclist. You moronic shitforbrains.
There’s more of this authoritarian crap but I don’t have the energy to wade through it all. Suffice to say, when our politicians spew even more nasty restrictive legislation, there are plenty of useful idiots out there cheering them on. Not only that, they write to the BBC making suggestions for even more.
XX provide cycle lanes XX
HA!
We have them all over the place here, and the bastards STILL ride on the pavements!
I would like there to be the same right of way rules at roundabouts as there are in for example Germany,Sweden and the Netherlands.Pedestrians and cyclists on cycle paths have priority and i feel that this re-enforces the equality of all.In the U.K. motor vehicle drivers seem to have a “lord of the manor” attitude that they are more important and pedestrians must wait for them to pass whereas in the above mentioned countries I find that vehicles will stop if you even look like you might want to cross.
There is no such thing as right of way. There is priority to the right at roundabouts unless they have traffic lights.
As for one group having more priority – no, absolutely not. We have pedestrian crossings at may roundabouts – in which case, fair enough, drivers must give way to pedestrians. Cyclists must either follow the same traffic pattern as other road users (give way to the right) or use dedicated cycle paths.
In the countries i mentioned there is usually a separate outer circle of cycle/footpath at roundabouts and people using it DO have the right of way and may come from the left or right.If you were to hit a cyclist or pedestrian at such a crossing you would be assumed to be at fault because you were not being careful/considerate.It is difficult for a U.K trained driver at first, you have to learn to keep track of people using the bike paths in case your paths will intersect at the next junction.
Ah, yes, assumed. I hate that word. It could be just as possible that the pedestrian or cyclist moved into the driver’s path without checking that it was clear and that the driver was not already committed to the manoeuvre. No, I don’t approve.
All road users should be looking out for each other and taking personal responsibility for their own safety as well as that of those around them. The answer is shared space in city centres and separated cycle lanes outside of them.
And none of the commentators come up with the right solution, make the cyclist responsible for their own actions. If a cyclist wants to cycle in the dark on a country lane with no high viz or lights and has an accident, then its his problem, no one elses, even if the driver was drunk.
Ah, yes, personal responsibility. There was a spate of accidents involving undertaking lorries at junctions. While this is tragic, if you move into another road user’s blind spot, then it is your responsibility if you come a cropper.
Personal responsibility?
Careful old lad, you’ll give La Toynbee a fit of apoplexy.
Rights, not responsibilities are what she & her ilk dish out. Carefully selected rights of course, but responsibility is anathema to that sort.
Good God, man! Next you’ll be saying it’s a good thing for the masses to think for themselves!
“And none of the commentators come up with the right solution, make the cyclist responsible for their own actions.”
Some cycling responsibility for you… :/
“Any person sitting a driving test should have to sit a practical test on a bike. In traffic, in an urban area and also on a country road (the problems are very different), at night, in bad weather. It might not convert them to cycling, but at least they’ll appreciate the other point of view a bit better.” Graeme Allan, Keith, Scotland”
Presumably Mr. Allan is prepared to learn to ride a motorcycle as well as a horse in order to gain his driving licence.
It does seem to me that the problem is that cyclists can go out on the roads with no skills whatsoever. I’m not sure that it would be practical to have a test that cyclists have to pass before they are allowed on the road. On the other hand, if it can be done for car drivers and motorcyclists maybe it could work. I’ve ridden thousands of miles on push bikes and have only come a cropper once when a car turned right straight across my path. Thinking about it, I have probably applied my driving and motorcycle training to my cycling, so maybe the answer is cycling training only for those who have not had any other form of training.
He’ll also have to pass his HGV and PSV tests as well, mind.
Articles like these have me reaching for my tinfoil hat, I’m afraid. Although there are clearly a few morons out there who regularly ride bicycles on the road, I just can’t believe that the majority of cyclists are so utterly self-righteous and lacking in common-sense as the ones who regularly show up on cycling-related comments sections with inane, unworkable suggestions such as these. The majority of the cyclists that I encounter on the road seem to be pretty sensible, dressed properly, cycling safely and giving me a courteous thank-you when I overtake them carefully (which I always do) or give way for them or whatever. I’ve seen one or two twits on bikes, but by and large most of them are fine.
But give the appearance of a cycle-related article and all the idiots appear in the comments sections, regular as clockwork, coming out with the same old suggestions – ban this, ban that, blame the motorist, cyclists’ rights, poor little us, blah blah blah – so much so that I’m beginning to think that there’s a bit of an astroturf movement going on, probably instigated by a bunch of people who in reality don’t give a tinker’s cuss about either cyclists or drivers, but who are very keen to get a war of words going between the two in an effort to keep an easily-distracted public riled up about something inconsequential, so as to distract them from anything bigger.
Likewise.
What does ‘dressed properly’ mean?
I wear the same clothes I walk about in on my bicycle, with an added cycle clip (to avoid the trouser getting caught in the chain!). Would that be ‘proper’ enough?
Well, not in the complete buff, I guess! No, seriously, I mean things like no flapping skirts or coats and some hi-viz stuff so they can be seen easily, and decent lights (on the bike, rather than worn, obviously). That sort of thing.
I presume you will have a link to some research that shows how ‘hi-viz stuff.. can be seen easily’?
I’m not overly sure that it makes the slightest bit of difference are and the effect of adding something that increases the danger of ‘risk compensation’ may not be the best idea.
I think you can safely bet that those commenters are the ones you see barreling down the road on their thousand pound bikes with a steely glint in their eyes, clad in Lycra sculpted round their dangly bits, wearing a hand of shiny bananas on their heads and a pair of multi-coloured-lens sunglasses. They are a type. Like rabid anti-smokers, they just can’t quite get to grips with the concept that there are opinions and desires other than their own.
For some reason, I always associate the lycra-clad hooligans with eco-warriors – I’m not sure why.
“And, frankly, an upping of the level of competence on our roads would be no bad thing.”
You are too stinting with your praise – it would be a godsend!
There’s something going on. Now, every clown on a pushbike seems to be lit up like Mandela’s arsehole and more of them seem to be getting killed than when having to have lights was considered some sort of affront.
Perhaps it just allows us bike hating car junkies to target them easier but I think Jax has hit the nail on the head. There are those “useful idiots” who gleefully take on the role of (slowly) moving obstructions. Effectively they are the provisional wing of the anti car movement. Those who encourage then don’t mind how many get killed. Indeed, the more that do the better.
I overheard a couple of these fuckwits in Halfords recently as I walked down an isle boasting about how blinding their white LEDS were to oncoming cars. If I were to hear that one of these had been flattened by a left turning truck I would find it very difficult to sypathise.
I suspect it will only get worse as the general population becomes more infantilised as us old farts begin to die off.
And they should also learn to drive trains BTW as sometimes pushbikes do go across level crossings.
Heh!
It would be an interesting experiment to get the most vociferous cycle louts to have a crack at driving HGVs and Buses in big cities for a bit. But this Country is just full of tossers telling each other how to do things. Only yesterday whilst standing waiting for a bus on a shared pavement/cycle path and elderly lycra clad git moaned “standing in the middle of the footpath” as he very easily passed by followed by his dutiful wife. I wasn’t (standing in the middle) but he’s obviously got into the habit of saying stuff.
“…but given that cyclists routinely ignore the Highway Code and road traffic act with impunity…”
Ironically, given the original source of the article, this is something the BBC, as a publicly-funded, state-owned broadcaster, is actually in a position to do something about. And it’s right there in its remit too: To educate, inform and entertain. In that order.
I’m not sure where the logic is in requiring drivers of motor vehicles to learn all that stuff, yet cyclists can go ride down the A2 without so much as a Bronze Cycling Proficiency Certificate. Then again, this is the same country that imposes laws protecting kids in private cars (child seats, bolster cushions, etc.), while utterly ignoring kids riding on buses, so logic is clearly not a requirement in drafting laws.