[The Deadly]

Then it's not the bike that is unsafe then is it. A good rider can't be held responsible for the actions of other road users.

Grow up.

[MK Chris]

The roads are significantly more dangerous for bikers than drivers, be that through their own fault or other road users (and it can be either).

[DevilsDuck]

Grow up.

oh my god that made me laugh...Rich!

[Travis Bickle]

Bikes are only dangerous in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to ride them properly. A responsible rider is a safe rider.

If that was safer rather than safe I would agree. I've been riding in all conditions for ten years now and never had any accidents, but being so exposed will always put me at an increased risk.

Riders can do a hell of a lot to lessen the risks though.

[Yudster]

And so often they don't. They aren't as dangerous to other road users as (a significant number of) pedal cyclists though.

[bmstinton93]

Cue R94N...

[chrysostom]

I cannot stand the attitude of a majority of pedal cyclists on the road, especially in London.

The letter from the head of Addison Lee was harsh in tone, but held a lot of truth

Green party candidates and others are up in arms about what they see as the murder of Cyclists on London Roads.

“There has, as we all know, been a tremendous upsurge in cycling and cycling shops. This summer the roads will be thick with bicycles. These cyclists are throwing themselves onto some of the most congested spaces in the world. They leap onto a vehicle which offers them no protection except a padded plastic hat.

“Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain, then he is guilty of failing to anticipate that this was somebody on her maiden voyage into the abyss. The fact is he just didn’t see her and however cautious, caring or alert he is, the influx of beginner cyclists is going to lead to an overall increase in accidents involving cyclists.

“The rest of us occupying this roadspace have had to undergo extensive training. We are sitting inside a protected space with impact bars and air bags and paying extortionate amounts of taxes on our vehicle purchase, parking, servicing, insurance and road tax.

“It is time for us to say to cyclists, ‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’.”

And that doesn't even cover the 'experienced cyclists' who are happy to weave in and out of traffic, skip red lights and mount the pavement.

I've no real issue with motorcyclists - unless they overtake me in a 30 when I'm doing 30.

edit. Back on topic - that's very sad about your friend Tim, is there a possibility of criminal prosecution?

[The Deadly]

Cyclists should pay road tax and their bikes subject to MOT's. They should also be made to pay insurance so that both they and drivers are covered against vehicle damage and injury.

[MK Chris]

I don't think you could ever police that in a million years.

[bmstinton93]

Cyclists should pay road tax and their bikes subject to MOT's. They should also be made to pay insurance so that both they and drivers are covered against vehicle damage and injury.

Isn't that kinda the whole point in cycling? To avoid those costs?

[chrysostom]

I don't think that's the point of cycling (although road tax would be negligible as push bikes have no emissions and little impact on the roads themselves).

I think that cyclists should have insurance though (at least within busy areas), if they wish to cycle on the roads. If a cyclist causes an accident to another cyclist, or even another motor vehicle driver then they will have no way to compensate the other or claim fault.

At the very least there should be a license for cycling on roads which cars use. If cyclists don't know the rules of the road, then they shouldn't be on it - especially as they won't know how cars are going to behave, and how they should behave around cars.

The cyclist that died after being pulled under the Olympic bus is a good example of this - he was half way alongside the left side of the bus at a red light, in the driver's blind spot (where he shouldn't have been) and decided that he would be able to make it to the lights before the bus would. The bus turned left, the bike was caught in the bus' turn and sadly he was crushed.

[dimtimjim]

I agree with said comments regarding motorbike safety, that is why since becoming a Dad I have given up riding on the road and now only ride on race tracks, as odd as it sounds, its by FAR the safer option.

Anyway, off to visit hostipal before picking up my girly. Have a good weekend y'all. x

[MK Chris]

I don't think that's the point of cycling (although road tax would be negligible as push bikes have no emissions and little impact on the roads themselves).

For a long time I cycled to work because I couldn't afford a car, let alone to run one. An ex-colleague now works for a bike distributors in Milton Keynes and apparently since the recession took hold, they're doing very well. I think a lot of people do see that as at least part of the point of cycling.

I think that cyclists should have insurance though (at least within busy areas), if they wish to cycle on the roads. If a cyclist causes an accident to another cyclist, or even another motor vehicle driver then they will have no way to compensate the other or claim fault.

At the very least there should be a license for cycling on roads which cars use. If cyclists don't know the rules of the road, then they shouldn't be on it - especially as they won't know how cars are going to behave, and how they should behave around cars.

The cyclist that died after being pulled under the Olympic bus is a good example of this - he was half way alongside the left side of the bus at a red light, in the driver's blind spot (where he shouldn't have been) and decided that he would be able to make it to the lights before the bus would. The bus turned left, the bike was caught in the bus' turn and sadly he was crushed.

Whilst I don't doubt it has good intentions, I think there are several reasons you can't police it - for one, bikes don't have registrations like cars do. Presumably to introduce that and / or licenses you'd need a DVLA-style operation, which would be hugely expensive.

Also, don't you have to cycle on the road if you're older than something like 11?

[Yudster]

The vast majority of cyclists around here are apparently experienced - in that they are all wearing flash gear, have "proper" bikes and at least look as though they do it a lot. This however doesn't preclude them from being incredibly dangerous, as much as anything because they seem to feel absolutely no requirement to make any kind of signal to other traffic whatsoever before making any manoevre. And when I say "manoevre", I mean skipping between lanes, jumping lights, sneaking up the inside, cutting across lanes - you know the kind of thing.The other type of cyclist that causes trouble are the ones that evidently cycle a fair bit, but aren't as confident - they don't know what to do at junctions or when they need to turn right, so they wibble and wobble and faff about - just LOOK, SIGNAL, LOOK and GO!!!! * sake!!!!

I know that it would be a problem for children on their bikes, but I really think there ought to be some kind of test which adults at least should be required to pass in order to be allowed to ride on the road - and that traffic police should be a lot more proactive about keeping them accountable.

[chrysostom]

I'm only really familiar with Milton Keynes when it comes to these kind of things, and the redways have meant I've never had to venture onto a busy road, but have always been able to go relatively long distances.

Policing it would be difficult, but perhaps having it in place might at least encourage some people to do it?

Cycle registration could be done online, as could theory tests - leaving just a practical test for a small cost? (I'm not presenting it as a fully thought out argument!).

After doing a bit of research on the insurance thing, cyclists can be pursued through a civil case where damage is inflicted by them to your car - but car insurance companies don't like to pursue this, and usually make the driver pay the excess and lose the no claims.

My other cyclist gripe is drunk cycling. In Oxford it is rife, yet noone seems to treat it with anywhere close to the stigma of drunk driving - even though they're on the road with other cars.

*Off to calm down*

[DevilsDuck]

The cyclists that annoy me are the ones that cycle side by side and as such making it a hell of a lot harder to get round them or the ones that weave from side to side whilst cycling up hill

[Boboff]

Cyclists riding two or three abreast, what's that all about.

Motorbike riders, Sunday morning, summer, WANKERS.

People riding to work... ok, mostly.

Anyway, back on Topic you * moaning shit for brains...

[DevilsDuck]

I just had a topic...not much Hazlenuts in them anymore

[MK Chris]

After doing a bit of research on the insurance thing, cyclists can be pursued through a civil case where damage is inflicted by them to your car - but car insurance companies don't like to pursue this, and usually make the driver pay the excess and lose the no claims.

Well they should be made to.

[Misfit]

I ride bikes daily as I cant afford to learn to drive and I think you're all talking bollocks. Why should I have to pay insurance, tax, do a test for something most people learn to when they're about 5. I ride my bike with no brakes, lights, jump on and off the pavement. But, i dont cause a nuisance of myself. I avoid pedestrians, and on the road I stick to the cycle lanes. dont get in the way etc. I got hit by a car who drove straight out into the side of me when i had right of way, you dont see me demanding he takes a re test.

[Bonanzoid]

Perhaps he didn't see you because you have no lights? I'm guessing your lack of brakes didn't help too.

[Yudster]

I think misfit has just made the case for motorists perfectly.

[Misfit]

Perhaps he didn't see you because you have no lights? I'm guessing your lack of brakes didn't help too.

It was lunchtime, no need for lights, and I have fixed gear so brakes aren't a legal requirement unless I ride about 20 inch wheels which I dont.

I think misfit has just made the case for motorists perfectly.

How, why should we have to pay for staying fit, being environmentally friendly etc etc. If i do ride on the pavement, that doesn't affect motorists does it. I obey the law when I do ride on the rode, just because we dont have control of something that causes a horrendous amount of deaths and pollutes the earth, we shouldnt be allowed on the road?

[Yudster]

Reinforced.

Can I just clarify that I am not of the opinion that cyclists should have to pay some form of road tax in the same way that motorists do. I do however think that they standard of riding on the road needs to be accountable (as misfit has admirably underlined) and that any road user who has the potential to cause an accident should be required to be insured against this - and that would include families having some form of insurance to cover their kids when they are either out on their bikes with their mates, or out riding with their parents. I'm not suggesting this wouldn't be complicated and I can accept that it might not be possible, but I do think it should be thought about at least.

[chrysostom]

I got hit by a car who drove straight out into the side of me when i had right of way, you dont see me demanding he takes a re test.

What you have described is an offence called 'driving without due care and attention'. If it was the driver's fault, then they would be subject to a serious points deduction, potential ban, paying a victim surcharge and court costs.

It seems fair that someone who causes an accident is punished by the law for conducting themselves dangerously on public roads - as well as having to compensate the victim for damage/injury.

The point I was trying to make was that if a cyclist (not you specifically, but someone else who doesn't adhere to the cyclist's laws of the road 100% of the time) causes an accident to another cyclist, or road user - then the road user will have to pursue a civil case, leaving the offender liable to a potentially huge bill. In a motorist's case, they would have 3rd party insurance to cover this. A cyclist without liability insurance would have to pay this out of their own pocket, with the potential to leave the victim without compensation if they simply can't afford it.

we shouldnt be allowed on the road?

I don't think anyone said that.