40mph plan for country roads (and cycling issues)

[jon0844]

It was something do with, never driving at exactly the marked speed limit (particularly at night) as any following police officer would be suspicious? How true this is I don't know.

Police officers are most likely going to pull someone driving slowly at night, as they're probably under the influence of something (or excessively tired) and think driving slow will make them invisible/safe.

In any case, anyone driving at what they believe to be the limit will be driving too slow anyway. All speedos show a higher speed than being driven, so if a police car is a traffic car with a calibrated speedo - they'll see you doing 3-4mph under the limit anyway.

When I used to live in London and not far from the police station, local cars at night (as in 1-4am) would often pull over to let me pass and didn't have a problem with me possibly doing slightly above 30mph. They were on patrol and didn't want to hold me up.

I also overtake police cars on motorways and don't just sit behind when they're in lane 1 doing 60mph and forming a giant convoy of people who are too scared to overtake. You'll see it all the time. The police have a term for it but I forget now (must ask my friend who's a traffic cop one day, as they always find it amusing).

 

[90019]

cyclists have a RIGHT to use the road.

And with that right comes responsibilities. Something that an alarming number of cyclists I see don't appear to be interested in.
It seems that quite often it's those who are most vocal about their rights are those who are least willing to accept the responsibilities that go with them.

For your information cyclist are there by RIGHT, you are only there by LICENCE.

A licence that grants the right to drive on the roads.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be against cyclists having to have some form of licence to show that they have demonstrated a certain level of competence to be allowed to use the roads.
There are plenty of cyclists out there who really shouldn't be anywhere near the roads on a bicycle, as they're a danger not only to themselves but to other road users.
Of course, there are drivers who fall under the same category, but in my experience, nowhere near as many, especially when you take into account the relative numbers of each.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

Police officers are most likely going to pull someone driving slowly at night, as they're probably under the influence of something (or excessively tired) and think driving slow will make them invisible/safe.

In any case, anyone driving at what they believe to be the limit will be driving too slow anyway. All speedos show a higher speed than being driven, so if a police car is a traffic car with a calibrated speedo - they'll see you doing 3-4mph under the limit anyway.

When I used to live in London and not far from the police station, local cars at night (as in 1-4am) would often pull over to let me pass and didn't have a problem with me possibly doing slightly above 30mph. They were on patrol and didn't want to hold me up.

I also overtake police cars on motorways and don't just sit behind when they're in lane 1 doing 60mph and forming a giant convoy of people who are too scared to overtake. You'll see it all the time. The police have a term for it but I forget now (must ask my friend who's a traffic cop one day, as they always find it amusing).

Thanks for this. People under the influence late at night does make sense.

 

[Ivo]

There are plenty of cyclists out there who really shouldn't be anywhere near the roads on a bicycle, as they're a danger not only to themselves but to other road users.
Of course, there are drivers who fall under the same category, but in my experience, nowhere near as many, especially when you take into account the relative numbers of each.

There are few scenarios worse on the road than a cyclist jumping a red light. I have lost count of the number of times I've seen it (certainly >100) - and probably 1-in-4 of those have had to dive out of the way of something larger, or in a few cases even retreated to the stop line.

 

[GB]

And with that right comes responsibilities. Something that an alarming number of cyclists I see don't appear to be interested in.
It seems that quite often it's those who are most vocal about their rights are those who are least willing to accept the responsibilities that go with them.



However, that licence grants the right to drive on the roads.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be against cyclists having to have some form of licence to show that they have demonstrated a certain level of competence to be allowed to use the roads.
There are plenty of cyclists out there who really shouldn't be anywhere near the roads on a bicycle, as they're a danger not only to themselves but to other road users.
Of course, there are drivers who fall under the same category, but in my experience, nowhere near as many, especially when you take into account the relative numbers of each.

Fully agree with all of that. It should also be made law that anyone using a public road on a bicycle should have to wear a helmet and have working lights.

 

[Bungle73]

And with that right comes responsibilities. Something that an alarming number of cyclists I see don't appear to be interested in.
It seems that quite often it's those who are most vocal about their rights are those who are least willing to accept the responsibilities that go with them.



However, that licence grants the right to use the roads.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be against cyclists having to have some form of licence to show that they have demonstrated a certain level of competence to be allowed to use the roads.
There are plenty of cyclists out there who really shouldn't be anywhere near the roads on a bicycle, as they're a danger not only to themselves but to other road users.
Of course, there are drivers who fall under the same category, but in my experience, nowhere near as many, especially when you take into account the relative numbers of each.

A licence that can be taken away, and is not an automatic right to every citizen.

A lot of car drivers seem to think they can behave however they like, and that they are the most important people on the road. Witness the number of cars parked on the pavement, which is ILLEGAL.

As for cyclists, they have to ride defensively because of aggressive car drivers, and also just because a route is bared to cars, it might not be for cycles: ie a one way road for cars may be two way for cycles.

If a cyclist does something silly, it's usually the cyclist that comes off worse, if a car driver does it's likely to be someone else. Compare the number of deaths due to cars to the number due to cyclists.....

 

[90019]

Fully agree with all of that. It should also be made law that anyone using a public road on a bicycle should have to wear a helmet and have working lights.

The helmet, I disagree with (I personally don't wear one), for the same reasons that I am against the new MOT regulations for airbags in cars.

Lights are a must though - I nearly flattened a cyclist recently pulling out of a bus stop on a dark, unlit road because he had no lights and I couldn't see him in my mirrors. He seemed to be of the opinion that lights weren't needed since he had a yellow jacket on.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

And with that right comes responsibilities. Something that an alarming number of cyclists I see don't appear to be interested in.
It seems that quite often it's those who are most vocal about their rights are those who are least willing to accept the responsibilities that go with them.



A licence that grants the right to drive on the roads.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be against cyclists having to have some form of licence to show that they have demonstrated a certain level of competence to be allowed to use the roads.
There are plenty of cyclists out there who really shouldn't be anywhere near the roads on a bicycle, as they're a danger not only to themselves but to other road users.
Of course, there are drivers who fall under the same category, but in my experience, nowhere near as many, especially when you take into account the relative numbers of each.

I also agree with this point of view. A cyclist once ran into the back of me, whilst I was stationary at a red light. He claimed he didn't see the light:roll: As he fell off his bike on colliding with me, I reported the matter to the Police. He wasn't hurt and rode off without leaving his name. The Police recorded the matter with :roll: and a choice phrase for the cyclist.

 

[Bungle73]

Fully agree with all of that. It should also be made law that anyone using a public road on a bicycle should have to wear a helmet and have working lights.

It is law to have working lights at night. As for the helmet thing it's controversial. In fact one study concluded that cyclists are safer without helmets as drivers are more considerate to them.

 

[jon0844]

Of course, there are drivers who fall under the same category, but in my experience, nowhere near as many, especially when you take into account the relative numbers of each.

Yup, far more drivers but as a percentage I'd say FAR MORE bad cyclists.

In London, it's a miracle cyclists don't get killed every few minutes. In many respects, they're often saved by the actions of drivers - not killed because of them.

Around here, it's not cycling through red lights (much fewer lights) that is the problem but cycling on the pavements at speed, and around the town centre - including around corners. A woman was nearly killed a few years back, but survived, due to a cyclist racing by the exit to Asda.

Once again, I've seen cyclists flying by shop fronts and thought 'don't they realise someone could step out of that shop door at any time without warning?'.

I did cycling proficiency at school and still remember most of it - but one thing I don't need to remember is that when on a bike on a road, I'm vulnerable. It doesn't pay to be 'right' and stand up to idiotic motorists, as I'd rather stay alive.

Given how as a motorist I see other idiot drivers, I'd never want to be dealing with them on two wheels. Far too many cyclists are over confident or just trying to change the world - yet you see relatively few motor cyclists doing the same. I do wonder if it's the driving licence element, or having a vehicle that can be traced that changes how people decide to use the roads?

I mean, pedestrians ultimately have right of way over everything - but I don't see many people just jumping out in front of a car to get them to do an emergency stop or skid off the road in order to cross.

 

[90019]

A lot of car drivers seem to think they can behave however they like, and that they are the most important people on the road.

Curiously, in my job, most days I encounter more cyclists behaving like this.

Witness the number of cars parked on the pavement, which is ILLEGAL.

Only in London.

IIRC, it's only illegal if you're causing an obstruction, but that's the same regardless of where the car is.

As for cyclists, they have to ride defensively because of aggressive car drivers

Bollocks.


You realise that I'm a cyclist, right?
Oddly enough, I don't have to ride defensively. Mind you, I actually have some respect for the traffic around me.

Rather than just trying to blame car drivers for everything, why not take some responsibility for your own actions?

If a cyclist does something silly, it's usually the cyclist that comes off worse, if a car driver does it's likely to be someone else. Compare the number of deaths due to cars to the number due to cyclists.....

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for the helmet thing it's controversial. In fact one study concluded that cyclists are safer without helmets as drivers are more considerate to them.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

What that report actually concluded was that where helmets weren't mandatory, the numbers of cyclists injured and killed tended to be lower, and it is believed to be the case that cyclists who wear helmets feel safer and are generally inclined to take more risks.
I can't remember exactly where the study was conducted, but it was in Australia when one city made helmets mandatory, and the numbers of injuries and deaths increased (I think it may have been Melbourne or Brisbane, but I can't remember). It had sod all to do with drivers being more considerate to cyclists without helmets on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I did cycling proficiency at school and still remember most of it - but one thing I don't need to remember is that when on a bike on a road, I'm vulnerable. It doesn't pay to be 'right' and stand up to idiotic motorists, as I'd rather stay alive.

I find it startling the number of cyclists on the roads who seem to have no interest in their own safety whatsoever.
Nearly every day I encounter cyclists who are completely unaware of everything that's going on around them - the worst being the ones who just drift across the road without actually checking what's behind them, or who come sailing out of side roads without bothering to look first.

 

[Bungle73]

Curiously, in my job, most days I encounter more cyclists behaving like this.

I see car drivers like it all the time. Witness people driving like they're in a grand prix when it gets dark.

Only in London


IIRC, it's only illegal if you're causing an obstruction, but that's the same regardless of where the car is.

Cars belong on the road. Pavements are for pedestrians. Most of the time they are causing on obstruction.

Bollocks.

Nope, a lot of car drivers treat cyclist like ****.

Rather than just trying to blame car drivers for everything, why not take some responsibility for your own actions?

Like car drivers do you mean......

You don't even know how I choose to cycle. I never even said that I am a cyclist.

It's true though, isn't it?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

What that report actually concluded was that where helmets weren't mandatory, the numbers of cyclists injured and killed were lower, and it is believed to be the case that cyclists who wear helmets feel safer and are generally inclined to take more risks.
I can't remember exactly where the study was conducted, but it was in Australia when one city made helmets mandatory, and the numbers of injuries and deaths increased. It had sod all to do with drivers being more considerate to cyclists without helmets on.

It's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. The study was in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

The study found drivers tend to pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than those who are bare-headed.

 

[jon0844]

If a cyclist does something silly, it's usually the cyclist that comes off worse, if a car driver does it's likely to be someone else. Compare the number of deaths due to cars to the number due to cyclists.....

Exactly, so why do cyclists do it (not all of them, obviously)?

There are far more bad cyclists than bad drivers. However, a bad cyclist isn't likely to hurt a motorist - but can do serious harm to pedestrians. In fact, the poor pedestrian is always going to be the main loser - yet any motorist OR cyclist is a pedestrian at some time or another.

Some people won't necessarily see how bad cyclists can be, as they're not encountering them in a busy city - like London. It's probably more than half of London cyclists breaking the law, and hasn't been helped with the Boris Bikes.

To be fair, a lot of people have never been told that there ARE rules, let alone what they are. Some have very ingenious ways of breaking the laws too. But when I see cyclists jumping red lights at junctions (as against crossings) I do wonder if they have a death wish. Likewise when cycling the wrong way down a one way street. What ARE they thinking?

And when a motorist jumps a red light, as many do, it's quite easy to cope with as a pedestrian. Lights on road go red, one (possibly two) cars may speed up and jump. Then that's it. Lights go green for the crossing and you cross.

Now, in the case of a crossing with a cyclist approaching, they'll go through red at any time. And many won't stop, they'll just try and anticipate where you'll be and cycle around you. Often they'll misjudge and clip the side of someone. And, in my experience, they'll often find themselves being hit by the pedestrian crossing that has to jump out of their way.

Sorry, but if I am crossing a road - the only thing I fear being hit by is a cyclist NOT a car. I can cope with the predictable nature of a motorist being a c**k, but cyclists are a menace!

 

[90019]

I see car drivers like it all the time. Witness people driving like they're in a grand prix when it gets dark.

As do I, but not on the same scale as the cyclists I see cycling badly.
I spend most of my day on the roads driving around Edinburgh, and I regularly witness appalling driving and cycling.
Overall, the numbers of each are probably roughly equal, but when you take into account the number of drivers and cyclists I encounter during the day, I'd say under 5% of drivers I encounter are driving badly, whereas it's easily over 50% of cyclists.

Cars belong on the road. Pavements are for pedestrians. Most of the time they are causing on obstruction.

But it's not illegal unless they are actually causing an obstruction.
Pavements aren't for cyclists either (unless signed as so), but I still regularly see people cycling on them - and was nearly knocked over by one coming out of the bank a few months back. Can't say I've ever been hit by a car driving on the pavement.

Nope, a lot of car drivers treat cyclist like ****.

That's a mighty big brush you've got there.

Respect has to come from both sides, and as things are, I see drivers giving a hell of a lot more respect to cyclists than I do the other way round.

Like car drivers do you mean......

That's an impressively pathetic response.
Yes, some car drivers, but can you seriously say that you think cyclists are perfect in this respect? There are problems on both sides - to believe it's the fault of one side is just delusional.

You don't even know how I choose to cycle. I never even said that I am a cyclist.

My wording wasn't perfect - the 'you' wasn't a reference to you in particular, but to cyclists in general who try to blame everything that happens on everyone but themselves and refuse to take and responsibility for what happens to them.

It's true though, isn't it?

It's true, but it's also one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

It's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. The study was in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

Clearly we're talking about different studies.
I should have remembered that one, though, as I encountered that one at the same time I was reading the results of the other one.

 

[jon0844]

It is law to have working lights at night. As for the helmet thing it's controversial. In fact one study concluded that cyclists are safer without helmets as drivers are more considerate to them.

You assume a motorist has time to see a cyclist and then decide to be nice/bad based on how vulnerable they are! I wouldn't give them that much credit and wouldn't want to sue the person that conducted the study when I am severely brain damaged or dead.

I'd not take a chance without a helmet if I cycled in London, but I admit to not wearing a helmet when cycling in Hatfield. To be honest, there's no logic to my decision - but I prefer not to have to carry it when I've taken it off. Fortunately, most of my cycling is off-road on proper cycle paths.

And I could rant for days about how pathetic the cycle lane provision is, and where they just end at complex junctions where they're needed most (but require the most investment/work).

 

[90019]

To be fair, a lot of people have never been told that there ARE rules, let alone what they are. Some have very ingenious ways of breaking the laws too. But when I see cyclists jumping red lights at junctions (as against crossings) I do wonder if they have a death wish. Likewise when cycling the wrong way down a one way street. What ARE they thinking?

I think a big part of the problem is that if you wished, you could buy a bike today and go out and ride on busy city streets immediately with no training whatsoever. Even if you have no road sense, spacial awareness or actual ability.
To use pretty much any other vehicle on the roads, you still have to have some form of basic training beforehand.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

Exactly, so why do cyclists do it (not all of them, obviously)?

There are far more bad cyclists than bad drivers. However, a bad cyclist isn't likely to hurt a motorist - but can do serious harm to pedestrians. In fact, the poor pedestrian is always going to be the main loser - yet any motorist OR cyclist is a pedestrian at some time or another.

Some people won't necessarily see how bad cyclists can be, as they're not encountering them in a busy city - like London. It's probably more than half of London cyclists breaking the law, and hasn't been helped with the Boris Bikes.

To be fair, a lot of people have never been told that there ARE rules, let alone what they are. Some have very ingenious ways of breaking the laws too. But when I see cyclists jumping red lights at junctions (as against crossings) I do wonder if they have a death wish. Likewise when cycling the wrong way down a one way street. What ARE they thinking?

And when a motorist jumps a red light, as many do, it's quite easy to cope with as a pedestrian. Lights on road go red, one (possibly two) cars may speed up and jump. Then that's it. Lights go green for the crossing and you cross.

Now, in the case of a crossing with a cyclist approaching, they'll go through red at any time. And many won't stop, they'll just try and anticipate where you'll be and cycle around you. Often they'll misjudge and clip the side of someone. And, in my experience, they'll often find themselves being hit by the pedestrian crossing that has to jump out of their way.

Sorry, but if I am crossing a road - the only thing I fear being hit by is a cyclist NOT a car. I can cope with the predictable nature of a motorist being a c**k, but cyclists are a menace!

As a manual wheelchair user, I too, fear being hit by a cyclist at a pedestrian crossing. This very nearly happened to me, in Leicester, earlier this year! How can you miss a wheelchair in broad daylight? The cyclist was indignant he had to stop. There were two other pedestrians crossing, in the opposite direction as well.

 

[jon0844]

I find it startling the number of cyclists on the roads who seem to have no interest in their own safety whatsoever.
Nearly every day I encounter cyclists who are completely unaware of everything that's going on around them - the worst being the ones who just drift across the road without actually checking what's behind them, or who come sailing out of side roads without bothering to look first.

If they're older then I wonder if they're people who have considered cycling to save money on petrol and just cycle as they did in their car.

You see people like that all the time in their cars, who think that indicating is something you do the exact second you realise that you're about to miss your turn. Drive, slam brakes on, indicate, turn.

Or change lane and when the last set of wheels are about to fully cross theline you flash your indicator as if I haven't already worked out the fact you're moving lane by the fact you already have....

Still, indicating at all is probably being quite courteous these days.. and many cyclists seem to have no idea how to signal to motorists about what they want to do. Funnily enough, despite there being plenty of idiot car drivers, many will give way when they're given a sign of what a cyclist wants to do.

In fact, around here, where there are many unofficial cycle races at weekends, I rarely find motorists not giving cyclists plenty of room. And these cyclists signal clearly, wear protective gear and use lights. In fact, when they use lights they REALLY use lights, with super-bright LED lights front and back. I guess they actually want to get home to see their family at the end of the day.

 

[starrymarkb]

There are few scenarios worse on the road than a cyclist jumping a red light. I have lost count of the number of times I've seen it (certainly >100) - and probably 1-in-4 of those have had to dive out of the way of something larger, or in a few cases even retreated to the stop line.

Saw it today, I was on my bike and stopped at the lights, then another cyclist wizzes past before having to slam the brakes on to avoid the traffic. There are more who will mount the pavement and use the pedestrian crossings.

Mind you I almost took out several pedestrians while riding up the High Street as they just step out without looking. The bell gets a lot of use along there! (Ding if I see anyone approaching the kerb )

 

[jon0844]

As a manual wheelchair user, I too, fear being hit by a cyclist at a pedestrian crossing. This very nearly happened to me, in Leicester, earlier this year! How can you miss a wheelchair in broad daylight? The cyclist was indignant he had to stop. There were two other pedestrians crossing, in the opposite direction as well.

I've been clipped many times walking on a narrow pavement by cyclists working on the business park. The last one that nearly hit me then called me a c**t was still wearing his Royal Mail uniform.

Why did he do that? Because I was walking along, listening to my headphones, and turned to cross the road - and he hadn't anticipated that anyone might not continue in a perfectly straight line. I wasn't hurt, but could have been if the timing had been a fraction of a second out.

Now on some of the roads around here, I don't have a problem with people cycling on pavements that aren't yet dedicated as shared use but clearly should be (and in time, many are) as long as the cyclists take care and realise that they don't have priority. That means NOT just flying by pedestrians and hoping they won't move, turn around, cross etc.

In fact, while some people here might consider a bell/horn as being a way to tell someone to **** off, I'd much rather someone just gave a quick ring of their bell (I assume most cyclists have one?!) to let me know they were coming so I could move and then have them say 'cheers' as they go by - as many do.

As long as nobody rings repeatedly, tells me to get out of the way or has a crazy air horn, then I have no reason to block their progress. Be polite to me and I'll go out of my way to be polite back.

 

[90019]

Still, indicating at all is probably being quite courteous these days.. and many cyclists seem to have no idea how to signal to motorists about what they want to do. Funnily enough, despite there being plenty of idiot car drivers, many will give way when they're given a sign of what a cyclist wants to do.

I have to admit, that is something I always worry about when I'm overtaking a cyclist - particularly those with headphones in - it's impossible to predict what some are about to do.

It was only on Wednesday that I was preparing to overtake a cyclist (who was cycling along on the left hand side of the road, wearing headphones), who suddenly decided they wanted to turn right, and with no warning, and without looking, shot across to the middle of the road and then turned off.
If I'd been a couple of seconds further along, the cyclist most likely would have been under the front wheel of the bus (and this was not a quiet bus I was driving).


I find it genuinely scary how little regard some people seem to have for their own life.

 

[jon0844]

And just like a pedestrian, it's even more vital for cyclists to look properly now that we have hybrid vehicles that can drive along making virtually no noise at all.

Merely standing your ground and putting your arm out isn't going to be enough if there's some prat in a Prius not paying attention.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

I've been clipped many times walking on a narrow pavement by cyclists working on the business park. The last one that nearly hit me then called me a c**t was still wearing his Royal Mail uniform.

Why did he do that? Because I was walking along, listening to my headphones, and turned to cross the road - and he hadn't anticipated that anyone might not continue in a perfectly straight line. I wasn't hurt, but could have been if the timing had been a fraction of a second out.

Now on some of the roads around here, I don't have a problem with people cycling on pavements that aren't yet dedicated as shared use but clearly should be (and in time, many are) as long as the cyclists take care and realise that they don't have priority. That means NOT just flying by pedestrians and hoping they won't move, turn around, cross etc.

In fact, while some people here might consider a bell/horn as being a way to tell someone to **** off, I'd much rather someone just gave a quick ring of their bell (I assume most cyclists have one?!) to let me know they were coming so I could move and then have them say 'cheers' as they go by - as many do.

As long as nobody rings repeatedly, tells me to get out of the way or has a crazy air horn, then I have no reason to block their progress. Be polite to me and I'll go out of my way to be polite back.

Absolutely agreed. I wouldn't mind but the pedestrian crossing was in our favour. We had a right to cross safely.

 

[David]

A lot of car drivers seem to think they can behave however they like, and that they are the most important people on the road. Witness the number of cars parked on the pavement, which is ILLEGAL.

Huh?

The problem is, there’s no law saying motorists can’t park on pavements outside of London. According to the 1835 Highways Act it is an offence to drive on a pavement but the Highway Code states that:

“You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it.”

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/parking-on-a-pavement-watch-out-for-new-laws

As for cyclists, they have to ride defensively because of aggressive car drivers, and also just because a route is bared to cars, it might not be for cycles: ie a one way road for cars may be two way for cycles.

Wrong! A one way street is one way for all types of vehicles. The only exception for cyclists is where there is a designated cycle lane allowing 2 way travel. If that the case then the cycle lane would be segregated from normal traffic.

Based on your posts in this topic, I'm not sure if your trolling or not, as your coming out with half baked arguments and not bothering to check your facts. It took me about 5 seconds in Google to check the law on parking on pavements. All this thread now is someone to pipe up about driving being made very expensive to push people on to public transport and driverless cars. :roll:

Anyway, getting back to the original topic. I'm against speed limits being revised for the sake of it. If there is a good reason for a limit to be revised (such as a tight twisty road), then yes it should be done, otherwise they should be left alone.

What I am in favour of is more training for motorists, such as the IAM test, with the benefits it brings, such as better drivers and reduced insurance premiums. However, it shouldn't be a case of once you pass the training, that's it, insurance companies should encourage drivers to refresh the training every 10 years or so. However, the extra training schemes should not be compulsary.

 

[90019]

Huh?

Don't you know that typing something in capitals makes it a FACT?

What I am in favour of is more training for motorists, such as the IAM test, with the benefits it brings, such as better drivers and reduced insurance premiums. However, it shouldn't be a case of once you pass the training, that's it, insurance companies should encourage drivers to refresh the training every 10 years or so. However, the extra training schemes should not be compulsary.

Oddly, I'm not too sure about the IAM test.
Of the people I know/know of who've done it, most of them are average drivers at best - and a couple are actually pretty bad.
Though, I think part of the problem is in the name. People take the test then go 'I am an advanced driver, therefore I am right and you must be wrong'.
Obviously this isn't the case for all.

Ideally, I'd prefer more emphasis on actual driving skill for the driving test, with more types of road incorporated, and less of 'can you do this standard maneouvre exactly like you've been shown'. I'd also be in favour of driving tests being longer. I'd rather all driving tests were 90 minutes long, like the PCV and HGV ones already are.

 

[Bungle73]

Huh

That still says cars should not be on the pavement.

Wrong! A one way street is one way for all types of vehicles.

It is not "wrong". There are one way streets that are two way for cyclists.

The only exception for cyclists is where there is a designated cycle lane allowing 2 way travel. If that the case then the cycle lane would be segregated from normal traffic.

Not necessarily.

There is a street I used to cycle along in London that was like that:

Based on your posts in this topic, I'm not sure if your trolling or not, as your coming out with half baked arguments and not bothering to check your facts. It took me about 5 seconds in Google to check the law on parking on pavements. All this thread now is someone to pipe up about driving being made very expensive to push people on to public transport and driverless cars. :roll:

I'm not the one who's trolling. I'm just responding to the usual "aren't all cyclists terrible" rubbish that keeps getting banded about by a certain group of people.

 

[DavidBrown]

There is a street I used to cycle along in London that was like that:

I hope you do realise that cyclists can only use that lane on the left? You're banned from cycling up that road in the same way that cars can't drive up that road.

Actually, it does show the issue of how the facilities provided for cyclists vary. That GSV link shows a great cycle path - seperated from the road by kerbs and so is kept clear of traffic. However, that other picture you posted where there is no designated cycle lane is horrendous design and very dangerous - opposing cyclists should always have a cycle lane to follow. The way that road narrows is just asking for a car to go into the path of an oncoming cyclist.

 

[Bungle73]

I hope you do realise that cyclists can only use that lane on the left? You're banned from cycling up that road in the same way that cars can't drive up that road.

It's changed since I used to use it. Then there was no contraflow cycle lane (but it was still two-way for cycles - there were signs). I only just realised that, that's why I deleted it.

 

[WestCoast]

As a manual wheelchair user, I too, fear being hit by a cyclist at a pedestrian crossing. This very nearly happened to me, in Leicester, earlier this year! How can you miss a wheelchair in broad daylight? The cyclist was indignant he had to stop. There were two other pedestrians crossing, in the opposite direction as well.

I'm an occasional cyclist myself, but some of the cycling I have seen does concern me. I witnessed my neighbour, who's partially-sighted, nearly get badly hurt on a zebra crossing by a cyclist, who failed to stop.

Near me, there's also a 'blind corner' for pedestrians at the bottom of a busy street (which is also at the bottom of a hill). Basically, it's a narrow footpath with a large wall and bushes so you can't see around the corner. I nearly collided with a cyclist who was flying down the hill on the pavement just as I was turning left up the hill and then he had the arrogance to curse at me!

Of course, I know many (probably the majority in most places) cyclists aren't ignorant/careless, but I do find some cyclists are quite undisciplined on the roads (or pavements!).

 

[Lampshade]

I've been hit from behind on the pavement by a cyclist a few times, often preceded by a frantic "excuse me, excuse me" then looking at me like I've just murdered his dog when he falls off.