Demand for cyclists number plates.

[big soft moose]

I bet the local cycle population are glad that you moved away

- Ive only knocked two cyclists off in my life .. the other one cycled into the side of my car on a roundabout (also in MK) - he was coming from the left and should have given way, but in fact he didnt even look... again the police found that I wasnt to blame

(classic case - yes everyone has the right to the highwway etc but MK has a full network of redways , so what are these muppets doing cycling on the dual carriageways in the first place)

 

[Cobra]

- Ive only knocked two cyclists off in my life .. the other one cycled into the side of my car on a roundabout (also in MK) - he was coming from the left and should have given way, but in fact he didnt even look... again the police found that I wasnt to blame

(classic case - yes everyone has the right to the highwway etc but MK has a full network of redways , so what are these muppets doing cycling on the dual carriageways in the first place)

I thought the cyclist population had increased in the last few years

But seriously, I know exactly what you are saying, they have all that red way and still manage
do some bloody stupid manoeuvre "appearing" from out of the landscaping.
And of course thinking the give way to the right doesn't apply to them

 

[Mattyd]

It's widely accepted within the industry that the hazard perception test is little more than a money maker for the DSA.
The high first time failure rate attests not to inability to read the given situations, but on the fact that people will always "perceive" them differently.
People tend to pass second time simply because they remember the test from previously and alter the clicks accordingly.

I half agree with this - I don't think its necessarily about money. I can see its usefulness. My problem with it is one of being cautious, not cautious enough, or to cautious.

As I remember it you have a button to press every time you see a potential danger - That's great I though....Ill hit it every time I see danger.

The problem is (well... as I understand it) is if you are too cautions and hit the button too often you loose points. Which seems pretty counter productive. There was one scenario where you're driving though a busy town street with literally 100s of people crossing or looking to cross the road. My "perception" button went in to overdrive

Anyway, I aced my driving test with the exception of the hazard test which I only just scraped though. While I don't know for sure what I failed on, im pretty sure it was because I was over cautious.

 

[Mattyd]

I thought the cyclist population had increased in the last few years

But seriously, I know exactly what you are saying, they have all that red way and still manage
do some bloody stupid manoeuvre "appearing" from out of the landscaping.
And of course thinking the give way to the right doesn't apply to them

Not knowing the full case Id hazard a guess that the cyclist had some speed on and took a gamble (and clearly lost)....maybe because roundabout can be a nightmare for cyclists - while Im speedy and have not much of an issue with them (in fact I enjoy them), for a less fit cyclist getting up to speed, between moving cars is pretty much a nightmare situation.

Small roundabouts are a problem too - car to you right moves and before you know it its on your left.

 

[viv1969]

I half agree with this - I don't think its necessarily about money. I can see its usefulness. My problem with it is one of being cautious, not cautious enough, or to cautious.

As I remember it you have a button to press every time you see a potential danger - That's great I though....Ill hit it every time I see danger.

The problem is (well... as I understand it) is if you are too cautions and hit the button too often you loose points. Which seems pretty counter productive. There was one scenario where you're driving though a busy town street with literally 100s of people crossing or looking to cross the road. My "perception" button went in to overdrive

Anyway, I aced my driving test with the exception of the hazard test which I only just scraped though. While I don't know for sure what I failed on, im pretty sure it was because I was over cautious.

You're correct.
Click too soon...fail the scenario.
Click too late...fail the scanario.
Click multiple times fail the scenario.
There's a sliding scale of points within a set portion of each scene.
The problem with the test is that it's based on another person's perception of exactly when the situation becomes hazardous and is therefore always open to interpretation.

 

[Cobra]

Not knowing the full case Id hazard a guess that the cyclist had some speed on and took a gamble (and clearly lost)....

You see it all the time here in the breeding ground for roundabouts.
(We breed them here and sell them to other parts of the country, well you would think so the amount we have )

I would suggest Your scenario is correct,
Cars do it all the time too.
Its amazing how many cars you see on a weekly basis,
"parked" ON roundabouts.
And that number will increase with the leaves and frost on the road soon enough

Some have quite steep, blocked sides to them,
and it never fails to amaze, how the hell they got that car up there

But what Pete ( @big soft moose ) and I were saying is there is a network of
path / cycle ways across the city and really you don't need to use a road to get around on,
if you are a pedestrian / cyclist / electric scooter user.

 

[big soft moose]

But what Pete ( @big soft moose ) and I were saying is there is a network of
path / cycle ways across the city and really you don't need to use a road to get around on,
if you are a pedestrian / cyclist / electric scooter user.

and given the average driver in the grid appears to believe that if the back end isnt sliding they arent going fast enough If i were cycling in MK i'd definitely stay on the purpose built redway network

 

[Marc]

But what Pete ( @big soft moose ) and I were saying is there is a network of
path / cycle ways across the city and really you don't need to use a road to get around on,
if you are a pedestrian / cyclist / electric scooter user.

Although, if you want to access the shopping centre or retail parks, you will at some point have to introduce yourself to a road/roundabout.

 

[Cobra]

Although, if you want to access the shopping centre or retail parks, you will at some point have to introduce yourself to a road/roundabout.

Agreed that's where the system falls down. you can get to CMK but once there, there are no underpasses to the actual shopping area,
And thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there are no actual pedestrian crossings either,
(Considering it was supposed to be very pedestrian friendly )a just lowered curbed area's
that pedestrians seem to think that they have right of way on
Daft really, the periphery was well designed but the access to the actual centre it self wasn't.

 

[big soft moose]

Although, if you want to access the shopping centre or retail parks, you will at some point have to introduce yourself to a road/roundabout.

nah - you can get into the centre vias the redway accross the top of Campbell park which goes over the V8 then under the link, or the one that runs pareell to Silbury which goes over H8 then through the subway under Silbury.

There is (or at least was) a toucan opposite lloyds bank.

Likewise Most of the retail parks have subways under the grid roads

(also both the muppets i'm talking about were cycling actually on the grid)

 

[Musicman]

classic case - yes everyone has the right to the highwway etc but MK has a full network of redways , so what are these muppets doing cycling on the dual carriageways in the first place)

If you want an analysis of why the Redways are not used more, here is an excellent piece by Mark Treasure

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...-they-didnt-come-the-lesson-of-milton-keynes/

Summary in case of TLDR; they were a poor afterthought, mostly consisting of changing the colour of Tarmac on routes designed for pedestrians within an urban environment structured primarily for the motor car

And from the comments

"They are poorly signed, stop abruptly with no indication which direction you should take and have breaks en-route (like the stairs) that make no sense. Coupled with the fact the red ways are next to pedestrian paths means that at several points during your journey by bike there are people walking on the red ways and not giving way to the cyclist. Also the red ways usually add anything from a quarter to half a mile to a typical 4 mile trip."

 

[Cobra]

nah - you can get into the centre vias the redway accross the top of Campbell park which goes over the V8 then under the link, or the one that runs pareell to Silbury which goes over H8 then through the subway under Silbury.

True enough I'd forgotten about accessing from Campbell park,
as that's the "other end" from me, I don't cycle there anyway

edit I think you mean the H6 childs way, rather than H8 standing way?

There is (or at least was) a toucan opposite lloyds bank.

I don't remember seeing one, but then I rarely go down that part,

 

[big soft moose]

I several points during your journey by bike there are people walking on the red ways and not giving way to the cyclist.."

and that sums up the problem with some cyclist attitude - how dare pedestrians be using a multi use path , the horror ... ironic as its geneally the samec yclists who get irate about some motorists displaying the same attitude to them on the roads

 

[big soft moose]

edit I think you mean the H6 childs way, rather than H8 standing way?
,

nope I mean the V8 Marborough Street which separates campbell from the theatre district

Street view says you are right about the toucan ... odd I'm sure there used to be one , I wonder why they took it out (there is however an underpass about halfway down Silbury IIRC)

 

[Musicman]

The thing to consider (much as another topic on this forum) is that many of the separate paths for cycles that exist in the UK appear to be intended for leisure use, rather than as a means of practical transport.

I've noticed that a lot of mainstream newspaper articles on cycling confuse cycling as urban transport and cycling for sport: such as asking why more women don't use bikes for everyday transport and the immediately linking that issue to women's participation (and male attitudes to it) in road racing.

They are very different things with different needs. We don't refer to F1 racing when discussing congestion in cities, so why do it with bikes?

 

[Cobra]

nah - you can get into the centre vias the redway accross the top of Campbell park which goes over the V8 then under the link, or the one that runs pareell to Silbury which goes over H8 then through the subway under Silbury.

nope I mean the V8 Marborough Street which separates campbell from the theatre district

the H8 you mentioned earlier is the Buckingham road to the south of the city, the H6 runs parallel along and just below the city.

 

[Mattyd]

and that sums up the problem with some cyclist attitude - how dare pedestrians be using a multi use path , the horror ... ironic as its geneally the samec yclists who get irate about some motorists displaying the same attitude to them on the roads

Just to elaborate a touch on the cycle path issue -

If you're a cyclist who uses a bike as a means of transport then like motorists they will pick the safest, most convenient route ... yes?

With that in mind its not an issue of "pedestrians get out of our way" - its an issue of convenience, speed and safety - If a cycle path is full of pedestrians Ill leave the path, for their and my safety and take the road (which no doubt will be quicker, safer, more direct).

Small note - The attitude you speak of is one reason cycling groups call for Strict Liability.

 

[big soft moose]

Just to elaborate a touch on the cycle path issue -

If you're a cyclist who uses a bike as a means of transport then like motorists they will pick the safest, most convenient route ... yes?

With that in mind its not an issue of "pedestrians get out of our way" - its an issue of convenience, speed and safety - If a cycle path is full of pedestrians Ill leave the path, for their and my safety and take the road (which no doubt will be quicker, safer, more direct).

Small note - The attitude you speak of is one reason cycling groups call for Strict Liability.

So as a car driver we'll pick the safest most convenient route, and if the roads are full of cylists we'll leave it for their and mine safety and take to the... um nope that doesnt work

 

[big soft moose]

the H8 you mentioned earlier is the Buckingham road to the south of the city, the H6 runs parallel along and just below the city.

Arse , H/V confusion I meant the V8 which is the one you cross if you are coming from Campbell park into CMK - from there you wouln't cross any H roads as you are already between H5 and H6 ( I should know I lived and worked at campbell park pavillion for 5 years)

 

[Musicman]

So as a car driver we'll pick the safest most convenient route, and if the roads are full of cylists we'll leave it for their and mine safety and take to the... um nope that doesnt work

Which is why we need to properly address the issues of the design of our roads in this country rather than the mess we have at present.

You've got it.

 

[Cobra]

Arse , H/V confusion I meant the V8 w

I thought so

 

[RedRobin]

As an ex amateur racing cyclist I fully support any practical move to come down heavily on those cyclists who flout the rules of the road by jumping red lights, riding on pavements, no lights when riding at night, etc etc.

I also think it should be compulsory for ALL cyclists to wear safety helmets. The worst offenders are the stupid parents who stick a helmet on their children and ride with them with no helmet themselves. You don't have to be riding at racing speeds to have a bike accident and if you badly bang your head, your children then have a vegetable for a parent. Duh!!

I always avoided cycle lanes and cycle pathways like the plague because they were invariably ridden by slow cyclists without any road sense whatsoever. Any racing club cyclist will ride at a speed with the traffic flow, lay claim to his/her space, and obey the rules of the road. Thousands of miles training has further developed my road sense when driving a car. I no longer ride bikes.

 

[Mattyd]

So as a car driver we'll pick the safest most convenient route, and if the roads are full of cyclists we'll leave it for their and mine safety and take to the... um nope that doesnt work

I would argue that the road is a public space - if cyclists use it cyclists use it. You and me, cyclists and motorists need to adapt to how the public use that public space.

But realistically....What needs to take absolute priority is good design and infrastructure that makes it safe and convenient for everyone - something that has been fantastically lacking in the UK and has in part led to this Car vs cyclist attitude we currently have. Bear in mind to the current road system (objectively) is massively designed in favor of motorists. And cycle paths on the other hand are not designed with cyclists (or pedestrians) in mind (I cant speak for the RedWays, my town has nothing remotely similar, but norwich is pretty crap)

So yes, it forces cyclists to use the public space that is the road. 99% of cyclists don't want to share space with fast cars (i certainly don't), but that's where they are.

This is why, above all other cycling issues and concerns - infrastructure that's safe and convenient is key. It trumps everything.

I also think it should be compulsory for ALL cyclists to wear safety helmets

This is very unlikely to ever happen in the UK. Every time it comes up (James craknel and the like or gets raised in parliament) many people point out the effects of compulsion *put people off cycling, which results in a net loss to the public health and increased car use (and all the negative effects of that) that ultimately kill more people that the few who might be saved from wearing a helmet.

Seems counterintuitive but there it is.

The better option - is to simply encourage helmet use.


*Some argue that people are put off because they don't want to mess up their hair. I have no doubt there's an element of truth to this, but personally I think it changes perception of risk and cycling. Where once it was perceived as safe (or safe-ish) to cycle without a helmet, when it becomes "not safe" to cycle without a helmet people decide that its not worth the risk and simply give up cycling.

 

[boliston]

I think actually enforcing a compulsory helmets for cyclists rule would be almost impossible, when you consider that that the compulsory lights at night rule for cyclists is rarely enforced and this is a rule that actually helps prevent accidents wheras a helmet does NOT help prevent accidents. I'd imagine it would simply be overlooked in the same way that the 70mph limit on motorways is rarely enforced as people pay no attention and drive at 80 knowing being pulled over would be rare.

 

[Gremlin]

I'd imagine it would simply be overlooked in the same way that the 70mph limit on motorways is rarely enforced as people pay no attention and drive at 80 knowing being pulled over would be rare.

Not on the M25, you're lucky if you can actually do 70

 

[nilagin]

I applaud you for making your prejudices clear for all to see.

No prejudices at all, but if you have any theories why he doesn't wish to acknowledge the laws of physics, feel free to inform us,

 

[Musicman]

Any racing club cyclist will ride at a speed with the traffic flow, lay claim to his/her space, and obey the rules of the road. Thousands of miles training has further developed my road sense when driving a car. I no longer ride bikes.

I've never been racing cyclist, but used to take much the same approach 20 years ago. It's what today would be called 'vehicular cycling' - behaving much like a car in terms of occupying space on the road. I'd quite happily tackle Hyde Park Corner in the rush hour (I still do on occasion).

The woeful quality of much of the cycling infrastructure in the UK did nothing to encourage me to use it. There were also echoes of some serious threats between the wars to outlaw bicycles entirely from the roads, with the aforementioned poor quality cycle paths being offered as a sop replacement. Claiming the roads offered the best alternative.

It's fine if you're young, fit, confident, and likely male. However, that is always going to be a small portion of the population and is only going to serve a small part of even their needs. Children, OAPs and the less confident need not apply; it's far too dangerous, or seems to be.

It has become plain to me that our urban transport needs cannot be addressed by private motor cars. The environmental and human costs associated with them are too great and there simply isn't sufficient space in our cities for them all. And I say that as someone who enjoys his cars too.

Public transport can fill some of that gap, but, in London at least, that is struggling to cope with demand, even with the huge amount of investment that TfL has put into it.

The bicycle offers a clean, cheap and space-efficient alternative, but to make it attractive to the wider population we need to re-engineer our streets to not only make them safer for cycling, but to improve perceptions of the safety of cycling.

The Dutch have provided us with a working model of how that may work and TfL have begun to adopt some of their ideas with the aim of making cycling an inclusive rather than an exclusive form of transport.

It really is time for a different vision.

 

[nilagin]

What's more the amount of road wear per given wheel/axle load increases at least as the cube of the load. So if for the sake of simple arithmetic we assume that a car is at least 20 times the weight of a bicycle, and we divide the car's wieght by 2 because it has twice as many wheels, then we have a car wearing out the road at least 1,000 times faster than the bicycle. So if our notional car pays 200 pounds a year vehivle tax, and we want bicycle tax to be proportional to the differing road wear rates, then bicycles should pay at most 2p a year. Sort of. Roughly. I look forward to those more knowledgeable than me correcting this notional arithmetic.

You've ignored the width of the tyres. Car tyres are wider, spreading the load over a greater surface which will support the weight a lot easier, as already pointed out with the stiletto heal example.

 

[Musicman]

I think I addressed that point adequately a few pages back

Edit: post 383

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/in...-cyclists-number-plates..562814/#post-6520445

Edit 2: actually the one directly above the post you were responding to. Did you miss it for some reason?

 

[nilagin]

I think I addressed that point adequately a few pages back

Edit: post 383

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/index.php?threads/Demand-for-cyclists-number-plates..562814/#post-6520445

Enlighten me, there's no post numbers and your link goes to page 1 post 1. I'm not about to count through 383 posts.

 

[Musicman]

Enlighten me, there's no post numbers and your link goes to page 1 post 1. I'm not about to count through 383 posts.

Posting on my phone, but the link works for me.

As I said, it's the one directly before Chris Malcolm's that you just quoted, which is 384.

Click on view original for that and scroll up a little

 

[Mattyd]

I've never been racing cyclist, but used to take much the same approach 20 years ago. It's what today would be called 'vehicular cycling' - behaving much like a car in terms of occupying space on the road. I'd quite happily tackle Hyde Park Corner in the rush hour (I still do on occasion).

The woeful quality of much of the cycling infrastructure in the UK did nothing to encourage me to use it. There were also echoes of some serious threats between the wars to outlaw bicycles entirely from the roads, with the aforementioned poor quality cycle paths being offered as a sop replacement. Claiming the roads offered the best alternative.

It's fine if you're young, fit, confident, and likely male. However, that is always going to be a small portion of the population and is only going to serve a small part of even their needs. Children, OAPs and the less confident need not apply; it's far too dangerous, or seems to be.

It has become plain to me that our urban transport needs cannot be addressed by private motor cars. The environmental and human costs associated with them are too great and there simply isn't sufficient space in our cities for them all. And I say that as someone who enjoys his cars too.

Public transport can fill some of that gap, but, in London at least, that is struggling to cope with demand, even with the huge amount of investment that TfL has put into it.

The bicycle offers a clean, cheap and space-efficient alternative, but to make it attractive to the wider population we need to re-engineer our streets to not only make them safer for cycling, but to improve perceptions of the safety of cycling.

The Dutch have provided us with a working model of how that may work and TfL have begun to adopt some of their ideas with the aim of making cycling an inclusive rather than an exclusive form of transport.

It really is time for a different vision.

I cant argue with any of that - its essentially my mind set 100%

 

[viv1969]

I think actually enforcing a compulsory helmets for cyclists rule would be almost impossible, when you consider that that the compulsory lights at night rule for cyclists is rarely enforced and this is a rule that actually helps prevent accidents wheras a helmet does NOT help prevent accidents. I'd imagine it would simply be overlooked in the same way that the 70mph limit on motorways is rarely enforced as people pay no attention and drive at 80 knowing being pulled over would be rare.

Making motorcyclists wear helmets also didn't help "prevent" accidents.

 

[viv1969]

Enlighten me, there's no post numbers and your link goes to page 1 post 1. I'm not about to count through 383 posts.

All the posts have numbers.

 

[nilagin]

All the posts have numbers.

Found it, not where it used to be.

 

[viv1969]

Found it, not where it used to be.

 

[David Stallard]

I will probably get shot down in flames for this and possibly banned from the forum but:

ALL cyclists should be made to pay a high insurance premium - why high? because they are more likely to be seriously hurt and so need care, should also pay road tax and display a front and rear number plate.

You want to use the roads / you want seperate lanes running at the millions £££ / you want to ban lorries in the city because when you cut up the inside on their blind spot you get hurt or dead. . . . . . all for free? you use both sides of the road as well as pavements whenever it suits you and the highway code obviously doesn't appy to you - well I cant type the two words I want to here but the second is 'off'.

I have kicked them off whist jumping pedestrian crossing lights on several occassions and I will continue to do so. If a car / bike did it they would be jailed for dangerous driving / attemped abh or whatever - but because everyone is too scared to speak out cyclists get away with it.

.DAVID.

 

[Mattyd]

I will probably get shot down in flames for this and possibly banned from the forum but:

ALL cyclists should be made to pay a high insurance premium - why high? because they are more likely to be seriously hurt and so need care, should also pay road tax and display a front and rear number plate.

You want to use the roads / you want seperate lanes running at the millions £££ / you want to ban lorries in the city because when you cut up the inside on their blind spot you get hurt or dead. . . . . . all for free? you use both sides of the road as well as pavements whenever it suits you and the highway code obviously doesn't appy to you - well I cant type the two words I want to here but the second is 'off'.

I have kicked them off whist jumping pedestrian crossing lights on several occassions and I will continue to do so. If a car / bike did it they would be jailed for dangerous driving / attemped abh or whatever - but because everyone is too scared to speak out cyclists get away with it.

.DAVID.

Lol, life's to short to reply in detail....but good luck with that

 

[boliston]

I will probably get shot down in flames for this and possibly banned from the forum but:

ALL cyclists should be made to pay a high insurance premium - why high? because they are more likely to be seriously hurt and so need care,......

.DAVID.

One of the main costs to the taxpayer is caring for inactive people who develop chronic diseases in later life caused by a life of inactivity, such as heart disease. If anything cyclists should pay a "negative" insurance premium as they save taxpayers money by staying healthy and being a lower burden on the health system.

 

[viv1969]

One of the main costs to the taxpayer is caring for inactive people who develop chronic diseases in later life caused by a life of inactivity, such as heart disease. If anything cyclists should pay a "negative" insurance premium as they save taxpayers money by staying healthy and being a lower burden on the health system.

Are you seriously suggesting that all people who suffer chronic heart disease do so because of a life on inactivity?