E - Scooters

[Pound Coin]

Hey! It's cycle-bull-sh*t-bingo!!

LEt'S TaX tHeM aNd mAkE tHem get InsUreD! That will ensure those louts behave!!!!

Yeah, like all car drivers are taxed and/or insured and follow all the rules and never kill anyone or crash or [stop there. ed]

Probably better that there is less demonising of groups and more finding ways of encouraging all road users to look out for each other. (whilst at the same time, encouraging much more sustainable methods of travel)

 

[Gremlin]

BINGO!...Insurance, tax, lycra!
How is someone in lycra breaking the law dangerous and an idiot?

Because nearly all the cyclists I see, racing along country lanes and dashing across in front of traffic are
the black lycra clad idiots, trying to go as fast as they can and not checking if their way is clear
People out to enjoy their cycle rides tend to go much slower, give way to traffic at junctions and most importantly
wear something bright, especially on dull misty days

 

[Graham W]

Because nearly all the cyclists I see, racing along country lanes and dashing across in front of traffic are
the black lycra clad idiots, trying to go as fast as they can and not checking if their way is clear
People out to enjoy their cycle rides tend to go much slower, give way to traffic at junctions and most importantly
wear something bright, especially on dull misty days

Can I ask where you live (I don't need an address.), because I drive for a job and see little or non of what you describe.
Cycling in the gutter is not a safe place to be, "Taking the lane" is the recommended way to go, encouraging other road users to pass when it's safe rather than as if they weren't there.
So they're "Racing along" and holding you up at the same time...what's you attitude to horses* holding you up? Do you like to drive past them without adjusting your speed or deviating from your path?
* Or dustcarts, tractors, milk floats or anything else that impedes your journey?

Some folks just seem to need someone to hate.

PS "black lycra clad idiots" Is it the black lycra that makes them idiots (In your eyes) or is it idiots who happen to wearing lycra? I'm assuming it's only black lycra that gets your goat and that other colours are acceptable to you.

I don't want an argument (I don't have time) but I would genuinely like to understand the logic behind the thinking.

 

[nilagin]

Cycling in the gutter is not a safe place to be, "Taking the lane" is the recommended way to go,

Cycling next to the kerb is the way I was taught as a kid doing my cycling proficiency test in the 70's and how I still ride today. Perfectly safe.
If you find it unsafe, perhaps you ought to be questioning your own cycling ability.

 

[Fuji Dave]

When I go out on my ebike I always wear my Red Gore windbreaker, but silly drivers still think I should ride closer to the curb but not a cat in hells chance of that. The roads are for both drivers and riders, plus I got fed up of idiots just opening their car doors without looking so I make sure I have my great pair of gloves on that have solid knuckle protecters and ride past parked cars making sure I have enough room and if the driver does not like it then TOUGH .

 

[Fuji Dave]

Cycling next to the kerb is the way I was taught as a kid doing my cycling proficiency test in the 70's and how I still ride today. Perfectly safe.
If you find it unsafe, perhaps you ought to be questioning your own cycling ability.

For me that is hard to stay to the curb, as parked cars cover it here.

 

[Gremlin]

Can I ask where you live (I don't need an address.), because I drive for a job and see little or non of what you describe.
Cycling in the gutter is not a safe place to be, "Taking the lane" is the recommended way to go, encouraging other road users to pass when it's safe rather than as if they weren't there.
So they're "Racing along" and holding you up at the same time...what's you attitude to horses* holding you up? Do you like to drive past them without adjusting your speed or deviating from your path?

I live in rural west sussex, near Horsham but out in the country mostly B-roads
I used to drive for work too, and I never said anything about being held up by them or want them to ride in the gutter
I was more referring to those that come in the opposite direction, round bends on the wrong side of the road, cutting across in front because they want to turn into a side road, coming out of junctions in front of you because they can't
wait a few seconds
Even on sunny days, the dappled light from trees can disguise them
Not sure why you are mentioning horses, never had a problem with them both ridden and driven which they are
a lot

 

[Gremlin]

Some folks just seem to need someone to hate.

PS "black lycra clad idiots" Is it the black lycra that makes them idiots (In your eyes) or is it idiots who happen to wearing lycra? I'm assuming it's only black lycra that gets your goat and that other colours are acceptable to you.

I don't want an argument (I don't have time) but I would genuinely like to understand the logic behind the thinking.

It's the fact that they make no effort to make themselves visable, perhaps just a bright stripe would help, but even black helmets seems to be the thing
I really do like to have half a chance to get out of the way, nothing personal just the safety aspect of it
Horse riders, dog walkers etc round here seem to feel it's best to be seen why not cyclists

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

We don't notice the people who are sensible and polite, only those who are not. When there are too many who are rude, foolish or arrogant, then we tend to brand all of that group as being a problem. This is where peer pressure should come into play. If you're cycling and see another cyclist behaving badly, challenge them. It doesn't always work but if you challenge 5 people and 1 takes the point, you've improved 20% of that group.

Those cyclists who don't like being thought of as part of the problem might like to consider this as one way of being part of the solution. A cheerful smile helps...

 

[Pound Coin]

For me that is hard to stay to the curb, as parked cars cover it here.

You shouldn't stay close to the kerb anyway. It is unsafe.

1) a wobble puts you off the road
2) there is often debris in that area
3) there are drains and other hazards
4) drivers who do not know how to drive take a cyclist close to the kerb as an invitation to overtake unsafely (i.e. not giving 2m of space)
5) as mentioned by Fuji Dave, there are often cars parked there

Unfortunately these agreements about cyclists staying close to the kerb get trotted out by entitled motorists who have been brought up thinking that they trump all other road users, when they don't. It may have been taught that way back in the last century, but there were precious few cars on quieter roads back then and now we have the impending disaster of Climate Change. It's different now...

 

[Pound Coin]

It's the fact that they make no effort to make themselves visable, perhaps just a bright stripe would help, but even black helmets seems to be the thing
I really do like to have half a chance to get out of the way, nothing personal just the safety aspect of it
Horse riders, dog walkers etc round here seem to feel it's best to be seen why not cyclists

Black and grey cars should be banned, or have to have a bright stripe.

If you have difficult seeing a black lump of cyclist and bike, you should get your eyes tested, and if glasses won't fix it, consider handing in your driving licence.

 

[nilagin]

For me that is hard to stay to the curb, as parked cars cover it here.

Well obviously you then cycle around the car, but no reason not to return back to the kerb as soon as possible.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Well obviously you then cycle around the car, but no reason not to return back to the kerb as soon as possible.

It's a great pity that any discussion on subjects like this will often deteriorate into a dialogue of the deaf. Of course cyclists should keep over towards the left and show consideration for pedestrians and other road users. Drivers should always attempt to keep well away from cyclists and show consideration for other road users and pedestrians. Pedestrians should always be aware of and show consideration for road users.

Most do but there are always that minority who don't... :banghead:

 

[nilagin]

Black and grey cars should be banned, or have to have a bright stripe.

If you have difficult seeing a black lump of cyclist and bike, you should get your eyes tested, and if glasses won't fix it, consider handing in your driving licence.

In poor light or at night pedestrians and cyclists dressed in black are hard to see. Cars have reflectors and lights governed by law, bikes have reflectors by law when bought new, but like the bells, some people remove them.
Black clothing is very rarely shiny as a result it absorbs light and makes it hard to be seen. Black and grey vehicles will still reflect a certain amount of light, even when dirty as will their number plates, lights and windows as well as the aforementioned reflectors.

 

[nilagin]

Most do but there are always that minority who don't... :banghead:

Agreed there will always be someone inconsiderate, no matter what form of transport is being used. Motorists have laws to obey and vehicle requirements to keep on the right side of the law, some of that will be because a random few have done something wrong, and we are now all supposed to follow those rules. But apparently it is wrong to suggest the same goes for cyclists.
As I said I cycle and I do so with consideration to others, I try to pick routes that aren't so busy to allow traffic to keep moving more freely and if I am holding vehicles up, it takes a second to stop, lean the bike over the kerb, let the traffic past and then I carry on.

 

[Fuji Dave]

Well obviously you then cycle around the car, but no reason not to return back to the kerb as soon as possible.

As I said NOT a cat in hells chance I stay close as idiot drivers fling open car doors so as I've been doored by fools too many times, so when I ride on the road I give my self about 6ft. Still wear my great gloves too.

 

[Pound Coin]

Yes, 6ft from road edge is sensible. Cyclists are traffic and should not think that they should get out of the way of motorists at any cost. They can do so when it is safe. Often a driver's perception of what is safe is not actually safe for a cyclist.

Unfortunately, as I've said up-thread, we have developed a culture where many car users think that they are more equal than others, and behave accordingly. Some of these even cycle

 

[nilagin]

Yes, 6ft from road edge is sensible. Cyclists are traffic and should not think that they should get out of the way of motorists at any cost. They can do so when it is safe. Often a driver's perception of what is safe is not actually safe for a cyclist.

Unfortunately, as I've said up-thread, we have developed a culture where many car users think that they are more equal than others, and behave accordingly. Some of these even cycle

Cars and motorbikes don't need to be 6ft from the road edge so why should a cyclist?
In my experience what a lot of cyclists seem to be safe is downright suicidal and they have no self awareness.

As I said NOT a cat in hells chance I stay close as idiot drivers fling open car doors so as I've been doored by fools too many times, so when I ride on the road I give my self about 6ft. Still wear my great gloves too.

Still trying to work out what the knuckle protecting gloves are all about.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Cyclists are traffic and should not think that they should get out of the way of motorists at any cost. They can do so when it is safe.

That statement explains why 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads in a year although cyclists only make up 1% of road users ( Cycling UK's Cycling Statistics | Cycling UK )

Do not ride a bicycle aggressively. Everyone else is bigger and a lot heavier than you.

 

[Fuji Dave]

Still trying to work out what the knuckle protecting gloves are all about.

Many years ago some stupid driver flung open his door to get out without looking, could not get out of the way because of cars behind me and smashed my knuckles up on his door. So I got a great pair of cycling gloves and the knuckle part is solid like a knuckle duster.

 

[Pound Coin]

That statement explains why 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads in a year although cyclists only make up 1% of road users ( Cycling UK's Cycling Statistics | Cycling UK )

Do not ride a bicycle aggressively. Everyone else is bigger and a lot heavier than you.

Ride a bike sensibly. Don't be bullied by other road users into unsafe actions.

A large proportion of the deaths in London are from left turning lorries, crushed against crash barriers or under wheels in 'blind spot'. There's education needed on both sides and infrastructure changes needed too.

One of the questions should be "Why do cyclists only make up 1% of road users"*. People don't walk, cycle nearly so much now. Partly because the motor vehicle has been glorified and become a status symbol, and partly because we have spent 60 years developing the network of roads for one type of user, to the detriment of other users, who have been bullied off and corralled away.

* The 1% figures is an investing one. Is it a head count, a proportion of trip mounters, time spent travelling, or distance travelled?

 

[Fuji Dave]

Yes some cyclists are bad, but of the drivers who think they are gods gift are lorries and white van man. Not all are bad but you do have to be careful with them though.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Ride a bike sensibly. Don't be bullied by other road users into unsafe actions.

I think that such an attitude is a big part of the problem and I wonder if you actually practice that. As a bike rider, I always stayed off roads where there were suitable cycle tracks; stayed off main roads where there suitable back streets or lanes, rode very carefully indeed when I had to use main roads. I think that's why I didn't have an accident on a bike in the 65 years or so that I rode one. Other scenarious are, of course, available.

The 1% figures is an investing one. Is it a head count, a proportion of trip mounters, time spent travelling, or distance travelled?

Why not follow the link I supplied and find out?

 

[nilagin]

One of the questions should be "Why do cyclists only make up 1% of road users"*. People don't walk, cycle nearly so much now. Partly because the motor vehicle has been glorified and become a status symbol.

The majority of motorists use a car to get from A to B, it isn't a glorified status symbol but a means to travel to work, visit places or people, or a need to transport stuff, something that can't be achieved on a bike or by walking and definitely if the distance is too great or time is a limiting factor.

 

[Pound Coin]

I think that such an attitude is a big part of the problem and I wonder if you actually practice that. As a bike rider, I always stayed off roads where there were suitable cycle tracks; stayed off main roads where there suitable back streets or lanes, rode very carefully indeed when I had to use main roads. I think that's why I didn't have an accident on a bike in the 65 years or so that I rode one. Other scenarious are, of course, available.

Why not follow the link I supplied and find out?

There are not suitable cycle tracks on almost all roads in the UK. So cyclists can either: not cycle much, or use the roads that are there. More cyclists make the roads safer, as both cyclists and motorists get used to each other. More cyclists mean less pollution, healthier population, good for the Climate and good for Public Health.

Nowhere did I say that a cyclist should ride without care - don't know where you have got that from. I said that they shouldn't be bullied into unsafe actions (such as hugging the kerb). A large proportion of cycle crashes occur at junctions. Instead of hiding cyclists away, it is possible to design more safety into junctions.

So it is 1% of Miles travelled. That's quite high. Although the average car journey in the UK is about 8 miles, meaning there will be millions of journeys that are short enough to be easily done by bike or on foot.

 

[Graham W]

Cycling next to the kerb is the way I was taught as a kid doing my cycling proficiency test in the 70's and how I still ride today. Perfectly safe.
If you find it unsafe, perhaps you ought to be questioning your own cycling ability.

Next to the kerb is not a safe place to be, that's where all the junk collects, broken glass badly maintained drain covers etc.

Most current advise (As opposed to that from 50 years ago) is that you really don't want to be less than half a meter from the kerb, you usually want to be nearer a meter ie pretty close to the center of the lane you are riding in

Anyway you lost me when you questioned my ability so I'll leave you to your backwards thinking.

 

[Graham W]

I live in rural west sussex, near Horsham but out in the country mostly B-roads
I used to drive for work too, and I never said anything about being held up by them or want them to ride in the gutter
I was more referring to those that come in the opposite direction, round bends on the wrong side of the road, cutting across in front because they want to turn into a side road, coming out of junctions in front of you because they can't
wait a few seconds
Even on sunny days, the dappled light from trees can disguise them
Not sure why you are mentioning horses, never had a problem with them both ridden and driven which they are
a lot

If they come round a bend on the wrong side of the road they will, and deserve to get squashed.

Re. my comment about horses and other "slow" moving traffic that gets in the way and holds drivers up. My apologies, that was a question for the anti's here in general who appear to object to having to drive around cyclists rather than just past them. I can see that your gripe seems to be with what you could loosely describe as "Racers".

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I said that they shouldn't be bullied into unsafe actions

Cyclists need to remember that they are the most vulnerable road users. If they see that as "being bullied" they are more likely to act in an unsafe manner and contribute to a collision. If a cyclist and a powered vehicle are in a collision the cyclist is far more likely to be injured than the passengers in or on the powered vehicle. These are the facts that every cyclist should remember when on the road.

Ride safe and leave the macho at home, is my advice.

 

[Pound Coin]

Cyclists need to remember that they are the most vulnerable road users. If they see that as "being bullied" they are more likely to act in an unsafe manner and contribute to a collision. If a cyclist and a powered vehicle are in a collision the cyclist is far more likely to be injured than the passengers in or on the powered vehicle. These are the facts that every cyclist should remember when on the road.

Ride safe and leave the macho at home, is my advice.

These are the facts that every vehicle operator should remember.

 

[nilagin]

Next to the kerb is not a safe place to be, that's where all the junk collects, broken glass badly maintained drain covers etc.

Most current advise (As opposed to that from 50 years ago) is that you really don't want to be less than half a meter from the kerb, you usually want to be nearer a meter ie pretty close to the center of the lane you are riding in

Anyway you lost me when you questioned my ability so I'll leave you to your backwards thinking.

There isn't that much debris in the kerbs, and if you are looking where you are going, you will be able to see it in good time to signal to motorists behind, your intention to steer around it. Cars don't drive a meter from the kerb so why should cyclists have to? Totally unnecessary and ridiculous.

 

[nilagin]

Yes, 6ft from road edge is sensible.

Is it? Since when has riding a bike on the wrong side of the road, head on into oncoming traffic been sensible.

 

[bass_junkie83]

There isn't that much debris in the kerbs, and if you are looking where you are going, you will be able to see it in good time to signal to motorists behind, your intention to steer around it. Cars don't drive a meter from the kerb so why should cyclists have to? Totally unnecessary and ridiculous.

Someone cycling alomg at around 20mph is not going to see a patch of broken glass for example early enough to safely navigate around it, they wil end up pulling out abruptly, possibly into the path of an overtaking car. As a regular commuter cyclist I can tell you that tjere osnoften plenty of crap that has been kicked to the kerb. Then there is sunken or raised ironworks that can easily buckle a light bike wheel, potholes, cracks etc. To suggest that bikes are no more susceptible to poor road conditions than cars is ridiculous.

 

[nilagin]

Someone cycling alomg at around 20mph is not going to see a patch of broken glass for example early enough to safely navigate around it, they wil end up pulling out abruptly, possibly into the path of an overtaking car. As a regular commuter cyclist I can tell you that tjere osnoften plenty of crap that has been kicked to the kerb. Then there is sunken or raised ironworks that can easily buckle a light bike wheel, potholes, cracks etc. To suggest that bikes are no more susceptible to poor road conditions than cars is ridiculous.

A cyclist should be able to see early enough. Just as a motorist travelling at 70mph you adjust your view point further along the road to allow for the greater time needed to react. A cyclist also has the advantage of a much higher viewing point as well.
As for broken ironworks etc, buckling light wheels, that is just a case of the bike being unsuitable for the job in hand, your commuting to and from work, not on the Tour de France or whatever.

 

[Pound Coin]

Someone cycling alomg at around 20mph is not going to see a patch of broken glass for example early enough to safely navigate around it, they wil end up pulling out abruptly, possibly into the path of an overtaking car. As a regular commuter cyclist I can tell you that tjere osnoften plenty of crap that has been kicked to the kerb. Then there is sunken or raised ironworks that can easily buckle a light bike wheel, potholes, cracks etc. To suggest that bikes are no more susceptible to poor road conditions than cars is ridiculous.

Of course, if drivers followed the clear advice given to them, there would be plenty of room for a cyclist to manoeuvre to avoid stuff like that. Unfortunately there is a section of the driving public that don't know they should be 2m away from a bike when overtaking, and there is a section that don't care, because they think they are more important.

 

[nilagin]

Of course, if drivers followed the clear advice given to them, there would be plenty of room for a cyclist to manoeuvre to avoid stuff like that. Unfortunately there is a section of the driving public that don't know they should be 2m away from a bike when overtaking, and there is a section that don't care, because they think they are more important.

So if you are cycling at your perfectly acceptable 6ft from the kerb and a motorist has to give another 2m of room to overtake, they will never be able to overtake as very few single carriageway roads are wide enough. Just as it is frowned upon for cyclists to ride on the pavement, the same goes for motorists, driving on the pavement. Both distances are totally over the top and unnecessary.

There is a segment of cyclists that feel they are also more important, when infact we all get equal rights. Except cyclists want the equal rights without the registration or insurance. How is that equal?

 

[cambsno]

Of course they do. When I was a kid and teenager and adult, you rode by the kerb, you caused little hindrance but traffic could overtake and keep moving, then someone decided that more room should be left when overtaking, now that gap has changed again, so instead of being able to overtake safely and still remain on the correct side of the road, motorists now have to wait for a suitable sized gap in the oncoming traffic before they can overtake. Thus traffic starts building up behind the cyclist. At best maybe two cars get to overtake and then the rest have to wait for the next gap.

Yes, because thats progress and safe! You cannot overtake safely so close to a cyclist.

When I was a kid you did not need to wear seatbelts in cars. No-one wore a helmet either! Thats called progress!

 

[cambsno]

Someone cycling alomg at around 20mph is not going to see a patch of broken glass for example early enough to safely navigate around it, they wil end up pulling out abruptly, possibly into the path of an overtaking car. As a regular commuter cyclist I can tell you that tjere osnoften plenty of crap that has been kicked to the kerb. Then there is sunken or raised ironworks that can easily buckle a light bike wheel, potholes, cracks etc. To suggest that bikes are no more susceptible to poor road conditions than cars is ridiculous.

When I started biking i stayed as close to the kerb as possible. Now I cycle further away and feel safer.At the start, cars would often get past very close to me as I had left space for them not to wait. Now I move over a bit so they can only get past. My life is more important than a 10 second delay.

 

[nilagin]

Yes, because thats progress and safe! You cannot overtake safely so close to a cyclist.

When I was a kid you did not need to wear seatbelts in cars. No-one wore a helmet either! Thats called progress!

No one wears helmets in cars, not unless you are on a race track. But if you mean whilst cycling, it is a suggestion, not mandatory.
2m isn't progress it is an over exaggerated and unnecessary distance.

 

[nilagin]

When I started biking i stayed as close to the kerb as possible. Now I cycle further away and feel safer.At the start, cars would often get past very close to me as I had left space for them not to wait. Now I move over a bit so they can only get past. My life is more important than a 10 second delay.

You are taking up more room, you are giving them less room to overtake and as a result they are more likely to get frustrated and do something daft or dangerous when they do finally get a chance to pass.

 

[cambsno]

You are taking up more room, you are giving them less room to overtake and as a result they are more likely to get frustrated and do something daft or dangerous when they do finally get a chance to pass.

Not based on experience.