I accept that there are occasions when it's safer, for the cyclist at least, to ride on the pavement but doing so never makes the pavement safer for pedestrians. What really annoys me is when millions are spend creating cycle tracks and cycle lanes on roads but cyclists then ignore them.
and neither cylists ,nor their vehicles have to pass any sort of test to establish their safety before they go on the road, nor do they have to have 3rd party insurance.Â
@KT53 - As soon as there's a small hole on the cycle lane, they just ride on the main carriageway. I live fairly near what used to be a dual carriageway. They spent a small fortune making it a single carriageway with a cycle lane, and that's what happens regularly. I'm also fed up of the ones who just go onto the pavements to skip the lights when they're at red, and those who think they don't need to bother indicating when they want to pull out to turn. Going home from work one day [B road] one guy just pulled out into the middle of the carriageway [without indicating] rode down the white lines in the middle until he reached the bend in the road and then he moved back in. I could have safely overtaken him [decent straight section ] but because of him doing that, I had to sit behind him. I presume that was his reason for doing it. I have no way to report him, because as said - no registration required for them to use the roads. Like a car, if you have a motorbike you have to be taxed and registered, so why should they be different?
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I accept that there are occasions when it's safer, for the cyclist at least, to ride on the pavement but doing so never makes the pavement safer for pedestrians. What really annoys me is when millions are spend creating cycle tracks and cycle lanes on roads but cyclists then ignore them.
Aaahhhh! The we build it so they must use it argument, right? Truth is most cycle routes are painted lines on the road, mixed use paths which aren't great to actually get anywhere efficiently or so badly conceived and built that they are not actually the safest option for cyclists.
So, you ride on a marked cycle path with roads side roads for example. Stopping at every junction to let cars through. Or do you ignore the poorly designed, farcical infrastructure and ride on the road? As a cyclist and motorist I hope every cyclist I such a case rides on the road unless young and they'd probably be on the pavement anyway.
Or do you ride on one of the mixed use paths? Perhaps it's left side for pedestrians and right side for cyclists. Sounds ideal until you consider human nature in the modern UK. Cyclists on the pedestrians side and vice versa. Or pedestrians walking in a group blocking all the mixed user path. Or the mobile which you can never be sure where they'll go when or if they notice you on a bike. Usually they'll notice you last minute when you're kind of committed to going around them on one side only for the to look up and turning round into your path last minute. I'm afraid cyclists and pedestrians fit together worse than cyclists and motorists. You might as well have motorists drive on the path as well the way cyclists and pedestrians fit together.
Or when there's really rather well built cycle paths separated from pedestrians and motorists they cock it up by putting signs in the middle of the cycle path without any lighting or reflective on it so cyclists end to hitting it because they simply didn't or more likely couldn't see it.Â
The above are just a few examples to show how wrong it is to assume infrastructure works for the intended user when that user is cyclists. Put simply the DoT has a big design standard for cycle paths apparently. It's supposed to be used like highway standards but not one council builds to even this basic set of design protocols and specifications.
A lot of ignorant comments about cycling on here. I am not saying you're ignorant just ignorant if what cycling is like and what cyclists need to be safe. Basically it only needs motorists to follow the highway code. Is that too much to expect? If they did there would be no conflict and no cyclists dying because of actions by motorists. I will try to educate you a bit.Â
That cycle trailer will have a hitch attaching it to the parent's bike such that you can lay the bike flat without even putting significant force on the trailer such that it would flip. On top of that the child is strapped into the roll cage forming the trailer frame by a 5 point harness that is designed to hold the child in place as securely for the max designed user weight and designed for forces as some car child seats. Obviously never going to crash with as high forces as car child seats but as secure strapping for intended use as car child seats. On top of the roll cage of the tray body the push handle used when strolling with it off the bike is usually folded over the top as an extra rollcage. There's a video online from a design engineer who tested his kid's trailer by strapping his two kids with a few years between them then turned it upside down and shook it. The kids were laughing and asked for more. Then there's the simple fact that whereas you'll rarely get motorists following the highway code in overtaking cyclists but stick a child trailer on the back of your bike, whether used to carry kid's or not, and drivers almost universally give them the space recommended in the highway code. BTW put a long, blonde wig on and accird to research you'll also get the recommended space when being overtaken.Â
I don't like child seats personally but the one we had was a lot taller than our child's head when he was in it. It acted a little like a roll cage but not as safe as a trailer.
BTW that trailer is from the same make as the one we had. A very good child trailer. I don't know the child seat but it's not a Hamax branded one we had. Good features are the leg area where the child's legs are within a plastic structure and strapped in. 5 point harness with safety bar across, a feature borrowed from pushchairs BTW. The rear head guard is too low but might adjust up like child car seats. It's not got any side protection. I would never choose that one personally.
@Fairygirl you've given a good few bad examples of cyclists so let us unpack a few of them.Â
Potholes that a car drives over without really noticing can send a cyclist flying. It happened to me in march resulting in a broken arm and sprains that took longer than the bone to recover from. Add in the fact even if you just ride over them you can get pinch punctures or worse damage to your bike. Then there's places I cycle where the potholes are often accompanied by puddles that obscure the locations of potholes. If a cycle path has potholes then I can understand why cyclists might choose to exercise their legal right you cycle on the main carriageway. Same with dangerous cycle path designs. Unfortunately motorists often don't understand or want to understand the cyclist's needs with cycle paths or why they choose the potentially safer option of roads. Even if not safer there's valid reasons. In towns cyclists can often move at the speed of the users of the main carriageway. If the cycleways are full of slower moving cyclists then why not use road? They've paid for it as much as any motorist.
There are many reasons fit cyclists to take the primary. This is a riding technique directly taken from motorcycle instruction and testing. It's about reacting to perceived hazards. You move into the middle of the lane because you see a potential hazard that the non cycling motorists haven't seen or understood to be a hazard. Without knowing more about that situation you describe I cannot conclude whether that cyclist was a w@nker or had made a valid and justified action in response to a hazard. BTW that hazard could be you trying to overtaken where you couldn't follow the procedure described for overtaking cyclists in the highway code. It could have been the cyclist decided it was too narrow or that the speed he/she was doing would have meant you'd cut him/ her up just before the bend because there wasn't enough room to safely overtake. It is the cyclist's perception of the situation that's made him do that action. It's quite clear that many motorists don't understand such actions.
I've mentioned that cyclists taking primary position for safety comes from motorcycle instruction and tests. It's now part of cycle safety training like bikeability or safety books like bikecraft (cycling equivalent to the driving book roadcraft which was based on the police driving system). It is so mainstream in cycle safety and road safety circles that motoring organisations like the AA and RAC now publish cycling safety advice for their members that includes taking primary. It is however a really misunderstood and hated positioning among motorists who don't cycle much as part of daily life.Â
One final n point, I have cycled for leisure almost all my life. I have only cycle commuted regularly for 10 years. I was a confident cyclist who knew how to ride for leisure when I started cycle commuting. I quickly learnt I was an absolute beginner in the commuting skills needed. Biggest thing I learnt was you had to be confident almost verging on arrogant. You had to take your bit of the road. "Taking your road" I believe is the phrase used by motorcycle instructors for how motor cyclists should ride for decades. In cycling circles its a relatively new concept that tbh is still only known by cyclists who have cycle commuted for some time.Â
If you doubt anything I say then try cycle commuting and you'll understand. It might be the only way you will.
 "They've paid for it as much as any motorist." No they haven't - because they don't have to be taxed and insured, as car owners and motorbike riders do, so there are no consequences when they behave like idiots. I'm also not talking about a town environment, which is a totally different scenario altogether. Re the cases I mentioned about them being on pavements, and ignoring the rules of the road. There was no 'hazard' regarding the man I could have overtaken who hogged the whole road unnecessarily. Masses of room, and a long straight bit of road. Interestingly, once you're round that corner, there's exactly the same situation, but he stayed where he was. Go figure, as they say. The man who deliberately went up on the pavement and rode towards me - what's his excuse?Â
As someone who uses the infamous A82 regularly, don't start me on motorcyclists.
Incidentally, I have no issue with 'sharing' the roads with anyone else, as long as they have some manners and consideration for the other road users, which is what I try to do every time I get in a car. I won't be responding again anyway. Head and brick wall springs to mind.Â
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Incidentally, I have no issue with 'sharing' the roads with anyone else, as long as they have some manners and consideration for the other road users, which is what I try to do every time I get in a car. I won't be responding again anyway. Head and brick wall springs to mind.Â
And they and they're equipment are tested, they're taxed and insured and that they abide to ALL the rules in the highway code at all times and not just those as and when it suits them.
There were some ridiculous on a radio phone in about cyclists riding 4 abread. " if there are 12 cyclists in one long line, it's be more difficult for a car to overtake than if they're in a block" Why don't THEY split up into, eg 3 blocks of 4 with space for other road users to overtake in a manner which holds nobody up, nor causes risks for anyone?
Posts
I'm also fed up of the ones who just go onto the pavements to skip the lights when they're at red, and those who think they don't need to bother indicating when they want to pull out to turn. Going home from work one day [B road] one guy just pulled out into the middle of the carriageway [without indicating] rode down the white lines in the middle until he reached the bend in the road and then he moved back in. I could have safely overtaken him [decent straight section ] but because of him doing that, I had to sit behind him. I presume that was his reason for doing it. I have no way to report him, because as said - no registration required for them to use the roads.
Like a car, if you have a motorbike you have to be taxed and registered, so why should they be different?
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
So, you ride on a marked cycle path with roads side roads for example. Stopping at every junction to let cars through. Or do you ignore the poorly designed, farcical infrastructure and ride on the road? As a cyclist and motorist I hope every cyclist I such a case rides on the road unless young and they'd probably be on the pavement anyway.
Or do you ride on one of the mixed use paths? Perhaps it's left side for pedestrians and right side for cyclists. Sounds ideal until you consider human nature in the modern UK. Cyclists on the pedestrians side and vice versa. Or pedestrians walking in a group blocking all the mixed user path. Or the mobile which you can never be sure where they'll go when or if they notice you on a bike. Usually they'll notice you last minute when you're kind of committed to going around them on one side only for the to look up and turning round into your path last minute. I'm afraid cyclists and pedestrians fit together worse than cyclists and motorists. You might as well have motorists drive on the path as well the way cyclists and pedestrians fit together.
Or when there's really rather well built cycle paths separated from pedestrians and motorists they cock it up by putting signs in the middle of the cycle path without any lighting or reflective on it so cyclists end to hitting it because they simply didn't or more likely couldn't see it.Â
The above are just a few examples to show how wrong it is to assume infrastructure works for the intended user when that user is cyclists. Put simply the DoT has a big design standard for cycle paths apparently. It's supposed to be used like highway standards but not one council builds to even this basic set of design protocols and specifications.
That cycle trailer will have a hitch attaching it to the parent's bike such that you can lay the bike flat without even putting significant force on the trailer such that it would flip. On top of that the child is strapped into the roll cage forming the trailer frame by a 5 point harness that is designed to hold the child in place as securely for the max designed user weight and designed for forces as some car child seats. Obviously never going to crash with as high forces as car child seats but as secure strapping for intended use as car child seats. On top of the roll cage of the tray body the push handle used when strolling with it off the bike is usually folded over the top as an extra rollcage. There's a video online from a design engineer who tested his kid's trailer by strapping his two kids with a few years between them then turned it upside down and shook it. The kids were laughing and asked for more. Then there's the simple fact that whereas you'll rarely get motorists following the highway code in overtaking cyclists but stick a child trailer on the back of your bike, whether used to carry kid's or not, and drivers almost universally give them the space recommended in the highway code. BTW put a long, blonde wig on and accird to research you'll also get the recommended space when being overtaken.Â
I don't like child seats personally but the one we had was a lot taller than our child's head when he was in it. It acted a little like a roll cage but not as safe as a trailer.
BTW that trailer is from the same make as the one we had. A very good child trailer. I don't know the child seat but it's not a Hamax branded one we had. Good features are the leg area where the child's legs are within a plastic structure and strapped in. 5 point harness with safety bar across, a feature borrowed from pushchairs BTW. The rear head guard is too low but might adjust up like child car seats. It's not got any side protection. I would never choose that one personally.
Potholes that a car drives over without really noticing can send a cyclist flying. It happened to me in march resulting in a broken arm and sprains that took longer than the bone to recover from. Add in the fact even if you just ride over them you can get pinch punctures or worse damage to your bike. Then there's places I cycle where the potholes are often accompanied by puddles that obscure the locations of potholes. If a cycle path has potholes then I can understand why cyclists might choose to exercise their legal right you cycle on the main carriageway. Same with dangerous cycle path designs. Unfortunately motorists often don't understand or want to understand the cyclist's needs with cycle paths or why they choose the potentially safer option of roads. Even if not safer there's valid reasons. In towns cyclists can often move at the speed of the users of the main carriageway. If the cycleways are full of slower moving cyclists then why not use road? They've paid for it as much as any motorist.
There are many reasons fit cyclists to take the primary. This is a riding technique directly taken from motorcycle instruction and testing. It's about reacting to perceived hazards. You move into the middle of the lane because you see a potential hazard that the non cycling motorists haven't seen or understood to be a hazard. Without knowing more about that situation you describe I cannot conclude whether that cyclist was a w@nker or had made a valid and justified action in response to a hazard. BTW that hazard could be you trying to overtaken where you couldn't follow the procedure described for overtaking cyclists in the highway code. It could have been the cyclist decided it was too narrow or that the speed he/she was doing would have meant you'd cut him/ her up just before the bend because there wasn't enough room to safely overtake. It is the cyclist's perception of the situation that's made him do that action. It's quite clear that many motorists don't understand such actions.
I've mentioned that cyclists taking primary position for safety comes from motorcycle instruction and tests. It's now part of cycle safety training like bikeability or safety books like bikecraft (cycling equivalent to the driving book roadcraft which was based on the police driving system). It is so mainstream in cycle safety and road safety circles that motoring organisations like the AA and RAC now publish cycling safety advice for their members that includes taking primary. It is however a really misunderstood and hated positioning among motorists who don't cycle much as part of daily life.Â
One final n point, I have cycled for leisure almost all my life. I have only cycle commuted regularly for 10 years. I was a confident cyclist who knew how to ride for leisure when I started cycle commuting. I quickly learnt I was an absolute beginner in the commuting skills needed. Biggest thing I learnt was you had to be confident almost verging on arrogant. You had to take your bit of the road. "Taking your road" I believe is the phrase used by motorcycle instructors for how motor cyclists should ride for decades. In cycling circles its a relatively new concept that tbh is still only known by cyclists who have cycle commuted for some time.Â
If you doubt anything I say then try cycle commuting and you'll understand. It might be the only way you will.
No they haven't - because they don't have to be taxed and insured, as car owners and motorbike riders do, so there are no consequences when they behave like idiots.Â
I'm also not talking about a town environment, which is a totally different scenario altogether.
Re the cases I mentioned about them being on pavements, and ignoring the rules of the road. There was no 'hazard' regarding the man I could have overtaken who hogged the whole road unnecessarily. Masses of room, and a long straight bit of road. Interestingly, once you're round that corner, there's exactly the same situation, but he stayed where he was. Go figure, as they say. The man who deliberately went up on the pavement and rode towards me - what's his excuse?Â
As someone who uses the infamous A82 regularly, don't start me on motorcyclists.
Incidentally, I have no issue with 'sharing' the roads with anyone else, as long as they have some manners and consideration for the other road users, which is what I try to do every time I get in a car.Â
I won't be responding again anyway. Head and brick wall springs to mind.Â
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
There were some ridiculous on a radio phone in about cyclists riding 4 abread.Â
" if there are 12 cyclists in one long line, it's be more difficult for a car to overtake than if they're in a block"Â
Why don't THEY split up into, eg 3 blocks of 4 with space for other road users to overtake in a manner which holds nobody up, nor causes risks for anyone?