Own Account Driver:
chester:
Those posters who have tried to dictate that cycles should not be on the road.
What are you actually going to do about it?Simple question?
Reason I ask is because none of you stood up to the CPC!
So until the law is changed,it is what it is!So, you’re saying leave it to Darwin?
Own Account Driver:
So, you’re saying leave it to Darwin?
Well to be fair you trucker guys ain’t doing that well with the CPC lark, the cyclists arent the ones the Goverment thinks have to go back to school. So i can’t see the cycle fraternity being bothered by your troublesome tirade?
So carryfast, you put the fact that you haven’t hit a cyclist in 33 years of trucking down to luck! While I would never say I was the greatest driver ever I would say I have picked up a little bit of skill. One thing I can do is stay within the speed limits set by the government, as in the law. That’s something you don’t seem to be able to respond to, don’t you think it might, just a little, have something to do with accidents of any type not just cycling related? It must take some skill to drive your truck so fast that when you hit a cyclist he is dragged 300 mtrs down the road before you stop. But that’s not the truckers fault, it’s the cyclists fault for being there, or the politicians fault for letting them be there, anybodys fault but the drivers really isn’t it?
I know you would rather see cycles on the pavement but that’s illegal. I know you want them off dual carriageways but that is legal. I know we will be waiting some time for this to change, if ever. There’s more chance of you admitting that some truckers are poor drivers.
You’re driving your car along a dual carriageway, there’s no or next to no hard shoulder, you breakdown, people advocating riding on dual carriageways - do you get out or stay put?
Slackbladder:
So carryfast, you put the fact that you haven’t hit a cyclist in 33 years of trucking down to luck! While I would never say I was the greatest driver ever I would say I have picked up a little bit of skill. One thing I can do is stay within the speed limits set by the government, as in the law. That’s something you don’t seem to be able to respond to, don’t you think it might, just a little, have something to do with accidents of any type not just cycling related? It must take some skill to drive your truck so fast that when you hit a cyclist he is dragged 300 mtrs down the road before you stop. But that’s not the truckers fault, it’s the cyclists fault for being there, or the politicians fault for letting them be there, anybodys fault but the drivers really isn’t it?
I know you would rather see cycles on the pavement but that’s illegal. I know you want them off dual carriageways but that is legal. I know we will be waiting some time for this to change, if ever. There’s more chance of you admitting that some truckers are poor drivers.
No I didn’t say that my having not hit a cyclist is all down to luck.However I did say that it is possible for a combination of circumstances to arise which makes that result inevitable regardless of how good that you’d like to think you are.As for the speed issue there’s very little difference between the motorway speed limit,the limited speed of a truck,and the dual carriageway national speed limit and none at all in the case of cars so to all intents and purposes a dual carriageway subject to the national speed limit is no different to a motorway.
If you think it’s good to ride a cycle on such roads under those conditions go ahead it’s not my problem because hopefully my level of skill combined with good luck and the fact that now that I don’t need to drive commercially,the type of vehicles and the amount of miles I drive,are small enough and low enough respectively,for the odds to be in my favour regarding not being charged with hitting one of the suicidal lemmings.Unfortunately many drivers who need to make their living delivering the nation’s goods don’t have that luxury although they’d obviously have no problem if only they were as good and perfect drivers as you would obviously like to think you are.
stevieboy308:
You’re driving your car along a dual carriageway, there’s no or next to no hard shoulder, you breakdown, people advocating riding on dual carriageways - do you get out or stay put?
Or you’re driving a car or a truck along a dual carriageway subject to the national limit or a motorway and it’s either a very old knackered one that’s only capable of 20 mph max or develops a fault limiting it to 15-20 mph.Do you stay off such roads and/or stop and park it as safely as possible and seek breakdown assistance respectively.Or do you continue bearing in mind that there’s no actual minimum speed limit in the case of either road.
chester:
Own Account Driver:
So, you’re saying leave it to Darwin?Well to be fair you trucker guys ain’t doing that well with the CPC lark, the cyclists arent the ones the Goverment thinks have to go back to school. So i can’t see the cycle fraternity being bothered by your troublesome tirade?
The just proves the fact that cyclists are obviously suicidal nutcases who want to ride cycles on what are effectively motorway type roads when they’re not riding them along the near side of trucks in town.I’d certainly be ‘bothered’ about the possibility of being flattened by a truck ( or a car ) if I was stupid enough to ride a cycle on a dual carriageway subject to the national speed limit.But that’s what obviously seperates the intelligent from the insane.
Does the national speed limit now mean that I can’t cycle on a single carriageway with such speed limit now according to some on here, if so that rather expensive piece of carbon in the garage will now sit idle as every road out of my village is a single carriage way with national speed limit signs.
I drive, I cycle…doesn’t mean I’m insane, have a death wish or any other mental issue it means I like to spend time on the road both vocationally and for enjoyment, yes that’s enjoyment which some people on here seem to have lost in there years of rdc’s and lone living!!!
chester:
Own Account Driver:
So, you’re saying leave it to Darwin?Well to be fair you trucker guys ain’t doing that well with the CPC lark, the cyclists arent the ones the Goverment thinks have to go back to school. So i can’t see the cycle fraternity being bothered by your troublesome tirade?
Maybe the government have realised were intelligent enough to understand what’s being taught whereas most cyclists aren’t. You’ve got to be pretty stupid to take on 40+ tonnes of metal and think you’re going to come off better.
I don’t think any cyclist goes out with the idea of taking on 40+ ton of metal, but the A30 always has and will always continue to be used by cyclist until any such law is changed.
On the other side, if any of uour family are walking on a spilt cycle path and footpath would you want me coming passed at between 15-30 mph without slowing down, that’s why most serious cyclists don’t use cycle paths as they are used to walk on by pedestrians
takemehome:
Does the national speed limit now mean that I can’t cycle on a single carriageway with such speed limit now according to some on here, if so that rather expensive piece of carbon in the garage will now sit idle as every road out of my village is a single carriage way with national speed limit signs.I drive, I cycle…doesn’t mean I’m insane, have a death wish or any other mental issue it means I like to spend time on the road both vocationally and for enjoyment, yes that’s enjoyment which some people on here seem to have lost in there years of rdc’s and lone living!!!
Firstly it’s all about relative risk which is why there’s a whole industry out there and government regulations concerning risk assessments which affect all aspects of life in general.However where both health and safety and any guvnor with any sense wouldn’t allow cycling in the yard near turning trucks and where cyclists aren’t allowed on motorways the government are happy to allow cyclists to mix freely in close proximity to all types of traffic on all types of roads with the exception of motorways.So yes riding cycles on the road wether in town or on all roads is a big risk arguably an unnacceptable risk.However where those roads are subject to the national speed limit,especially on dual carriageways,that risk is effectively the same as cycling on a motorway.
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … 41.84,0,0
Go ahead the suicidal lemming cyclists can ride there idiot machines on here in lane 1 as often as they like for all I care but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to read of yet another flattened cyclist or more in that case at some point and yet another unfortunate driver charged with the results. 
takemehome:
I don’t think any cyclist goes out with the idea of taking on 40+ ton of metal, but the A30 always has and will always continue to be used by cyclist until any such law is changed.On the other side, if any of uour family are walking on a spilt cycle path and footpath would you want me coming passed at between 15-30 mph without slowing down, that’s why most serious cyclists don’t use cycle paths as they are used to walk on by pedestrians
Exactly until the law is changed which hopefully won’t be too long assuming that the government,who admittedly are at home but as usual the lights aren’t switched on and who aren’t the sharpest tools in the box etc etc,eventually changes it’s mind.Considering the glaringly obvious contradiction between the rule of not allowing cyclists on motorways but it’s seen as ok to ride a cycle on a dual carriageway subject to the national speed limit.
As for mixed foot paths and cycleways it’s no surprise that the cycling lot want double standards applied in the case of them not wanting to ride responsibly around pedestrians on shared cycle paths and walkways but they want dual carriageway speed limits reduced to 30 mph so as to make drivers of motor vehicles even more subject to restrictions to suit the cycling lot’s bs ideas concerning road use.
The speed difference between motorway, where cyclists, amongst others, are not permitted and dual carriageways, where they are, is 10mph. While most trucks cannot make the max limit on the motorway, where cyclists are not permitted, they can easily exceed the 50mph limit on dual carriageways, where cyclists are allowed, and do so as a matter of course, only slowing down in areas they know to have a camera, or getting stuck behind an ASDA driver. So the difference that should be 10 mph is usually around 3 or 4 mph. I suppose that’s the cyclists fault as well. I could be wrong but I think there’s a reason it’s called dangerous driving and not dodgy cycling.
Who wants the speed limit reduced to 30 on dual carriageways? So it’s not a double standard to say that cyclists shouldn’t be on “our” dual carriageways because it means we truckers have to drive carefully and look out for them?
Slackbladder:
The speed difference between motorway, where cyclists, amongst others, are not permitted and dual carriageways, where they are, is 10mph. While most trucks cannot make the max limit on the motorway, where cyclists are not permitted, they can easily exceed the 50mph limit on dual carriageways, where cyclists are allowed, and do so as a matter of course, only slowing down in areas they know to have a camera, or getting stuck behind an ASDA driver. So the difference that should be 10 mph is usually around 3 or 4 mph. I suppose that’s the cyclists fault as well. I could be wrong but I think there’s a reason it’s called dangerous driving and not dodgy cycling.
Who wants the speed limit reduced to 30 on dual carriageways? So it’s not a double standard to say that cyclists shouldn’t be on “our” dual carriageways because it means we truckers have to drive carefully and look out for them?
The actual difference between the speed limit for trucks on dual carriageways as opposed to motorways is 6 mph allowing for the fact that EU law regarding limiters limits trucks to 56 mph on motorways not 60 mph.The difference between the limited 56 mph on motorways and 50 mph on dual carriageways isn’t worth bothering about and the law might just as well equalise the two just as the two limits are equalised in the case of cars preferably ditching the bs 56 and 50 mph limits by raising both types of road to 60 mph for trucks thereby reducing the speed differential between cars and trucks .While in the case of cyclists using dual carriageways it’s that speed differential between around the 15-20 mph of a cycle compared to the 70 mph + speed of cars which matters both in regards to cars in lane 1 and in the case of dragging a loaded truck down to possibly less than the 15-20 mph speed of a cyclist to maintain seperation distance and then have to change lanes to overtake from that speed and then safely merge with traffic running at up to 70 mph in lane 2.
As I’ve said the fact is allowing cyclists to use dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit is no different to allowing them to use motorways would be.Your whole bs theory falls down on the fact that (1) trucks are limited to 56 mph so can only exceed the dual carriageway limit for trucks by a maximum of 6 mph the limit for trucks on which should be equalised with motorways anyway preferably to 60 mph and (2) cars can also legally travel on dual carriageways at the same speed as they can on motorways.While it would actually need a blanket 30-40 mph limit on all roads to reduce the risk sufficiently for cyclists to use the roads even remotely safely from the point of view of speed differentials.The answer in this case is clear get the cyclists at least off of dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit and preferably off the roads and onto mixed pedestrian/cycleways altogether.
the mountain biking forum i go on is a general cycling forum, so i’ve just ventured over to the road section for the first time, to see their take is on dual carriageways.
on the first page there is a 3 page thread about this accident and then they setup a new thread to discuss riding on dual carriageways which is on its 4 page, i’d say the vast majority of people replying to these threads are saying it’s not a good idea with many saying they’ll avoid at all costs
chester:
Own Account Driver:
So, you’re saying leave it to Darwin?Well to be fair you trucker guys ain’t doing that well with the CPC lark, the cyclists arent the ones the Goverment thinks have to go back to school. So i can’t see the cycle fraternity being bothered by your troublesome tirade?
Why aren’t cyclists petitioning the government to be allowed on motorways then?
I would agree with that as well. I have never, and will never ride on a dual carriage way or for that matter any major A roads. I ride 4 miles of Tarmac at most to get into the forest.
I have never on this thread condoned the use of dual carriageways riding a bicycle. I have been on the cycle forums myself and seen the general opinion on riding Dual carriageways.
Just because I can argue for both sides it seems everyone on here sees me as a Eco warrior Lycra clad moron.
Although I don’t own a road bike or Lycra!! And hardly ever cycle on roads anyway.
Just because I dared to post a bit of history on carriageways and their development over the years Iam public enemy number 1 on this thread.
I can see reasoned debate for both sides, a good trait some posters here could learn.
Own Account Driver:
Why aren’t cyclists petitioning the government to be allowed on motorways then?
Why would cyclist want to use motorways when they can Use dual carriageways.
A motorway is for motor vehicles only.
stevieboy308:
the mountain biking forum i go on is a general cycling forum, so i’ve just ventured over to the road section for the first time, to see their take is on dual carriageways.on the first page there is a 3 page thread about this accident and then they setup a new thread to discuss riding on dual carriageways which is on its 4 page, i’d say the vast majority of people replying to these threads are saying it’s not a good idea with many saying they’ll avoid at all costs
So not all cyclists are suicidal nutcases but the fact remains too many obviously are.Which still leaves the issue of the government differentiating dual carriageways from motorways from the point of view of use by cyclists when to all intents and purposes they are exactly the same type of road with the exception that trucks are limited to 6 mph less when arguably there should be no difference in the case of trucks anyway as is the case for cars.It seems obvious that cyclists need to be banned from such roads.Together with stopping the idiots from viewing the public highway as their private race track for so called ‘time trials’ etc.
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
You’re still effectively abdicating responsibility for your own personal safety to the eccentricities of the British statute book without offering any real evidence that doing so is prudent or wise.
In the case in question the journey wasn’t necessary, although obviously a worthy one, it’s effectively a recreational activity so, similarly with horse riding, there is a perfectly reasonable choice not to go on to busy roads if you feel it’s unsafe to do so.
You only have to have a few flakes of snow in this country and the enforcers of your beloved laws are announcing to everyone not to make journeys unless they are necessary.
It does frankly worry me that you’re probably not the only one out there, after the introduction of new laws and the over-zealous enforcement of various road traffic offences, has badly confused the laws of this country with some sort of all purpose health and safety risk assessment for the safety of citizens.
I think that ultimately this is a case of risk homeostasis. You and others are more scared of more things than I and others.
I don’t understand your last paragraph.
Not really but, since you like big words, I’d say yours is a case that hasn’t stood up well to a counter-argument of reductio ad absurdum.
Ah, your dad’s bigger than mine. Imitating Carryfast is a retrograde step.