When cyclist will start to use their head. It must start from them. We have done our part, but no more extra mirrors will save life if cyclist will not change their behavior.
Boomerang Dave:
The obvious answer is… when the UK authorities start to care as much as their Dutch counterparts and separate cyclists into cycle lanes.
Plenty of them not used by cyclist around The UK. My favorite sight is cyclist holding up miles of traffic whilst parallel to him on path there is an empty cycle lane. Compulsory sign means nothing for them.
MisterStrood:
Boomerang Dave:
The obvious answer is… when the UK authorities start to care as much as their Dutch counterparts and separate cyclists into cycle lanes.Plenty of them not used by cyclist around The UK. My favorite sight is cyclist holding up miles of traffic whilst parallel to him on path there is an empty cycle lane. Compulsory sign means nothing for them.
If you read back through the topic you’ll see that the cyclist supporters are contradicting themselves by one minute saying that cyclists should have access to all roads except motorways as they choose and that cycleway use shouldn’t be compulsory for them.While also rejecting the idea of using pavements wherever possible which is often. 
Then the idiots say they want segregation and seperation from road reaffic.As Robk rightly says as a majority they’re generally as thick as zb.
As for worrying about turning the topic into a good old fashioned argument and slanging match between the two opposing road user groups that’s actually exactly what’s needed to sort the problem out for once and for all.
A lot of cyclists do not obey they laws of the road as they know it is extremely unlikely they will be penalised in any way for disobeying traffic lights etc. Equally, motorised vehicle drivers are in general more aware of the rules as, they are more likely to get a ticket for jumping red lights or other transgressions.
Until cyclists learn to treat the road and the processes of riding on the road with respect, they will find that other vehicle users treat them with the disdain you are currently seeing on this thread.
Most drivers watch out for cyclists as they are aware that a lot of cyclists (not all) behave like retarded morons that are indestructible. These same morons kick off when they find that they aren’t and that if they come into contact with a big lorry it hurts.
I agree with Rikki - other vehicle users are making an effort - so come on cyclists. What are you actively, positively doing to educate the cycling communtiy about the dangers of mixing it with large (or any) motorised vehicles?
Apart from attempting to constantly lay the blame at the drivers’ door of course.
MisterStrood:
When cyclist will start to use their head. It must start from them. We have done our part, but no more extra mirrors will save life if cyclist will not change their behavior.
Ironically the problem didn’t seem so bad in the 1950’s/early 60’s when trucks and buses were fitted with small almost useless mirrors and when plenty of workers used cycles to commute to work.Which seems to provide a clue. 
MisterStrood:
Boomerang Dave:
The obvious answer is… when the UK authorities start to care as much as their Dutch counterparts and separate cyclists into cycle lanes.Plenty of them not used by cyclist around The UK. My favorite sight is cyclist holding up miles of traffic whilst parallel to him on path there is an empty cycle lane. Compulsory sign means nothing for them.
This was raised earlier… I don’t have time today to search back through what I said in response. But basically - the so called cycle lanes here in the UK are often more dangerous than staying on the road… getting in and out of them is worse that just riding alongside the motorised traffic. The Dutch system is nothing at all like the so called cycle lanes we have here. I’m not calling for more bad cycle lanes - the Dutch system is much better.
Carryfast: FYI. I have already blocked your posts… you write nothing worth reading - if you are aiming comments at me, save yourself the energy… perhaps attend an anger management course; All I can see of the dross you scribble now is this:
This post was made by Carryfast who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
It makes much more sense!
Boomerang Dave:
MisterStrood:
Boomerang Dave:
The obvious answer is… when the UK authorities start to care as much as their Dutch counterparts and separate cyclists into cycle lanes.Plenty of them not used by cyclist around The UK. My favorite sight is cyclist holding up miles of traffic whilst parallel to him on path there is an empty cycle lane. Compulsory sign means nothing for them.
This was raised earlier… I don’t have time today to search back through what I said in response. But basically - the so called cycle lanes here in the UK are often more dangerous than staying on the road… getting in and out of them is worse that just riding alongside the motorised traffic. The Dutch system is nothing at all like the so called cycle lanes we have here. I’m not calling for more bad cycle lanes - the Dutch system is much better.
Carryfast: FYI. I have already blocked your posts… you write nothing worth reading - if you are aiming comments at me, save yourself the energy… perhaps attend an anger management course; All I can see of the dross you scribble now is this:
This post was made by Carryfast who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
It makes much more sense!
Cycleways more dangerous than staying on the road yeah right says it all.Then block any argument that doesn’t agree with the cycling lot’s view of the world nothing new there.It seems obvious that nothing will change until commercial drivers have the sense to walk off the job until the regime and attitudes of cyclists changes.Unless those drivers like prison food and being locked up for 23 hours a day.
Carryfast:
Ironically the problem didn’t seem so bad in the 1950’s/early 60’s when trucks and buses were fitted with small almost useless mirrors and when plenty of workers used cycles to commute to work.Which seems to provide a clue.
According to figures the 1950 & 60’s was quite a tricky time to be a cyclist, 800 + deaths in 1950 compared to 100 + in 2011.
No doubt the drops can be aquaited to less cyclists on the roads and better vehicle design and technology. However as a bike has pretty much remained the same in terms of impact protection and trucks have moved on in terms of performance there must be some correlation between the rising of deaths over the past few years and the increasing number of cyclists on the roads with the govt pushing for more cyclists.
Trucks and there drivers have come as far as they can to protect cyclists its now up to them to behave in a manner condusive to their own well being, for those willing to listen we can help give them a drivers persepctive.
We shouldn’t have to be nervous aroud cyclists, they should have some legal requirement to follow the same rules as almost every other vehicle on the road.
Dipper_Dave:
Carryfast:
Ironically the problem didn’t seem so bad in the 1950’s/early 60’s when trucks and buses were fitted with small almost useless mirrors and when plenty of workers used cycles to commute to work.Which seems to provide a clue.According to figures the 1950 & 60’s was quite a tricky time to be a cyclist, 800 + deaths in 1950 compared to 100 + in 2011.
No doubt the drops can be aquaited to less cyclists on the roads and better vehicle design and technology. However as a bike has pretty much remained the same in terms of impact protection and trucks have moved on in terms of performance there must be some correlation between the rising of deaths over the past few years and the increasing number of cyclists on the roads with the govt pushing for more cyclists.
Trucks and there drivers have come as far as they can to protect cyclists its now up to them to behave in a manner condusive to their own well being, for those willing to listen we can help give them a drivers persepctive.
We shouldn’t have to be nervous aroud cyclists, they should have some legal requirement to follow the same rules as almost every other vehicle on the road.
It’s probably more a case that they are actually there on the roads than them not always following ‘rules’ whatever rules actually apply to them and are enforced against them.It seems equally obvious that there’s a direct correlation with the ‘amounts/numbers’ of them who are ‘there’ and the ‘amounts/numbers’ of them who will inevitably become statistics.
As for the problem in the 1950’s/60’s those statistics might have been more a reflection of the ‘numbers’ of cyclists with things possibly being even better than today,in the case of the actual ‘proportion’ of those overall numbers,who became statistics.But just like today how many of those statistics could have been saved if they weren’t riding on the roads and used the pavements instead just as I did during my daily commute to school by cycle.What is certain is that during those days in the 1970’s things were a lot more orientated towards the more vulnerable road users like pedestrian and cyclists having to take more responsibility for their own actions with a far less pc regime in regards to vehicle speeds and the amount of blame and responsibility put on motor vehicle drivers in regards to pedestrian and cyclist casualties.In my view that made the roads safer not more dangerous.What we’ve got now is often a case of dumbed down road conditions creating ever dumber road users with cyclists often being some of the dumbest.
While if I was unlucky enough to be spending a lot of my working day driving a truck or a bus around cyclists I think I’d have good cause to be ‘nervous’ under the present regime.
I’d like to know the amount of cyclist killed/injured with collisions with motor vehciles, and the percentage where the cyclist was deemed at fault.
rambo19:
I’d like to know the amount of cyclist killed/injured with collisions with motor vehciles, and the percentage where the cyclist was deemed at fault.
2011 figures:
rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea … gures.aspx
In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.
More recently:
rospa.com/news/releases/detail/?id=1221
RoSPA is urging for greater provision in cyclist training, driver awareness and safer roads for cyclists following the publication of annual casualty statistics.
As driver awareness has been pretty much covered its time to cover ‘cyclist training’, which should envolve at least a licence or qualification to ride a bike if the cyclist doesn’t already hold a full car licence + fines for cyclists undertaking HGV vehicles.
The relaxation of the pavement restriction for cyclists might be an idea but I can see this causing a few issues with pedestrians.
Here we have Chris Boardman explaining why some cycle paths are not suitable.
I have not watched this as my device for some reason won’t play it, although I do remember a lot of the cycle forums agreeing with his points.
Like I say I haven’t watched the clip yet,so I can’t pass judgment iif he’s a thick cylist or not.
chester:
Here we have Chris Boardman explaining why some cycle paths are not suitable.I have not watched this as my device for some reason won’t play it, although I do remember a lot of the cycle forums agreeing with his points.
Like I say I haven’t watched the clip yet,so I can’t pass judgment iif he’s a thick cylist or not.
He seems to fit the definition to me.There’s a perfectly acceptable alternative there off the road altogether and as usual the cyclists want to make the issue all about competing with motor traffic for road space instead.
chester:
Here we have Chris Boardman explaining why some cycle paths are not suitable…
The video pretty much demonstrates what I have been saying, the existing cycle lanes in the UK are bloody dangerous.
The video also asks the question - who are the cycle lanes for?
I haven’t read the article though…
The answer to the question is:
Cycle lanes in the UK are Box Ticking / PR / Funding Grab, aimed at councils being able to get funding, then pat themselves on the back - making claims such as… here in Xtown or Xcity, we’ve created X miles of : Keyword: ‘NEW’ cycle lanes.
It’s costing lives and they don’t care. Simples.
Boomerang Dave:
chester:
Here we have Chris Boardman explaining why some cycle paths are not suitable…The video pretty much demonstrates what I have been saying, the existing cycle lanes in the UK are bloody dangerous.
The video also asks the question - who are the cycle lanes for?
I haven’t read the article though…
The answer to the question is:
Cycle lanes in the UK are Box Ticking / PR / Funding Grab, aimed at councils being able to get funding, then pat themselves on the back - making claims such as… here in Xtown or Xcity, we’ve created X miles of : Keyword: ‘NEW’ cycle lanes.It’s costing lives and they don’t care. Simples.
How the zb are cycleways supposedly ‘costing lives’ when the cyclists are moaning about being flattened by trucks on the road.
All I saw in the video was a load of total bs moaning about having to leave the road and so called ‘road surface’ ‘differences’ and the issue of having to cycle past a sign and then the final straw he actually had to stop to cross a road. Just like motor vehicles have to do at road junctions although cyclists obviously view having to stop for any reason as a personal insult.When that cycleway should have been the whole length of the available offroad pavement along there anyway with the choice for cyclists of either cycle on it or walk.Why don’t the tossers just be honest about their bs issues which are all about the idea of taking priority for roadspace away from motor traffic and giving it to cyclists instead.
Saaamon:
It will stop when cyclists start making changes for themselves, the haulage industry seems to be taking action, free cpc course, cameras, stickers on the back, training videos… What have cyclists done?
Good reply. I’m not famiiar with the are this accident happened in so can’t comment directly on that but I do believe the local councils have a duty of care to check and maintain the pavements they classify as cycle tracks by cutting back the hedges and over grown grass so a cyclist can use the path and stay 100% out of the road. I’ve complained to our local council about any paths I come across which need attention. Perhaps if more or even ALL motorists did this more paths would be used by cyclists because they’d be safe to use.
I was following a lorry from the same fleet as me the other week, we were loaded and going up a slight slope away from a set of lights. We were following a cyclist and my mate overtook him as they BOTH passed an island in the road. My mates tyres distorted as they hit the kerb on this island but the ingonorant so and so achieved his selfish objective and got past the bike.
I cycle a lot and see a lot of things going on out on the roads. The problem sems to be right across the board, even cyclists themselves will NOT consider their own safety and stay behind vehicles if it means their journey is going to be disprupted by a few seconds and motorist will often NOT wait behind a cyclist until it’s safe to allow them room to fall off.
I’d like to see High Viz tops and helmets made a legal requirement for all cyclists and I’d also like to see newsagents held responsible for the paper delivery cyclists being safer by wearing Hi Viz clothnig and having front & rear lights fully Working !!
BB
Carryfast: FYI. I have already blocked your posts… you write nothing worth reading - if you are aiming comments at me, save yourself the energy… perhaps attend an anger management course; All I can see of the dross you scribble now is this.
+100
There are a couple of others just as bad.Not capable of a unbiased discussion.
albion1971:
+100There are a couple of others just as bad.Not capable of a unbiased discussion.
On a forum with over 43k members, there’s bound to be the occasional character. 
albion1971:
Carryfast: FYI. I have already blocked your posts… you write nothing worth reading - if you are aiming comments at me, save yourself the energy… perhaps attend an anger management course; All I can see of the dross you scribble now is this.+100
There are a couple of others just as bad.Not capable of a unbiased discussion.
Like them you’re having a laugh.The cyclists are moaning about getting flattened by trucks on the road.When someone says get them off the roads and onto the perfectly acceptable paveways/cycleways off the road that’s supposedly biased.While the cyclists continued contradiction,concerning the dangers of using the roads with trucks,while also not wanting to use the pavements and/or even the off road cycleways provided for them,is supposedly a non biased intelligent contribution.
Having said that your bias,related to the use of trucks,in the case of accidents with other road users,of whatever type of vehicle,were made clear and documented on the M62 truck v minibus accident topic.
Boomerang Dave:
albion1971:
+100There are a couple of others just as bad.Not capable of a unbiased discussion.
On a forum with over 43k members, there’s bound to be the occasional character.
Ha you are so polite,I can think of a far better name than a character…LOL… 