What I find puzzling is how people with any brain think that it's a good idea to use their bodies to annoy complete strangers in big machinery. What is it about Lycra clad cyclists that makes them believe that their right not to be killed or turned into a paraplegic will actually stop it happening no matter how much they test their theory to the limit. Well these top cyclists prove them wrong
But having set the drivers up with this liability, anti driver ideologists like CTC, British Cycling and Road Peace are clamouring for more driver jail.
That's why I point out that actually society doesn't need road cycling but it certainly needs drivers and driving. If things are that bad stop road cycling. Or at least insist it's not social and only single file.
No one needs motorists either, unless said motorists are providing a service, also, cycling 2 areast is legal and is recommended as best practice on multi-lane roads and many other scenarios.
ReplyDeleteMike whether you understand it or not we all depend on all drivers. Especially private. Nothing operates without private cars. They make all the links to all other forms of transport. You really believe that we could exist with push bikes don't you. We wouldn't miss them at all. As is proved in fowl weather and on our mostly cycle less roads.
ReplyDeleteYes 2 abreast isn't illegal but it isn't wise either. For a start to ignore queuing following traffic is bad mannered. 2 abreast is entirely for social purposes as is pack riding too. Who says it's best practice to place one's own fragile body in the road to obstruct large machinery? I challenge whoever it is of being a dangerous fool. 'Use your bodies guys'. That you cannot work that out is probably because of your limited thought process so don't waste my time. You're not on my waive length. Just keep putting yourself out there and see what happens then, but don't tell others to do it.
"we all depend on all drivers"
DeleteHow ? No one depends on me driving, I could just as easily take the train, walk or cycle.
Ok so how does your train driver, or pilot get to work? Your doctor? Your nurses and water workers? Your goods drivers and bus drivers? Why are hypermarkets and retail parks, where goods are shifted out on a last minute ordering basis, surrounded by massive car parks.
DeleteNo offence but that is a naive post of a person who lives alone or with mum not far from work too. Rather selfish too. Do you not care for family or others? You really imagine you could survive without drivers? Oh dear.
Quoted from a post on another forum - "Having maintained a Private Pilot’s Licence for two decades until 2008, I am often struck by the contrast, legal, moral and cultural, in the treatment of drivers of private cars and the pilots of small planes.
ReplyDeleteFundamentally, flying a plane and driving a car are very similar. Yes, I know there are significant differences too, but in both cases you are operating a large, fairly heavy (about a tonne in each case) piece of machinery powered by a gasoline engine at fairly high speeds, and in both cases you can be wielding a lethal weapon, both to yourself and to other people around you. In both cases incidents can be caused by operator error as well as by mechanical failure, and in both cases the mechanical reliability has improved over the years to the point that operator error is by far the more significant cause of incidents. That error could be while operating the vehicle, or it could be prior to starting (not checking your tyres have tread, for example, or not checking your plane has enough fuel). It is not for nothing that the military, whether air force or mechanised divisions of the army, plaster everything in sight with the slogan “Safety is No Accident” – much depends on preparation, attention and concentration.
That is where the similarities end. If you make an error in a small plane you are far more likely to kill yourself, and far less likely to kill someone else, than you are when you make an error in a car. However, to maintain a PPL requires frequent re-tests and medical examinations neither of which are required of drivers. Penalties for infractions are far harsher, with imprisonment or heavy fines for offences whose parallels in the driving context might include close overtakes or speeding even when no damage is done. It is constantly drummed into you that YOU are responsible for safety, both your own, and your passengers, and anyone else in the air around you or the ground below you. Inattention is never an excuse, you are taught that you must always pay attention. You can never argue “I didn’t see him” – you are taught that human eyes and brains have their failings and how to mitigate them. (One of the theory questions in my PPL exam was about the importance of the “saccade-rest cycle” in maintaining a look-out, in other words, look actively around you, dart your eyes around because if you stare fixedly at one point you will quickly cease to see even what is on that one point). You can never argue that the sun was in your eyes, you are supposed to take steps to manage such situations and overcome the problem, not just shrug and accept it.
Why do we accept in drivers what we won’t accept – quite rightly – in even private pilots? "
For a start we don't allow it and we have long terms of imprisonment for drivers already. But you make the point, there are massive controls on pilots. train drivers, ship's captains and so on. They have to be and maintain a very high standard. Also you do not have the liability of opposing traffic and people, kiddies, cyclists and animals mingling with you too. Imagine all that allowed on your taxi way and runway and be told you will be jailed when it goes wrong.
ReplyDeleteSociety allows very average and below average people to drive with all these hazards from economic expediency then when it goes wrong wants to incarcerate people?
Added to that, before a pilot is jailed there will be expert evidence of experts. For drivers any other driver's subjective, most often hostile, non expert opinion is enough. In no other instance involving long terms of imprisonment can anyone give evidence of opinion but only experts can give opinion.
So that is what is so different and indeed unfair too.
Wouldn't it be a good idea for ALL Cyclists to be Licenced, Insured against third party risks, and have to pass a Test!.. I fitted a Dash Camera after being run off the road by a crowd of moronic cyclists travelling down a 1 in 6 hill in the centre of the road on a blind bend.. Fortunately I had my wits about me and was able to avoid what could have been a very serious accident! If they had collided with me how many witnesses would have attempted to send me to prison even though it was quite obvious that it was down to their stupidity?.. At least now I have hard evidence in the event of this kind of incident recurring! In my opinion very many Cyclists are sensible and cycle safely and due to our Government's policy of using inferior materials to repair the roads they have to encounter horrific Potholes that would possibly damage a vehicle's suspension, wheels and tyres, but they could quite easily cause a cyclist to be thrown from his cycle into the path of a motor vehicle. ALL roadusers need to be alert to these dangers and make allowances for each other, anticipating and avoiding hazards such as those aforementioned! The crazy thing is that the majority of Cyclists are also motorists.. We have Idiots on both sides of the fence! I was told when I first applied for my Driving Licence Quote "You are a Bloody Fool if you want to drive on Britain's roads and You have to make allowances for the stupid mistakes that the other bloody fools are going to make" Unquote.. I started driving a motorcycle in 1963!.. I have never forgotten what I was told and I have proved many times over how true that statement was!..
ReplyDeleteI would rather they were not licensed, insured and tested John. It would make them even more insufferable and self righteous than they are now.
ReplyDeleteYes you dash cam is now a necessity for the reasons you have explained but even more for the new, subjective, careless driving fixed penalty system, which by the way I advise all drivers to decline and force a trial as before. Make the police prove the case. Unlike 'speeding' which is absolute and objective, the weakness of the Careless FP is it's subjectivity and harder to prove at court.
But you dare use your cyclist videos on U tube to criticise cyclists as they do drivers and like a swarm of angry wasps, in yellow and black striped Lycra, they become very nasty indeed. Do publish your CCTV and let the people see your stuff. See the item on here about the verbal abuse to Mrs P for daring to expose a silly cyclist.
Re poor drivers: Yes of course. Mrs P is an excellent driver and very safe but she's no expert and is only an ordinary driver. There are many far worse than her. Usually those who accuse others of bad driving, in my experience are usually bad drivers themselves and how often a driver who thinks he's good is usually quite bad. Yes most cyclists are drivers, and nearly all drivers are or were cyclists. The problem is keen cyclists are thinking more like cyclists than drivers in their arguments even though it's their driving even they and their family depend on most. It is funny how having slagged drivers off, they then add that they are drivers too. To which I retort that 'by your own definition it isn't a qualification at all then'. The fact is that like Greens are anti people people, lots of cyclists are anti driver drivers too.