Anti-social vehicle - test case

I don't know, but it isn't that relevant. Even here in Britain, 75% of children used to cycle to school forty years ago. Now it's 2%.

Dunno.

No, it's largely by building more proper cycle paths away from roads, and adding well separated paths alongside existing roads. The Dutch have over 20,000km of proper car-free cycle paths, with only about

1,000km of cycle lanes. Segregation of modes of transport is the key.

Jim.

Or not. In Germany they are now moving away from that, as a result of many studies showing that risk is increased by many such facilities. The German cycleways were conceived entirely for the benefit of car drivers, after all.

What is actually needed is for drivers to start driving with due care. Once they do that, bicycle Bantustans become completely unnecessary.

Fair enough..

Does the phrase 'driving so you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear' ring any bells?

summary execution is not an appropriate response to riding without lights, however silly it may be.

If you cannot see the road to be clear you shouldn't be travelling that fast. You cannot assume all obstructions are lit or covered in reflective bits.

There is one born every minute. Fortunately the worst he could do is add a few dents to the car. Had he been driving he could kill people.

So you couldn't see the road to be clear but pressed on regardless at a reckless (and only just wreckless) speed..

Driving too fast then. Couldn't see the road to be clear.

Cycling on pavements is illegal. You have absolutely no excuse for running down an unlit cyclist [1]. You should be able to see the road to be clear.

Absolutely

I'd dispute that given what I have seen of teenagers

So do I. The problem is that the ones in cars kill people.

..d

[1] I can think of a few circumstances where it would not be the drivers fault.

a) pulling out in the path of a cyclist who is unlit so you cannot see them coming.

b) where a cyclist joins the road immediately in front of the driver where the road had previously been seen to be clear.

There are probably others but running down from behind when both vehicles were travelling in a normal manner along the same road is always going to be the fault of the driver behind.

As a practioner you would.

The safety of the cyclist in the NL has far more to do with the respect accorded them by drivers (from a couple of visits this strikes me as a helluva lot more than you get in the UK). Separate cycle tracks are, rather like cycle helmets, something that is widely assumed to be a Very Good Thing but appears less so when you actually start looking at the numbers.

A particularly large problem arises from right of way conflicts between cycle lanes and roads when (inevitably) they must cross, as accidents tend to cluster around junctions and by separating cycles and motor vehicles you usually tend to have a proliferation of junctions.

In the NL I would often be given way to by motorists at such junctions even though the road markings clearly suggested they had priority. Fat chance of that happening in the UK: it's the awareness of cyclists and deference to their need for road space that makes the biggest difference, not being on a separate track. There's no shortage of roads shared by motor and cycle transport and you get treated better on those too, at least in my (admittedly limited) experience.

Pete.

In terms of health, is it better to cycle 1 mile than walk? Where did you find the 75% figure? Cycling to infant school was virtually unheard of when I was a lad

A cycle path is also a road.

That looks like a rather dubious statistic to me - surely you mean 75% of children used to cycle *or walk* to school. I went to school about forty years ago (by bus) and I don't recall anything remotely like that proportion cycling.

It was also a sign of a bygone era that they used to provide school buses to take children home for lunch.

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

Have you ever brown trousered a deer or a cow? They, too, venture onto the roads without lights. Cows in particular aparently make much more of a dent in your car than a cyclist, so it may be worth looking out for them.

Really? And you've not modified your driving behaviour yet?

So it's acceptable in your view to skim by within a couple of inches of a ped on a road with no lights or footway? Fascinating.

I have spent more on lights for my bikes than most people spend on the bikes themselves, of course, but as has been pointed out elsewhere the penalty for riding without lights is not summary execution.

Many of these tales remind me of the woman who was arguing with an Officer of the Leur about who should pay to the damage caused to her car by driving into a fallen tree. In the end the Constable in question adopted a rather weary tone and informed her: "madam, when you hit a stationary object on the road, it is generally considered to be your own fault."

none of the above is to be taken as condoning Clueless Riding Behaviour; as the previous post vivdly illustrates, the world is full of people just waiting to wipe you out.

I find that difficult to believe.

Infant school children --- those in the first three years --- would account for over 25% of the school population of 1964. The leaving age was fifteen, so there were only twelve years of compulsory education and rates of ``staying on were low''. However, the birth rate rose massively through the 1950s and early 1960s, peaking in about 1968, and far more children were born in 1959 than in 1949.

Very few children aged seven or under would cycle to school in 1964. I was at Infant and Junior school between 1969 and 1976 and I recall precisely no-one cycling to school, so you'd need quite a strong argument to show this assertion is untrue.

You are therefore implying that essentially everyone cycled to school from the age of eight onwards. I was at Secondary school from 1976 to

1981 and recall almost no-one. People walked. Unless there was a massive drop between 1964 and 1969 --- and you'd need to explain why --- that figure seems wildly optimistic.

ian

It was clear - nothing coming the other way apart from suicide idiot. merged into the verge - walkers use the pavement

I hope not to be the one who does it - I expect cyclists to have some sense (most do of course!!!!)

{very big letters) I SAW HIM FIRST - I TOLD HIM OFF FOR BEING A PRAT!!!(normal sized letters)

The whole family were thick!

AS ABOVE CYCLING ON WRONG SIDE OF ROAD AT NIGHT NO LIGHTS NO REFLECTORS IN TRAFFIC - I HAD TO SWERVE LIKE THE REST OF THE TRAFFIC.

They move static objects don't

Absolutely

We agree

Don't include me - near misses with these idiots scares everyone

Only had one near miss - as above the brain dead neighbours daughter

Just zis Guy, you know? ( snipped-for-privacy@microsoft.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I don't think I've ever seen a cow or deer wearing trousers.

Indeed. There's also a lot more meat on a deer or a cow than your typical cyclists, so they're far better to stock the freezer up with. Less questions asked, too.

Really? Are you sure of that? Have you checked? And deer; are they more visible?

The problem is that on country roads a lot of people drive as if there will never be anything in the road which is not either lit or reflective. And most of the time there isn't. But sometimes there is, and I would be surprised to find if even the modest speeds I do when driving on such roads are trul;y within the limits I can really see ot be clear.

Ineed. But having noticed that it happens, failure to take account of it looks like carelessness.

And that makes exactly what difference precisely?

I have lived in a village and had to walk along roads with no footways. The way some people drive is f***ing terrifying. Come to think of it, it may well be worth walking further out in order to be more easily seen - it works for cyclists (see Cyclecraft).

I do. I also take note of the fact that some people do ride unlit at night, and drive accordingly. Very few pedestrians are lit at night either.

And still just as likely to be SMIDSYd.

Nobody wants to kill a cyclist or pedestrian. Itdoesn't stop it happening, with monotonous regularity. And most of the cyclists killed or seriously injured are not at fault (a much greater proportion of pedestrians are to blame for their own demise).

Guy

-- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

But you could quite easily pick up a banger in the 500 quid range, that would be peanuts to insure and probably last a fair time, at least much longer than 500 quid depreciation takes on a new car.

IMO, anyone can afford a car, and anyone can afford to travel as far in a car as but public transport, if they are willing to use something less fashionable. That's not to say everyone should be made to have a car of course, but the cost argument is a weak one most of the time. Prefer not to run a car, all good to you. Try to be smug about money saved? Doesn't work :)

3 or 4 hours a year greasing and changing oils? It's not a killer really, you spend more time on the bog in a year! Classics can make good every day cars, if you buy the right one, and look after it properly. Doesn't mean having to get oily every weekend, and in fact, if you do, then you bought a bad car, or have broke it playing :)

FYI, I do spend most of my time getting oily, but then, I do pick up the bargain basement cars to play with, cause I find it fun :)

Thing is, when a modern car decides to 'not work' it can be a real bugger, not to mention pricey. When one of my cars 'not works' it's likely to be a very simple, cheap part, that even a garage will sort for pennies, compared to the price of just having a diagnostic run on a new car!

I don't mind people not driving, and I do think too many people drive when they don't need to, or could car share, or drive the wrong car for the journeys they make. I just get sick of hearing the financial reasons, when they're invariably based on what's wanted as opposed to needed in a car.

I read a study recently which said that 83.629% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

When I went to primary school, pretty much every kid had a bike. There were large bike sheds at school and the choice was to cycle, walk or get a lift with your dad, which meant walking home after school because he wouldn't be home until a lot later.

Even if you lived quarter of a mile from school, a bike was easier than walking.

The train station had a bike shed, but this was "sub optimal" because it meant you had to walk at the other end, which in my case meant a mile up a seriously steep hill. Not so bad going home, as it was downhill.

Basically, if you had a bike, and I don't remember anyone who didn't in my peer group, you could keep up with people and used it everywhere. HST, you rarely went more than a few miles and traffic was undoubtedly lighter and slower, and I would say more considerate because there were far more bikes about and you were always half expecting to have to allow for them.

There were people who's mum had a car, and some of these would be dropped off and picked up. They missed out on the social aspects of cycling, because it was usual to cycle as a group because on a bike in a group, you talk to the other cyclists while you're going along. Quite unlike cars, in that regard.

I would guess that around 80% of the kids at school used a bike, probably somewhere around the number that owned one. Once you cycle to and from school on a more or less daily basis, it's not too much of a chore and if you are accustomed to meeting up in your street with your peers and take it easy cycling through the woods (as we did) it was very pleasant in summer, and not particularly cold in winter. Cycling in the cold is a damn sight nicer than walking, although neither holds a candle up to driving.

The main difference is in distance. Two miles was about all we wanted to do, more than that would start to be tiring and was a reason for badgering your dad, e.g. we had scouts up in the village up the road where there was a decent village hall. It was about three miles, the road was not wide, had no pavement, and you couldn't go via the woods as it was fields most of the way. What with the danger from cars, this was a car rather than a bike journey.

On the pavement front, normal practice was to ride up onto the pavement when a car came, and back down when it had passed. Similar to football, when a car came along, you got the ball and retired to the pavements. Didn't happen continuously in those days, except on busy roads.

This was in residential roads, where each house had a drive and therefore a handy lowered slope. In town, where the shops had no drives, cycling was often on the pavement at low speeds and being careful not to hit pedestrians, on and off the bike, etc. Sometimes the local bobby, who also cycled, told you off for riding on the pavement but you did it when he wasn't about.

Personally, I can see no better way to get from A to B, providing the journey is short (up to 2 miles), you have lights if it is dark, and are fit enough to keep doing it. Unfortunately, a lot of the journeys I make these days are where I'll be bringing heavy shopping home, or further than I would want to cycle. It's also a great shame that the social aspects of riding in a group would not apply and the heavy traffic would mean enhanced danger and mutual dislike between cars and the solitary bike rider.

Also, now that I live on a steep hill, I don't fancy the last part of the trip all that much. And the other thing, cycling to the pub so as not to break drink drive laws, which was the main reason I used to cycle when I first had access to cars, is no longer an option. I don't believe I am either more dangerous, or in danger, on a bike compared with walking. But the law is written by people who didn't look at it that way and decided to make it an offence, last time I looked.

Roll on the end of oil and we'll all be back on horseback, and faithful old Lightning will find the way home without getting involved in a six dray tailback caused by a nasty chemical spill from a stagecoach and four.

Let the horse get the points for speeding, eh?

You can be done for drunk in charge of a bike, but you have to be actually drunk (ie the breath/blood limit doesn't apply), and if you do get nicked it has no bearing on your driving licence.

This has always been the case IIRC, ie the rules haven't changed, so you can go back to doing what you did before!

cheers, clive

Just about everyone I went to school with from the age of 10 until 17 (when everyone 'graduated' to cars) went to school by bike -- this was mostly in the 1980s. The bike racks at my comprehensive school were nearly always full, 2 twenty metre rows of 2 racks. I went back there last week during school hours and the rack (now only one) was practically empty! A real shame.

We worked out manyyears ago it would save around £1500 - £2000 pa not to have a car. It was only one of the many reasons we became car-free. I would agree there is no need to be smug about it. It just makes a *lot* of sense.

That's good of you ;-)

AFAIAC nothing is needed in a car, other than a competent and responsible driver of course.

John B

Possibly, but would you be able to give it to a mechanically unskilled wife in the reasonable expectation that it will get her and the offspring around the countryside without failing at an awkward moment? I would rather spend a little more and get something newer. And more comfortable.

And comfortable. And provided they are able-bodied. And not epileptic or diabetic.

Our second car, the one we sold, was a seven-year-old Honda Civic, a modest motor by most standards. We save around £3,000 per year through not having that car any more.

Guy

-- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Eh? I know plenty of wheelchair users and Type A diabetics who drive.

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)