Cyclists - they're all the bloody same...

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Also the cycle path infrastructure needs investing in as TBH some of the cycle paths are down right dangerous and poorly maintained.

Totally agree with you there, The amount of punctures i've has due to crap in cycle lanes and general road surfaces is stupid.

Motorist need educating that the cycle lane is for BIKES. The amount of times car block them is insane. Once had a argy bargy with a guy in a big 4x4 as he was accusing me of undertaking him while he was in traffic and i went passed on my push bike in the cycle lane he was partially blocking on a nice wide road, no argument there, i did undertake him, thats what the cycle lane is there for. Just because he was sat in traffic stopped, blocking the cycle lane, didnt mean i had to sit there behind him until he saw me and deceided to move his fat ass!

[northwind]

Originally Posted by girth

Can't believe someone of his stature would even consider doing such a thing like this, i've done a few red lights but only when its a constant straight road i.e not blazing through a junction.

Have you actually watched the video? He rides at below walking pace through a red light, after stopping, and then the video cuts off. It just looked to me like standard issue red-light creeping, getting going in the safe area before the lights change.

Likewise the "wrong side of bollard" thing, when you watch that it's nothing. It's not legal but it's not dangerous, or reckless, or stupid. It's just taking a sensible route round an obstacle.

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Its called a cycling proficency test, did mine when I was a kid, and why should I have to have a license.

I have a car and a motorbike license, I know the rules of the road etc etc why have to sit another test at more expense just to cycle on the road.

If its a CBT type thing then it wouldn't a test. Might be a couple of hours going through basic stuff. I guess you havnt had to do a CBT?

I wasnt saying you in particular.

IMO its wrong that people with no experiance can go on the road on a bike, a vehicle on which if they make a mistake the outcome can be very unpleasant for all involved. Also there can then be a punishment if they do jump red lights ban then, if they get cought riding with a ban take them to the cleaners. Punishment is using public transport .

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

As for insurance thats a good idea, but I'm sure I'm covered in some way by my household insurance. If I get knocked off, be sure I'll be claiming off the third party though.

You see this is something else that doesnt do the cylist any favours. If a cyclist rode into me and knocked me off my bike then im screwed. i cant claim off of his insurance... he has none. Situation revered and you can bet any amount they'll be wanting a claim off of mine. Bit one sided, which is wrong imo.

Dont take this as a hit agains cycling, I like it. Its just that there are idiots spoiling it for the people with a clue. There are easy ways around this but the Government cant be arsed.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

There are easy ways around this but the Government cant be arsed.

Completely agree, trouble is part of our economy is based around taxing petrol and car tax, so its never going to change.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

If its a CBT type thing then it wouldn't a test. Might be a couple of hours going through basic stuff. I

You see this is something else that doesnt do the cylist any favours. If a cyclist rode into me and knocked me off my bike then im screwed. i cant claim off of his insurance... he has none. Situation revered and you can bet any amount they'll be wanting a claim off of mine. Bit one sided, which is wrong imo.

They say CBT's not a test, you can't pass or fail. But you can not get a certificate, which makes it a pass or fail, which makes it a test as far as I'm concerned.

You can still claim against the cyclist, just not against their insurance, btw.

The problems with the idea of cyclist training and insurance are huge... I'm not even going to attempt a full list, but you've got-

Cost, since cycling's main attraction for many is that it's so cheap- and for some people cheap is the only option.
Enforcement- how do you tell if a cyclist is insured or trained?
Kids- a lot of cyclists are under 16, how do you make them take out insurance?
Tracability- no number plates. Just not practical for most bikes, so how do you catch people for breaking your new rules?
The basic desirability of having people on bikes- it cuts pollution, congestion and parking space use, and encourages personal fitness. We don't want to discourage that...

I agree that there are many advantages to a cycle. Its just it seems mental that they can go on the road with all the bad drivers with no training. Thats the main gripe I have. One other little thing, they dont contribute to the roads... directly I mean, a lot probably do have a car or bike or whatever but some just get a free road system. :S

Pedestrians also need to be tested, and insured, more bureaucracy and paper work, yes that will sort everything out.

Thinking about it lets centralise insurance back to the government in the form of tax, then the more claims that are due to you the more tax you pay. Sorted.

Anybody willing to put up my electoral deposit so I can stand as an MP and go for PM?

Originally Posted by Tim in Belgium

Pedestrians also need to be tested, and insured, more bureaucracy and paper work, yes that will sort everything out.

Actually, can we do that in london, at least the testing bit, the number of pedestrians I've nearly squished as they've wandered out into the road and then stopped like a rabbit in my headlights, or have walked into my bike (and it's not as if it's a tiny bike, or I'm not wearing lairy clothing) is staggering. Seriously, if you have never ridden in london, the depths of stupidity cannot be believed.

MT

And skateboarders, they should be made to do handle signals to indicate their next manoeuvre.