Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
jwk  
#41 Posted : 30 July 2010 15:21:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Dave, Try it, it's one of the most exhilerating and rewarding pastimes I know of. Sure, it has associated risks, but the sheer sense of personal achievement of, say, getting to the top of an alpine pass, or the joy of hitting 40+ mph on a downhill (like I did last night) compensates for all of them. And like I say, risks aside, people who cycle have on average a greater life expectancy, and a larger number of healthy years, than people who don't. The same is probably true of other forms of physical exercise, but the sums have been done for cycling, John
firestar967  
#42 Posted : 30 July 2010 15:38:30(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Got to agree with you John my joy is running, used to love running on country roads but it was hazardous sometimes with inconsiderate drivers. Even had one guy slow down as he approached me to shout that I was on the wrong side of the road!
Stedman  
#43 Posted : 30 July 2010 16:41:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

John, I only managed to max out at 39.35 last night however I did average at just over 20 mph on a 35 mile chain gang ride last night. Are you going to do the Phil Liggett CTC Challenge sportive next weekend?
Claymore  
#44 Posted : 30 July 2010 16:54:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Claymore

Phew - What a debate. Geat stuff and some good responses. Phil - I take your point sport cycling is not what I'm on about, these guys going up mountains on two wheels are nuts - not dangerous :) Some in the post said " a bike on the road is one car less" - yet another one said I take my bike on the back of my car then ride the bike when I get there .....mmmmmmm interesting. Some househousehold insurance wont cover and is not compulsory. And the historical reference where cycle ruled the road and cars are the interlopers, well that dont work either - people walked before cycles and dinosaurs ruled the roads before people - its called progress guys. Anyway thanks for the replies guys but it hasn't changed my mind in particular. Bike riders need compulsory training, insurance and PPE. By the way, If one of Boris's bikes hits my car, can I sue the council as they openly supply these bikes to people without checking their competency??? .... but thats for another day Have a good weekend
Dazzling Puddock  
#45 Posted : 30 July 2010 16:54:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dazzling Puddock

jwk wrote:
Do you know, I haven't done the sums, but I don't actually know what proportion of the total build for road construction and maintenance comes from fuel duty and the road fund licence. I suspect that general taxation supports motorists, but I am not sure and would hapily be corrected. John
This is an extract taken from the House of commons Transport select commitee report session 6 2009 "Estimates show that motoring taxation amounts to around £46 billion—this includes fuel duty, VED, VAT and business motoring taxes. The amount spent on the roads is less than a quarter of this—just over 30 years ago there was much greater equity with £11.4 billion of £12.8 billion motoring tax revenues being spent on the roads." Motorists are the most taxed group in the country!!
jwk  
#46 Posted : 30 July 2010 16:59:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Fair enough DP, I wonder what they do with the rest of the money? Looks like motorists pay for more than just cycle paths! John
Clairel  
#47 Posted : 30 July 2010 18:15:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Road tax doesn't go on just road related stuff and never has. So that gets rid of that argument. Does it really matter if people don't understand why others like cycling? We all have different likes and dislikes. IMO the Holland report can't be taken into account for this country (and I have read into both sides of that argument) as they have a different infrastructure etc. This whole thing is very much a case of it being very easy to find fault in something you don't share an interest in. I have recently made such a comment on an off-road running forum where poeple were slating off-road 4x4'ers for being destructive to the environment when in fact you could level the same argument at all the walkers eroding the hills in greater numbers. There is good and bad in all things and in all people and generalisations do not help. And it is very easy to just see the faults in something you do not share a passion for. Although I think people should wear helmets I don't think it should be enforced. Too much like a nanny state and as yet we are all free to make individual choices about our own lives. Where does it end? Helmets for cyclists. What about knee and back protection for cyclists. What about applying the same principle to horse riders and motorbikers and quad bike riders and then what about all kids wearing head protection...and where does it end? In our personal lives we should be free to choose. By the way the counter argument for helmets and other forms of personal protection is that it makes people take greater risks because they feel less vulnerable. It is the debate that is raging on the ski slopes of Europe. Many believe that those that wear helmets, ski/board more aggressively becuase of it (not saying i agree or disgaree just that that is the argument). As for insurance I pay enough insurance of one form or another. No more!!
DH  
#48 Posted : 30 July 2010 21:52:34(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Hi JWK - I do cycle to be honest - but off road and only when my grandson wants to. Stipulation is that bikes are inspected by me before trip - helmets and water bottles or no trip - and we are no further than 10 minutes from home (my home). Roads are a no no as he is only seven unless they are minor and I will cover his back from traffic coming behind. (And no - I do not cause tailbacks) I used to train local kids in cycling proficiency a few years back as a volunteer as the local council stopped it, but cant find the time nowadays - police checks and everything in place - and wonder why we make it so tough to train our youngsters. Any parent can train their kids to ride safely, and that is brilliant - but if you you see a childs face when they get a police rep, or the head master handing out a certificate and a badge for reaching the required standard then that is a moment that stands in their minds - and gave me a feeling of achievement as well! But as I said before - we have one cyclist in the village now that holds up lots of motorists - so get rid. As for Boris - lets just suffer him and smile. As for cyclists - not on the main highway thank you. David
felicity  
#49 Posted : 30 July 2010 22:27:20(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
felicity

I have travelled by car and bike this week and have seen several near misses, all caused by car drivers failure to follow basic comment procedures i.e. mirror use, respect for other road users etc. to digress slightly perhaps car drivers as well as their cars need an annual competence check. Cyclists are often slated because of a few poor cyclists - there are far more poor drivers who risk everyones lives, the far majority of us cycle safely and obey the rules of the road, and if we hold up other traffic temporarily so be it, we are entitled to use the road. - (so do milk floats, horses, mopeds etc.) If you think you are likely to be held up by cyclists on your regular route, then allow more time for the journey. With regards to the comments on the cycle profficiency, I did mine many years ago, I've also (by reason of some voluntary work I do) done the more 'modern' competency based course. I personally thought my original 'traditional' course was far more practical based and more suited to learner need. I choose to wear a cycle hat, as I believe it will protect my head in some accident circumstances. (also stops me arriving at work with too much of a bad hair day) But there are other things cyclists can do which will have more benefit, such as preventing accidents by riding safely and making sure they are visible particularly in poor light conditions.
Ciarán Delaney  
#50 Posted : 31 July 2010 00:06:31(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Hi Felicity, Accept alot of what you say and gather you are careful. What about those who cycle at night, no lights, no reflectors and no hi vis vest, dressed in black. The no lights issue is something, I believe alot of people will empathise with.
IainFerguson  
#51 Posted : 31 July 2010 09:12:59(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
IainFerguson

There is nothing like a debate on cycling to create division. I cycle to commute and for pleasure around Manchester. I try to be very considerate to my fellow users. However, that same consideration is all to often not reciprocated. 1 in 5 cars that I passed on Thursday had drivers who were not paying full attention, several cars occupied the advanced stop line, intended to get cyclists in a position of safety AND out of the way quickly. One driver of a white van took exception to me going in front of him at such a junction. He genuinely did not understand that he was prohibited from entering it through the highway code. Equally I see many (frustratingly slow) cyclists who run red lights, hop on and off pavements and have total disregard. As for no lights... I'd like to see both vehicle and cycle offenders dealt with but the UK PLC is not resourced to do so. Like with many things, if more took responsibility for their own actions then society would be in a better shape. The comments about cyclists causing environmental damage are slightly off the mark - it is generally cars that cause congestion, if you want to avoid it then jump on a bike. I accept the argument about competency of all road users and the Bike right scheme should be compulsory for children and those buying bikes on a bike to work scheme or other occupational scheme. Realistically that is the only point at which you could enforce. So yes, there may be issues but as a profession do we want to define ourselves again as kill joys? We need people to exercise personal responsibility within a sensible framework that is enforced proportionately. Cycling is not a particularly risky activity and I for one would like to see more of us embracing controlled risk. How many of us climb, skydive, hang glide etc? I know of a few others - and their approach to doing exciting things is fantastic - the unwritten requirement that underpins these activities is that YOU make sure the right controls are in place (including equipment checks), you are competent and those you rely on are competent too. I've lost 33% of my body weight in three years of cycling, am fitter than I was when I played national level basketball and have not had any time off sick. Hopefully I will see the day when the dutch approach is adopted here, all road users working together, respectfully, whether on foot or any form of wheel. I fear tho' that we are all to engrossed in our own rights to see it happen.
barnaby  
#52 Posted : 31 July 2010 10:44:41(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

IainFerguson wrote:
So yes, there may be issues but as a profession do we want to define ourselves again as kill joys?
On the evidence of this thread it's probably too late.
leadbelly  
#53 Posted : 31 July 2010 11:53:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
leadbelly

I am a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist but, in whichever role I happen to be, I try to act towards others as I would expect other people to act towards me; I am nearly always disappointed. With regard to cycling on the pavement, I do not do it; if you are old enough to be cycling without stabilisers, you are old enough to cycle on the road (although you might want to ask your dad to go with you). Cycling on the pavement only confirms the view held by some motorists that they own the road and everybody should keep out of their way. On a more general point, no one can be selective in the laws they choose to obey and then get upset when someone else is choosy, too. For those who object to cyclists being exempt from vehicle excise duty, you could always campaign for a change in the law but, in the meantime, you will just have to take it on the chin. LB
IainFerguson  
#54 Posted : 31 July 2010 16:51:32(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
IainFerguson

barnaby wrote:
IainFerguson wrote:
So yes, there may be issues but as a profession do we want to define ourselves again as kill joys?
On the evidence of this thread it's probably too late.
I fear you are right Barnaby, being well intentioned is not sufficient. We need to be mindful of what the law really requires. Some useful stats from CTC: In 1950 one cyclist died for every 25 million kilometres travelled In 2005 the figure was one for every 30 million kilometres. The improvement may seem modest, but as the road system (excluding motorways)carries more than 7 times as much motor traffic, the concern that cycling has become more dangerous because there is so much more traffic is not born out. Does anyone have examples of hobbies people regard as dangerous, but in reality actually are well controlled. Is the safety manager for Go Ape a member of IOSH? I thought the interview with the BBC safety manager was excellent. Perhaps we should have some more examples of effective risk control. I say in my post - Bikeright Should be compulsory it should have read, COULD be compulsory. The point was over how realistic it was to provide a solution, even if one were desirable.
mikeitup  
#55 Posted : 31 July 2010 18:30:26(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

I'm a cyclist (since 2007) and I commute to work 5 days a week. I have to say that when I first decided to cycle to work (using my employers cycle scheme) I hadn't ridden a bike in about 15 years or so. I started going to work on quiet roads and canal towpaths and then all on roads as it was quicker. Before I did this I had 2 hours of tuition from a Bikeability approved instructor as I wanted to do it properly. It covered junctions, busy roads, roundabouts etc and road positioning etc. Well worth the £3.00 it cost me! I also joined the Cyclists Touring Club as this provides me with 3rd party insurance and expert legal cover. I have tried to be as responsible as I can and see both bad drivers and so called cyclists (who are licky to be alive IMO). I also wear a helmet as I am a bit accident prone!! I live in the west midlands and we have high rates of obesity.They should get more people on their bikes. The more bikes on the roads mean the more safe they will become.
brett_wildin  
#56 Posted : 31 July 2010 21:03:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
brett_wildin

claymore wrote:
Ok guys, Ive got to put my head above the parapet here. I dont particularly agree with the allowing of cyclists using the roads these days - not because Iam anti - cyclist, but because any one who can pay, can buy a bike, and use them on a public road, without training, competence testing, insurance, or vehicle condition testing, or any input to the roads infrastucture. That having been said, Its a good healthy pursuit for those conciencious few. However, I have just witnessed the bold Boris on breakfast telly, waffling on about the new grab a bike system in London. Not only does he say (and I praphrase here) the doesn't really worry if people wear helmets or not, he says that cyclist should get in front of the traffic and "assert their position" . No mention of competency, insurance, or anything else about the London traffic. Put your credit card in the slot, and get a bike. Does anybody else worry about this?? The only thing they were worried about was the bikes possibly being stolen. I myself recently had a near miss with a young cyclist up here, by the Bonny Banks. I was about to pass "the fit family" on a rural road. It was ma, pa, and the 2 kids, and cycling 2 abreast. I reduced my speed to a crawl, and went completely over the other side of the road to pass them. As I was passing, the younger girl (around 10 years old or so) she veered over and although there was no real danger of a collision, the father had to grab her saddle, and pull her back up and straight beside himself. Let me paint you a picture......Suppose she hits me on the side of the car. She's injured or worse, I'm regarded as at fault, despite an unblemished record for around 35 years Licence endorsed, car repairs, and possible career issues. She is obviously untrained and would not be considered competent, they are not following the highway code, unlikely to have insurance and when was the last time someone had their cycle tested for mechanical fitness. You would have to challenge the parents common sense for letting the kids ride their bike on such a buy road - perhaps he should have kept her nearer the footpath, rather than to his right. I would certainly not ban cyclists that not the purpose of this particular rant, but what I would like to see is a standard competency test for cyclists ( and their machines) and a minimum requirement for third party insurance. Ok then ..... Its on the floor for a BALANCED debate, and I'd be interested on the viewpoints.
brett_wildin  
#57 Posted : 31 July 2010 21:32:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
brett_wildin

I live in a rural community with a large cycle centre locally. There are a lot of single track roads in which cyclists either ride in the centre of the road giving the motorist no opportunity to pass for miles potentially, or they ride two a breast. I see a cyclist most mornings who has already been knocked off his bike once (not the motorists fault apperntly according to witnesses) wobble and waver from one side of the road to the other. I was in London a couple of weeks ago and saw a cyclist hit a pedestrian up into the air and then completely blame the pedestrian. He was riding like he was at the olympics. And with reference to horses nothing frustrates me more than a rider on a busy, bendy A road when there is a 5 meter plus verge. Personally I like cycles and if it was suitable for my job I would use one. I love horses and my family rides but agrees that horses should not be on A roads other than crossing, or on the verges. My pet hate though has to be head sets MP3's etc. I,m sure if they were banned for cyclists pedestrians, horse riders etc less accidents and mistakes would occur. They are like mobile phones in cars. Has anyone considered a survey to find out how many accidents where cycle users are using head sets of some sort? I bet it would be quite substantial percentages wether it was considered the cyclists fault or not.
mikeitup  
#58 Posted : 01 August 2010 00:00:35(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

brett_wildin wrote:
claymore wrote:
Ok guys, Ive got to put my head above the parapet here. I dont particularly agree with the allowing of cyclists using the roads these days - not because Iam anti - cyclist, but because any one who can pay, can buy a bike, and use them on a public road, without training, competence testing, insurance, or vehicle condition testing, or any input to the roads infrastucture. That having been said, Its a good healthy pursuit for those conciencious few. However, I have just witnessed the bold Boris on breakfast telly, waffling on about the new grab a bike system in London. Not only does he say (and I praphrase here) the doesn't really worry if people wear helmets or not, he says that cyclist should get in front of the traffic and "assert their position" . No mention of competency, insurance, or anything else about the London traffic. Put your credit card in the slot, and get a bike. Does anybody else worry about this?? The only thing they were worried about was the bikes possibly being stolen. I myself recently had a near miss with a young cyclist up here, by the Bonny Banks. I was about to pass "the fit family" on a rural road. It was ma, pa, and the 2 kids, and cycling 2 abreast. I reduced my speed to a crawl, and went completely over the other side of the road to pass them. As I was passing, the younger girl (around 10 years old or so) she veered over and although there was no real danger of a collision, the father had to grab her saddle, and pull her back up and straight beside himself. Let me paint you a picture......Suppose she hits me on the side of the car. She's injured or worse, I'm regarded as at fault, despite an unblemished record for around 35 years Licence endorsed, car repairs, and possible career issues. She is obviously untrained and would not be considered competent, they are not following the highway code, unlikely to have insurance and when was the last time someone had their cycle tested for mechanical fitness. You would have to challenge the parents common sense for letting the kids ride their bike on such a buy road - perhaps he should have kept her nearer the footpath, rather than to his right. I would certainly not ban cyclists that not the purpose of this particular rant, but what I would like to see is a standard competency test for cyclists ( and their machines) and a minimum requirement for third party insurance. Ok then ..... Its on the floor for a BALANCED debate, and I'd be interested on the viewpoints.
Your point is?
Ciarán Delaney  
#59 Posted : 01 August 2010 10:54:27(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

mikeitup wrote:
I'm a cyclist (since 2007) and I commute to work 5 days a week. I have to say that when I first decided to cycle to work (using my employers cycle scheme) I hadn't ridden a bike in about 15 years or so. I started going to work on quiet roads and canal towpaths and then all on roads as it was quicker. Before I did this I had 2 hours of tuition from a Bikeability approved instructor as I wanted to do it properly. It covered junctions, busy roads, roundabouts etc and road positioning etc. Well worth the £3.00 it cost me! I also joined the Cyclists Touring Club as this provides me with 3rd party insurance and expert legal cover. I have tried to be as responsible as I can and see both bad drivers and so called cyclists (who are licky to be alive IMO). I also wear a helmet as I am a bit accident prone!! I live in the west midlands and we have high rates of obesity.They should get more people on their bikes. The more bikes on the roads mean the more safe they will become. Your justification and basis for the content of the last line of your post is based on what evidence? I am intrigued!!!
Ciarán Delaney  
#60 Posted : 01 August 2010 10:55:50(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Mikeitup: Your justification and basis for the content of the last line of your post is based on what evidence? I am intrigued!!! (The original question got trapped in the greybox above)
barnaby  
#61 Posted : 01 August 2010 12:40:13(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Originally Posted by: Ciará Go to Quoted Post
Mikeitup: Your justification and basis for the content of the last line of your post is based on what evidence? I am intrigued!!! (The original question got trapped in the greybox above)
It's certainly the CTC view and they cite evidence. See http://www.ctc.org.uk/re...TC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf
Ciarán Delaney  
#62 Posted : 01 August 2010 13:02:26(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

barnaby, I have read the report and as one person has stated previously stated in a topic sometime ago , you can phrase any survey to come out with the desired results.
Ciarán Delaney  
#63 Posted : 01 August 2010 13:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Here's my evidence courtesy of Yes Minister
mikeitup  
#64 Posted : 01 August 2010 14:20:03(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Originally Posted by: Ciará Go to Quoted Post
Mikeitup: Your justification and basis for the content of the last line of your post is based on what evidence? I am intrigued!!! (The original question got trapped in the greybox above)
Heres the full CTC report with references: http://www.ctc.org.uk/re...ns/0905_SiN_full_rpt.pdf Also if you look at Denmark or the Netherlands the amount of people on bikes is staggering and they start from a young age:
I don't see why it's a bad thing to be honest. And you will also notice that cars, motorcycles, buses and trams still are used. So it's not totally about outlawing motor vehicles. I think our national mindset has to be challenged as far as cycling goes. I notice the appalling facilities we have in this country for cyclists all designed by planners who haven't ridden a bike probably since they were kids. People seem to forget that pedestrians, horses and bikes came before the motorcar. I am all for compulsory cycle training for everyone. Best thing I did was get rid of my car. I have saved a fortune and am alot fitter.
Ciarán Delaney  
#65 Posted : 01 August 2010 14:25:37(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Compulsory cycle training for everyone. Now why do I feel another DM story on the way about "elf and safety"?
Clairel  
#66 Posted : 01 August 2010 16:32:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

mikeitup wrote:
Originally Posted by: Ciará Go to Quoted Post
Mikeitup: Your justification and basis for the content of the last line of your post is based on what evidence? I am intrigued!!! (The original question got trapped in the greybox above)
Heres the full CTC report with references: http://www.ctc.org.uk/re...ns/0905_SiN_full_rpt.pdf Also if you look at Denmark or the Netherlands the amount of people on bikes is staggering and they start from a young age:
I don't see why it's a bad thing to be honest. And you will also notice that cars, motorcycles, buses and trams still are used. So it's not totally about outlawing motor vehicles. I think our national mindset has to be challenged as far as cycling goes. I notice the appalling facilities we have in this country for cyclists all designed by planners who haven't ridden a bike probably since they were kids. People seem to forget that pedestrians, horses and bikes came before the motorcar. I am all for compulsory cycle training for everyone. Best thing I did was get rid of my car. I have saved a fortune and am alot fitter.
The report by the CTC, as with any report, is biased. IMO opinion you cannot compare countries with different infrastructure and you cannot compare deaths per mile travel as there are different types of road and traffic in different countries and different towns and cities.. As for the report stating that large vehicles should be got rid of due to the risk they pose, that is living in cloud cuckoo land. And imposed 20 mph on all urban roads and a reduction in speed limits on other road, especially country roads!! I'm gob smacked. Good for you getting rid of your car, a bit extreme in my opinion and impossible for most us. I currently have to commute 126 miles a day - not possible really on a bicycle. Love to find a local job but it's not there. For people like me who live in less populated parts of the country a car really is essential. I am pro-bikes - in fact I have been cycling today and cycle reguarly, though to be honest I much prefer mountain biking which is a far more social and interesting proposition than tarmac roads. However, I do not go along with an extremist approach. Bikes, horse and pedestrians came before cars?? - well lets just forget about the industrial evolution entirely shall we and go back to living in mud houses. This is the world as it is. We can't go backwards. Compulsory training is a nonsense and most cyclists will tell you that they are the victim of poor car drivers - only today I had to slam my brakes on when some idiot pulled out on me. Friends have been knocked off their bikes and hospitalised. But I don't advcoate banning the car, just better educating drivers. Despite evryone having to pass a driving tests the standard of sdriving oin thsi country is appalling so how will compulsory training for cyclists improve anything? Extremist views will rarely win votes and as previously said just promote the 'elf n safety' stories in the press.
Rick Warner  
#67 Posted : 01 August 2010 16:37:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rick Warner

My imput would be that Cyclists/Pedestrians and horses still have the right of way on the highway, so whatever our interpritation, car drivers have to give way and show common courtesy at all times!
Clairel  
#68 Posted : 01 August 2010 17:07:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

IainFerguson wrote:
Does anyone have examples of hobbies people regard as dangerous, but in reality actually are well controlled. Is the safety manager for Go Ape a member of IOSH?
It's perception Iain. Those of use who like the (considered) more risky pursuits in our private lives have discussed the subject from time to time. There are quite a few of us. Yet I find that what I consider to be risky and what others consider to be risky are two different things. You mention Go-Ape and yet I consider that to be a tame commercial venture with very little risk involved except from those in the running for the Darwin Award. I have done it twice (once out of curiosity and once beucase one of kids wanted to do it). Double safety lines. As long as you aren't stupid enough to unclip both and then do something stupid on top of that the risk is very low. As they say in their speech to customers, you're more likely to get killed in your car getting there. So - parachute jumping. I don'ty consider execptionally risky unless you get to a high level of stunts etc. Low rate of incidents it's just when it goes wrong the consequences will nearly always be tragic. Same for paragliding. Mountain biking. Can be risky I guess but I don't consider it particuarly so. Think road riding is more dangerous due to other road users. Skiing. Moderately risky but only if you go outside your ability. Again more of an issue with other idiots out there. Fell running and mountain marathons. Only risky if you don't know what you're doing. Caving. Ditto. Climbing. Ditto. Kayaking. Ditto. Base jumping. VERY RISKY!!! I could go on and on. Basically things are generally only risky if you don't know what you're doing and don't use the correct equipment. Other than that I don't think most things considered risky are actually risky at all. Perception perception perception.
barnaby  
#69 Posted : 01 August 2010 18:40:01(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Clairel wrote:
Think road riding is more dangerous due to other road users.
Prsumably more perception not the considered assessment of a specialist ? This thread really does show the profession in poor light.
Clairel  
#70 Posted : 01 August 2010 20:36:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

barnaby wrote:
Clairel wrote:
Think road riding is more dangerous due to other road users.
Prsumably more perception not the considered assessment of a specialist ? This thread really does show the profession in poor light.
????????????????? Don't know what that was about Barnaby. Yes it is my perception, through being a very experienced mountain biker and road cyclist (and having raced on both), that I am more likely to have an accident road biking through being hit by a car than falling off my mountain bike due to the terrain or being attacked by sheep! I am really confused why you think that my 'perception' (based on extensive experience) of road biking being more dangerous than mountain biking is 'not considered' or showing 'the profession in poor light'. Care to explain your accusation??
barnaby  
#71 Posted : 01 August 2010 22:18:35(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Clairel wrote:
Care to explain your accusation??
Rather too long in the pub at lunchtime! I think I missed the 'more' and any comparison with mountain biking; sorry. The second point was (probably) a more general comment about some of the other nonsense posted; perhaps, they'd just come back from the pub, too.
Invictus  
#72 Posted : 02 August 2010 07:35:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

claymore wrote:
Ok guys, Ive got to put my head above the parapet here. I dont particularly agree with the allowing of cyclists using the roads these days - not because Iam anti - cyclist, but because any one who can pay, can buy a bike, and use them on a public road, without training, competence testing, insurance, or vehicle condition testing, or any input to the roads infrastucture. That having been said, Its a good healthy pursuit for those conciencious few. However, I have just witnessed the bold Boris on breakfast telly, waffling on about the new grab a bike system in London. Not only does he say (and I praphrase here) the doesn't really worry if people wear helmets or not, he says that cyclist should get in front of the traffic and "assert their position" . No mention of competency, insurance, or anything else about the London traffic. Put your credit card in the slot, and get a bike. Does anybody else worry about this?? The only thing they were worried about was the bikes possibly being stolen. I myself recently had a near miss with a young cyclist up here, by the Bonny Banks. I was about to pass "the fit family" on a rural road. It was ma, pa, and the 2 kids, and cycling 2 abreast. I reduced my speed to a crawl, and went completely over the other side of the road to pass them. As I was passing, the younger girl (around 10 years old or so) she veered over and although there was no real danger of a collision, the father had to grab her saddle, and pull her back up and straight beside himself. Let me paint you a picture......Suppose she hits me on the side of the car. She's injured or worse, I'm regarded as at fault, despite an unblemished record for around 35 years Licence endorsed, car repairs, and possible career issues. She is obviously untrained and would not be considered competent, they are not following the highway code, unlikely to have insurance and when was the last time someone had their cycle tested for mechanical fitness. You would have to challenge the parents common sense for letting the kids ride their bike on such a buy road - perhaps he should have kept her nearer the footpath, rather than to his right. I would certainly not ban cyclists that not the purpose of this particular rant, but what I would like to see is a standard competency test for cyclists ( and their machines) and a minimum requirement for third party insurance. Ok then ..... Its on the floor for a BALANCED debate, and I'd be interested on the viewpoints.
What rubbish are you writing? is this the best we can do? When did you pass your driving test? how often do you need to resit it to ensure you are still competent , I gather that will be never. I drive but I also, when I decide cycle to and from work and when I am on my bike I still have to pay road tax and insurance for my car. What would completing a cycling proficiency prove, unless you made all motorist attend. maybe at school when they hold the test they should invite parents to attend as it is them that blame motorist for the death of thier child rather than look at how they drive when they see cyclist on the road. Pedestrians pay nothing towards road safety (unless you count council tax and income tax) yet we all try and avoid them when they are crossing etc. With people like you around then cyclist do have to be confident and in control.
moderator 4  
#73 Posted : 02 August 2010 08:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
moderator 4

As it is now Monday, this Friday topic is now locked. Paul
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.