Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:25 pm  

Standee wrote: or stop jumping lights, riding two abreast, and whilst you're at it, cycle at the speed limit. Just to p1ss on two of your chips... Highway Code rule 66 You should * never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends Fromhttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837 and have you ever tried to cycle at the speed limit ? I'll take your comment both ways, you either mean that cyclists are too slow - have you ever tried to ride at 30mph - or cyclists ride at more than the speed limit - have you ever tried to ride at 30mph ??? I managed 38mph once coming down the 2 mile long hill into Helmsley, very nearly, or maybe even did, shat myself.

Standee wrote: or stop jumping lights, riding two abreast, and whilst you're at it, cycle at the speed limit. Just to p1ss on two of your chips... Highway Code rule 66 You should * never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends Fromhttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837 and have you ever tried to cycle at the speed limit ? I'll take your comment both ways, you either mean that cyclists are too slow - have you ever tried to ride at 30mph - or cyclists ride at more than the speed limit - have you ever tried to ride at 30mph ??? I managed 38mph once coming down the 2 mile long hill into Helmsley, very nearly, or maybe even did, shat myself.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:55 am  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

If you are gormless enough to go through a red light, as I have observed many cyclists do, then you will inevitably suffer the consequences of your cretinous actions.

Plastic helmet versus a Leeds taxi driver, who as a breed appear to treat traffic lights as an inconvenience anyway, is not a fair contest!

Funnily enough Direct Line did a survey of motorists and found that 5+ MILLION ran red lights EVERY MONTH....go figure who are the greater pest on the roads regarding safety.
As for helmets, waste of time except for very small children as they are only tested for prevention of cuts and bruising at best and can increase chances of an accident and even cause worse injuries at worst.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:07 am  

Standee wrote:

or stop jumping lights, riding two abreast, and whilst you're at it, cycle at the speed limit.

I'll refer you to my post above re red lights and has been pointed out cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast (still much less than the width of any car at any rate) and as for the speed limit comment, bicycles don't have them as they aren't legally required to be fitted with a speedometer though you can be done for cycling 'furiously' as it was (now dangerously)
I'll remind you that motor vehicles in the UK kill around 1700-1800 people yearly though this figure is coming down seriously injured in the tens of thousands

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:59 am  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

As for helmets, waste of time except for very small children as they are only tested for prevention of cuts and bruising at best and can increase chances of an accident and even cause worse injuries at worst.

what utter shoite

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:35 am  

Standee wrote:

what utter shoite

Its a point of view that is well supported in the cycling community, not by myself, but a sizeable percentage of cyclists won't wear them for exactly the reasons stated, I'm of the opinion that it won't cause me to have an accident and may stop a fatal or debilitating head injury, so I wear one.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:14 am  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Funnily enough Direct Line did a survey of motorists and found that 5+ MILLION ran red lights EVERY MONTH....go figure who are the greater pest on the roads regarding safety.
As for helmets, waste of time except for very small children as they are only tested for prevention of cuts and bruising at best and can increase chances of an accident and even cause worse injuries at worst.

I think there is a difference between sneaking through a late orange/red light which I would imagine what most people are talking about, compared to the complete disregard of traffic lights by many cyclists! There will be a greater number of motorist in all statistics, because there is a greater number on the road. You will never truly know the complete statistics because there is no way of monitoring how many cyclists on the road.

Show us some proof that helmets cause worse injuries.

As for riding two abreast - this is just arrogance.

What do you think about the lack of training that cyclists (and mopeds for that matter) have for riding on the road?

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:28 pm  

West Leeds Rhino wrote: ... Show us some proof that helmets cause worse injuries. I don't think anyone is claiming there is a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but have a skeg here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html there is a huge and very well documented and extremely well informed debate and research. It isn't a crank POV. West Leeds Rhino wrote: ...As for riding two abreast - this is just arrogance. Or not. If I and the missus are out on a few hours bike ride - as was, back in the day - why TF should we not ride two abreast, so we can talk just like you might talk to your missus sat in the passenger seat of your barrow? What IS arrogant is for you to just assume that YOU have the right to that piece of tarmac and everyone should just get out of your way. Cycling two abreast in most cases (and certainly there are plenty of narrow roads where you wouldn't sensibly choose to do it) is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable thing to do. The question is more whether, from time to time, on occasion, as circumstances demand, it might be prudent or polite to return to single file, which is a fair line of argument. But your statement of general principle is what is arrogant. if you think about it. What do you think about the lack of training that cyclists (and mopeds for that matter) have for riding on the road? For adults, its not rocket science.

West Leeds Rhino wrote: ... Show us some proof that helmets cause worse injuries. I don't think anyone is claiming there is a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but have a skeg here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html there is a huge and very well documented and extremely well informed debate and research. It isn't a crank POV. West Leeds Rhino wrote: ...As for riding two abreast - this is just arrogance. Or not. If I and the missus are out on a few hours bike ride - as was, back in the day - why TF should we not ride two abreast, so we can talk just like you might talk to your missus sat in the passenger seat of your barrow? What IS arrogant is for you to just assume that YOU have the right to that piece of tarmac and everyone should just get out of your way. Cycling two abreast in most cases (and certainly there are plenty of narrow roads where you wouldn't sensibly choose to do it) is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable thing to do. The question is more whether, from time to time, on occasion, as circumstances demand, it might be prudent or polite to return to single file, which is a fair line of argument. But your statement of general principle is what is arrogant. if you think about it. What do you think about the lack of training that cyclists (and mopeds for that matter) have for riding on the road? For adults, its not rocket science.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: I don't think anyone is claiming there is a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but have a skeg here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html there is a huge and very well documented and extremely well informed debate and research. It isn't a crank POV. I don't have time to read all of them, however the first one appeared to compare the number of helmets bought to head injuries suffered. This wouldn't prove anything. I wouldn't dream of cycling without mine. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Or not. If I and the missus are out on a few hours bike ride - as was, back in the day - why TF should we not ride two abreast, so we can talk just like you might talk to your missus sat in the passenger seat of your barrow? What IS arrogant is for you to just assume that YOU have the right to that piece of tarmac and everyone should just get out of your way. Cycling two abreast in most cases (and certainly there are plenty of narrow roads where you wouldn't sensibly choose to do it) is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable thing to do. The question is more whether, from time to time, on occasion, as circumstances demand, it might be prudent or polite to return to single file, which is a fair line of argument. But your statement of general principle is what is arrogant. if you think about it. When I go out cycling I would cycle next to the missus on a road that has no traffic only and we would resume single file should a car come. I think it's a case of consideration. Why would you make it more difficult for a car to pass you? I am not an arrogant driver. I give cyclists plenty of room - I know what it is like. I realise some motorists are arrogant so when I get on a bike, I treat them all as such and make sure I don't become another statistic, just as I do when I drive. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: For adults, its not rocket science. It is quite an important factor of road use though. I can't see why you expect motorists to treat you with the respect, keep to the law, etc while you can just jump on a bike without a requirement to know any of the rules of the road. I have seen cyclists commit quite obvious, serious violations, nearly causing accidents as well as the opposite - what is the legal standing on that? What would happen if a cyclist without any training caused an accident?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: I don't think anyone is claiming there is a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but have a skeg here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html there is a huge and very well documented and extremely well informed debate and research. It isn't a crank POV. I don't have time to read all of them, however the first one appeared to compare the number of helmets bought to head injuries suffered. This wouldn't prove anything. I wouldn't dream of cycling without mine. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Or not. If I and the missus are out on a few hours bike ride - as was, back in the day - why TF should we not ride two abreast, so we can talk just like you might talk to your missus sat in the passenger seat of your barrow? What IS arrogant is for you to just assume that YOU have the right to that piece of tarmac and everyone should just get out of your way. Cycling two abreast in most cases (and certainly there are plenty of narrow roads where you wouldn't sensibly choose to do it) is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable thing to do. The question is more whether, from time to time, on occasion, as circumstances demand, it might be prudent or polite to return to single file, which is a fair line of argument. But your statement of general principle is what is arrogant. if you think about it. When I go out cycling I would cycle next to the missus on a road that has no traffic only and we would resume single file should a car come. I think it's a case of consideration. Why would you make it more difficult for a car to pass you? I am not an arrogant driver. I give cyclists plenty of room - I know what it is like. I realise some motorists are arrogant so when I get on a bike, I treat them all as such and make sure I don't become another statistic, just as I do when I drive. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: For adults, its not rocket science. It is quite an important factor of road use though. I can't see why you expect motorists to treat you with the respect, keep to the law, etc while you can just jump on a bike without a requirement to know any of the rules of the road. I have seen cyclists commit quite obvious, serious violations, nearly causing accidents as well as the opposite - what is the legal standing on that? What would happen if a cyclist without any training caused an accident?

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:29 pm  

West Leeds Rhino wrote:

...
It is quite an important factor of road use though. I can't see why you expect motorists to treat you with the respect, keep to the law, etc while you can just jump on a bike without a requirement to know any of the rules of the road. I have seen cyclists commit quite obvious, serious violations, nearly causing accidents as well as the opposite - what is the legal standing on that? What would happen if a cyclist without any training caused an accident?

Training would be irrelevant, the only question (for any road user) is whether you fell below the standard expected from your average reasonable Joe. That is, the question is not whether you had training, just whether you were negligent.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:40 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Training would be irrelevant, the only question (for any road user) is whether you fell below the standard expected from your average reasonable Joe. That is, the question is not whether you had training, just whether you were negligent.

But if there isn't any necessary training, how can you be deemed to be negligent?

What I’m getting at is the responsibility - like in the construction industry, as a company, if we didn't train somebody to do a job and they were injured, it would be our responsibility. Also, does that not leave every motorist at the risk of being affected by an uninsured who is also potentially untrained?