Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"

A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users because of their “almost constant stupidity”.

Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should work on their own skills on the road.

“I’m a cyclist myself, and I would never discourage people from getting on their bike, but it is at the stage now where I am seeing almost constant stupidity,” said Mrs Golby, 52, of Bromley Road, in Greenstead.

“When accidents happen, the public perception is that it is the motorist’s fault, but I can tell you now, it usually isn’t.

“We are seeing no end to the stupidity of some cyclists and as responsible cyclists, we need to acknowledge this.”

Mrs Golby also said she had seen several close shaves near to the University of Essex Knowledge Gateway, where cyclists had ignored red lights and continued on, causing motorists to brake suddenly.

“At the very least they should respect the rules of the road,” she added.

“I think all cyclists need to make sure they are safer on the road.”

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:31pm Mon 8 Oct 12

JBoswick says...

I was driving past The Norfolk pub on friday when I saw a cyclist riding his bike with no hands the wrong way up the bus lane and then the wrong way around the roundabout before cycling through a red light. I was astounded - I'm sure some cyclists have a death wish!
I was driving past The Norfolk pub on friday when I saw a cyclist riding his bike with no hands the wrong way up the bus lane and then the wrong way around the roundabout before cycling through a red light. I was astounded - I'm sure some cyclists have a death wish! JBoswick
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Paul M says...

Well, Mrs Golby, I have five years on you both in age and in years' cycling (a half-century, no less!) and I have to say your view is purely anecdotal. In my experience it "usually" IS the fault of the motorist, even allowing for some reckless behaviour by cyclists.

And my own anecdotal view is supported by statistics, at any rate for London which can't be entirely unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Our Mayor, Boris Johnson, has fnally been forced to retract his notorious claim that cyclists were at faul in 2/3rds of their own casualties, and issue the correct data as supplied by the Metropolitan Police - about 4% could be attributed to the cyclist and about 54% to the motorist, with the fault not being clear in the remainder.

Blaming the victim does not solve the problem, indeed it makes it harder to solve because the appropriate authorities will not address the problem until they recognise what it is - too many motorists forget that the tool they are using can also be a lethal weapon if used carelessly or without full concentration.
Well, Mrs Golby, I have five years on you both in age and in years' cycling (a half-century, no less!) and I have to say your view is purely anecdotal. In my experience it "usually" IS the fault of the motorist, even allowing for some reckless behaviour by cyclists. And my own anecdotal view is supported by statistics, at any rate for London which can't be entirely unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Our Mayor, Boris Johnson, has fnally been forced to retract his notorious claim that cyclists were at faul in 2/3rds of their own casualties, and issue the correct data as supplied by the Metropolitan Police - about 4% could be attributed to the cyclist and about 54% to the motorist, with the fault not being clear in the remainder. Blaming the victim does not solve the problem, indeed it makes it harder to solve because the appropriate authorities will not address the problem until they recognise what it is - too many motorists forget that the tool they are using can also be a lethal weapon if used carelessly or without full concentration. Paul M
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

I sat in my car in a certain place in Colchester , 8.30 pm till nearly 9.30 pm counted 22 cyclists only two had lights, 5 on pavement , and two with the o I’m so cleaver no hands, one on Mobil phone statistics don't reflect the truth its been proved in practice so many times. You carry on deceiving yourself that there is not loads of bad cyclists while I with my vigilant driving skills doge them.
I sat in my car in a certain place in Colchester , 8.30 pm till nearly 9.30 pm counted 22 cyclists only two had lights, 5 on pavement , and two with the o I’m so cleaver no hands, one on Mobil phone statistics don't reflect the truth its been proved in practice so many times. You carry on deceiving yourself that there is not loads of bad cyclists while I with my vigilant driving skills doge them. parentis
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

The term "constant stupidity" can easily be attributed to both motorists and cyclists alike. There are those who demonstrate good and bad practice in both groups but still some people fail to accept this and they only look to blame those that suit their own, slanted, view on life.
The term "constant stupidity" can easily be attributed to both motorists and cyclists alike. There are those who demonstrate good and bad practice in both groups but still some people fail to accept this and they only look to blame those that suit their own, slanted, view on life. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
The term "constant stupidity" can easily be attributed to both motorists and cyclists alike. There are those who demonstrate good and bad practice in both groups but still some people fail to accept this and they only look to blame those that suit their own, slanted, view on life.
Your correct of course,, one point I thought the council of each borough got a large grant to create safe cycle paths , because the fact is cars and bikes do not and will never mix well together.
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: The term "constant stupidity" can easily be attributed to both motorists and cyclists alike. There are those who demonstrate good and bad practice in both groups but still some people fail to accept this and they only look to blame those that suit their own, slanted, view on life.[/p][/quote]Your correct of course,, one point I thought the council of each borough got a large grant to create safe cycle paths , because the fact is cars and bikes do not and will never mix well together. parentis
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 8 Oct 12

AndrewRH says...

The Hampshire Constabulary are currently running a "Steer Clear" campaign whose stated aim is to improve safety on the roads for the most vulnerable.

The police are giving out HiViz products to people on bicycles, along with a pamphlet which warns them of what charges and fines they face if they ride their bicycle improperly.

The pamphlet (backed up by signs on the roads) make no mention of the responsibilities of people who are driving a motor car.

http://wp.me/pQJTH-7
pj

http://whitchurch.or
g.uk/2012/10/police-
launch-steer-clear-c
ampaign/
The Hampshire Constabulary are currently running a "Steer Clear" campaign whose stated aim is to improve safety on the roads for the most vulnerable. The police are giving out HiViz products to people on bicycles, along with a pamphlet which warns them of what charges and fines they face if they ride their bicycle improperly. The pamphlet (backed up by signs on the roads) make no mention of the responsibilities of people who are driving a motor car. http://wp.me/pQJTH-7 pj http://whitchurch.or g.uk/2012/10/police- launch-steer-clear-c ampaign/ AndrewRH
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Mon 8 Oct 12

irememberwhen says...

I can't understand how riding a bike with no hands makes it easier for the cyclist?! It's simply putting themselves and other road users in danger. Lights and a brain bucket are a bare minimum a cyclist should have to be considered safe.
I can't understand how riding a bike with no hands makes it easier for the cyclist?! It's simply putting themselves and other road users in danger. Lights and a brain bucket are a bare minimum a cyclist should have to be considered safe. irememberwhen
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Mon 8 Oct 12

setbuilder says...

AndrewRH wrote:
The Hampshire Constabulary are currently running a "Steer Clear" campaign whose stated aim is to improve safety on the roads for the most vulnerable.

The police are giving out HiViz products to people on bicycles, along with a pamphlet which warns them of what charges and fines they face if they ride their bicycle improperly.

The pamphlet (backed up by signs on the roads) make no mention of the responsibilities of people who are driving a motor car.

http://wp.me/pQJTH-7

pj

http://whitchurch.or

g.uk/2012/10/police-

launch-steer-clear-c

ampaign/
Why should the pamphlet have any mention of the responsibilities of car users?
To put it simply: Car drivers have to go through a theory test based on the Highway Code followed by a practical test before they are allowed to drive unsupervised - this does still allow some idiots to get through and drive atrociously and with disregard to other road users, but at least they have had the initial benefit of some form of training..
However, cyclists do NOT have to take any tests whatsoever. The Highway Code does have sections relating to cycling behaviour and rules for them but, unfortunately, the vast majority have probably never read it.
The truth is that there are idiots on all forms of transport although it wouldn't hurt if cyclists had to take their own form of test and therefore be shown what is expected of them on the roads.
[quote][p][bold]AndrewRH[/bold] wrote: The Hampshire Constabulary are currently running a "Steer Clear" campaign whose stated aim is to improve safety on the roads for the most vulnerable. The police are giving out HiViz products to people on bicycles, along with a pamphlet which warns them of what charges and fines they face if they ride their bicycle improperly. The pamphlet (backed up by signs on the roads) make no mention of the responsibilities of people who are driving a motor car. http://wp.me/pQJTH-7 pj http://whitchurch.or g.uk/2012/10/police- launch-steer-clear-c ampaign/[/p][/quote]Why should the pamphlet have any mention of the responsibilities of car users? To put it simply: Car drivers have to go through a theory test based on the Highway Code followed by a practical test before they are allowed to drive unsupervised - this does still allow some idiots to get through and drive atrociously and with disregard to other road users, but at least they have had the initial benefit of some form of training.. However, cyclists do NOT have to take any tests whatsoever. The Highway Code does have sections relating to cycling behaviour and rules for them but, unfortunately, the vast majority have probably never read it. The truth is that there are idiots on all forms of transport although it wouldn't hurt if cyclists had to take their own form of test and therefore be shown what is expected of them on the roads. setbuilder
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Mon 8 Oct 12

meadowlady says...

All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS.
All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS. meadowlady
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Hucker says...

In response to Meadowlady (All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS.)

If more cyclists were on the pavements, they wouldn't get in the way of the motorists. Why inconvenience 50 cars instead of 5 pedestrians?
In response to Meadowlady (All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS.) If more cyclists were on the pavements, they wouldn't get in the way of the motorists. Why inconvenience 50 cars instead of 5 pedestrians? Hucker
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Sdapeze says...

The fact is that cyclists, horses and pedestrians use the roads by right. Motorists use roads by licence. Motorists are responsible for the deaths of thousands of cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians every year. It is never the other way around. They simply drive too fast or carelessly. So what if a cyclist rides no hands. Get a life!
The fact is that cyclists, horses and pedestrians use the roads by right. Motorists use roads by licence. Motorists are responsible for the deaths of thousands of cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians every year. It is never the other way around. They simply drive too fast or carelessly. So what if a cyclist rides no hands. Get a life! Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Mon 8 Oct 12

jut1972 says...

By that argument using a mobile whilst driving would be fine.
By that argument using a mobile whilst driving would be fine. jut1972
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

Sdapeze wrote:
The fact is that cyclists, horses and pedestrians use the roads by right. Motorists use roads by licence. Motorists are responsible for the deaths of thousands of cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians every year. It is never the other way around. They simply drive too fast or carelessly. So what if a cyclist rides no hands. Get a life!
Supez if cyclists keep riding with no hands they wont have a life let alone get one I suggest you take your own advise.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: The fact is that cyclists, horses and pedestrians use the roads by right. Motorists use roads by licence. Motorists are responsible for the deaths of thousands of cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians every year. It is never the other way around. They simply drive too fast or carelessly. So what if a cyclist rides no hands. Get a life![/p][/quote]Supez if cyclists keep riding with no hands they wont have a life let alone get one I suggest you take your own advise. parentis
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Im_Like_HELLO says...

Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.
Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists. Im_Like_HELLO
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

Im_Like_HELLO wrote:
Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.
You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable, so should these crazy mobility buggy riders there getting bigger and bigger I saw one yesterday with one seat at the front and two at the back if that wasn't enough it had a flipping trailer thing to,"ridicule's "!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Im_Like_HELLO[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.[/p][/quote]You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable, so should these crazy mobility buggy riders there getting bigger and bigger I saw one yesterday with one seat at the front and two at the back if that wasn't enough it had a flipping trailer thing to,"ridicule's "!!!! parentis
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Hucker says...

Road tax is paid by cars as they wear out the tarmac. Bikes are too light to do this.

Cars are made accountable as a tonne or two of steel does a LOT more damage.
Road tax is paid by cars as they wear out the tarmac. Bikes are too light to do this. Cars are made accountable as a tonne or two of steel does a LOT more damage. Hucker
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Mon 8 Oct 12

orangesandlemons says...

I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement.
I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.
I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement. I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path. orangesandlemons
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Hucker says...

Indeed - I ride on whichever (road or pavement) is the quietest, and sometimes will change between the two as the situation changes.
Indeed - I ride on whichever (road or pavement) is the quietest, and sometimes will change between the two as the situation changes. Hucker
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

orangesandlemons wrote:
I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement.
I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.
Simple it's illegal
[quote][p][bold]orangesandlemons[/bold] wrote: I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement. I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.[/p][/quote]Simple it's illegal parentis
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

Hucker wrote:
Road tax is paid by cars as they wear out the tarmac. Bikes are too light to do this.

Cars are made accountable as a tonne or two of steel does a LOT more damage.
Cars are charged for many reasons not just because they ware the roads out, bikes should also be made accountable because the to cause a lot of damage if they hit a person, my statements still stands up,” You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable " and as I stated it is illegal to ride on a pedestrian only path . Fact obey the laws of this land as I do Simple, OK!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Hucker[/bold] wrote: Road tax is paid by cars as they wear out the tarmac. Bikes are too light to do this. Cars are made accountable as a tonne or two of steel does a LOT more damage.[/p][/quote]Cars are charged for many reasons not just because they ware the roads out, bikes should also be made accountable because the to cause a lot of damage if they hit a person, my statements still stands up,” You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable " and as I stated it is illegal to ride on a pedestrian only path . Fact obey the laws of this land as I do Simple, OK!!!!! parentis
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Hucker says...

Why do you assume that the law is right?
Why do you assume that the law is right? Hucker
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Hucker says...

I live in Scotland, I know nothing about Essex.

Answer the question. Why do you assume that the law is right? Intelligent people can think for themselves, and decide when to obey the law.
I live in Scotland, I know nothing about Essex. Answer the question. Why do you assume that the law is right? Intelligent people can think for themselves, and decide when to obey the law. Hucker
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

I sat in my car in a certain place in Colchester , 8.30 pm till nearly 9.30 pm counted 22 cyclists only two had lights, 5 on pavement , and two with the o I’m so cleaver no hands, one on Mobil phone statistics don't reflect the truth its been proved in practice so many times. You carry on deceiving yourself that there is not loads of bad cyclists while I with my vigilant driving skills doge them.
I sat in my car in a certain place in Colchester , 8.30 pm till nearly 9.30 pm counted 22 cyclists only two had lights, 5 on pavement , and two with the o I’m so cleaver no hands, one on Mobil phone statistics don't reflect the truth its been proved in practice so many times. You carry on deceiving yourself that there is not loads of bad cyclists while I with my vigilant driving skills doge them. parentis
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Sdapeze says...

The morons have entered the room. But just to put the matter right, motorists pay road tax not to build or repair the roads. They pay road tax as a fine for their antisocial activity that is driving a car. That money is used as the government decides and has no bearing on road provision. Only an idiot would think that cyclists should be licensed.
The morons have entered the room. But just to put the matter right, motorists pay road tax not to build or repair the roads. They pay road tax as a fine for their antisocial activity that is driving a car. That money is used as the government decides and has no bearing on road provision. Only an idiot would think that cyclists should be licensed. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Feisty CBC says...

I am neither a cyclist or a motorist. But why the council saw fit to carve up the subways especially as the nights are now darkening is rather daft.
Welcome Hucker to our site and to our town BTW :)
I am neither a cyclist or a motorist. But why the council saw fit to carve up the subways especially as the nights are now darkening is rather daft. Welcome Hucker to our site and to our town BTW :) Feisty CBC
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Mon 8 Oct 12

meadowlady says...

I am worn out but I suppose it makes a change from the VAF
I am worn out but I suppose it makes a change from the VAF meadowlady
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Mon 8 Oct 12

orangesandlemons says...

parentis says...
8:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Simple it's illegal”

So is speeding, in a perfect world if drivers stuck to the speed limit I wouldn't feel the need to break the law.
parentis says... 8:01pm Mon 8 Oct 12 Simple it's illegal” So is speeding, in a perfect world if drivers stuck to the speed limit I wouldn't feel the need to break the law. orangesandlemons
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

Hucker wrote:
I am the one intelligent enough to think for myself instead of following the law to the letter like a robot, I also don't write stupid childish comments like your search just now.

You've also not answered any of my questions, so obviously aren't bright enough to engage in a proper adult discussion. You are the weakest link, goodbye.
OK !! bubby boy LOL !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Hucker[/bold] wrote: I am the one intelligent enough to think for myself instead of following the law to the letter like a robot, I also don't write stupid childish comments like your search just now. You've also not answered any of my questions, so obviously aren't bright enough to engage in a proper adult discussion. You are the weakest link, goodbye.[/p][/quote]OK !! bubby boy LOL !!!!! parentis
  • Score: 0

11:57pm Mon 8 Oct 12

parentis says...

One more thought on the subject qwote "A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users because of their “almost constant stupidity”. Judging by bubby boy Hucker , I would leave out the almost bit and just leave it as constant if Hucker is a typical cyclist ,,,, intelligent if you break the law,, what a wally LOL LOL LOL ooooooooo you arf make me larf !!!!!!!!!!
One more thought on the subject qwote "A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users because of their “almost constant stupidity”. Judging by bubby boy Hucker , I would leave out the almost bit and just leave it as constant if Hucker is a typical cyclist ,,,, intelligent if you break the law,, what a wally LOL LOL LOL ooooooooo you arf make me larf !!!!!!!!!! parentis
  • Score: 0

1:36am Tue 9 Oct 12

Smouldering Ewok says...

Look how easy it is to blame or throw insults at one another.
Pedestrian vs cyclist vs car driver vs van vs lorry blah blah blah.
Try not to forget that we are all human, and instead of throwing insults day in day out try spreading a little bit of compassion around.
You all know how it feels when someone smiles or says something nice, it feels good right?
It feels even better when we manage to cheer someone up.
It really does have a big effect and helps us all feel human again; and besides life can be bad enough with all the financial bull and bad news everywhere.
So i say to you pedestrians,cyclists
,car drivers and the like "have a safe journey."
Look how easy it is to blame or throw insults at one another. Pedestrian vs cyclist vs car driver vs van vs lorry blah blah blah. Try not to forget that we are all human, and instead of throwing insults day in day out try spreading a little bit of compassion around. You all know how it feels when someone smiles or says something nice, it feels good right? It feels even better when we manage to cheer someone up. It really does have a big effect and helps us all feel human again; and besides life can be bad enough with all the financial bull and bad news everywhere. So i say to you pedestrians,cyclists ,car drivers and the like "have a safe journey." Smouldering Ewok
  • Score: 0

5:10am Tue 9 Oct 12

rhetoric says...

Some have lost sight of the fact that, though they consider themselves to be "perfect cyclists" and safe to everyone, if they cycle on the footpath what is to stop the crackpots and the dangerous from doing so? Are we to have Test Police at the commencement of each strip of footpath?
.
Yes, that's quite ridiculous isn't it?
.
In general, laws are made to protect us and give a decent way of life. Before you all start screaming that is not so nowadays, please remember that the laws against cycling on footpaths go back a long way, and were made to protect pedestrians. The feud between motorists and cyclists that now seems to be growing and fermenting was not in the equation in those days. Actually, the penalties on the books were then very severe, including an enormous fine or a term of imprisonment.
.
As a lifelong cyclist, not as a hobby but as a way of getting around, pure and simple, I did not ever consider it my "right" to cycle on the footpath.
.
Now I am perforce a walker, it is no longer a pleasant, leisurely way to get around. It is necessary to keep looking round from time to time to ensure that I am not going to be startled into a heart attack by being buzzed by a speeding cyclist who enjoys brushing my arm and giving me a shock as they whiz past. Progress is slow - watch for dents, stones, mess on the path and then stop to turn round and look out for cyclists.
.
Spread a little compassion? Yes, right, start with those who use the original basic method of getting from one place to another - Shanks' Pony!
Some have lost sight of the fact that, though they consider themselves to be "perfect cyclists" and safe to everyone, if they cycle on the footpath what is to stop the crackpots and the dangerous from doing so? Are we to have Test Police at the commencement of each strip of footpath? . Yes, that's quite ridiculous isn't it? . In general, laws are made to protect us and give a decent way of life. Before you all start screaming that is not so nowadays, please remember that the laws against cycling on footpaths go back a long way, and were made to protect pedestrians. The feud between motorists and cyclists that now seems to be growing and fermenting was not in the equation in those days. Actually, the penalties on the books were then very severe, including an enormous fine or a term of imprisonment. . As a lifelong cyclist, not as a hobby but as a way of getting around, pure and simple, I did not ever consider it my "right" to cycle on the footpath. . Now I am perforce a walker, it is no longer a pleasant, leisurely way to get around. It is necessary to keep looking round from time to time to ensure that I am not going to be startled into a heart attack by being buzzed by a speeding cyclist who enjoys brushing my arm and giving me a shock as they whiz past. Progress is slow - watch for dents, stones, mess on the path and then stop to turn round and look out for cyclists. . Spread a little compassion? Yes, right, start with those who use the original basic method of getting from one place to another - Shanks' Pony! rhetoric
  • Score: 0

9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12

Cleggeron says...

Bottom line is that facilities for cyclists (I'm one and own two cars, so I'm paying tax too) are crap in this country. Cycle lanes, where they exist at all, are often just separated from the traffic by a white line. In Germany, for example, all cities, towns and even small villages have extensive, well-maintained and well separated cycle paths. Even country areas are linked by cycle lanes running alongside, not on, the road.
This makes it safer, obviously, but also encourages cycle use - good for health and good for the environment.
Just imagine if the billions earmarked for a new high-speed rail link for rich businessment were spent on a proper, joined up network of cycle paths around the UK. The benefits to health, environment, tourism and job creation would be immense.
It shouldn't be a case of car or bike, pro or anti. The Germans like their cars just as much as we do - just that they recognise that there is an alternative and are prepared to spend the money on it.
Bottom line is that facilities for cyclists (I'm one and own two cars, so I'm paying tax too) are crap in this country. Cycle lanes, where they exist at all, are often just separated from the traffic by a white line. In Germany, for example, all cities, towns and even small villages have extensive, well-maintained and well separated cycle paths. Even country areas are linked by cycle lanes running alongside, not on, the road. This makes it safer, obviously, but also encourages cycle use - good for health and good for the environment. Just imagine if the billions earmarked for a new high-speed rail link for rich businessment were spent on a proper, joined up network of cycle paths around the UK. The benefits to health, environment, tourism and job creation would be immense. It shouldn't be a case of car or bike, pro or anti. The Germans like their cars just as much as we do - just that they recognise that there is an alternative and are prepared to spend the money on it. Cleggeron
  • Score: 0

9:50am Tue 9 Oct 12

wormshero says...

Fact is the blame in accidents involving cyclists can involve either party (or external parties in some cases), so it's not worth getting all defensive about. Yes, there are some stupid cyclists about, and yes there are stupid drivers (I've been cut up by cars while on my bike many times, and likewise I've had cyclists pull across in front of me turning right without even looking). At the end of the day, we all have equal responsibility for ourselves and others on the road. Most accidents can be avoided with a bit more care and attention, and making yourself aware to all parties. If cyclists are using lights (preferably not those horrible flashing lights - I still haven't worked out why people use those), and keeping an eye on the road, and drivers are concentrating and checking their mirrors/everywhere frequently then we'd all be a lot better off.

Oh and on cycling on the pavement - by all means if the pavement is empty then yes, do it, but people who fly past squeezing past pedestrians on the pavement or even moan at pedestrians for being in their way can get lost, to be honest :)
Fact is the blame in accidents involving cyclists can involve either party (or external parties in some cases), so it's not worth getting all defensive about. Yes, there are some stupid cyclists about, and yes there are stupid drivers (I've been cut up by cars while on my bike many times, and likewise I've had cyclists pull across in front of me turning right without even looking). At the end of the day, we all have equal responsibility for ourselves and others on the road. Most accidents can be avoided with a bit more care and attention, and making yourself aware to all parties. If cyclists are using lights (preferably not those horrible flashing lights - I still haven't worked out why people use those), and keeping an eye on the road, and drivers are concentrating and checking their mirrors/everywhere frequently then we'd all be a lot better off. Oh and on cycling on the pavement - by all means if the pavement is empty then yes, do it, but people who fly past squeezing past pedestrians on the pavement or even moan at pedestrians for being in their way can get lost, to be honest :) wormshero
  • Score: 0

10:01am Tue 9 Oct 12

AndrewRH says...

"constant stupidity" - perfect headline for what some of these comments have become! ;-)

Trying to wrestle these comments back on topic...

In reply to setbuilder (scroll way back): over 80% of people who ride bicycles have a driver's license - so they have passed a test before being on the road. The remainder are children - whose parents have likely passed the test and *should* be responsible. On top of this, there are many who are training young and less-young alike on how to be a confident and safe person on bicycle.

Agree more can be done, and hope it is. Such as... wouldn't demanding that appropriate infrastructure (dependent on road capacity, speed, location, ...) be a better thing to spend our energies on? Make travel safer for everyone and remove/minimise the conflict situations in the first place.
"constant stupidity" - perfect headline for what some of these comments have become! ;-) Trying to wrestle these comments back on topic... In reply to setbuilder (scroll way back): over 80% of people who ride bicycles have a driver's license - so they have passed a test before being on the road. The remainder are children - whose parents have likely passed the test and *should* be responsible. On top of this, there are many who are training young and less-young alike on how to be a confident and safe person on bicycle. Agree more can be done, and hope it is. Such as... wouldn't demanding that appropriate infrastructure (dependent on road capacity, speed, location, ...) be a better thing to spend our energies on? Make travel safer for everyone and remove/minimise the conflict situations in the first place. AndrewRH
  • Score: 0

10:03am Tue 9 Oct 12

jammin says...

Bromley Road isn't Greenstead.
Bromley Road isn't Greenstead. jammin
  • Score: 0

10:04am Tue 9 Oct 12

Goonerboy says...

Like most other arguements on here its all about consideration for other people. I drive every day , I cycle most weekends, I endeavour to do both with respect for my fellow road users and pedestrians.
No amount of laws , cycleways, police enforcement or moaning will make any difference until people have care for others ..simple.

But I will have my tuppence worth ... shared use subways are a stupid idea especially when the markings have completly worn out . Try telling a someone with a pushchair and 2 other toddlers to keep them out of the way of a speeding cyclist in what should be a safe area !
Like most other arguements on here its all about consideration for other people. I drive every day , I cycle most weekends, I endeavour to do both with respect for my fellow road users and pedestrians. No amount of laws , cycleways, police enforcement or moaning will make any difference until people have care for others ..simple. But I will have my tuppence worth ... shared use subways are a stupid idea especially when the markings have completly worn out . Try telling a someone with a pushchair and 2 other toddlers to keep them out of the way of a speeding cyclist in what should be a safe area ! Goonerboy
  • Score: 0

10:53am Tue 9 Oct 12

leighnichol says...

Firstly, can we stop referring to 'cyclists' as some separate group, they're people on bikes and most of them are drivers too. Secondly, this argument about cyclists should be paying road tax is ridiculous, there's no such thing as road tax: http://www.carbuzz.c
o.uk/blog/Road-Tax-D
oesnt-Exist
There's vehicle tax, which most cyclists pay as drivers too. I drive and cycle and I have to say both car users and cyclists can be incredibly stupid, drivers getting far too close etc, cyclists jumping lights, cycling two abreast on busy roads etc. All it takes is a bit of common sense and everyone would be happy. (well, nearly everyone!) Seriously, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions, whichever means of transport you use, it's really, really simple. Remember, taking silly risks to get to your destination a few seconds quicker or not paying attention is risking peoples lives, and no-one wants that on their conscience do they?
Firstly, can we stop referring to 'cyclists' as some separate group, they're people on bikes and most of them are drivers too. Secondly, this argument about cyclists should be paying road tax is ridiculous, there's no such thing as road tax: http://www.carbuzz.c o.uk/blog/Road-Tax-D oesnt-Exist There's vehicle tax, which most cyclists pay as drivers too. I drive and cycle and I have to say both car users and cyclists can be incredibly stupid, drivers getting far too close etc, cyclists jumping lights, cycling two abreast on busy roads etc. All it takes is a bit of common sense and everyone would be happy. (well, nearly everyone!) Seriously, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions, whichever means of transport you use, it's really, really simple. Remember, taking silly risks to get to your destination a few seconds quicker or not paying attention is risking peoples lives, and no-one wants that on their conscience do they? leighnichol
  • Score: 0

11:47am Tue 9 Oct 12

jacklumber1 says...

I suggest Essex CC and Colchester BC set up CCTV's at North Station / Essex Hall roudabouts both sides of the road, where the bus stops are for one week and monitor the car drivers speeding and the cyclists who ride on the pavement - even among the pedestrians and under N Station bridge. Note how the cyclists cross the road and how they speed along the pavements among pedestrians. But it seems ECC and CBC want to ignore the reality - that is until we have a major accident and then they will blame everyone else!
I suggest Essex CC and Colchester BC set up CCTV's at North Station / Essex Hall roudabouts both sides of the road, where the bus stops are for one week and monitor the car drivers speeding and the cyclists who ride on the pavement - even among the pedestrians and under N Station bridge. Note how the cyclists cross the road and how they speed along the pavements among pedestrians. But it seems ECC and CBC want to ignore the reality - that is until we have a major accident and then they will blame everyone else! jacklumber1
  • Score: 0

11:57am Tue 9 Oct 12

Sdapeze says...

As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?
As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars? Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Tue 9 Oct 12

rationalThinker says...

at north station cyclists on the northern approach side of the station are supposed to be on the pavement, the path is supposed to be half pedestrian half bike. Although you wouldn't know it with all the people walking along the bike path with headphones on totally unaware of there surroundings.
at north station cyclists on the northern approach side of the station are supposed to be on the pavement, the path is supposed to be half pedestrian half bike. Although you wouldn't know it with all the people walking along the bike path with headphones on totally unaware of there surroundings. rationalThinker
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Libetia says...

Traffic lights don't just change just because there is a car waiting there. In fact, the detector that is under the road that triggers whatever traffic light control method is being used (usually speeding up the change from red to green, rather than immediately changing it) is usually mounted a fair distance back from the lights. Something that motorcyclists & cyclists won't have an issue with anyway, as they usually go to the front of the queue anyway.
Traffic lights don't just change just because there is a car waiting there. In fact, the detector that is under the road that triggers whatever traffic light control method is being used (usually speeding up the change from red to green, rather than immediately changing it) is usually mounted a fair distance back from the lights. Something that motorcyclists & cyclists won't have an issue with anyway, as they usually go to the front of the queue anyway. Libetia
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Tue 9 Oct 12

romantic says...

I am a cyclist and driver at different times. I think the crucial thing is being aware of others and of the possibilities of a dangerous situation.

Regarding cycling on pavements, I will do it if the road option is dangerous and if there are no pedestrians. Motorists get impatient if stuck behind a cyclist and overtake too close for comfort. A slow cyclist going up a hill can create a tail of cars behind.

But it does drive me nuts if I see a cyclist tearing down the pavement next to doors, with no way of stopping if somebody steps out. I´ve seen people hit by cars doing it, and have seen people being hit by bikes.

Cyclists have to co-exist with others. People do walk on the cycle paths. You go around them and hope they will realise. I sometimes end up walking on the cycle bit because I´m so used to cycling that I sub-consciously end up there.

In an ideal world, we´d have cycle paths alongside every main road, but sometimes it´s just not practical, so cyclists have to co-exist with pedestrians and drivers. If you see a tail behind you, pull over and let it pass. Try to pre-empt possible risks such as cars pulling out of side roads. Being visible is important. If you are driving and come across a cyclist at night, they are not easy to see.

I don´t agree that most cyclists ride insanely, but quite a lot do. You have to remember that cars have bumpers, metal etc. As a cyclist, you´re a lot less protected, but still carry enough momentum to do damage if you hit somebody at speed.

The rising cost of fuel will mean more people on bikes, and I think that´s a good thing. Don´t agree that bikes should be taxed. Cyclists don´t damage the roads or create pollution. Each person on a bike means a bit less stuff going into the atmosphere.
I am a cyclist and driver at different times. I think the crucial thing is being aware of others and of the possibilities of a dangerous situation. Regarding cycling on pavements, I will do it if the road option is dangerous and if there are no pedestrians. Motorists get impatient if stuck behind a cyclist and overtake too close for comfort. A slow cyclist going up a hill can create a tail of cars behind. But it does drive me nuts if I see a cyclist tearing down the pavement next to doors, with no way of stopping if somebody steps out. I´ve seen people hit by cars doing it, and have seen people being hit by bikes. Cyclists have to co-exist with others. People do walk on the cycle paths. You go around them and hope they will realise. I sometimes end up walking on the cycle bit because I´m so used to cycling that I sub-consciously end up there. In an ideal world, we´d have cycle paths alongside every main road, but sometimes it´s just not practical, so cyclists have to co-exist with pedestrians and drivers. If you see a tail behind you, pull over and let it pass. Try to pre-empt possible risks such as cars pulling out of side roads. Being visible is important. If you are driving and come across a cyclist at night, they are not easy to see. I don´t agree that most cyclists ride insanely, but quite a lot do. You have to remember that cars have bumpers, metal etc. As a cyclist, you´re a lot less protected, but still carry enough momentum to do damage if you hit somebody at speed. The rising cost of fuel will mean more people on bikes, and I think that´s a good thing. Don´t agree that bikes should be taxed. Cyclists don´t damage the roads or create pollution. Each person on a bike means a bit less stuff going into the atmosphere. romantic
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Tue 9 Oct 12

jacklumber1 says...

national Thinker I am referring to the road and pavement between N Station Bridge and the bus tops - both sides.
The cycle path you refer to is the piece that goes from the N Staion Bridge up to Petrolee Close / ASDA.
Under N Station Bridge and up to the Bus stops the cycle path is in the road but you never see a cyclist use it - they prefer the pavements!
national Thinker I am referring to the road and pavement between N Station Bridge and the bus tops - both sides. The cycle path you refer to is the piece that goes from the N Staion Bridge up to Petrolee Close / ASDA. Under N Station Bridge and up to the Bus stops the cycle path is in the road but you never see a cyclist use it - they prefer the pavements! jacklumber1
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 9 Oct 12

jag99 says...

This is the usual punch up between cars cyclists and pedestrians over who is the most responsible road/path using section of society...

Essentially there are plenty of idiots in all three groups, as well as plenty of responsible & thought members. So really this whole discussion is a little pointless - you can't legislate against stupidity (try as some might), so accidents will happen.

People should stick to the rules, cyclists should keep off the pavements and pedestrians should avoid walking down cycle paths, etc. There's no excuse for cyclists to jump red lights or cycle the wrong way down a one-way street. Car drivers in general should just pay more attention and stop thinking that they own the road (and NO vehicle excise duty does not pay for roads necessarily - this comes from central government or council tax)

As has been said before a little more thought and consideration from all road & path users wouldn't go amiss.
This is the usual punch up between cars cyclists and pedestrians over who is the most responsible road/path using section of society... Essentially there are plenty of idiots in all three groups, as well as plenty of responsible & thought members. So really this whole discussion is a little pointless - you can't legislate against stupidity (try as some might), so accidents will happen. People should stick to the rules, cyclists should keep off the pavements and pedestrians should avoid walking down cycle paths, etc. There's no excuse for cyclists to jump red lights or cycle the wrong way down a one-way street. Car drivers in general should just pay more attention and stop thinking that they own the road (and NO vehicle excise duty does not pay for roads necessarily - this comes from central government or council tax) As has been said before a little more thought and consideration from all road & path users wouldn't go amiss. jag99
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12

TheCaptain says...

orangesandlemons wrote:
I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement.
I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.
But it is illeagel
[quote][p][bold]orangesandlemons[/bold] wrote: I as a cyclist I do ride on the pavement. I make sure I do it carefully and slowly and if I see anybody on the path infront of me I dismount from my bike, and walk it past them. If I could feel safe enough to ride on the roads I would, but I do not trust motorists with my life. My point is not everyone who rides on the pavement is inconsiderate and reckless, it annoys me when I read comments that condemn all cyclists that ride on the path.[/p][/quote]But it is illeagel TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Tue 9 Oct 12

jacklumber1 says...

jag99 I understand that in Colchester there is a byelaw that allows a £70 fine for any cyclist riding on a pedestrian Pavement. However that is never enforced by CBC. If there were a few fines handed out to cyclists who ride on pedestrian pavements then moms with pushchairs, their children, the deaf and the elderley would be better protected.
But CBC are completely ineffective - as usual!
jag99 I understand that in Colchester there is a byelaw that allows a £70 fine for any cyclist riding on a pedestrian Pavement. However that is never enforced by CBC. If there were a few fines handed out to cyclists who ride on pedestrian pavements then moms with pushchairs, their children, the deaf and the elderley would be better protected. But CBC are completely ineffective - as usual! jacklumber1
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

col utd till i die says...

I can only agree with what Deborah said as I am a cyclist and see so many cyclist with no lights, listening to music and giving no signals. I think a bit of training for cyclists is the answer but agree that there needs to be respect for cyclists and motorists. We have understand that we all need to look at things for it to improve.
I can only agree with what Deborah said as I am a cyclist and see so many cyclist with no lights, listening to music and giving no signals. I think a bit of training for cyclists is the answer but agree that there needs to be respect for cyclists and motorists. We have understand that we all need to look at things for it to improve. col utd till i die
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Sdapeze says...

You won't lose your licence for riding your bicycle on pavements or going through a red light, but you could lose your life as a result of a car driver killing you. Remember cyclists, that car drivers have radios to distract them, texts to compose and send, mobile phones to answer, cigarettes to light, screaming kids to control, sandwiches to eat, make-up to apply, speed limits to ignore. You cannot harm them but they can certainly harm you and, from the look of the self-righteous comments above, will justify themselves fully when they do. Let's ban them from Colchester streets that aren't wide enough for cycle lanes.
You won't lose your licence for riding your bicycle on pavements or going through a red light, but you could lose your life as a result of a car driver killing you. Remember cyclists, that car drivers have radios to distract them, texts to compose and send, mobile phones to answer, cigarettes to light, screaming kids to control, sandwiches to eat, make-up to apply, speed limits to ignore. You cannot harm them but they can certainly harm you and, from the look of the self-righteous comments above, will justify themselves fully when they do. Let's ban them from Colchester streets that aren't wide enough for cycle lanes. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Douglas Park says...

As a pedestrian I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - being nearly run over on a zebra crossing where the cars stopped but the cyclist with his ear-buds in didn't!
As a cyclist I've had a few close shaves with pedestrians - walking out into the street without looking - as well as cars or rather buses which often share our cycle lanes.
As a motorist I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - running red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets etc.
In Colchester we do have a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes, but most of them are shared with pedestrians or buses. That's probably why so many cyclists in town feel they can use the pavements carte blanch.
There are just as many inconsiderate motorists as there are cyclists as there are pedestrians. No one group is to blame more than the other.
As a pedestrian I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - being nearly run over on a zebra crossing where the cars stopped but the cyclist with his ear-buds in didn't! As a cyclist I've had a few close shaves with pedestrians - walking out into the street without looking - as well as cars or rather buses which often share our cycle lanes. As a motorist I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - running red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets etc. In Colchester we do have a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes, but most of them are shared with pedestrians or buses. That's probably why so many cyclists in town feel they can use the pavements carte blanch. There are just as many inconsiderate motorists as there are cyclists as there are pedestrians. No one group is to blame more than the other. Douglas Park
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Grabber says...

Sdapeze wrote:
As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?
Wrong if the lights have a movement sensor it will trigger the controller that something has approached the traffic head so long as its speed is over 5mph so stop for red lights and pedal faster !
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?[/p][/quote]Wrong if the lights have a movement sensor it will trigger the controller that something has approached the traffic head so long as its speed is over 5mph so stop for red lights and pedal faster ! Grabber
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

Grabber wrote:
Sdapeze wrote:
As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?
Wrong if the lights have a movement sensor it will trigger the controller that something has approached the traffic head so long as its speed is over 5mph so stop for red lights and pedal faster !
They aren't sensitive enough for bicycles. As Sdapeze said motorbikes don't trigger some of them. Only a few will pick up a bicycle as it's smaller than a car. I've even known some not pick up a car, especially if you drive sensibly/economicall
y and drift to a halt at the red light so you're going under 5mph!
[quote][p][bold]Grabber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: As to cyclists jumping lights, a cyclist will not trigger lights to change so what are they supposed to do? In fact, as a motorcyclist, I often cannot get lights to change. So should I just sit there and wait for a car to come along? Wouldn't life be so much easier and quieter without cars?[/p][/quote]Wrong if the lights have a movement sensor it will trigger the controller that something has approached the traffic head so long as its speed is over 5mph so stop for red lights and pedal faster ![/p][/quote]They aren't sensitive enough for bicycles. As Sdapeze said motorbikes don't trigger some of them. Only a few will pick up a bicycle as it's smaller than a car. I've even known some not pick up a car, especially if you drive sensibly/economicall y and drift to a halt at the red light so you're going under 5mph! ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Tue 9 Oct 12

plastic100 says...

Good grief. I'm staggered by the ignorance on here. Usually by this point someone has at least posted a link to http://ipayroadtax.c
om/ .

Just quickly, road tax was abolished in 1937. Roads are paid for out of common taxation, so we all pay, although some of us are driving on them more than others - motorists, you are being subsidised.

We do have something called vehicle excise duty (VED) which is an emissions based tax. Cyclists pay for all the polluting they do, which is none. Although a lot of cyclists also have cars and pay as much VED as anyone else, despite driving and polluting less.

And how one woman's bigoted and unqualified diatribe, helping to generalise about, and vilify, cyclists like herself is considered news I really don't know. I don't care how old she is.

At least someone has pointed out that in the overwhelming majority of cases where a cyclist is killed or injured, a driver is deemed solely at fault. That's no the "public perception", that's WHAT THE POLICE REPORTS SAY. Also, pedestrians are far more likely to be killed or injured by motor vehicles, even on the pavement.

Right. Rant over. As you were.
Good grief. I'm staggered by the ignorance on here. Usually by this point someone has at least posted a link to http://ipayroadtax.c om/ . Just quickly, road tax was abolished in 1937. Roads are paid for out of common taxation, so we all pay, although some of us are driving on them more than others - motorists, you are being subsidised. We do have something called vehicle excise duty (VED) which is an emissions based tax. Cyclists pay for all the polluting they do, which is none. Although a lot of cyclists also have cars and pay as much VED as anyone else, despite driving and polluting less. And how one woman's bigoted and unqualified diatribe, helping to generalise about, and vilify, cyclists like herself is considered news I really don't know. I don't care how old she is. At least someone has pointed out that in the overwhelming majority of cases where a cyclist is killed or injured, a driver is deemed solely at fault. That's no the "public perception", that's WHAT THE POLICE REPORTS SAY. Also, pedestrians are far more likely to be killed or injured by motor vehicles, even on the pavement. Right. Rant over. As you were. plastic100
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Tue 9 Oct 12

PROOFREADER says...

jacklumber1 wrote:
jag99 I understand that in Colchester there is a byelaw that allows a £70 fine for any cyclist riding on a pedestrian Pavement. However that is never enforced by CBC. If there were a few fines handed out to cyclists who ride on pedestrian pavements then moms with pushchairs, their children, the deaf and the elderley would be better protected.
But CBC are completely ineffective - as usual!
There neeeds to be something done about vehicles being parked on or partially on pavements. This evening I saw a Ford KA parked on the pavement in King Harold Road completely blocking it so pedestrians had to walk in the road. Even the husband of Sue Lissimore one of the prettygate councillors parks his van partially on the pavement outside their house in King Harold Road and pedestrians have to squeeze past between the van and a hedge,
[quote][p][bold]jacklumber1[/bold] wrote: jag99 I understand that in Colchester there is a byelaw that allows a £70 fine for any cyclist riding on a pedestrian Pavement. However that is never enforced by CBC. If there were a few fines handed out to cyclists who ride on pedestrian pavements then moms with pushchairs, their children, the deaf and the elderley would be better protected. But CBC are completely ineffective - as usual![/p][/quote]There neeeds to be something done about vehicles being parked on or partially on pavements. This evening I saw a Ford KA parked on the pavement in King Harold Road completely blocking it so pedestrians had to walk in the road. Even the husband of Sue Lissimore one of the prettygate councillors parks his van partially on the pavement outside their house in King Harold Road and pedestrians have to squeeze past between the van and a hedge, PROOFREADER
  • Score: 0

8:13am Wed 10 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

I tend to park wherever is most sensible. If it's a busy road and the pavement is fairly wide, I'll stick half the car on the pavement. In some streets round here, most cars do this. The ones that don't cause people to queue up on the road as only one car gets past at a time. I've never seen a car block a pavement completely though.
I tend to park wherever is most sensible. If it's a busy road and the pavement is fairly wide, I'll stick half the car on the pavement. In some streets round here, most cars do this. The ones that don't cause people to queue up on the road as only one car gets past at a time. I've never seen a car block a pavement completely though. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

8:24am Wed 10 Oct 12

Cliff says...

Just so we all know a couple of facts. 1.- It is not illegal to park on the pavement unless there is a double yellow line restriction so CBC cannot act. The police MAY decide it's obstruction but rarely if ever do. 2. - CBC has no power to stop people riding on pavements - again if there is such a bye-law that would be the responsibility of the police.
Just so we all know a couple of facts. 1.- It is not illegal to park on the pavement unless there is a double yellow line restriction so CBC cannot act. The police MAY decide it's obstruction but rarely if ever do. 2. - CBC has no power to stop people riding on pavements - again if there is such a bye-law that would be the responsibility of the police. Cliff
  • Score: 0

8:24am Wed 10 Oct 12

rationalThinker says...

If I see a car blocking the pavement forcing me to push my child in the road I will first attempt to get the buggy past the offending car making sure I put a few scratches along the side.
If I see a car blocking the pavement forcing me to push my child in the road I will first attempt to get the buggy past the offending car making sure I put a few scratches along the side. rationalThinker
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Libetia says...

"Sdapeze says...
6:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12

You won't lose your licence for riding your bicycle on pavements or going through a red light, but you could lose your life as a result of a car driver killing you".
Especially, if you cycle through a red light and get hit by a car legally coming from another direction.
I don't doubt that in the vast majority of incidents the car is at fault, but not in every case. There is a lack of care on the part of motor vehicles in that they don't "see" anything that is smaller than a car, but the idea is to treat anyone & everyone that is using the roads as a potential idiot whether they are driving a car, a bus, or riding a bike or motorbike.
And as Sdapeze well knows, it's only cars, buses and lorries that pollute & burn fuel not his precious motorbike.
"Sdapeze says... 6:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12 You won't lose your licence for riding your bicycle on pavements or going through a red light, but you could lose your life as a result of a car driver killing you". Especially, if you cycle through a red light and get hit by a car legally coming from another direction. I don't doubt that in the vast majority of incidents the car is at fault, but not in every case. There is a lack of care on the part of motor vehicles in that they don't "see" anything that is smaller than a car, but the idea is to treat anyone & everyone that is using the roads as a potential idiot whether they are driving a car, a bus, or riding a bike or motorbike. And as Sdapeze well knows, it's only cars, buses and lorries that pollute & burn fuel not his precious motorbike. Libetia
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12

wardyt says...

meadowlady wrote:
All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS.
Agreed. I (a cyclist myself) constantly challenge cyclist about riding on the pavement and just get sworn at.
[quote][p][bold]meadowlady[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should KEEP OFF THE PAVEMENTS.[/p][/quote]Agreed. I (a cyclist myself) constantly challenge cyclist about riding on the pavement and just get sworn at. wardyt
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 10 Oct 12

wardyt says...

parentis wrote:
Im_Like_HELLO wrote: Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.
You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable, so should these crazy mobility buggy riders there getting bigger and bigger I saw one yesterday with one seat at the front and two at the back if that wasn't enough it had a flipping trailer thing to,"ridicule's "!!!!
Ridiculous statement. Next thing you'll want babies in prams to have road tax.
[quote][p][bold]parentis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Im_Like_HELLO[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if we cyclists were made to pay road tax we would see magical improvements in the facilities for cyclists.[/p][/quote]You should pay road tax, you should have insurance, you should also have to pass a test, and have a reg number on the back of your Visy jacket so that you are accountable, so should these crazy mobility buggy riders there getting bigger and bigger I saw one yesterday with one seat at the front and two at the back if that wasn't enough it had a flipping trailer thing to,"ridicule's "!!!![/p][/quote]Ridiculous statement. Next thing you'll want babies in prams to have road tax. wardyt
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 10 Oct 12

wardyt says...

Douglas Park wrote:
As a pedestrian I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - being nearly run over on a zebra crossing where the cars stopped but the cyclist with his ear-buds in didn't! As a cyclist I've had a few close shaves with pedestrians - walking out into the street without looking - as well as cars or rather buses which often share our cycle lanes. As a motorist I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - running red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets etc. In Colchester we do have a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes, but most of them are shared with pedestrians or buses. That's probably why so many cyclists in town feel they can use the pavements carte blanch. There are just as many inconsiderate motorists as there are cyclists as there are pedestrians. No one group is to blame more than the other.
Couldn't agree more
[quote][p][bold]Douglas Park[/bold] wrote: As a pedestrian I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - being nearly run over on a zebra crossing where the cars stopped but the cyclist with his ear-buds in didn't! As a cyclist I've had a few close shaves with pedestrians - walking out into the street without looking - as well as cars or rather buses which often share our cycle lanes. As a motorist I've had a few close shaves with cyclists - running red lights, going the wrong way up one-way streets etc. In Colchester we do have a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes, but most of them are shared with pedestrians or buses. That's probably why so many cyclists in town feel they can use the pavements carte blanch. There are just as many inconsiderate motorists as there are cyclists as there are pedestrians. No one group is to blame more than the other.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more wardyt
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Wed 10 Oct 12

wellnow says...

no win no fee.a motorists insurance will pay up every time,leaving the motorist with higher premiums next year for something not his fault.cyclists should have to insure themselves to ride on the high way.that would stop the foolish devil may cares.
no win no fee.a motorists insurance will pay up every time,leaving the motorist with higher premiums next year for something not his fault.cyclists should have to insure themselves to ride on the high way.that would stop the foolish devil may cares. wellnow
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Wed 10 Oct 12

wardyt says...

wellnow wrote:
no win no fee.a motorists insurance will pay up every time,leaving the motorist with higher premiums next year for something not his fault.cyclists should have to insure themselves to ride on the high way.that would stop the foolish devil may cares.
The reason that Insurance premiums are increasing is more to do with uninsured drivers, not cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]wellnow[/bold] wrote: no win no fee.a motorists insurance will pay up every time,leaving the motorist with higher premiums next year for something not his fault.cyclists should have to insure themselves to ride on the high way.that would stop the foolish devil may cares.[/p][/quote]The reason that Insurance premiums are increasing is more to do with uninsured drivers, not cyclists. wardyt
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Sdapeze says...

I cycle to work and will go home by bicycle tonight, in the dark, with my flashing lights front and back. It is quite likely too that I will stop at my local pub for a pint or two. I commend it to all the lard arsed self-righteous car drivers out there. Good for your health and good for local business!
I cycle to work and will go home by bicycle tonight, in the dark, with my flashing lights front and back. It is quite likely too that I will stop at my local pub for a pint or two. I commend it to all the lard arsed self-righteous car drivers out there. Good for your health and good for local business! Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Libetia says...

Careful, being drunk in charge of a bicycle is just as much of an offence as being in charge of a motor vehicle. There is no "limit" as such, just whether a police officer considers you incapable of cycling safely.
Probably less chance of being caught of course.
Careful, being drunk in charge of a bicycle is just as much of an offence as being in charge of a motor vehicle. There is no "limit" as such, just whether a police officer considers you incapable of cycling safely. Probably less chance of being caught of course. Libetia
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Joker50 says...

Paul M wrote:
Well, Mrs Golby, I have five years on you both in age and in years' cycling (a half-century, no less!) and I have to say your view is purely anecdotal. In my experience it "usually" IS the fault of the motorist, even allowing for some reckless behaviour by cyclists.

And my own anecdotal view is supported by statistics, at any rate for London which can't be entirely unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Our Mayor, Boris Johnson, has fnally been forced to retract his notorious claim that cyclists were at faul in 2/3rds of their own casualties, and issue the correct data as supplied by the Metropolitan Police - about 4% could be attributed to the cyclist and about 54% to the motorist, with the fault not being clear in the remainder.

Blaming the victim does not solve the problem, indeed it makes it harder to solve because the appropriate authorities will not address the problem until they recognise what it is - too many motorists forget that the tool they are using can also be a lethal weapon if used carelessly or without full concentration.
Blaming one another doesn't help anyone, we are all responsible for our own lives and those of others on the roads, Motorist's should be looking out for cyclist's and vice versa, cycle helmets should be compulsory as with lights at night time weather on the road or cycle paths and a bright cycling body band for cycling during the day.
[quote][p][bold]Paul M[/bold] wrote: Well, Mrs Golby, I have five years on you both in age and in years' cycling (a half-century, no less!) and I have to say your view is purely anecdotal. In my experience it "usually" IS the fault of the motorist, even allowing for some reckless behaviour by cyclists. And my own anecdotal view is supported by statistics, at any rate for London which can't be entirely unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Our Mayor, Boris Johnson, has fnally been forced to retract his notorious claim that cyclists were at faul in 2/3rds of their own casualties, and issue the correct data as supplied by the Metropolitan Police - about 4% could be attributed to the cyclist and about 54% to the motorist, with the fault not being clear in the remainder. Blaming the victim does not solve the problem, indeed it makes it harder to solve because the appropriate authorities will not address the problem until they recognise what it is - too many motorists forget that the tool they are using can also be a lethal weapon if used carelessly or without full concentration.[/p][/quote]Blaming one another doesn't help anyone, we are all responsible for our own lives and those of others on the roads, Motorist's should be looking out for cyclist's and vice versa, cycle helmets should be compulsory as with lights at night time weather on the road or cycle paths and a bright cycling body band for cycling during the day. Joker50
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Wed 10 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Joker50 says...

ninja toughguy wrote:
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
Maybe you should carry a card then saying on it that you refuse medical help if involved in an accident.
[quote][p][bold]ninja toughguy[/bold] wrote: No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should carry a card then saying on it that you refuse medical help if involved in an accident. Joker50
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Wed 10 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

I don't refuse medical help, I only refuse to cover a very slight risk to myself. People who jump out of planes still get NHS treatment, people who skijump still get NHS treatment. Those are more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet.
I don't refuse medical help, I only refuse to cover a very slight risk to myself. People who jump out of planes still get NHS treatment, people who skijump still get NHS treatment. Those are more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Wed 10 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

It is highly unlikely for me to "fly through the air and hit someone". Most likely I'd hit the ground or a lamppost and only injure myself.
It is highly unlikely for me to "fly through the air and hit someone". Most likely I'd hit the ground or a lamppost and only injure myself. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

8:58am Thu 11 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

My family and friends are of my concern, not the law's.
My family and friends are of my concern, not the law's. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12

jag99 says...

ninja toughguy wrote:
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
You make the gross assumption that whatever damage you cause; either to yourself, others or road furniture will just be paid for by the erst of us because you feel it's your right to take these risks. I for one would not be interested in wasting my hard earned tax on you.

Incidentally, Skydivers and the like generally wear appropriate equipment and do their best to avoid causing damage.
[quote][p][bold]ninja toughguy[/bold] wrote: No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.[/p][/quote]You make the gross assumption that whatever damage you cause; either to yourself, others or road furniture will just be paid for by the erst of us because you feel it's your right to take these risks. I for one would not be interested in wasting my hard earned tax on you. Incidentally, Skydivers and the like generally wear appropriate equipment and do their best to avoid causing damage. jag99
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Joker50 says...

ninja toughguy wrote:
I don't refuse medical help, I only refuse to cover a very slight risk to myself. People who jump out of planes still get NHS treatment, people who skijump still get NHS treatment. Those are more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet.
Just carry a card saying ninja toughguy, and if I am involved in an accident with you and you get hurt I wont feel at all guilty.
[quote][p][bold]ninja toughguy[/bold] wrote: I don't refuse medical help, I only refuse to cover a very slight risk to myself. People who jump out of planes still get NHS treatment, people who skijump still get NHS treatment. Those are more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet.[/p][/quote]Just carry a card saying ninja toughguy, and if I am involved in an accident with you and you get hurt I wont feel at all guilty. Joker50
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Thu 11 Oct 12

romantic says...

jag99 wrote:
ninja toughguy wrote:
No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.
You make the gross assumption that whatever damage you cause; either to yourself, others or road furniture will just be paid for by the erst of us because you feel it's your right to take these risks. I for one would not be interested in wasting my hard earned tax on you.

Incidentally, Skydivers and the like generally wear appropriate equipment and do their best to avoid causing damage.
I see your point, jag99. However, the jury is still out on whether cycle helmets should be compulsory. Yes, they will save your life if you do fall onto your head, but will not prevent injuries to other parts of the body. For seatbelts, the evidence is far more clear.

The stats from the DFT (I just looked it all up) show that cyclists account for 19,000 out of 204,000 road casualties (meaning dead or injured) last year. Car occupants were 125,000. The damage to people and road furniture is more than 10 times higher for motorists. Should we stop treating injured motorists, as it seems to me they are the ones taking a bigger risk than cyclists?

It drives me as mad as anybody to see some cyclists doing stupid things, but far more of your (and my) hard-earned tax goes on treating motorists - and let´s not even start on the amount paid to look after those who have munched junk food all their lives, taken no exercise etc etc. Like it or not, the health system is based around treating people whether or not they would seem to deserve it or not.

Ninja toughguy is being deliberately provocative on this issue, I think, but overall, far more people are injured by cars than by cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]jag99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninja toughguy[/bold] wrote: No helmets should not be compulsory, neither should seatbelts. We should not be required to protect ourselves! My life, my risk, my choice.[/p][/quote]You make the gross assumption that whatever damage you cause; either to yourself, others or road furniture will just be paid for by the erst of us because you feel it's your right to take these risks. I for one would not be interested in wasting my hard earned tax on you. Incidentally, Skydivers and the like generally wear appropriate equipment and do their best to avoid causing damage.[/p][/quote]I see your point, jag99. However, the jury is still out on whether cycle helmets should be compulsory. Yes, they will save your life if you do fall onto your head, but will not prevent injuries to other parts of the body. For seatbelts, the evidence is far more clear. The stats from the DFT (I just looked it all up) show that cyclists account for 19,000 out of 204,000 road casualties (meaning dead or injured) last year. Car occupants were 125,000. The damage to people and road furniture is more than 10 times higher for motorists. Should we stop treating injured motorists, as it seems to me they are the ones taking a bigger risk than cyclists? It drives me as mad as anybody to see some cyclists doing stupid things, but far more of your (and my) hard-earned tax goes on treating motorists - and let´s not even start on the amount paid to look after those who have munched junk food all their lives, taken no exercise etc etc. Like it or not, the health system is based around treating people whether or not they would seem to deserve it or not. Ninja toughguy is being deliberately provocative on this issue, I think, but overall, far more people are injured by cars than by cyclists. romantic
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

Oh for goodness sake, it's not like I'm deliberately injuring myself. It's a slight risk. We all risk things every day, but with all the health and safety nonsense nowadays we soon won't be allowed to use a butterknife without proper training and safety equipment. By the way most accidents are in the home, and I se no legislation for anything there!
Oh for goodness sake, it's not like I'm deliberately injuring myself. It's a slight risk. We all risk things every day, but with all the health and safety nonsense nowadays we soon won't be allowed to use a butterknife without proper training and safety equipment. By the way most accidents are in the home, and I se no legislation for anything there! ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Thu 11 Oct 12

irememberwhen says...

You really are a stupid ninja numpty!
You really are a stupid ninja numpty! irememberwhen
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

Try replying with a reasoned answer.
Try replying with a reasoned answer. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Sdapeze says...

Sadly, the car has taken over our town and it thinks it owns it. The comments above show just how little tolerance there is amongst car drivers for anybody else. How dare a cyclist take up space on the road? The question is, will our council stand up to them and give our town back to the people?
Sadly, the car has taken over our town and it thinks it owns it. The comments above show just how little tolerance there is amongst car drivers for anybody else. How dare a cyclist take up space on the road? The question is, will our council stand up to them and give our town back to the people? Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 11 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

Well around here I have never ever seen a car driver being aggressive towards a cyclist and they have always left them plenty of room. There must be some less desirable places in the UK causing all these news articles.
Well around here I have never ever seen a car driver being aggressive towards a cyclist and they have always left them plenty of room. There must be some less desirable places in the UK causing all these news articles. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

8:58am Fri 12 Oct 12

wellnow says...

all cyclists should have insurance to use the highway end of.
all cyclists should have insurance to use the highway end of. wellnow
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Fri 12 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

A car weighs a tonne, most cyclists don't. Work out the damage they can cause....
A car weighs a tonne, most cyclists don't. Work out the damage they can cause.... ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Sun 14 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

I'll fire a bicycle through it, then a car, and see which one causes the most damage.
I'll fire a bicycle through it, then a car, and see which one causes the most damage. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

8:39am Mon 15 Oct 12

ninja toughguy says...

Life is no fun if you take it seriously.
Life is no fun if you take it seriously. ninja toughguy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree