156 comments Add a comment
I cycle around town and country for recreation and commuting. It is faster, more reliable and/or less faff than the alternatives, but I am tired of getting a bad rap. I respect other path/road users where it matters, but I do not like to waste my time and pedalling effort for no good reason.
Why should the law make me stop for red lights? Obviously if the junction is occupied because it is the turn of other traffic or pedestrians then fair enough, but otherwise it's stupid. Why should I sit like a lemon at an empty junction while traffic builds up behind me, waiting to squash me in the free-for-all when it goes green? All concerned are better off if I am already out of the way! Also numerous non-UK places permit inside-turn-on-red, giving way to other vehicles and pedestrians of course. It is even easier for a cyclist than a car to nip left. I get honked but the car drivers are cross because they are stuck waiting, not because I am actually causing them or anyone else any inconvenience. So it is a daft law and I am pleased that the police cannot ever be bothered to punish me in any terribly onerous way.
Also pedestrians whine about being "nearly killed" on cycle/footpaths when all that has happened is that a cyclist (me) has gone past at a perfectly safe, stoppable speed, but the pedestrian jumped out of their skin because I have "appeared out of nowhere" (i.e. they weren't paying attention and ignored the ringing and clicking sounds of my approach). Is it really too much to ask that people are aware of what is going on around them? I have to keep a look out for cars on a road or I'd get squashed, why shouldn't they keep a look out for cycles on a cycle path? When there is a whole gaggle of them, or a pair of pushchairs, or a dog on a lethal extendable lead, it would be no harder for them to keep to one side of our nice three-metre-wide purpose-built path and routinely leave a bicycle-sized gap than it is to block the entire width, and then they wouldn't have to be coaxed out of the way in the first place. Even on the bits which have a big picture of a BICYCLE on one side and a PEDESTRIAN on the other, they still walk wherever and tut at me. I am usually nice about it, slow down, say thank you, but they are a pain. To keep myself harmlessly amused I have a mental fantasy in which my bicycle is equipped with heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles which home in on dogs' rears from fifty yards back, and imagine their looks of canine surprise at the moment of impact.
And neither pedestrians nor car drivers like it when I cycle over a pedestrian crossing. Why not? What possible difference can it make whether I am pushing my bike or sitting on it, except that the former is less convenient for me? As far as I am concerned if I am going slower than 5 mph then I am a pedestrian and if faster then I am a vehicle. A wheelchair is more of an obstacle than I am! All I want to do is cross the road to turn right, I wouldn't have to use the lights at all if there weren't cars zooming past ignoring my "please let me into the middle" hand signal (and then, sometimes, turning sharply left having "forgotten" that I am there).
I think that being a cyclist has made me a more alert and considerate driver and pedestrian and I don't value anyone's opinion about cyclists unless (a) they are both a cyclist AND a driver/pedestrian, or (b) the cyclist they are whining about has actually done something which violates safety or common sense rather than just broken some rule designed for a ton of high speed killer metal, not a bike.
By: Grumbleweed
Leave a comment
Cycling nuisances are a common law misdemeanor, a criminal act. It should be reported to the police in charge of the roads to take action for the pedestrians' sake.
The pavements commission (whatever else it is known by) through its enforcers is responsible for seeing to it that anyone causing danger and/or annoyance that entails exposing pedestrians to personal danger, to the likelihood of injury to their persons, property and peaceful enjoyment of the pavement/sidewalk and other road users can be held liable to prosecution.
As long as you, the pedestrians, tolerate such anti-social cyclists and do nothing to report the matter to the the police, you are only letting them get away with it, this intolerable conduct. How well it can be policed depends on the nature and quality of the city's policemen and women. I personally will not tolerate what damage these 'cyclists' do to our well-kept pathways .
Lastly, write a letter to your counciller of the town/city hall, and bring the police to book if they do not intend to stamp-out this menace. That should make sure the police come down on them like a tun of bricks.
Yes, a cyclist is far less likely to kill another person than a motorist but it is hardly "virtually impossible". On pavements alone cyclists have caused the death of at least four people that I am aware of in the last five years. There are, of course, more deaths in other countries and these are just those that I know about.
The potential to kill surely has nothing to do with VED though.
Insurance -is- virtually required, for the cyclist anyway. The risk of injury from the millions of potential reckless drivers on the road is a cause for concern for a cyclist, and they often have to maintain an awareness far above that of a driver, which is why many find it wise to invest in life insurance, because a cyclist isn't protected by a large steel or Aluminium plated shell.
As for fuel tax, that would be absolutely absurd. The only fuel a bicycle requires is the food the cyclist needs to fuel his/herself. No petrol, no tax.
And finally, an MOT is also pointless. Most cyclists repair their own bikes, because a monkey could fix one, and if not, they pay an extortionate amount for a "trained" bike engineer to do it for them.
It will be there in the next version. Oops, let that slip.. Sorry, due for some upheaval again I'm afraid, hopefully get some of the features I'd intended with this release in.
Bicycles should bear visible identification so that they are accountable. Cyclists abuse the law and other road users because they know they are not identifiable. In one word, they are cowards.
They would not be so cowardly if they were accountable
Insurance not needed as they cause so little damage to person or property.
Petrol duty not paid because they don't use petrol!
MOT not needed because chance of bicycle defect causing injury so low.
Simples!
Fed up Pedestrian
I totally agree with everything you say.
collar,
Cyclists don't actually cause any damage to pavements, unlike car drivers who park on them. The police are not interested if anyone reports an altercation with a pavement cyclists unless actual broken bones are involved.