Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Fair enough. How can we get them to contribute?
To what, a cycling infrastructure ??
Do we charge pedestrians for paths ??
It certainly needs improving. The National Cycle Network is nothing like what it could be. The roads are awful around here, so many pot holes.
If you ride and find potholes, report them to your Council, they are responsible for sorting.
Doesn't this just go to show that there is a lack of education around cycling, amazed people still think that there is "road tax" and that it actually pays for the roads
This is my big beef with speed cameras; they have no discretion, so you can get a ticket for 34 on an empty, straight road in a situation when an (expensive, presumably) experienced traffic officer wouldn't worry in the slightest.
Having been on a speed awareness course (yep, for the above-mentioned 34 in a 30), even the instructor tacitly admitted that it had shag all to do with speed; the whole thing was about awareness (though the guy who announced that a national speed limit dual carriageway would 'always be 60 to me' even at the third time of being told it was 70 really should never be allowed to drive again, just for being a total moron.
I reckon that all laws should be simplified to one offence of 'being an utter twat', with the sentences being proportionate to the degree of twattishness.
One of the biggies for abuse on the roads towards cyclists.
What's the hurry?
Not always about it being a hurry, sometimes they find it fun/exciting judging by some of the driving on the local dual carriageway
Just to add to the speeding talk for a motorway this is not as valid to an extent but the speeding limit's at set as an assement of the road not just the driver's on it and part of that assement is what is on the road if you hit someone at 30 miles an hour and it's there fault i.e. they ran out into a road chasing a ball say they are more likely to survive it while if you where driving at 50 they are a lot more likely to die.
Previous post's have said there is a differene betwen driving safely and speeding there is but the speed limit is set both because of the road conditions where you are and also what's on the road school house's ect.. that you might come into contact with. If your speeding your speeding however you justify it.
Where will you put the number plates ?
What would the tax be ?
How much will it cost to administer - and what is the tax for ?
Wear and tear on the road ? Or Emissions based as per cars - which seems the fairest.
Cake, the exact point Crashie was making was that schools don't get out and kids are not chasing balls at 3am but the limit doesn't change whether you are going past at school kicking out time or in the middle of the night, but clearly one is much worse than the other.
I commute by cycle. I work in the City and live 7.5 miles away in South London, so I cover about 75 miles a week. I wear a helmet, hi-viz reflective clothing and use good lights, both in the dark and at dawn /dusk and in low light conditions. I stop at red lights, as I would if I were in a car. I don't ride in the gutter, but I don't impede traffic unnecessarily either, I pick a safe riding position on the road. I observe traffic laws and I never, EVER, go up the inside of a large vehicle (most cyclist deaths in London occur at junctions, and I think, from memory of reading this recently, that about 8 of the 13 deaths so far this year in London have involved HGVs, and most of those where the HGV has been turning left, not seen the cyclist and crushed them under it's wheels).
None of this sensible behaviour on my part indemnifies me against the risk of cycling on the roads. I'd like to see more segregation of cycles and motorised traffic, given that the cyclist bears most of the risk in the event of a collision, but i accept that it's not always physically possible, given the layout of the city, and even where it is, there is not sufficient political will to devote the significant amounts of cash to it that would be necessary to make it happen on most major routes into town. Instead, I believe that all road users must take greater responsibilty for their safety and that of others. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, cyclist bear the greater risk as they are more vulnerable, but that doesn't always mean that fatalties can be avoided by "following the rules" of the road.
I find that the sideshow of tax/licencing etc that springs up every time a cyclist is killed, to be missing the point entirely. I suspect that a minority of people who may have an axe to grind against cyclists (possibly because of a bad experience with poor cyclists, or because they resent being held up in traffic behind a bike) simply use this as a diversion from the main topic of safety. None of the 13 dead cyclists in London this year would have been saved their fate by a tax on their bike. Mandatory training is a good suggestion, but difficult to police. Perhaps a small licence plate on the back of a bike would work. It'd be ugly as hell, but if it meant that the police could enforce the law more easily by identifying poor cyclists, and if that meant increasing the quality of cycling in general (both IFs) then I'd accept that as a necessary cost.
I don't think it's possible to put into place any system, or any number of measures that could guarantee that no cyclist or motorist would be killed on the roads, but I think educating everyone to be better aware of the hazards on the road, and to drive/ride accordingly would be beneficial, and may save some lives. Once again though, it depends on what political will exists to implement policies, and spend money to train people to travel more safely.
FWIW, I am also a driver and motorcyclist. I am not a fervent anti-car or anti-any particular road user type of cyclist. I would however, like to feel that when I'm on my bike that drivers give me the same consideration that I feel I give to more vulnerable road users.
A range rover approaching starts going over the white lines and is heading towards our central position.
I motioned to stay over onto his left - and he sticks two fingers up at me ? WTF ? So there's me not doing anything wrong and getting abused by a nutter. He has a number plate - and presumably tax. It hasn;t prevented him :
a. driving wrecklessly
b. abusing other road users
Might be bad phasing on my part but if say it's 3 in the morning and your driving past a area with stuff there you never know there might be people in the road. know that could be a weak argument even as I type it. But the law is the law so saying it doesn't matter if I break it because it's only like that because of x z or z and it's 3 in the morning so probably no-one to get hurt can sound weak as well depending on the road? I'm I making any sence been a long day.
I agree its breaking the law, just that I wouldn't perceive it as being as bad as doing the same speed in the middle of the day. Both are "wrong" just not equally so.
At 3am I'm technically not expecting anyone to be out and about. Also I'm not expecting anyone to be doing whatever speed they feel is safe.
However, I have to take into account lots of things, foxes, cars, drunk girls, speeding cars...
Possibly the part that the speed awareness failed to put across to crash hamster is that to be caught by a speed camera doing 34mph you have to have failed to do a few things.
1. Speedos over read by 5-10% so the speedo would have been reading 36-38mph so 'just over' 30mph doesn't cut it with me.
2. Cameras are painted yellow and easy to see and accompanied by lines in the road. What if it had been a child!
3. 30is a limit, not a target. If you aim to drive AT 30, you WILL creep over 30.
Maybe another course due in the near future.
Your not expecting anyone out at 3am? London is virtually a 24 hour city now, with pubs and clubs open all night. Probably the same in numerous other cities across England.
At 3am in Clapham you have to be aware of a highly effeminate pink fixie being pedalled home drunk.
Speedos read 5-10% either way, not always over and are generally frowned upon outside France. At least my kids hate me wearing mine.
My housemate believes that cyclists should cycle AT the speed limit and not below, or they shouldn't be on the road because you're holding up the cars. But then she's a bit of a moron.
Had it have been a child, it would've been stationary on the pavement; the camera wasn't in the middle of the road, now was it?
The camera in question was at the start of a 30 after a derestricted DC; I always lift off from 70 and coast into the 30, meaning I'm covering the brake and doing 30 by the time I get to the camera, except on that day, I got it slightly wrong. No way would an experienced traffic cop have ticketed me, it was a technical infringement...
... but thanks for your expert opinion on my driving, based on a couple of posts on the internet. You must be some talent :P
I can never work out how to get out of the quote box
Does it smell slightly of wee too
Try writing your reply first then dropping it down and posting in the quote afterwards.
VED
Now it is emissions based it drives me mental. Not because we shouldn't be charged for emissions but it is a pointless way to collect it. Cancel it and add a little bit to fuel tax.
We have a v.big 4*4 used for towing loads, moving big stuff and if it snows really bad as we are quite a way to the nearest gritted road. Probably will do 3,000 miles in a year and emit far less overall than a much smaller car used a lot.
Get rid of VED and up fuel duty and save all the collection costs.
This weeks scores
Spent the weekend chuckling
Many here think it is impossible that at least one driver could text and drive without undue risk to other road users. Yet at the same time the majority wouldn't admit to not speeding - effectively agreeing that they speed. But they are all more than capable of doing this with creating unnecessary risk.
So what are the chances of all of runnersworld being able to speed safely but that hypothetically one driver couldn't text and drive instead!
Is shiplifting OK but robbing houses wrong?
Can I fiddle my expenses but not defraud the company?
Is flashing OK?
If you are stuck for the answers ask TimR - he is capable of deciding which laws are OK and which aren't. Maybe he is a judge or a QC or the PM.
Italy's Traffic Lights
Some of the lights in Italy stop gree/red and just flash orange late at night. Approach with caution and cross when safe.
FF - I was pulling your leg on the IAM stuff - I am IAM qualified and don't think it made me a better driver. Driving thousands of miles made me a better driver, IAM just gave me a badge to make me feel superior (joke). I did mine mid-30s. Although it can give you a process to allow you to fully focus when driving conditions are challenging.
Had the winter wheels swapped onto the car today so that when it is icy I can outbrake everyone else and be at the front of the chain crash rather than the back.
I don't know why you persist with this. Whether someone speeds or not doesn't invalidate their opinion on road safety.
You can smoke and think smoking is bad for you, you can eat too much and recognise it makes you fat, just like you might break the speed limit and realise texting whilst driving is dangerous and is a silly thing to do.
I wonder if more people have been killed by a speeding vehicle or one where the driver is texting. Surely speeding is also a silly thing?
It is more like breaking the speed limit and thinking that it is perfectly safe whilst vehemently condeming breaking another driving law.
Unless this is what you meant:
"You can smoke and think smoking is bad for you, you can eat too much and recognise it makes you fat, just like you might break the speed limit and realise that it is putting lives in danger but hey you are a great driver it is OK. You can realise texting whilst driving is dangerous and is a silly thing to do like speeding.
I have repeatedly asked for a list of the other laws that it is OK to break but no-one has come forward with one. So I am guessing that it is only speeding that it is OK to break.
You see the thing is the police and the courts and presumably parliment think that breaking the speed limit is wrong. But you want to defend it.
I'm building up a much clearer picture of your driving abilities, attitude and hazard perception.
You went on a speed awareness course but still don't accept you did anything wrong?