Cyclists urged to exercise caution following death of Louise Butler

[Lar Naparka]

I am saying this a cyclist, a motorist, and a pedestrian. I hate to see bikes up on pavements, the road is for bikes. I hate to see cyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. A also hate to see motorists that will graze your elbow with their wing mirror when there is nothing stopping them pulling out into the other side of the road to overtake. And worst of all I personally hate motorists that pulling out of a side road that see you perfectly but pull out anyway because they don't expect you to be moving nearly as quickly as urban traffic. Cyclists have to learn and appreciate that if there is 5 cars in front of you at lights, don't zip up the inside, become the 6th car. When you act like another vehicle you might get treated like one. Motorcyclists do the same thing except on the outside usually.
In summary there are pricks on both sides, however for me motorists slightly shade it as overtaking on blind corners etc is just born out of impatience.

Good post,maddog. I'm all three as well and I can appreciate what you are saying.

[trileacman]

I am saying this a cyclist, a motorist, and a pedestrian.

Good post,maddog. I'm all three as well and I can appreciate what you are saying.

I'm all three as well and I would have to say the incidence of blame is 50/50. The dangerous driving by motorists is more galling as it obviously threatens your life. Dangerous cycling to a motorist is less infuriating but no less dangerous or stupid or amoral.

[thewobbler]

Syferus, unfortunately we aren't all equal. If we were, there wouldn't be different speed limits for lorries, caravans, cars and trailers, nor would there be cycle lanes, nor would HGVs be restricted in towns.

Bennydorano, for future reference, you disagreeing with someone on an message board does not mean they have embarrassed themselves;  but it does make you a pious, condescending twit to think like this. While your point about a minuscule number of cyclists being insured still carries the same weight now. Which is the same as the overall  percentage of cyclists who are insured, i.e. none.

Lar Na, the bottom line is that road use needs rules and regulations. These can't be recommendations, they have to be rules. Otherwise when those school children you describe get knocked over, we actually can work out why it happened, and look for ways to stop it happening again.

[Maguire01]

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Roads are paid for by road tax; if it wasn't for cars no roads would exist. You people should not have rights of access on either, as neither was designed for your unique needs. The sooner cyclists accept this, and restrict their hobby only to routes that are suitable, the world will be a safer place.

There's always one person who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. There is no such thing as road tax. In the south, there's Motor Tax and in the North there's Vehicle Excise Duty. Both taxes are based on emissions. Roads are paid for from general taxation. A driver pays no more for the roads than a cyclist or a pedestrian.

[thewobbler]

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Roads are paid for by road tax; if it wasn't for cars no roads would exist. You people should not have rights of access on either, as neither was designed for your unique needs. The sooner cyclists accept this, and restrict their hobby only to routes that are suitable, the world will be a safer place.

There's always one person who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. There is no such thing as road tax. In the south, there's Motor Tax and in the North there's Vehicle Excise Duty. Both taxes are based on emissions. Roads are paid for from general taxation. A driver pays no more for the roads than a cyclist or a pedestrian.

I'm aware of the official rationale.

But until such times as tractors and lawn mowers are taxed for their emissions, I think it's quite fair to regard it as a tax for taxing a vehicle on a public road.

[bennydorano]

Aye,  just make it up to suit your self as you go along there.

[Orior]

I am saying this a cyclist, a motorist, and a pedestrian. I hate to see bikes up on pavements, the road is for bikes. I hate to see cyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. A also hate to see motorists that will graze your elbow with their wing mirror when there is nothing stopping them pulling out into the other side of the road to overtake. And worst of all I personally hate motorists that pulling out of a side road that see you perfectly but pull out anyway because they don't expect you to be moving nearly as quickly as urban traffic. Cyclists have to learn and appreciate that if there is 5 cars in front of you at lights, don't zip up the inside, become the 6th car. When you act like another vehicle you might get treated like one. Motorcyclists do the same thing except on the outside usually.
In summary there are pricks on both sides, however for me motorists slightly shade it as overtaking on blind corners etc is just born out of impatience.

Good post,maddog. I'm all three as well and I can appreciate what you are saying.

And dont forget the joggers. I once landed on the bonnet of a car as it tore out of an alley towards the road.

I like the motorists that give way to the joggers.

[Maguire01]

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Roads are paid for by road tax; if it wasn't for cars no roads would exist. You people should not have rights of access on either, as neither was designed for your unique needs. The sooner cyclists accept this, and restrict their hobby only to routes that are suitable, the world will be a safer place.

There's always one person who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. There is no such thing as road tax. In the south, there's Motor Tax and in the North there's Vehicle Excise Duty. Both taxes are based on emissions. Roads are paid for from general taxation. A driver pays no more for the roads than a cyclist or a pedestrian.

I'm aware of the official rationale.

But until such times as tractors and lawn mowers are taxed for their emissions, I think it's quite fair to regard it as a tax for taxing a vehicle on a public road.

It's neither 'fair' nor 'correct'. You're wrong, deal with it.

[thewobbler]

Aye,  just make it up to suit your self as you go along there.

Maybe I do have something in common with the cycling community after all.

[Lar Naparka]

Syferus, unfortunately we aren't all equal. If we were, there wouldn't be different speed limits for lorries, caravans, cars and trailers, nor would there be cycle lanes, nor would HGVs be restricted in towns.

Bennydorano, for future reference, you disagreeing with someone on an message board does not mean they have embarrassed themselves;  but it does make you a pious, condescending twit to think like this. While your point about a minuscule number of cyclists being insured still carries the same weight now. Which is the same as the overall  percentage of cyclists who are insured, i.e. none.

Lar Na, the bottom line is that road use needs rules and regulations. These can't be recommendations, they have to be rules. Otherwise when those school children you describe get knocked over, we actually can work out why it happened, and look for ways to stop it happening again.

I completely agree.
What bugged me yesterday was the statement from the RSA spokesperson.
Everything he had to say was true but nothing further will emerge as a result. The death of the young cyclist won't bring about changes of any sort and nothing tangible will be done to make the roads safer for anybody.
I'm not saying that cyclists should be able to use all footpaths at will either. There needs to be some sort of compromise based on common sense.
Right now, vehicles can park on many of the cycle paths we already have.
Some of the paths are over stretches of road that are potholed and/or have gratings that are not properly seated. Many cycle lanes that are laid down on stretches of footpath have bus poles and lamp standards stuck in them.
There seems to be no coordinated road management plan of any sort and everything seems to be done on an ad hoc basis.
For instance, we have had road safety campaigns aimed at kids from time to time. That's grand up to a point but kids aren't the only ones who use the roads.
I can't recall one single campaign of a similar nature directed at drivers of heavy vehicles or car and van drivers etc.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

3 - I don't know how it works in the south but in the north there's no such thing as "road tax." There's Vehicle Excise Duty, none of which is earmarked for roads. It's a pollution tax, all of whicl goes into the general fund.

There's no such thing as "road tax" south of the border either, and this allegation often arises from the latest totally uninformed ignoramus; totally oblivious to the possibility of part-time cyclists too, i.e., a high percentage of cyclists are also motorised vehicle owners, who pay the relevant tax. 

South of the border it's 'Motor Tax', the amount depending on CO2 emissions.

[maddog]

I couldn't give a flying f**k about the tax the insurance or anything else. Where did we lose the common feckin decency and manners ?

[bennydorano]

One thing i would add to this thread - the amount of people you see on phones & driving (while i'm cycling) is absolutely scandalous, seems to be getting worse too from what i see, do the police turn a blind eye or what?

[thebigfella]

Cyclists with headphones in fcuk me off more.... And I'm a cyclist.

[Eamonnca1]

Cyclists with headphones in fcuk me off more.... And I'm a cyclist.

I have a set of bluetooth speakers. Stick them in the bag, pair them with my phone, and head into work in the morning with AC/DC belting out. Gets people's attention on the bike path when I'm approaching from behind.