Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Diamond Black Geezer]

I'd advocate a ten-year cycle of driving brush-up. Not a test per se, but just like a Pass Plus or a CBT you can't really fail, unless you actually try and kill someone, so to speak. Just a refresher, it's amazing how many people make driving mistakes because then genuinely don't realise some very basic rules of the road, not because they actually don't care.

It's these sorts of details of the rules of the road which are ideal candidates for such a refresher course.

[Nick W]

I'd advocate a ten-year cycle of driving brush-up. Not a test per se, but just like a Pass Plus or a CBT you can't really fail, unless you actually try and kill someone, so to speak. Just a refresher, it's amazing how many people make driving mistakes because then genuinely don't realise some very basic rules of the road, not because they actually don't care.

It's these sorts of details of the rules of the road which are ideal candidates for such a refresher course.

Doing this for everybody would soon degenerate into the usual bureaucratic bun fight. But sending a randomly selected percentage of licence renewers for an evaluation wouldn't be too hard to do. Every  licence renewal should also be dependent on a current eye test.

[Doctor Gollum]

Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train.  Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.

I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence.  Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.

And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say.  As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists.  I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.

At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely.  Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules.  If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly?  Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway

I agree with the bulk of your statement, but having super bright lights arguably makes other cyclists etc around you LESS visible by virtue of glare. Deliberately dazzling other road users is equally as much of an offence as using foglights in clear conditions.

[Gaffers]

Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train.  Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.

I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence.  Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.

And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say.  As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists.  I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.

At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely.  Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules.  If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly?  Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway

I agree with the bulk of your statement, but having super bright lights arguably makes other cyclists etc around you LESS visible by virtue of glare. Deliberately dazzling other road users is equally as much of an offence as using foglights in clear conditions.

It was more of a tongue in cheek comment as I don't really know for sure.  I don't deliberately point my lights up at an intensity that will cause issues but the light I use is very bright (and legal).  As long as it is pointed to the ground in front of me I figure there is not much more I can do, not that being very visible makes any difference to one or two motorists who, unfathomably, cannot see a 20 stone cyclist in daylight with flashing lights wearing hi-vis.

[Doctor Gollum]

Reading it did make me wonder if someone has collected stats on motorbicyclists getting pulled out on pre and post drls

[RobG]

Riding on an empty crossing

Cycling on a pedestrian crossing gives the motorist the right to swerve around said cyclist and proceed as normal.

[Gaffers]

Riding on an empty crossing

Cycling on a pedestrian crossing gives the motorist the right to swerve around said cyclist and proceed as normal.

If you say so.

[RobG]

Illegal: Cycle across Zebra crossings


Zebra crossings are for pedestrians only. If you are on your bike, you don’t count as a pedestrian, so you’ll need to dismount and cross. You can however cross on Toucan crossings, which are the button controlled traffic lights that allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross on the green signal.

Equally, in law if you did cycle across a zebra crossing then you are not a ‘pedestrian’ so a motorist who fails to give way to you won’t be committing an offence if they cut in front of you – case law precedent if you are interested is Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR.

[Gaffers]

I never said it wasn't wrong or illegal but you mentioned pedestrian crossing, not zebra.  There is a difference in that some pedestrian crossings are also shared use and distinguishing them is not always evident to a motorist.

But if you wish to put your license/freedom in jeopardy to put said cyclist in danger by swerving/not giving way/deliberately putting their safety at risk....I'm not able to stop you nor am I going to be able to change your opinion toward cyclists.

[Rods2]

About time too

Also about time the police stopped and fined cyclists using a pedestrian crossing as an extension of a designated cycle path

Agree, two types of pelican crossing where I cycle. Pedestrian only, which if on a cycle path have a 'cyclists dismount' sign and those that are designated pedestrian and cyclist crossing, my nearest is where a cycle path crosses a 60mph road and that has a green light showing a pedestrian and a bicycle. I always walk across if the former. What would be good is for the 10-20% of motorists that think stopping at a pedestrian crossing with red lights, is optional, learn that it is mandatory! Had a particularly nasty near miss recently at the Sandhurst Tesco Meadows roundabout. Speed limit is 30mph, a van and other traffic had stopped at the red light on the dual carriage inside lane and I was part way across and could not see until at the offside edge of the van, that a car on the outside lane doing about 60mph was making no attempt to stop, had to pull back to avoid an accident, where they made no attempt to slow down or stop.

I would also like to see a clampdown on cyclists on paths solely for pedestrians as this a common problem in Sandhurst, where some are cycle paths and the narrower ones are not.

[78bex]

it`s a ruddy bun fight, no one will give way or gives a toss about the other road users. I edged out of a driveway blocking a cycle path for all of 10 seconds. The lycra loon up the road started hooting & screaming at me when he was still 25 metres away. No, he was not interested in giving way, the drama queen.
I screamed back him "Look behind you" & he did  Ohh panto season all year round 

[korum]

Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train.  Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.

I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence.  Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.

And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say.  As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists.  I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.

At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely.  Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules.  If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly?  Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway

I agree with the bulk of your statement, but having super bright lights arguably makes other cyclists etc around you LESS visible by virtue of glare. Deliberately dazzling other road users is equally as much of an offence as using foglights in clear conditions.

It was more of a tongue in cheek comment as I don't really know for sure.  I don't deliberately point my lights up at an intensity that will cause issues but the light I use is very bright (and legal).  As long as it is pointed to the ground in front of me I figure there is not much more I can do, not that being very visible makes any difference to one or two motorists who, unfathomably, cannot see a 20 stone cyclist in daylight with flashing lights wearing hi-vis.

Maybe you could try these 

https://www.firebox.com/Bike-Balls/p7358

[aaronjb]

Maybe you could try these 

https://www.firebox.com/Bike-Balls/p7358

Some people here seem so stressed I think they might need a pair of these instead: http://www.imaginarte.com/niceballs-eng

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Hmmm.... how to ease tension....



Is there a God? Discuss 

[Bigron]

This might be more effective:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdptkx80pnlx8l1/MAMIL%20destroyer%21.jpg?dl=0

Ron.