AHT:
And why you think £10 a day is justifiable is anyone’s guess that would add up to £3650 a year higher than any other vehicle
You dont read too well either, where did I say £10 per day?
Whilst riding two abreast may not be illegal, do you really think it is wise?
Wheel Nut:
Whilst riding two abreast may not be illegal, do you really think it is wise?
Sorry i mis understood your post, I assume you mean a one off payment of £10 in effect a registration fee?
The £10 woudnt cover the administration of such a system though and I for one wouuld not be happy having thousands f pounds of mony spent setting up a system when it could be put to better use also who would such a system benifit, as while they may be pillocks the chanchse of them causeing damage to property are very slim hence no claim could be put to them
Why isn’t riding two abreast wise, it makes you more visible on the road and on quiet roads it means vehicle approaching from behind slow down, I notice them then move to the left to allow them to pass when it is safe to do so , rather than them not spotting me till the last minute and squeezing past in an unsafe place at speed before I have had time to adjust my road position accordingly
Also if it isnt safe to pass cyclists while riding two abreast genrally there isnt enough room to pass anyway, as vehicles should allow enough room for the cyclist to avoid potholes and other objects
The highway code states 3ft shoudl be left witch is probably allot less then you would normally leve between your self and other vehicles.
Well done to AHT for sticking to his guns 
.
The fact is, whatever you drive or ride, there is always some blithering idiots that gives a bad name for the rest of us that enjoy that pastime sensibly. How many cyclists (I use this term loosely) have been in a HGV? The few that have suddenly realise just how much more vulnerable they’ve become. How many car drivers have sat in a HGV? Not many, they don’t realise the characteristics of the vehicle and probably never will. How many of us have rode a horse on the road? Again not many, but do we slow down, dip the clutch, and pass with a wide berth? Of course we do, the dangers to the rider are obvious. The problem in this country is that the mindset is one of ‘I’ve got a god given right to be here so ■■■■ you’ and this applies to all road users. Arguing on here ain’t gonna change a thing, nor will legislation. The only way to change attitude is through education, such as the one Boris was spearheading.
As a cyclist, if I want to time trial down the A1, I will. If I want ride 2 abreast on the A9, I will. There’s not much anyone can do about it.
As a motorist, When I see some adrenaline fuelled geyser clad in lycra time trialling down the A1, I’ll give him a wide berth. If I come up to a group cyclecampers on the A9, I’ll drop a few cogs and wait till it’s safe to pass. Hopefully then the same courtesy will be extended to us, who knows it may catch on, but then again some say I live in cloud cuckoo land. 
AHT:
I don’t normally support timetrialing on busy roads and think the rules need to be looked at
Although saying every year someone gets killed is untrue i think there has been one person killed, a 15 year old boy IIRC a coupld of years ago when a female driver overtook him then veared left down a slip road before she was compleatly past
These races are held with police permission and under strict risk assesments
However the UK is one of very few countries where races can be held on open roads, In every other contry they simply close the road.
My brother in law does time trial runs and it’s more interesting with traffic…although many people are plain ignorant of the racers; saw one coffin dodger pull out infront of them on a steep downhill and being so old and past it, was passed by about 10 of them I’ve seen a few who think because they’re on a time trial, they can cross red traffic lights when people are crossing and ignore give way signs. Having said that, the number of marshalls in attendance you’d think it was a grand prix so people have plenty of warning.
Riders taking part in a Time Trial are not racing ,they are trialing.For those who dont know the riders start at one minute intervals so they dont become bunched up as would happen in a Road Race.When I was involved in the sport ,40 years ago we used the main road between Dundee and Perth but we lost the use of the course when the police stopped us from using it on grounds of safety.There was one fatality.
The local club time trials on one of the back roads I use on the way home from work. Plenty of warning signs up and marshals around.
chester:
It appears EastAnglianTrucker has edited the origanal opening post which he worte yesterday 29hrs from the original post, I think his agrument is getting mighty flawed.
I’m not arguing with you. It was my original post and I was in a position to see the facts of the specific situation I wrote about. You and your friend AHT were not.
Neither of you had any knowledge of the state of the cycle track, nor of the competency of the cyclist. If you had bothered to read the OP without your blinkers on, you would and should, have concluded that this was far from some sort of super cyclist, but one who preferred to put his life in danger despite the fact there was a perfectly acceptable, and considerably safer alternative right beside him.
These are the facts. They are inarguable.
It was you and AHT that suggested I was annoyed at his actions. I would refer you to the title of the thread. It was not; Another annoying cyclist… It made the point that cyclists often seem to be ranting about every other road user not recognising their rights, when it is often cyclists themselves who are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Darwin in action in fact!
The presumptuous accusations both you and AHT have made concerning the motives for my OP are precisely the ones I have have come to expect from those who can’t accept the facts. Especially when those facts show the complete fallacy of their often specious arguments.
I still find it difficult to accept that I should bear complete responsibility for the safety of one group of road users who are uniquely catered for, by often having a choice of where to ride. I wish I and other truck drivers, had the seemingly unlimited public funds lavished on facilities for commercial vehicles, that are lavished on building the cycle paths you are so condescendingly dismissive of.
The arrogance to then hear cyclists, such as you and AHT, preaching to me that, because I have a licence and they don’t, they will ride how and where they want, whilst relying on my training and skill to keep them safe, regardless of how much it inconveniences me, and irrespective of the expensive alternative cycling facilities, specifically built to keep them safe, and all because it is your inalienable right to use the road, is breathtaking in the extreme.
I am simply amazed that you cannot see how that might ■■■■ people off! But then again, given the attitudes you have displayed here on this thread, maybe it is entirely understandable.
It is also highly indicative of the complete lack of respect and disregard many, many cyclists have for the equivalent rights of other road users.
AHT:
Cyclists do not have to carry insurance as they are deemed a very low risk to other road users…
What a completely facetious, not to mention arrogant comment. Perhaps cyclists should be forced to have insurance to compensate the horrific injuries they can, and often do, cause to innocent pedestrians then!
Yet again, I will explain.
All Myself and AHT did was give a few reasons why a cyclist may have not decided to use a cyclepath, which is where the toys went flying!
We have never mentioned if the original cyclist should or should not have been, we just listed reasons why some cyclists may choose not to.
You saw the cyclist in the distance as you rapidly approached him so he was visible?
I and other keen cyclists on this thread have also agreed if you are cycling and are not visible, no or dull lights no hi-viz then you deserve all you get.
You saw him, they was two lanes, you moved over, not really an issue at all then.
chester:
Yet again, I will explain.All Myself and AHT did was give a few reasons why a cyclist may have not decided to use a cyclepath, which is where the toys went flying!
We have never mentioned if the original cyclist should or should not have been, we just listed reasons why some cyclists may choose not to.
You saw the cyclist in the distance as you rapidly approached him so he was visible?
I and other keen cyclists on this thread have also agreed if you are cycling and are not visible, no or dull lights no hi-viz then you deserve all you get.
You saw him, they was two lanes, you moved over, not really an issue at all then.
I see you’re very adept at backpedaling as well then!
EastAnglianTrucker:
I wish I and other truck drivers, had the seemingly unlimited public funds lavished on facilities for commercial vehicles, that are lavished on building the cycle paths you are so condescendingly dismissive of.You do they are called roads and motorways and billinons are spent on them every year
EastAnglianTrucker:
What a completely facetious, not to mention arrogant comment. Perhaps cyclists should be forced to have insurance to compensate the horrific injuries they can, and often do, cause to innocent pedestrians then!
I think there have been about two cases of pedestrians being killed by cyclists in the last 5 years or so
Compare that to how many people have been killed by vehicles
Or even dogs, You will be saying pet owners should have compulsary insurance next
I have never suggested that some cyclists are not to blame for there actaions i have simply twisted my posts to suggest that i am.
I was mearly pointing out some facts that you may have missed
And i dont know why you keep sugegsting that cylists are being arrogant by using roads, Not everyone feels the need to drive everywere
Generally lorries have to be driven everywhere.
AHT:
You do they are called roads and motorways and billinons are spent on them every year
Well can we have an alternative then, the same as cyclists do in many places?
AHT:
I think there have been about two cases of pedestrians being killed by cyclists in the last 5 years or so
Compare that to how many people have been killed by vehicles
As I suspected, your “facts” are not facts at all, but what you think sounds good.
From a cyclists website: (Source:http://adrianfitch.wordpress.com/)
Over the same period,(the last 10 years) 364,000 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles, almost 76,000 (or 21%) of them seriously, while cyclists injured just over 2,600 with roughly the same proportion (22%) being considered serious.
The big difference of course is that motor vehicles tend to be a little bigger and travelling a little faster than the average cyclist. When you look at the relationship between deaths and serious injuries you see that for every ten serious injures caused by motor vehicles there is one death whereas for every 19 serious injuries caused by cyclists there is one death.
Even your own advocates admit that cyclists cause more serious injuries to pedestrians that motor vehicles do!
AHT:
Or even dogs, You will be saying pet owners should have compulsary insurance next
Actually, yes I do!
AHT:
I have never suggested that some cyclists are not to blame for there actaions i have simply twisted my posts to suggest that i am.
Are you drunk?
AHT:
I was mearly pointing out some facts that you may have missed
I don’t believe your “facts” are facts. And you pointing out your opinions as facts, as shown above, isn’t really valid in this context.
AHT:
And i dont know why you keep sugegsting that cylists are being arrogant by using roads, Not everyone feels the need to drive everywere
I did not say that cyclists using roads were arrogant. It’s the ones that use roads and take little or no responsibility for their own safety that are arrogant.
As mrx has so eloquently stated in the post following yours, generally speaking, lorries have to be driven everywhere!
EastAnglianTrucker:
chester:
Yet again, I will explain.All Myself and AHT did was give a few reasons why a cyclist may have not decided to use a cyclepath, which is where the toys went flying!
We have never mentioned if the original cyclist should or should not have been, we just listed reasons why some cyclists may choose not to.
You saw the cyclist in the distance as you rapidly approached him so he was visible?
I and other keen cyclists on this thread have also agreed if you are cycling and are not visible, no or dull lights no hi-viz then you deserve all you get.
You saw him, they was two lanes, you moved over, not really an issue at all then.
I see you’re very adept at backpedaling as well then!
Please read my first post to your original thread,
Backpedaling gets your nowhere on a bike unless its a unicycle 
EastAnglianTrucker:
[AHT:
I think there have been about two cases of pedestrians being killed by cyclists in the last 5 years or so
Compare that to how many people have been killed by vehiclesAs I suspected, your “facts” are not facts at all, but what you think sounds good.
From a cyclists website: (Source:http://adrianfitch.wordpress.com/)
Over the same period,(the last 10 years) 364,000 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles, almost 76,000 (or 21%) of them seriously, while cyclists injured just over 2,600 with roughly the same proportion (22%) being considered serious.
The big difference of course is that motor vehicles tend to be a little bigger and travelling a little faster than the average cyclist. When you look at the relationship between deaths and serious injuries you see that for every ten serious injures caused by motor vehicles there is one death whereas for every 19 serious injuries caused by cyclists there is one death.
Even your own advocates admit that cyclists cause more serious injuries to pedestrians that motor vehicles do!
That article suggests nothing of the sort infact the statistics clearly state that 1 in 10 accidents involving cars and pedestrians lead to death while 1 in 19 involving bikes lead to death nearly half and also that there were 76,000 injuries cause by cyclists verses 364,000 caused by motor vehicles
You are compleatly missinterpriting that article that is talking about the lightly hood that a serious injury causes death witch is a very abstract statistic
Extrapalating that data
If you do the maths
2,600 injuries in 10 years
260 a year
22% serious so 57.2
of those serious injuries about 1 in 20 resulted in death you end up with 2.86/year
so there are about 2 or 3 deaths a year that involve a cyclists witch is a tiny (although i accecpt its 2 or 33 to many)number even that doesnt suggest that the cyclist involved was in any way to blame for the accident
Certainly one i head about was not the clclists fault it was a drunk teenager trying to play chicken and despite his best efforts to aviod her she still managed to jump in front of him.
is entierly possible that there have been no deaths where the cyclist was at fault
Anyhow i think that proves the point that cyclist pose very little danger to other road users
And im sure if you compared the cost of damage to 3rd part property caused by cyclists to that caused by cars you would get again a very tiny percentage. And i for one do not want to live in a world where people need insurance to be able to live
Also i see the childish remark about trucks needing to be driven.
My point was that cycling is as much a valid means of transport as any other
me >old truck driver and sometimes cyclist. my approach ?>when i go out on my pushbike , i am CONSCIOUS of many road /vehicle facts/statistics, the one foremost in my mind is >“if i am involved in an"ARGUEMENT” with prob. any other vehicle i will almost certainly come off worse , and i ride accordingly. simple, i think ,? a walk round a orthopedic ward is enough to prove that point (if proof is needed) all other road users are looney"s , and out to get me " DRIVE/CYCLE SAFE.
digicardrebel:
me >old truck driver and sometimes cyclist. my approach ?>when i go out on my pushbike , i am CONSCIOUS of many road /vehicle facts/statistics, the one foremost in my mind is >“if i am involved in an"ARGUEMENT” with prob. any other vehicle i will almost certainly come off worse , and i ride accordingly. simple, i think ,? a walk round a orthopedic ward is enough to prove that point (if proof is needed) all other road users are looney"s , and out to get me " DRIVE/CYCLE SAFE.
Thats a good attitude to have and the same one i use while cycling and driving for that matter
THe trouble is the more you use that the more time you spend dodging idiots
AHT:
You are compleatly missinterpriting that article that is talking about the lightly hood that a serious injury causes death witch is a very abstract statistic
Wrong end of the stick again AHT. I don’t think I am misinterpreting the figures.
What I should have included was the word “proportionately” even though the quoted numbers did actually demonstrate proportionality. I was referring to the fact in the quote, which shows that proportionately, motor vehicles and cyclists cause a very similar number of serious injuries to pedestrians in percentage terms. (21% vs. 22%) In actual fact, as you can see, cyclists cause a slightly higher percentage of serious injuries to pedestrians. (Not in actual numbers, but in percentage terms I hasten to add.)
The figures show, (and they’re not my figures, but those of a cycling advocate) that cyclists are actually more likely to cause serious injury to pedestrians than motor vehicles, and despite the fact cyclists present a much reduced profile compared to a motor vehicle, and generally travel at considerably lower speeds, that is a pretty shocking statistic.
I might add that the article in which these statistics were published is entitled: Are cyclists a bigger threat to pedestrians than motor vehicles? (Source: tinyurl.com/yhbc5km)
AHT:
Thats a good attitude to have and the same one i use while cycling and driving for that matter
THe trouble is the more you use that the more time you spend dodging idiots
Here I completely agree with you. The difference between us is, I have to do it for a living, and whilst many are a variety of different road users, a few of those idiots happen to be cyclists, one of which was the subject of my OP.
Which conveniently brings this thread full circle I believe.
That is the risk of causing serious injury in a colision witch is understandable, the actal risk of a collision happening in the first place witch is the important statistic is orders of magnitude lower
Allot of this is probably to do with the deffinition of serious injury witch in its self is very vague and also the fact that colisions that don’t result in serious injury are in allot of cases not reported
also I really can’t be botherd to dig into these statistics to find out how they were generated.
People may see a low speed (<10mph) colision with a bicycle as more serious as it will probably hurt more then with a car witch has a more forgiving shape at low speeds.
in any case the above percentages have absulutly no relevence to the subject witch is about the overall probability of a cyclist actally casing significant loss teh a 3rd party
Anyway as you have said this thread has come full circle and i can’t see it going anywere so i think we should agree to bring it to an end as i really dont think it has much to do wtih road transport any more unless anyone has any other input
We could discuss the menace which is the electric invalid scooter, which a lot of fat truckers who dont exercise on bicycles will sooner or later be coming accustomed to! 