I guess if such a rule was imposed, it would have to be restricted to adult size cycles.
With the result I suppose that those who are the worst offenders would simply buy smaller bikes and lift the saddle handlebars to the max.
As far as small children etc, that’s for the lawmakers to find an answer to.
Some kind of rules are needed with the increasing amount of ‘serious cyclists’ around and especially with some calling for them to be allowed to use pavements and with the proposed possibility that any accident between a vehicle and a cycle will be regarded as the motorists fault.
Anyone know the rules where bikes are common place on the roads, e.g. Hollland etc. as they must have been dealing with this issue for a long time.
I assumed he meant that when you have run out of driving time you would regret calling for insurance on cycles as you could have ditched the truck and jumped on your trusty uninsured cycle
del949 most european countries have a system in place called “strict liability” meaning the less vulnerable road user, the vehicle driver, is assumed to be at fault in all collisions. It’s currently under review in Scotland I believe. If the vehicle driver is not at fault it is up to them to prove the fact, not the cyclists/ pedestrians.
if that is the case then a motorist will always be liable to the cyclist…but presumably the cyclist would be liable to the pedestrian!
So do other countries have a form of insurance to protect the pedestrian?
I remember watching one U-tube clip of an accident between a cyclist and a pedestrian on a cycle path which brought the police into action but don’t know what the outcome was.
del949:
I guess if such a rule was imposed, it would have to be restricted to adult size cycles.
With the result I suppose that those who are the worst offenders would simply buy smaller bikes and lift the saddle handlebars to the max.
As far as small children etc, that’s for the lawmakers to find an answer to.
Some kind of rules are needed with the increasing amount of ‘serious cyclists’ around and especially with some calling for them to be allowed to use pavements and with the proposed possibility that any accident between a vehicle and a cycle will be regarded as the motorists fault.
Anyone know the rules where bikes are common place on the roads, e.g. Hollland etc. as they must have been dealing with this issue for a long time.
cyclists are allowed to use the pavement here if they feel it is a safer option than the road/cycle path.
truckman20:
i personally think all cycles should have some form of number plate attached and registered with DVLA,if that happened a couple of years ago i would have been able to call the police with the details of the idiot cyclist who took out my blind spot mirror with his cycle lock on my lorry and all because i had the front to tell him to use the cycle lane beside park lane in london instead of holding drivers up on the road,and no before any cyclist replies i did not swear in any way, all i did was tell him to use the cycle lane and he was the abusive one before he smashed my mirror and rode off
How would you have responded to a car driver politely pointing out to you that your lorry was holding them up and asking you to pull into a layby so they could pass? Genuine question, I’m curious.
its never happened to me yet but i have pulled into a lay by in order to let cars go and have been thanked for it,my point is there was a perfectly good cycle lane beside park lane and he should have been on it, it did not give him the right to do what he did,had he had some kind of plate registered with DVLA i would gladly have seen him go to court as i would any other person who breaks the law
No, I agree he certainly shouldn’t have smashed your mirror or behaved threateningly towards you. However, regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane, he had (and has) the right to use the road if he wants to, without being told to get off it by anyone.
Rhythm Thief:
No, I agree he certainly shouldn’t have smashed your mirror or behaved threateningly towards you. However, regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane, he had (and has) the right to use the road if he wants to, without being told to get off it by anyone.
you are entitled to your opinion as we all are but i have to disagree with you,cycle lanes are put there so cyclists can ride safely,so they have no excuse to be on the road when there are cycle lanes beside the roads,if there are no cycle lanes then the cyclist has no choice but to use the road,that part i agree with and i will avoid them at all costs even if it holds me up,thats life,i realise also that if they use the path they incur the wrath of pedestrians,sometimes they cannot win,but if there is a cycle lane then use it,why do they put themselves in danger
Rhythm Thief:
No, I agree he certainly shouldn’t have smashed your mirror or behaved threateningly towards you. However, regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane, he had (and has) the right to use the road if he wants to, without being told to get off it by anyone.
you are entitled to your opinion as we all are but i have to disagree with you,cycle lanes are put there so cyclists can ride safely,so they have no excuse to be on the road when there are cycle lanes beside the roads,if there are no cycle lanes then the cyclist has no choice but to use the road,that part i agree with and i will avoid them at all costs even if it holds me up,thats life,i realise also that if they use the path they incur the wrath of pedestrians,sometimes they cannot win,but if there is a cycle lane then use it,why do they put themselves in danger
Some (actually, the majority) cycle lanes are full of ■■■■ and potholes. As a cyclist I’d rather ride in the road than in the cycle lanes 99% of the time.
Rhythm Thief:
No, I agree he certainly shouldn’t have smashed your mirror or behaved threateningly towards you. However, regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane, he had (and has) the right to use the road if he wants to, without being told to get off it by anyone.
you are entitled to your opinion as we all are but i have to disagree with you,cycle lanes are put there so cyclists can ride safely,so they have no excuse to be on the road when there are cycle lanes beside the roads,if there are no cycle lanes then the cyclist has no choice but to use the road,that part i agree with and i will avoid them at all costs even if it holds me up,thats life,i realise also that if they use the path they incur the wrath of pedestrians,sometimes they cannot win,but if there is a cycle lane then use it,why do they put themselves in danger
Even a lapsed commuter cyclist like me, who was never a particularly fast cyclist, is capable of riding at 15-20 mph without too much effort. This is way too fast to ride on a shared use path. I can’t find any reference to it on the internet but I’m fairly sure there used to be DfT guidelines which stated that if cyclists were going faster than 12mph, they should use the road. But I might be wrong about that. Anyway, the fact remains - whether you disagree or not - that he has a legal right to use the road and doesn’t need an “excuse” to be there.
Rhythm Thief:
No, I agree he certainly shouldn’t have smashed your mirror or behaved threateningly towards you. However, regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane, he had (and has) the right to use the road if he wants to, without being told to get off it by anyone.
you are entitled to your opinion as we all are but i have to disagree with you,cycle lanes are put there so cyclists can ride safely,so they have no excuse to be on the road when there are cycle lanes beside the roads,if there are no cycle lanes then the cyclist has no choice but to use the road,that part i agree with and i will avoid them at all costs even if it holds me up,thats life,i realise also that if they use the path they incur the wrath of pedestrians,sometimes they cannot win,but if there is a cycle lane then use it,why do they put themselves in danger
Even a lapsed commuter cyclist like me, who was never a particularly fast cyclist, is capable of riding at 15-20 mph without too much effort. This is way too fast to ride on a shared use path. I can’t find any reference to it on the internet but I’m fairly sure there used to be DfT guidelines which stated that if cyclists were going faster than 12mph, they should use the road. But I might be wrong about that. Anyway, the fact remains - whether you disagree or not - that he has a legal right to use the road and doesn’t need an “excuse” to be there.
as i stated in the last few lines, why do they risk their lives,if i was a cyclist i know what i would use,and that is a cycle lane
truckman20:
as i stated in the last few lines, why do they risk their lives,if i was a cyclist i know what i would use,and that is a cycle lane
Fair enough. Fill your boots, and I’ll stand at the side of the cycle lane and cheer you on. But whether you like it or not, and regardless of what you would choose to do, cyclists have a right to use the road and - if they’re going much faster than the pedestrians they’re likely to be sharing any path with - the road is a wiser place for them to be. I ride on the road and I won’t be offering any excuses to anyone asking me why I’m not on the cycle path.
chester:
If any person here present ever rode a BMX or a chopper, hell for that matter a tricycle when you were a youngster, can you not at least start to be able to understand the complexities of legalising cycles who’s going to pay for it.
I hate everyone on pedal bikes.the ones that bug me the most are the ones with the wicker baskets.id chuckle so much if one went into a pot hole and flew off the bike.infact lets start a trend,when you see one beside you pretend your opening your door to give them the fright of there life
nearly there:
I hate everyone on pedal bikes.the ones that bug me the most are the ones with the wicker baskets.id chuckle so much if one went into a pot hole and flew off the bike.infact lets start a trend,when you see one beside you pretend your opening your door to give them the fright of there life
who’s going to pay for it.
I’m off…