OT ..Not a rant..

OT OT Great win last night...(light at the end of a long dark tunnel perhaps?) Let's hope so...

Anyway, this is not a rant but , in teh light of news reports that the Govt are considering something I have said should have happened a long time ago, i.e. cyclist over a certain age must carry insurance and therefore some form of visible identification on their bikes and more importantly (although I did think this already applied) adhere to the rules of the road, particularly regarding speeding/red light running, now that there are so many 20mph speed limits being introduced.

The vast majority of cyclists are sensible and considerate to other road users there are some who consider themselves exempt from following the highway code and put themselves and other at risk. I was nearly injured myself once on Quayside in Newcastle one morning walking to the office when I slightly sidestepped to avoid a dog turd and some Lycra clad idiot travelling silently at high speed came from behind actually hit my laptop bag that was slung over my shoulder. I shouted at him but he just 'rodded me' and pedalled off into the distance.

The article below, unfortunately highlights the bias and arrogance a few cyclists demonstrate. It refers to rants and anti-cyclist motorists but the whole 'flavour' is to allegedly explode the non-existent myth that cyclists are to blame for most accidents. Whilst this is simply not true, the article highlights the split that shows a higher proportion of collisions are down to motorists, and proportion are caused by contributory actions from the cyclist. It is only at the very end he states "only one in five" is solely due to the cyclist

That is 20% . What is not stated is how many caused injury to passengers, drivers or pedestrians and more importantly were those cyclists insured. Not all people carry home public liability insurance and tenancy agreements might be a grey area (I do not know-some legal eagles on here probably do. In any case, victims have to pursue a civil action and the onus is on them to prove the cyclist was at fault.

VED charging for bike riders is a nonsense as cyclists cause little or no wear and tear on roads although cycle paths cost a lot to build and only benefit cyclists. Nevertheless, INHO, a nominal fee to introduce a 'number plate' system and provide third party insurance cover (which should be proportionate to the lower risk posed by cyclists) seems fair as does the penalty points for running red lights/speeding etc.

I reiterate this is not an anti cyclist rant. I applaud those who can and do cycle daily and commute pollution free. If I was younger, fitter and did not live in a very hilly/mountainous area (our house is halfway up a 2km long 1 in 5 hill) I would probably get a bike I loved cycling in my younger days.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

 

Bookending a rant with claims it's not a rant doesn't make it not a rant.

 

If I was posting something that wasn't a rant, it wouldn't occur to me to inform my readers that it wasn't a rant.

 

Just like to point out that rant by definition is speaking shouting ( writing) 'at length in an angry way'. Whilst my OP was 'at length' I was simply trying to make a point that it was not ' angry' merely some observations with a conclusion.
Again, someone posting about the poster rather than commenting on the post. Would be interested to know what you and others think.
IMO it is the only sensible thing that this Govt has proposed for many many years, although given the current huge problems we face as a country, should it not be filed under ' fiddling whilst Rome burns'?

 

Bikes with number plates? Implementation and enforcement of that would be interesting, I bet the police can't wait for that additional burden when they currently can't even attend burglaries etc.
Meanwhile, Halfords and insurance companies will be rubbing their hands with glee - EXCEPT - all it will do is effectively end cycling because the vast majority of non "lycra-clad idiots" will simply stop cycling. It's bloody hard enough to encourage people to cycle as it is never mind putting extra disincentives in the way.

The logical end point to this is all road users (including pedestrians) having the impertinence to go anywhere near a road needing insurance and wearing identification.

Edit; the costs associated with cycle tracks (not only used by cyclists by the way, dog-walkers use them far more round here) are not met from general taxation but sometimes by local authorities and from Sustrans which is a charity. The costs represent a fraction of a percent per metre compared with roads which you are obviously happy to keep paying for.

Apologies to the rest of the BBS users for responding to this anti-cycling rant.

 

IT'S NOT A FUUCKING RANT. OK PAL????

 

See above. But you are you. I, on the other hand, regularly suffer a handful who jump on my posts as though everything is personal and make out like I am angry and bitter all the time. Controversial some of the time I may be, but rarely 'angry'.

 

You referred to one cyclist as a lycra clad idiot, to others as believing they are exempt from using the highway code and called others arrogant. On the morning after we won 3-0 for the first time in an age, on a Barnsley FC forum.

 

Why would it stop cyclists?

You are twisting my words to suit your agenda. A single lycra clad inconsiderate idiot nearly injured me. That does not translate to saying all cyclists are idiots. Since many can afford expensive bikes accessories and are proud to say how much they save compared to car drivers no VED,congestion charges, fuel maintenance, initial cost depreciation they would give up simply because they might have to find couple of pounds a week to cover public liability insurance. In any case if a cyclist can show PL on say household insurance covers them the system could exempt them and they it would have to pay a one-off charge for registration of the bike.

 

Sorry but I'm not going to get into an argument.

 

When you have narrowly avoided injury by an inconsiderate cyclist on a pedestrian promenade who then 'rods you' what would you call him . And yes, whilst cyclists are NOT exempt from the rules some (a minority) seem to think they are. What has posting OT the day after a match got to do with anything. I note others have e.g. Chef tyke. Why not have ago at him?

 

Rather than blaming others perhaps consider you may have some responsibility here?

 

LoL. The old cut and run. So you have no answer to my points. Just answer one question. Why would a nominal fee "end cycling" or give police extra work? That contradicts the views that cyclists are always victims. If they abide by the law where does the Extra work come from for police.

 

Just for clarity, there are no speed limits for cyclists. Speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles, so it's perfectly within the rules of the road to cycle at 25mph in a 20 zone, not that 99% of cyclists would do that.
There is a law against "cycling furiously" so that would probably cover it.

 

Comment just in from the 'lycra clad idiot'. He says you were in the middle of the cycle lane, not looking where you were going, waving your laptop around like a mad man and dancing about with dog s4it on your shoes.

 

You could have a 5 minute argument, but not the full half hour?

 

No I can't.

 

Tekkytyke, join us, it's not so bad once you get used to it.

 

So it's not a rant then....

 

That's not an argument.