Why Are Many Drivers So Anti-Cyclist In This Country?

[Unleash The Nade]

Get a grip man. It was a joke. I'd never intentionally maim a cyclist, my car is less than a year old and I'd probably hurt myself on my bike.

Stonedsailor.

Take time to read some of the posts "both" of you have written on this thread.

Please do yourself a wee favour mate and get help

[stonedsailor]

Stonedsailor.

Take time to read some of the posts "both" of you have written on this thread.

Please do yourself a wee favour mate and get help

Be all things to all people. I don't expect you to understand it.

ETA- You never really took that post seriously did you? Are you that stupid or are you trying a wee trolling session of your own? After al you created this thread solely for trolling, I'll give you a tip. If you want to troll at least know what your subject matter is and the rules surrounding it.

[Unleash The Nade]

Be all things to all people. I don't expect you to understand it.

ETA- You never really took that post seriously did you? Are you that stupid or are you trying a wee trolling session of your own? After al you created this thread solely for trolling, I'll give you a tip. If you want to troll at least know what your subject matter is and the rules surrounding it.

Like I said, read back some of the posts and see how your personality has fluctuated from one moment to another.

We all like a wee bit of a laugh and a joke on here, but I really think for your own well being, you should get help.

I'll leave you to talk that one over with yourselves

[stonedsailor]

Like I said, read back some of the posts and see how your personality has fluctuated from one moment to another.

We all like a wee bit of a laugh and a joke on here, but I really think for your own well being, you should get help.

I'll leave you to talk that one over with yourselves

Aye very good, post 481, do you have an opinion to this real life incident?

[jock001]

I do. I think it's an irrelevancy you posted to disguise the fact you let your true self be shown.

[stonedsailor]

I do. I think it's an irrelevancy you posted to disguise the fact you let your true self be shown.

Go practice on a teenage mothers forum. Your bants are shocking.

[Hedgecutter]

Joking aside.

What do you think about cyclists having to pass tests or medicals? The reason I ask is that a guy in one of the local towns here took a fit whilst in control of a bicycle on the street in town here. He was 40 odd years old and had had his licence revoked on medical grounds, epilepsy. He took a header face first into the tarmac and is sadly no longer with us. Luckily no-one else was involved. Had he been banned from cycling the likelyhood is that he would still be here. Had he taken his fit on the busy A9 which he travelled daily the likely-hood is that he'd have taken out some more with him.

Davey was a great lad, never wore lycra either. Cycled with a rucksack containing 20kg of weights for miles every day. He was not allowed to drive a car but was a bike. Stupid, in my opinion.

Depends on the route I guess. On the A9 you may have more of a case if a crash could cause a pile up but to prevent someone from using footpaths is just daft imo. I have very mild epilepsy but regardless of the extremity, it's enough to stop me getting a licence. If I did go dizzy for a moment then it's much easier to stop a bike and get off the road / path than a car, plus you can do a lot more damage with a car. Basically, the risk of hurting others with a bike is much less, probably as much as a hayfever suffer hurting someone in a car due to uncontrollable sneezing.

[stonedsailor]

Depends on the route I guess. On the A9 you may have more of a case if a crash could cause a pile up but to prevent someone from using footpaths is just daft imo. I have very mild epilepsy but regardless of the extremity, it's enough to stop me getting a licence. If I did go dizzy for a moment then it's much easier to stop a bike and get off the road / path than a car, plus you can do a lot more damage with a car. Basically, the risk of hurting others with a bike is much less, probably as much as a hayfever suffer hurting someone in a car due to uncontrollable sneezing.

The risk is just as great when you consider that motor vehicle drivers would be forced into taking evasive action. The knock on effect of a push-bikist falling into a stream of traffic after a medical incident could be devastating.

Push-bikists must never cycle on footpaths according to law so I don't understand what your point is there.

Surely some sort of licencing system for all vehicles on the road is sensible?

[jock001]

Would you allow children to use bikes or are they too irresponsible to operate such dangerous equipment?

[Hedgecutter]

The risk is just as great when you consider that motor vehicle drivers would be forced into taking evasive action. The knock on effect of a push-bikist falling into a stream of traffic after a medical incident could be devastating.

Push-bikists must never cycle on footpaths according to law so I don't understand what your point is there.

Surely some sort of licencing system for all vehicles on the road is sensible?

Bicycles themselves are not nearly as dangerous when compared to motors in a collision which is the main danger and reason why car licences are taken away. Any post-crash whataboutery also applies to other car incidents (and children running out onto the road - should children always be on some form of leash when near roads?) so the risk with everything taken into account is certainly not the same.

However, I shouldn't have said 'footpaths' as such right enough but I was thinking more about the public paths around the back from me etc which are all fair game for cyclists (and have no cars to worry about a pile up).

the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gives everybody the right to non motorised access to most land in Scotland, including roads, tracks, and paths.

Would you allow children to use bikes or are they too irresponsible to operate such dangerous equipment?

Such an obvious point that I missed it.

[stonedsailor]

Would you allow children to use bikes or are they too irresponsible to operate such dangerous equipment?

I have said already, it is my belief that everybody should be forced to gain a qualification such as a deeper than present National Cycling Proficiency test before being allowed near a road. This certificate should be revocable.

Yes they are too irresponsible, without training, given the current levels of traffic on the roads today.

[stonedsailor]

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cyclist_schemes.pdf

A nice wee read.

Basic Skills Training Courses

Basic skills training courses for children under nine years

may be conducted, depending on local circumstances and

policy. However, these will be off-road courses and focus

on developing bicycle control skills. It is recommended

that it is made clear to parents that this type of course is

not intended to prepare the trainees for riding on their

own on the road in traffic.

[Hedgecutter]

I have said already, it is my belief that everybody should be forced to gain a qualification such as a deeper than present National Cycling Proficiency test before being allowed near a road. This certificate should be revocable.

Yes they are too irresponsible, without training, given the current levels of traffic on the roads today.

Even with any qualification, kids would still be allowed to use a bike but not a motor because the former aren't nearly as high risk (the intended point which you've obviously completely missed).

[stonedsailor]

Bicycles themselves are not nearly as dangerous when compared to motors in a collision which is the main danger and reason why car licences are taken away. Any post-crash whataboutery also applies to other car incidents (and children running out onto the road - should children always be on some form of leash when near roads?) so the risk with everything taken into account is certainly not the same.

However, I shouldn't have said 'footpaths' as such right enough but I was thinking more about the public paths around the back from me etc which are all fair game for cyclists (and have no cars to worry about a pile up).

the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gives everybody the right to non motorised access to most land in Scotland, including roads, tracks, and paths.

Such an obvious point that I missed it.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf

the risk is the chance, high or low, that somebody could be harmed by these

and other hazards, together with an indication of how serious the harm could be.

I do not think you understand the meaning of the word risk properly. Risk is not level of chance but just that the chance exists coupled with the possibility of how serious harm could be.

The highest level of risk is fatality, there is a higher risk of fatality where bicycles are concerned. Children on the road are a hazard, a big one. To eliminate risk you eliminate hazards. Not all hazards can be eliminated but they can be reduced as far as possible, training is a very important step in reducing hazard.

[stonedsailor]

Even with any qualification, kids would still be allowed to use a bike but not a motor because the former aren't nearly as high risk (the intended point which you've obviously completely missed).

Again you are misusing the word risk.

[Hedgecutter]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf

I do not think you understand the meaning of the word risk properly. Risk is not level of chance but just that the chance exists coupled with the possibility of how serious harm could be.

The highest level of risk is fatality, there is a higher risk of fatality where bicycles are concerned. Children on the road are a hazard, a big one. To eliminate risk you eliminate hazards. Not all hazards can be eliminated but they can be reduced as far as possible, training is a very important step in reducing hazard.

Fine, there is a much smaller chance of a bicycle causing serious injury in a collision. Using risk in it's proper term however, somebody crossing the road could cause an accident with the worst outcome being the same - fatality. If we wanted to reduce risk as far as possible then we'd enforce America's jaywalking law but we deem it safe enough.

I've no idea why you keep throwing training into this though. If you're saying that folk with epilepsy shouldn't be cycling, what difference does it make if they're properly trained or not?

[stonedsailor]

I really cannot believe the amount of people arguing against suggestions that making our roads safer is a good thing. Is it because it will inconvenience you in some way? Would you allow your child to attend a firing range without the appropriate training?

This thread has shown that the levels of understanding amongst the general population is deplorable, training would improve that.

Road users, of any ilk, are the danger on the road. Road users ignorant of the rules, etiquette and hazards are dangerous and these are the ones who have problems with other road users.

Stubborn road users like UTN who have a set belief that cannot be altered even when presented with the facts are the worst. FFS just because I am well read on the rules of the road he resorts to calling me names like statto etc instead of looking into his own shortcomings.

The question was "Why are many drivers anti cyclist" the answer is that it is not a driver/cyclist issue. It is a good road user/bad road user issue. Good road users have problems with bad road users. If you are having problems with people getting frustrated at you, look in the mirror and you will find the root of the problem.

[Hedgecutter]

I really cannot believe the amount of people arguing against suggestions that making our roads safer is a good thing. Is it because it will inconvenience you in some way?

Removing motorised vehicles from our roads would make them much safer and undoubtedly reduce fatalities. I can only presume you're all for that then?

[stonedsailor]

Fine, there is a much smaller chance of a bicycle causing serious injury in a collision. Using risk in it's proper term however, somebody crossing the road could cause an accident with the worst outcome being the same - fatality. If we wanted to reduce risk as far as possible then we'd enforce America's jaywalking law but we deem it safe enough.

I've no idea why you keep throwing training into this though. If you're saying that folk with epilepsy shouldn't be cycling, what difference does it make if they're properly trained or not?

You are more likely to be injured if you are the operator of a bicycle than the driver of a car in a collision. The risk is greater for a cyclist yet the level of competency required to operate a bicycle legally is null. The level of risk is higher for a cyclist than a driver.

The epilepsy thing ties in nicely, Davey was a very proficient and experienced cyclist. He took little fits regularly and lost his motor vehicle licence for that. Davey died because his face was splattered into the road having had a fit. It happened just outside the pub, Davey was not drinking, and friends of mine have been left traumatised by the injuries they saw. If Davey had not been allowed to cycle the likelihood is that I'd be greeting him in town today as he would not have fallen off his bike at approximately 30 miles per hour. He was not fit to drive and obviously he was not fit to cycle, a licencing system would have prevented his death.

[stonedsailor]

Removing motorised vehicles from our roads would make them much safer and undoubtedly reduce fatalities. I can only presume you're all for that then?

No but better training would not be objected to by me. Renewing licences periodically would be a good idea. I have to revalidate my sea going certificates every 5 years, my medical every 2 years. A similar system for drivers would reduce risk.