New Highway Code rules.

[barryd]

We all have different experiences though I was a motorcycle courier in the 80s and went to most major towns and cities in the country more than once and I never really had a problem, the occasional slip early on using roundabout usually due to diesel overfill, but I never fell off, taxis were the real problem, and probably still are, but I always rode defensively which obviously worked as I have ridden hundreds of thousands of miles on two wheels, and as a kid, I would set off early Saturday morning and not get home until Sunday night, and all on my own as I preferred my own company, I did have bike mates but they were show off and I still don't like those regardless of what they are doing, So I know two wheels better than most and as said apart from taxis I never felt threatened a lot of that has to do with learning where to be on the road, what is actually on the road & don't make yourself vulnerable, and be aware of what's behind you.

The current situation on our roads is completely different to the 80s though Kev. There are double the amount of vehicles now than there were in 1983 apparently. This IMO has led to more aggression and a bit of a divisive blame culture. Just look at this thread! Everyone needs to just calm down a bit out on the roads I think and give each other a bit more respect. People make mistakes. Just over two hours ago I hit a huge stone brick on the scooter at over 50 mph and its a wonder I am still here to make this post to be honest. Just never saw it until it was too late, it can happen to us all. The point is though whereas safety standards in vehicles have massively increased and the number of deaths in road accidents is now about three times less than it was in 1983 where there were half the number of vehicles on the road if you are on two wheels you are pretty much still as vulnerable as you were then. People should remember that and "THINK BIKE" regardless of whether you think they are a bunch of lyrcra clad morons or hooligans on souped up scooters.

We all have equal rights on the road. Nobody apart from emergency services has priority or more right to be there.

Some stats here.

Reported Road Casualties Great Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MikeBBB]

- - - -on the Tarka Trail. Since there is no motorised traffic, the wear-rut damage must be caused by non-motorised traffic -- i.e. cyclists and pedestrians.

Really? No water damage then? Are you a road engineer? If not, your statement is clearly supposition. Based on your own opinion. Do you have the engineer's report? What about horses?

The first of your articles claims "Bicycles cause no damage to road surfaces", which is clearly incorrect since, no matter how small, bicycles cause road wear and hence damage.

.

But absolutely minimal, in comparison to a car. I noted the ref to F1 merely to prove to you that your supposition that the site is "anti-motor vehicle" to be erroneous. After all, F1 is probably the ultimate expression of completely unnecessary use of motor vehicles for fun, as well as a horrendous display of any lack of environmental credibility. As I expect you've now seen, the content of the site is very wide-ranging.

Anyway, returning to your anti-bike stance, irrespective of your perceived damage to the road surface, the fact remains that a bicycle is markedly less harmful to the overall environment on a range of levels than a motor vehicle ever will be. Attempting to (somehow) align the damage to the overall environment caused by bicycles as an argument against allowing them the free use of the public highway is the ultimate straw-man argument.

Let's remember, that as motorists, we only use the public highway under licence. Everyone else uses it by right. And no amount of "we pay road tax" (which we don't, yawn) / insurance (no requirement - already been shown unnecessary anyway) / number-plates (impractical - and not used anywhere else either) is going to change that.

Anyway - I think I'll take the bike out this evening. Probably on the public road I pay for through my taxes. There will be people walking on it too btw. Probably causing damage!

 

[Pedalman]

You are using another straw man argument. You initially wrote (in post #375 -- the post to which I responded) that, "... also cyclists do not damage the road surface, so we have nothing to pay for". As I've pointed out, cyclists do in fact damage the road surface and so your assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The reason why lorries cause the ruts they do is because their tyres are inflated to bicycle-like pressures. You can see exactly the same effect on busy cycleways as riders are effectively forced into single file in each direction.

So it is not the weight of a lorry that causes road damage you're saying it's the tyre pressure ? Mmmmmm????

 

[GeoffL]

Really? No water damage then? Are you a road engineer? If not, your statement is clearly supposition. Based on your own opinion. Do you have the engineer's report? What about horses?

.

But absolutely minimal, in comparison to a car. I noted the ref to F1 merely to prove to you that your supposition that the site is "anti-motor vehicle" to be erroneous. After all, F1 is probably the ultimate expression of completely unnecessary use of motor vehicles for fun, as well as a horrendous display of any lack of environmental credibility. As I expect you've now seen, the content of the site is very wide-ranging.

Anyway, returning to your anti-bike stance, irrespective of your perceived damage to the road surface, the fact remains that a bicycle is markedly less harmful to the overall environment on a range of levels than a motor vehicle ever will be. Attempting to (somehow) align the damage to the overall environment caused by bicycles as an argument against allowing them the free use of the public highway is the ultimate straw-man argument.

Let's remember, that as motorists, we only use the public highway under licence. Everyone else uses it by right. And no amount of "we pay road tax" (which we don't, yawn) / insurance (no requirement - already been shown unnecessary anyway) / number-plates (impractical - and not used anywhere else either) is going to change that.

Anyway - I think I'll take the bike out this evening. Probably on the public road I pay for through my taxes. There will be people walking on it too btw. Probably causing damage!

The noted damage could only be due to water if that water defied the laws of physics by not flowing downhill.

Dispelling yet another myth popular among militant cycling activists, nobody uses the public highway by right. Motorists are licensed to use the roads; cyclists use roads with permission -- and both licenses and permission can be withdrawn. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that authorities can close any section of road they wish. They can even close roads to cyclists while leaving them open to motorists. They can even ban specific cyclists from specific roads while keeping permission in place for others. If cyclists etc. used the roads by right authorities would not have those powers.

"We pay road tax"? Yet another straw man -- I never said that anybody pays road tax (even though I did say that motorists must pay VED to use the public highway). Also, some bicycles are (or at least were) required to bear something akin to number plates -- one example is the hire bike registration scheme on the Camel Trail where bicycles are required to have a registration disc. Also, it is merely your opinion that third party insurance isn't necessary for cyclists -- an opinion to which you're entitled, but merely an opinion nonetheless -- and one that some in the EU commission disagreed with when they tried to introduce CTP insurance for cyclists [thankfully, the ECF lobbied against the measure, and the EU Parliament voted the proposal down].

Yet another straw man argument is that you accuse me of "Attempting to (somehow) align the damage to the overall environment caused by bicycles as an argument against allowing them the free use of the public highway ..." I did nothing of the sort. What I did was point out that the claim that bicycles do not cause any damage to the roads is a fallacy. I don't have a problem with cyclists using the roads. Further, because they pay just as much towards the upkeep of the roads as anyone else with a similar tax bill, cyclists certainly aren't doing so for free.

 

[Pedalman]

Two sources from pro-cycle/anti-motoring sources that exhibit clear confirmation bias.

I prefer actual evidence. The first photo is of a Dutch cycleway. The second is on the Tarka Trail, the third is part of the Cornish Coast-to-Coast (the Camel Trail was similar until the Council effected repairs). In the first two, you can see the colour striations indicating the ruts. In the third, you can see what happens if damaged caused by bicycles is allowed to turn into potholes rather than being promptly repaired.

View attachment 106930

View attachment 106931

View attachment 106929

I would say that cycle track damage is caused by poor drainage and frost damage . Look at the grass verge next to that pothole , the surface has collapsed sideways.

 

[GeoffL]

So it is not the weight of a lorry that causes road damage you're saying it's the tyre pressure ? Mmmmmm????

Yes. As counterintuitive as it seems, it is the pressure that the tyre imparts to the road together with shear stress that causes damage. It is possible to spread the load over a very large area to give very little pressure -- a BV206 weighs about 6.5 tonnes and yet imparts a ground force of a little over 11 kPa (1.6 psi) and could run over your leg without harming you.

 

[Pedalman]

Yes. As counterintuitive as it seems, it is the pressure that the tyre imparts to the road together with shear stress that causes damage. It is possible to spread the load over a very large area to give very little pressure -- a BV206 weighs about 6.5 tonnes and yet imparts a ground force of a little over 11 kPa (1.6 psi) and could run over your leg without harming you.

You say a 6.5 ton lorry could run over my leg without harming me ????? Would a 38 ton articulated lorry do the same ? I think I will give that experiment a miss thank you very much and run away quickly .

 

[Fisherman]

I cannot believe this thread.
There are bad motorists, bad cyclists.
But the vast majority of cyclists and drivers are decent folk who just want to travel from A to B as safely as possible.
I have seen some terrible driving, as we all have, and I have seen atrocious behaviour from cyclists. And sadly we tend to ignore all the good driving and cycling we see every day and concentrate on the idiots.
Its the same with our pastime, thousands may visit a location every year, but if just one or two dump their cassettes inappropriately, we are all tarred with the same brush.

 

[GeoffL]

You say a 6.5 ton lorry could run over my leg without harming me ????? Would a 38 ton articulated lorry do the same ? I think I will give that experiment a miss thank you very much and run away quickly .

Not a lorry, a 6.5 tonne tracked military transport vehicle. A 38 tonne vehicle would do the same if the load were spread over a large enough area -- basic physics. If the contact area is (say) 6" x 4" and the pressure is 1.6 psi, then the load applied to the contact area is 24 sq in x 1.6 psi = 38.4 lb, less than 20 kg.

The pressure exerted on the surface over which a vehicle travels is governed by a combination of tyre pressure and also stiffness of the tyres (or other bits in contact with that surface). The weight of a given vehicle is the same but the pressure is inversely related to contact area, and so reduces if the vehicle weight is spread over a larger area. This is why off-road drivers can reduce the extent to which they sink into soft ground by reducing tyre pressures. Just have a look to see how Icelandic glacier expedition vehicles get about and consider how a dedicated road bicycle would fare over the same terrain.

 

[Robmac]

Great that you have a dash cam in your vehicle, I use one too .......but why do some motorists have them in their cars then criticise cyclists for having a helmet cam ?

I've no idea why that is.

I have a dash cam in my car and on my motorcycle. I would now like to see them made compulsory.

 

[st3v3]

. I have a head cam for evidence

Surely your broken limbs and the dent in the car door would be enough evidence?

Answer me a question - honesty - have you ever shown a clip from your head cam to ANYONE who wasn't law enforcement?

Swear on your late aunties next door neighbours cat etc....

 

[Pedalman]

Surely your broken limbs and the dent in the car door would be enough evidence?

Answer me a question - honesty - have you ever shown a clip from your head cam to ANYONE who wasn't law enforcement?

Swear on your late aunties next door neighbours cat etc....

Yes, broken limbs and a dents should be evidence enough BUT whose fault was it ? video footage is very helpful in determining blame.
No I haven't, I swear on my pet rats life. I wonder if any motorists have ?
Dash cam footage isn't something to entertain friends with , it's worse than showing holiday videos .

Now, back to Jeremy Vine .

 

[MikeBBB]

The noted damage could only be due to water if that water defied the laws of physics by not flowing

As noted by another contributor before I had the chance to reply, clearly not.

. Motorists are licensed to use the roads; cyclists use roads with permission --

Nonsense. Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists et all use the public highway by right. A motorist only does so under license.

. Also, some bicycles are (or at least were) required to bear something akin to number plates -- one example is the hire bike registration scheme on the Camel Trail where bicycles are required to have a registration disc.

Really? So the bike hire company might want to id it’s property? Meanwhile, even Holland and Denmark doesn’t require plates. Fact.

Also, it is merely your opinion that third party insurance isn't necessary for cyclists -- an opinion to which you're entitled, but merely an opinion nonetheless -- and one that some in the EU commission disagreed with when they tried to introduce CTP insurance for cyclists [thankfully, the ECF lobbied against the measure, and the EU Parliament voted the proposal down

So, not merely my opinion then. And as there’s no legal requirement for a cyclist to hold tp cover, clearly a fact. But hey - you’re entitled to your opinion.

Ps. Here’s some science based research into road damage. https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads

 

[Stanski]

Hopefully soon cyclists will have to have a licence, pass a test, have an MOT for the bike(if over 3years old), be taxed and fully insured.

Only if the bike is environmentally friendly and has a battery to power it.

 

[Pedalman]

Pushbikes and powered vehicles are always a mix promising disaster.

I wouldn't use a pushbike on most roads these days - unless I suddenly had a death wish!

I would agree with you, because many people are afraid to ride bicycles on the roads. I'm assuming you would not ride a bicycle on the roads these because of the behaviour of many motorists towards cyclists.....even the cyclists who stick to the rules of the road as I do get intimidated . I stop at ALL red lights ....let me rephrase that .......I stop at all traffic lights when they show red .

For the people who dislike cyclists in general, I agree there are many idiots on bikes just as there are many idiots in cars/vans & lorries , they probable share the same mindset of hating each other.

 

[MikeBBB]

I would agree with you, because many people are afraid to ride bicycles on the roads.

For the people who dislike cyclists in general, ---

That is exactly what I find so annoying. This arrogant sense of entitlement so many motorists have. It's not as though we have some "special rights" as drivers, to exclusive use of the public highway. Even here, it's being demonstrated from people who (one supposes) ye'd enjoy socialising with of an evening, given the shared interest. Actually, based on what I'm reading, I'd hope not to meet them.

 

[Fisherman]

Every time I look in here I find it really depressing.
The stereotyping of people is utter bonkers.
I know some really good cyclists who if you met them it would be difficult to dislike them.
I have a friend who during the day he likes riding his bike, and at night he has been out looking for people lost on the hills, as a member of a mountain rescue team. Yes he wears velcro, has a camera, and the rest, what in gods name is wrong with that.
This dislike of cyclists is unhealthy possibly even dangerous.
Live and let live, respect each other, and when you do come up against an idiot, remember all the perfectly good cyclists you met on the road before them.

 

[MikeBBB]

Every time I look in here I find it really depressing.
The stereotyping of people is utter bonkers.

This dislike of cyclists is unhealthy possibly even dangerous.
Live and let live, respect each other, and when you do come up against an idiot, remember all the perfectly good cyclists you met on the road before.

Absolutely. Actually - it's more worrying when we read comments like "lycra lice" and "in my experience / annoy a car driver / head cam" then that seeps into the psyche. But even you have used the term "they" in a previous comment. While I don't for one moment suggest your approach is to divide or categorise fellow road users, this, at a very subtle level, has drawn a distinction in some people's minds.

At least this discussion is conducted with a modicum of civility. Unlike most of the similar ones currently trending on s/media generally.

As an ex-motorcyclist I recall not dissimilar discussions about attitudes to us bikers in the mags and bike press. (No f/berk then). Largely when we (perfectly legally) cut the lanes. Those poor motorists, being overtaken by another road user. And cycles are the same.

 

[Fisherman]

I don't for one moment suggest your approach is to divide or categorise fellow road users, this, at a very subtle level, has drawn a distinction in some people's minds.

.

The last thing I want to do is to divide or categorise, that’s exactly what I don’t want. What’s required is tolerance, patience, and respect for everyone’s rights and safety on our roads, regardless of how we use them.

 

[mark61]

Absolutely. Actually - it's more worrying when we read comments like "lycra lice" and "in my experience / annoy a car driver / head cam" then that seeps into the psyche. But even you have used the term "they" in a previous comment. While I don't for one moment suggest your approach is to divide or categorise fellow road users, this, at a very subtle level, has drawn a distinction in some people's minds.

At least this discussion is conducted with a modicum of civility. Unlike most of the similar ones currently trending on s/media generally.

As an ex-motorcyclist I recall not dissimilar discussions about attitudes to us bikers in the mags and bike press. (No f/berk then). Largely when we (perfectly legally) cut the lanes. Those poor motorists, being overtaken by another road user. And cycles are the same.

Just searched forum for "lycra lice". Only one result showed.