Petition calling for public awareness campaign to address driver aggression towards cyclists hits 10,000 signatures

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

Red lights is your first good point. We are all agreed that cyclists should follow all of the rules & laws that actually apply to them.

Is it a good point?  I see plenty of motorists ignore red lights and many other aspects of the Road Traffic Act. And of the cyclist who do cycle through red lights - the vast majority only do so when it is *perfectly* safe, because guess what, being involved in a collision, when you are on a bike, is going to hurt every time.

Congratulations on hitting the bingo win line on your first post.
"Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users."
You get a bonus for that one.
Not really sure how a cargo bike used by many types of people and organisations and provided by companies and even local authorities is dangerous to other road users. Unless of course those road users are unable to cope with different types of traffic on the roads.

As to insurance have a look at this long running thread
https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-loca...
Throwing insurance into it is simply a mistaken concept that there is an equivalence of risk between bikes and 1.5T to 2.5T vehicles. As you can see from the stories, the level of damage caused by vehicles is the reason for insurance (plus of course vehicle on vehicle damage). A bike is not going to be able to cause this and hence require insurance cover.

"Usually deserve"?? Seriously?? Oh do F off, you f-ing troll 

You win! The first wally to accuse someone of being a 'troll' because they have  a different point of view 

Pathetic..

sh74 wrote:

You win! The first wally to accuse someone of being a 'troll' because they have  a different point of view 

Pathetic..

You registered on here and your first ever post was that above? I've never seen anyone on here say "all cyclists are saints" so that's a bit of a straw man, but it's a good long while since I've seen anyone post such a detailed anti cyclist rant.

I note that you didn't say "I'm a cyclist myself..." so you lose points there

As you know Nigel, very few people actually get called a troll and only where the post is obviously trolling as we see here or where they a history of making provocative comments. I'm sure you are very familiar with the latter

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Calling someone a troll is Road.cc's own peculiar version of Godwin's law - basically means "I lost the argument but I'm morally superior (despite my clear hatred of others)".

You're entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. Just wondering though as you haven't stated yet - Do you ride a bike yourself?

I've disagreed with most folk here at some point Nige, and so far not been called a troll.
I'm not sure that you're correct on this one

Perhaps you can't fix stupid?

edit: no perhaps required (phew, we nearly ran out of those), it's scientifically proven!

Now, I realise that you must be a person of low intelligence with poor social skills, but I'd like to point out that not all other road users require insurance and/or MOT.

e.g.

• cars don't require an MOT for the first three years
• vehicles made before 1960
• horses
• tractors
• goods vehicles powered by electricity and registered before 1 March 2015

Now I could easily continue and take apart the rest of your nonsensical rant, but your "deserve the treatment they think they get" is obviously just hate speech and deeply insensitive to anyone who has lost someone to a traffic incident.

I sincerely hope you do not use the public roads as you are in no fit state of mind to interact with others in a safe manner.

All vehicles require insurance - period.

And what has this to do with bikes ferchrissakes?

sh74 wrote:

All vehicles require insurance - period.

And what has this to do with bikes ferchrissakes?

I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

It always amazes me how people who dislike cyclists using roads are so ignorant of the laws. It just becomes tiresome explaining time and time again why there are different requirements for different vehicles - often relating to their mass and speed.

Now, you've managed to combine ignorance, stupidity and viciousness in your very first post, so I shan't bother reading any more of your bilge.

Ok, let's try and knock the insurance one on the head.

For a start, if you have a standard UK domestic insurance policy, you almost certainly have up to £2million third party liability cover which includes cycling. If you don't have third party insurance through such an arrangement, then I would suggest that you get some, even if you don't intend to cycle.

E.g From my own Aviva home contents policy

"Personal Liability - Your liability in a personal capacity (not as owner or occupier of any building, land or fixed property).
This includes accidents from your leisure activities such as golf or cycling."

As for the lycra brigade? Many serious cyclists also benefit from additional third party cover via membership of British Cycling and other cycling organisations. Or, shock, horror actually buy cycle specific insurance policies.

At the end of the day, cycling is such a low risk activity to others that basic insurance is effectively bundled free into other financial products.

No.  Not all vehicles require insurance.  Otherwise you wouldn't be asking for them to do so.

Motor vehicles require insurance only because the average cost of claims against drivers far outweighs their ability to pay, and there are so many claims against them.  This is why it used to be the case that large organisations did not require insurance on their vehicles; they could effectively self-insure as long as they could prove their ability to do so.

Cyclists merely have a similar risk/ability profile. The average cost of claims against cyclists, coupled with the negligible number of such claims, means that the number of unpaid claims is negligible and so it is not worthwhile mandating insurance. This is also why liability insurance is bundled in for free in home insurance policies and cycling-specific liability insurance (of at least £10m) is included for free in cycling memberships.

I hope this is the first step along your road to enlightenment, but perhaps I'm just an eternal optimist.

sh74 wrote:

All vehicles require insurance - period.

And what has this to do with bikes ferchrissakes?

A bicycle is a vehicle, you are simultaneously claiming that all vehicles require insurance and complaining that some types of vehicles don't. Honestly, one wonders what they teach at troll school these days...

Don't forget cars/vans/motorbikes & 'light passenger vehicles' over 40 years old.

sh74 wrote:

a pile of shit

Great first post, thanks for your fact-free contribution!

People with a shitty preconception like you have provided are the real problem - for all road users, not just cyclists.

very constructive

Looks like they are here for a bit...

sh74 wrote:

.....

 

So, don't give me the 'all cyclists are saints' routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.

Nobody did dude. It's just that motorists kill about 1800 people a year through negligence

No drivers are ever killed by riders, and on a bad year we might have 2 pedestrian deaths involving cyclists

The fact is that folk like you act in an intimidating and bullying way around people on bikes, especially round women and children - you often haven't quite got the guts to do it around grown men unless you think you can get away with it.

Most drivers are cool, but the ones who act aggressively around riders are also doing it around pedestrians. ~450 peds are killed annually by people like you. 50 of those are on the pavement when they die.

So no, this isn't just about cyclists v drivers. It's about the public against incompetent fools like you. We want you off the road.

Hi Sh74. The reason you are getting some negative comments is that your arguments are poor and unconvincing.

They are also old and boring, apart from the comment about cargo bikes, with is as least new to me. I'm intrigued by this one. What is wrong with cargo bikes? Despite potentially carrying more people in much less space ( if we compare a cargo bike to a sports car) being much less polluting, needing less space to park, being less likely to kill someone if they do run into someone you don't like them.

All your other "ideas" would lead to more cars and this more pollution, more congestion and probably more road deaths, as well as a less active population. Is that what you want?

Just seen this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-57544083

This is just one example of why cycling and motor vehicles are treated differently

Nigel Garrage wrote:

- Cargo bikes I don't know - that's quite a novel one I haven't heard before. I'd have yo give that more consideration,but it was certainly used recently as an excuse to ride on the pavement for manoeuvrability reasons.

No, that was for safety reasons as you well know.

Your revisionism is becoming tiresome, old fruit. I wish I could recall what some orange gentleman from across the water called this - he had a pithy phrase. Perhaps you might be a better student of his work and could help?

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.

I think you have confused the source of the danger. A bicycle designed for the purpose is no danger to its rider or passengers. However I accept that it might expose them to danger presented by drivers of motor vehicles. But since your argument enjoins all road users to observe the Highway Code, that danger ought surely to be minimised.

Wow! Really?? Give your head a wobble....

This article is about reducing aggression by people in cars towards people using bikes.

How would all the things you suggest people on bikes should do actually reduce aggression towards them?

Perhaps they would do nothing because none of them are a reason for people in cars to choose to be aggressive.

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps cyclists could learn and follow the highway code.

In any large group you will get some idiots and low performers. Having said that cyclists largely do follow the Highway Code. Many are drivers and are fully aware of the Highway Code. A bigger issue is drivers who are not cyclists, who do not know what the highway code says in relation to cyclists, and criticise cyclist for things that are allowed, and even advised. Like taking a primary position.

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps they could get insurance and registration so when THEY commit and offence they can be traced.

Cyclists are so low risk, insurance is sometimes given away free, or very cheap. Usually bundled in house insurance at no extra cost, or bundled in with membership of cycling clubs or organisations. As a result most cyclists are carrying liability insurance

The government have looked into insurance and registration. The problems caused by law breaking cyclist, and not being able to trace them, are so negligable the goverment, the DVLA and the police wants nothing to do with it.

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps they could use cycle tracks when they are avilable instead of the roads and perhaps on the roads they could ride single-file instead of three abreast?

Give us consistent decent quality cycle tracks (do you mean lanes?), preferably segregated, and we'll probably use them consistently. Until then you'll have to learn how to share.

It's legal and permitted for cyclists to group up 2 or even 3 abreast. Those who look after safety on our roads will tell you that it's often safer for all concerned. It usually obliges drivers to wait until there is a proper opportunity to overtake, then they can overtake the group quicker.

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps they could get insurance and an MOT for their bikes like ALL other road users.

Insurance again, I think we've covered that. MOTs are not applicable for the same reasons registration isn't. The cost of adminstering such a system is far in excess of the problems created by a tiny number of cyclists riding a rusty bike. The police are not interested, The DVLA isn't interested. The government isn't intersted.

sh74 wrote:

And perhaps they could not pass so close or weave in and out of the traffic or pass both sides and perhaps they could not ignore red lights or road junctions.

The passing close is called filtering. It is explicity allowed in the highway code! You know, the document that everyone should learn and follow. HC 88

You have a good point with Red Light Jumping. That's an annoyance that has to go. Mind telling motor vehicle drivers as well? because acording to Surrey police, data from 2007-2016 showed that nobody was killed by RLJ cyclists, but 5 a year were killed by motor vehicles. Of those injured, about 6-7% were caused by cyclists. The rest? Motor vehicles.

I have no idea what you mean by ignoring junctions!

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.

By now all sublety has gone out the window, and you're basicaly saying "Get your wierd vehicle off MY roads! You're changing things and it makes me feel uncomforatable! I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!!"

sh74 wrote:

So, don't give me the 'all cyclists are saints' routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.

And there it is, the climax! "You're all wrong uns' and you deserve everything you get!"

You sound like you are ready to blow a gasket, it's not good for you to hold onto this much anger.

You know what is good for you, cycling!

sh74 wrote:

And perhaps they could not pass so close or weave in and out of the traffic or pass both sides

Well if all the people blocking the highway with big stationary metal boxes would line up nicely behind each other cylists could happily filter down just one side, no need to weave or pass on whichever side the motorist collective objects to.

But of course drivers are not one group with a hive mind capable of acting in perfect unison, just like cyclists, so why the imagined misdemeaners of some cyclists should be seen as justification for retirbution on all cyclists is beyond me.

sh74 wrote:

So, don't give me the 'all cyclists are saints' routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps cyclists could learn and follow the highway code. Perhaps they could get insurance and registration so when THEY commit and offence they can be traced. Perhaps they could use cycle tracks when they are avilable instead of the roads and perhaps on the roads they could ride single-file instead of three abreast?

Perhaps they could get insurance and an MOT for their bikes like ALL other road users.

And perhaps they could not pass so close or weave in and out of the traffic or pass both sides and perhaps they could not ignore red lights or road junctions.

Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.

 

So, don't give me the 'all cyclists are saints' routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.

Dear Sir/Madam.

You have quite eloquently expressed nearly all of the mis-guided opinions that are fuelling exactly what this petition is seeking to address.

May I suggest that you are the exact target that needs to be better informed to reduce this hate?

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps cyclists could learn and follow the highway code. Perhaps they could get insurance and registration so when THEY commit and offence they can be traced. Perhaps they could use cycle tracks when they are avilable instead of the roads and perhaps on the roads they could ride single-file instead of three abreast?

Perhaps they could get insurance and an MOT for their bikes like ALL other road users.

And perhaps they could not pass so close or weave in and out of the traffic or pass both sides and perhaps they could not ignore red lights or road junctions.

Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.

So, don't give me the 'all cyclists are saints' routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.

You are living proof of the need for the petition.

sh74 wrote:

Perhaps cyclists could learn and follow the highway code. Perhaps they could get insurance and registration so when THEY commit and offence they can be traced. Perhaps they could use cycle tracks when they are avilable instead of the roads and perhaps on the roads they could ride single-file instead of three abreast?

Perhaps they could get insurance and an MOT for their bikes like ALL other road users.

And perhaps they could not pass so close or weave in and out of the traffic or pass both sides and perhaps they could not ignore red lights or road junctions.

Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.

 

So, don't give me the 'all cyclists are saints' routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.

You total and utter troll. 60 people A DAY are killed or seriously injured on our roads, and it ain't by cyclists. You blindly parrot every anti-cycling cliche there is.