Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

What i've learnt

On 1 Sep 2011 at 10:40am cycleman wrote:
My learning from posting on here.
-Many people don't read the original post (or chose to ignore it) and then go on with what they want to go on about
-the existence of trolls. My daughter has explained about this and it is interesting how it has grown as a result of the internet. Many people presumably find it funny and that is up to them as far as i'm concerned but a serious forum might need to consider some action against it or at least a warning that it exists and no action will be taken against it.
-there many deep seated prejudices against cyclists.
-there are many decent people on here who do want to debate and argue.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 11:35am Southover Queen wrote:
I've also learned that trying to set your opinions and conclusions in some kind of context is labelled as "liking the sound of your own voice" and "droning on".
On 1 Sep 2011 at 12:27pm Mr Forks wrote:
....some might even say, pretentious!
On 1 Sep 2011 at 12:54pm Taff wrote:
Having almost had collisions with a cyclist riding the wrong way and in the middle of a one way road on 2 separate occasions as well as a few incidents with adult cyclists riding on busy pavements and had numerous situations where a cyclist has wantonly put themselves in a challenging situation versus a vehicle it can hardly be a surprise to anyone that prejudices against cyclists exist can it? The main contibutors are the cyclists themselves.
As a motorcylist I do have an appreciation of vulnerability on two wheels and make all efforts not to put myself in threatening situations but it seems to me there are a good percentage of cyclists that thrive on getting themselves in such circumstances. Maybe its the confrontation they enjoy most?
On 1 Sep 2011 at 1:10pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
You haven't listed "Perhaps I shouldn't exaggerate".
On 1 Sep 2011 at 2:38pm Southover Queen wrote:
Is that addressed to me, Mr Forks? In what way "pretentious"?
On 1 Sep 2011 at 3:54pm Mr Forks wrote:
No, it was addressed to Cycleman, chill SQ!
On 1 Sep 2011 at 4:09pm Southover Queen wrote:
Okay... (Just checking)
On 1 Sep 2011 at 4:24pm bastian wrote:
SQ that was aperfect example of point one,but i am not agreeing with cycle man,he needs to toughen up of shut up,we all get heckled on here it's the nature of the web,it's not pleasant but it isn't personal either and that is why it's best to use a silly name.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 6:24pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
And Southover Queen's not a silly name for a bloke then?
On 1 Sep 2011 at 6:42pm Bloke wrote:
I've also learned that there's an awful lot of attention seekers like cycleman on here
On 2 Sep 2011 at 7:41am Mercian wrote:
"Cyclists" are usually also "Motorists", whereas most "Motorists" aren't always "Cyclists". In other words, most cyclists are like me - they also own and use a car. I think driving makes you a better cyclist and cycling makes you a better driver. Most car drivers haven't experienced what it's like to cycle around busy roads; whereas most cyclists have experienced driving.
The ultimate fact is that, while cyclists can be annoying and stupid, they rarely endanger other people's lives. Some 2,000 people are killed each year by cars and a further 20,000 seriously injured. The number of people killed by cyclists amounts to the odd rare case. If a cyclist behaves stupidly it's annoying and potentially could injure someone, but the ramifications are far less serious than if a driver acts stupidly. Let's put these things in perspective.
I cycle regularly around Lewes and whlie most people are courteous and behave well, there are a minority of really stupid drivers. Particularly annoying is the desperation some have to overtake bikes at all costs. This often manifests itself on the High Street, where drivers overtake only to almost fly into a bus, or overtake even though the lights at Station Street are on red and they are only 20 odd metres away. This often leads to the cyclist fearing for his life and then having to break quickly as the car suddenly stops as it can't proceed. A few days ago a van overtook me around Western Road and then immediately turned left into Bradford Road. If I hadn't have breaked he would have gone straight into me. He should really have waited until I had got past the junction.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 8:56am Bonfire Boy wrote:
Figures on the RoSPA website show the cycling accident figures. In 2009 there were 17,064 accidents involving cyclists. 14,354 of these were slightly injured. 2,606 were seriously injured and only 104 were killed. If the figures were as bad as Mercian is making out then cycling would be banned for being too dangerous.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 12:18pm grave digger wrote:
only 103 , so thats ok then
On 2 Sep 2011 at 12:50pm Mercian wrote:
Bonfire Boy - I said there were 2,000 people (that's people, not cyclists) killed by cars, and a further 20,000 injured. That's passengers and pedestrians I presume - although I understand that cars are the biggest single killer of children by far.
It's pretty shocking that 2,606 cyclists were seriously injured and 104 killed, suggesting that quite a few of these accidents involve cyclists - giventhat cyclists are relatively few in number that suggests that they are particularly vulnerable and disproportionately likely to be hurt or killed. This, in turn, would suggest that motorists should perhaps treat them with a bit more caution and respect, as in Holland or Denmark?
Meanwhile, the number of people killed by cyclists each year? In single figures. And every one, unlike those 2,000 killed by cars, gets in the Daily Mail, winding up those who irrationally hate cyclists.
AS I Said, put things in perspective people.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:24pm Mr Forks wrote:
Perhaps cyclists should pay road tax as they use the road, then other road users may respect them??
On 2 Sep 2011 at 3:50pm Rods Tiger wrote:
I am a cyclist and, like many other cyclists, I pay road tax. When I am on my bicycle instaed of in my car I am causing less erosion to the road. Does that make you happy now Mr Forks ?
On 2 Sep 2011 at 5:31pm Mr Forks wrote:
'spose so! DO you cycle like a tw@t though or do you obey the laws of the road?
On 2 Sep 2011 at 7:06pm Rods Tiger wrote:
Now, that's an entirely different subject. As it happens I always ride on the road and not on the pavement, use front and rear lights in bad visibility and after dusk (mainly for my own safety), stop at junctions and red traffic lights and generally obey the rules of the road. Yet I still experience 3 life threatening near misses a week and get regular shouted abuse and the odd thrown object from passing vehicles. Why is it that non cycling motorists are unable to realise how vunerable a human body is on a bicycle ? The lightest 'nudge' at over 30 mph can kill.
On 3 Sep 2011 at 1:38pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Why don't you assume the principle that everyone else on the road is a cretin, RT? It's kept my OH accident-free on his motorbikes for 34 years, 20 of which were spent as a despatch rider in central London.
I think insurance should be compulsory for cyclists. They are more than capable of causing accidents, as my colleague who recently faced a £600 bill when a cyclist scraped the side of her parked car would testify.
On 3 Sep 2011 at 1:57pm A Bit Deaf wrote:
In my view, they should also be required to have a bell on their cycle and to use it when approaching pedestrians going in the same direction. There is no more efficient maiming machine than a well maintained bicycle. The pedestrian you approach, on their left, let's say, may just have been thinking of stepping to the left, and probably won't have heard your approach. That is another reason why cyclists should carry insurance.
On 3 Sep 2011 at 4:39pm Rods Tiger wrote:
ACT - I do indeed assume that everyone else on the road is a cretin, it's the only safe thing to do, but it doesn't stop 'em running into me. Recent one was someone going passed swerved as they did so and I had to brake hard to avoid being hit, they were doing their hair in the rearview mirror. I do have third party insurance and have a bell fitted which I use to warn pedestrians of my approach on combined pedestrian and cycle paths.
On 4 Sep 2011 at 9:44am Mercian wrote:
I have third party insurance for both my car and my bike. The car costs £60 odd per month; the bike is £3.50. This shows, I think, what actuaries sand insurers think the difference is in the potential damage that can be caused by humans on bikes and humans in a ton of metal moveable at high speeds.
On 5 Sep 2011 at 11:58am 'ere be monsters wrote:
The £60 also reflects the huge difference in value between you car and your bike, the 3 or 4 passengers you can carry and potentially seriously injure in your car. Had you a 5 seater bike worth £10k or so I doubt your £3.50 would cover it.
On 5 Sep 2011 at 3:43pm Mercian wrote:
Which part of "third party" do you not understand, 'ere be monsters? I'm not sure passengers are covered by third party insurance - just other cars and their occupants.
What amazes me is that so many people in this country do not realise how poor cyclists are treated by both road engineers and the law. While most other countries in Europe have a much bigger network of cycle paths, they also have 'strict liability' for accidents. Basically, if a car hits a pedestrian or cyclists, then the car is automatically at fault. We are only one of four EU countries not to have this as law. It has been in place in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark for years.
I would add that this would apply to cyclists too. If they hit a pedestrian, they would automatically be liable, no questions asked.
If we had that, I wouldn't have any problem with compulsory third party insurance for cycles.

Check it out here »

12 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Lewes Swans in the pool 85:132
Lewes Swans in the pool

Hi, I would like to add an event but the system won't let me. Please help! Maia Eden more
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams