Morning-after drink-drive blitz snares 56

Worcester News: SPEED LIMIT CHECK: PC Gary Jones checks the speed of drivers on the A449 opposite the New Inn, Worcester. SPEED LIMIT CHECK: PC Gary Jones checks the speed of drivers on the A449 opposite the New Inn, Worcester.

OVER-50s are the worst culprits when it comes to drink-driving, say police officers who have already pulled over one motorist who was nearly five times the legal limit.

Just 10 days into their festive drink-drive campaign by the Safer Roads Partnership, 56 people have been arrested on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol in West Mercia.

Some have been drink-driving without knowing it on ‘the morning after’ – which is now a major theme of the partnership’s preventative education work.

Vicki Bristow, communications manager for the partnership, said a big majority of those who tested positive were over the age of 50. She said: “They tend to be the ones that have missed out on the education side of things. “It is harder to change their attitudes.”

The advice from the Partnership is for people to abstain from alcohol altogether if they are driving or, if they do have a drink, use public transport, taxis or a designated driver.

Police officers in Worcester say they have been shocked by some high readings. PC David Pengelly from Worcester Local Policing said one motorist stopped locally last week blew 165mcg of alcohol in 100ml of breath, nearly five times the drink drive limit of 35mcg.

The highest reading he has ever seen was 183mcg, but that was not this year.

Drivers who test positive for alcohol will receive a minimum ban of one year but can receive longer bans if a particularly high reading is recorded or they have been caught before.

PC Pengelly, who was part of an operation yesterday that made use of the car park at the Old Northwick Cinema on the A449 in Worcester, said: “We have seen some exceptionally high results in the south Worcestershire area. “That reading (165mcg) is an excessive amount of alcohol to have in your body regardless of whether you’re driving or not. That amount of alcohol would knock out most people.”

However he said most drivers were law-abiding and over the last five days in Worcester, just two out of the 94 people tested had given a positive reading – proving the message was getting through.

One driver was charged for failing to provide a sample of breath (which he later did provide) and driving with excess alcohol and another was arrested for failing a field impairment test, which suggests they were unfit to drive through drink or drugs.

Year on year, the number of people testing positive for alcohol is falling across West Mercia, but PC Pengelly said one of the key issues was that people were unwittingly drink driving the morning after.

Police have been stopping people early in the morning when they are on their way to work. He said one driver this year blew 85cg in alcohol on his way to a football match the day after drinking.

PC Pengelly said: “It’s not that they’re dishonest – they’re doing it by sheer accident. “They don’t consider they will still be over the limit. You can’t simply flush alcohol out of your system with coffee and sleep. It takes time.”

It takes about an hour for each unit of alcohol to work its way out of the system.

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:55am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ted Elgar says...

This is a great article.

I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them.

I hope the Police get them all disqualified.
This is a great article. I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them. I hope the Police get them all disqualified. Ted Elgar

2:48pm Wed 11 Dec 13

yeller says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
This is a great article.

I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them.

I hope the Police get them all disqualified.
How have you 'noticed' that then?
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: This is a great article. I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them. I hope the Police get them all disqualified.[/p][/quote]How have you 'noticed' that then? yeller

5:29pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

yeller wrote:
Ted Elgar wrote:
This is a great article.

I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them.

I hope the Police get them all disqualified.
How have you 'noticed' that then?
The chip on his shoulder told him.
[quote][p][bold]yeller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: This is a great article. I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them. I hope the Police get them all disqualified.[/p][/quote]How have you 'noticed' that then?[/p][/quote]The chip on his shoulder told him. Hwicce

5:30pm Wed 11 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly.

No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed.

Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.
I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly. No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed. Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better. i-cycle

6:27pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

i-cycle wrote:
I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly.

No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed.

Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.
I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning.

But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc.

So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly. No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed. Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.[/p][/quote]I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning. But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc. So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"? Hwicce

8:04pm Wed 11 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly.

No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed.

Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.
I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning.

But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc.

So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?
I see we agree. All road users should obey the law and show due respect for others no matter what form of transport used.

I'm sure readers would be interested on your position on whether or not its appropriate for drivers to abide by speed limits (and not see them as a target to aim for not matter what the road conditions), not use their mobiles whilst driving and give cyclists as much room when they overtake as if they were a car.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly. No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed. Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.[/p][/quote]I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning. But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc. So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?[/p][/quote]I see we agree. All road users should obey the law and show due respect for others no matter what form of transport used. I'm sure readers would be interested on your position on whether or not its appropriate for drivers to abide by speed limits (and not see them as a target to aim for not matter what the road conditions), not use their mobiles whilst driving and give cyclists as much room when they overtake as if they were a car. i-cycle

8:15pm Wed 11 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
yeller wrote:
Ted Elgar wrote:
This is a great article.

I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them.

I hope the Police get them all disqualified.
How have you 'noticed' that then?
The chip on his shoulder told him.
Perhaps others (HWICCE and James Cornell (well travelled and well educated - his words not mine)) also have a "chip" on their shoulder about cyclists?

My point is that its easy to stereotype and attribute blame to other road users.

In reality there are good and bad and considerate and inconsiderate drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians and taxi drivers and truck drivers and bus drivers and…

Surely what we all need to be doing is to encourage all users of the highway to abide by the law, be considerate to other road users and improve safety for all.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yeller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: This is a great article. I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them. I hope the Police get them all disqualified.[/p][/quote]How have you 'noticed' that then?[/p][/quote]The chip on his shoulder told him.[/p][/quote]Perhaps others (HWICCE and James Cornell (well travelled and well educated - his words not mine)) also have a "chip" on their shoulder about cyclists? My point is that its easy to stereotype and attribute blame to other road users. In reality there are good and bad and considerate and inconsiderate drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians and taxi drivers and truck drivers and bus drivers and… Surely what we all need to be doing is to encourage all users of the highway to abide by the law, be considerate to other road users and improve safety for all. i-cycle

7:28am Thu 12 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly.

No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed.

Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.
I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning.

But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc.

So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?
I see we agree. All road users should obey the law and show due respect for others no matter what form of transport used.

I'm sure readers would be interested on your position on whether or not its appropriate for drivers to abide by speed limits (and not see them as a target to aim for not matter what the road conditions), not use their mobiles whilst driving and give cyclists as much room when they overtake as if they were a car.
I'm quite happy that motorists should stick to speed limits, I think more use should be made of average speed cameras rather than the "spot" speed ones, mainly because the spot speed ones aren't very good. I do think though that some speed limits could be increased to a more sensible level and I think 20mph speed limits are pointless. They're a good sop for the local Councillor to feel he's "done something" but not much good otherwise.

As for mobiles in cars I'd ban them completely, hands free as well as handheld. I think the fine should be upped to £500 and 9 points i.e. expensive and you loose you license for a second offence. I would consider a ban for first offence but think it would be too difficult to implement.

I would like a much more aggressive Police enforcement of all traffic laws for all road users including (sometimes overlooked) things like littering but I doubt there's much chance of that as we're too wet as a society these days with too much red tape and not enough action.

My biggest problem with cyclists at the moment is working out where they are going, the number who don't seem to know how to position themselves when turning right is amazing. We were all taught at school how to ride properly but that all seems to have gone out of the window these days with cyclists just whizzing around all over the place with no regard for their safety or the highway code. I would be interested in how you would envisage getting cycling standards improved.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly. No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed. Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.[/p][/quote]I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning. But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc. So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?[/p][/quote]I see we agree. All road users should obey the law and show due respect for others no matter what form of transport used. I'm sure readers would be interested on your position on whether or not its appropriate for drivers to abide by speed limits (and not see them as a target to aim for not matter what the road conditions), not use their mobiles whilst driving and give cyclists as much room when they overtake as if they were a car.[/p][/quote]I'm quite happy that motorists should stick to speed limits, I think more use should be made of average speed cameras rather than the "spot" speed ones, mainly because the spot speed ones aren't very good. I do think though that some speed limits could be increased to a more sensible level and I think 20mph speed limits are pointless. They're a good sop for the local Councillor to feel he's "done something" but not much good otherwise. As for mobiles in cars I'd ban them completely, hands free as well as handheld. I think the fine should be upped to £500 and 9 points i.e. expensive and you loose you license for a second offence. I would consider a ban for first offence but think it would be too difficult to implement. I would like a much more aggressive Police enforcement of all traffic laws for all road users including (sometimes overlooked) things like littering but I doubt there's much chance of that as we're too wet as a society these days with too much red tape and not enough action. My biggest problem with cyclists at the moment is working out where they are going, the number who don't seem to know how to position themselves when turning right is amazing. We were all taught at school how to ride properly but that all seems to have gone out of the window these days with cyclists just whizzing around all over the place with no regard for their safety or the highway code. I would be interested in how you would envisage getting cycling standards improved. Hwicce

12:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly.

No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed.

Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.
I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning.

But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc.

So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?
I see we agree. All road users should obey the law and show due respect for others no matter what form of transport used.

I'm sure readers would be interested on your position on whether or not its appropriate for drivers to abide by speed limits (and not see them as a target to aim for not matter what the road conditions), not use their mobiles whilst driving and give cyclists as much room when they overtake as if they were a car.
I'm quite happy that motorists should stick to speed limits, I think more use should be made of average speed cameras rather than the "spot" speed ones, mainly because the spot speed ones aren't very good. I do think though that some speed limits could be increased to a more sensible level and I think 20mph speed limits are pointless. They're a good sop for the local Councillor to feel he's "done something" but not much good otherwise.

As for mobiles in cars I'd ban them completely, hands free as well as handheld. I think the fine should be upped to £500 and 9 points i.e. expensive and you loose you license for a second offence. I would consider a ban for first offence but think it would be too difficult to implement.

I would like a much more aggressive Police enforcement of all traffic laws for all road users including (sometimes overlooked) things like littering but I doubt there's much chance of that as we're too wet as a society these days with too much red tape and not enough action.

My biggest problem with cyclists at the moment is working out where they are going, the number who don't seem to know how to position themselves when turning right is amazing. We were all taught at school how to ride properly but that all seems to have gone out of the window these days with cyclists just whizzing around all over the place with no regard for their safety or the highway code. I would be interested in how you would envisage getting cycling standards improved.
Cyclists have the same rights as a car when using the road.

When turning right they should look behind them and if clear to do so signal and move into the centre of the traffic lane. They should then stay in this position until its safe to turn right.

Unfortunately many motorists aren't aware of this either and either don't reduce their speed enough or blare their horns to indicate that they think the cyclists should get out of their way.

The answer is two fold.

Cyclists need to be taught to be more assertive and exert their rights to use the road just as any car would. Making themselves more visible to motorists isn't a legal requirement, but a sensible precaution.

Motorists need to be educated into making allowances for cyclists to enable them to use the road safely.

Perhaps cycling should be made part of the national curriculum and more training for motorists about giving cyclists more space should be included in the driving test.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly. No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed. Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.[/p][/quote]I think they should have many more of these drink drive campaigns. I like the Australian system where they turn up with an artic and blanket test everyone on a particular road without any need to have an excuse to stop them. Just think how many they'd catch if they did that on the A449 on a Friday night/Saturday morning. But conversely I also think they should have a zero-tolerance of cyclists jumping lights, no lights, riding on pavements etc. So there you go i-cycle, am I in your "rant camp"?[/p][/quote]I see we agree. All road users should obey the law and show due respect for others no matter what form of transport used. I'm sure readers would be interested on your position on whether or not its appropriate for drivers to abide by speed limits (and not see them as a target to aim for not matter what the road conditions), not use their mobiles whilst driving and give cyclists as much room when they overtake as if they were a car.[/p][/quote]I'm quite happy that motorists should stick to speed limits, I think more use should be made of average speed cameras rather than the "spot" speed ones, mainly because the spot speed ones aren't very good. I do think though that some speed limits could be increased to a more sensible level and I think 20mph speed limits are pointless. They're a good sop for the local Councillor to feel he's "done something" but not much good otherwise. As for mobiles in cars I'd ban them completely, hands free as well as handheld. I think the fine should be upped to £500 and 9 points i.e. expensive and you loose you license for a second offence. I would consider a ban for first offence but think it would be too difficult to implement. I would like a much more aggressive Police enforcement of all traffic laws for all road users including (sometimes overlooked) things like littering but I doubt there's much chance of that as we're too wet as a society these days with too much red tape and not enough action. My biggest problem with cyclists at the moment is working out where they are going, the number who don't seem to know how to position themselves when turning right is amazing. We were all taught at school how to ride properly but that all seems to have gone out of the window these days with cyclists just whizzing around all over the place with no regard for their safety or the highway code. I would be interested in how you would envisage getting cycling standards improved.[/p][/quote]Cyclists have the same rights as a car when using the road. When turning right they should look behind them and if clear to do so signal and move into the centre of the traffic lane. They should then stay in this position until its safe to turn right. Unfortunately many motorists aren't aware of this either and either don't reduce their speed enough or blare their horns to indicate that they think the cyclists should get out of their way. The answer is two fold. Cyclists need to be taught to be more assertive and exert their rights to use the road just as any car would. Making themselves more visible to motorists isn't a legal requirement, but a sensible precaution. Motorists need to be educated into making allowances for cyclists to enable them to use the road safely. Perhaps cycling should be made part of the national curriculum and more training for motorists about giving cyclists more space should be included in the driving test. i-cycle

8:54am Fri 13 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

@I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars.

Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions.

I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.
@I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars. Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions. I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future. Hwicce

10:24am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ted Elgar says...

Hwicce wrote:
yeller wrote:
Ted Elgar wrote:
This is a great article.

I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them.

I hope the Police get them all disqualified.
How have you 'noticed' that then?
The chip on his shoulder told him.
No chip, but the monkey on my back is really playing up.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yeller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: This is a great article. I have noticed that people who drive Jags and BMWs seem to think drink/drive legislation doesn't apply to them. I hope the Police get them all disqualified.[/p][/quote]How have you 'noticed' that then?[/p][/quote]The chip on his shoulder told him.[/p][/quote]No chip, but the monkey on my back is really playing up. Ted Elgar

10:30am Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
@I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars.

Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions.

I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.
I'm not advocating compulsory cycle training.

Drivers are literally in charge of a lethal weapon that kills and injures thousands in the UK and millions around the world each year.

Whilst I agree cyclists should obey the Highway Code, the key training need for cyclists is to improve their ability to use the roads safely.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars. Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions. I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.[/p][/quote]I'm not advocating compulsory cycle training. Drivers are literally in charge of a lethal weapon that kills and injures thousands in the UK and millions around the world each year. Whilst I agree cyclists should obey the Highway Code, the key training need for cyclists is to improve their ability to use the roads safely. i-cycle

12:17pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
@I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars.

Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions.

I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.
I'm not advocating compulsory cycle training.

Drivers are literally in charge of a lethal weapon that kills and injures thousands in the UK and millions around the world each year.

Whilst I agree cyclists should obey the Highway Code, the key training need for cyclists is to improve their ability to use the roads safely.
Back peddling on the training for cyclists already, that didn't last long.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars. Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions. I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.[/p][/quote]I'm not advocating compulsory cycle training. Drivers are literally in charge of a lethal weapon that kills and injures thousands in the UK and millions around the world each year. Whilst I agree cyclists should obey the Highway Code, the key training need for cyclists is to improve their ability to use the roads safely.[/p][/quote]Back peddling on the training for cyclists already, that didn't last long. Hwicce

2:12pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following….

In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle

I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal.

On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road.

So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road.

If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists. Hwicce

5:44pm Fri 13 Dec 13

sunnside says...

motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.
motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep. sunnside

7:58pm Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

sunnside wrote:
motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.
All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users.

As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly.

To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users.

That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.
[quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.[/p][/quote]All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users. As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly. To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users. That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist. i-cycle

8:00pm Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
@I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars.

Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions.

I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.
I'm not advocating compulsory cycle training.

Drivers are literally in charge of a lethal weapon that kills and injures thousands in the UK and millions around the world each year.

Whilst I agree cyclists should obey the Highway Code, the key training need for cyclists is to improve their ability to use the roads safely.
Back peddling on the training for cyclists already, that didn't last long.
I fully agree with more training for cyclists. Its just not for the reasons you are 'pedalling'
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars. Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions. I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.[/p][/quote]I'm not advocating compulsory cycle training. Drivers are literally in charge of a lethal weapon that kills and injures thousands in the UK and millions around the world each year. Whilst I agree cyclists should obey the Highway Code, the key training need for cyclists is to improve their ability to use the roads safely.[/p][/quote]Back peddling on the training for cyclists already, that didn't last long.[/p][/quote]I fully agree with more training for cyclists. Its just not for the reasons you are 'pedalling' i-cycle

8:06pm Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following….

In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle

I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal.

On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road.

So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road.

If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
It all depends on the driver and the cyclist.

I'll give you another scenario.

i use a pea shooter. You use a machine gun.

Who needs to be regulated most?
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]It all depends on the driver and the cyclist. I'll give you another scenario. i use a pea shooter. You use a machine gun. Who needs to be regulated most? i-cycle

8:33pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following….

In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle

I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal.

On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road.

So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road.

If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
It all depends on the driver and the cyclist.

I'll give you another scenario.

i use a pea shooter. You use a machine gun.

Who needs to be regulated most?
I thought we were talking about cars and cycles and the need for cyclists to be trained.

If you want to avoid the issue and go off into gun control you'll have to wait for a relevant news story.

Until cyclists get trained then more of them will get killed and injured than needs be. Cyclists attitudes, where they don't think they need training, will just mean more will die. Nothing I can do about that.

Do you read road.cc? There are some much more sensible views on there concerning how cyclists should act and the consequences of not following the Highway Code.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]It all depends on the driver and the cyclist. I'll give you another scenario. i use a pea shooter. You use a machine gun. Who needs to be regulated most?[/p][/quote]I thought we were talking about cars and cycles and the need for cyclists to be trained. If you want to avoid the issue and go off into gun control you'll have to wait for a relevant news story. Until cyclists get trained then more of them will get killed and injured than needs be. Cyclists attitudes, where they don't think they need training, will just mean more will die. Nothing I can do about that. Do you read road.cc? There are some much more sensible views on there concerning how cyclists should act and the consequences of not following the Highway Code. Hwicce

8:33pm Fri 13 Dec 13

sunnside says...

i-cycle wrote:
sunnside wrote:
motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.
All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users.

As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly.

To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users.

That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.
how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.[/p][/quote]All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users. As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly. To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users. That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.[/p][/quote]how do cyclists pay more than motorists ? sunnside

8:54pm Fri 13 Dec 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

"My biggest problem with cyclists at the moment is working out where they are going, the number who don't seem to know how to position themselves when turning right is amazing. We were all taught at school how to ride properly but that all seems to have gone out of the window these days with cyclists just whizzing around all over the place with no regard for their safety or the highway code. I would be interested in how you would envisage getting cycling standards improved"

Today I was cycling down Chestnut Walk to turn right at St Oswalds Road. I looked behind, saw I had room, gave a positive signal to turn right , was just on the centre line when a car overtook me on the right - at speed - on the opposite side of the road - the driver playing with his ipod with ear buds in his ear (and a fag hanging out of his mouth)

So what about cars (in your own words) whizzing about with no regards to other road users safety or the highway code.
"My biggest problem with cyclists at the moment is working out where they are going, the number who don't seem to know how to position themselves when turning right is amazing. We were all taught at school how to ride properly but that all seems to have gone out of the window these days with cyclists just whizzing around all over the place with no regard for their safety or the highway code. I would be interested in how you would envisage getting cycling standards improved" Today I was cycling down Chestnut Walk to turn right at St Oswalds Road. I looked behind, saw I had room, gave a positive signal to turn right , was just on the centre line when a car overtook me on the right - at speed - on the opposite side of the road - the driver playing with his ipod with ear buds in his ear (and a fag hanging out of his mouth) So what about cars (in your own words) whizzing about with no regards to other road users safety or the highway code. imustbeoldiwearacap

8:58pm Fri 13 Dec 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

sunnside wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
sunnside wrote:
motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.
All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users.

As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly.

To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users.

That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.
how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?
Simples - the likes of Sir Wiggo whose high earnings are subject to tax, which makes sure he pays more in taxes than the average motorist!
[quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.[/p][/quote]All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users. As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly. To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users. That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.[/p][/quote]how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?[/p][/quote]Simples - the likes of Sir Wiggo whose high earnings are subject to tax, which makes sure he pays more in taxes than the average motorist! imustbeoldiwearacap

9:29pm Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

sunnside wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
sunnside wrote:
motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.
All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users.

As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly.

To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users.

That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.
how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?
Simples.

Most cyclists are also motorists.

On average they also tend to earn and therefore pay more in general taxation than the majority of motorists and tax payers.
[quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.[/p][/quote]All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users. As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly. To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users. That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.[/p][/quote]how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?[/p][/quote]Simples. Most cyclists are also motorists. On average they also tend to earn and therefore pay more in general taxation than the majority of motorists and tax payers. i-cycle

9:46pm Fri 13 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Hwicce wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following….

In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle

I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal.

On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road.

So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road.

If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
It all depends on the driver and the cyclist.

I'll give you another scenario.

i use a pea shooter. You use a machine gun.

Who needs to be regulated most?
I thought we were talking about cars and cycles and the need for cyclists to be trained.

If you want to avoid the issue and go off into gun control you'll have to wait for a relevant news story.

Until cyclists get trained then more of them will get killed and injured than needs be. Cyclists attitudes, where they don't think they need training, will just mean more will die. Nothing I can do about that.

Do you read road.cc? There are some much more sensible views on there concerning how cyclists should act and the consequences of not following the Highway Code.
Nope.

I positively encourage more cyclists to be trained. I'm fully support efforts to encourage cyclists to make themselves more visible to other road users.

Its one of the best ways to ensure they learn to cycle in ways that reduces the chances of being injured or killed by inconsiderate and dangerous drivers.

Have a look at this article and most of the others in the Worcester News. Ask yourself which road users are mainly responsible for breaking the law and injuring and killing others.

Some cyclists may not always abide by the Highway Code, but the consequences of their actions seldom result in others, apart from themselves, being injured.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]It all depends on the driver and the cyclist. I'll give you another scenario. i use a pea shooter. You use a machine gun. Who needs to be regulated most?[/p][/quote]I thought we were talking about cars and cycles and the need for cyclists to be trained. If you want to avoid the issue and go off into gun control you'll have to wait for a relevant news story. Until cyclists get trained then more of them will get killed and injured than needs be. Cyclists attitudes, where they don't think they need training, will just mean more will die. Nothing I can do about that. Do you read road.cc? There are some much more sensible views on there concerning how cyclists should act and the consequences of not following the Highway Code.[/p][/quote]Nope. I positively encourage more cyclists to be trained. I'm fully support efforts to encourage cyclists to make themselves more visible to other road users. Its one of the best ways to ensure they learn to cycle in ways that reduces the chances of being injured or killed by inconsiderate and dangerous drivers. Have a look at this article and most of the others in the Worcester News. Ask yourself which road users are mainly responsible for breaking the law and injuring and killing others. Some cyclists may not always abide by the Highway Code, but the consequences of their actions seldom result in others, apart from themselves, being injured. i-cycle

12:15pm Sat 14 Dec 13

sunnside says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
sunnside wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
sunnside wrote:
motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.
All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users.

As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly.

To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users.

That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.
how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?
Simples - the likes of Sir Wiggo whose high earnings are subject to tax, which makes sure he pays more in taxes than the average motorist!
sir wiggo is a professional like lewis hamilton and other motorists not a looney bike rider with no idea of the dangers of riding at night dressed in black
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: motorists are encouraged to obey the rules of the road or get banned or worse prison as for cyclists they just dont bother because they need to as the law are unable to trace them following an offence like a motorist who have a number plastered on the front and rear of their vehicle so the police can be outside their home waiting for them so as for this drink drive push it should happen but so should a clamp down on arrogant inconsiderate cyclists who think they own the roads but pay nothing towards their upkeep.[/p][/quote]All road users should obey the law and use the roads responsibly with due consideration for all other road users. As a motorist and cyclist I see both bad cycling and bad driving. Instead of different types of road user mouthing off against each other, surely we should all be encouraging all road users to act more responsibly. To perpetuate antagonism between cyclists and drivers only serves to give the likes of James Connell the feeling that they have the right to suggest that its OK for drivers to consider action that could maime and injure other road users. That said its not true to say that cyclists don't pay for the upkeep of roads. Some even pay more than the average motorist.[/p][/quote]how do cyclists pay more than motorists ?[/p][/quote]Simples - the likes of Sir Wiggo whose high earnings are subject to tax, which makes sure he pays more in taxes than the average motorist![/p][/quote]sir wiggo is a professional like lewis hamilton and other motorists not a looney bike rider with no idea of the dangers of riding at night dressed in black sunnside

12:27pm Sat 14 Dec 13

batchelorboy says...

i-cycle wrote:
I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly.

No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed.

Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.
And those who have given you the thumbs down are the ones your comment was aimed at...

I personally think we need an all-year-round campaign to crack down on general bad road manners and law breaking so commonly seen every single day.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: I'm pleased to see yet another Safer Roads Partnership campaign aimed at trying to make sure more road users obey the law and act responsibly. No doubt the usual pro driving, anti speed limit commentators will soon be on this site saying that only a few have been killed or injured as a result of drink driving so all this isn't needed. Either that or they'll rant on about how most of the accidents are caused by errant cyclists and pedestrians who need to be 'educated' better.[/p][/quote]And those who have given you the thumbs down are the ones your comment was aimed at... I personally think we need an all-year-round campaign to crack down on general bad road manners and law breaking so commonly seen every single day. batchelorboy

11:23pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Bufton Tufton says...

Hwicce wrote:
@I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars.

Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions.

I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.
mandatory training for car drivers is NOT required ( although I think it should be ); they are only required to pass a test
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @I-cycle - glad you see that mandatory training for cyclists is needed. It already happens for cars. Maybe to ensure it is done we should have a cycle license that you only get after cyclists have passed a competancy test and can lose if they break (too many) of the Highway Code provisions. I expect to see you campaigning for this much needed safety improvement in your comments on the WN forum in the future.[/p][/quote]mandatory training for car drivers is NOT required ( although I think it should be ); they are only required to pass a test Bufton Tufton

11:28pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Bufton Tufton says...

Hwicce wrote:
@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following….

In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle

I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal.

On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road.

So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road.

If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph? Bufton Tufton

11:50pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Bufton Tufton says...

Bufton Tufton wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
@ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following….

In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle

I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal.

On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road.

So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road.

If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?
It is also perfectly legal for me to walk along the A449 to Kidderminster so do you think pedestrians should pass a test of competency to perambulate? They also step out into the road in front of "other road users" and cause injury and death and not always to themselves. Sometimes they are muggers, footpads, thieves and vagabonds and carry offensive weapons. I think we need a sense of proportionality. Pedestrians and cyclists employ human powered propulsion with one having greater efficiency due to the incorporation in its design of that well know invention-the wheel, and are more closely related to each other than mechanically powered vehicles are to either of them. Even journeys on foot are not totally natural unless walking over rough ground in bare feet. Most pedestrians wear shoes of some sort and walk on pavements constructed by the side of the roadway, paid for out of general taxation by the way and not through revenues earned through road tax.........whoops, sorry; Vehicle Excise Duty.
[quote][p][bold]Bufton Tufton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?[/p][/quote]It is also perfectly legal for me to walk along the A449 to Kidderminster so do you think pedestrians should pass a test of competency to perambulate? They also step out into the road in front of "other road users" and cause injury and death and not always to themselves. Sometimes they are muggers, footpads, thieves and vagabonds and carry offensive weapons. I think we need a sense of proportionality. Pedestrians and cyclists employ human powered propulsion with one having greater efficiency due to the incorporation in its design of that well know invention-the wheel, and are more closely related to each other than mechanically powered vehicles are to either of them. Even journeys on foot are not totally natural unless walking over rough ground in bare feet. Most pedestrians wear shoes of some sort and walk on pavements constructed by the side of the roadway, paid for out of general taxation by the way and not through revenues earned through road tax.........whoops, sorry; Vehicle Excise Duty. Bufton Tufton

2:30pm Sun 15 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

To me Vehicle Excise Duty (or Road Tax as all too many people confusingly call it) is starting to look increasingly irrelevant.

It only raises a small proportion of the tax needed to build and maintain the highways (that includes footpaths, bridleways, pavements as well as roads). Compared to the financial savings from having a more fuel efficient car its not really big enough disincentive to have a significant impact in encouraging people to have a less polluting car. Now the tax disk is to be done away even the ability to quickly and visibly check whether a car is taxed will go.

Perhaps time for VED to go the same way as Road Tax did in the 30's? The tax shortfall could then be made up either through general taxation or cars or the fuel they use?
To me Vehicle Excise Duty (or Road Tax as all too many people confusingly call it) is starting to look increasingly irrelevant. It only raises a small proportion of the tax needed to build and maintain the highways (that includes footpaths, bridleways, pavements as well as roads). Compared to the financial savings from having a more fuel efficient car its not really big enough disincentive to have a significant impact in encouraging people to have a less polluting car. Now the tax disk is to be done away even the ability to quickly and visibly check whether a car is taxed will go. Perhaps time for VED to go the same way as Road Tax did in the 30's? The tax shortfall could then be made up either through general taxation or cars or the fuel they use? i-cycle

6:54pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Vox populi says...

Bufton Tufton wrote:
Hwicce wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?
Erm in reference to the A449 as in this comment portions of it are 70mph. Any dual carriageway with a central reservation or barrier is unless otherwise posted. Hope this clears up any confusion. National speed limit on single track roads is 60mph. Amazing how many people don't actually know this.

PS Militant - i - Cyclist, I presume I am in your group of "pro car" people as you call them. I cannot abide drink driving and believe it should be instant lifetime licence loss. All road users have a responsibility and that includes abiltity to control whatever vehicle you are driving/riding etc...
[quote][p][bold]Bufton Tufton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?[/p][/quote]Erm in reference to the A449 as in this comment portions of it are 70mph. Any dual carriageway with a central reservation or barrier is unless otherwise posted. Hope this clears up any confusion. National speed limit on single track roads is 60mph. Amazing how many people don't actually know this. PS Militant - i - Cyclist, I presume I am in your group of "pro car" people as you call them. I cannot abide drink driving and believe it should be instant lifetime licence loss. All road users have a responsibility and that includes abiltity to control whatever vehicle you are driving/riding etc... Vox populi

12:06am Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Vox populi wrote:
Bufton Tufton wrote:
Hwicce wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.
You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?
Erm in reference to the A449 as in this comment portions of it are 70mph. Any dual carriageway with a central reservation or barrier is unless otherwise posted. Hope this clears up any confusion. National speed limit on single track roads is 60mph. Amazing how many people don't actually know this.

PS Militant - i - Cyclist, I presume I am in your group of "pro car" people as you call them. I cannot abide drink driving and believe it should be instant lifetime licence loss. All road users have a responsibility and that includes abiltity to control whatever vehicle you are driving/riding etc...
Hi Vox.

How you doing?

I'm not militant, nor "anti-car".

As a car driver and cyclist I'm increasingly worried to see the antagonism that's out there which actually does no one any good. As can be demonstrated from what's happened on the continent there is much to be gained from all road users in respecting the highway code and being considerate to others.

Cyclists should obey the law, so should car drivers.

Personally i experience it from both sides.

Whether in my car or on my bike I'm actually seeing lots more drivers breaking the law (whether speeding, using mobiles, packing in cycle lanes or advance stop lines -whatever) and being inconsiderate to other road users whether on foot, bike or in a car.

Just as with drink drive and seat belt wearing I see the case for a change that ensures cyclists don't use the pavements (often because the roads are too dangerous) or jump red lights (mostly on a left turn to avoid being crushed by a lorry?) or simply because the County Council has failed not to do enough over the years to provide safer on or off road routes unless they managed to get the Government or developers to pay for it.

More importantly I'd like to see drivers stick to speed limits rather than see them as a target to aim for no matter what the weather, road conditions or out of consideration for other road users.

Like many cyclist I'm also a car owner, driver and tax payer. I'm an experienced and well trained 'non-lycra' cyclists (even DfT qualified to deliver Bikeabilty training to other cyclists).

Almost every time I cycle around the 'fateful' city I encounter dangerous and inconsiderate driving and lots of drivers breaking various laws some of which potentially threatens my well being.

I also see some cyclists breaking the law, but often to protect themselves from the dangers inherent on using roads designed for drivers and used by prats (such as a certain WN reporter) who think we should be banned and therefore are fair game to be driven at.

There are strong and growing reasons why cycling should and will increase. My big concern is that we have a county council who don't see it as a priority to make their roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians and motorists who increasingly see even the most law abiding and most vulnerable of all road users the respect and consideration they should be given and often on a misconception that we don't pay a tax that was abolished in the 30's an arrogant assumption that only they pay for roads and their upkeep.

I'm sure you're not one of them, but that's why I find it so infuriating when some on these pages portray cyclists as the main 'law breakers' when its all too obvious that many motorists themselves don't abide by the highway code or give due consideration for other road users. This arrogance is probably the main reason why the UK has some of the highest casualty rates for pedestrians and cyclists in the developed world.

All too often on these pages we hear comments about why speed limits shouldn't be enforced or new ones shouldn't be introduced because only a few people have been killed or injured in the last x years. Either that or those inured should have been better 'educated' to walk or cycle along the highway.

Is it a bit more respect for the law and consideration from all road users to other road users that much to ask in what passes for a civilised society?

I await your and others response with interest.

What would be even better is if the WN would see this as an issue worth debating seriously without seeing it as an opportunity to dangerously inflame existing antagonisms between different types of road user and identify positive ways of making the roads safer for all.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bufton Tufton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: @ i-cycle As you are so opposed to training for cycling consider the following…. In this scenario I can’t drive and I can’t cycle I decide I need to take my young child from A to B on a regular basis and so I want some transport. I go into a second hand shop and buy a cycle (hurrah I hear you shout). I then put my child on the back of this cycle and peddle off down the road towards my destination. I have no insurance, I’m wearing no cycle helmets, I don’t have lights (only required at night), and I have no bell (not a legal requirement). I have had no training and I have never even heard of the Highway Code let alone opened a copy of one. I am however wobbling my way up the A449 to Kidderminster (with a 70mph limit). Dodgy maybe, but perfectly legal. On the other hand I decide to buy a second hand car. This car must have had roadworthiness check (MOT) in the last year if older than 3 years. It must be taxed, I must have insurance. The car must have a working horn. It must have working lights even though I'm driving in the day. Even then I can’t drive it as I need to get a license, pass a theory test (including Highway Code), and have someone sat with me in the car while I practise on the road. I must pass a second practical test before I can go out on my own. If I have my child in the car, they must have an approved child seat or booster seat and must wear a seatbelt. My car has an identification mark on it (Registration Number) so if I do anything wrong a member of the public can report me. If I do do enough wrong I can be banned from the road. So in those two, both perfectly legal scenarios, who do you think is safest to be on the road? The untrained, unprotected cyclist with their kid on the back going up the 70mph road with no idea of what they are doing have just bought the cycle 15mins ago, or the trained, tested driver in the tested insured car with extra safety equipment for the child going up the 70mph road. If you honestly think that cyclists should not have some form of compulsory training then you are a complete fool and have no real interest in the safety of cyclists.[/p][/quote]You think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 70mph?[/p][/quote]Erm in reference to the A449 as in this comment portions of it are 70mph. Any dual carriageway with a central reservation or barrier is unless otherwise posted. Hope this clears up any confusion. National speed limit on single track roads is 60mph. Amazing how many people don't actually know this. PS Militant - i - Cyclist, I presume I am in your group of "pro car" people as you call them. I cannot abide drink driving and believe it should be instant lifetime licence loss. All road users have a responsibility and that includes abiltity to control whatever vehicle you are driving/riding etc...[/p][/quote]Hi Vox. How you doing? I'm not militant, nor "anti-car". As a car driver and cyclist I'm increasingly worried to see the antagonism that's out there which actually does no one any good. As can be demonstrated from what's happened on the continent there is much to be gained from all road users in respecting the highway code and being considerate to others. Cyclists should obey the law, so should car drivers. Personally i experience it from both sides. Whether in my car or on my bike I'm actually seeing lots more drivers breaking the law (whether speeding, using mobiles, packing in cycle lanes or advance stop lines -whatever) and being inconsiderate to other road users whether on foot, bike or in a car. Just as with drink drive and seat belt wearing I see the case for a change that ensures cyclists don't use the pavements (often because the roads are too dangerous) or jump red lights (mostly on a left turn to avoid being crushed by a lorry?) or simply because the County Council has failed not to do enough over the years to provide safer on or off road routes unless they managed to get the Government or developers to pay for it. More importantly I'd like to see drivers stick to speed limits rather than see them as a target to aim for no matter what the weather, road conditions or out of consideration for other road users. Like many cyclist I'm also a car owner, driver and tax payer. I'm an experienced and well trained 'non-lycra' cyclists (even DfT qualified to deliver Bikeabilty training to other cyclists). Almost every time I cycle around the 'fateful' city I encounter dangerous and inconsiderate driving and lots of drivers breaking various laws some of which potentially threatens my well being. I also see some cyclists breaking the law, but often to protect themselves from the dangers inherent on using roads designed for drivers and used by prats (such as a certain WN reporter) who think we should be banned and therefore are fair game to be driven at. There are strong and growing reasons why cycling should and will increase. My big concern is that we have a county council who don't see it as a priority to make their roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians and motorists who increasingly see even the most law abiding and most vulnerable of all road users the respect and consideration they should be given and often on a misconception that we don't pay a tax that was abolished in the 30's an arrogant assumption that only they pay for roads and their upkeep. I'm sure you're not one of them, but that's why I find it so infuriating when some on these pages portray cyclists as the main 'law breakers' when its all too obvious that many motorists themselves don't abide by the highway code or give due consideration for other road users. This arrogance is probably the main reason why the UK has some of the highest casualty rates for pedestrians and cyclists in the developed world. All too often on these pages we hear comments about why speed limits shouldn't be enforced or new ones shouldn't be introduced because only a few people have been killed or injured in the last x years. Either that or those inured should have been better 'educated' to walk or cycle along the highway. Is it a bit more respect for the law and consideration from all road users to other road users that much to ask in what passes for a civilised society? I await your and others response with interest. What would be even better is if the WN would see this as an issue worth debating seriously without seeing it as an opportunity to dangerously inflame existing antagonisms between different types of road user and identify positive ways of making the roads safer for all. i-cycle

8:01am Mon 16 Dec 13

Vox populi says...

All any sensible motorist wants to see is sensible speed limits in sensible places coupled with sensible behaviour from ALL road users.

What isn't helpful and will only serve to widen your perceived divide is militant campaigns for blanket speed limits followed by the introduction and enforcement of them to ensure revenue. Often applied only after someone who shouldn't of been in the gene pool anyway removed themselves... Should speed limits be used to protect people from themselves or should people be adequately trained to drive safely at them? Or has the standard, intelligence and training of drivers dramatically decreased over the last 20 years against a backdrop where motor vehicles, their safety and their ability to stop etc has increased so much?
All any sensible motorist wants to see is sensible speed limits in sensible places coupled with sensible behaviour from ALL road users. What isn't helpful and will only serve to widen your perceived divide is militant campaigns for blanket speed limits followed by the introduction and enforcement of them to ensure revenue. Often applied only after someone who shouldn't of been in the gene pool anyway removed themselves... Should speed limits be used to protect people from themselves or should people be adequately trained to drive safely at them? Or has the standard, intelligence and training of drivers dramatically decreased over the last 20 years against a backdrop where motor vehicles, their safety and their ability to stop etc has increased so much? Vox populi

3:46pm Mon 16 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

Vox populi wrote:
All any sensible motorist wants to see is sensible speed limits in sensible places coupled with sensible behaviour from ALL road users.

What isn't helpful and will only serve to widen your perceived divide is militant campaigns for blanket speed limits followed by the introduction and enforcement of them to ensure revenue. Often applied only after someone who shouldn't of been in the gene pool anyway removed themselves... Should speed limits be used to protect people from themselves or should people be adequately trained to drive safely at them? Or has the standard, intelligence and training of drivers dramatically decreased over the last 20 years against a backdrop where motor vehicles, their safety and their ability to stop etc has increased so much?
Hi again Vox.

Thanks for making you position clear.

So what you're saying is that if a child (a large percentage of those killed and injured on our roads are children) steps out in front of you its their fault and because they should have known better its OK for you to knock them down because, as you say '"they shouldn't of (have?) been in the gene pool anyway".

Its a prone fact that young people can't judge speed well until their brian develops fully. there's therefore no amount of education that will make any difference. Equally with an ageing population there are an increasing number of people who for a whole range of reasons find it difficult to cross the road.

I'm sure I'm not the only reader who sees your attitude as despicable.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: All any sensible motorist wants to see is sensible speed limits in sensible places coupled with sensible behaviour from ALL road users. What isn't helpful and will only serve to widen your perceived divide is militant campaigns for blanket speed limits followed by the introduction and enforcement of them to ensure revenue. Often applied only after someone who shouldn't of been in the gene pool anyway removed themselves... Should speed limits be used to protect people from themselves or should people be adequately trained to drive safely at them? Or has the standard, intelligence and training of drivers dramatically decreased over the last 20 years against a backdrop where motor vehicles, their safety and their ability to stop etc has increased so much?[/p][/quote]Hi again Vox. Thanks for making you position clear. So what you're saying is that if a child (a large percentage of those killed and injured on our roads are children) steps out in front of you its their fault and because they should have known better its OK for you to knock them down because, as you say '"they shouldn't of (have?) been in the gene pool anyway". Its a prone fact that young people can't judge speed well until their brian develops fully. there's therefore no amount of education that will make any difference. Equally with an ageing population there are an increasing number of people who for a whole range of reasons find it difficult to cross the road. I'm sure I'm not the only reader who sees your attitude as despicable. i-cycle

10:34am Tue 17 Dec 13

BadgerMash says...

Reading all the above mud-slinging (I really can't dignify it with the word "debate") clearly indicates what an appalling relationship most of us have with both driving and alcohol. Pathological and/or addictive in most cases.
Reading all the above mud-slinging (I really can't dignify it with the word "debate") clearly indicates what an appalling relationship most of us have with both driving and alcohol. Pathological and/or addictive in most cases. BadgerMash

4:36pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Andy-Apache says...

I was wondering why kids can't judge speed until Brian develops...

I'm a cyclist, a walker and a driver. When in the car, I stop for horses when necessary, give cyclists room, give way to walkers etc. It costs me seconds. I expect the same level of respect in return when on my bike.

Whilst I wouldn't describe myself as a cycling 'extremist', more a warm weather hobbyist, I certainly do position myself very confidently at junctions, roundabouts etc. (and remembering I also drive) I don't understand why if I maybe take 2 or 3 seconds extra to negotiate a roundabout I should become the object of a blaring horn or being cut up. I only do it to give myself space to get out of the way if a motorist does something daft (and lets face it, we're all fallible). Surely he / she would prefer that than living with killing someone's husband / father / son to save themselves a couple of seconds on their journey? (Literally, a couple of seconds. Think about it)

This approach has saved my bacon many a time. Particularly at the roundabout on Howsell road, which many dont seem to even recognise as a roundabout - or a junction for that matter - and just go steaming through with nary a glance to their right.

I suppose my point is severalfold (multifold?)

1) When you're on your bike, be confident but not stupid. Don't hold people up unnecessarily, but give yourself room and maintain the attitude that you have the right to be there. But don't push a dodgy looking situation. It's all well and good saying 'but it was my right of way!!' from a hospital bed.

2) When you're in the car, remember that rushing to squeeze past a cyclist will not save you any time. You'll be right up behind the next car in the slow moving queue in seconds and then you'll have to pass the cyclist again. What that momentary lapse of judgement might do though is ruin your life as you try to come to terms with killing another human being because you were in a bit of a rush.

As Honda once said, "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?"
I was wondering why kids can't judge speed until Brian develops... I'm a cyclist, a walker and a driver. When in the car, I stop for horses when necessary, give cyclists room, give way to walkers etc. It costs me seconds. I expect the same level of respect in return when on my bike. Whilst I wouldn't describe myself as a cycling 'extremist', more a warm weather hobbyist, I certainly do position myself very confidently at junctions, roundabouts etc. (and remembering I also drive) I don't understand why if I maybe take 2 or 3 seconds extra to negotiate a roundabout I should become the object of a blaring horn or being cut up. I only do it to give myself space to get out of the way if a motorist does something daft (and lets face it, we're all fallible). Surely he / she would prefer that than living with killing someone's husband / father / son to save themselves a couple of seconds on their journey? (Literally, a couple of seconds. Think about it) This approach has saved my bacon many a time. Particularly at the roundabout on Howsell road, which many dont seem to even recognise as a roundabout - or a junction for that matter - and just go steaming through with nary a glance to their right. I suppose my point is severalfold (multifold?) 1) When you're on your bike, be confident but not stupid. Don't hold people up unnecessarily, but give yourself room and maintain the attitude that you have the right to be there. But don't push a dodgy looking situation. It's all well and good saying 'but it was my right of way!!' from a hospital bed. 2) When you're in the car, remember that rushing to squeeze past a cyclist will not save you any time. You'll be right up behind the next car in the slow moving queue in seconds and then you'll have to pass the cyclist again. What that momentary lapse of judgement might do though is ruin your life as you try to come to terms with killing another human being because you were in a bit of a rush. As Honda once said, "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?" Andy-Apache

10:15pm Tue 17 Dec 13

WorcsBornandBred says...

So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum.

How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****!

Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous
Road tax for cyclists - good idea!
So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum. How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****! Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous Road tax for cyclists - good idea! WorcsBornandBred

10:36pm Tue 17 Dec 13

3thinker says...

WorcsBornandBred wrote:
So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum.

How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****!

Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous
Road tax for cyclists - good idea!
Excellent idea. Its only fair that all road users should pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
[quote][p][bold]WorcsBornandBred[/bold] wrote: So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum. How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****! Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous Road tax for cyclists - good idea![/p][/quote]Excellent idea. Its only fair that all road users should pay Vehicle Excise Duty. 3thinker

10:45pm Tue 17 Dec 13

i-cycle says...

3thinker wrote:
WorcsBornandBred wrote:
So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum.

How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****!

Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous
Road tax for cyclists - good idea!
Excellent idea. Its only fair that all road users should pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
As a cyclist I'm more than happy to pay VED!
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WorcsBornandBred[/bold] wrote: So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum. How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****! Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous Road tax for cyclists - good idea![/p][/quote]Excellent idea. Its only fair that all road users should pay Vehicle Excise Duty.[/p][/quote]As a cyclist I'm more than happy to pay VED! i-cycle

10:20am Wed 18 Dec 13

Andy-Apache says...

i-cycle wrote:
3thinker wrote:
WorcsBornandBred wrote:
So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum.

How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****!

Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous
Road tax for cyclists - good idea!
Excellent idea. Its only fair that all road users should pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
As a cyclist I'm more than happy to pay VED!
Yep, at the rate for low / zero emissions vehicles - which is, err, £0...

Jeez, there's some bitter idiots about.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WorcsBornandBred[/bold] wrote: So, here's the thing guys. You lot whinging about speed limits and road safety training for all users, etc, etc, etc is NOT going to give any influence on the Worcester News website forum. How about you do something useful with your moaning and start a petition for all 4 people that give a ****! Speed limits at 20MPH - ridiculous Road tax for cyclists - good idea![/p][/quote]Excellent idea. Its only fair that all road users should pay Vehicle Excise Duty.[/p][/quote]As a cyclist I'm more than happy to pay VED![/p][/quote]Yep, at the rate for low / zero emissions vehicles - which is, err, £0... Jeez, there's some bitter idiots about. Andy-Apache

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree