njee20

we had one a few years ago who was killed by a car making a right turn, okay that is down to the car but there was a perfectly good cycle lane on the pavement the other side of the dual carriageway that nobody used, so in that case it was the wrong place at the wrong time because he should have been on the cycle path provided

*facepalm*

He "shouldn't" have been anywhere. Cycle paths are optional, thank god (again). Yes, if he'd been on the cycle lane the driver turning across him wouldn't have killed him, but that's just victim blaming to the extreme. I personally think stab victims are to blame. They shouldn't have been in the space occupied by the knife, then they'd all still be alive. Wrong place, wrong time. See also soldiers. They shouldn't have got in the way of the bullets. More fool them.

Penalties for drivers who kill are certainly laughable. Definitely the way to commit murder, just give your intended victim a bike and mow them down. You'll get called naughty and fined £3.60.

He shouted loudly at the crowd crossing to move, but my toolcase went through his front wheel and he came off, most displeased with me.

And he got everything he deserved. This is definitely the stuff of tabloid journalism in the main though (not doubting your account). In thousands of miles cycled in London I've never once heard a cyclist jumping a red light and shouting at pedestrians. A minority do jump lights, and deserve fines, just like the drivers who speed/jump lights, and frankly the zombie pedestrians who walk out blindly far too often!

Good to hear it's going well Dave. They're nice photos, not liveries you're offering though

Looks good, look forward to seeing it on Saturday!

Yep, definitely only wits wouldn't use those!

Loads of good ones here.

Technically a car could stop on the zebra crossing to give way to a cyclist, or stop in the cycle lane to give way to a pedestrian. Unnecessarily cluttered though.

Post can be read two ways "it was a pedestrian (who was using the) crossing", or as is the case "it was a pedestrian crossing" (as opposed to a cycle path, thus the cyclist was correctly deemed at fault.

Better to not have the sensors, it makes you complacent about turning the lights on and off if they work most of the time, and reaching for a switch is hardly a difficult task that ever needed automating.

That was my point - because they nearly always work perfectly you don't think about it any more. Last time I took my car in for a service and they switched off the headlights I was driving at dusk and actually thought 'hmm it's got a bit dark, why aren't my lights on!?' obviously they'd turned them off. I felt like a bit of a prat. Were they manual I would of course have just switched them on at some point I deemed appropriate.

It's not good, but it's like anything automatic, you rely on it working automatically, otherwise it's pointless! See also auto-handbrakes, gear boxes, windscreen wipers, central locking etc etc. Not necessarily an excuse, but it's hardly surprising behaviour, I've barely had to touch my headlight switch in years!

Of course they aren't, totally agree.

Some people are , whether they're on a bike, in a car, on foot or in a spaceship! Sadly one of those groups is more prone to being 'tarred with the same brush'.

Bloody astronauts.

My turn to have a bit of a whinge about Driving Standards.....

 

On Saturday I got called out to a job in the centre of Cardiff, now as most of you know it was hoofing it down in the South West for most of the day, so why 'o' why didn't most people have their flaming lights on!!!!

 

I lost count of the number of dark coloured cars that were hurtling along the outside lane of the M4 without any lights on, and not all of them were BMW's or Audi's either. I drive a Vauxhall Insignia that has daytime running lights and headlights that come on via a light sensor, but even I knew that I needed to actually turn my headlights on because it was raining. Oh and by the way, if your daytime running lights are on, it doesn't necessarily also mean your rear lights are on as well. My previous car was a VW Golf which had Daytime Running Lights which also included the rear lights, but the Vauxhall doesn't, so please people CHECK TO SEE WHAT LIGHTS COME ON WITH YOUR DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS.

It is definitely a problem, and one I think is absolutely exacerbated by modern cars. There's virtually no way of telling when the headlights are on on my Golf, so it's very easy at times of low light to forget. On my old one the dashboard was only illuminated with the headlights, so you were acutely aware when you couldn't read your instruments any more! The current one is illuminated all the time though, so if you drive into bad weather it's easy to simply overlook it, and because the lights are automatic and you never have to think about it we get lazy!

That said... my headlights are more sensitive than I'd like for low light, but terrible in fog, they just don't come on, obviously something to do with the sensor. Seems a common problem with VW/Audi cars given the number driving around without their lights on in fog. Clearly Vauxhall's lights are less sensitive to low light too. I'd still prefer that to people who drive around with their fog lights on all the time though. Special place in hell for them.

The motorbike would not be included in my pavement scenario because motorbikes are more than capable of matching the speeds of other road vehicles, and to my mind should be treated with exactly the same respect as any other road vehicle.

 

Whilst cyclists don't?

I'm not trying to be facetious, the trouble is that if you legalise/encourage riding on pavements it just gives the knuckle-dragging anti-bike motoring contingent more ammunition to suggest cyclists have no place on the roads. By suggesting that cyclists can ride on the pavements as long as they give way to pedestrians or be found legally culpable in the event of a collision it's hardly doing anything to refute that. We're already seeing on this thread people saying "cyclists who don't use cycle paths deserve to die", and this is ostensibly a thread complain about driving standards; you'd assume it was self-selecting in weeding out those with the lack of mental capacity to understand the highway code.

There should be a focus on sharing and potentially improving existing infrastructure - people on bikes (commuters at least) are generally reducing congestion, so it's an odd psychology that a certain subset of motorists complain about them so much. Do they think they'd be held up less if everyone drove cars instead?

Seems reasonable! I'm pretty certain plenty of people never actually passed a driving test, so not sure it'll help.

As an aside... Even if you do mandate cycle paths you're still not safe: clicky.

And how are things looking on the volume of expressions Dave?

I have never understood why, in an intelligent society, we can't pass a law which says that pavements can be used by cyclists unless there are signs to the contrary.

 

This cycle usage would be subject to the law which would give pedestrians the priority of right of way at all times.

 

Restrictions could be imposed in town centres/near rows of shops, but for the most part as long as cyclists gave way to pedestrians I think it could work. After all most adults are (or like others to believe they are) responsible human beings.

 

There might be a problem with groups of teenagers racing up and down on bikes vs old grannies with hearing difficulties, but if the law is firmly worded and the punishments for wilful transgression are relatively harsh, then it ought to work.

There are all sorts of issues with that sadly, and what problem does it really solve? Cyclists getting killed? That is the same as mandating bullet proof vests to reduce gun crime, and again, it just reinforces that roads are for motor vehicles. Should horses use the pavements too? They're more of an inconvenience after all. What about motorbikes? They're more vulnerable, and if it's about saving lives...

Why would people cycle if they're forced to give way to pedestrians? What about all the side roads they'd no longer have right of way at? Driveways? Should cyclists not travel at more than 5mph to avoid collisions? Is there a speed limit? Can people do 30 mph on the pavement? How do you enforce that? How do cyclists know how fast they're going? In your example is it the default that the teenagers are wrong if in collision with a deaf granny, regardless of the outcome?

Better education for drivers and enforcement of existing laws and harsher penalties for those who kill people would be vastly better than allowing/encouraging cycling on pavements. I genuinely think there should be a compulsory cycling part of the driving test.

The inevitable being I'm killed for doing nothing whatsoeve wrong? What a lovely person you are. I hope you're wearing a flak jacket. Otherwise don't complain when you're stabbed in the street

Your attitude epitomises what's wrong with this country.

Put yours toys back in the pram and read my original post.

It's people like you who give cyclists a bad name.

 

Mike.

I never cycle on footpaths or pavements. Nor do I jump red lights. I do cycle a lot, and I'm acutely aware that cyclepaths are, unfortunately, often atrocious and woefully unsuitable. However, attitudes like yours propagate an idea that roads are for cars and everyone else should get out of the way. Runners must run on pavements, cyclists must use cycle paths and if a texting car driver mows them down then what a stupid cyclist for being there in the first place...

So you ride on pavements? Avoids unnecessary danger. In fact, why not just stay at home, avoids unnecessary danger.

You don't pay road tax in your car either, to be clear. Just the usual ignorant that gets spouted along with suggestions of mandating cycle path use!

Motorway use should be compulsory. They're the only roads actually built for motor vehicles.

You know they don't pay road tax either?! And they all jump red lights.

So by that logic cyclists should also use pavements? Better to be alive!

Running in the road is definitely better, if you're running toward traffic you can get out of the way if a car is unlikely to see you (eg blind bend). Fewer undulations too - dropped kerbs and the like.

I noticed there were about 9 scheduled workings on Monday, but I think most were 'runs as required', and weren't required!

Some of them (especially some cyclists) seem to be people going out of their way to ensure that an easily avoided collision occurs, or going out of their way to involve themselves in a collision.

 

These days I pretty much avoid watching any such videos.

 

All the best

 

Katy

Why would any cyclist actively try and get into a collision? They're pretty vulnerable and unlikely to fair well!

Most footage posted online is crap though, and I do think people go looking for stuff to film. Some people are just angry. I learnt a long time ago that it's just not worth the aggro, staying calm is better all round. There's so much bad driving out there that you'll only ruin your own day if you get annoyed at them. Whether in a car, on a bike or as pedestrian!

I'm in the market for an N 92 in Rfd or two, and whilst the 'unbranded' argument doesn't apply to this particular item (unless they secretly wore some coal logos at some point )

Well it does, because the same two tone grey with blue roof can be used for - original BR, SNCF, RfD and EWS with beasties.

I still wouldn't want an unbranded one though, and wouldn't get one even if it was offered. I'll get an RfD one to convert, I'd never manage to get loco numbers right, and removing a single logo and adding one is easier than having to add lots of numbers, arrows, depot plates and logos to an unnumbered model.

I'm definitely in the 'not adept enough to start modifying expensive models' category, but without my first choice of livery I've no choice!

I know that will be more expensive, might never happen but I prefer that than false the starts and stats and believe it will be fairer all round

Wait for what? The hope someone sells one that you do want second hand? Seems a bit daft to me. Each to their own.

Firstly, I attempted to register interest for some 92s over the weekend, and from perusing the thread it looks like there's usually an email response, but I didn't receive one (nothing in junk either). I see that others had problems with this earlier on, does the problem remain

I don't think anyone received an email, so I wouldn't worry!

Interesting difference in results between the scales. Wonder if GBRF Is more popular in N with people aiming to use them on their Greenergy Revolution TEAs? RFD a distant third rather than streaking ahead too.

Seemingly a higher proportion of sound in N as well, which is counterintuitive I'd say.