Speed limits: 40mph plan for country roads

[Little John]

You've also got nowhere to go when when you come across a sunken drain, or the road breaking up around a manhole.

Quite so

[RogueMale]

In terms of pulling over to let cars past, there is a bit of a balance to be drawn there. From my own cycling experience, if ride right up to the left hand kerb, then the cars start racing past you with only inches to spare at high speed. This, then, traps you right up to the kerb, a very dangerous place to be. The reason is that if a car seriously cuts you up, you have absolutely nowhere left to go except into the kerb, running the significant risk of coming off and getting run over. Thus, whenever I ride my bike on a busy road, I occupy the centre of the left hand side of the lane I am travelling in (in other words, 25% of the way out from the kerb to the middle of the road). This way, I am affording the cars behind me some wiggle room to get past, but not so much that I do not have some room to pull over to the left in an emergency.

Quite true. What I meant was if I'm going more slowly than usual, I pull in and stop. I normally ride about 0.8-1.0m from the edge of the road (roughly where you ride). If I don't want cars to overtake because it's unafe (e.g. traffic island), I'll take the lane, looking behind first.

There are still some drivers that try to squeeze past, even when I take the lane, and other drivers who overtake me very close at speed when the other side of the road is empty.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

You've also got nowhere to go when when you come across a sunken drain, or the road breaking up around a manhole.

Absolutely.

I was taught defensive riding techniques for motor cyclists and it's mostly about maintaining a safety bubble around you by forward planning and predictive cognisance. That boils down to being able to work out what other road users are going to do before they do it.

You see it with 16 year olds on their mopeds when they can just about achieve 30mph so they tend to ride to the left. Then some idiot pulls alongside them giving them nowhere to go. Dangerous things in fast moving traffic. Enough power to get into trouble but nowhere near enough to get out of it.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I can't recommend it too strongly, but I don't think it should be enforced, as the result would be that almost everyone would be put off bicycling. Your suggestion of number plates, road tax (which car drivers haven't paid since the 1930s), etc. is about as sensible as requiring that cars shouldn't be driven unless someone runs in front of them waving a red flag.

It wouldn't put people off if it was compulsory before you were allowed to take a driving test. I support most things that increase driver training and lessen the carnage on our roads.

Insurance should be compulsory. I doubt it would cost much of anything per year. Although Rhiannon Bennett tragically died if she had been left brain damaged the sober financial implications would have needed to be addressed.

Annual MoT would generate income for more bike shops and ensure that bikes were properly maintained. They are used on public roads after all and should be safe.

Road Fund contributions (pedant) could be ring fenced to provide more dedicated cycle lanes.

Interestingly the vast majority of gun owners I know, despite insurance not being compulsory in their sport still make very sure that they are insured anyway.

[RenewableCandy]

Interestingly the vast majority of gun owners I know, despite insurance not being compulsory in their sport still make very sure that they are insured anyway.

I think that's fair enough. If my bike sets off by accident, it doesn't tend to kill anyone

[RogueMale]

I can't recommend it too strongly, but I don't think it should be enforced, as the result would be that almost everyone would be put off bicycling. Your suggestion of number plates, road tax (which car drivers haven't paid since the 1930s), etc. is about as sensible as requiring that cars shouldn't be driven unless someone runs in front of them waving a red flag.

It wouldn't put people off if it was compulsory before you were allowed to take a driving test. I support most things that increase driver training and lessen the carnage on our roads.

This assumes that everyone wants to drive. What if they just want to ride bicycles?

Insurance should be compulsory. I doubt it would cost much of anything per year. Although Rhiannon Bennett tragically died if she had been left brain damaged the sober financial implications would have needed to be addressed.

It's extremely rare, and if it was up to me he'd have been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to several years in prison, as would anyone convicted of death by dangerous driving. Far more people are killed by cars. Why doesn't http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10404620 warrant a mention? Maybe it happens too often to be newsworthy?

Annual MoT would generate income for more bike shops and ensure that bikes were properly maintained. They are used on public roads after all and should be safe.

Many of us are perfectly capable of maintaining our own bikes. Why does "the economy" have to enter into it?

Road Fund contributions (pedant) could be ring fenced to provide more dedicated cycle lanes.

A bit late in the day to start on a dedicated bicycle infrastructure, isn't it? Cars aren't going to be around for much longer. After they're too expensive to run roads can be used for bicycles.

Interestingly the vast majority of gun owners I know, despite insurance not being compulsory in their sport still make very sure that they are insured anyway.

Guns are far more dangerous than bicycles. So are cars.

None of your proposals is worth implementing, which is why no one other than Jeremy Clarkson fans take them seriously.

[SleeperService]

+1 In my universe taking another life is murder no matter how it's done. In this one use a gun you go to jail, use a car and get a fine

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Interestingly the vast majority of gun owners I know, despite insurance not being compulsory in their sport still make very sure that they are insured anyway.

I think that's fair enough. If my bike sets off by accident, it doesn't tend to kill anyone

One of the sports with the best safety record. A loaded gun is never, and I do mean never, pointed in anything other than a safe direction. Safety is part of every drill and unsafe shooters are not tolerated on shooting grounds.

Cycling as a sport on the other hand is lethal.

Of course a gun can kill but then so can a arrow or cricket ball or even a push bike if you hit someone with it.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

This assumes that everyone wants to drive. What if they just want to ride bicycles?

Then you just stop at the cycling test obviously. You would have proved that you are safe to join other people on the road and not cause a danger. A CBT is a requirement before riding a 50cc moped limited to 30mph. Cyclists go faster than that.

No one is forcing you to cycle on public roads. It should be up to you to prove you are safe.

It's extremely rare, and if it was up to me he'd have been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to several years in prison, as would anyone convicted of death by dangerous driving. Far more people are killed by cars. Why doesn't http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10404620 warrant a mention? Maybe it happens too often to be newsworthy?

As it's so rare then the cost of insurance will be very low. A recent BBC article had it at about £10 pa.
There are a lot more deaths caused by cars because more miles are traveled by cars. Surely extra training as cyclists before people get behind a wheel would be a good thing?

Many of us are perfectly capable of maintaining our own bikes. Why does "the economy" have to enter into it?

Are you? Good. Then it won't cost you a lot to prove it once a year.
I am (amongst many other things) a qualified mechanic but I have never heard any one in the trade suggest that they should be MoT exempt just because they are perfectly capable of maintaining their own machines.

A bit late in the day to start on a dedicated bicycle infrastructure, isn't it? Cars aren't going to be around for much longer. After they're too expensive to run roads can be used for bicycles.

Better late than never. We can catch up with Europe.

Guns are far more dangerous than bicycles. So are cars.

No they are not. Shooting is a very safe sport and a gun is only dangerous if you drop it on your foot. An idiot with a loaded gun is dangerous but then so is an idiot with a bike or a car or a hammer.

None of your proposals is worth implementing, which is why no one other than Jeremy Clarkson fans take them seriously.

I have no idea what Jeremy Clarkson fans want.

My proposals would save lives - you just don't like them because you see them as obstructive.
Some people had similar views about crash helmets and seat belts.

[Snail]

The great thing I noticed in Amsterdam was how natural it was for people to use bikes. Don't remember many wearing helmets, and after clubs and pubs closed everybody got on their bikes and cycled home. Most probably at least a little drunk or worse!

That's the great thing about bicycles. Like walking, anybody within reason can get on one and use it to go places. With no fuss.

What's wrong with cycling proficiency classes in school, and the green cross code? Maintaining a bike isn't rocket-science and could even be taught in school too.

To pay for something which should be viewed almost as natural as walking? Bah. What about kids? Would they have to pass a test and mot, insurance, tax?

Quite frankly, I'm sick of this effort to perpetually reduce safety. It's a bit like constant growth. I even think motorcycle requirements should be lessened! The new test is a joke, and the cbt should last 5 years.

[biffvernon]

The great thing I noticed in Amsterdam was how natural it was for people to use bikes. Don't remember many wearing helmets, and after clubs and pubs closed everybody got on their bikes and cycled home. Most probably at least a little drunk or worse!

I was told by a Dutch person that their motoring laws have a default position of driver guilt in any car / bike interaction. Car drivers are, consequently, very cautious when anywhere near a bike.

JSD, never say never. I know someone who accidentally killed his friend with a sporting shotgun. As for hunting 'accidents' in the USA...

[Little John]

The great thing I noticed in Amsterdam was how natural it was for people to use bikes. Don't remember many wearing helmets, and after clubs and pubs closed everybody got on their bikes and cycled home. Most probably at least a little drunk or worse!

I was told by a Dutch person that their motoring laws have a default position of driver guilt in any car / bike interaction. Car drivers are, consequently, very cautious when anywhere near a bike.

JSD, never say never. I know someone who accidentally killed his friend with a sporting shotgun. As for hunting 'accidents' in the USA...

Any law which adopts a default position of guilt on one of the parties involved in a potential crime prior to the accumulation of any evidence is an indefensible disgrace. This is the case of irrespective of whether it is a murder, theft, motor vehicle accident or, indeed, any incident of any kind.

[Snail]

Yes, i nearly caused an accident as a kid when i almost ran onto the road right in front of a white van. It would've been entirely my fault. Luckly an adult pulled me back. But the thought of little young me nearly ruining that van drivers life, for something he had no control over? Well, i hope the dutch law position doesn't happen here.

Still, it was impressive watching those young people using their bikes in a different way than us.

Cyclists used to freak me out a little, when i 1st pased my car test, until i learned to hold well back and take my time.

[SleeperService]

Any law which adopts a default position of guilt on one of the parties involved in a potential crime prior to the accumulation of any evidence is an indefensible disgrace. This is the case of irrespective of whether it is a murder, theft, motor vehicle accident or, indeed, any incident of any kind.

I understand your concern Steve but it isn't quite as simple as that. It's the old steam gives way to sail principle applied to traffic. Very similar in fact to the law here about zebra crossings, a crossing is a road until a pedestrian claims it as a crossing by stepping onto it.

On the continent there is a 'pecking order' where the bigger the vehicle the greater the driver's responsibility. As a lorry driver if I hit anything I'm assumed to be in error until proved otherwise. The UK has tended to be fairly lax in investigating accidents properly but is catching up to the continent now. Remember 'knock for knock'? doesn't happen over there. I've been involved in an accident in Germany, treated fairly by the Police, found to be not at fault and released with an apology and a letter for my employer. If I had been found at fault then I'm a big boy so I have to deal with it.

All it does in reality is remind drivers of their responsibilities, no bad thing in my book.

[emordnilap]

I agree with Steve over the guilt thing - people tend to 'presume' far too much. I can't see that default position of guilty till proven innocent situation being for real, somehow.

Anyway, I simply prefer the muscle-powered trumps mechanically-powered as a default, with cars being last in the queue.