Cyclists - let's kill them all

[choucas09]

No I quoted them for perspective. As for numbers it is believed to be 4 or 5 million regular cyclists.

[Ian Price]

Sure - maybe I'm misreading what you intended by it. Personally I don't think you can compare these stats equally. If you are hit by a car you are far more likely to either die or have a serious injury than if you were hit by a bike.

[Roobubba]

Yes. And with no licence to lose, you can get fined into oblivion.

You can get stopped for speeding on one, too, which was news to me (who wasn't actually breaking the limit, just getting close enough that a cop felt the need to warn me).

There is no law to stop you exceeding a speed limit on a bike, per se, as there is no requirement for you to have something that measures speed on it. There is, however, a law governing riding without due care and attention, and it's that which you'd be having to contest if you were stopped for 'speeding'.
I think the technicality about speeding is that it's not motorised, and therefore not subject to speed limits, only what can be demonstrated to be 'unsafe'.

That's obviously a pretty grey area: if you're going 40 downhill in a 30, I think many policemen would stop you arguing that it's too fast and you're likely to badly injure or kill yourself in the event of an accident. I don't know what the courts would say to that, though.

And yes, being drunk in charge of a bicycle is also an offense.

Roo

[djl]

Sure - maybe I'm misreading what you intended by it. Personally I don't think you can compare these stats equally. If you are hit by a car you are far more likely to either die or have a serious injury than if you were hit by a bike.

Surely thats the point though? A car jumping a red light is going to have much more serious consequences than a bike doing the same thing. Cyclists annoy people, motorists kill people.

[Ian Price]

Well, my comment was meant in the context of the original post. I don't doubt that a car jumping a red light will have more serious consequences if it hits a pedestrian. The original post was about bikes 'jumping' red lights frequently - cars, in my experience, do it far less frequently.

I appreciate that this thread could go on and on with many different opinions and arguments - something which I am keen to avoid. My opinions aren't intended to annoy - I just see a different perspective as I'm not really a cyclist and believe that you simply can't compare those sets of stats.

[djl]

Yes, but the original post could be summed up as "man not hit by bicycle, gets annoyed". The stats are important, because the whole point he was annoyed was the perception of danger. The stats show that this is misplaced, and that he should vent his frustration in a more sensible direction. It's just that people who worship Clarkson increasingly see cyclists as fair game to have a go at.

[Ian Price]

I disagree. I'm not even sorry about it!

I could argue that the use of the stats is also misplaced but I'm not even going to go to the hassle of explaining my opinion, I'm happy with it  :lol:

Clearly I'm a Clarkson fan-boy.

[richard]

' man not hit by bicycle, gets annoyed '.

As the original poster I agree that this could sum up the experience I had just gone through. No, I wasn't hurt but that was absolutely no thanks to the cyclist who definitely would have hit me if I hadn't jumped out of the way. I've never been bit by either a car or a bicycle but have experienced a number of near misses of which the vast majority have involved cyclists.

I would say that in the last year I can recall 4 incidents of narrowly avoiding being mown down by cyclists (twice on the pavement) and none involving cars.  I have also experienced courteous behaviour from motorists on countless occasions and absolutely none from cyclists. I have on 2 occasions in the last year experienced screaming rages and foaming-at-the-mouth abuse from cyclists when I have inadvertently walked in a cycle lane. I'm not a Clarkson fan, and I don't drive.

[Elliot]

Many of us who have expressed concerns at the growing number (admittedly albeit a minority) of cyclist incidents hate Clarkson with a passion.  We also all seem to come from London. 

[Philly Q]

Yes, but the original post could be summed up as "man not hit by bicycle, gets annoyed". The stats are important, because the whole point he was annoyed was the perception of danger. The stats show that this is misplaced, and that he should vent his frustration in a more sensible direction. It's just that people who worship Clarkson increasingly see cyclists as fair game to have a go at.

Clarkson is nothing to do with what we're discussing.

And I don't think it's the perception of danger - although people could get hurt in an actual collision.  It's just annoying that (a minority of, yadda yadda) cyclists keep doing this.

And it does happen all the time.  On the way to work, I have to cross a busy junction on Holborn in central London.  Yesterday, a cyclist went through a red light as people were crossing.  Today, a cyclist came up the wrong side of the road, rode through a group of pedestrians on the pavement and then through a red light.  That's just in the two minutes a day I'm passing that junction.

[dave_mc]

Yes, but the original post could be summed up as "man not hit by bicycle, gets annoyed". The stats are important, because the whole point he was annoyed was the perception of danger. The stats show that this is misplaced, and that he should vent his frustration in a more sensible direction. It's just that people who worship Clarkson increasingly see cyclists as fair game to have a go at.

i completely disagree with killing all cyclists, and clarkson is an idiot, but that's ridiculous. according to your logic, if you're not killed you have no reason to be annoyed.

which is ridiculous. are we not allowed to be annoyed by things which clearly are dangerous, but by sheer fluke don't cause injuries or deaths?

fwiw i see drivers doing something stupid almost every time i go out to drive. i'm definitely not saying that all drivers are awesome and all cyclists are dangerous.

[tomjackson]

I'm not on either side being both a motorist and a cyclist.  And really we're pretty much all cyclists or have been at sometime, you don't have to cycle in rush hour London and not hold a driving licence to qualify as a cyclist.
But with regards to red lights motorists pretty much always stop becuase If they don't then they will probably get in trouble.  You have a registered vehicle that is insured and accountable and with that comes responsibility.
Okay, there are bad drivers but there are a lot more bad cyclists as a percentage of the total.
Yes it's worse if you get hit by a car but at least you expect cars on the road.  You don't expect bikes on the pavement or on pedestrianised areas but you still have to dodge them.
Basically I think if cycling on the road you should have to pass a cycling proficiency test and have proof that you have done so. Oh and basic insurance, all those stats say to me is there's too many accidents with uninsured cyclists. 

[Roobubba]

Basically I think if cycling on the road you should have to pass a cycling proficiency test and have proof that you have done so.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this if it was at all enforceable.
At the very least, in the event of any form of accident if the cyclist had to show their 'proof of proficiency', that might be something...
I'm not convinced it's something that would or could be paid for in the short-term, though. We're lumbered with being surrounded by idiots, I'm afraid :(

[dave_mc]

i dunno regarding the proficiency test...

on the one hand it might help... on the other i don't have it, and while i don't cycle, it's nice to know that if i ever took it up again, i didn't have to start into learning to pass a test!

[Ratrod]

I think I'm just gonna get me one of these.