So you think cyclists should only cycle away from traffic - and not actually where they want or need to go?
For example, if you can cycle in your local park, you should just go round and round and round a few times?
If not the above then please elaborate on what you are trying to say as it isn’t clear at all.
Lets say I am in favour of free movement, but there are a few things that bother me.
Selective quoting, not clever. I said I could cycle away from traffic IF I wanted to. Nothing to suggest that I think anyone should.
I am and always have been an advocate of cycles and cars sharing the roads; yes, there are ways it can be improved, but actually loads of ways in which it already has been improved for cyclists, particularly in the big cities.
For me, any moves that reinforce the idea that road-sharing is bad should be resisted.
You mean like motorways?
Oh right, shift the goalposts, why don’t you? All else apart I specifically stated “moves” which would imply a change in something, whereas motorways, which bar lots of forms of traffic, not just bicycles, are nothing new.
As it happens, I used to cycle a lot in Milton Keynes, many of whose grid roads are 70mph dual carriageways, with two-lane roundabouts. I was always happy on them, only a very occasional idiot car-driver who would shout that I should be using the redways. The latter being a dedicated network of shared cycle/walking paths throughout the city which, for practical purposes, served only to force cyclists to take a much longer and slower route,
There you go again. You are just reinforcing the point I made earlier - old man mindset, resistant to change.
Why can’t things change?
Why can’t more new laws be bought in to protect current cyclists and encourage new ones.
You cite Milton Keynes - that was a city built with cars in mind. Most Swiss cities pre-date cars.
Why are you so convinced that they’re needed?
Why can´t so many cyclists not adhere to existing laws to start with?
Is this when you are going to mention cyclists going through red lights again?
To encourage more people to cycle and make it safer for them.
Every other European country has decided to implement them.
I don’t think it’s just the Federal council that has this mindset. At 574 cars per 1,000 inhabitants I would say that the Swiss residents have this mindset.
People can cycle and have a car too. They can be the same people.
But yes, cyclists are a minority which demonstrates another problem with direct democracy - people vote for what they want for themselves and not which may benefit society as a whole.
No, you?? And what if I did? Do you think that is allowed and not dangerous?
I’m a cyclist. I never go through red lights.
How many motorists are killed each year by a cyclist going through red lights?
Why is it such a serious problem for you?
Because a) they’re road users and should obey the rules of the road and b) it’s bloody dangerous when they do it while pedestrians have the right to cross the road. I’ve been hit by a courier cyclist in the UK who totally ignored the red light and ran into a group of us pedestrians crossing the road. The only reason I wasn’t knocked to the ground is because I grabbed hold of his bike to stop myself. Many of us remonstrated with him, but all he could say was let go, get out of my way. Yes, they have schedules to keep, but that’s no excuse for what he did.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen cyclists jump red lights. Not to mention them shooting on to walkways with no warning sometimes as well. I have no problem with cyclists who obey the rules like the rest of us; it’s those that don’t I have a beef with.
And yes, pedestrians do get killed and injured by cyclists not obeying the road rules. Obviously it’s not as many as are hit by cars, but it does happen.
A culture war over a few days of a few closed roads …
I don´t mind those slow down days, I think it is great fun.
Motorists using their mobile phones, either in their hands or hands-free cause more serious accidents and deaths than any other cause.
They are road users and should obey the rules of the road too.
It’s clear that people have a problem with risk analysis.
In the UK, as you mentioned it:
On average, around 450 pedestrians are injured by cyclists every year and three are killed.
On average, around 16,000 cyclists are injured by motorists every year and one hundred are killed.
From that I’d say that cyclists are pretty vulnerable road users and more should be done to protect them.
Who, in your opinion, needs protecting from whom more?
Even though people think of cycling as dangerous (another reason for making better laws to protect them from motorists), cyclists tend to live longer than non-cyclists as exercise is good for you long term and cyclists are far less likely to spend the last ten years of their life infirm in a chair having their bottoms wiped by a carer.
Glad you said it first.
Really? Could you provide some data?