James May on: bicycles

Tenzor07

He actually makes some good sense:

Cyclists jump red lights and ride across the pavement, but so what? Cyclists are pedestrians really, since they are leg-powered. They've just added a few levers and cogs to improve their own efficiency.

Bicycles should never be regulated, they should never be subject to road tax, they should not require third-party insurance and competence to ride a bicycle should not be tested. It tests itself, because if you can't do it, you have a crash. Bicycles are the first rung on the personal-transport ladder and should be free at the point of use. I'll champion the bicycle until I'm worn through to the canvas.

ARTICLE LINK

Tenzor07

Also: Millions of drivers are being urged to attach stickers to their wing-mirrors alerting them to the presence of bicycles and motorcycles as Britain’s biggest motoring organisation launches a safety campaign this week aimed at securing a “New Deal” on Britain’s roads.

The AA is appealing to its 15 million members to fix the yellow badges to their cars as a reminder of vulnerable road users to help to reverse the rising death toll among cyclists

Mr Jansen, a keen cyclist and triathlete, said that the initiative could save hundreds of lives. He is campaigning against a “two tribes” mentality of conflict on the roads. “This is something that we care about because, when you take the emotion out of it, it is about lives and 25 per cent of deaths on the roads are unfortunately the deaths of people on two wheels,” he said.

LINK

Block (8

Did anyone watch this weeks top gear when James May and Clarkson when on bikes around town?

It was hilarious 8)

They did point out the most dangerous drivers sharing the roads with the cyclist were the bus drivers and that they didn't understand why the bus and cycle lanes came to one or something like that.

Guy:Incognito

Tenzor07 wrote: »

He actually makes some good sense:

Cyclists jump red lights and ride across the pavement, but so what? Cyclists are pedestrians really, since they are leg-powered. They've just added a few levers and cogs to improve their own efficiency.

Bicycles should never be regulated, they should never be subject to road tax, they should not require third-party insurance and competence to ride a bicycle should not be tested. It tests itself, because if you can't do it, you have a crash. Bicycles are the first rung on the personal-transport ladder and should be free at the point of use. I'll champion the bicycle until I'm worn through to the canvas.

ARTICLE LINK

That's fine as long as your crashing on your own. If that was the case the same principal could be applied to cars. But that's not how it works and other people get hurt and lose out (financially) due to your (figuratively) actions.

Tenzor07

I don't get your point?

If your not competent to cycle a bike, you fall off/crash, you may have some bruises and scrapes.. Crash a 1200kg vehicle with the ability to do over 100mph and you may well be in serious trouble..

Guy:Incognito

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I don't get your point?

If your not competent to cycle a bike, you fall off/crash, you may have some bruises and scrapes.. Crash a 1200kg vehicle with the ability to do over 100mph and you may well be in serious trouble..

I thought it was quite clear tbh.
All bike crashes aren't just people falling off their bikes on their own. What happens if you hit a pedestrian while going flat out? What if you hit and damage a car? What if you do something stupid and cause a pile up of cars that were trying to avoid killing you?

Tenzor07

Surely what he meant was basic competency to cycle a bike means you are capable of starting, stopping, turning, pedaling?

Accidents happen for a number of reasons, and you have to deal with such if the worst happens...

Unless you would like to expand on your point?

Lumen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I thought it was quite clear tbh.
All bike crashes aren't just people falling off their bikes on their own. What happens if you hit a pedestrian while going flat out? What if you hit and damage a car? What if you do something stupid and cause a pile up of cars that were trying to avoid killing you?

Yes, there is a theoretical risk of this happening.

But...

29 pedestrians were killed by on Irish roads 2012. How many of them were killed by cyclists? How many drivers were killed in collisions with cyclists?

If you don't have and can't find any stats, the incident rate must be so low that each one of newsworthy. Can you find any news reports?

Chips Lovell

I'm not surprised that a Top Gear presenter has said something clueless about cycling.

I am surprised that Top Gear presenters' views on cycling are still taken seriously.

Stollaire

Speaking of Top Gear

Guy:Incognito

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, there is a theoretical risk of this happening.

But...

29 pedestrians were killed by on Irish roads 2012. How many of them were killed by cyclists? How many drivers were killed in collisions with cyclists?

If you don't have and can't find any stats, the incident rate must be so low that each one of newsworthy. Can you find any news reports?

Theoretical risk? I'd say there are plenty of pedestrians hit and injured by cyclists every year. Is there a category for that in stats?

Who fixes the damage to car owners when cyclists are at fault? Car owners through their insurance. Why should they have to bear that cost? A few years back a kid on a bike came flying out from gap in a high wall on to a fairly busy road and ended up coming through the drivers side window of my fathers car. The whole door was destroyed (pedal went through the sin of the door and needed to be replaced through no fault of his. The same thing with even a moped and he'd have been covered by the other parties insurance.

endacl

Top Gear top tip: if given the choice, always opt to be t-boned by a moped!

buffalo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theoretical risk? I'd say there are plenty of pedestrians hit and injured by cyclists every year. Is there a category for that in stats?

Who fixes the damage to car owners when cyclists are at fault? Car owners through their insurance. Why should they have to bear that cost? A few years back a kid on a bike came flying out from gap in a high wall on to a fairly busy road and ended up coming through the drivers side window of my fathers car. The whole door was destroyed (pedal went through the sin of the door and needed to be replaced through no fault of his. The same thing with even a moped and he'd have been covered by the other parties insurance.

Who fixes the damage when a pedestrian steps out without looking and a car driver swerves into a wall? Mandatory insurance for pedestrians!

Chips Lovell

Aside from this, "the only person I could injure is myself" arguments are incredibly self-centred.

Few motorists would want to have a part in anyone's injury or death, even if it was entirely down their own incompetence.

Lumen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theoretical risk? I'd say there are plenty of pedestrians hit and injured by cyclists every year. Is there a category for that in stats?

You're making the point, you find the stats/news reports to back it up.

As for damage, insurance is nothing to do with liability. If a pedestrian or cyclist damages your car they are liable. I have cycling insurance which covers third party damage, but that's irrelevant to the liability question.

Tenzor07

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theoretical risk? I'd say there are plenty of pedestrians hit and injured by cyclists every year. Is there a category for that in stats?
Who fixes the damage to car owners when cyclists are at fault? Car owners through their insurance. Why should they have to bear that cost? A few years back a kid on a bike came flying out from gap in a high wall on to a fairly busy road and ended up coming through the drivers side window of my fathers car. The whole door was destroyed (pedal went through the sin of the door and needed to be replaced through no fault of his. The same thing with even a moped and he'd have been covered by the other parties insurance.

Ah, so I see the reasoning for your point.

A basic competency test would not ensure that accidents would not happen, just look at the vehicle driving test for proof of that.

In a scenario like the one you have described then you would come to an arrangement with the parent of the child for the damage caused.

Guy:Incognito

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ah, so I see the reasoning for your point.

A basic competency test would not ensure that accidents would not happen, just look at the vehicle driving test for proof of that.

In a scenario like the one you have described then you would come to an arrangement with the parent of the child for the damage caused.

My replies have been towards the whole notion that there never should be tests or insurance etc , not that a test would pay for damage or stop accidents, though surely it would have to help reduce accidents. So many cyclists don't seem to be aware or else just don't care that regardless or blame, they will come off a lot worse in a crash with a car or something bigger. That attitude needs addressing.

Lumen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So many cyclists don't seem to be aware or else just don't care that regardless or blame, they will come off a lot worse in a crash with a car or something bigger. That attitude needs addressing.

If anything, most cyclists believe the danger posed to them to be greater than it actually is. That's why they tend to go totally ape**** when drivers make mistakes around them.

More likely, you believe they are cycling as if they don't know they will come off a lot worse in a crash with a car, but that's an entirely different point.

Guy:Incognito

Tenzor07 wrote: »

In a scenario like the one you have described then you would come to an arrangement with the parent of the child for the damage caused.

That's all well and good but a lot of people are of the opinion that if they aren't legally liable (and in a way that they will actually have to pay) then they aren't liable.

Guy:Incognito

Lumen wrote: »

If anything, most cyclists believe the danger posed to them to be greater than it actually is. That's why they tend to go totally ape**** when drivers make mistakes around them.

More likely, you believe they are cycling as if they don't know they will come off a lot worse in a crash with a car, but that's an entirely different point.

I do my fair share of cycling. I wouldn't be putting myself in the position I see other putting themselves in every time I'm on a bike.

Kav0777

buffalo wrote: »

Who fixes the damage when a pedestrian steps out without looking and a car driver swerves into a wall? Mandatory insurance for pedestrians!

It's outrageous Joe, the pedestrian wasn't even wearin' hi-viz, or a helmet!

Wicklowrider

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That's all well and good but a lot of people are of the opinion that if they aren't legally liable (and in a way that they will actually have to pay) then they aren't liable.

It has already been pointed out to you that serious cyclists mostly have insurance. Regarding the damage to your father's car - that was a tough break. No tougher than the cyclist I know who was hit by a motorist and lost out financially when the motorist done a runner. Cyclist lost a €5k bike, wages and had to pay for Doctor / Physio. If any of us don't want those kind of risks we need to stay off the road.

Lumen

Top Gear on Cycling: Well, what did you expect?
http://road.cc/content/news/112411-top-cycling-well-what-did-you-expect

buffalo

Wicklowrider wrote: »

No tougher than the cyclist I know who was hit by a motorist and lost out financially when the motorist done a runner. Cyclist lost a €5k bike, wages and had to pay for Doctor / Physio. If any of us don't want those kind of risks we need to stay off the road.

Why didn't they seek redress from MIBI? http://www.mibi.ie/uninsured-unidentifi.html

rollingscone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I do my fair share of cycling. I wouldn't be putting myself in the position I see other putting themselves in every time I'm on a bike.

Define your fair share?

I've done all of my travel (bar the occassional lift or getting the bus/luas with Mrs RS) by bicycle as well as Leisure cycling (road), this has included a great deal of city cycling, some short range commuting (under 50km return) and some longer trips (100+) to visit people, and collect and deliver bits and bobs for work, when I started commuting I'd had all sorts of panicky ideas about my safety but the more I've cycled the more I've adapted to the idea of being considerate to others and found that more and more of my ire is directed towards other cyclists for ignorant and dangerous behaviour what I've also found is that the more assertive I am on the road the safer I really am.

This is balanced with situational awareness, as Lumen has indicated, hysteria and easy answers like Hi Vis and Helmets (which only cover a tiny slice of your personal safety pie chart) and gutter cycling (insanely, stupidly dangerous and widely embraced by the 'safety' maniacs) are more likely to lead to cause problems than solve them.

petethedrummer

Kav0777 wrote: »

It's outrageous Joe, the pedestrian wasn't even wearin' hi-viz, or a helmet!

If the wall had of been painted hi viz color the deriver woudn't of hitten it.

Ninap

I thought May made some good points. Cycling is fun, liberating, and hugely beneficial for society. It would be incredibly retrograde to introduce tests and insurance and the like as this would just reduce the numbers cycling.

petethedrummer

Does anyone actually still believe that the script the Top Gear presenters (poorly) act out even mildy represents their world view?

Tenzor07

Ninap wrote: »

I thought May made some good points. Cycling is fun, liberating, and hugely beneficial for society. It would be incredibly retrograde to introduce tests and insurance and the like as this would just reduce the numbers cycling.

I think the whole point of May's comments is he wants to see the "normalisation" of cycling, where people use bikes to get to the shops, to the gym, to school and all wearing normal clothes as opposed to helmets and day-glo... If you took a Dutch person over here they would say (some) cycle users are crazy wearing all this gear...

I'm sure we'd all like to see less/no cars on the school morning run.. Gym carparks not packed, football pitches with rows of cars all parked in a line on the pavement beside the pitch...

Here's some more from May's other blog:

8) As someone known for their fondness/knowledge of motor cars how do people react when they know you like/have a Brompton.

James May

Incredulity, often, at least if they’re unenlightened. I particularly hate road sectarianism. It’s all personal transport, and we have enough enemies from without.


9) Some Brompton owners are fully clad in Lycra cycling gear while some just wear normal clothes/ suites. What do you wear when out on your Brompton?

James May

I wear what I happened to have on, which is what was clean when I woke up. I think the point of a Brompton is that it can just be incorporated into normal life. They’re not good if you’re wearing flares though. Apparently.