Topic ID 2126
Had to go along Welwyn Road this afternoon and just after the last houses I came across 3 boys at a guess about 12 years old on bikes , one riding up the centre of the road ahead of me the other 2 nearer the curb, none wearing helemets, thankfully I didn't try to pass them. The one in the middle of the road swerved left then right accross my path and as they got to the space where they use off road motorbikes etc on the "waste ground", all three shot straight across the road, no signals. I am not sure what they thought they were doing but obviously have no road sense or sense of how dangerous that road could be for them. I am just gald it was me and I stayed back, had it been the driver who overtook me inside the 40 MPH limit doing at least 50 on the way back he would not have had a chance of seeing them or stopping in time.
Reply ID 28681
The lack of road sense is staggering sometimes. About 3 weeks ago I saw some boys around the same age riding the wrong way up Gascoyne Way near the West St junction.
Reply ID 28682
Do you think their parents are aware of the dangerous stunts they get up to?
Reply ID 28684
I followed 2 young teenagers through heavy traffic and the Old Cross lights where they then veered off down Hartham Lane - with no signals. This was bad enough but it was dark and they had no lights either.
Reply ID 28711
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 28712
quote:Hah! What's that got to do with it? These sorts of cyclists will always do whatever they want regardless, whether it be with or on bicycles or otherwise. [:)]
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 28714
quote:Some schools still do
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 28718
quote:Abel Smith did it last year.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 28738
quote:Yes my niece did hers at Bengeo in the summer but I suspect the boys are saw would not have done it!
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 28780
It does look like cylcing is back in fashion with the youngsters, this has its good and bad points. Good being that it gets kids out and active and away from computers and games which are very unsociable activities. Bad being they do seem to have taken to the paths in town and hare round at break neck speeds, only last week did a group of lads discuss "skimming me" once I had walked past. Which luckily I realised before it was too late involved skidding in a huge puddle I was about to walk past! Thanks Lads [}:)]
Reply ID 28781
quote:Yeah and she passed! [:)] It IS good idea but it doesn't help with those that dont do it or dont pass as they still use the road.
Originally posted by Marilynquote:Yes my niece did hers at Bengeo in the summer but I suspect the boys are saw would not have done it!
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 28793
I seem to recall that in the dim distant past (c. 1974) I did mine (Raleigh Chopper) at Primary School (St Pauls, Winchmore Hill). It didn't stop me riding like a loony on occasions either. It was a huge spill and knees so badly cut that I still have a scar that calmed me down. Boys will be boys will be boys I guess.
Reply ID 28798
A retired ex-work colleague of mine used to do youth cycling proficency lessons on behalf of the Herts County Council. I believe these are still being run.
Reply ID 28811
My son has just completed his cycling proficiency at Mill Mead. Traditionally this has been a Year 6 objective, but they've now switched it to Year 5. I don't know who organises the courses or what they cost to run, but I'd like to know why I had to pay £12.50 for this when at Morgan's I believe parents pay £4.
Reply ID 28900
quote:Count yourself lucky yours arn't at Bengeo.........My Daughter did hers before the hols when she was in year 5 and we had to pay £30!!!!![:0]
Originally posted by nora batty
My son has just completed his cycling proficiency at Mill Mead. Traditionally this has been a Year 6 objective, but they've now switched it to Year 5. I don't know who organises the courses or what they cost to run, but I'd like to know why I had to pay £12.50 for this when at Morgan's I believe parents pay £4.
Reply ID 28902
In answer to the question about cycling proficiency course costs, I think it might depend whether the school recruits its own volunteers who themselves train to teach cycling proficiency or whether they pay the training provider directly.
Reply ID 28929
quote:Abel Smith was £30 too - run by the Road Safety Unit out of County Hall
Originally posted by gemipicornquote:Count yourself lucky yours arn't at Bengeo.........My Daughter did hers before the hols when she was in year 5 and we had to pay £30!!!!![:0]
Originally posted by nora batty
My son has just completed his cycling proficiency at Mill Mead. Traditionally this has been a Year 6 objective, but they've now switched it to Year 5. I don't know who organises the courses or what they cost to run, but I'd like to know why I had to pay £12.50 for this when at Morgan's I believe parents pay £4.
Reply ID 28933
Oh, er, excellent value for money then!!!
Reply ID 29269
On Saturday night whilst approaching the Raj on Ware Road, we were almost knocked down by 2 cyclists who were hacking along on the pavment. After yelling at them to get into the road, we were informed that they can't cycle in the road as they don't have lights on their bikes! One of them was in his forties, the other was late teens. What hope for then pedestrians then? [:(!]
Reply ID 29439
quote:Walk in the road, with a light!
Originally posted by Whoopeedo
On Saturday night whilst approaching the Raj on Ware Road, we were almost knocked down by 2 cyclists who were hacking along on the pavment. After yelling at them to get into the road, we were informed that they can't cycle in the road as they don't have lights on their bikes! One of them was in his forties, the other was late teens. What hope for then pedestrians then? [:(!]
Reply ID 29455
You really are mad aren't you MM?
Reply ID 29458
As A Hatter! (with a bike just to be ON TOPIC!!) weh hey!!
Reply ID 29468
As a cyclist through several decades, I am aware of a change. Cycling on the road is now intimidating and rather than cycling on the pavement, I cycle less. I am not alone. There are not hordes of workers cycling to work, or bicycle sheds provided at workplaces anymore. People drive to work, drive their kids to school, afraid for their child's safety on the roads. The difference is an increase in car drivers arrogance and lack of care and respect for cyclists as they fall into a minority and cycling has become a leisure activity, rather than daily transport. They do not wait for the other carriageway to be clear and pass leaving the advised space for such a manouver, but squeeze past in their impatience or occupy the same lane. The fear of killing a cyclist seems to not enter their minds anymore. This partially explains why wearing a cycle helmet is statistically more dangerous than not. Assuming the cyclist to be less vulnerable, it has been observed in studies that drivers take even less care when passing a helmetted rider. This is a false assumption, as the current standard for helmets does not provide sufficient protection to account for the momentum of a body accelerated by impact from a vehicle, or of the forward motion of the bike. Often the change in balance and dimensions of a head in a helmet causes the head to impact the ground in circumstances which an unhelmetted head would not. Like so many "safety" issues in this country, we increasingly respond by concentrating on surviving accidents, rather than avoiding them and the "solution" is a knee jerk reaction to incomplete data. Helmets, seat belts, airbags, all psycologically absolve us from responsibility. So much easier than taking ownership for our own actions. "I ran over a child today. He wobbled right in front of me as I overtook. He died, but he wasn't wearing a helmet, so it was his fault, not mine....wasn't it?" Sorry guys. Quite a heavily emotive post from me, but something I feel strongly about.
Reply ID 29472
I couldnt agree more shunt! Only last night on my way home an aged cyclist (and you could tell he was a serious one) went straight over on a mini roundabout. No lifesaving look over the shoulder to see if it was safe to roam into , what is effectivly, the middle of the road. Had i not been alert, he would now not be anything at all! for the love of god it doesnt take a lot of common sense to realise that when you are riding on a virtually silent, narrow tyred, manually powerd vehicle, you have to be a little more spacially aware!. Unless of course you want to end up dead.
Reply ID 29477
Tuesday evening walking up Welwyn Road. Coming down the hill a youngish cyclist going full tilt. No lights, black coat, black bag over his shoulder, black hair. You can say what you want about the arrogance of car drivers but that is just stupid. I have also seen someone coming down the hill whilst texting on his mobile phone. Darwinian theory suggests they wont be around to see their late 20's.
Reply ID 29478
quote:This kind of of stupidity exists in car drivers, cyclists and walkers and always did. The positive discrimination, once afforded to cyclists was in recognition that idiot cyclists die, idiot motorists kill, but both are equally likely to be idiots. The reason for leaving more space for cyclists was the recognition that they, like all road users, sometimes do something unexpected. When standing over a mangled body under the front of your car, I guarantee you won't care who's fault it was.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Tuesday evening walking up Welwyn Road. Coming down the hill a youngish cyclist going full tilt. No lights, black coat, black bag over his shoulder, black hair. You can say what you want about the arrogance of car drivers but that is just stupid. I have also seen someone coming down the hill whilst texting on his mobile phone. Darwinian theory suggests they wont be around to see their late 20's.
Reply ID 29482
This is an emotive subject for me too, but I get just a little fed up with the supposed lack of consideration towards cyclists. Yes I agree, we should all use the roads safely and with consideration to others, and for the most part, I think most car drivers do that. On the other hand, there is still a large proportion of cyclists who seem to assume that as they are supposedly causing no damage/pollution etc., this gives them the right to ignore traffic lights, ignore traffic signs, cut up the inside of vehicles and expect to be clearly seen, ride on the pavements and scythe through pedestrians, ride on the roads without lights etc. Add to this the fact that if they DO cause an accident which results in damage to someone's vehicle, are they insured to cover the cost? Are they buffalo! Ultimately, pavements are for pedestrians. If cyclists feel too scared or threatened to use the roads, then the answer would seem to be to stop using their bikes. Afterall, should the day arrive when I feel too scared to drive my car because of traffic volume/the behaviour of other drivers, I will most certainly not be allowed to drive on the pavements. [:(!]
Reply ID 29489
quote:I agree cyclists are also less profficient these days, but as a cyclist who is, I still find I'm shoved into the kurb, draincovers and stormdrains as a matter of course and I am hooted when in my car if I wait to pass a cyclist safely. The lack of courtesy and care for others is not confined to any particular group. It doesn't take fear to put cars on pavements, (have a look at Byde and Nelson St) just competition for parking is enough to prompt forcing pedestrians into the road. Uninsured damage to property? Is that really what matters to the modern motorist, more than human life?
Originally posted by Whoopeedo
This is an emotive subject for me too, but I get just a little fed up with the supposed lack of consideration towards cyclists. Yes I agree, we should all use the roads safely and with consideration to others, and for the most part, I think most car drivers do that. On the other hand, there is still a large proportion of cyclists who seem to assume that as they are supposedly causing no damage/pollution etc., this gives them the right to ignore traffic lights, ignore traffic signs, cut up the inside of vehicles and expect to be clearly seen, ride on the pavements and scythe through pedestrians, ride on the roads without lights etc. Add to this the fact that if they DO cause an accident which results in damage to someone's vehicle, are they insured to cover the cost? Are they buffalo! Ultimately, pavements are for pedestrians. If cyclists feel too scared or threatened to use the roads, then the answer would seem to be to stop using their bikes. Afterall, should the day arrive when I feel too scared to drive my car because of traffic volume/the behaviour of other drivers, I will most certainly not be allowed to drive on the pavements. [:(!]
Reply ID 29491
quote:I no longer cycle on the roads because I do not feel safe. Too many motorists do not use the road with consideration for others, be they other car users or cyclists. Everyone is in so much of a rush these days, they seem to lose the ability to think about the consequences of their actions. Should a cyclist actually be the cause of an accident, surely that is for your insurer to worry about - they pay the claim for damage to your vehicle. And even if you are paying the cost of the damages, the cyclist could be sued and will probably have personal legal liability cover within their home insurance policy. Some cyclists do not help themselves by not making themselves visible. Others do the best they can but still have to suffer selfish car drivers.
Originally posted by Whoopeedo
This is an emotive subject for me too, but I get just a little fed up with the supposed lack of consideration towards cyclists. Yes I agree, we should all use the roads safely and with consideration to others, and for the most part, I think most car drivers do that. On the other hand, there is still a large proportion of cyclists who seem to assume that as they are supposedly causing no damage/pollution etc., this gives them the right to ignore traffic lights, ignore traffic signs, cut up the inside of vehicles and expect to be clearly seen, ride on the pavements and scythe through pedestrians, ride on the roads without lights etc. Add to this the fact that if they DO cause an accident which results in damage to someone's vehicle, are they insured to cover the cost? Are they buffalo! Ultimately, pavements are for pedestrians. If cyclists feel too scared or threatened to use the roads, then the answer would seem to be to stop using their bikes. Afterall, should the day arrive when I feel too scared to drive my car because of traffic volume/the behaviour of other drivers, I will most certainly not be allowed to drive on the pavements. [:(!]
Reply ID 29496
I DO still cycle on the roads, Its a risk, hey, it always was. If i think that a motorist has done something wrong i will politely ask him why he did it. If his response is something along the lines of insurance (ie you dont pay it) or road tax (ditto!) i will ask him if he would rather i ride on the pavement. No doubt a heated debate would then ensue! I am in a fortunate position when it comes to heated debates. Now the above assumes that i have survived the debacle between car and bike in the first place. If however that is not the case then i assume mrs mad (who i am never without on a bike ride) will ensure that the appropriate action is taken! The third issue is that i MAY just MAY have done something STUPID myself, like pulled out to avoid a drain cover, Manhole, leaf , twig, dead squirrel or various other things that i have seen even the most "proficient" cyclist swerve to avoid. If thats the case then , Im sorry but i shouldnt have been on a bloody bike in the first place! and the ensuing injuries/Death will ensure that the road is a safer place for the people who pay for its upkeep ie MOTORISTS!!
Reply ID 29500
Like any road user cyclists have good and bad days. I cycle pretty well daily and I am aware of the poor driving and lack of courtesy that sometimes goes on, on the other hand there are also some very courteous drivers. I have been sprayed with muddy water by cyclists overtaking me on muddy tracks and have almost hit cyclists on unlit tracks who think that as they are off road they do not need lights. Like most things the issue is not black and white but requires consideration and give and take from all parties.
Reply ID 29501
Hear Hear Andrew!! my question is why should motorists have to ASSUME that a cyclist is going to do something daft?
Reply ID 29510
quote:Because any responsible road user assumes that about all others. It's called defensive driving and anyone who doesn't practice it, whether on a cycle, foot or car, is not realistic.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Hear Hear Andrew!! my question is why should motorists have to ASSUME that a cyclist is going to do something daft?
Reply ID 29513
As a responsible cyclist it saddens me that there are so many other irresponsible cyclists on the roads/pavements/whatever. However, it scares me stiff that there are so many irresponsible motorists on the roads/pavements/whatever.
Reply ID 29581
Well here's a thread I've missed, but here goes...... After spending an enjoyable evening in t'Ram, Monsieur Poisson and I were walking home past M & S when a 2 wheeled kamikaze cyclist, dressed from head to toe in black, came hurtling out of the shadows at speed - admittedly IN the road - without lights on his bike. Monsieur Poisson yelled something to the effect of get some lights on your bike, as the kamikaze lunatic continued hurtling towards Fore Street and completely ignored the red light. Pure brilliance. Having read previous contributions to this thread regarding insurance, surely what is at issue here is the lunatic risks some cyclists take, putting themselves at risk of serious injury or worse, traumatising the driver of the car that might kill them and landing him with the costs of getting it repaired.
Reply ID 29596
I am sure it is still against the law (not to mention common sense) to ride a bicycle at night without a front and rear light, and yet you see plenty of irresponsible cyclists doing just that. Does anyone know of anybody having been either cautioned, arrested and/or prosecuted recently (say, in the last five years) for this offence?
Reply ID 29610
quote:Last week in Fore Street, my freindly next door undertaker was chatting to a police officer and bemoaning the fact that people reverse the wrong way down Fore Street, when a POST OFFICE worker on a bike came into view going the wrong way. Mr undertaker pointed this out to the officer who said to the postman 'can I have a word please?' The postman continued on his merry way, without stopping. Why? BECAUSE HE WAS WEARING MUSIC HEADPHONES AND COULDN'T HEAR THE INSTRUCTION FROM THE OFFICER!!! You just couldn't make it up.
Originally posted by lemonjelly
I am sure it is still against the law (not to mention common sense) to ride a bicycle at night without a front and rear light, and yet you see plenty of irresponsible cyclists doing just that. Does anyone know of anybody having been either cautioned, arrested and/or prosecuted recently (say, in the last five years) for this offence?
Reply ID 29617
I have not suggested for one moment that some cyclists do not behave badly, but that motorists are quick to condemn and slow to examine their own faults in their interaction with them. Cyclists are far more vulnerable than those encased in a ton and a half of steel, and far more likely to be children or inexperienced road users and this is why the highway code biases resposibility towards car drivers. It is these instructions to take extra care, which motorists commonly ignore these days and that does contribute to more pavement riding. Of course that is a danger to pedestrians and not condonable either. Cyclists, (particularly children, who were always less profficient and unpredictable) are driven off the roads by poor driving. Many just abandon cycling altogether. Unfortuntely it tends to be the most responsible and aware riders who give up and the oblivious who continue. The importance given to uninsured damage to vehicles which impact cyclists (it rarely happens the other way round), I find quite bizarre. Yes, you could sue little Johnny's parents for your broken headlight whether he's on a bike or just steps off the kerb in front of you. Whether you should have your solicitor serve papers on mum and dad before, or after the funeral, is up to you. Maybe you could ring them up and tell them what a complete prat their child was being at the moment of his death and blame them for their bad parenting. Should they have advised him to learn to ride on the road, or on the pavement, in which case he'd still be alive? Maybe they should have just taken his bike away kept him indoors until his first car and bought a playstation for the years in between? In every road collision there are always at least two people at fault;-the person who became a hazzard by their actions and the person who failed to anticipate and avoid it. Only the fiscal needs of insurance companies insist that that one is chosen over the other and that distorts our view of good practice. Many motorists seem more worried about bending their car and who pays, than whether they cause injury, when it comes to accident avoidance. I hate to see headphones used on the move, under any circumstances. The postie story does illustrate an example of a cyclist at fault. Motorists object, but they don't drive around without radios off and the windows open so they can hear things too. Maybe it is subconciously recognised that cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable after all? An oblivious motorist in this circumstance risks other people, more than himself, so that's alright then. Bad behaviour by cyclists is widespread, but are us car drivers contributing? I think we are.
Reply ID 29621
[:(!] Oh for goodness sake! Yes - there's good and bad cyclists and motorists. The good ones will always be tainted by the bad. Perhaps the very fact that cyclists are so vulnerable should be reason enough for them to use the roads sensibly and correctly, and always assume that the other driver is the idiot who's not looking where he's going. That goes for motorists too. Observe the lights/signs/traffic directions then hopefully no-one will get hurt or worst and no-one will end up with the cars/bikes damaged. If you have no lights on your bike for night cycling - then don't use the damn thing. Likewise, leave your earphones off/turn down the stereo/don't use the mobile phone. If you're too scared to ride in the road then you really shouldn't be riding a bike at all. Utopia? Probably, but if we each take responsibility as well as speaking out againt those who make life difiicult for everyone else, then perhaps things will change............
Reply ID 29624
quote:Despite the grumpy face, we are in agreement it seems.[:D]
Originally posted by Fish Wife
[:(!] Oh for goodness sake! Yes - there's good and bad cyclists and motorists. The good ones will always be tainted by the bad. Perhaps the very fact that cyclists are so vulnerable should be reason enough for them to use the roads sensibly and correctly, and always assume that the other driver is the idiot who's not looking where he's going. That goes for motorists too. Observe the lights/signs/traffic directions then hopefully no-one will get hurt or worst and no-one will end up with the cars/bikes damaged. If you have no lights on your bike for night cycling - then don't use the damn thing. Likewise, leave your earphones off/turn down the stereo/don't use the mobile phone. If you're too scared to ride in the road then you really shouldn't be riding a bike at all. Utopia? Probably, but if we each take responsibility as well as speaking out againt those who make life difiicult for everyone else, then perhaps things will change............
Reply ID 29668
quote:I know that Hertford Heath still do the test. I also believe that some secondary schools require proof that the test has been done before allowing pupils to cycle to school. But you can teach a child the rules of the road when cycling - but who sees that these are enforced?
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:Abel Smith did it last year.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Do schools still do the cycling proficiency test?
Reply ID 29876
[/quote] also believe that some secondary schools require proof that the test has been done before allowing pupils to cycle to school. But you can teach a child the rules of the road when cycling - but who sees that these are enforced? [/quote] Judging by the 2 boys from SB I saw this morning they don't, weaving in ant out of moving traffic along Hornsmill Road and up Bullocks lane on and off the pavement, at one stage nearly falling off the edge of the pavement onto my car, neither wearing any form of head protection.
Reply ID 29877
quote:Enforcement is not the answer, especially in children. helmets are a prime example. Statistically helmets increase risk to cyclists, but because of an majority assumption, they are enforced by many schools against parent's wishes. Because the school recommends, parents assume that the school must know best. Few things have a simple or single solution.
Originally posted by Marilyn
also believe that some secondary schools require proof that the test has been done before allowing pupils to cycle to school. But you can teach a child the rules of the road when cycling - but who sees that these are enforced? Judging by the 2 boys from SB I saw this morning they don't, weaving in ant out of moving traffic along Hornsmill Road and up Bullocks lane on and off the pavement, at one stage nearly falling off the edge of the pavement onto my car, neither wearing any form of head protection.
Reply ID 29902
With regards to helmets, scientists in Bristols have proven that car drivers actually get closer to cyclists with a helmet on than they do if they see a cyclist without a helmet. We can tell our children to wear a helmet, but who will tell the motorists that it is not safe to drive closer to them?
Reply ID 29907
quote:I so want to be a scientist in Bristols![;)] You obviously have done your homework on this subject too. There is much against cycle helmets, far more than there is in favour, but we do frequently jump to conclusions.
Originally posted by Tazz
With regards to helmets, scientists in Bristols have proven that car drivers actually get closer to cyclists with a helmet on than they do if they see a cyclist without a helmet. We can tell our children to wear a helmet, but who will tell the motorists that it is not safe to drive closer to them?
Reply ID 29915
With regards to my spelling mistake (Bristols instead of Bristol), I am - would you believe - an adult literacy tutor. Whoops!!! I was also listening to some Dolly Parton - so this might have had something to do with this [:D]
Reply ID 29920
quote:Hey, I'm the last to criticise spelling. It was a little humour to open my agreement with your point.[:)] As a driver of motorised two and four wheeled vehicles and also of pedal cycles, I have observed that the standards of courtesy and caution have been replaced by reliance on safety equipment more and more, by every sector of the road using public.
Originally posted by Tazz
With regards to my spelling mistake (Bristols instead of Bristol), I am - would you believe - an adult literacy tutor. Whoops!!! I was also listening to some Dolly Parton - so this might have had something to do with this [:D]
Reply ID 29927
But the ones I saw this morning without helmets were getting as close as the could to the cars, not the other way round.
Reply ID 29934
No offence taken, shunt
Reply ID 29940
quote:Indeed, but it is unlikely that lack of helmets is what prompted them to do so. Helmets and cyclists behaviour are unconnected subjects. Helmets and motorists behaviour are not.
Originally posted by Marilyn
But the ones I saw this morning without helmets were getting as close as the could to the cars, not the other way round.
Reply ID 29958
quote:I know what you are saying but cycling the way they were they were asking for trouble with our without helmets........cycling to school may seem a good idea but they do need some road sense as well.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Indeed, but it is unlikely that lack of helmets is what prompted them to do so. Helmets and cyclists behaviour are unconnected subjects. Helmets and motorists behaviour are not.
Originally posted by Marilyn
But the ones I saw this morning without helmets were getting as close as the could to the cars, not the other way round.
Reply ID 29959
quote:You'll get no argument from me on that one.[:)]
Originally posted by Marilynquote:I know what you are saying but cycling the way they were they were asking for trouble with our without helmets........cycling to school may seem a good idea but they do need some road sense as well.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Indeed, but it is unlikely that lack of helmets is what prompted them to do so. Helmets and cyclists behaviour are unconnected subjects. Helmets and motorists behaviour are not.
Originally posted by Marilyn
But the ones I saw this morning without helmets were getting as close as the could to the cars, not the other way round.