Cycling 2 abreast

Cyclists think it’s ok to ring their bell or call out when coming up behind pedestrians

It is ok to ring a bell. Personally I find more people are annoyed when they AREN’T alerted to a bike which is about to pass them. In the same way I would be more than happy for a car to pip his horn when he was about to overtake me, thereby warning me to be careful not to stray from my path. Used properly It’s a sign of courtesy not aggression.

It’s always good to be aware of what’s behind you. I use a Garmin Varia rear view radar which alerts me of any vehicles approaching from behind. Interestingly it’s also a rear light and it changes its flashing pattern when a car approaches. I’ve found that cars are much more careful in their overtake when they realise the cyclist has been alerted to them. Maybe they are assuming this high tech light is also videoing them?
 
Oops, I think I'm guilty on all accounts here, m'lord.
Cycling side-by-side. I, in the main, only cycle solo. However, when my kids were young I'd always cycle offside to my child, if it's on a narrow road then I'd cycle just behind, but still ensure that I was nearer the centre line than my child. Yes, there was the occasional clown who shouted and/or blasted their horn at me, but tough; they were only brain-dead car drivers.
Deliberately riding into a car. I was commuting to work in Germany in the early 80s. I large Yank US ally's car was ahead. He slowed down and pulled over to the right; presuming he was pulling over to stop at the nearby bank, I accelerated and started to pass him. Just as I was alongside of him he swung left. I swung left with him, but then had a choice of cycling head-on into a low chain fence-line (it would've stopping the bike, but not me) or go for the car by doing a Max Verstappen and having a less dramatic stop imposed on my body parts. Having slid across his bonnet I ended up in a heap the other side of the car to my bike. He decided to sue me and I ended up with an arm in plaster for a few weeks and the deposit to buy a new car. The German's have a low tolerance for idiot car drivers who knock cyclists over due to sloppy driving.
Warning pedestrians. I try to avoid pedestrian/cycle sharing tracks whenever possible. I don't blame the pedestrians, we all stroll along with mind in neutral at times, but some are also hard of hearing or are 'wired for sound' or both. So I could be two metres behind them ringing my bell and shouting 'Good Morning, excuse me!' to no avail. And then there's the anti-cyclist who I pass, having said to them 'Good morning, thank you!' I'd get cursed. Just a couple of weeks ago I slowing passed a small group thanking them, then one of them effed and blinded saying I didn't need a :swear2: flashing red light on a pathway; he was, of course, ignoring the fact that prior to and immediately after the pathway are roadways, where, many a time, I've had to pick myself up from to hear the plaintive words: "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you."
 
Please please people, can we let this thread expire now-there really can’t be anything left to say of any substance.
(y) until the next one that we start to share info and that attracts the same anti-cyclist(s)? :wondering:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Please please people, can we let this thread expire now-there really can’t be anything left to say of any substance.
Feel free to ignore it. There seems to be more information provided as the thread develops and it is clear that there are more cyclists contributing to this thread than before so it is good to hear their experiences. Perhaps also, more non-cyclists might gain a better appreciation of the issue's faced by other road users.
 
In UK law a mechanically propelled vehicle means an engine (e.g. petrol, steam, electric) not legs and cogs. It may be different in Spain.
No ,it means anything mechanically propelled. A bike is propelled by the crank ,chain & cogs .The MEANS of propulsion is you,the same as a car has an engine , whether ice, gas, or electric ,etc

Meaning of 'mechanically propelled vehicle'.





The term 'mechanically propelled vehicle' is not defined in the road traffic legislation1, although for some purposes it is defined exclusively2. Following amendments made by the Road Traffic Act 1991, it is the term used in a number of provisions relating to offences of dangerous driving3, careless or inconsiderate driving4, and driving when under the influence of drink or drugs5. The term is also used in relation to the prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads6, in relation

**All of which a cyclist can be prosecuted for.




I’ve yet to find a cyclist with a bloody bell!
Ivor bell? Ivor sister Isabel also.(y)
 
No ,it means anything mechanically propelled. A bike is propelled by the crank ,chain & cogs .The MEANS of propulsion is you,the same as a car has an engine , whether ice, gas, or electric ,etc

Meaning of 'mechanically propelled vehicle'.





The term 'mechanically propelled vehicle' is not defined in the road traffic legislation1, although for some purposes it is defined exclusively2. Following amendments made by the Road Traffic Act 1991, it is the term used in a number of provisions relating to offences of dangerous driving3, careless or inconsiderate driving4, and driving when under the influence of drink or drugs5. The term is also used in relation to the prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads6, in relation

**All of which a cyclist can be prosecuted for.





Ivor bell? Ivor sister Isabel also.(y)
I don't believe any if that. Why would there be a separate section for cycles if it all applied.

A cycle is propelled by a human with cranks and gears being merely connections.
 
No, bicycles, including e-bikes up to a certain capacity, are not "mechanically propelled vehicles" in the eyes of the law. If they were, they would be subject to type approval, testing and registration procedures.
 
Exactly. As gus-lopez says, the MEANS of propulsion is you, and it's the means of propulsion that matters.
Cyclists are subject to many parts of the law by virtue of using a vehicle, just not a mechanically propelled one. Mechanically propelled is vague as there are so many different mechanical methods of generating motive power - steam, oil, internal combustion, electric (even in the 1800s there were electric vehicles) etc., so it was left to a judge to be the final arbiter.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
In summary, a bicycle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle.

In law, a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway, but cyclists are not in charge of ‘mechanically propelled’ vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same rules as motorists, including ‘drink drive’ rules.


Lots more discussion here https://police.community/topic/296393-mechanically-propelled-vehicle/
 
Okay....let’s make it cyclists as a start then......happy now......trained cyclists that need to pass a test so they are aware of the rules and obligations of the road.....now that equal rights have been mentioned it all makes much more sense that way.....win win for all.... yeah! Speed limits for cyclists, protective clothing as for motorcyclists, identifiable markings on cycles, points for going thru red lights, ban for repeated offences........yep.....I can see the many benefits of such a scheme now. Should save quite a few cyclists lives and injuries.
If it’s a licensed system then the law would decide who could use what part of what road?
The trouble with all this is that many countries have tried various parts of it, but *none* of it has been shown to work, not even helmets. Only *one* thing ever has been proven to improve the safety of cyclists, and that's numbers. The more cyclists there, the better their safety rate is. Therefore, any impediment to cycling is proven to be an impediment to safety. And the best way to improve numbers is to make it safer and more pleasant for people to cycle, with segregated infrastructure etc. That is proven.

In terms of equality: Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to the roads except where prohibited (motorways) whereas motorists are licenced; bicycles weigh 15-25kgs whereas cars are up to 2 tonnes+, or our motorhomes which are 3.5 tonnes or more, up to 7.5 tonnes. Why would you want these equal to a 20kg pushbike?

In terms of licence - there are very few of us on this forum who were trained or licenced to drive the large vehicle that we do. I don't know why anyone here would worry about licencing the use of a pushbike but not a licence for a motorhome.
 
Why do motorcyclists have to wear helmets but cyclists don’t?
I'm sorry, but this is a really stupid question. The answer is because the fatality rate of motorcyclists is in a different league altogether, whereas cyclists are similar to pedestrians (indeed slightly lower, I believe).
If you were genuinely interested in saving lives, you'd campaign for helmets for motorists, because motor vehicles are way above anything else on the roads for producing head injuries, and that's with seat belts, air bags, crumple zones (which our vans don't have) etc etc.

I see this reported today - maybe the victim should have had hiviz on and a helmet - it's what would be said had the victim been a cyclist. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...AMS-woman-smoking-cigarette-bench-Havant.html
 
We used to go for a walk on the canal bank but got
fed up of bicyclists sneaking up behind us in surprise and alarm. A lot of them had beards as well

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
I'm sorry, but this is a really stupid question. The answer is because the fatality rate of motorcyclists is in a different league altogether, whereas cyclists are similar to pedestrians (indeed slightly lower, I believe).
If you were genuinely interested in saving lives, you'd campaign for helmets for motorists, because motor vehicles are way above anything else on the roads for producing head injuries, and that's with seat belts, air bags, crumple zones (which our vans don't have) etc etc.

I see this reported today - maybe the victim should have had hiviz on and a helmet - it's what would be said had the victim been a cyclist. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...AMS-woman-smoking-cigarette-bench-Havant.html
I’ve never known a stupid question be asked but I have seen rude answers and rude people......if you wish to reduce injuries then helmets for cyclists is a good way of ensuring the risk of injury is reduced.
 
Me too, reading this thread is enough to put anyone off riding there....some of the responses I've read from a small group on a Friendly Forum has somewhat concerned me..... :(
I totaly agree, I'm finding some of the opinions and comments on here much more frightening than actually cycling on the road🥺
 
Pests.jpg

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
When I become the God Emperor of the World i shall be instigating the following corrections.

In order to obtain a motor vehicle licence you will need to possess a current Cycle Proficiency Licence (like we used to do at school)
You will also need a current motorcycle licence

All licenses will renewed every 5 years, you can't have a motorbike licence without a cycle licence, You cant have a car licence without a motorbike licence, You cant have a HGV licence without a car licence etc.
 
I think it's more that the cyclists think they have a right to impede others and have absolutely no intention of try to lessen their impact on others. whereas the same cyclists seem to think every other road user should be the ones responsible for the cyclists safety. The cyclist themselves having no responsibility for their own safety.
I, when driving the motorhome I travel at or around the speed limit so as to try to not impede the flow of other traffic. If I am holding others up I pull over and let them pass. To me this is driving with thought for other road users. I most certainly wouldn't sound my horn when coming up behind cyclists expecting them to move out of the way. like cyclists do with their bell when cycling along the canal towpath and wanting to pass walkers.
All Cyclists ?.? How do you know that? BUSBY.
 
When I become the God Emperor of the World i shall be instigating the following corrections.

In order to obtain a motor vehicle licence you will need to possess a current Cycle Proficiency Licence (like we used to do at school)
You will also need a current motorcycle licence

All licenses will renewed every 5 years, you can't have a motorbike licence without a cycle licence, You cant have a car licence without a motorbike licence, You cant have a HGV licence without a car licence etc.
And of course prove that they have a brain,,BUSBY.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top