In a new report by the National Insitute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), they called for all new roads to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers. While some industry chiefs agree with this idea, others are quick to criticise, claiming that NICE are catering to the “Lycra army.”
The proposals
NICE is currently asking for responses to a consultation on their report to improve roads for pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers. Some of their proposals include restricting vehicular access on certain roads, widening footpaths to make way for pedestrians, getting pupils to walk a mile a day and much more.
The proposals by NICE have been suggested as a drastic way to aim to reduce obesity, lower toxic air pollution and ease pressure on the NHS. They believe that their proposals are essential in lowering the nationwide obesity crisis.
Street and road planners have been encouraged to make roads as convenient as possible for cyclists and pedestrians, and make motorists the lowest priority on roads. NICE recommend widening pavements in order to allow for pedestrians in wheelchairs to safely navigate the pavement.
Smaller things such as asking employers to hold meetings standing up, encouraging staff to use the stairs, and asking employers to provide subsidised gym memberships and showers at work to encourage staff to cycle in. While these are small things, NICE hopes these can improve the overall health of people.
Professor Gillian Leng, the deputy chief executive and director of health and social care at NICE, said: “Getting people to be more physically active by increasing the amount they walk or cycle has the potential to benefit both the individual and the health system.
As a society, we are facing a looming Type 2 diabetes crisis, which is in part caused by people not exercising enough. We need more people to change their lifestyle and to take more exercise.
People can feel less safe when they walk or cycle compared with when they drive. We’ve got to change this.
So asking planners to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and those who use public transport when roads are built or upgraded can ensure they are safe, attractive and designed to encourage people to get out from behind their wheel.”
Concern from the industry
As cited by the RAC, new road building is scarce and often happens in housing estates where there is limited space to play with anyway. Housing estates are not often built near facilities such as doctors surgeries, supermarkets and similar, instead of in larger open spaces, so people will still need to travel in cars to get to these places.
Howard Cox of motorists’ group FairFuelUK said: “Yet another stupid out of touch edict. What planet are these so-called experts on?
The whole economy depends on road transport. A three-piece suite can’t be delivered on a bicycle. Of course, roads should be designed to cater for all users, but not by stifling the highest-taxed drivers of cars, vans and trucks in the world, for the sake of the Lycra army.”
Government response
Back in April 2017, the government published a Cycling and Walking strategy, which set out their aims to increase the number of people cycling and walking every day. The government wants to double the number of cycling or walking ‘stages’ by 2025 They define a stage as anytime someone is using a new method of transport in a journey, such as cycling to the station before getting a train or walking to meet someone before lift sharing.
In November 2018, the government went on to publish outcomes of a consultation based on their plans, and created the following points:
- Review the existing guidance in the Highway Code to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians
- Invest £100,000 to support police enforcement by developing a national back-office function to handle dash-cam footage
- Improve enforcement against parking in cycle lanes
- Appoint a cycle and walking champion
- Encourage local authorities to increase investment in cycling and walking infrastructure to 15% of total transport infrastructure spending
- Engage with cycling and walking bodies to develop a behaviour change campaign
And now, in the present day, the government are committed to encouraging people to walk shorter journeys where at all possible, wschool-agedn to school and encourage older children to cycle to school. 90% of primary school age children live less than 15 minutes walk from their school and three-quarters of secondary school aged children live a 15-minute cycle from their house.
In response to the NICE statement, a Department for Transport spokesman said: ‘DfT guidance is crystal clear that street design should explicitly consider pedestrians and cyclists first. Our Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy safety review, published last year, set out further measures to improve safety, including a review of the Highway Code.’
Do you think that motorists should be the lowest priority on our streets? How often do you make a walkable journey in the car? Let us know below
Have I missed something. Is this April 1st ?
Many cyclists and pedestrians already think they always have right of way. Contributing to accidents and near misses.
By all means motorists give way when it is safe and practical but a blanket statement like this is going to lead to an increase in accidents.
With that attitude, you lay yourself open to the charge of “Driving without due care and consideration to other road users”. Anyway, Safe for whom, You in your steel tank, or the vulnerable pedestrian or cyclist?
vulnerable pedestrian or cyclist? do these people not have a duty to keep themselves and others safe too? there are people who ride bicycles on a 40MPH road where there is a separate cycle path and separate footpath (Doddington Road in Lincoln). Actions like this are just plain stupid, and if people walk into the road without looking first how is that down to vehicle drivers? I HAVE to drive for my work and if people do not take responsibility for their own actions why should vehicle drivers?
Well I’m not familiar with that particular road but there are a number of similar provisions in the London area where a cycle path has been provided but it is not maintained (even as badly as the main carriageway) so it is dangerous to cycle on and also is lethal where it crosses side roads – so few of the current paths are safe or practical to use. They need to follow the Netherlands model where both cyclists and car users are educated and clear on the law as regards priorities etc
Your beef is with the councils!
Try telling that to the relatives of the “vulnerable” woman who was killed by a cyclist on a cycle that weighted far less than your quoted “Steel Tank”
When on holiday in the Netherlands I was walking around in Amsterdam where the cyclist is king and everyone is expected to give way to them. I have never felt so insecure while out walking, (except when crossing a major road in Bangkok) as when walking around Amsterdam. Cyclists appeared from all directions and few offered ANY consideration to pedestrians, expecting them to simply get out of the way. If the govt gives the green light to cyclists that they are to have higher priority than other road users then the same will happen here. We already see far too much inconsiderate and dangerous riding from a minority of cyclists, so telling them that they have priority would probably lead to even more accidents not fewer. ALL road users need to use the roads in a safe and responsible manner and be considerate of all other road users. Making any one group special fails to address the problem. Perhaps it should be mandatory that people have to have taken a cycling course and to show their road safety certificate before they can buy a bike. Also the authorities need to start imposing penalties on bad cycling just as they do on bad drivers. Currently the police and councils in most towns refuse to even consider prosecuting illegal cycling. Where I live the local council and the police said that it was too hard to catch cyclists so they never bothered.
The aim to get more people on bikes or on foot is to be enthusiastically supported. However, doing it “on the cheap” as per the above Govt strategy is dangerous and fails all sides.
There is a perfect and successful model in The Netherlands where every road has a purpose-built separated cycleway running parallel to it.
No coincidence that most children cycle to school in Holland or that many adults choose this method of transport for local commuting.
Only problem with that is many tourists don’t understand that the strip between road and footpath which is not always clearly defined is a cycle path. I have seen several near misses and a few accidents as people step in front of cyles coming from behind them.
Most cyclists do not use the compulsorily-fitted ‘audible approach warning’ equipment – the bell!
They are no longer compulsory in the UK because of EU law.
If that is the reason it’s another example of a silly law that needs repealing
When I started cycling a few months ago I had a great deal of problems actually finding a bell. The first on that I bought was so useless i couldn’t hear it! Halfords told me that they are NOT a legal requirement. They did however, at the back of the shop, in a box of odds and ends, find me a bell. It is loud enough to control a boxing match.
Bikes legally have to be fitted with a bell in the shop… There is no legal requirement to leave it on your bike or even to use it…. so a somewhat stupid law… However with Halfords giving you that advice I would stay away from them as a matter of course. This was implemented in 1999 I think…..
SJS Cycles, Oxford Ding Dong Steel Bell – Silver
£11.99 Inc VAT
Failing that buy one from Holland
all new bikes are meant to be fitted with a bell by law still as far as I know
I fear thats a bit of misinformation possibly.
The european commission relevant pages state:
Vehicle regulations
According to the Vienna Convention, a cycle is a vehicle with at least two wheels that is propelled solely by the muscular energy of the person riding on that vehicle, in particular by means of pedals or hand-cranks. Furthermore, the Convention states that a cycle shall: a) have an efficient brake, b) be equipped with a bell capable of being heard at a sufficient distance, and carry no other audible warning device, and c) be equipped with a red reflecting device at the rear, and devices ensuring that the bicycle can show a white or yellow light at the front and a red light at the rear [55].
Pretty sure that says the SHOULD HAVE A BELL any lack of implementation of that is down to the UK government, which I think was removed as a requirement in 2012 as a removal of “red tape’.
60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24
It is recommended that you fit a bell to your cycle.
This is current Highway Code regulations 2019
I am more concerned about lights. I was on the road this morning down a country lane at 7 am and it is still dark and saw a cyclist without lights in dark clothing. Surely this is just common sense to either get lights on your bike or at least wear a hi viz jacket. The stupidity of some people amazes me.
The only legal requirement is for front and rear reflectors.
In WWII maybe…
I think that many cyclists are under the illusion that because they can see the road ahead then its easy fr them to be seen. Yet the reality is the opposite. Even on a well lit road it is easy to overlook a cyclist when there is so much detail to analyse. Overlooking them is still a serious mistake but it does not mean that the driver does not care. Many roads are badly lit and when cyclists make no attempt to be seen then they are being irresponsible and should take part of the blame for any accident they are involved in. The law should demand that cyclists wear reflective jackets (light weight tabards would do) and to have fully working lights on their bikes. Then if involved in an accident the police should prosecute them just as they would a driver whose car was faulty. Also any insurance claim that an irresponsible cyclist made should be automatically reduced by a half or quarter for failing to have a cycle in a road worthy condition. (For motorists the penalty can be a total refusal of an accident claim because they have failed to maintain their vehicle in accordance with the terms of their insurance policy).
I am told on good authority, that the capacity to shout is a satisfactory warning. Personally, I have fitted a 115db air horn to my bicycle. It is very effective, and provides extra business to the laundrette!
1 in 7 has a hearing impairment… how loud is a shout? in the open? Cycists spend thousands on a bike and won’t fork out for a bell
And if you meet me in your way it will result in stomping on your head until it becomes the same shape as that horn. This is the example of cyclist feeling entitled for no good reason and above everyone. Same example with lights – I see cyclist fitting 10000LM led lights which are enough for helicopter spotlight and fitting them without any adjustment blinding everyone in their way. That is why to use public road MOT should be mandatory – to make sure that retar…. like mike don’t fit 115db horns or million lumens tactical spotlighs.
While some cyclists have fitted loud horns and lights to their bikes, they should also be suitable for the job. I too have been blinded occasionally by excessively bright lights from a bike but better that than no lights at all.
Agree with you, many have lights every bit as blinding as undipped car headlights.
Pointless when people have head phones on.
Most cyclists are not dumb and have vocal chords, which is an audible approach warning.
I once was given a verbal warning of an approaching cyclist from behind me which was very effective. “Get Out The F**king Way” which I thought at the time to be a bit aggressive considering I was walking on a pathway at the time. How inconsiderate of me.
My recollection of Holland is that it is pretty flat. That wouldn’t work on the 200 ft to 800 ft above sea level hills around Somerset…
Another recollection is that entire country has size of single London borough, so what works in village of Holland is just not adaptable to large cities like London.
Another group of id.ts like one called brake
I work in a job that entails a LOT of dirty, heavy, lifting & shifting. The last thing I want to do is to ride a bike to & from work with all my work gear in a backpack (wet weather gear, safety boots, etc). Then, at the end of a shift, cycle home carrying the same gear…which can be twice as heavy due to water absorption…home again. Sorry, my car is a necessity for my job.
Why dont you leave all that stuff at work in a locker?
Probably get nicked!
Have you ever considered that such lockers are not available where he needs to do his job.
Your choice, not everyone’s choice
Maybe there is no choice
Reading the headline I assumed this had been an article about give cyclists and pedestrians right of way (aka priority) but all that it really means is that they’ll be a higher priority at the design stage. I hope that what NICE suggest is balanced by the practical needs of motorists.
You never mention mobility scooter users as there are more and more every day.
Are they entitled to special mention? For the sake of simplicity I’d have though it clear that they’re lumped in with ‘pedestrians’ when on the pavement, and ‘cyclists’ when on the road.
Never mentioned push-scooters, horse riders or people taking part in a sack race either.
It used to be in the Highway Code that the slower person or vehicle had priority, now drivers race along our roads and everyone has to jump out of the way. Even with ships and boats, the slowest takes priority, it has always been like this. This is for safety and not pampering to cyclists. Everyone has to play their part on our roads, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, cars, waggons even those in mobility scooters need to play their part, respect other road users and show good manners. How often do we see someone saying thank you now, it is very rare. Showing good manners is a sign of strength not weakness, it is the people who are confident they are good drivers and drive well who show good manners, not the idiots who think it is cool to drive fast, they are just showing how immature and childish they are.
Well said!
When did it say that? I’ve just looked back at my copy of the Highway Code from 1969 and it’s not there. As for boats the rule is wind over power not speed that gives priority you must live in a very selfish area, here road users acknowledge courteous behaviour.
Oh dear! Was 1969 the last copy of the Highway Code you read? Perhaps it is about time you purchased an up to date copy.
Using a 1969 copy of the highway code, says it all about your approach to road use. Later copies of the highway code say you should leave 1.5metres clear of a cyclist when passing him (In 1969 that would be just under 5ft!)
Not quite correct Mattie – I believe, as an example to just one of your ‘claims’, that on the water, the overtaking boat must keep clear of the other craft and have responsibility for the ‘overtake’ BUT the overtaken boat must carefully hold its intended course and its speed etc. or otherwise very clearly (including audibly for some) indicate any intended change of course. ALL HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES, AS WELL AS RIGHTS. So many road users seem to whinge a lot about others but seem to have little care or awareness of their own responsibilities!!
Here here!
However I think that the vehicle’s potential to kill should be taken into account. Therefore drivers of faster or larger vehicle should attend refresher courses (and tested?)
You test the cyclists, Ill happily take your test… twice as I drive and cycle at weekends.
Manners went out the window when the selfish culture of the 1980s became the me,me, entitled culture we have today I’m afraid.
Mattie, this is a second response from me. Whilst I hold with my original comment I must award myself a ‘Dumbo’ star for not taking in your Post properly before responding. I have been driving for over 60 years now and try to ensure that I never stop learning. There are so many things that we can do to help others but so few people seem to bother. I try to communicate with all other road users by use of lights, through screen hand signals, offering space where it can assist others (and help to keep the traffic moving in other lanes) by slowing to let a vehicle or pedestrian have a few seconds to move safely across or into the road rather than wait minutes to be able to move whilst holding up all traffic in their lane – thus are traffic jams born. I always try to thank, usually with a ‘wave’, someone who helps me in any way. I am not a slow driver who might be causing unnecessary hold ups, and I often ease the right foot (even when on urgent journeys) for a few seconds, slowing all behind me whilst giving a beckoning hand signal or light flash so enabling others to get where they need to be. I do similar for pedestrians, allowing a little more time, especially the elderly, parents with children and those with other difficulties, especially in wet weather!! It takes a very short time and and costs a tiny tad more fuel. I dislike zero or low tolerance fixed speed controls but I am passionate about appropriate speed, which can can often be slower than the so called ‘Legal’ speed limits. It is so nice when others offer me such as a have referred to, whether I am pedestrian or vehicle driver, but sadly it is more the exception than the rule. BUT, I am now 80 and have recently lost some ease of mobility and when ‘in town’ as a pedestrian I find that it is the motorists who give me more help than any pedestrians, they are quite scary and when I hold a door open for other pedestrians, including elderlies and pushchair Mums, a considerable number walk past me without even glancing at me – as though it is my duty. C’est la vie – but bloody rude and ignorant. I continue to fight for common sense, common courtesy and for many more years to do so.
I have during various of most of my 80 years been an active pedestrian* and walker*, also for a few years a keen hitchhiker, for many years a bike rider* and cyclist*, held Licences for and been a keen user of Motorcycle and with Side car, Cars, and with trailers for many purposes including Boats and Caravans, Tractors of many sizes, mainly Agricultural and including track laying, LGVs and HGVs up to Class 2, ie all but articulated. Ah, I missed ‘Pedestrian Controlled vehicles’ and Combine Harvesters. So I do have a ‘fair feel’ for what it is like to travel by these methods – hitch hiking was very fascinating, great fun and I met some extraordinarily interesting and generous folk and situations – sadly there is NO way it can happen now – what does that say about our changed world?? Sadly what seems to be missing so badly now, across the board, is respect and basic care for other people and a huge selfishness by so many which, among other things, is not only a serious cause of, what are called, ‘accidents’ (but often NOT so!!) and also, such selfishness is the cause many Traffic Jams. Mattie, you are so right in MOST of what you have written. *There are differences.
I do agree with most of what you say, but please, if you are in a rowing boat, do not expect the cross chanel car ferry to give way to you. He probably won’t even see you and even if he does, probably has no chance of manoevering around you!
You Never mention Mobillity Scooter users as there are a growing No of. Road regersed every year
Fine! Implement VED for cyclists, insist that they have insurance, make them take a theory and a practical road test. Until such times, NICE should (to quote from the bible) go forth and multiply!
We want to encourage, not discourage cyclists, for the multitude of benefits to our health and the environment. Don’t be dangerous selfish car driver!
What about us that are disabled and cannot ride or walk, completely overlooked again, as for cyclists make them take lessons and a test (everybody else using the roads have to), and the cycle must be registered insured and have some kind of MOT, if that makes me some kind of dangerous selfish car driver I do not care.
“NICE recommend widening pavements in order to allow for pedestrians in wheelchairs to safely navigate the pavement.”
Not completely overlooked.
But it doesn’t happen, few are wide enough for my husband s chair
When they widen the pavements, more drivers will have to park on them to allow other traffic to pass. No matter how wide they make them, wheelchair users and vision impared will still find it difficult.
What rubbish! Motorists should never be allowed to park their vehicles on pavements.
We have to park on the pavement otherwise emergency vehicles would not have access. Victoria houses Victorian roads.
Victorians never imagined we would clog the streets with a lump of steel that is parked for 85% of the time.
It was cool and a bity edgy to ride a bike back then but many did, walking for a lot more of their time as well.
Funny really how lots of European countries cope with this really well you see cars on pavements the local authorities actively encourage this by marking white lines on pavements for cars to park up to as they would rather keep traffic flow and access clear.
Plus and most importantly, jonnie foreigner does not seem to have the same “its my right” attitude that 90% of UK citizens now have from cars drivers (its my right to park anywhere) right through to pedestrians (its my right to just walk across roads, stuff your zebra crossings) in Europe people walk around cars in the UK people have to walk at them as they need to walk through that space the vehicle is in as its their right to do so even when is room to walk around it.
There is the problem, most people in this country only think of themselves, and never anyone else, “its my right” syndrome, I play my music as loud as I want, I like it….. Do your neighbours? I’ll dump my car on the pavement, or worse double park it and block the road as I am just poping in the shop…… What about the other people using that pavement/street? cyclists who just ride through crossing whilst pedestrians are on them and through red traffic lights because they are keeping fit and have a low carbon footprint…. what about the pedestrian on the crossing they hit or the car driver that mows them down at a junction because the cyclist has run a red?
Nobody thinks about anybody else these days, its all about yourself and your right to do as you please.
Victorian houses weren’t designed for cars. If you must have a car choose a house that was designed for one, or is capable of being redesigned to accommodate one. Why does everyone feel so ‘entitled’ these days?
in Victorian times the people whom lived in these houses would have worked in the local area, now due to mechanisation work patterns have changed, You try living a rural Victorian village where the train station has been closed down due to cut backs and the local government has reduced the bus service to just 2 a day cut backs again, how would you get to work? myself I have a 60 mile round trip to work every day I don’t feel “entitled” to work, unfortunately I have to and yes I do park one of our cars on the pavement, I would love to redesign as would I suspect the rest of the street, we could knock all our houses down and push them all 15 foot left to give us all a drive but some how I don’t think that is really viable, I kind of guess you live in a large prosperous town or even a city, you have no idea! I would love to walk to work, it would save us a fortune in fuel, I could even go home for lunch.. oh bliss, we could sell one car .. superb, think of the saving in money, I would be home within minutes of leaving work, instead of roughly an hour later dependant on traffic I would reclaim a huge chunk of my life. wow! but alas not this is real life.
Many Victorian villages were often miles from the stations that served them. A case in point is the North-West London suburb of Harrow-In the days when Harrow was a village on top of the Hill, when the Railway came the station was built some mile and a half from the village. An enterprising builder then built a town around the station now known as Wealdstone!
Were you forced to live in a village, or was that your own lifestyle choice? No point moaning about transport costs if you choose to live miles from work.
Crackin reply Jonto, lets shut down all the small villages and towns and we can all go live in a City, Ever been to Malta?, I suppose the UK would then look like that.
I like living in my Village, I am not moaning about travel, I love watching the sheep with their lambs in the field behind us, we have bats that fly around the houses in the evening, tons of wild birds and even the odd badger in the field we sit at our dining room window for breakfast with a back drop of hills and trees, by 7 at night the village is silent, why on earth would I move away from that to a city that never stops ? it was a dig at being “entitled”
But as I said the Victorians would have worked locally these cottages would have been for the farmers workers or I believe there was some kind of mine here as well so they may have housed them, the whole point of the conversation was to say we do not work like this any more we have no choice now but to travel, whilst I would like to ditch the car it is not practical to do so, its not a moan but a statement.
The problem is that in many places the roads are too narrow. In the village I live in if you don’t park at least partially on the pavement farm vehicles cannot get by. In many places cars legally parked on opposite sides of the road actually block the road from being used. It’s not a perfect world.
If the cars are parked on opposite sides of the road such that they are actually blocking the road, then they are not legally parked. The way they are parked is causing an obstruction. The Police have powers to deal with this.
You see Police Officers???
When you have the new town planners leaving no room for vehicles to park and with most homes having two cars one is in.trouble straight away! Cram them in, it’s profit!
Nor cyclists cycle on them as they do.
How about….. to ensure access for emergency vehicles…?
Bike riders should never be allowed to ride on the pavement
Why not? Happens all the time over in the Netherlands without any aggro or stupid idiots crying about it with no good reason.
In many areas local authorities have had to sanction pavement parking to allow vehicles (especially emergency ones) to have room to get through streets tha were built narrow in the days of the occaissional horse and wagon. Burnt Oak in NW London has an housing estate of this nature with no alterative parking nearby.
Thanks for bringing up another reason to give priority to cyclists and others. With more people in cities and towns reducing their reliance on motor vehicles there will be more space for the rest (majority) of us. Remember, almost all of us are pedestrians!
It is illegal to park on pavements. Increasingly offenders will be fined.
Not so-many local authorities allow it as the cheap option to widening roads. Apart from more vehicles on the roads, on average the family is wider and longer 50 years or more ago.
A further fact is that the London buses are now one foot wider than they weresince the 1960s.
Yep just look at the Mini, Astra, Golf and others they are all wider
Need to make the curb stone higher to top car / truck and van drivers illegally driving over them (RTA 1988 Section 34)
Make the kerbs higher? Fine, but then watch NICE and the public moan that the hospitals and doctors are overstretched by the injuries of those who fall off of the kerbs.
Well said.
That section doesn’t apply to pavement along side a road. But to countryside footpaths.
Not so where local authorities sanction such parking-know the law mbetter please.
Make the pavements nice and wide then the disabled and pedestrians can be allowed to share it with the cyclists in safety
Never happen, cyclists will always take the space.
Cyclists are not allowed on pavements. Nor should they be.
Try telling that to the cyclists who insist on riding on the paths regardless of the rules
Cyclists should nnever be allowed to ride on the pavement-they are too dangerous to pedestrians especially the disaabled. My disabled wife was nearly knocked down by a cyclist riding on the pavement-it would have taken at least two people to get her up again. Cyclists are the biggest hazzard on the road or pavement. (I was a keen cyclist myself so I am NOT anti cycling only anti – cyclist.)
Typical load of stupid, anti-cycing nonsense. The first bit, “nearly knocked down”. No details of the incident so we can’t even know if she was ever in any real danger at all of being knocked down at all.
2ndly, you’re not “anti-cycling”, just “anti-cyclist”? So, presumably, you would like to see cyclists outlawed? But cycling itself is OK. But who would be doing the cycling? Don’t you automatically become a “cyclist” once you mount a bicycle?
What rubbish. No wonder this country is going down the pan.
if pavements were made wider cars would park on them
Recommended being the operative word
I agree, and don’t forget the elderly, myself included in that category, cycling now is impossible for me especially in hilly Brighton and Hove, also I was knocked down by a cyclist in Brightons St James Street last year who was riding very fast down what is a one way street in the wrong direction, he never stopped and made his departure while I struggled to my feet, bruised but thankfully with nothing broken.
As someone who also lives in a coastal town, where every direction from the sea front is up, it can be a problem. However, at present (only 75), I have resorted to lower gears. Some of my friends, have got electric bikes, which help on the hills but still give them exercise on the flat. (Under present law, an electric bike must be pedalled for the motor to work – some bikes give several options for the amount of assistance provided)
You do not have to cycle or even walk there is something called public transport on of which is called a bus Remember them they are still used by many
Public transport is wonderful if you are next to a bus stop. I live in an area where buses were withdrawn to save money. As a consequence, I now have to drive 9 miles round trip to a park and ride, then pay £500 a year to get to my local town centre TWICE A WEEK. This despite having an older persons bus pass and a Blue Badge, neither of which can be used. Parking in the town centre, which is just 3 miles away is hopeless and expensive.
Bridgend is cutting a number of bus routes, so some areas just don’t have a good enough service to get people to places, and taxi’s charge silly money
if you are fortunate enough to live in a town or have a bus service, rural Wales does not
That would be the overpriced, filthy transport which has a time table but here in Manchester even the Bus companies admit that the timetable is more often than not a complete work of fiction.. then they increased prices by around 6%.. Of course Im going to commit to this form of public transport and get screwed by price increases “every” year for a garbage service..wait!! we already have that, its called the railways..!
You are joking, we haven’t had a bus service here for years and it is a long way to the nearest services/doctors/shops/council offices/etc etc.
Aren’t you lucky to have public transport. My nearest bus stop is over a mile away and is sharply up and down hill in both directions; there are not many busses in a day and all finish by 7pm. The nearest (non-volunteer run) railway is 18 miles away. Our big problem is that all these civil servants with their bright ideas, live and work in London, where they do have public transport; they have absolutely no idea of life in the real world.
They are used by many but only when they run. Rural areas have had their bus services viciously pruned by cash-strapped councils.
Not every disabled person can use buses. What do you suggest for them?
I agree with this idea, I too am disabled and cannot get about without my mobilty car.I do think driver either causing an accident, or stopped because of their driving.They should have to retake their driving test( they should also check that the person with the licence, is the person who took the test, I suggest fingerprint. The police did I think a year, watching drivers in our city the number driving without, insurance,tax, or driving licence was amazing.
Did the police only watch & not prosecute. Driving licences have the owners photograph on them.
How will fingerprints identify the owner.
Not all of them have photographs
I lived in Bermuda in the 40’s and one of the main means of transport then was the cycle. Then we had to have insurance and a registration plate even then. I’m not advocating a number plate but certainly insurance.
And I bet in Bermuda you had much better weather too. Those shorts weren’t designed for the UK in winter.
Can disabled on mobility scooters have same priority as pedestrians and cyclists under these new suggested laws, think of all the emissions from vehicles running in low gear all the time, car VED should be abolished and roads funded from council tax and income tax so all contribute.
I know there are many disabled but read my reply to Stephen above
Are you including pedestrians as well? What training and licensing are you suggesting for them?
Walking into the road without being fixated by the phone in their hand… that would be a start!
Hope that wheelchair is registered, insured and pays wheelie chair tax inline with your suggestion to cyclists. Also hope you acknowledge the huge investment in policies to accommodate ie Ramps, special parking etc. Shame we don’t get cycling benefits, special privileges at supermarkets and can park in dangerous locations
What a stupid comment, How often do you see a wheelchair travelling in the road compared to a cyclist riding on the path. Change your posting name to “Thick not Fat road user as this would be more appropriate
The bonkers bikers are all about me me me
They no doubt couldn’t care less about the disabled, until they have an accident and actually know what it’s like to be disabled
WELL SAID.
The czech republic already does this where new roads are built they have a cycle path approx three feet in from the road and people cycle everywhere.
Czech republic must be flat and not at all like Devon!!! One size does not fit all but all need to learn respect for other road users.
Cyclists need to respect other road users themselves and not constantly cast themselves as the innocent victims of demonic car drivers. I find cyclists in general to be the least considerate, most arrogant and most demanding of all road users, not to mention the most dangerous. As for pedestrians on roads – pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for vehicles. If a pedestrian wants to cross a road, they should use a designated crossing or risk the consequences of not being seen properly. I’ve noticed that since the 20mph speed limits were imposed that pedestrians are often all over the road, glaring at motorists as if daring them to challenge their right to be there. Roads are safest for everyone without pedestrians on them, just as pavements are safest without cars and bicycles on them.
Absolutely!
Couldn’t ahree more. If they don’t walk on the road I won’t drive on the pavement 🙂
Agreed. But I would add that get rid of all pelican and other light controlled crossings and replace them with Zebra crossings. Also make parking on pavements illegal. Cyclysts need to be registred and have insurance. Know this is difficult to monitor without resources but if you have an incident and you are not insured you have a problem. That’s how mobile phone and drinking offences usually come to light.
Hear hear! Totally agree with everything you say Peter. I’m a driver, I also push my Mum about on a wheel chair, and of course I’m a pedestrian. I do have a bike but would never dream of using it on a pavement and I’m too scared to use it on the road. In other words it sits gathering dust! Would love the idea of separate cycle routes away from main roads. I know that doing this, myself included, would give a lot of people the confidence to get back on a bike again.
Milton Keynes tried that; lovely ‘red ways’ for pedestrians and cyclists to keep them away from the roads. Two problems, the first is that children grow up thinking that they can ride their bikes (often dangerously) on any pavement. The second was the emergence of modern ‘footpads’ who hid in the lovely groves of trees planted and attacked pedestrians. I left the area 8 years ago and then the police were having to use mopeds to tour the redways to keep people safe. Pity! also a friend had a problem with his electric wheelchair and waited ages for a passer by, luckily a group of really nice young men came by and rescued him. There are all sorts of people everywhere!
Yes, Grumpy, and another place that tries it was eh, The Netherlands. And look what happened there, worked spectacularly. I wonder what the difference is between the Dutch and the Brits? Maybe it’s the fact that the Brits tend to be a stupid, arrogant bunch that don’t, generally, know how to bring up/educate their feral offspring.
I think you’ll find that the only roads that are exclusively for motor vehicles are motorways. Pedestrians have a right to use the roads too. I often see motorists denying pedestrians their right of way, particularly drivers failing to give way to pedestrians who are crossing a side road that the motorist is turning into. Pedestrians and cyclists are sometimes inconsiderate or careless but being inconsiderate or careless when in control of a two tonnes vehicle is far worse.
Electrically assisted bikes haven’t made their way down to the backward South West yet then?
We have cycle paths cyclists still use the roads, make it an offence.
I have a cycle & a car, I have cycled on the roads for the last 50 years and do not plan to start cycling on paths at any time. If I cycle on the road I can carry on cycling past road junctions, if I go on the path I have to dismount & mount again at road junctions, it’s not going to happen.
Please inform London’s Mayor who is spending vaste amounts of money creating cycle paths and narrowing roads in the process.
Or a dangerous and selfish cyclist. I’ve had to jump out of the way of cyclists on the pavement Not to mention mobs of Lycra clad clusters taking up the whole road, refer to previous article about slow drivers.
Would you prefer mobs of non-Lycra clad car drivers taking up your road?
Alex, according to cyclists car drivers do
Sorry Dominic… on what basis am I a selfish and dangerous car driver…..? I dont run red lights as a matter of course, I indicate when I change lanes, I have passed a test to be safe on the roads, I have lights on my vehicle so I can see and be seen.
Unlike “some” recent cyclists I have met who “ride two to a bike, no lights and on the wrong side of the road.. the stealth cyclists who dress all in black, no lights and reflectors and expect everyone else to be responsible for their safety.
To all cyclists who do follow the rules as I driver and a cyclist I thank you…
Well said, that man. I live in a small village yet the “old & bold clad in Lycra and all wearing sunglasses” come through our village every weekend in a pack with no regard for other road users, traffic signs or villagers . They seem to think that they are on the Tour de France.
You must be from Yorkshire
And cyclists with child boxes/carriers drive me mad. They think that they own the place, probably a load of Corbynites!!!
No doubt you’d prefer a different Jeremy for PM, and I’m not talking Paxman
Obviously written by a cyclist
What about the selfish cyclists, l followed a cyclist down a country lane for about 2 miles the other day. He made no effort to give me room to overtake, what about the ones that ride 2 abreast, chatting away causing an obstruction.
Dominic, Please advise your selfish cyclist buddies the same advice about dangerous cycling on PATHWAYS as well as the roads, or are you one of those who can see no evil when it comes to cyclists
Get a life uninsured bikers cause accidents but walk away with out insurance and leave others out of pocket.
They dont walk away…. they quickly remount their cycles and disappear into the distance….
Sadly in this forum too many idiot drivers/ anti cyclists.
Also too many idiot/arrogant cyclist’s commenters
Who’s paying for the widening of your footpath and your cycle lanes?? Just a guess, I’m going to say CAR TAX. Too much of one thing will be bad for everyone, everything should be done fairly and should be paid for fairly too, not just car drivers.
Yes, by all means encourse SAFE cycling not just letting anyone unaware of the dangers loose on the roads
About 60 years ago, before leaving junior school, I completed a course of instruction and test for the Cycling Proficiency Badge. This seems to be sadly lacking in modern Britain. When, 20 years ago I did my motorcycle basic training coarse, the youngsters there with me had not the slightest idea of braking distances that was included in my earlier road craft training and should be taught to all youngsters. Even as a pedestrian you need some understanding of thinking and braking distances
As usual England is years behind Europe. In 1965 I was in Holland and already they had a road structure which was helping the Cyclist drive safely around the country. Yes I know its flat but so are many parts of England. Society is on the verge of radically changing. The car as we know it will be obsolete. We can no longer continue to use petrol. The car will be powered by batteries and eventually the individual will no longer have his own car but will call a ‘taxi’ Already the scientists have given us 12 years to sought out the pollution on this planet before we are at the point of no return. One of those ways is to drastically cut down on the pollution from transport and rely on the local community to provide. Start thinking of the future and plan now and stop putting your head in the sand. The time has come to change your way of living or accept the consequences. This is not bulls**t – do your own research and find out how much s**t we are in.
People do get killed riding bikes usually because they think they own the road or have special privileges and that causes pile ups then ambulances police fire brigade, I’ve no need to go into detail about the effect that has upon people and the environment
Well you see every year I like every other motorist has to undertake an MOT to make sure our vehicles are safe on the roads, this costs us approx. £50 if it passes a lot more if not, we also have to have motor insurance just to make sure we can pay for any damage we cause to others and property, some of us even have to pay “road Tax” which use to go towards maintaining the roads (in the old days) now clearly due to the state of them I rather think it lining some MPs pocket in the form of a wage rise. All motor vehicles have to have a mark, usually call a reg plate clearly visible and there a laws to how this plate is set out and to what size it should be all to aid identification of this vehicle. Before you can get anyof the above you need to spend a very large amount of money taking lessons to drive this machine, you then undertake a stringent test (also expensive) run by the government which decideds if you are skilled enough and safe enough to drive on the public highway. these motorised vehicles also have lights front and rear so they can be seen and you can see on dark and dismal nights, its an offence to drive with defective lights (should a bobby be bothered to stop you) you can be fined for this as you can having no screen wash water in your bottle (strange one I know)
Cyclists!
1) how often is your cycle tested for safety, brakes, tyres lights etc
2) What kind of insurance policy do you need to have to ride on the public highway if none how do you pay for the damage you could do to a person or property?
3)How does your cycle get tracked, does it have an identifying plate which can be clearly read at distance?, for example if a motorist runs someone over and drives away from the scene (illegal for a motorist to leave the scene of an accident) we can be tracked by others who identified our reg plate, traffic cams with our reg plate once you have a reg number you can find out who the vehicle is registered to, we have to do that as well (big fines if you don’t)
If a cyclist hits someone on a crossing or breaks off your mirror at traffic lights, how is he made responsible for his actions
4) What kind of lesson and test to you HAVE TO TAKE to allow you to ride on the public highway?
The way I see it is if cycles are to use the public highway then they should have to be in line with the rest of us and made responsible for their actions as we are, at present it seems you need no lessons or test, so effectively you just pop of to halfrauds and purchase you bike jump on it and off you go, with no idea of any highway rules, you cycle is not tagged so when you cause injury/damage you are gone into the distance with absolutely no way of tracing that cyclist apart from his clothes and helmets all of which can be dumped and new ones purchased very cheaply, where is the accountability.
I have lost count of the number of cyclists coming up to Christmas I have nearly run over as the trend seems to be no lights or very dull ones and dressed all in black, AT NIGHT!! yet any car, van, motor cycle and truck has to be clearly visible front and rear, cylists don’t care!
Rules of the road, they completely ignore, riding over pedestrian crossing whilst people are still crossing, we are not allowed that, every motor vehicle has to stop when the pedestrian puts a foot on that crossing or when the lights dictate yet your cyclist rides around or even at the pedestrian on that crossing, run red lights at junctions, again motor vehicles its an offence, cyclists do it constantly, I even watched in amazement at he end of our village there is a light controlled junction where traffic crosses lanes, 4 lycra clad oooh not nice (meat n veg everywhere and some staggering bellies) they actually rode into oncoming traffic on their mountain bikes and then across the front of it as they didn’t feel I suppose they had to wait at their red light I think the only reason they where not hit as it was a shocking sight and you would not want that smeared on the front of your car, but the point being is a totally illegal road manovre that a motor vehicle would not have done as the road layout was against you as where the lights.
No accountability again, you buy a new bike from Halfrauds, a used one of ebay or the local paper NOT REGISTERED to you, yet any other vehicle on the public highway HAS to be registered to the owner and has to have identifying plate by law.
Cyclists want to join us on the public highway then follow the same process as us and be accountable for your actions as we are other than that its like giving a monkey a machine gun and wondering why its killed us all.
When cyclists learn that a traffic light showing red means they should also stop instead of checking each way and then thinking they somehow have the right to ride through a red light then I’ll start showing them a little more respect. I’m neither a dangerous or selfish car driver but I see many selfish and dangerous cyclists on the road every day.
Surely any VED for cyclists would be at a zero, or even negative rate as it is based on relative CO2 emissions?
Cyclists breathe out like the rest of us – that’s CO2 – just need to work out how to measure it!
Join the discussion…Can’t see any justification for VED for cycles – cars and lorries are the ones that damage the roads and should pay accordingly. Cyclists and pedestrians are contributing to the lowering of emissions as well as improving their own health and fitness. We all need to respect other road users – that’s a given – but motorised transport needs to learn to take better account of other road users – it would help if we had a culture and associated laws similar to those in Netherlands where cyclists and pedestrians are prioritised
Roads are a public asset…. if you use a public asset, you pay for the public asset…
And the problem with CO2 is?
It grows plants and like oxygen we can’t live without it
On an average UK diet each person, I calculated , expires a kilogram of CO2 a day. Cyclists obviously will eat more & thus expire more CO2
That’ll help get the kids to cycle won’t it?…
As a cyclist I am happy to pay VED. However since the Government classes me as a non polluting form of transport, my liability under that law is nil.
Oh and BTW I am also fully qualified car driver of many years standing.
Perhaps you should take your own advice!!
Cyclists do cause pollution and global warming, CO2 & industrial pollution when bikes are made & scrapped. VED is needed (even if nil) to ensure registration & insurance (but would be even more difficult to enforce than the “voluntary” insurance for motor vehicles.
Vs vehicles, crazy fool
Silly me. I thought deciding road priorities was the business of Parliament – not NICE.
Who is NICE? I thought was a biscuit.
Probably stands for “NO INTERNAL COMUSTION ENGINES”
Most cyclists drive cars too, so they know the rules well. It’s just that plenty of them are morons…. Just like drivers, basically.
I am a Cyclist. Pedestrian, Motorist and occasional Train & Bus User.
Cyclists are already vilified.
Making Drivers take Tests and getting their vehicle MOT’d, Taxed & Insured does NOTimprove their behaviour!!
There are bad examples of every type of Road User I don’t doubt it but proportionately, in my vast experience, it is more true of Drivers.
NICE no doubt another load of overpaid busybodies working for a quango,, no thought given to us that live in rural areas, where public transport in nonexistent and a car is an essential.
They are part of the NHS setup Clive…
having worked for the NHS in the past, that explains a lot!
But that makes no sense whatsoever.
VED is based on emissions (bicycles produce zero emissions)
Insurance is based on risk (the risk presented by cyclists is insignificant, as demonstrated by all available RTA statistics)
Licensing and testing are also based on risk (see above)
So you’re bascially advocating an incredibly expensive, meaningless box-ticking exercise simply to satisfy some strangely bitter personal desire for parity.
Mobility scooters that are capable of 8mph are now required to have a number plate issued by DVLA and also a VED disc. This costs a fortune to administer and brings nothing in, so the mechanism already exists to register bikes if no VED is payable.
Have you ever been anywhere near Cambridge?
The risk presented by cyclist there to all other forms of road or pavement users is significant. They use cycle lanes when it suits, ride where they like, ride on pavements not designated suitable for cyclists and ignore ones that are by riding on the roads instead, rarely stop at red lights, weave in and out of traffic should there be a delay or their cycle lane says to give way. They literally come at you from all directions in the centre of town, and as a pedestrian it’s really scary when they swarm around you going in all different directions and expect you to get out of their way.
Almost daily I see near misses where cyclists do not follow the rules of the road, or pavements for that matter. I genuinely can’t remember the last time I saw one using hand signals or anything to indicate their direction when turning. Seems drivers need telepathy or are expected to just ‘know’ where they intend to go.
Cyclists having insurance is certainly needed. If one ever knocks me down, and assuming they are responsible enough to stop which many aren’t, how would I claim from them for any injuries I might receive?
You cant, you have to go to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, who might, if the cyclist is caught, charged and convicted, might offer some compensation.
Where does the C.I.C.B get its money from…. take a bow all you tax payers
Ask the family of Kim Briggs about the “risk” element….. She was the mother killed by Charlie Alliston…. On my bike I am a 15 stone missile travelling at anything up to 20 / 30mph.. only take one error to take a life! You cycle, you present risk, you insure against the risk…
I could not agree more, their cycles should also be subject to a regular safety inspection.
What incident incurs via a poorly maintained bike ? Most cyclists do maintain the bike after each ride as part of gen maintenance. This is critical
if some buffoon due to faulty motor vehicle crashes in to a cyclist guess which one is dead. Faulty bike Not so convinced
Came and have a look at some of the cycles in use on Oxford Road in Manchester… No lights, no reflectors, minimal brakes….
I fully agree a vehicle not up to standard should be removed from the road…. and so should a cycle..!
The ‘accident’ involving Kim Briggs. A safety inspection would have noticed that the bike was not road legal
I totally agree. Cyclists have no regard whatsoever for other road users. They often ride two/three abreast, they have no idea what is behind them, they do not give hand signals, they don’t have insurance, they often ride on pavements they seldom use dedicated cycle paths, they jump red lights and they don’t contribute in anyway to the maintenance of the roads. NICE for cyclists but not other road users.
Bob of course that is for ALL cyclists using the roads including me I am a LGV Driving examiner and LGV bus driver also an advanced driver of several different categories but I cycle over hundred and fifty miles a week perhaps all car drivers should experience cycling on the roads to see how idiotic some car drivers can be
I am afraid this is an unfortunate generalisation which is simply not true of myself or the vast majority of cyclists I know.
I always signal and obey all the rules of the Highway Code.
There are a lot like you Paul…. its those who either disregard the rules of the road or just dont know who are the problem…. same with the vehicle drivers…. if we all stick to the rules we will be much safer…. perhaps we need many many more police to make us all behave.
Fine! Implement VED for pedestrians, insist that they have insurance, make them take a theory and a practical road test. One of these days, Steven, you will be old, god willing, and maybe unable to drive. [I wonder whether you’ll think differently]
You must be a driver who thinks that no one else but you in your vehicle should be allowed anywhere near our roads .You must think of a road as your private space Just another ignorant stupid fool Too many of your kind still allowed to drive
bishbut, you forgot to mention cyclists too
VED is based on vehicle emissions, last time I checked a cycle doesn’t produce any. Neither does a battery car, are you campaigning for them to pay for VED too?
Man you cyclists have insurance these days and can drive, so will have taken a test for their car.
The anti cycle brigade need to look at themselves and get a life, plus some excercise, as they keep growing and costing the NHS billions paying for their additional healthcare needs 😂
As a driver I also studies marshal arts, played racquet sports to club standard and have medals for running all distances to marathon… So take your pathetic generalisation and stuff it up your own exhaust system.. cheers!
wrx_dan, and the “Holier than thou cyclists” who believe they are persecuted all the time also need to get off their High Horse and take a long look at themselves as they are not as Lily White as you seem to believe.
It’s also surprising how many cyclists are injured by their own fault and not drivers, plus those who start cycling believing they are fit enough to do so and cost the NHS when having treatment for a whole range of self-inflicted and physical injuries
If the bicycle is to pay ved the rate would to zero just like electric cars
No problems with that, but at least if cyclist’s cause an accident they can be identified
I dont suppose its occurred to you that the Government of the day might just “change the rules”….
So you are prepared to pay for your children to take the test, pay for the insurance
, Vel and high viz clothing?
Just about every cyclist already has insurance. Nearly all riders have public liability insurance provided by their house insurance policy.
This covers accidents when they are riding a bike.
Most adult riders also drive cars and so have taken a driving a
test.
When I took my driving test it did not include proficiency at driving on pavements, jumping Red Lights, driving the wrong way along a One Way Street, Swerving in and out of traffic, etc.
As for PLI, all very good as long as the cyclist is carrying a copy of it and is honest enough to exchange details and be truthful!!!!
Idiot comment. VED is based on emissions. There are no emission from bikes, so fine, give us free road tax, exactly as if we were zero emissions cars, if that makes you happy, and if you want to pay the millions in pointless administration costs. As for your road test, imbecilic idea. Do you want to roll this out to runners, people in wheelchairs? Pedestrians? How would it be enforced?
When it comes to insurance, many of us have insurance, though it’s primarily to provide us with legal expenses and representation when it comes to protecting our rights against motorists who cause accidents.
Fortunately, cyclists are multiplying, so stop whining, and get used to us
No, just arrogant cyclist’s
Each vehicle using the public highways should be insured, licensed, tested and subject to vehicle excise duty. Horses and horse drawn carriages should also have insurance, be licensed and the carriages tested.
Most serious cyclists have taken tests. Are insured. We’re car drivers aswell. What we’re asking for is when you get into a car you ensure you are safe towards other road users. That priority to get somewhere faster doesnt over ride the safety of others
So right. With rights come responsibilities. Cyclists get away with ridiculous behaviour because they are rarely held to account. Next they will be asking for special lanes on motorways.
DID YOU KNOW THAT ANY HOUSEHOLDER WHO HAS HOME CONTENTS INSURANCE AUTOMATICALLY HAS THIRD PARTY COVER WHEN USING A BICYCLE!
To many pedestrians walk across the road with out a care of there safety NOW, if the law gives them the right to do so it will mean that every thing travels at the speed of the lowest denominator, as fore the lycra brigade !! carnage.
Yes, promote cycling by all means, but let’s have responsible cycling. Many problems are being caused by idiots on bikes who think that they are “entitled” to do what they like on our roads and pavements. So, testing competence and compulsory insurance should be included in the plans.
Well drivers pass a test in order to drive and half of them still drive like muppets so how is that going to help?
Where is your statistic of “half”… or did you just make this up?
There are idiotic and aggressive drivers on the road and they should be taken off it…. putting another layer of idiotic road uses into the mix isnt going to fix anything is it.
That’s a well known statistic mate. Muppetness varies with age too. Young drivers are more likely to be muppets, and it’s reflected in their insurance premiums. So don’t get mad at me…
Quite right Kermit
Well know statistic from what source…? and I dont accept your local pub as a reliable source of information….
If it doesn’t help then lets abolish mandatory insurance, MOT and training for motorists as well. According to Weasel that would make no difference anyway
Lunas, wrong! You do need training and all sorts of economic deterrents to move around in a 1 ton, deadly weapon with 4 wheels.
You also need training to pick up your bike and “mix it” with the one ton deadly weapons…. it helps keep people safe.. dont you agree?
99% of cyclists have their bikes insured on house insurance already. Forcing them to get third party insurance is a bit hammer to crack a nutshell. And you can’t force costs on people just because you don’t like your own.
Maybe I should have my car on my house insurance
Only against Theft. Engage brain before posting.
I think he was joking…Where’s your sense of humour. Anyway I doubt anyone has made a successful claim for damages on the cyclist’s house insurance against a cyclist who caused damage with their bike.
Heres another probably made up stat..99%… pray tell, who has calculated that? Where can we validate this magical figure? You have not just made it up have you?
Just experienced one today riding all over the road pulling across lanes in front of drivers no signals people have to slam their brakes on in order not to hit him, we had to stop in the middle of a roundabout because he nearly caused a pile up
I experience car drivers EVERY day who force their way onto a roundabout from my left, causing me to brake or steer to avoid them. They must have a feeling of invulnerability in their 1.5 ton steel coffin. I suspect they wouldn’t try it if I was driving a 40 ton artic.
If traffic can come up on your left hand side, where are you positioning yourself? Have you read the highway code??
Of course they wouldn’t. The lorry would be visible. The requirement that lorries have to have signs warning cyclists about riding up the inside of lorries is testament to the danger of this activity. Far too many cyclists ride in dark clothes with no lights and ignore road safety complaining that its all the fault of drivers and that cyclists are never at fault. Motorists are certainly to blame for many accidents including those to cyclists but cyclists have a responsibility to ride in a safe and considerate manner which all too often they fail to do.
Then get your self an arctic if you feel that way.
I saw one cyclist riding the wrong way along a one way street, weaving in and out f traffic. He was grinning as though it was some sort of funny game. Another time I missed a cyclist who was riding on a fairly dark badly lit street. They were on black with no light and no reflective jacket. If I had been rushing I could easily have missed seeing him and had an accident, but I expect the blame would all have fallen on me as the motorist. To large a minority of cyclists show no responsibility and refuse to help motorists avoid them by making themselves visible. Reflective jackets should be required clothing for ALL cyclists just like they are for all road workers. They only cost £4-5 and could prevent an accident, especially as so few cyclists have forward facing lights.
I totally agree, I took cycling proficiency in the 1950’s have cycled over 100,000 miles through Europe and the Middle East and am still cycling today. I buy and read the Highway Code at every issue – which I doubt any motorist (Except IAM members) do. For all you people doubting my ability to drive (25,000 + miles per year) since 1965. I can say as a cyclist the worst drivers are here in the UK, the best in Jerusalem. Read your Highway Code and watch the road.
What about those of us who simply cannot walk or cycle a journey. It is difficult enough getting from a to b in a car already, adding new cycle lanes or widening the footpaths will just increase congestion that already chokes our roads
I carpool, I pick up several work colleagues and drop them home as we all lives a good 40 minute walk from work, does NICE and the government think that is an acceptable walk or cycle journey?
I pay to use the roads and I had to pass a special test to use the roads. I get fined / penalised for not adhering to the rules and regulations of the road, what about cyclists and pedestrians. A cyclist should pay for a licence to use the lanes or road and should be made to take a test specifically aimed at riding a bike properly and proper road use. Pedestrians should also be instructed on how to use pavements properly too, atever happened to the ‘green cross code’. I have seen far to many near misses where pedestrians and cyclists are not mindful of each other let alone all and any other road users not just cars but it always comes down to the motorised vehicle to bear the brunt. Enough is enough leaves us alone.
Yes, of course a 40 minute walk is acceptable! Alternatively you could cycle that in less than 15 minutes! Keep fit, reduce pollution, save money. Absolute no brainer!
You obviously do not have any mobility problems – even corns can impede one’s walking. 40 minutes acceptable? Pull the other one.
I walk to work every day. 45 mins each way. Gives me time to exercise, breathe fresh air, relax, think etc. rather than joining the zombies at the back of a traffic jam.
Ian, I suspect the previous poster meant they have a 40 minute drive. I live in the North of England and we have many small towns, villages, localities etc which can be more than an hour’s drive from the nearest public transport links, let alone nearest big town. I am a wheelchair user & self-propel when possible but there are many occasions where this is simply not possible so would you suggest I become house-bound? What about other disabled and elderly, should they simply not go out?
I believe we should all be considerate of others, whether on the road or the footpaths. I believe that everyone should have to pass a test if they wish to use the road, cycle, motorcycle or car. I also believe that like other countries, every cycle, motorcycle & car should be taxed and have a registration plate. I also believe in compulsory insurance for all road users, albeit cheaper for cyclists as they generally do not create as severe injuries as a motor vehicle.
I give way to pedestrians happily but what really angers me is the abuse I get from cyclists in my town who believe they can ride through red lights, the wrong way up a one-way street and change lanes, ignore the light rules (in twilight or at night) or turn without signalling. We are none of us mind readers so some form of signalling from all road users is essential.
Finally, when Street Rangers or police stop cyclists for contravening the aforementioned regulations, they are given a volley of expletives and simply cycle of continuing to contravene those same regulations. I realise that these are not the majority of cyclists. Most cyclists I have driven around, do actually abide by the road laws but the small minority cause problems for everyone.
Finally, I see many children with helmets but their parents do not use them. How do they think they can convince their children as they grow older to wear them if they themselves don’t. Helmets do save lives, I grew up in a country where they are compulsory for all cyclists & believe that an “ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.”
Typical you can,t see that person is disable read again what she said she car shares in which cuts down on pollution
I was expected to walk the first 3-miles when I worked for a Government body, so a 40 minutes walk is very acceptable.
But like children, there is always a “reason why not”.
Yep I think a 40 minute walk to work is eminently feasible. That’s about 10 minutes on a bike.
Having worked in A&E for over 20 years I can asure you that in road tragic accidents involving cyclists car drivers do not bear the brunt.
Road
a wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use:
Definition in Dictionary!
Planning guidelines have stated that pedestrians then cyclists are considered first in planning for many years. So NICE have wasted their time and our money in this effort to re-engineer how we travel.
Cyclists are the most arrogant, abusive and obstructive group of road users, money would be better spent on potholes and ensuring this arrogant group of users conformed to the Highway code rather than cycling as a group, and going through red lights. At the end of the day I am paying the huge fuel duty and road tax – neither of which cyclists pay.
You pay fuel but don’t pay tax you pay emissions/pollution duty!! Cyclist dont pay fuel (for obvious reasons) and dont emit emissions/pollution!!!
dont u emit co2 on exhale & that is a greenhouse gas. So u do polute
Pardon me for breathing
Your Pardoned, but don’t forget all of the energies that went into creating that bike, Helmet you don’t have to wear, the “Dash” camera you might use to help prosecute someone (if the new law thing passes). everything anyone does will pollute in one way or another. if you don’t understand that you probably shouldn’t be in control of any type of transport
Yes obviously there is pollution involved in the manufacture of cycles and any accessories but they are at a couple of orders of magnitude less than the environmental impact from car manufacture and usage. In addition the mumber of people directly killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents is huge compared with any other form of transport.
Yes but cyclists don’t fart as much as drivers so that makes up for it, also I hold my breath every other Tuesday, you should try it
So do car drivers….should they pay double? 😉
Do you eat meat? Those animals all emit CO2, with many of them emitting large amounts methane.
Many others on this board have emitted large amounts of wind, probably most of that is polluting as well.
semantics
I use a car, motorcycle and a bicycle. I live semirural and can honestly say 99% of car and motorcycle drivers/riders break the law and highway code on a daily basis. Myself included.
Increased potholes – i would love to hit one on my motorcycle at 60mph which would result in my death.
Daily Mail idiots like you shouldnt be allowed to comment.
If you hit a pot hole while driving / riding or cycling then you a driving / riding / cycling without due care and attention. Its as simple as that
That’s a really daft comment as I’m sure that you’ll realise if you take the trouble to think about it. If you have a clear open road in front of you in good daylight visibility then yes you should be able to avoid a pothole. But often the pot hole is only visible when the vehicle in front of you is out of the way and at that point it can be too late to swerve to avoid it ( or to do so without impeding or endangering other road users.
If I think about a particular recent pothole that I encountered this appeared in the road that I turn into from the main road – as such it was not visible (even in clear daylight conditions) until you had already turned and on top of it
In addition this is certainly NOT the legal definition of driving without due care and attention
Like most cyclists I also own a car. (More than one actually) So
I do pay fuel – but not as much as I would if I drove everwhere
I do pay tax – but cause less damage to the environment than I would if I drove everywhere
I therefore pay a disproportionately high road tax. Cycling not only does not polute the environment but it does not cause potholes.
I have cycled to a greater or lesser extent all my life, in recent years there seems to have been a marginal improvement with more cycle routes and the last year or so more understanding drivers giving me more room and consideration. But there is a long way to go. If some of the anti cyclist moterists would try cycling once in a while they may realise how scary today’s tragic conditions can be. Most cyclists drive as well and when they do they are probably more conciderata of other road users.
How much shopping can you carry on your bike?
How far can you usefully travel in a day, and leave time to carry out your business, by bicycle?
You could get an electric cargo bike for most of your shopping trips and then use whichever form of transport is suitable for the journey. Sometimes it will be the car sometimes a bike or walk. Obviously on the rare occasions that you need to drive all day you won’t use the bike.
So, now we all have to buy a new form of transport???? I think not. Still people like Boardman, who is currently chairman of Boardman cycles at Halfords and currently wasting Manchester taxpayers money at a fantastic rate must be rubbing his hands together,.
Please provide evidence for your “opinions”. I pay tax and council tax which maintains the road infrastructure.
I note you make not comment about other road users that exceed the speed limit, ignore one way signs, go through red lights. Or do all road users always adhere to the laws of the road? It is the user not the mode of transport that is the issue.
Well said Robert,
No, they don’t, and if they are caught they pay through the nose/get banned etc. Yet to see many dangerous cyclists prosecuted for anything like this.
Since you are clearly blind, you should not be in charge of any vehicle
I think that the absolute “lack” of police is the problem… and its easier to nail a motorists than a cyclists.. motorists display identification…
but biker is the worst offender of going the wrong way on a one way street riding with no hands using the phone texting do i have to go on
I have sen all those things…. and done in the dark… but there are perfectly capable and considerate cyclists out there…. its just you share the road with them and dont really seem to notice / be troubled by them.
“Cyclists are the most arrogant, abusive and obstructive group of road users” Yes good one, Blinkered slightly I think. Try riding a bike, you might see it differently. I see many more cars jump red lights every day than I do cyclists.
I am a motorist, but I cycle for exercise at the weekends, I tried going to work on my bike but the amount of near misses from cars cutting in pulling out on you and not giving you the required space makes it just too treacherous. Despite using lights, high Viz and having insurance.
Lets face the average motorist these days in their protective little bubble has little regard for anyone else, and woe betide anyone who slows them up them for 15 seconds.
We have a cycle lane near us that offers over 1 mile of cycle lane and where do the lycra bikers and other cyclists ride – on the road. Its not the drivers that need educating.
Take a look at that cycle lane…..usually covered in rubbish, broken glass and not maintained……its safer on most roads
It is probably the edge of the road
Actually, we have a cycleway in my area that covers slightly over one mile, cost several hundred thousand of pounds, months of disruption, and exactly as Geoff says, many cyclists use the road. The cycle lane is well maintained but little used, except at peak times, and even then the numbers are considerably less than would be expected. The “award winning design” has vehicles crossing the cycle lane at blind spots, where the road traffic cannot be seen from behind the cycle track, yet vehicles are not supposed to stop on the cycle track before entering the stream of traffic! Visitors to the area frequently, get confused by the road markings, and the crossings of cycles from one side of the road to the other where the cycle way has been split at the start and end. Now the council appears unable to extend it further because of the number of traffic lights and road junctions further down the road. Seems like it may be in the wrong place??
No its not… lots of posts on here tell us how dangerous it is cycling on the road… make your mind up
Not according to cyclists
And I have many pavements near me that you can barely walk down due to the number of thoughtlessly parked cars . We ALL need to be more considerate of other road users whenever we walk, drive or cycle
Cycle lanes are often badly designed. Many were put in to get government money that was on offer, and enabled the road and footway to be repaired as well. If a cycle lane is installed by splitting the pavement, the cyclist has to stop at every intersecting side road. In this case it is much less effort and quicker for the cyclist to use the road, which he is legally entitled to do, unless it is a mandatory cycle lane (usually painted green). One solution would be to have dual cyclist / pedestrian crossings across every intersecting road. This then causes a problem for motorists trying to pull out of the side road. The best solution is to have a cycle lane at the side of the road, separated from the road by a substantial kerb, which discourages vehicles from entering the cycle lane. If there are property entrances, it can not be continuous, so of limited use in towns and suburbs. If parking is allowed then the cycle lane needs to be outside the parked cars; people getting out of vehicles need to be especially careful of approaching cyclists.
Cycle lane use is not mandatory. But most drivers are ignorant of this fact. Just like you. Deal with it.
I personally think it would be a good idea to get cyclists off the road and onto separate areas beside the roads so that they are away from the cars as this would improve safety for both the cyclist and the car drivers.
I think that cyclists should have to pass a test before they can use their bikes as many of them think that traffic lights don’t apply to them and often cycle past the cars at the red lights, stop to see if anything is coming and then just cycle on completely ignoring the fact that the lights are red.
The cyclists that do stop at the lights should wait in line with the cars rather than cycling past the queuing traffic and then stopping right in the middle at the front of the first car at the traffic lights and then holding up all the traffic while they meander off on their bikes when the lights turn green.
I agree with trying to encourage people to be more healthy but safety plans need to be put in place as well for everyone (cars, bikes, pedestrians etc)
Do motorcyclists wait in line? Why would you do that. 2 wheels means you dont have to. Red light jumping is a problem for all road users except cyclists do it more blatently.
Not done much cycling have you.
Some traffic lights have a designated area in front of the cars, where cyclists are supposed to wait. This area goes right across the lane. If they are waiting here, they are doing what they are supposed to.
I am all for cycling and walking but please please get them to learn the highway code .1s and2 s not are ok normally but it’s the 8s to20+ group’s that show no respect for other users. When they are riding the full width of your side of the rd and over the white line how can you pass safely with the now suggested 5ft of clearance to keep them safe . With cars traveling at ,15-20mph behind a load of lycra no wonder we have poor emissions and frustrated drivers . I am all for cycling and do it myself sometimes but please show the motorist some respect and follow the highway code Motorists have to why shouldn’t they. And also help with emmisons as constant slowing and trying to get past ruins economy..
I do feel that the reason behind such a move is that too many drivers are unaware of when pedestrians DO have priority already, for example as stated in Highway Code rule 170 (watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way). I’ve seen so called ‘professional’ drivers (i.e. taxis) verbally abusing pedestrians halfway across a junction because they were ‘in the way’.
By introducing a blanket rule regarding priority, there’s no ambiguity so I do feel that inconsiderate and/or ignorant drivers are making things more difficult for the rest of us.
If I am approaching a junction and indicating to turn… its a bright idea for pedestrians to check “all” elements of the traffic flow, including behind them before the happily step out into the roadway… failure to do so will usually result in a quick trip to A&E.. in a motorised vehicle…
Our council closed a local golf course. So that people 5 miles away can drive to a country park. I also now have a 25 minute drive instead of 10 minute one. Councils are just thinking about themselves not the environment.
As a cyclist and a motorist I believe cyclists should have to have insurance to cover accidents that they cause. No insurance, no right to take your bike outside your front gate. Training for all cyclists might help against the lycra brigade – though the most stupid will only learn when they can’t ride any more!. The training for car drivers should reflect the increased use of bikes on the road and hazards to watch for. More cycle/pedestrian lanes where practicable.
I have 3rd party insurance via cycling UK
Good for you, but unfortunately it’s not compulsory (as it really should be).
I would suggest that a large proportion of ‘inconsiderate’ cyclists are youngsters that either do not know any better or are showing the reckless behaviour typical of some teenagers. Since motorists have to be 17+ and have had to pass a driving test, it is only right that they (we) behave as the responsible adults in such encounters.
You want to come and see the idiots on Oxford Road in Manchester… In December we stood by the side of the road checking out behavior and adherence to the rule..
7 out of 10 people broke some law such as red light running, no lights, wrong side of the road…
Good news is with lighter nights the count goes down as the “no lighters” accidentally become legal again.
Take away car road tax if cars don’t even have priority on the roads, everyone using it should be equal.
Are you that stupid? Its based on emissions. Buy a Toyota Aygo and you wont pay road tax either. Jesus are you stuck in 1990
You really are a tw*t, let’s all just buy new cars shall we? After we’re all rich! When I’ve finished paying the bills I sometimes have enough left over to eat. Why should I pay nearly £300 for the 500 miles a year I drive whilst some honking great Range Rover down the road pays £100 for driving 100,000 miles a year? How is that remotely fair? Put the VED on FUEL.
“£300 for 500 miles a year?” – ” honking great Range Rover down the road pays £100 for 100,000 miles a year?” “Put the VED on FUEL?” Presumably you own a Morry 1000 [if you do credit to you for preserving our history] however I take it that you are alluding to the VED costs so I cannot see where you get the Range Rover cost from The RR owner [I am not one] would be ecstatic to pay that and if traveling 100,000 miles each year I think simple maths should tell you that [‘he/she’] is already paying substantial duty on the fuel purchased . As for “honking great Range Rover” , prejudice/biase/envy – whatever, are lamentable arguements to include in a reasoned, adult discussion.
Road tax is for repair of the road now it lines the pocket of the gov
Of course cyclists and pedestrians should come first. Any encouragement to get us off our fat bottoms is just great. After all – our bottoms are only getting fatter while we sit in our cars. almost all cyclists also have cars and therefore pay their road taxes, they just choose a more sustainable, healthier way to use the roads, which also causes less congestion. Congratulations NICE.
Road taxes and insurance should be mandatory for each vehicle using the public roads. Also applies to horses or horse drawn carriages.
We live in a rural area, walk our dogs twice daily but take them to suitable areas by car as there are no footpaths alone a very busy road, where there are a few places where there is a footpath it is so narrow that there is no room to walk safely except in single file and even then the closeness of vehicles especially heavy lorries is frightening. I would love to be able to walk more, there is no footpath at all in front of our property.
I think Spain has it right in giving pedestrians priority crossing roads in town centres and cities because this ensures traffic generally drives more slowly and carefully but also keeps flowing more than with the UKs far too many light-controlled pedestrian crossings which often stop traffic too often for too long causing unecessary traffic congestion and increased emmissions. I admit the latter gives pedestrians more protection but the air pollution being created by increased toxic emmissions is killing all of us slowly rather than just the odd pedestrian. Also Spain’s pedestrians are forced to remain alert, observant and cautious when crossing whereas UK pedestrians are having their instincts blunted and are being turned into unthinking half-asleep zombies by these over-protective crossings and pedestrianised areas!
Make cyclist have insurance,and fine them for no lights in the dark.Stop them riding on the pavement.Stop cars parking on pavements.
In case you hadn’t noticed, cycling without lights at night is already illegal despite being stupid. Similarly, cycling on the footway has always been illegal. We are confusing enacting laws with enforcing them. Burglary is illegal, but very few burglaries result in prosecution of the offender. Do you want to pay a lot more tax to enforce the existing law?
Secondly, the majority of cyclists, like the majority of motorists, are law abiding and considerate. The big exception to this is London (anywhere inside the M25), where fewer people are considerate and law abiding. Luckily, I was able to escape the metropolis a decade ago and live in rural bliss!
Yes, motorists are inherently lazy. So is government.
Instead of DOING something (like automatically making a motorist at fault in the case of a pedestrian) they set a strategy.
Tell that to the hospital!!!
What about those of us unable to walk or cycle, such as the elderly, disabled, etc. We have no choice but to use our cars if we want to get out of our homes., go shopping, visit doctors, hospital, family and friends.
To my knowledge nowhere in the article (or in suggested guidelines) does it say that you shouldn’t be able to use your vehicle. Its talking about making ‘non-drivers’ a higher priory at the design stage.
I certainly support walking shorter distances to the nearest supermarket or even – in my case – to the town centre.Widening pavements is propably not a good option as it reduces the road width and makes new cycle lanes impossible to add. Let alone the problem of parked cars.The problem with walking to the nearest supermarket is lack of adequate pedestrian crossing or – in my case – a total lack of pavement leading to a supermarket by foot.I have raised this particular issue with a local councillor – no reply for months.
Most importantly, the Highway Code must give priority by law for pedestrians when crossing a side street along a trunk road. The Highway Code has only guidance and suggestions like one “should” do this and that and the other, but not must do .
2 years ago I moved to a brand new house in Suffolk. There was a development of approximately 200 mostly detached houses. Only a small number of the streets had footpahs. When we formed a residents’ committee to get something done, we were told by the local council (St Edmundsbury) that the lack of pavements was a design feature for traffic calming. Needless to say we were not impressed.
I now live in a small village in rural Norfolk, before we moved there the local council constructed a footpath along one side of the main street through the village. As a consequence the road has become narrower – not helped as the council refuse to tend their verges on the opposite side where scrub has overgrown and narrowed the road further. Every day, traffic passing other vehicles has to mount the pavement. In doing so larger vehicles actually cross the pavement and drive with the nearside wheels on the verge. They then spread the ploughed up mud all over the pavement making it unusable for pedestrians most of whom now choose to walk in the road to avoid dragging mud into their houses.
If the NIHCE guidelines are adopted, that will be the case through most of the country. You can just see that there will be far more accidents as a result.
As usual a sweeping statement by a Government Department which has not thought it through properly.
The major cause of obesity is folk stuffing their faces with junk food, sugary drinks, fat filled snacks etc etc. and if anyone thinks they are going to get such folk onto bicycles then they are living in a dream world.Equally
dreamlike is the notion that you can force motorists off the road just to pander to the requirements of a minority group (yes they are- only 3% of the population use a bike every day)
As for cutting vehicle emissions this is a no brainer of course but just take into account if cyclists are given priority (most of them just take it anyway regardless of road traffic conditions)then they reduce traffic speeds to a level where engines are not burning fuel efficiently and emissions become worse not better.
Encouraging cycling is to be applauded but for a lot of folk a car is a necessity and they pay dearly for the privilege and contribute around £44 billion to the exchequer each year. Presumably cyclists expect cycle lanes to be financed from this tax take (it IS a tax regardless of how you dress it up!!) and not have to pay anything themselves whilst being given priority status?Is this the case? I don’t know but if it is the phrase “having your cake and eating it” springs to mind.
Two items should be mandatory for cyclists and that is 3rd party liability insurance-motorists have to have it by law. The second is the teaching of road safety- I have lost count of the number of times I have seen cyclists ignoring traffic lights, weaving in and out of traffic causing motorists to brake sharply etc etc.
Again motorists are obliged to study a Code and be tested on it-cyclists should be tested similarly.
A delicate subject which can be debated forever-what is needed is a bit of give and take and rational discussion rather than hysterical outbursts.
All NICE said was that needs of cyclists and pedestrians should be given a higher priority when new roads were planned. Not a sweeping statement, changing existing laws. It recognises that on existing roads, it may be difficult to do anything.
There are three main segregations for highways; pedestrians, engine powered vehicles and people powered vehicles. When they overlap more incidents (read collisions) occur. The way to prevent the majority of the incidents is to prevent the three categories from intermingling. How you do that should be the major concern. Motorways have few pedestrian and cycle incidents, pedestrian only areas have no problems with motor-vehicle incidents and people powered vehciles seem to consider themselves to be free to use any and all areas and accordingly create their own problems. If areas were made into one of the three above categories you may expect the interaction (again read collisions) between the groups to be minimal. To me, that is the way highway design and transportation policies should be directed, the avoidance of incidents and interaction by design and not by allowing the inevitable (so history has shown us) consequence of intermingling the groups.
NICE are not satisfied with stopping people who desperately need certain types of medicine and treatments, they are now trying to poke their noses in things that have nothing to do with there remit. Perhaps they should be called NASTY and not NICE
Go out for a run before work as I do or alternatively after work. Government guidelines recommend 30 mins 5 days a week. Standing up for a meeting or walking up the stairs is minimal. Try 30 mins of running or one hour cycling or 2.5 hours of walking which is approximately 6 miles with a 15 minute break in the middle. The weekends are ideal for a walk but no reason why most can’t fit in a run or a cycle before or after work. I start work at 8.30 25 miles away so if I can do it anyone can. With these guidelines above I am assuming then cyclists are going to start paying road tax?
Perhaps if the roads were safer you might get your excercise by cycling the 25 miles to and from work – if you live in the SouthEast your 25 mile car trip is probably taking you the best part of an hour anyway. You could make cyclist contribute a small amount in road tax every year but the impact on roads that they make is minute compared with that of cars and lorries and most cyclists are car drivers as well.
As usual the government seeks to heap all responsibility onto the motorist. Cyclists can help by obeying laws themselves namely that of riding in single file, keeping to the left and not cycling down the middle of the lane thus preventing vehicles from overtaking. A big problem is cyclists, especially kids, cycling at night without lights. Parents have a responsibility to ensure their kids bikes are up to spec. Schools could also play a part by not allowing kids to cycle to school unless their bikes are fitted with lights.
Can’t stop them riding to school, but can stop them coming onto the premises
It is the motorist who is paying for the roads. They should be designed and maintained so that can be used safely by all people.
Why should the poor old already highly road taxed motorists have to subsidies the free loading lycra army who just get in the way of tax paying motorist. Totally unfair unless they are taxed as well.
I pay £20 a year to tax my car, does that give me an entitlement over other road users? Of course not.
If this becomes law road tax needs to be scrapped and a tax on every citizen should be introduced so that everyone is on a equal level.
Not before time!!! Far more needs to be done to encourage more people to walk and/or cycle more often. Of course, most will also need to be motorists at times, so we are not talking about the total exclusion of motorists, as Howard Cox seems to think. Indeed, comments such as his as symptomatic of the almost complete ignorance which has led to the UK’s over-dependence on motor transport. My advice to him and other cohorts is to open their eyes and look to far more civilized countries such as Holland, Switzerland, Germany, … , then they may see the light!
Not all jouneys can be done on foot & so car ownership must be accomodated. In a democracy it is the majority view that should prevail & I would query whether there is a majority to prioritise cyclists over motorists because more of us drive cars than are prepared to cycle. Having said that I have seen in Germany how cycle paths are separate but parallel to the road in rural areas & the pavement is divided between pedestrians & cyclists in urban areas, so road space isn’t taken away from motorists & cyclists usually do not have to cycle on the road. NICE should look at what happens in Germany before creating unecessary problems of access for cars, vans & emergency vehicles.
What a ridiculous suggestion – there should be EQUAL importance for all road users.
None should hold others to ransom in dangerous circumstances.
NICE does not have a brilliant track record in health matters so why should this be different?
You can take a horse to water….. Just because you have wider pavements and more cycle lanes does not mean more people are automatically going to use them!! Just look at the number of cyclists who ignore cycle lanes!!!
Whilst widening pavements for wheelchairs etc. is excellent, it also has to be policed, so that cars don’t park on them and block them! As for restricting vehicular access on some roads, this can make things more difficult for disabled people who need access!!
As for the idea of holding meetings standing up…..!!! Apart from the practical difficulties, e.g. note taking, etc. do they intend to set a limit on the number of hours? There are also health risks to standing for long periods!!! Mind you, I’m sure Ryanair will happily jump on this as evidence that they should remove seats from their planes!!
Not the first stupid idea to come from NICE. Now these are “experts” I have certainly had enough of!!!
Great example of this is Vauxhall Bridge. The vast two way cycle lanes on each side of the road has reduced car lanes so much that the tail backs now reach back along V B road to way past Victoria station
You used to be able to use the bus lane, but now that’s in use 7am to 7pm
If cyclists want separate paths, let them start paying to use them! As it is, many cyclist ride in front of cars and are a danger on the roads. Cyclists should be made to have insurance!, at the very least! Many cyclists take too many liberties on the road and don’t look before pulling out and are subsequently a danger on the roads. A separate path for cyclists would be safer all round and encourage them to stay off pavements, which are used by pedestrians!
Tell that to the developers in rural areas where there is NO public transport. May as well include livestock in the priority list as they do not know the Highway Code either!
Sounds a bit like the Greens party’s proposal to tax all meat.
If that is someone’s policy. then it should include not only a “Pavement Tax” for pedestrians and a “Cyclist’s Tax” for those on two wheels, but also they should have to pass a test similar to the driving test. After all, how many have collided with someone walking with head down whilst using a mobile phone?
What sort of world do these “experts” want us to live in?
‘Experts’ are specialised and by their nature will promote the industry they are involved in. Be it the health industry, automotive or any other. Generally the health experts say walk and cycle, the automotive industry promotes motor vehicles. That’s all fine having an opinion but when it directly affects policymakers there is often a total lack balanced opinions to take into account.
I’d like to see my misses on a bicycle with 6 or 7 bags of shopping and her handbag, she’d be a hazard to herself and so would I if I were to it , she could have a fold up bike and catch a bus home but that means 6 or 7 bags of shopping a handbag and a fold up bike, would the bus companies allow a fold up bike on there buses
The minorities are running this country, this is another example of it happening another was smoking in public spaces or even rented spaces, Brexit the minority the remainers want to stay an still fighting it even though it has been voted for, Our roads are to busy for bikes, many are to narrow for bikes and so are our pavements where cyclists are a menace, there are no roadwise tests for cyclist to take just a Highway code and how many have read that, there is no collision insurance, it comes out your vehicle insurance even if it is not your fault, how fair is that.
Lots of interesting, daft, insightful, ignorant comments so far! Such a divide between the cycle and car camps. I am 65, have a bad knee and foot and will not be cycling anywhere, neither did ai have the slightest desire to since my teens.
It is only a low cost means of short distance, non-load bearing travel for clement weather. To suggest it takes precedence over the means of transport which fuels our entire economy is beyond Mickey Mouse thinking. It is blindingly obvious that all cyclists over school age should be insured, there should be a speed limit ( a pedestrian friend of mine was badly hurt when hit by a racing bike going downhill at a rate of knots towards Blackfriars) and should take a test. And for Gods sake ban anyone over 30 from wearing Lycra – have you ever looked in the mirror ????!! Road Licence and Insurance immediately, and no more twaddle about being taxed on emissions, that is just hiding behind semantics.
It’s 20 MPH speed limit there. Maybe time for bikes to be fitted with speedos
The most vunrable to serious injury should have priority therefore I agree, I’m a driver but have also been knocked off my bike by a drivers dangerous and inconsiderate manoeuvres around a pedestrian crossing casing injury.
In Europe pedestrians and cyclist are protected more, and it is wrong that drivers perceive superiority at the expense of the safety of our cyclists and pedestrians.
are they going to pay road tax insurance like cars and bus trucks have to go on the road if not then why should car drivers have to pay road tax and insurance for they use the road as well.
if they hit a car who pays for the damage they do to the car ? they dont they just say sorry and try to claim of you for their mistake