Myths about cycling, busted

How often do I need to break the law by exceeding 70mph to qualify? I probably haven't since xmas as I take it pretty easy in my van, but is there a time frame of 'law-breaky-ness' 'cos I once stole a keyring (from Arundal castle) when I was eight, so when can I consider my slate wiped clean? By the way, I'm not repenting for the sin of theft of a keyring, 'cos the lady in the giftshop was horrible and I thought it was justifiable.

1. Riding a lo-pro is not like riding downhill all the time.
   

:D

Why not increase the speed limit on motorways to 80 and reduce it in residential areas to 20. Everyone happy. Raising the motorway speed limit ought to assist cyclists as it might encourage more people onto motorways rather than country roads. Certainly, not many cyclists ride on motorways and those that do are best advised not to.

Dammit, don't be so sensible.

Please be sensible and stop swearing, there are children on here.

Why not increase the speed limit on motorways to 80 and reduce it in residential areas to 20. Everyone happy. Raising the motorway speed limit ought to assist cyclists as it might encourage more people onto motorways rather than country roads. Certainly, not many cyclists ride on motorways and those that do are best advised not to.

Careful, Clive, a lot of people will take you seriously if you don't flag up irony.

This has almost certainly been said before but a driving test should include mandatory 'empathy' components, including a cycling proficiency test. It will be impossible to change people's perception of cycling without them experiencing what effect their actions have on other road users. The precendent that a driving test should include more than just the ability to understand and obey rules and actually encompass your competence as a road user has already been set in places like Finland.

This will definitely be unpopular (and again has probably been said before) but cyclists should take more responsibility for their occupation of the road. If you run a red light, go the wrong way down a one way street or ride on the pavement you should expect to face the same penalties as any other road user.

From my experience the animosity that most cyclists face is based on a perception of irresponsibilty; increase responsibility for cyclists, increase empathy in drivers, clarify contentious issues (those mentioned in OP) and you create an environment that should make this kind of discussion irrelevant.

^^^^ I've often thought that as part of any vehicle test (car/van/bike/hgv) you should be taken for a spin on at least one other mode of transport to help appreciate the differences.

I've been lucky enough to drive just about everything and anything, so I have a lot of respect for other road users, and can understand the issues when two kinds of vehicles interact on a road (i.e. blind spots of HGV's vs. car/bike/ped, motorbikes vs. car speeds, visibilities, stopping distances etc).

But I know many people who drive cars, who have absolutely NO idea that a 42t artic truck takes longer to stop than a passenger car/van etc.
Others that get irate when a motorbike is behind them and 'they keep fucking flashing me', erm no love, thats because its a motorbike, it's bouncing around on the road hence its hard wired on dipped beam is obviously going to bounce around in your mirror a bit.

Others that get irate when a motorbike is behind them and 'they keep fucking flashing me', erm no love, thats because its a motorbike, it's bouncing around on the road hence its hard wired on dipped beam is obviously going to bounce around in your mirror a bit.

Doppler effect innit

A road bike, skinny tyres and more gears make for a faster city commuter bike.

None of these things are true a lot of the time.

"this bike will fit anyone from 5'2" to 6'0"
Never true, unlike what manufacturers and bike salespeople claim.

A road bike, skinny tyres and more gears make for a faster city commuter bike.

None of these things are true a lot of the time.

They make you sweat more.

Being cautious as a new comer here, but I would like to comment on the post that the "Seldom Killer" made regarding "road tax".
I have to say that his/her post contains a couple of misnomers and misses a couple of points IMO.
The first is that actually it is called "vehicle excise duty". Road tax was abolished by Winston Churchill in 1926. You do not pay for the road, you pay to be allowed to use a motor vehicle on a public highway.
A public highway is a place were the public are allowed to go by right rather than privilege. This is how you can practice your basic right of freedom of movement. You have as much right (subject to certain rules) to exercise this by any method.
The crown (aka government) do not publish any figures about what tax pays for which thing, nor are they obliged to use any particular revenue for any particular purpose.

As a matter of academic interest however, I seem to recollect a couple of years back reading a report published by the RTF (road transport federation) - I as well as a cyclist have been a road transport operator - which having collated the figures, claimed that the total cost of all road building and maintenance was more than met by vehicles over 7.5tonnes alone.

To summarise the point I'am making here; you have the right to use a public highway to exercise your right to freedom of movement and the idea of who pays what to provide a "road" (I forget the exact term) - public highways are not necessarily roads- is a complete "red Herring".

A point that may be of interest to cyclists in particular is that, at a guess, probably at least 85% of cyclists have at least one motor vehicle parked at home. Therefore they are probably getting a worse deal than most on their use of them. This of course is in complete agreement with the "radical" notion that Seldom killer mentions.

Now I come to look at this, I seem to be saying the same as him but in a different way! So here is another take on it.

Long live the cyclist!

Totally agree with brickman, any person going for a motor vehicle license should ride a bike first at least.

Busted, (the group (ish)), don't ride bikes.

Giles,

Yes, we do agree., I posted to demonstrate that even if the "road tax" myth were true, it still wouldn't stack up as an argument to prohibit cyclists from the road through lack of contribution.

Although that is a very useful clarification on the subject of the difference between the road and the public highway.

1. bikes should have a bell ---- only need a audible alert and most of us can shout
   
   

This was one very interesting subject I could observe after cycling in Germany (bells are the 'norm') and Scotland (haha, look at him, he's got a bell!).

In Germany, it is mandatory (required by law, but never heard of it being enforced) to have a bell mounted, and it is also popular to use it to warn/let others know you're there. That is so common that most of all sorts of road participants will know you're on a bike approaching you. So they'll either freeze or make space for you.
Though that being common, it still takes time to figure out how to use it accordingly without annoying and/or creating havoc - which does happen and can be very frustrating for anyone.

Scotland on the other hand, very few cyclists know about the idea of having such a thing mounted. Even worse, using one still proved to be useless. So few would figure out the source came from a cyclist, then they still didn't get your intention..

I guess ringing bells works best if its meaning is generally understood by most users of the road.

What a lengthy post.
Dunno if it'll bust the myth.
I like my bell.

using one still proved to be useless. So few would figure out the source came from a cyclist, then they still didn't get your intention..

I have some loud rickshaw bells for sale.

Well that used to be common - ride a bike, get a moped, get a 125 bike, get a car. evry fuel knoweth cyclists and motorcyclists make better drivers

Exhibit 1: John Surtees.

When I am in charge, moving pavements like in airports will be installed everywhere and no one will be allowed to walk arm-in-arm in three's (this means you, ladies).

http://adrianshort.co.uk/2009/08/24/save-the-planet-ban-cycle-helmets/
(thanks for showing me this speshact, surmises a conspiracy theory around many cycling myths)

Road Tax
Busted!!!
MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

Until thickos get it into their head that their few hundred quid 'road tax' a year does not:

[]give them ownership of the road
[]fund the roads
[*]entitle them to tell cyclists to get the f*** off the road
[*]entitle them to drive like a pr1ck.

It's a TAX.

If you don't pay it, you go to PRISON.

That is all.

You do not get ANYTHING in return.

The END.

I've not read the whole thread so sorry if I'm getting it wrong but:

1. Cyclists should be segregated from traffic ----
   I don't think that's really a myth, who here would be unhappy if there was a wholly separate bike roads maybe six foot under the car road system?
   I think the myth is:
   
2. Cyclists can be segregated from traffic (link to that study showing chance of death from right turning traffic is massively increased on cycle lane junctions compared to in main lanes... Actually I think it was a study in the states, so left turning traffic... You must know the one skyD?)
   
   

By the way the above link is broke.

Cycling in tunnels six feet under the roads? Have you been sniffing the shoe polish again?

Freudian Road Danger slip. :)

Road Tax
Busted!!!
MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

This thread is amazing. That Liam guy is A++ bonkers.