/ British motorists and attitudes towards cyclists

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
mountainsheep - on 25 Aug 2012
Earlier this summer I cycled to budapest and cycled 2,500km but in the 100km I've done in the UK since I've been home I've had more cars passing what I at least consider to be too close where i don't feel safe than I had on my whole budapest trip including a busy duel carriage way down to Trier. So why is it that drivers in the UK are so much worse with cyclists than anywhere else in europe?
altirando - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: That's the reason I gave up cycling. I think that in this country there is still the attitude that people only ride bikes because they can't afford a car. Only today a car behind me (I was driving too) got very irritated because I slowed so that I wasn't overtaking a couple of cyclists at the same time a car coming the opposite way meant I would have to squeeze the riders. It then roared past me on a narrow lane - and turned off into a little estate a mile further on. I think the attitude is encouraged by road design - even the socalled cycleways are predicated on always giving precedence to cars.
timmsy - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: It depends on where you ride but i think that you should reconsider riding as having just toured back to north yorks from Plymouth i met several other riders who agreed that car drivers were much more respectfull and understanding as a result of Wiggins mania.
Quarry wagons still the exception.
I too have ridden in the East, Yorks to Bucharest but they have a complete different lifestyle in terms of work expectations and time pressures that they put upon themselves.
Stop knocking uk and either emigrate or ride more aggressively to hold your part of the road
redsulike - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: Our roads are much more crowded than those in Europe. And cycling is much more established there also.
The other day I was driving along a 60mph trunk road in the Peak District and two cyclists were double abreast slowing the traffic to 5-10 mph, causing a huge traffic jam of cars and lorries (who find it more difficult to accelerate past quickly and safely when a gap in the oncoming traffic appears). So sometimes cyclists are their own worst enemy when it comes to other road user's attitudes to cyclists by causing hugely frustrating and unnecessary delays.
andy - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to timmsy:
> (In reply to mountainsheep) It depends on where you ride but i think that you should reconsider riding as having just toured back to north yorks from Plymouth i met several other riders who agreed that car drivers were much more respectfull and understanding as a result of Wiggins mania.

> ride more aggressively to hold your part of the road

Agreed - it might just be a coincidence but I've been pleasantly surprised recently at the more tolerant attitude of drivers (mind you I'm not commuting by bike as much now, so maybe it's a timing thing).

And agree with your last point, but I think I'd say "assertively" rather than aggressively.
John Rushby - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:

Had that been a 14 hand horse, capable of kicking a charver's wing mirror from his Corsa, then nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

The roads are for all, we just need to get used to sharing. A bit turning up and at the crag and waiting for a beginner to over lace a classic route with gear and finish leading it.
Timmd on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

In Sheffield drivers have got better I think though over the past few years, as more people have taken to cycling it seems like drivers have got better, and more females have taken to cycling as a result, there used to be much less famale cyclists proportionally speaking than there are now.

It might just take time for drivers to become more used to cyclists being on the road untill they become more tollerant?
Enty - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

I've been living and cycling in France for 9 years - when a car passes me and shaves a millimetre off my elbow it usually has a UK plate.

E
Fat Bumbly2 - on 25 Aug 2012
In reply to altirando: "I think that in this country there is still the attitude that people only ride bikes because they can't afford a car."

Worse - there is this attitude that your value is measured only by the number of things you have /can afford to have.

Knobs like Clarkson and Parris mouthing off do not help. I have just finished a few days touring in Ireland and was very impressed with how other road users treated me.
redsulike - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to John Rushby: That's a bit of a bold statement without facts or evidence to back it up.
Like most drivers I always slow down and give horses a wide berth, but not because they might kick my car but out of courtesy and consideration for the rider's safety should the horse bolt.
Likewise with the two numpties riding two abreast, I slowed up, gave them room and passed carefully, as did all the other drivers. It didn't stop me from thinking they were a pair of twunts though.
My analogy would be turning up to find a climbing school has camped at the bottom of flying buttress, top roped it and has a team of UK bolt fund twankers making it safe for everyone. I know they have as much right to be there as anyone but come on!
Minneconjou Sioux - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

I can honestly say that drivers here in Canada are just as bad. There are roads I refuse to ride on and risk a ticket by cycling on the footpath. I'm not alone but the city (despite severe parking issues) seems reluctant to address the problem. There are nominal cycling routes but these are piecemeal and impractical.
birdie num num - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:
Passing cyclists two abreast is absolutely no different from passing a horse. Num Num wonders if in your inner psyche, a milf in jodphurs deserves more consideration than a bloke in lycra?
NikNakUK - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: Inexperience. We are taught how to not startle a horse when we are taught to drive, but we all have very little experience of driving around cyclists and horses

If a cyclist is driving near to the pavement and then has to swing out to pass a parked car, the driver behind the cyclist then has to adjust his speed, position and intent.

Its not the cyclists fault. Its not the drivers fault. But the inexperience of drivers around cyclists sometimes results in a tragic consequence. Conversly cyclists assuming that drivers behind them know what to do also sometimes ends in tradgedy.

I'm not blaming the cyclist there. The driver is in charge of several tons of metal so it's almost always his responsibility to protect cyclists. But cyclists need to be aware of the inexperience of drivers as much as the drivers themselves have to be aware they are not as awesomely fast and furious as their big ass spolier tells them they are.
mikehike on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:
Car drivers just need to Slow Down when coming up behind cyclists.

On my journey to work I see the same scenario over again.
Single Carriageway all cars doing approx 45mph. On coming car has to overtake a cyclist. They dont slow down they just swing really wide and risk themselves colliding with me, forcing me to lift and shift left a bit. Just slow down and then you can judge the gap better. They would not have to cross the white line.
Bean Head - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:

> Like most drivers I always slow down and give horses a wide berth, but not because they might kick my car but out of courtesy and consideration for the rider's safety should the horse bolt.
> Likewise with the two numpties riding two abreast, I slowed up, gave them room and passed carefully, as did all the other drivers. It didn't stop me from thinking they were a pair of twunts though.

This sums up the OP's point for me. You were inconvenienced the same, you treated them the same, but yet the horse rider wears a halo and the cyclists are "twunts". Care to explain why?

As is often stated, riding two abreast is acceptable by the Highway Code. As for fear of the horse bolting; yes it can happen but I'm sure the rider wouldn't take it on a road where he/she thought that was likely to happen.

Rob


JSA - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

One thing that really riles about cyclists is when they ride up the left of my lorry when I'm wanting to turn left. I have the indicators on and they still do it, worse still is when I'm positioning myself in the road for the left turn, they think that because I've pulled to the right a bit that I'm making more room for more of them.
The worse place I've found this happening is in London, none of them should be allowed near a wheel let alone a push iron.
Have a look at the blind spot here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8
Next time you're thinking of riding down the inside of a truck, just remember this video. Also don'e forget about the tail swing when a truck is turning either direction, a few have been knocked of bikes by the back of a truck!
Be safe out there folks, and also more considerate to truck drivers when sat at the lights.
Bean Head - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to JSA:

I think of that as natural selection.

Rob
doz - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to JSA: Fair point that some cyclists seem blissfully unaware of and applies to cars too...on the flip side, where I stay a lot of truck-drivers have no awareness of the wind- effect created by large truck overtaking at speed and cut back in far too soon...30 tons of logs flying past your right knuckles whilst trying to keep a straight line gets scary at times...motorists please overtake bikes like you would a car!
Tom V - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Bean Head:

Redsulike says there was a huge tailback. This implies the road was busy and therefore the cyclists should have gone into single file.
dissonance - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Tom V:

> Redsulike says there was a huge tailback. This implies the road was busy and therefore the cyclists should have gone into single file.

The figure of 5-10mph doesnt really ring true. You have to be seriously dawdling on a bike to be sub 10mph (or up a serious hill) so I would have my doubts about this huge tailback as well.

Plus depending on the road conditions riding single file might not have allowed traffic by any quicker. Well not without risking the cyclist being pushed into the verge by some muppets misunderstanding of what safe passing distance is.
andy - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Tom V:
> (In reply to Bean Head)
>
> Redsulike says there was a huge tailback. This implies the road was busy and therefore the cyclists should have gone into single file.

Have to say we will always go into a line if there's traffic waiting to pass, unless it's safer to hold the road until it's safer - there was a pretty small group of us last weekend (half a dozen or so) but we still create a line of bikes about 30 yards long in single file - and there were a couple of occasions where a car had to pull into the line because something came the other way on narrowish roads - arguably we should sometimes have kept in a group until it was safe to overtake all of us at once. However it does seem noticeable that more drivers are waiting til it's safe rather than trying to save those extra 10 seconds by squeezing past.

And very grateful we are too - cheers!
Ridge - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mikehike:
> (In reply to mountainsheep)
> Just slow down and then you can judge the gap better. They would not have to cross the white line.

I think this is a major issue with drivers, blind compliance with road markings. Provided theres no oncoming vehicles and you have clear visibility ahead then cross the line, (even a solid one, suject to the provisions in the highway code).

I overtake a fair few bikes on my daily commute. I hang back, see the overtake and go past with as much clearance as I can. In the mirror I see the following car squeeze past the bike because they MUST NOT CROSS THE WHITE LINE.
Stone Idol - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Tom V)
>
> [...]
>
> The figure of 5-10mph doesnt really ring true. You have to be seriously dawdling on a bike to be sub 10mph (or up a serious hill) ...

Good grief man - the lovely Mrs Idle insists on a man with a red flag preceding her and so 4 mph is quite normal (nor does she wear lycra, unfortunately). Does the brand 'Pashley' mean nothing to you?

Mike Stretford - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:
> So sometimes cyclists are their own worst enemy when it comes to other road user's attitudes to cyclists by causing hugely frustrating and unnecessary delays.

Clearly, that should be seen as the actions of 2 individuals who happen to be on bikes.

I saw some driver on a mobile nearly mow down a coupple of kids the other week but it's not changed my attitude to drivers, of which I'm one.

timjones - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to Tom V)
> [...]
>
> Have to say we will always go into a line if there's traffic waiting to pass, unless it's safer to hold the road until it's safer - there was a pretty small group of us last weekend (half a dozen or so) but we still create a line of bikes about 30 yards long in single file - and there were a couple of occasions where a car had to pull into the line because something came the other way on narrowish roads - arguably we should sometimes have kept in a group until it was safe to overtake all of us at once. However it does seem noticeable that more drivers are waiting til it's safe rather than trying to save those extra 10 seconds by squeezing past.
>
> And very grateful we are too - cheers!

I'd suggest that the sensiblew option for a group of six would be to split the group and allow adequate space between the bikes to let cars filter through the group. I rgeularly encounter a local time trial on a weekday evening and it's almost a pleasure to work my way past them whilst keeping us all safe.

OTOH towing a large trailer into mid-Wales and back again yesterday was a nightmare at times due inconsiderate cyclists that made it bloody difficult to look after them. If more than 2 cyclists want to travel so close together that they could hold habds they may be better off hiring a car or minibus!
timjones - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Tom V)
>
> [...]
>
> The figure of 5-10mph doesnt really ring true. You have to be seriously dawdling on a bike to be sub 10mph (or up a serious hill) so I would have my doubts about this huge tailback as well.

It's surpisingly common ;(

You'll find people on sleek racing bikes crawling along so slowly that you have to dip the clutch in first in order to maintain a safe distance behind them.
NeilMac - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Bean Head:
Highway code says, "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when
riding round bends". Riding two abreast is legal but when cyclists are
causing tailbacks then it's clearly due to their lack of common sense and/or awareness of whats happening around them.
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
>
> OTOH towing a large trailer into mid-Wales and back again yesterday was a nightmare at times due inconsiderate cyclists that made it bloody difficult to look after them. If more than 2 cyclists want to travel so close together that they could hold habds they may be better off hiring a car or minibus!

Driving into mid wales yesterday was a bloody nightmare due to some inconsiderate tw*t towing a trailer that slowed us up for a whole 5 minutes.


Jaffacake - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

Actually I don't really notice a problem with cars. I cycle in London and cars are probably a lot more used to dealing with cyclists there, but I honestly don't think they treat me with any more contempt than any other road user that's not them.

I can't really see that they don't like cyclists because they think they can't afford a car, they primarily don't like cyclists for the exact same reason they dislike every other road user - because they are in their way. Cyclists then attract an extra level of contempt by being much slower, in much the same way as a tractor, a 50cc scooter or an old person might.

Everyone wants the road to themselves and for no-one else to get in their way. Cyclists have the advantage over a tractor or old person that they can be easily overtaken although many cars still will execute dangerous overtaking to get round one - just in that case the danger is to them and any oncoming cars, rather than the person they are overtaking.
Minneconjou Sioux - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Jaffacake:
> (In reply to mountainsheep)
>
> Actually I don't really notice a problem with cars. I cycle in London and cars are probably a lot more used to dealing with cyclists there, but I honestly don't think they treat me with any more contempt than any other road user that's not them.
>
> I can't really see that they don't like cyclists because they think they can't afford a car, they primarily don't like cyclists for the exact same reason they dislike every other road user - because they are in their way. Cyclists then attract an extra level of contempt by being much slower, in much the same way as a tractor, a 50cc scooter or an old person might.
>
> Everyone wants the road to themselves and for no-one else to get in their way. Cyclists have the advantage over a tractor or old person that they can be easily overtaken although many cars still will execute dangerous overtaking to get round one - just in that case the danger is to them and any oncoming cars, rather than the person they are overtaking.

This.

Anyone faster than you is an idiot, anyone slower than you is a moron.
ads.ukclimbing.com
timjones - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> Driving into mid wales yesterday was a bloody nightmare due to some inconsiderate tw*t towing a trailer that slowed us up for a whole 5 minutes.

Shame you forgot your glasses. Had you been wearing them you might have spotted the nose to tail bank holiday skivers that were holding me up ;)

theycallmefrodo - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

I witnessed a particularly suicidal overtaking manoeuvre when I was out riding this morning.

Going round the inside of a gentle corner on a single track country road, I was confronted by a white punto overtaking a tractor, both going in my direction. Now the road was wide enough for two cars to pass side by side safely, but not a car, a tractor and me! He had to speed up, and I had to slow down for him to get back over.

Now what made this suicidal? There was a six foot wall running round the inside of the corner (my side). I couldn't see round it, and I'm dammed sure he couldn't either!. Coming down the hill behind me was a freshly laden milk tanker, the driver of which had the sense not to try overtaking me until after we were round the bend.

Had that tanker been in front of me, it would have been either a quite horrendous crash, or a brown pants moment. Either way to attempt the overtake there was sheer bloody stupidity!
redsulike - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to birdie num num: I would 'consider' a milf in jodphurs over a bloke in lycra everytime. :)
Eric9Points - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

If an alien read this thread they would think that cyclists and motorists are two different species.

The worst driving I've ever come across with regard to cyclists was at the Glentress MTB course. People with bikes strapped to their roofs charging up gravel tracks, ignoring the speed limits while youngsters on bikes were haring down the tracks in the opposite direction.
birdie num num - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:
> (In reply to birdie num num) I would 'consider' a milf in jodphurs over a bloke in lycra everytime. :)
Me too. Milfs are so much more exciting in jodphurs.

redsulike - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Bean Head: Well to explain, the thread was about consideration for cyclists. My point is that cyclists can also be inconsiderate. Even if you believe, as I do, they deserve their place on the road but could show more considerstion for other road users.
You are probably right about the amount of space a horse rider needs but they cannot do anything about that so they aren not being particularly inconsiderste.
I have to say if horses were riding two abreast on the A616 it would be incredibly stupid as well as inconsiderste.
As I think about it there are lots of small roads around the A616 and horses are a common sight, However I have never seen one on the road itself. Is it legal to ride a horse along a trunk road? I have no idea but this thread has made me wonder.
redsulike - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance: Well that's hardly fair, you weren't there and I was but you want to call me into question. It was an uphil section where I met them.
Additionally, you will recognise that slowing down at an obstruction causes a domino effect in a queue of traffic so that vehicles are travelling much more slowly than the obstruction. Its the same thing that happens on motorways when you come to a standstill despite the fact that there is not an obstruction in the road but a few miles further ahead someone braked sharply.
redsulike - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to Papillon: Quite right, I should have said 'some' cyclists.
birdie num num - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:
These threads appear from time to time on UCK and the comments are usually about the same. Num Num has to say, and he's said it before, regardless of what justification folk can think up to drive dangerously past cyclists, there is no excuse for it. You only have right of way if others afford you right of way. Frustrating as that may be. Num Num has never had a problem giving cyclists plenty of room, ever. It's easy.
dissonance - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to redsulike:
> (In reply to dissonance) Well that's hardly fair, you weren't there and I was but you want to call me into question.

yes since i see no real reason to believe the normal rant about cyclists particularly the 5mph bit, on the grounds at that speed you need to start putting extra effort in to keep it upright.
So which uphill was it that caused such a huge tailback?

> Additionally, you will recognise that slowing down at an obstruction causes a domino effect in a queue of traffic so that vehicles are travelling much more slowly than the obstruction.

Nah i wouldnt actually. That phenomenon tends to be based around rapid breaking so if it was happening it was down to piss poor driving.

Also i take it you do know what the highway code says about overtaking cyclists?
dissonance - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to birdie num num:

> Num Num has never had a problem giving cyclists plenty of room, ever. It's easy.

and of course, the more courtesy the cyclist gets treated with the more they can accomodate drivers.
There is one bit on my commute (when I cycle) where I do take the primary road position up to the roundabout and hence, any cars behind will get delayed. Reason being is I have had too many idiots take the left and nearly knock me off. So while it would be best if I was in closer and hence allowed cars pass easier on that particular section I cant if i dont want to be hit at some point.
Tim Chappell - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:

Let's try and set up some positive interactions... I always help motorists pass me when I can, and I always acknowledge it if they do me a courtesy.
andy - on 26 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
> I'd suggest that the sensiblew option for a group of six would be to split the group and allow adequate space between the bikes to let cars filter through...

Can you clarify that? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't cycle in a group of more than 3? Two of the pleasures of riding a bike is to have a crack with your mates (which is better in a larger group if you're out for 5 or 6 hours) and to be able to ride longer distances fast because you're taking it turns to ride on the front - which requires more than three people.

As I said in the post on many narrow lanes it's probably safer to just stay in a group so the car has to wait til they can pass everyone at once - if you're suggesting that we should do some kind of formation cycling to work out what's more convenient for the motorist then I think that's asking a bit much - even on a hill I can't think anyone would be delayed by more than 30 seconds or so - indeed today I was again struck by generally how considerate people were - with the exception of a farmer in his landy who screamed past on a narrow lane about 6" from my right elbow, and turned off into his yard about 1/4 mile further up the road (and the pensioner who hooted his horn at us despite us riding into Skipton in single file who then looked rather sheepish when the lights changed and I rode up next to him and waved through his passenger window, but that was just funny).

Bimbler - on 26 Aug 2012
I live on a quiet A road that is very popular with cyclists; Individuals and larger groups. It's moderately hilly with many bends.

I'm shocked by by the sheer stupidity of some of the larger groups of riders who can make it impossible for people to pass (sometimes for miles) and ride up to three abreast. In fact given some of the riding I've witnessed it's the good standard of driving by motorists who keep these individuals alive!

Then of course you get the club races who leave their home-made sign posts scattered around for weeks, paint arrows on the roads and the 'marshals' who step out from junctions waiving a flag, I've no idea what that means, but then they shout at you when it's YOU that it following the highway code!

The odd thing is that many of these hard done by, victimised 'cyclists' have actually brought their expensive carbon framed steeds strapped to the roof of the car that they've driven to the area!

birdie num num - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Bimbler:
Contained in your strange collection of irrevelencies Bimbler old boy, was one important truth, a good standard of driving by motorists certainly does, as you say, keep cyclists alive.
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Let's try and set up some positive interactions... I always help motorists pass me when I can, and I always acknowledge it if they do me a courtesy.

That's what I do, i'll wave thanks or an apology depending on the situation, and occasionally hop onto the the pavement to let a wide lorry ot whatever go past if it's possible, I got a wave of thanks for that the other day. Technically some would say I shouldn't do, or shouldn't need to, but it doesn't do any harm and it helps somebody out. It seems fair enough to me, it's not just about the rules, but how people behave around each other.
a lakeland climber on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Timmd:

I once rang up a haulage firm to thank them for the considerate driving shown by one of their drivers when passing me. I think the guy on the other end of the phone was a bit taken aback! it doesn't have to be an us and them attitude.

I'll also let drivers know if one of their brake lights is out for instance, as well as being couteous it breaks down that little protective, enclosed bubble mentality that comes from being in a vehicle.

Of course being human I'll make mistakes whether riding my bike or driving the car, it's just that mistakes in the latter tend to have much more serious consequences than the former for other road users.

ALC
JIMBO on 27 Aug 2012
Just visiting the big smoke and was very surprised, seeing how cyclists go on about safety and being considered a nuisance by drivers, to see on a journey into central London that every cyclist ignored red lights... Must have been a dozen or more.
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> Can you clarify that? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't cycle in a group of more than 3? Two of the pleasures of riding a bike is to have a crack with your mates (which is better in a larger group if you're out for 5 or 6 hours) and to be able to ride longer distances fast because you're taking it turns to ride on the front - which requires more than three people.
>
> As I said in the post on many narrow lanes it's probably safer to just stay in a group so the car has to wait til they can pass everyone at once - if you're suggesting that we should do some kind of formation cycling to work out what's more convenient for the motorist then I think that's asking a bit much - even on a hill I can't think anyone would be delayed by more than 30 seconds or so - indeed today I was again struck by generally how considerate people were - with the exception of a farmer in his landy who screamed past on a narrow lane about 6" from my right elbow, and turned off into his yard about 1/4 mile further up the road (and the pensioner who hooted his horn at us despite us riding into Skipton in single file who then looked rather sheepish when the lights changed and I rode up next to him and waved through his passenger window, but that was just funny).

On a twisty road it can take significantly longer than the 30 seconds for a large vehicle to find the space required to safely overtake a pack of cyclists. They will often have a few other vheicles behind them and during the time it takes to find an overtaking opportunity that queue will increase. It's not just one vehicle that you hinder.

When I'm driving a lower vehicle and I encounter another vehicle that I can't overtake in the space available I sit back to allow other vehicles to overtake us one at a time if they wish to do so. It's common sense and good manners, IMO cyclists should show the same courtesy to other road users. You have every right to expect the drivers of large vehicles to keep you safe but please consider the situation from our side and work with us instead insistng on your right to "have a crack with your mates". You can have a "crack" when you reach your destination.

MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:
Two of the pleasures of riding a bike is to have a crack with your mates (which is better in a larger group if you're out for 5 or 6 hours) and to be able to ride longer distances fast

The thing is roads are there primarily to get from A to B, not to have a crack or as a private race track. Sure cyclists have a right to be able to use the roads safely, but drivers have a right be considered courteously too. Riding as a peleton on narrow roads isn't courteous and often leads to substantial delays - much more than 30s - for other road users.
In reply to mountainsheep: My general impression of a small but significant percentage of British motorists is that 20 seconds of their time is far more important than the life of a cyclist.
Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

That was good - you went from 6 riders to a peleton on a private race track ;-)

E
Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

And another thing - on a Sunday in the Yorkshire Dales, the majority of motorists will be driving for pleasure so there for the exact reason as the cyclists.

E
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty: You noticed :-)
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty: Driving for pleasure??
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> And another thing - on a Sunday in the Yorkshire Dales, the majority of motorists will be driving for pleasure so there for the exact reason as the cyclists.

Does driving or riding for pleasure grant you a special dispensation to act in a discourteous manner towards your fellow road user ;)
andy - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
> On a twisty road it can take significantly longer than the 30 seconds for a large vehicle to find the space required to safely overtake a pack of cyclists. They will often have a few other vheicles behind them and during the time it takes to find an overtaking opportunity that queue will increase. It's not just one vehicle that you hinder.
>
> When I'm driving a lower vehicle and I encounter another vehicle that I can't overtake in the space available I sit back to allow other vehicles to overtake us one at a time if they wish to do so. It's common sense and good manners, IMO cyclists should show the same courtesy to other road users. You have every right to expect the drivers of large vehicles to keep you safe but please consider the situation from our side and work with us instead insistng on your right to "have a crack with your mates". You can have a "crack" when you reach your destination.

The "having a crack with your mates point" was that you appear to be suggesting that people shouldn't go cycling in groups of more than what you consider acceptable (I think it was 3?) to allow you to get where you want to go in the shortest time possible. Personally I'd like farmers banned from driving massive trailer loads of hay on main roads outside the hours of midnight to 5am, because that frequently stops me from getting where I want to be in the shortest time possible - but that would be an infringement of their rights to use the roads. Ditto cyclists.

I'll say again - my friends and I are what I would consider when I'm driving, model citizens - we line out when it's safe to do so, on longer stretches of narrow road we'll even stop (more than you'll ever get from a caravan or a tractor in my experience), but we do use our judgement to sometimes decide that it's safer to keep control of the road and make traffic wait - if all drivers could be trusted to use their judgement to wait until it's safe then this wouldn't be necessary, but having been nearly taken out by people passing at the wrong time then this is required.

What I find astonishing is the comparison between the UK and other countries in Europe - you simply wouldn't get this sort of debate in France, Italy or Spain. We rode from London to Paris recently and where we were waiting to cross main roads on several occasions cars slowed from both directions to hold up the traffic to let us get across safely. We had no near misses or angry horn sounding in 200 miles in France - we had half a dozen of each in 85 miles in Kent. And this was a group of 7 riders behaving considerately and safely.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to JIMBO:
> Just visiting the big smoke and was very surprised, seeing how cyclists go on about safety and being considered a nuisance by drivers, to see on a journey into central London that every cyclist ignored red lights... Must have been a dozen or more.

it can be safer under certain circumstances to jump lights, hence why some countries are trialling permitting it. Perhaps if the authorities enforced the forward stop zones this would remove the need?
Plus, of course you will still be far more likely to be injured by a car jumping a red light.
The only actual research done on this (aside from some truly shite IAM survey) shows perception doesnt match reality.

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/4756/cycling/stats-red-lights/
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> The "having a crack with your mates point" was that you appear to be suggesting that people shouldn't go cycling in groups of more than what you consider acceptable (I think it was 3?) to allow you to get where you want to go in the shortest time possible. Personally I'd like farmers banned from driving massive trailer loads of hay on main roads outside the hours of midnight to 5am, because that frequently stops me from getting where I want to be in the shortest time possible - but that would be an infringement of their rights to use the roads. Ditto cyclists.
>
> I'll say again - my friends and I are what I would consider when I'm driving, model citizens - we line out when it's safe to do so, on longer stretches of narrow road we'll even stop (more than you'll ever get from a caravan or a tractor in my experience), but we do use our judgement to sometimes decide that it's safer to keep control of the road and make traffic wait - if all drivers could be trusted to use their judgement to wait until it's safe then this wouldn't be necessary, but having been nearly taken out by people passing at the wrong time then this is required.
>
> What I find astonishing is the comparison between the UK and other countries in Europe - you simply wouldn't get this sort of debate in France, Italy or Spain. We rode from London to Paris recently and where we were waiting to cross main roads on several occasions cars slowed from both directions to hold up the traffic to let us get across safely. We had no near misses or angry horn sounding in 200 miles in France - we had half a dozen of each in 85 miles in Kent. And this was a group of 7 riders behaving considerately and safely.

You seem rather keen to turn this into a "them and us" dispute rather than focusing on the simple courtesies that all road users should observe.

There is a difference between the indisputable right to use the roads and selfish practices that cause undue disruption such as travelling in a nose to tail convoy. As a driver I aim to look after all other road users, it saddens me when unthinking cyclists don't do their bit to ease all of our journeys by using a bit of common sense. Spacing out on tight twisty roads makes it an awful lot easier for the motorist that is showing you the respect that you have every right to expect. Why would any polite and thoughtful cyclist fail to do their bit to make all of our journeys safer?
diablo - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

generally speaking, i don't find them too bad.

Apart from Stagecoach bus drivers.

In my local town there's a Bus and Cycle road. Lots of buses as from there they depart to all points of the surrounding area.

On several occasions I've had a bus driving straight at me and judging by the driver's face, they dont really care if I have to stop, swerve or get turned into jam ?

(my neice, who lives in London and loves cycling, doesn't up there.)
ads.ukclimbing.com
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to JIMBO)
> [...]
>
> it can be safer under certain circumstances to jump lights, hence why some countries are trialling permitting it. Perhaps if the authorities enforced the forward stop zones this would remove the need?
> Plus, of course you will still be far more likely to be injured by a car jumping a red light.
> The only actual research done on this (aside from some truly shite IAM survey) shows perception doesnt match reality.
>
> http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/4756/cycling/stats-red-lights/

It's not just red lights is it?

I took a trip to London earlier this month and was horrified at the standard of cycling that I observed during the rush hour. Far too many cyclists appeared to be treating the roads as a race track with no respect for either motorists or fellow cyclists ;(

Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:

Spot on with everything there Andy.

I had to laugh yesterday. I was riding in the gutter to let traffic past - which was a mistake on my part because a car came too close, and yes as I looked, it had UK plates on!!

Having said that, there are idiots over here but it seems that incidents are few and far between unlike my experience in the UK.
In the Uk I was probably riding about 5000km a year and would have some sort of abuse every ride. over here I'm doing double and sometimes triple that in a year and we get maybe less than a dozen negative interactions a year with motorists.

I did have an interesting road rage incident a few weeks ago with a young French guy who put three of us into the grass verge on purpose - when he threatened me with a large rock and I didn't flinch he realised he's picked the wrong cyclist and ran off into a vineyard. Unfortunatley for him his keys were still in the ignition - what a shitty day he ended up having.

E

MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
> You seem rather keen to turn this into a "them and us" dispute rather than focusing on the simple courtesies that all road users should observe.
>

I've tried of several threads to point this out (not specifically to andy). There does seem to be a pervasive superiority feeling amongst cyclists that can't be helpful to road safety. Jumping up and down complaining about being passed to close while defending jumping lights isn't going to work as it is so obviously hypocritical.

During the fuel strikes lorry drivers drove at 10mph down motorways blocking them. This was (presumably) legal but was also highly discourteous and inconvenient to other road users. Not so very different to the behaviour of some groups of cyclists.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:
>
Unfortunatley for him his keys were still in the ignition -


What, did they accidentally slip down a manhole?

LOL
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

> I've tried of several threads to point this out (not specifically to andy). There does seem to be a pervasive superiority feeling amongst cyclists that can't be helpful to road safety.

Then, just maybe you might be wrong? The superiority complex seems to come from drivers who rant about those law breaking cyclists while, ermm, breaking the law themselves. A good example being whenever you get someone whining about the speed limits and how about they shouldnt apply under whatever scenario they got caught breaking them.

> Jumping up and down complaining about being passed to close while defending jumping lights isn't going to work as it is so obviously hypocritical.

No it isnt. Certainly less so than whining about cyclists jumping redlights while taking a liberal approach to speed limits.

there are good reasons to jump lights from time to time. To take London, they have sort of addressed this by introducing the Forward Stop Zones, however the police then fail to enforce them.
Again, you are far more likely to be injured by a car jumping a redlight than a cyclist.

Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Enty) Driving for pleasure??

Pottering along and looking at the view I guess.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:


Of course cyclists *can* get a bit self-righteous about car drivers. But I think some of their passion comes from nearly being killed on a much too regular basis. I find this sort of passion quite understandable. Indeed I feel it myself.
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> Then, just maybe you might be wrong? The superiority complex seems to come from drivers who rant about those law breaking cyclists while, ermm, breaking the law themselves. A good example being whenever you get someone whining about the speed limits and how about they shouldnt apply under whatever scenario they got caught breaking them.

I think he's right. It's not about law breaking it's about those cyclists who get shirty when a driver suggests that you should help drivers to look after your own safety.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:

> I think he's right. It's not about law breaking it's about those cyclists who get shirty when a driver suggests that you should help drivers to look after your own safety.

So you are in favour, after all, of cyclists riding in a way which will often make it harder for drivers to overtake and, from time to time, jumping red lights particularly when FSZ etc arent respected.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:

>
> No it isnt.

Any other laws that are beneath you?

Certainly less so than whining about cyclists jumping redlights while taking a liberal approach to speed limits.

But no one is doing this, are they? Just suggesting that you can't expect other road users to obey the law and be courteous if you don't do so yourself.

> Again, you are far more likely to be injured by a car jumping a redlight than a cyclist.

Possibly (probably given there are more cars) but I am not arguing that cars should jump the lights.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> So you are in favour, after all, of cyclists riding in a way which will often make it harder for drivers to overtake


I thought we'd agreed that there is a watertight safety case for doing just this.


and, from time to time, jumping red lights particularly when FSZ etc arent respected.


I don't think there's much of a case for jumping red lights. I think the strongest reason not to, though, is not directly a safety reason. The strongest reason not to is that it winds up drivers. An atmosphere of driver-cyclist hostility is *very* dangerous, and of course, it's more dangerous for cyclists than for drivers.
a lakeland climber on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

I can't speak for other cyclists (or drivers) but I've never jumped a red light and I don't condone it. I don't live in (or anywhere near) London so can't comment on what goes on there but I have seen one or two cyclists do so up here but it is so rare that I noticed it because of the rarity. One of the points raised by cyclists about many junctions is that there is little time to cross the junction safely as the timings are set for cars. One way to get round this is for there to be an "early green" for cyclists, then there's no need to jump red lights. Of course then you'll get motorists either moaning that they can't get to the next queue quick enough or they'll go on the early green.

However in recent weeks at the same set of lights I have been both overtaken (three times) and undertaken (once) whilst turning right. In one case the vehicle overtaking was so keen to get past me that he ran over the island with one of the light sets nearly taking it out!

I also regularly get overtaken on a blind bend where the road is wide enough for two wagons and has central markings. It's on my commute so I'm riding in a group of precisely ONE. There are long straights on both sides of this bend where it is safe for all concerned to overtake me but apparently the few seconds needed to wait until there is a clear view is too much. Ironically many of those overtaking are mums taking their precious cargo to school because the roads are so dangerous. This particular bend has had enough accidents to cause the council to erect warning signs.

As for overtaking on country lanes, if it's not safe to overtake one cyclist then it isn't safe to overtake a group and you just have to wait and chill out. (By safe, I mean safe for the cyclist(s), safe for you and safe for any vehicles coming the other way) If I know that a vehicle is coming in the opposite direction and the vehicle behind sounds like it's going to overtake then I'll wave them back but equally if I can see that there's nothing ahead I'll wave them on. What then happens is that the driver waits about ten seconds then overtakes on the next blind bend/summit or narrowing totally negating the point of me helping them get past me safely.

ALC
a lakeland climber on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:

>
>The strongest reason not to is that it winds up drivers. An atmosphere of driver-cyclist hostility is *very* dangerous, and of course, it's more dangerous for cyclists than for drivers.

+1

ALC

MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber: I think I agree or sympathise with all of that. You seem to making efforts to be safe at the same time as accommodating and trying to help other road users including drivers. If all cyclists behaved that way there would be fewer problems and I think it would be easier to get drivers on board when it comes to accommodating cyclists.

The "I don't have to follow the rules but you do" and "I have a right to block the road at 5pmh in a large group so you will just have to wait" approaches will have the opposite effect.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

No doubt a bit of give and take is needed. Think of those signs on the A9: "Use laybys to let queues clear". This is reasonable advice to lorry-drivers. (Whether they ever take this advice is another question.) Maybe sometimes the peloton should duck out of the road for 2 minutes to let the cars pass?

focus89uk - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: Just a quick rant about cyclists.
If you ride 3 in a row along a narrowish road with spaces between you that you keep closing up.

DON'T get pissed off when i'm trying to overtake, someone comes the other way and I have to pull back in nearly hitting 2 of you.

If you had spread out I could have leap frogged each of you.
Instead you want to act like you are on tour de france.

/End of rant.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

> But no one is doing this, are they? Just suggesting that you can't expect other road users to obey the law and be courteous if you don't do so yourself.

and again a superb example of the superiority complex.
Other road users frequently dont obey the law, although weirdly those ranting about cyclists rarely seem to be rant about the other law breakers.
Its the obsessive behaviour about cyclists jumping red lights when a)the only half decent research disagrees and b)there is plenty of evidence for car drivers jumping red lights, speeding etc.

Just to take the risk to cyclists alone, of deaths and serious injuries.
5% were due to a cyclist disobeying a light or give way.
15% were due to another vehicle disobeying a light or give way and hitting them.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=0&ItemID=789&mid=13641

Now if you want to stop cyclists jumping red lights I suggest you start with asking the police to enforce the FSZ which remove one of the main reasons people would use for jumping red lights when cycling.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> I don't think there's much of a case for jumping red lights. I think the strongest reason not to, though, is not directly a safety reason.

There are two good standard reasons:
a)lights which dont recognise cyclists (eg the ones rigged around
b)safety.

I used to have to deal with a) and havent needed b). However in London I could well change my mind. There is a reason for the stop zones and since they arent being enforced then the cyclists may well take the same approach. Its why various countries experiment with the stop zones as well as allowing cyclists to go through some red lights. of course some jump lights cos they are shite cyclists and dont want to keep changing speed (on the commute i sometimes have the amusement of playing leapfrog with people after i catch them up and then get dropped at a red light).

> The strongest reason not to is that it winds up drivers.

The problem with this one is those drivers that get round up come across somewhat irrational. If they didnt have red lights to go nuts about they would find something else. It seems to be a massive case of confirmation bias (again the only research done doesnt support the numbers claimed) and willingness to ignore their own lawbreaking.
God only knows why but i think its some people take cyclists on the road, particularly if they are getting through traffic quicker, as a personal affront.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> and again a superb example of the superiority complex.
> Other road users frequently dont obey the law, although weirdly those ranting about cyclists rarely seem to be rant about the other law breakers.
>

Rubbish. Plenty of people complain about bad driving.
Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to focus89uk:
> (
> DON'T get pissed off when i'm trying to overtake, someone comes the other way and I have to pull back in nearly hitting 2 of you.
>
>

I'll bite!

The manouvre you've described is probably breaking the law - dangerous driving?

You're the perfect example of what people are talking about on this thread. You can't even see the irony in your post. How did you pass your test?

E
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
>
> The problem with this one is those drivers that get round up come across somewhat irrational.

Complaining about people breaking the law is irrational? I try to be as courteous and safe around cyclists as possible but it is irritating to regularly see them jump light, ride with lights, mount the curb, swerve with no warning etc. etc when I know that in any accident I would probably be blamed. I don't think expecting the rules of the road to be followed is asking for much.

It seems to be a massive case of confirmation bias (again the only research done doesn't support the numbers claimed) and willingness to ignore their own lawbreaking.

I can't remember seeing a car deliberately jump a clearly red light but regularly see cyclists do so. Your link about suggest 16% do so it seems a pretty real phenomenon.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to focus89uk)
> [...]
>
> I'll bite!
>
> The manouvre you've described is probably breaking the law - dangerous driving?
>


Probably, but remember you are meant to leave space for overtaking vehicles to pull in to. Again, it works both ways.

Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Enty)
> [...]
>
>
> Probably, but remember you are meant to leave space for overtaking vehicles to pull in to.

Obviously if an idiot like Focus tries to overtake when there isn't room or time I'll put my brakes on to let them in as it might save my life.
I don't understand what you mean though.

E

MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

> I don't understand what you mean though.

In the HWC - you should leave sufficient room between you and the vehicle in front to allow an someone overtaking to pull in, if needed.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to focus89uk:
> (In reply to mountainsheep) Just a quick rant about cyclists.
> If you ride 3 in a row along a narrowish road with spaces between you that you keep closing up.
>
> DON'T get pissed off when i'm trying to overtake, someone comes the other way and I have to pull back in nearly hitting 2 of you.
>
> If you had spread out I could have leap frogged each of you.
> Instead you want to act like you are on tour de france.
>
> /End of rant.


For heaven's sake, man. If you're driving and something you do ends up with you "nearly hitting" some other road users, don't you think you're probably doing something wrong?

Please give me a list of all the roads you'll be using in the future, so I know to avoid you. Or if I can't avoid you, so I know to get the police along with me.
Eric9Points - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MG)
>
>
> Just to take the risk to cyclists alone, of deaths and serious injuries.
> 5% were due to a cyclist disobeying a light or give way.
> 15% were due to another vehicle disobeying a light or give way and hitting them.
>

So clearly, jumping red lights is dangerous and no one should do it.
Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> [...]
>
> In the HWC - you should leave sufficient room between you and the vehicle in front to allow an someone overtaking to pull in, if needed.

Including bikes?

So if Focus tries to overtake me and my mate, another car comes forcing him to pull into us he just tells the cops that we didn't leave enough gap?

E

Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to MG)
>
another car comes forcing him to pull into us


Or rather '"forcing" him to pull into us'.

The whole point is, none of this dangerous idiocy is necessary in the first place. And none of it would happen if Focus just sat back and chilled out instead of trying to carve his way through.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Eric9Points:

> So clearly, jumping red lights is dangerous and no one should do it.

not necessarily, for the cyclist it may be safer. See the advanced stop zone work, plus the various experiments in Paris etc around this principle.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

> So if Focus tries to overtake me and my mate, another car comes forcing him to pull into us he just tells the cops that we didn't leave enough gap?


I am not a lawyer but take to mean something like: if you are cycling as group and a car trying to pass, spread out sufficiently to allow it pull in between you if needed, or at least be prepared to do so. Obviously this doesn't justify absurd driving as in the post higher.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

> I can't remember seeing a car deliberately jump a clearly red light but regularly see cyclists do so.

sooo, red light cameras are installed for a giggle then?

I suspect you are nicely rationalising away the "clearly red light" as being what you consider it is safe to go through in your car.

muppetfilter - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: Several agressive York drivers have been exceedingly apologetic when I have caught them at the lights and gently tapped on their windows with a D-lock. I think the moral of that story is that its easy to be a bully in a car untill someone threatens you back.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> sooo, red light cameras are installed for a giggle then?
>
> I suspect you are nicely rationalising away the "clearly red light" as being what you consider it is safe to go through in your car.

I am not rationalising anything. I was trying to draw a distinction between between not stopping on orange/just red (when you clearly should stop before you start) and deliberately going through a established red. The former is mostly why red-light cameras exist I would guess.
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

Am in total agreement with you Enty about focus not having a point. The whole ponit of safe driving is to expect unexpected things to happen, if as a driver you're relying upon there being a gap between cyclists so you don't take any of them out when overtaking you're not driving as safely as you could be doing.

What if one of the cyclist infront comes across something on the road like branches or a dead animal or pot hole and slows and pulls out to avoid them?

When overtaking Focus should be leaving room for the unexpected things like this (or the cyclist infront slowing unexpectedly) to happen so he wouldn't be nearly taking people out.
Bean Head - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> [...]
>
> In the HWC - you should leave sufficient room between you and the vehicle in front to allow an someone overtaking to pull in, if needed.

Only in the context that you shouldn't purposefully obstruct someone when they are overtaking.

And it also says:

162
Before overtaking you should make sure
the road is sufficiently clear ahead
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in

In the example above, the motorist is completely in the wrong.

Rob
Pagan - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

> I can't remember seeing a car deliberately jump a clearly red light but regularly see cyclists do so

Should've gone to Specsavers.

I nearly got taken out by two cnuts the other week on the same 7 mile ride home. Both jumped a red light well after mine had turned green, both were going well in excess of the speed limit, both would probably have killed me had I not jumped on the brakes.

On my 14 mile round trip to work I can guarantee I'll see a fatty in a tin box jump a red light at 3 or 4 junctions. Sometimes this is clearly someone who just thought they'd make it, more often than not it's totally blatant - like speeding, they know they'll get away with it 9 times out of 10 so why not?

Compared to these cnuts, the occasional cyclist jumping a red light is a non-issue and not even worthy of debate, frankly - unless someone can point me in the direction of some credible stats showing all the people killed or injured by cyclists that is. Anyone?
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Pagan:My mum speaking as a car driver commented reacently that more drivers seem to be jumping red lights.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Pagan:

> On my 14 mile round trip to work I can guarantee I'll see a fatty

Again, is that really needed? Are comments like that really likely to change the behaviour of bad drivers? Do you wear a "one less car on the road T-shirt" too?


Sometimes this is clearly someone who just thought they'd make

As above, this often occurs, and shouldn't. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a red light deliberately ignored by a driver though.
>
> Compared to these cnuts, the occasional cyclist jumping a red light is a non-issue

No it's not if you are expecting drivers to follow the laws that you care about as a cyclist.
Pagan - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

> No it's not if you are expecting drivers to follow the laws that you care about as a cyclist.

Yes, it is - the laws I care about are the ones that keep me alive and I'm getting fed up of hearing this bollox reasoning. "It's ok to take chances with cyclists' lives because a few of them jump red lights occasionally" - is that how it goes? Because that's the insinuation I keep picking up from these threads.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Pagan:

People do have that thought, apparently. And you're right that it's a bad thought.

But as thoughts go, "It's okay for me to jump lights on my bike because not many people get killed that way" isn't exactly a winner either. And we keep hearing that one too.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Pagan:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, it is - the laws I care about are the ones that keep me alive and I'm getting fed up of hearing this bollox reasoning. "It's ok to take chances with cyclists' lives because a few of them jump red lights occasionally" - is that how it goes?

Bluntly, many drivers will think (perhaps subconsciously) along those lines, yes.

What I am trying to get over is that thinking as this as an "us and them" situation will not help. All road users need to consider all others. Having people, as on here, actively encouraging cyclists to think of themselves as special and to break the law, will result in drivers regarding them all as a pain who deserve no respect.
focus89uk - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:

I'll apologise as I could have wrote that post alot better.

I was just trying to make the point that there were 3 of these guys 2 went ahead alot faster and there was enough space to overtake the third safely. But as I came back in the second bloke braked (i knew the other bloke was behind me so I didn't want to brake hard)

the middle one put his hand up to say sorry.

If he had just kept riding as normal there would have been no issue.

andy - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Pagan)
>

>
> But as thoughts go, "It's okay for me to jump lights on my bike because not many people get killed that way" isn't exactly a winner either. And we keep hearing that one too.

I don't think that's the reasoning behind at least some cyclists jumping reds, is it? I think in a lot of cases (especially in London) where stop zones are routinely ignored it's a way of making sure you're off the junction ahead of the traffic - equally there are people that just ride through reds because they think there's nothing coming and they don't want to slow down.

Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to focus89uk:

Hmm. You do need to anticipate the unexpected, though, don't you? And bear in mind that cyclists are a lot more vulnerable to injury than you are.

You're right to think your first post gave a pretty bad impression of you.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:


If we're talking about a junction where motorists will turn left across you unless you get away from the traffic light sharpish, yes, I can understand a cyclist's going before the light turns green, and I'd probably do that myself. But as you say, that's different from just riding like the red lights don't exist.
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to focus89uk:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> I'll apologise as I could have wrote that post alot better.
>
> I was just trying to make the point that there were 3 of these guys 2 went ahead alot faster and there was enough space to overtake the third safely. But as I came back in the second bloke braked (i knew the other bloke was behind me so I didn't want to brake hard)
>
> the middle one put his hand up to say sorry.
>
> If he had just kept riding as normal there would have been no issue.

Do you know why he broke? With speed taken effort to gain you 'uaually' don't do for no particular reason on a bike.

That's kind of what I ment by needing to allow for something being in the road which the cyclist would have to avoid, and other things happening. Random and unexpected things can/do happen.

Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: I think motorist should be a lot more considerate to cyclists. It's bullying, plain and simple to pick on a particular group just 'cos they can't afford a decent car.
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to focus89uk:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> I'll apologise as I could have wrote that post alot better.
>
> If he had just kept riding as normal there would have been no issue.

If you hadn't driven in a way which relied upon nothing unexpected happening while on a narrow road there would have been no issue.

I think most people drive too quickly or not as safely as the might do most of the time by the way.
andy - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Timmd: I think one of the reasons why generally reasonable people driving cars sometimes think cyclists do irrational stupid things is because they don't ride a bike (or at least not a road bike fast) - if you appreciate the effect hitting a small pothole at 25mph on 23mm wide tyres can have they'd understand why cyclists might brake, swerve or do something else unexpected and give them more room. Similarly if people understood the effort of splitting into a line with 30 or 40 feet between people to allow cars to bunny hop through the group and then regrouping again then they'd understand why a group of bikers are reluctant to do it, and realise that by staying in a group they're not being militant and thoughtless - it's just the safest way to ride (short of staying at home).
Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to Timmd) I think one of the reasons why generally reasonable people driving cars sometimes think cyclists do irrational stupid things is because they don't ride a bike (or at least not a road bike fast) - if you appreciate the effect hitting a small pothole at 25mph on 23mm wide tyres can have they'd understand why cyclists might brake, swerve or do something else unexpected and give them more room. Similarly if people understood the effort of splitting into a line with 30 or 40 feet between people to allow cars to bunny hop through the group and then regrouping again then they'd understand why a group of bikers are reluctant to do it, and realise that by staying in a group they're not being militant and thoughtless - it's just the safest way to ride (short of staying at home).

I understand cyclists and their needs.
I have no issue with large groups......... actually it seems more sensible to bunch up into groups than to even try to seperate but that isn't really my point, groups tend to be out at weekends enjoying their leisure time...... and why not? I can spare 5 minutes for that quite happily.

However often I see a buy commuter road with two cyclists abreast, possibly one giving confidence to the other. Sorry, but if you're that unconfident, don't be on a main road. You wouldn't be allowed to be on a motorcycle or car! And it's discourtious....... it's 'f*ck you I'm a cyclist, get over it'

Most cyclists are NOT like that and most car drivers ARE courtious....... it's just you notice the ones who aren't much more readily.
redsulike - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance: From The section from Midhopestones to Langsett past the by waterworks before the pub.
I'm not having a rant, just pointing out an incidence of inconsiderate cycling you find quite uncomfortable (it seems).
You weren't there so you can't say but now apparently it wasn't the cyclists' fault but a queue of piss poor drivers. The large lorries behind the cyclists cannot accelerate like a car safely around the cyclists, and the amount of traffic coming in the opposite direction made opportunities do so very limited.
Rule 163;'give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.'
I always do, and I would have done with those particular twunts except I was waiting to turn left going in the opposite direction, They didn't slow me down or inconvenience me on this occasion.

So 'wiggo. pull your neck in and stop being a c@nt!
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (

> However often I see a buy commuter road with two cyclists abreast, possibly one giving confidence to the other. Sorry, but if you're that unconfident, don't be on a main road. You wouldn't be allowed to be on a motorcycle or car! And it's discourtious....... it's 'f*ck you I'm a cyclist, get over it'


Actually motorbikes are allowed to drive two abreast, and frequently do. So are cars, and they frequently do as well.

So why do you have a problem with cyclists doing this?

Your attitude is just plain wrong. The correct attitude is: they're road-users, and they have every right to be in front of me. And I have no right to overtake them until it's safe to do so.

You know what-- this is just the attitude that you're supposed to have to other cars!

Who'd have thought it, eh?
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> So you are in favour, after all, of cyclists riding in a way which will often make it harder for drivers to overtake and, from time to time, jumping red lights particularly when FSZ etc arent respected.

I'm not in favour of anyone obstructing other road users and I'm certainly not going to condone anyone jumping red lights. I also think FSZs are a pretty crap idea and that cyclists should move with the flow of traffic like the rest of us. If you want to be treated like a car it's best to act like one IMO.

I'll also answer your next boringly predictable question. I may from time to time break the speed limit but I don't expect anyone else to support or excuse the fact that I do so.
Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell: [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> Actually motorbikes are allowed to drive two abreast, and frequently do. So are cars, and they frequently do as well.
>
(Patiently)
Cars do it when there are two lanes over overtaking, not so they can natter.
If motorcycles do it, they do not hold up cars because they do it at car speeds.

> So why do you have a problem with cyclists doing this?
>
I don't at weekends etc, in commuter traffic (which is where I mentioned I had the problem) it means because they wish to natter or one of them lacks confidence, I would have to get up earlier so they can do it. I mentioned it being unthoughtful and discourtious.
> Your attitude is just plain wrong. The correct attitude is: they're road-users, and they have every right to be in front of me. And I have no right to overtake them until it's safe to do so.
>
> You know what-- this is just the attitude that you're supposed to have to other cars!
>
Excep it isn't practical to expect cars to move at bike speeds and if you say it IS........ then you're one of those militant cyclists and can therefroe be dismissed. I am after all quite happy to share roads with cyclists and very courtious to them, and you are doing your level best to alienate me. Fair enough, f*ck off then. I've got six airbags, what you got?
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:


You're just wrong, I'm afraid. Other road-users have every right to be on the road, just the same as you. If they don't go as fast as you want them to, you don't have the right to demand they get out of your way. Any more than someone who wants to go faster than you, has the right to demand that you get out of their way.

As I've already said, there is of course a case for letting people through if they want to go faster than I do. But that's not their right. That's me being nice.


> I am after all quite happy to share roads with cyclists and very courtious to them,

> Fair enough, f*ck off then.


Nice juxtaposition.


>and you are doing your level best to alienate me


This is just the bit that gets me about too many motorists, including you apparently. The cyclist in front of you is *not* trying to alienate you. He's just trying to get from A to B without being killed by some stupid macho tosser in a souped-up rusty Corsa.
Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
>
> You're just wrong, I'm afraid. Other road-users have every right to be on the road, just the same as you. If they don't go as fast as you want them to, you don't have the right to demand they get out of your way. Any more than someone who wants to go faster than you, has the right to demand that you get out of their way.
>
> As I've already said, there is of course a case for letting people through if they want to go faster than I do. But that's not their right. That's me being nice.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Fair enough, f*ck off then.
>
>
> Nice juxtaposition.
>
>
> >and you are doing your level best to alienate me
>
>
> This is just the bit that gets me about too many motorists, including you apparently. The cyclist in front of you is *not* trying to alienate you. He's just trying to get from A to B without being killed by some stupid macho tosser in a souped-up rusty Corsa.

Honestly, tim, you make me laugh, you really do. If there's a person more up themself I'd like to meet them.
I cycle...... not loads but I enjoy it. I'm courtious to cyclists. My partner is a cyclist (a very courtious and road aware one) I'm all for cycling.

But honestly, if I knew it was someone like you on a bike it would take every bit of self control I posses to be nice to you on a road.

"It's moi roight to be 'ere"
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko:

PS Oh, and on relative speeds, you're wrong about that too. I'm not a club rider, and I don't race. But during rush hour I can get from here to Camperdown, 5 miles away and uphill, faster than a van can. If you want, I can give you the number of the van in question :-)
Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Wonko)
>
> PS Oh, and on relative speeds, you're wrong about that too. I'm not a club rider, and I don't race. But during rush hour I can get from here to Camperdown, 5 miles away and uphill, faster than a van can. If you want, I can give you the number of the van in question :-)

So......... because the traffic is terrible on your commute this means every bike always beats a car and it isn't possible for bikes to hold up cars?

If you say so.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:


I didn't say any of that. The traffic isn't terrible, it's not my commute, every bike does not beat every car.

What a better listener might have inferred is that it's a bit OTT for cars to refuse to allow bikes to slow them down a bit here and there, because it doesn't actually make that much difference to the cars' overall speed.

Keep working on being courteous (NB spelling). To judge by your remarks to me, and others, there's some way to go.
Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
>
> I didn't say any of that. The traffic isn't terrible, it's not my commute, every bike does not beat every car.
>
You implied it.
> What a better listener might have inferred is that it's a bit OTT for cars to refuse to allow bikes to slow them down a bit here and there, because it doesn't actually make that much difference to the cars' overall speed.
>
Tim. I like that you brought up about 'a better listener' because you don't listen at all.
You really do appear to think that everything YOU say is a precious gem which should be clung to by the lucky recipient because, well, obviously it came from your superior intellect and they can obviously benefit from it.
Forget that my first post was actually very pro cyclists, very non antagonistic and mentioned that in fact it's a minority of drivers and cyclists who give both a bad name, you saw the bit about riding two abreast when it's innapropriate and didn't like it.
You ARE very wise so please, listen to your own advice occasionally.



> Keep working on being courteous (NB spelling). To judge by your remarks to me, and others, there's some way to go.

Thank you for correcting my spelling. I am a lazy speller.
If I judged you by your remarks, I'd deck you at 'hello'
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:


Wonko, this was quite a good thread before you arrived. You're doing the same as usual-- you say something silly, someone picks you up on it, and because you're not winning the argument you get aggressive and abusive. You've now threatened me, twice, with physical violence, which is a bit much even for you.

Can I politely suggest you find another thread to play on?

MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
>
> So why do you have a problem with cyclists doing this?

Probably much the same reasons the HWC has a problem with it where it will cause problems to other road users.
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:

> I'm not in favour of anyone obstructing other road users and I'm certainly not going to condone anyone jumping red lights. I also think FSZs are a pretty crap idea and that cyclists should move with the flow of traffic like the rest of us.

so you dont understand the concept. Why doesnt that surprise me?

> I'll also answer your next boringly predictable question. I may from time to time break the speed limit but I don't expect anyone else to support or excuse the fact that I do so.

wow you are psychic, or not as the case may be. The actual, relevant, question along those lines would be do you then get upset with all car drivers for the fact some break the law.

As far as people causing queues in my experience.
In the countryside, people driving tractors or other agricultural machinery tend to delay me far more.
In the town, couriers thinking the middle of the rush hour is a good time to park up on one of the main roads through the town to make a few deliveries.
Cyclists dont come close.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> Probably much the same reasons the HWC has a problem with it where it will cause problems to other road users.


OK--do you have chapter and verse, please?

Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
>
> Wonko, this was quite a good thread before you arrived. You're doing the same as usual-- you say something silly, someone picks you up on it, and because you're not winning the argument you get aggressive and abusive. You've now threatened me, twice, with physical violence, which is a bit much even for you.
>

You picked up on me saying 'it is sometimes not appropriate for two cyclists to ride abreast and very unconfident cyclists really should not be on a main road.
How contraversial of me.
You are a very abusive person. You are passive aggressive. Possibly because you don't possess the menas to be aggressive aggressive.... but who knows, this is the internet. I dislike how you post and if it reflects you as a person I'd quite probably dislike you too for all the reasons I've mentioned here and on other threads.
I never see you really address a point and you come across as thinking you're superior. In real life you'd be the kind of person I would simply ignore. I'd have to.
> Can I politely suggest you find another thread to play on?

Yes. It's a free world so you may politely suggest anything you wish.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:


> In the countryside, people driving tractors or other agricultural machinery tend to delay me far more.
> In the town, couriers thinking the middle of the rush hour is a good time to park up on one of the main roads through the town to make a few deliveries.
> Cyclists dont come close.


Horses make an interesting comparison. Do people *ever* cut up horses, or hoot at them? Perhaps they do, but I've never seen it.

Horses certainly cause delays to traffic, but they don't seem to attract the level of frankly unhinged venom that cyclists sometimes do. Indeed are doing on this thread.

It's time something was done about that Jeremy Clarkson, in my opinion.

Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
>
> [...]
>
>

>
> Horses certainly cause delays to traffic, but they don't seem to attract the level of frankly unhinged venom that cyclists sometimes do. Indeed are doing on this thread.
>
I can honestly say in all my 46 years I have never come across an unpolite or discourteous horse rider. Every one I have encountered has been thoughtful and appreciative.

MG - on 27 Aug 2012
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> I'm not in favour of anyone obstructing other road users and I'm certainly not going to condone anyone jumping red lights. I also think FSZs are a pretty crap idea and that cyclists should move with the flow of traffic like the rest of us. If you want to be treated like a car it's best to act like one IMO.

What's an FSZ?

It's an interesting comment you've posted about being treated like a car, like that implies some kind of equality.

How about diffeent kinds of road users, with different needs and vulnerabilities, being treated differently instead?

I don't get where you're coming from about cyclists being treated like car drivers.
paulipauli - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I am a cyclist and generally have sympathy with the concerns of cyclists but I do have an issue with large groups. I came across a large group - of about 15 - very slow cyclists on a long, narrow, winding road on my way to work earlier this year. Some of the cyclists were two abreast, some riding singly but they had left no car-sized gap in the long line. This meant it was absolutely impossible for me to overtake safely at any point in the entire road length (of about 4 miles) due to the bends and the narrowness of the road and the length of the line of cyclists. In the end, and after various attempts to communicate with them, I ended up passing in a way that was not safe and I felt angry with them and with myself for some time afterwards.

So I very much disagree with Andy who said earlier in the thread that he has the right to travel in large groups of cyclists in order that they can chat. At the speed my group were travelling at, it would have taken half an hour for me to cover four miles safely, making me late for work in the process. I bit of consideration from them and splitting the group into smaller factions would have solved the problem.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

That explicitly says that in the right traffic conditions cyclists CAN ride two abreast, just not more than two abreast.


"•never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

I note the DoT's picture of visibility clothing has the cyclist right in the gutter <doh>
dissonance - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Timmd:

> What's an FSZ?

forward stop zone also known as advanced stop zone.
Designed to remove the primary risk to cyclist at lights and also let traffic flow smoother.
However it tends not to be enforced (for example city of london cops are known for ignoring cars in there whilst prosecuting cyclists)
Wonko The Sane - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> That explicitly says that in the right traffic conditions cyclists CAN ride two abreast, just not more than two abreast.
>
But not ONE person here has said that two cyclists can't ride two abreast in many conditions.
I myself only criticised it on busy commuter roads (as per the HWC) and you took issue with it.


>
> "•never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
>
Which is what my first post complained about. riding two abreast on busy commuter roads.

> I note the DoT's picture of visibility clothing has the cyclist right in the gutter <doh>

Perhaps he's cycling slowly an it's safe to do so.

But please, don't take the trouble to admit to being wrong. We'll just infer it.
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:

The trouble is, to get into the FSZ (which I still think sounds like it ought to be the Ruritanian currency) you have to weave through the traffic... and you can't fit through on the pavement side... so you go through the middle between the lanes... and you're nearly there when the light goes green <ulp>

When I lived in Bury and cycled into Manchester, this happened a lot. It was always entertaining :-)
andy - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to paulipauli:

> So I very much disagree with Andy who said earlier in the thread that he has the right to travel in large groups of cyclists in order that they can chat. At the speed my group were travelling at, it would have taken half an hour for me to cover four miles safely, making me late for work in the process. I bit of consideration from them and splitting the group into smaller factions would have solved the problem.

I said nothing about "rights" - i was pointing out that that there's a reason for going out in a group, one of which is to have a crack, the other is it's much easier to ride faster for longer if you're sharing the work.

I'd find another way to work if i were you - you never know, you might come across a tractor one of these days.
MG - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> That explicitly says that in the right traffic conditions cyclists CAN ride two abreast, just not more than two abreast.
>

Read the rest of it.
Enty - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to paulipauli:

I do alot of group riding. Once a car has been behind us for more than a few minutes I'll try to set things in motion that will enable them to pass. Either shout "single up" or split into two groups.
If we're on a road where even doing these things still doesn't give enough room for a car to pass I'm afraid the car will just have to wait. C'est la vie.

You were still wrong to pass them in a way which wasn't safe though. It's just a different mind set. I can't imagine ever trying to squeeze past a cyclist on a narrow lane - especially if it is to avoid being late for work.
In what other daily circumstances do you ever put another persons's life at risk?

E
Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:


So it's going to come down to judgement calls as to what counts as narrow or busy.

I don't say cyclists couldn't make these judgement calls in a way which wasn't very reasonable.

I do say cyclists should not have their lives endangered for making a poor judgement call about that.
paulipauli - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:

It was my own life I put at risk, actually, and any oncoming vehicles. Not the cyclists. It wasn't a narrow lane, it was a narrow road with two way traffic but lots of bends. I had to cross to the other side of the road when I couldn't see the oncoming traffic at a distance I was comfortable with. I agree - very much not safe - but no squeezing required.

If the group had split up, it would have been easy to pass in certain places. I would still have had to wait for an appropriate point but would have been happy to do so. As a regular cycle commuter, I have to put up with being nearly killed by car drivers myself almost every day and my mindset is more cyclist than driver. Think this is why this incident upset me so much - because I behaved in a way I wasn't happy with myself but this group's behaviour was soooo frustrating
Pagan - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:

> I'm not in favour of anyone obstructing other road users and I'm certainly not going to condone anyone jumping red lights. I also think FSZs are a pretty crap idea and that cyclists should move with the flow of traffic like the rest of us.

Right, whatever. Next you'll be suggesting that pedestrian crossings are a crap idea and that people should just be waiting for gaps in the traffic and legging it across busy junctions - anything so that your precious time isn't wasted. Tell me - what is it you do that makes it so important that you get from A to B in the fastest possible time? Do you spend your life delivering vital organs to patients in far flung corners of the land? Perhaps you're on your way to your next burning orphanage, ready to pluck children from the blazing ruins?

Seriously, I'm desperate to know - what is your problem with cyclists filtering to the front of a queue of traffic? Surely it's best just to get them out of your way - which is what happens - rather than having them moving slowly in front of you up to the lights - which is what you're proposing.

> If you want to be treated like a car it's best to act like one IMO.

I don't want to be treated like a car, that's the whole f*cking point.
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to paulipauli:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> It was my own life I put at risk, actually, and any oncoming vehicles. Not the cyclists. It wasn't a narrow lane, it was a narrow road with two way traffic but lots of bends. I had to cross to the other side of the road when I couldn't see the oncoming traffic at a distance I was comfortable with. I agree - very much not safe - but no squeezing required.
>
So if a car car the other way during your dangerous overtaking you would have held your position and had a head on collision? The more likely scenario is that your instinct would have been to steer left to avoid the on coming vehicle and plough into the cyclists.
How you can be more at risk in a metal box with airbags than a cyclist is beyond me.


Tim Chappell - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Pagan:


I don't know if you meant it to be, but that was quite a funny post :-)

(which I agreed with)
hexcentric - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut: And what would the other car do? What happens when it tries to swerve into the other lane to avoid the collision? Not hard which of the three parties is most at risk is it....
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> [...]
>
> so you dont understand the concept. Why doesnt that surprise me?
>

That's a huge assumption on your behalf. It's quite possible to understand the reasoning behind a concept but still believe that the concept is flawed.

>
> wow you are psychic, or not as the case may be. The actual, relevant, question along those lines would be do you then get upset with all car drivers for the fact some break the law.
>

Am I getting upset because some cyclists may break the law or are you making a clumsy attempt to put words into my mouth? You were the one who asked me about red lights, it's your call whether or not you break the law at red lights, I'm not going to condone it and I'm not going to condemn it. I was talking about simple good manners and showing a bit of common courtesy towards fellow road users. Riding in a manner that makes it easier for large vehicles to pass you safely.

> As far as people causing queues in my experience.
> In the countryside, people driving tractors or other agricultural machinery tend to delay me far more.

Funnily enough I spend enough time driving in the coutryside to know that this is a pretty minor problem and appreciate that we have to allow other road users to go about their lawful business.

> In the town, couriers thinking the middle of the rush hour is a good time to park up on one of the main roads through the town to make a few deliveries.

I also spend enough time driving in the town to know that this is a pretty minor problem and appreciate that we have to allow other road users to go about their lawful business.

> Cyclists dont come close.

You appear to be suggesting that cyclists can do what they like because other road users also cause problems. My suggestion is that everyone should get tidy their own act up rather than making excuses based on the actions of others. There will be bad examples amongest all classes of road users but that is no excuse our own mistakes!

timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> What's an FSZ?

Forward stop zone IIRC. Not my hobby horse, you'd best ask dissonance as he believes that I don't understand them ;)

>
> It's an interesting comment you've posted about being treated like a car, like that implies some kind of equality.
>

Don't cyclists want equality?

> How about diffeent kinds of road users, with different needs and vulnerabilities, being treated differently instead?
>

I much prefer the approach where you treat them all as equals and aim to cause no damage or injury to any of them.

> I don't get where you're coming from about cyclists being treated like car drivers.

It's a stunningly simple concept that underlies all travel on the road IMO. You endeavour not to run into any other vehicle or pedestrian. I'm a bit concerned that any road user struggles to master such a simple idea ;)
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Pagan:

> Right, whatever. Next you'll be suggesting that pedestrian crossings are a crap idea and that people should just be waiting for gaps in the traffic and legging it across busy junctions - anything so that your precious time isn't wasted. Tell me - what is it you do that makes it so important that you get from A to B in the fastest possible time? Do you spend your life delivering vital organs to patients in far flung corners of the land? Perhaps you're on your way to your next burning orphanage, ready to pluck children from the blazing ruins?
>

Pedestrian crossing allow people to cross busy roads by stopping all traffic both cars and bikes. Why are they a bad idea?


My dislike for FSZs or cyclists filtering has nothing to do with my journey time, where have I mentioned journey times.

It's about making it easier for me to keep cyclists safe. I don't believe that a situation whereby a cyclists filters at a set of lights, only to be passed before the next lights where he filters again keeps him any safer than he would be if he held station in the traffic and I passed him once when it was safe to do so. Filtering inside faster traffic is not wise IMO.

Tell me - what is it you do that makes it so important that you get from A to B in the fastest possible time ;)

> Seriously, I'm desperate to know - what is your problem with cyclists filtering to the front of a queue of traffic? Surely it's best just to get them out of your way - which is what happens - rather than having them moving slowly in front of you up to the lights - which is what you're proposing.
>

See above it doesn't get them out of my way, it usually puts them back in the way. How on earth does that reduce the risk of a collision due to an error by either of us?

>
> I don't want to be treated like a car, that's the whole f*cking point.

Well tough luck because I'm going to treat you exactly like a car. I don't aim to run into other cars and I don't aim to run into cycles. Both are equal and I do my utmost to avoid a collision with either!
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> Forward stop zone IIRC. Not my hobby horse, you'd best ask dissonance as he believes that I don't understand them ;)

Fair enough.

> Don't cyclists want equality?

Yes, equality meaning an equal level of consideration or respect.

> I much prefer the approach where you treat them all as equals and aim to cause no damage or injury to any of them.

Same here, and if FSZ which you don't seem to like can help, I can't see thier problem? Still a bit puzzled how you logically join together not liking FSZ and saying if cyclists want to be treated like cars, they should act like cars and join the traffic flow.

Surely cyclists want to act like cyclists and just not get knocked off thier bike (like horse riders want to act like horse riders and not be endangered...).

With cyclists being much more vulnerable, why shouldn't they have and use FSZ if these help with cyclists' safety?

Just not too sure what you mean by cyclists being treated like a car, why does being treated like a car denote equality? Perhaps i'm picking over words too much...

> It's a stunningly simple concept that underlies all travel on the road IMO. You endeavour not to run into any other vehicle or pedestrian. I'm a bit concerned that any road user struggles to master such a simple idea ;)

That's the way I try and use the roads as well.

Tim
MaranaF - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

I spent years riding horses along roads and for anyone who doesn't know how a horses mind works, Ill give you a hint. If they see a carrier-bag blowing around in the ditch at the side of the road they may think its a monster because horses are animals of flight and for some, monsters are everywhere, especially in the bushes at the side of the road!! so the likely hood of them shying sideways and further into the road is much more likely than a horse bolting.
Horses need to use roads to reach bridle paths but I firmly believe that an overly traffic nervous horse should never be ridden along a busy road without someone leading it from the ground. Always slow down and give a horse a wide birth.

As for bikes. I've ridden in English towns and cities as well as ridding those breath taking tors of Yorkshire and Lancashire and more recently done a lot of cycling in the southern French alps.
The French do have a different attitude towards cyclists. They will even pass you on a mountain, stop their cars higher up and cheer you on as you struggle for breath on those unforgiving climbs!!
Not once did I feel aggressive or aggrieved with a French motorist and not once did I have a French motorist honking his horn, catching me with his wing mirror or shouting aggressively out of his window at me.
I think learner drivers really need lessons on what cyclists are. They need to learn that we are not stationary objects to be overtaken if we are doing 15 mph along with all the other traffic doing the same speed.

Some here are saying its getting better and has been a lot better since our Brad won the tour. My broken leg is keeping me off the bike at the moment but I look forward to seeing if you are right.

Maria
timjones - on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to Timmd:
> With cyclists being much more vulnerable, why shouldn't they have and use FSZ if these help with cyclists' safety?

Personally I don't buy the theory that they make things safer. I believe that it would be safer if cyclists moved with the traffic flow.

> Just not too sure what you mean by cyclists being treated like a car, why does being treated like a car denote equality? Perhaps i'm picking over words too much...

It's simple enough. I don't tailgate other cars, I don't overtake them in a dangerous manner, I don't cut them up, I don't run into them, etc, etc. Equality means that I don't do any of these things to cyclists either. What more do you want?
Goucho on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to MaranaF: I have to agree with you regarding French motorists to cyclists.

Since moving to France, I've noticed a much more careful and considerate approach to cyclists - even when I'm wheezing and gasping up something the local pensioners cruise up while having an animated conversation, I've never felt in danger of abuse or collision.

I wonder whether this is down to a combination of cycling being the national pastime, and a much more laid back approach to life - everyone in a car in the UK is always in such a rush.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 27 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> Personally I don't buy the theory that they make things safer. I believe that it would be safer if cyclists moved with the traffic flow.

Fair enough.

> It's simple enough. I don't tailgate other cars, I don't overtake them in a dangerous manner, I don't cut them up, I don't run into them, etc, etc. Equality means that I don't do any of these things to cyclists either. What more do you want?

Nothing, I think I was just overly examining your use of words, UKC can do that sometimes.

Tim
dissonance - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to timjones:

> That's a huge assumption on your behalf. It's quite possible to understand the reasoning behind a concept but still believe that the concept is flawed.

considering the entire purpose is for the flow of traffic it shows a pretty piss poor understanding to use that as a counter.

> Riding in a manner that makes it easier for large vehicles to pass you safely.

or maybe you could drive your large vehicles sensibly, or given your whining about cyclists should go out in smaller groups perhaps compromise yourself when you go out?

> Funnily enough I spend enough time driving in the coutryside to know that this is a pretty minor problem and appreciate that we have to allow other road users to go about their lawful business.

So you dont see as a problem what you do. That is, surprising.

> I also spend enough time driving in the town to know that this is a pretty minor problem and appreciate that we have to allow other road users to go about their lawful business.

and again. Problem is I disagree, so who is right.
Unfortunately there dont appear to be any studies on this but considering that on one subject people froth about cyclists regularly eg redlights the study we have doesnt support the claims made then it is evident there is a lot of confirmation bias in the anti cyclist rants.

> You appear to be suggesting that cyclists can do what they like because other road users also cause problems.

Brilliant, so after claiming i am making a clumsy attempt to put words into your mouth you do, the same.
Mikkel - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:
So why is it that drivers in the UK are so much worse with cyclists than anywhere else in europe?


I don't think they are, i think you UK cyclist have just kept telling you self this for so long that most of you believe it. (this is repeated for so many things in the UK that i almost think its the national sport to talk about how everything else is better in other countries)

Grew up in Denmark, yes thats one of these places that always gets a mention as the cyclist heaven, where all the car drivers are amazing when it comes to overtaking bikes etc.
Compared to Denmark, majority of cars leaves you a lot of room when overtaking here in the UK, and in Denmark i have never tried having a car slow down and stay behind you and wait for a spot to overtake, they will pass really close to you instead.
Cars passing really close have never bothered me, maybe because i have been biking on the roads from a very early age and gotten used to it, if they cut in front of me to early so i have to brake its a different case (this is possible the one thing i find the UK drivers to be worse at but still don't happen much).


MaranaF - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Goucho:

You are right and it is hysterically funny watching good riders on top bikes wearing all the right gear, being over taken on a steep climb by a middle aged woman on her vintage bike with all her shopping in the big basket on the front.
Cycling enthusiasts from all over the world go to the northern and southern alps to train. I think most of the English riders in the 'Tour' live in the southern alps and so we are bound to see (at least in the fairer months) lots of cyclists, but the locals all seem to have bikes and cycle a lot themselves.
I think a lot of French drivers are insane, especially in the bigger cities but I agree with you that they show concern and care towards their cyclists.
John Rushby - on 28 Aug 2012


This pretty much sums up what it is like on the roads...


http://road.cc/content/news/64082-cyclist-pushed-passengers-passing-car-suffers-serious-injuries

no doubt if they do catch the culprit, he'll get a £60 fine.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to John Rushby:
>
>
> This pretty much sums up what it is like on the roads...
>
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/64082-cyclist-pushed-passengers-passing-car-suffers-serious-injuries
>
> no doubt if they do catch the culprit, he'll get a £60 fine.

That makes disgusting reading, but come on, this hardly sums up the average British driver's attitude to cyclists.
Tim Chappell - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to John Rushby:

It's not all bad, though:




27/08/2012 11:12

To
"EASTSCOTLAND.ENQUIRIES@STAGECOACHBUS.COM" <EASTSCOTLAND.ENQUIRIES@STAGECOACHBUS.COM>,
cc

Subject
cyclist's near miss with #99

Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing to complain about the driving of a #99 bus outside St Michael's Golf Club last Saturday. I was cycling that road towards Leuchars village from Dundee, and the bus that passed me was literally an inch from my elbow. The side-draught nearly knocked me off as well.

I caught up with the driver at the stop in Leuchars village and protested about what he'd just done. Since he was very apologetic I am not going to give the time that this incident happened or the number plate of the bus. If you pass this message to your drivers he will know who he is. He's said he's sorry and I don't wish to get him personally into any more trouble.

What I do want to underline is that it's absolutely essential for your drivers to treat cyclists with a bit more respect and to give them a lot more room. I went out for a pleasant ride and had a near-death experience. This shouldn't happen. Please remind your drivers!

Best wishes

TC



Dear TC

Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies for the level of service you received from us on the day in question.

Please be advised that I will advise all St Andrews drivers to give more consideration to cyclist, being a keen cyclist myself I understand how frightening other road users can be, I can assure you that any driver that does not show consideration will be dealt with through the company disciplinary procedure. I thank you for your understanding and I am glad that the driver did show remorse for this incident.

I hope that you will be able to take some comfort from the fact that complaints such as this are taken very seriously, are thoroughly investigated and any remedial action found to be necessary taken, I thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this matter to our attention and trust that our future service will give no further cause for complaint. If you have any further concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.

The below web links offers further information on the companies "conditions of carriage" and "code of practice for suggestions and complaints"


Kind Regards


Assistant Operations Manager
St Andrews Depot
City Road
St Andrews
KY16 9HW
John Rushby - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Agree, but it's not uncommon. My ex had someone try push her . slap her arse while out, and it is pretty common to get some knobhead hassling you when out on ride.
MaranaF - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Good on you Tim. Its all about being pro active. A few months ago, my partner and myself were nearly taken out by a bus on a roundabout. Like you, my partner overtook the bus and stopped it before approaching the driver and asking, 'Do you know what you just did?' The driver shook his head, turned and looked innocently at his passengers before replying, 'I really don't know?'. 'The fundamental problem here is, not only did you nearly just kill my wife and me but you werent even aware that you nearly killed us'. My husband continued. He wasn't aggressive, just very assertive at getting his point over. The bus driver started to shake and at one point I thought he was going to cry. Half a mile further down the road I glanced back and the bus was still stopped. The guy was clearly shocked. Almost certainly this bus driver will watch out for cyclists on roundabouts for the rest of his career. Sometimes things just need pointing out to people.

I don't think we should drive aggressively because that just gets peoples backs up but we need to stop people (when possible) and point out their dangerous driving error.
I now wear a go pro camera when I'm cycling because people are less likely to become abusive when they see you have a witness on your helmet!!
Grayone - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Mikkel: I once asked a French friend why it was that French drivers, often suicidal in other respects, seeed to be quite defferential to cyclists. It was a Saturday morning and his first response was that "France is not what it was. There was a time when Frenchmen on a Saturday morning would stay in bed and make love to their wives, now they all go out and ride bikes!"
Then he asked me why I thought the British drivers were so anti cyclist. I replied that I thought it had a lot to do with the fact that cyclists don't pay Road Fund Tax. And his reply - "Well in France people are really pleased when someone gets somthing out of the government for nothing!
And more seriously we are talking about a human being sitting on top of a few metal tubes compared to a driver cossetted in a shell of metal weighing one to two tons. It doesn't take much to work out who will come off worse in any collision. In Holland and Belgium the law is applied differently I believe in that it is always the fault of the driver unless s/he can prove conclusively different. I believe we need such a similar change in the law here to help change attitudes, and with the 'Wiggins effect' now could be the best time to do it.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Grayone:
>
> Then he asked me why I thought the British drivers were so anti cyclist. I replied that I thought it had a lot to do with the fact that cyclists don't pay Road Fund Tax. And his reply - "Well in France people are really pleased when someone gets somthing out of the government for nothing!
>

I've always thought this a VERY strange attitude to take toward government money when you consider that they don't actually have any money except what you give them.


Grayone - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Hope you aren't suggesting a cycling tax. Just look at the waistlines of lots of the population, paying a tax to ride a bike wouldn't help. Anyway the vast majority of cyclists already pay Road Fund tax/VED as they are car drivers too.
As for the attitude - well that's a Frenchman for you!
Cuthbert on 28 Aug 2012
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Grayone:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Hope you aren't suggesting a cycling tax. Just look at the waistlines of lots of the population, paying a tax to ride a bike wouldn't help. Anyway the vast majority of cyclists already pay Road Fund tax/VED as they are car drivers too.
> As for the attitude - well that's a Frenchman for you!

Nope, I'm quite happy for cyclists not to pay road fund licence. I'm also happy for them not to need a road licence too if they stop whining about lack of driver training. I think sharing roads goes both ways. Courtesy both ways.
dissonance - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

> Nope, I'm quite happy for cyclists not to pay road fund licence.

a)there isnt a specific road fund licence
b)a cyclist wouldnt count for Vehicle Tax due to them being based around CO2 emissions.

> I'm also happy for them not to need a road licence too if they stop whining about lack of driver training.

yes heaven forbid that people be competently trained.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> [...]
>
> a)there isnt a specific road fund licence
Apologies, it was recently 're branded' as vehicle exise duty'

> b)a cyclist wouldnt count for Vehicle Tax due to them being based around CO2 emissions.

Moot point, not asking them to pay.
>
> [...]
>
> yes heaven forbid that people be competently trained.
Cyclists and motorists alike? What course do cyclists have to take, hmmm?

yesbutnobutyesbut - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]

> [...]
>
> Moot point, not asking them to pay.
> [...]
> Cyclists and motorists alike? What course do cyclists have to take, hmmm?

A cyclist without 'training' is unlikely to mount a busy pavement, crash into other vehicles or lose control in a way that could possibly be fatal to somebody.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> A cyclist without 'training' is unlikely to mount a busy pavement, crash into other vehicles or lose control in a way that could possibly be fatal to somebody.

They can do this. They can also put other road users in danger through incompetence (for instance a car driver swerving to avoid some silly action on their part) They are able to crash into pedestrians giving quite serious injury and they are able to cause collateral damage.
lummox - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: oh ffs. I hope you are trolling. Google " deaths and serious injuries caused by cycles " then compare and contrast figures for motorised vehicles. I thought we'd gone beyond this. Obviously not.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to lummox:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) oh ffs. I hope you are trolling. Google " deaths and serious injuries caused by cycles " then compare and contrast figures for motorised vehicles. I thought we'd gone beyond this. Obviously not.

Not trolling at all matey.
I simply do not agree with the argument that this is all one sided and it's only motorists who need to be more aware. I know many cyclists agree with me. I am not arguing for certification of cyclists, but I am also not accepting the argument that because you cause far less damage than a car, it exempts you from any responsibility. It doesn't you do things wrong, just like motorists (as a group I mean, not you personally)

No. We haven't 'gone beyond this' because despite being very considerate to cyclists, and despite the fact that most cyclists are courteous back...... I see as many incidents of insane cycling as I do insane driving.
MaranaF - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Cycling proficiency test?!? Nah ok, forget that one.
I wholeheartedly agree that cyclists should have to take some sort of road traffic training. Teaching them that a red traffic light means they have to stop too or that cycling up the inside of almost stationary traffic in the left turn lane when the cyclist just wants to carry on, is idiotic. That cars an lorries do have blind spots and won't always see you. The list could go on. There are a lot of stupid cyclists. I call them 'organ donors' and unfortunately we all seem to get tarred with their brush.
I shouldn't say this because I'm female but I find women drivers to be the worst. That desperate need to overtake you even if they are about to turn left 20 meters further up the road! and driving far too close or closing a gap so you can't get through.
I have been hit twice whilst horse riding and both times it was by women.
999thAndy on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
> Apologies, it was recently 're branded' as vehicle exise duty'
>
> [...]
>


By that modern spin doctor, Sir Winston Churchill.

In 1937.
dissonance - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

> I simply do not agree with the argument that this is all one sided and it's only motorists who need to be more aware.

which argument would that be, outside of your own imagination?
the amusing thing would be, from the whining from many car drivers, they really wouldnt want cyclists to be better trained since that would result in, for example, more cyclists using primary or secondary positions rather than riding in the gutter.
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to lummox)
> [...]
>
> ...... I see as many incidents of insane cycling as I do insane driving.

of course you do
Ramblin dave - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Does anyone actually say that cyclists are exempt from any responsibility? Or just that trying to force them to act more responsibly via more legislation and policing would be a massive waste of time and money for the amount of harm prevented, compared to (say) stricter enforcement of the law on things like using mobile phones while driving or implementation of better thought out road designs?

Almost every cycling advocacy group I've come across seems to spend a fair amount of their time promoting safe and responsible cycling and educating cyclists about stuff like being seen at night and not pulling alongside large vehicles at junctions. People just get shirty when they're following every piece of safety advice in the book and they still nearly get splatted by some pillock who can't wait until it's safe before overtaking them.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
>
> By that modern spin doctor, Sir Winston Churchill.
>
> In 1937.

Perhaps I'm a little behind the times......but Google 'road fund licence' and the very first hit is the UK Gov website

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=0dxEweQ7SpvLYyYjU8ZuNQ&cp=8&gs_id=u&...
Grayone - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut: Probably more on the car driver camp/side as there are shed loads more of them. How often do I see idiots using a mobile phone whilst driving or undertaking. Yes there are idiot cyclists and red lights are red lights. But it comes back to what I said before - a human on top of a few tubes of metal vs the cossetted car driver, never mind the lorry or bus. As the cyclist you don't stand a chance.

So just because there are idiot cyclists doesn't mean that the odds shouldn't be adjusted in their favour.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> [...]
>
> which argument would that be, outside of your own imagination?
> the amusing thing would be, from the whining from many car drivers, they really wouldnt want cyclists to be better trained since that would result in, for example, more cyclists using primary or secondary positions rather than riding in the gutter.

Why, the attitudes put forward by some on this very thread (which luckily doesn't represent all cyclists)

I have repeatedly said that I am pro cycling, I just won't have it said that everything is the motorist's fault, it isn't. I drive with my partner who cycles all the time and she often points out idiot cyclists as well as having her fair share of idiot motorists. I've seen idiot motorists first hand, but I'm not one of them when it comes to cyclists. I slow down, give room, do not invade the green traffic light boxes and generally am pretty courteous. I am simply pointing out (as I did in my second post) that you get idiots on bikes who think it's appropriate for instance to ride side by side on busy commuter roads (saw that last week.... holding up an entire road worth of traffic which simply no longer had the room to overtake where they would have if they were riding single) and I made the point if they are that uncertain they should not really be on a very busy main road at rush hour.

I have seen someone jumping a red light and get tw*tted by a car.
I've seen plenty of idiocy on both sides.
999thAndy on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

My mistake, the road fund lingered until 1955, it was road tax which ceased to be hypothecated in 1937. Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty#History

"In the budget of 1909, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George announced that the roads system would be self financing,[36] and so from 1910 the proceeds of road vehicle excise duties were dedicated to fund the building and maintenance of the road system.[37]

The Roads Act 1920 required councils to 'register all new vehicles and to allocate a separate number to each vehicle' and 'make provision for the collection and application of the excise duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and on carriages'. The Finance Act 1920 introduced a 'Duty on licences for mechanically propelled vehicles' which was to be hypothecated and paid into a newly established Road Fund.[38] Excise duties specifically for mechanically propelled vehicles were first imposed in 1921, along with the requirement to display a vehicle licence (tax disc) on the vehicle.[37]

The accumulated Road Fund was never fully spent on roads (most of it was spent on resurfacing, not the building of new roads), and became notorious for being used for other government purposes, a practice introduced by Winston Churchill, when Chancellor of the Exchequer.[citation needed] Hypothecation came to an end in 1937 under the 1936 Finance Act, and the proceeds of the vehicle road taxes were paid directly into the Exchequer. The Road Fund itself, then funded by government grants, wasn't abolished until 1955.[36]"

The most important thing to remember is that roads are paid for by general taxation, not from a tax on motorised vehicles.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to 999thAndy: Andy. I made no comment on road tax or whatever you would like to call it being earmarked for any purpose. No UK tax to my knowledge is. I simply called it road fund licence. In fact it is now called vehicle exise duty according to UK Gov. It was not the point of my post and I've never suggested cycclists should pay it anyway.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:


In reply to Grayone:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Hope you aren't suggesting a cycling tax. Just look at the waistlines of lots of the population, paying a tax to ride a bike wouldn't help. Anyway the vast majority of cyclists already pay Road Fund tax/VED as they are car drivers too.
> As for the attitude - well that's a Frenchman for you!

Nope, I'm quite happy for cyclists not to pay road fund licence. I'm also happy for them not to need a road licence too if they stop whining about lack of driver training. I think sharing roads goes both ways. Courtesy both ways.





dissonance - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

> Why, the attitudes put forward by some on this very thread (which luckily doesn't represent all cyclists)

evidence for this completely one sided approach. Or are you reading stuff into one people says.

> I slow down, give room, do not invade the green traffic light boxes and generally am pretty courteous.

ermm, well done. You follow the highway code although i suspect on the give room you dont follow it fully (since few people do).

> I have seen someone jumping a red light and get tw*tted by a car.

which gives the primary difference between cars and cyclists. Only one of the two is likely to get badly hurt while playing games with lights.
Also, again, the TfL study showed that when it came to cyclists getting killed or seriously injured in case of red light/give way jumping about 5% of the time it was the cyclist, 16 or so % it was the other vehicle which was to blame.
deanstonmassif on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Let's try and set up some positive interactions... I always help motorists pass me when I can, and I always acknowledge it if they do me a courtesy.

What he said. And in most cases, a smile and a wave/finger waggle (not the middle one) are reciprocated and by gum everyone's a winner.

There are some idiots out there. Some of them ride bikes and some of them drive. Fact.
999thAndy on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
If VED is constantly referred to as 'road tax' the "hard of thinking" motorist might be tempted to assume that he has more right to the road than the pansy in the lycra, as he assumes has 'paid' for it. I'm not saying you are one of those motorists (and your posts always seem to call for restraint and civility on both sides - chapeau) however I thought it worthwhile to make the point to those that are.
John Rushby - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to deanstonmassif:

Yup.

I once posted on a similar thread on here to say when on my bike I often thank a courteous driver.

Someone replied that's like thanking a person for not punching you in the face

I prefer to see it as rewarding good behaviour - like you would a dog or a toddler.
Just a bhoy - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> which gives the primary difference between cars and cyclists. Only one of the two is likely to get badly hurt while playing games with lights.

Sorry but that is utter bollocks. Do you really believe you would be totally unaffected if you were to be involved in a road accident involving a death even if you were blameless?
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> [...]
>
> evidence for this completely one sided approach. Or are you reading stuff into one people says.
>
Read it yourself. Don't quite get what the second sentence means.
> [...]
>
> ermm, well done. You follow the highway code although i suspect on the give room you dont follow it fully (since few people do).
>
Actually, I do. And yes...... I follow the highway code in towns where there are cyclists and pedestrians. Show me where I'm asking for a pat on the back as opposed to a bit of common courtesy reciprocated and I'll apologise.
> [...]
>
> which gives the primary difference between cars and cyclists. Only one of the two is likely to get badly hurt while playing games with lights.
> Also, again, the TfL study showed that when it came to cyclists getting killed or seriously injured in case of red light/give way jumping about 5% of the time it was the cyclist, 16 or so % it was the other vehicle which was to blame.

And this makes it ok?

I am not only interested in who gets hurt. I am interested in the practical sharing of roads with other users. Note practical. Some of what I see on this thread is SOME (by no means all) militant cyclists suggesting that the rest of the world ought to fit around them. Not going to happen. I'm happy to safely share roads, I am not happy for laws to change on a one sided basis.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> If VED is constantly referred to as 'road tax' the "hard of thinking" motorist might be tempted to assume that he has more right to the road than the pansy in the lycra, as he assumes has 'paid' for it. I'm not saying you are one of those motorists (and your posts always seem to call for restraint and civility on both sides - chapeau) however I thought it worthwhile to make the point to those that are.

With respect, you're coming across as a hard of thinking cyclist. You are dogging me to death over a term which was actually me replying to the term as used by.......... a cyclist.
Ramblin dave - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I think that possibly the reason we get into such a bollix about all this sort of thing on such a regular basis is that the conversation is based on rather fluid, abstract ideas like who should be "blamed", what people "ought" to do, what "justifies" what and so on, rather than on what if anything should actually be done about it.

I can't be held to account for the behaviour of other cyclists or be expected to apologise for them any more than you can be held to account for the behaviour of other motorists or be expected to apologise for them, what we can do is ask what ways there are PRACTICAL ways of improving the way road users behave towards each other (ie more practical than just moaning on the internet), and which of them are actually worthwhile investments of the limited time and money available to the police, the DfT and anyone else involved.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Ramblin dave: I'd agree completely with that. And pointing out what should be obvious considering what I've said....... nowhere have I defended inconsiderate drivers. Nor would I. As you say and as I said earlier....... I'm interested in the practical sharing of roads.
balmybaldwin - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> I think that possibly the reason we get into such a bollix about all this sort of thing on such a regular basis is that the conversation is based on rather fluid, abstract ideas like who should be "blamed", what people "ought" to do, what "justifies" what and so on, rather than on what if anything should actually be done about it.
>
> I can't be held to account for the behaviour of other cyclists or be expected to apologise for them any more than you can be held to account for the behaviour of other motorists or be expected to apologise for them, what we can do is ask what ways there are PRACTICAL ways of improving the way road users behave towards each other (ie more practical than just moaning on the internet), and which of them are actually worthwhile investments of the limited time and money available to the police, the DfT and anyone else involved.

I think a good start would be to have a hell of a lot more coppers on the roads as there used to be before the reliance on speed cameras.

That way they can pick up on both cyclists and drivers behaving like prats - it won't stop the problems overnight, but hopefully will get us on the way to being more courteous to everyone else we share the roads with be they on 2 wheels, Learners, bmw drivers, lorries buses, the over 80s, horses and pedestrians. I also think a great deal more punishment should be due for dangerous/careless driving as a deterrent.
birdie num num - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:
I have a bell on my bike so folks on pavements can dive out of the way in time.
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> bmw drivers:

BMW drivers generally only own the outer lane of the motorway and this is NOT your concern ;)
a lakeland climber on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

It's not just cyclists at risk from impatient drivers - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19403691

ALC
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> It's not just cyclists at risk from impatient drivers - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19403691
>
> ALC

Wow. I simply never knew that this kind of thing happens! I'm shocked!

Really not sure what the point is? We know some drivers are bad and other drivers can be affected.
Mike Stretford - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> [...]
>
> Perhaps I'm a little behind the times......but Google 'road fund licence' and the very first hit is the UK Gov website
>
>

That just shows google is pretty much idiot proof these days. It's always correcting my typos too.

Drive any of these cars and you won't pay this road tax.

http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/exempt-road-tax

mike.rodger - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:
I've heard in France if a driver is involved in an accident with a cyclist it is assumed the drive is at fault and can expect to go to jail immediately, pending bail.

This seems reasonable, few cyclists want to have an accident with a vehicle as it usually hurts the cyclist a lot while only damaging the paintwork on the vehicle. So while the frogs don't like this rule they generally realise that it's not worth their while to risk an accident with a cyclist.

This would relatively easy to introduce into the UK and would change the drivers attitudes overnight. I no longer cycle on roads in the UK, every journey involved near misses and the need to be assertive. I needed to be 'unlucky' only once to ruin my life so it no longer seemed worth it.
MG - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mike.rodger:
> (In reply to mountainsheep)
> I've heard in France if a driver is involved in an accident with a cyclist it is assumed the drive is at fault and can expect to go to jail immediately, pending bail.
>
> This seems reasonable

This must be the Godwin law of cycling theeads.

Reasonable!?!???
Wonko The Sane - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mike.rodger: I haven't the words.
andy - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to mike.rodger) I haven't the words.

It's Holland where this is the case - not sure about the automatic imprisonment though.
mike.rodger - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to MG:

eh?

"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2][non-primary source needed] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]"

See wikipedia (cut and pasted link chokes UKC correctitudedness filter)


How about a Number 10 petition then, it's an easy(ish) law to pass, jumps on a populist bandwagon, gives a good headline, distracts from boring old things like the economy, might extract some more cash out of the motorist and the law probably won't be enforced in a vote losing fashion against people who vote tory. Win win?
abr1966 - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mountainsheep: I've found that in UK there are many courteous drivers and I tend to try and communicate on the bike with drivers as much as possible. If a car hangs behind you for a while awaiting a chance to go past I always put my hand up in thanks when they've been considerate, more often than not its reciprocated!

I have found though a fringe of motorists who are really dangerous though and set out to try and intimidate or actually are threatening/abusive. I don't know why, I guess they are just t**ts like that wherever they go...

I often see arrogant cyclists also, making no effort to help a driver get past by moving over a wee bit. I was behing 2 guys on the way home from work riding 2 abrest and taking the whole lane up, I was behind them for a good 5 minutes resulting in a huge queue of cars behind...

Its a 2 way thing isn't it...! Courteous cyclists and courteous drivers!

I've ridden in France, Holland, Belgium and found these places to be very cyclist friendly....moreso than UK but on the whole (in over 30 years) of road riding I've only had 2 incidents of nasty people trying to harm me.
mike.rodger - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to MaranaF:

Nope, it's the motorcyclists that are truly the organ donors, riding fast enough to kill themselves with minimal help from anyone else. Although I've yet to meet one (that's still alive) that hasn't blamed someone else.

Think Bike! Think Vehicle?
Check your wing mirrors! Check your visor before weaving at 80 mph in 70 mph traffic?

Cyclists nearly always need a lot of help from someone else to achieve organ donor status.
Enty - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to mike.rodger:
> (In reply to mountainsheep)
> I've heard in France if a driver is involved in an accident with a cyclist it is assumed the drive is at fault and can expect to go to jail immediately, pending bail.
>
> This seems reasonable, few cyclists want to have an accident with a vehicle as it usually hurts the cyclist a lot while only damaging the paintwork on the vehicle. So while the frogs don't like this rule they generally realise that it's not worth their while to risk an accident with a cyclist.
>
>

Bollocks. If a farmer has had half a dozend glasses of pastis with his lunch and knocks you off - if he's best mates with the Mayor or anyone in the local Gendermarie your f*cked!

E
Enty - on 28 Aug 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Really not sure what the point is?

Shut up Wonko - UKC has finally found a subject you know nothing about - amazing I know!!!

Give it a rest.

E

MG - on 29 Aug 2012
In reply to mike.rodger: Follow any cycling thread and your absurd (hugely exaggerated) exampe comes up.
Wonko The Sane - on 29 Aug 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Shut up Wonko - UKC has finally found a subject you know nothing about - amazing I know!!!
>
> Give it a rest.
>
> E

Hey, really not my fault you have few interests, is it?
kerry cooper - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: I agree that maybe cyclists don't need to pay road tax, but who else agrees that they should have, at least some form of insurance?? The number of times that i see (this is more than once a day) cyclists going straight through red lights, up on to pavements to avoid lights/junctions etc is appaling. I've seen cyclists soooo close to hitting children and i've seen cyclists hitting cars (whilst going through a red light), if the cyclist has no insurance then surely it falls to the driver/mother of now disabled child to pick up the bill for the stupid behavior on the cyclists part? Even more so, imagine how a driver would feel if, in a worst case scenario he hit and killed a cyclist through no faulut of his own?!
Timmd on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to kerry cooper:

Would the insurance be state funded or funded by the cyclist, and would parents have to pay for thier children to be covered?

Assist, the organisation which helps asylum seekers gives bikes to them to help them to get around, and i'm thinking it could be hard for them to find cover, and it could put off people from poorer backgrounds, who often seem to be less healthy as well, if they had to pay for insurance.

I can see where you're coming from though.
Enty - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to kerry cooper:

I do have insurance.

E
ads.ukclimbing.com
hedgepig - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:
anecdote.
Yesterday in a straight narrow lane - room for car or bike but not both. Oncoming car passes the 2 bikes just ahead of me in a slightly wider bit. And keeps coming at 40mph towards the narrow bit where I am. Steep banks and hedges both sides. This would have been murder if I had not bailed into the hedge. Car has vanished by the time I pick myself up. Cars have impunity and know it. Strict liability would be a start. Can one of you explain to me what the cyclist would have contributed to the collision in this context, apart from assuming that a quiet country lane is not a racecourse? He could see me. He had just passed 2 other bikes. It was utterly deliberate.
Wonko The Sane - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to kerry cooper:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) I agree that maybe cyclists don't need to pay road tax, but who else agrees that they should have, at least some form of insurance?? The number of times that i see (this is more than once a day) cyclists going straight through red lights, up on to pavements to avoid lights/junctions etc is appaling. I've seen cyclists soooo close to hitting children and i've seen cyclists hitting cars (whilst going through a red light), if the cyclist has no insurance then surely it falls to the driver/mother of now disabled child to pick up the bill for the stupid behavior on the cyclists part? Even more so, imagine how a driver would feel if, in a worst case scenario he hit and killed a cyclist through no faulut of his own?!


I personally would do everything possible to avoid regulating cycling. Few enough things are free in this world!
I would just like to see less of an 'us and them' culture.

That means motorists giving cyclists room and cyclists not being militant about motorists needs to get to work like everyone else.

I also differentiate between weekend club cycling, where I am more than happy to add a little time to my journey to wait to pass a group of cyclists. Conversely, on busy routes during the commute, I'd like cyclists to show consideration and not ride side by side as I sometimes see.

I've stated before on here, mostly, this IS what I see. But obviously the motorist will remember the bad cyclist and vice versa.

In fact I see more aggression on this thread than I see on the roads. As a motorist and when I'm on the bike.

Mike Stretford - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to kerry cooper: I don't think it's a goer

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2685

It would be a nightmare to enforce and an all round pain... might all but kill off casual cycling.

I am thinking out loud here but I think I court can award and pay damages, then claw this back from the offender (cyclist in this case). I would have thought this is practical for the small number of incidents caused by cyclists but not for motorists.
Ramblin dave - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to kerry cooper:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) I agree that maybe cyclists don't need to pay road tax, but who else agrees that they should have, at least some form of insurance?? The number of times that i see (this is more than once a day) cyclists going straight through red lights, up on to pavements to avoid lights/junctions etc is appaling. I've seen cyclists soooo close to hitting children and i've seen cyclists hitting cars (whilst going through a red light), if the cyclist has no insurance then surely it falls to the driver/mother of now disabled child to pick up the bill for the stupid behavior on the cyclists part? Even more so, imagine how a driver would feel if, in a worst case scenario he hit and killed a cyclist through no faulut of his own?!

The last figures I've seen are:
Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

which suggests that if your goal is to reduce the number of pedestrians getting killed or seriously injured on our roads, then cracking down on dangerous cycling, forcing cyclists to get insurance etc is probably a massive waste of time and money. The most likely effect would be to significantly decrease the number of people on bikes and increase the number of people in cars, which isn't particularly good news for pedestrians anyway.

dissonance - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:

> I do have insurance.

yup so do I and so a lot of peeps i know through their memberships of the various cycling bodies.
Given that figures range from about >10% upwards of car drivers dont have insurance i wouldnt hold up much hope of it being enforceable though.

cousin nick - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to hedgepig:

Yesterday morning's ride in rural Cornwall:

8 riders in a single line on 2 lane B-road with clear vision ahead. All sensible car drivers slow down and wait at the rear of the 'peloton' for a break in oncoming traffic, then overtake and pass. We acknowledge their courtesy with a friendy wave.

Then arrives a BMW X5 driven by a tw@t! Starts to overtake the line of cyclists in clear view of oncoming traffic, then 'makes a hole' by pulling left towards the hedge. 2 riders off, 1 buckled wheel, thankfully no injuries. As soon as she could carry on, the X5 'kicked down' and continued, clearly unconcerned!

N
adame - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

Hmmm, lot's of opinions here. The fact of the matter is that a tw*t is a tw*t regardless of whether they are driving a car/lorry/bus, riding a motorbike/cycle or walking. It is not accurate or fair to brand a certain group as better or worse than others. When I am out on my bike, I occasionally have run-ins and in my mind, I have a list of usual suspects. This is probably inaccurate, as the aforementioned tw*t doesn't only drive one brand of car or whatever. To start a witch hunt only serves to preserve the feeling of hostility between groups. As has already been said, we all have to share the roads and that is not going to change. For me, the key here is respect for other road users. The car driver should respect the cyclist right to be on the road and not pass within 1mm or force him/her into a ditch, just as much as the cyclist should respect that the car is a faster vehicle and try not to deliberately impede its progress.

As a cyclist, I have taken what I learned riding a motorbike and applied it to riding my cycle. I feel that it has contributed significantly to my safety while out riding. The main thing is to assume other road users haven't seen you and act accordingly. One of the main things I do is ride well away from the kerb. This ensures that I can be clearly seen, it make me slightly wider, which discourages other road users from trying to "squeeze" past and it gives me some survival space to use on the occasion that I encounter said tw*t above. Finally, have you seen the road surfaces near the kerbs in West Berks? I am sure they breed pot holes there!

As for riding 2 abreast. This is totally unacceptable in my option. Why another cyclist would give away the wheel of the leader, in favour of riding alongside simply does not compute! I would pull them over and immediately batter them with a copy of the cycling rules! ;o)
EeeByGum - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

> I personally would do everything possible to avoid regulating cycling. Few enough things are free in this world!
> I would just like to see less of an 'us and them' culture.

Is that not rather contradictory? "They" in their cars are heavily regulated whilst "we" on our bikes are not. Us and them by another term.

> That means motorists giving cyclists room and cyclists not being militant about motorists needs to get to work like everyone else.

So whilst "we" continue to be unregulated, you want "them" to be even more regulated by being forced to give us more room on the roads.

If you want cyclists to remain unregulated I think you are going to have to cope with the status quo. Car drivers ain't going to change their attitudes if we aren't prepared to become more accountable.
Timmd on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)

> If you want cyclists to remain unregulated I think you are going to have to cope with the status quo. Car drivers ain't going to change their attitudes if we aren't prepared to become more accountable.

If that is true, how do other countries manage to be more cyclists friendly without having more regulation for cyclists than we have?
jonnie3430 - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to adame:
> (In reply to mountainsheep)
>
> Finally, have you seen the road surfaces near the kerbs in West Berks? I am sure they breed pot holes there!
>
I know that you shouldn't have to report potholes to get them filled in, but at present no-one else is so get on it! There is a fair amount of satisfaction in riding over a refilled pothole that you reported as well: http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/
Ramblin dave - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)

> So whilst "we" continue to be unregulated, you want "them" to be even more regulated by being forced to give us more room on the roads.

Despite the plague of speed-crazed scofflaw cyclists we're apparently suffering at the moment, cars are still responsible for the vast majority of deaths and serious injuries on the roads, so this doesn't seem unreasonable.

I'm all in favour of cyclists behaving more sensibly and responsibly and I try to behave sensibly and responsibly myself when I'm on a bike, but imposing draconian measures to force people to do this seems like a massive waste of resources that could be spent on dealing with stuff that actually causes harm rather than mild irritation, and is also likely to cause more harm than good in the bigger picture.
Wonko The Sane - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Despite the plague of speed-crazed scofflaw cyclists we're apparently suffering at the moment, cars are still responsible for the vast majority of deaths and serious injuries on the roads, so this doesn't seem unreasonable.
>

I would be interested to see a breakdown of these serious accidents to see what the split is in fault between cyclist and driver.

I do not think it is right that cyclists should have a right to tougher driving rules if it's shown that in fact, many cyclists are injured by cars through their own fault (and I've seen both at fault in accidents)

I am not suggesting the figures go one way or another. I said what I meant...... I'd be interested to know.

999thAndy on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Looking through a few of these http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/travel-transport/roads/transport-accidents-and-casualties it seems as if 'whose fault?' data are not recorded.
hedgepig - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to adame:
I do that. I ride in the car's line of sight. But when it comes to playing last-one-to duck-is-a-chicken in a head-on collision situation then I'm the chicken. He'd seen me. He didn't care if he killed me.
adame - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to jonnie3430: I wondered if someone would pick me up on this. I used pot holes as a blanket term for poor road surface. What I was actually referring to is sunken drains, broken & uneven surfaces and my personal bug bear which is road dressing which is a sticking plaster solution which quickly partially degrades leaving an extremely unpleasant surface to ride on.

I am not going to enter into the insurance argument as it is my personal opinion that insurance seems to be the answer to all of societies problems and only serves to promote a blame culture where lawyers get even richer. However, with regards to road tax. I know it has been comprehensively raped over the years, but the road tax fund is there to maintain the road network and (before the whole green movement) the amount of tax paid was proportional to the amount of damage the vehicle causes to the road network of a given period of time. This is the reason why lorries pay more than cars. I doubt that anyone in their right mind would ever argue that cycles causes any more than negligible damage to the road network.
adame - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to hedgepig:

> I do that. I ride in the car's line of sight. But when it comes to playing last-one-to duck-is-a-chicken in a head-on collision situation then I'm the chicken. He'd seen me. He didn't care if he killed me.

I would have also been the chicken in your situation. Sadly, this is one of those cases where you met a tw*t and no amount of roadcraft would have helped. My riding style helps me be seen and covers off the road users that haven't observed my presence. It doesn't help when you meet a tw*t. In that situation, the only thing that will save you is to be somewhere else.

I have had quite a few problems at chicanes in towns where it is my right of way but the oncoming driver completely ignores this. This is when riding out in the road helps a lot as it usually makes them think twice. I still do occasionally meet a tw*t, who tries to intimidate me out of the way. Those are the times when I wish I had a nail duck taped to the end of my shoe so I could vent my frustration with the cars paintwork.
Timmd on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
> [...]
>
> I would be interested to see a breakdown of these serious accidents to see what the split is in fault between cyclist and driver.
>
> I do not think it is right that cyclists should have a right to tougher driving rules if it's shown that in fact, many cyclists are injured by cars through their own fault (and I've seen both at fault in accidents)
>
> I am not suggesting the figures go one way or another. I said what I meant...... I'd be interested to know.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=in+collisions+between+drivers+and+cyclists+d...

I've seen 60% as how often drivers are seen by the police to be at fault in a few places, including about six or seven links down on this google page.
Timmd on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to adame:

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/delta-air-zound-3-rechargeable-air-horn-prod3/

This horn works surprisingly well at making motorists slow down, obviously it won't always, but it can work. 10/10 from me. (:-))
Timmd on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Timmd:

Or 65% in the next link down...
999thAndy on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Timmd:

In fairness that link was from the CTC! - I'm not saying that it's not accurate, but it's hardly disinterested.
Timmd on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:It's quoted as a police statistic in origion though.
EeeByGum - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I'm all in favour of cyclists behaving more sensibly and responsibly

But there-in lies the rub. Since when did any individual, group of individuals, body or group of bodies, organisation or group of organisations self regulate for the benefit of everyone within that area of interest? If the press can't do it, what chance have we cyclists got? Remember, it only takes one person to jeopardise the status quo for everyone else.
balmybaldwin - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to mountainsheep:

This may be of use:

http://tinyurl.com/y8ro4vb
(Government Reserach)
999thAndy on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to Timmd:
More digging reveals http://beta.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/boris-wildly-wrong-to-claim-23-serious-and-fatal-cycling-in...

Interestingly you are more likely to be at fault as a cyclist if you are either dead, or over 25.
EeeByGum - on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to 999thAndy: Politician in misquoting / making up statistics scandal - surely not?! :-)
999thAndy on 03 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum: Yes shocking esp. from Boris 'the biker' Johnson. It must have been all the years of political training overiding his better instincts
captain paranoia - on 04 Sep 2012
In reply to adame:

> Sadly, this is one of those cases where you met a tw*t and no amount of roadcraft would have helped.

How about lifetime driving bans for people found driving like tw*ts?

We're far too lenient in removing the privilege of a driving licence from people who main and kill through dangerous driving, or apparently don't care too hoots if they put someone's life at risk (cf the X5 driver above).

"My client needs a licence for his job, m'lud"
"Then he shouldn't have driven like a tw*t: lifetime ban"
gritman on 06 Sep 2012 - 95.148.107.57 whois?
Gordon Bennett..... Driving standards in our sceptred isle are poor and deteriorating as good driving is a devalued and underappreciated dynamic skill. Many drivers have poor awareness of other road users. Many cyclists have a poor and arrogant approach to road use as well and do the cause a great disservice with their ignorant behaviour in groups. If cyclists think they have a hard time, try being a motorcyclist and staying alive more than 5 years.Take responsibility for your own chioices and stop moaning that the world isn't the way you'd like it to be.
balmybaldwin - on 06 Sep 2012
JSA - on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I was in central london on wednesday, and I'm amazed at the number of cyclists who are desperate to become the next recipient of the Darwin award.
nufkin - on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to gritman:
> Gordon Bennett..... Driving standards in our sceptred isle are poor and deteriorating as good driving is a devalued and underappreciated dynamic skill. Many drivers have poor awareness of other road users. Many cyclists have a poor and arrogant approach to road use as well and do the cause a great disservice with their ignorant behaviour in groups. If cyclists think they have a hard time, try being a motorcyclist and staying alive more than 5 years.Take responsibility for your own chioices and stop moaning that the world isn't the way you'd like it to be.

I dunno - I reckon some people's driving standards are poor, but most people's are generally fine. It's just that you only notice when someone tries to kill you (whether you're o a bike or a motorbike), and you don't take into consideration all the other people who didn't.
balmybaldwin - on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to nufkin:

I think you are being over optimistic. Every day I commute in the car i see multiple examples of poor driving standards:

Using Mobile Phones
Blocking Yellow Box junctions
Forcing into traffic (rather than the more civilized filtering in turn)
Last minute lane changing to avoid queues (despite well signed lanes)
Agression from one driver or another
People sat in the wrong lane on dual carriageway
Tailgating

Most days I see:
Curbs being mounted as they can't possibly wait for the queue in front to move forward a foot
Jumping red lights
Larger vehciles bullying small vehicles (particularly Vans)
People completely ignoring blue light vehicles until they are right behind them
Cutting across to dual carriageway exits from the outside lane at the last minute
Undertaking


It's certainly not that everyone's standards have fallen, but certainly on my commute, these sort of actions have become more common in the last 10 years, and the frustration that these actions cause is clear to see.

I also see cyclists (and motorbikes) charge down gaps in between cars quite oblivious to the fact that the cars are swapping lanes (yes they should look, but as they don't notice my car they aren't going to see a bike), squeezing down the inside of lorries at junctions (suicidal).

When I commute by bike (which is once or twice a week at the moment) I take a different route down smaller roads, which are still quite conjested. Whilst most of the time people pass me reasonably safely, there is the odd one that squeezes me (generally though Its OK).
I see quite a lot of cyclists on this route, and despite the roads being perfectly fine to ride on and not fast (max speed limit is 40 and the road is slower) or busy 60% of the cyclists I see are on the pavements, often annoying pedestrians. And a significant number of cyclists seem intent on diving down the smallest gaps between cars, and can at times appear to be deliberatly annoying drivers.

Despite riding over 2000 miles this (rainy)summer I have only had 2 incidents of note on the bike:
1) while waiting at a red light (I always do) a car nudged my back wheel with his bumper. - It was accidental and at very slow speed, and didn't cause me any problem just a bit of a surprise - the driver was very apollegetic.
2) a pedestrian walked straight through a line of other pedestrians waiting for the pelican crossing to change straight into my path. fortunately I spotted she was about to do this and managed to slide to a stop only knocking into her gently (not enough to knock either of us over). She then started shouting and bawling at me until on of the other pedestrains at the crossing pointed out that there was a reason they were all standing there waiting to cross - the light was against them and there was traffic (me) coming.

I put down this lack of incidents to riding defensibly and courteously to other traffic (on 2 wheels or 4) and being visible rather than a cycling ninja.

Please don't read this as "I'm a perfect driver and cyclist and everyone else isn't" post, these are mere observations, and I'm sure others can make observations about my riding/driving.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not drivers Vs cyclists on the roads, it's a free for all at teh moment, with to many people unwilling to delay their joureney by a few seconds for the sake of being courteous to others. I have no idea what to do about it apart from be courteous to others, hoping that this rubs off on them and gradually we all improve
captain paranoia - on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I think you are being over optimistic.

Agreed. I'd estimate that 25% of drivers are mentally or temperamentally unfit to be driving.
Timmd on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to captain paranoia:
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> [...]
>
> Agreed. I'd estimate that 25% of drivers are mentally or temperamentally unfit to be driving.

I concur.
Timmd on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to nufkin:
> (In reply to gritman)
> [...]
>
> I dunno - I reckon some people's driving standards are poor, but most people's are generally fine. It's just that you only notice when someone tries to kill you (whether you're o a bike or a motorbike), and you don't take into consideration all the other people who didn't.

I agree with this also.
mark s - on 07 Sep 2012
In reply to Timmd: ive always given cyclists a wide birth,especially when i was an artic driver.ive recently started back on the road cycling again.ive noticed some do past with care,probibly other cyclists.
there are a few who get very close or totally dont give a shit you are there.
ive been told before i have a fire resistant fuse,but when its lit it burns quick.i can see myself doing something violent before too long,people who endanger your life through being reckless provoke these sort of reactions
chris j on 08 Sep 2012
In reply to captain paranoia:
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> [...]
>
> Agreed. I'd estimate that 25% of drivers are mentally or temperamentally unfit to be driving.

and another 50% are just rubbish at driving.
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Sep 2012
In reply to chris j:
> (In reply to captain paranoia)
> [...]
>
> and another 50% are just rubbish at driving.

Well I must be one of the remaining 25%.
Just look at my log ffs

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=102&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=593&tb...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.