/ The war on Britains roads

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Denni on 28 Nov 2012
On 5th December, cyclists and head cams everywhere!
Should be interesting...

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12892107&p=18007734
rocky57 - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:

Yep, should be quite interesting. However, echoing one of the comments on the link, the title is somewhat over dramatising and sensionalising it. Probably in an attemp to get teh viewing figures.

Noticed on that site that nearly all the posters tailed their post with what bikes/equipment they owned.


DMM Renegade
Beal Jokers 2
La Sportiva Miura Shoes
Dragon Cams full set
(Well why not? It might catch on.)
Denni on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to rocky57:

The advert I saw last night just looks like loads of angry people with head cams on antagonising each other.

Probably not going to be a true reflection as I think it is all London based.

toad - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to rocky57)
>
> The advert I saw last night just looks like loads of angry people with head cams on antagonising each other.
>
> Probably not going to be a true reflection as I think it is all London based.

I saw the trailer and my overwhelming feelings were depression/annoyance/resignation. I can't see this improving the situation for any road user one iota. Entrenched positions and tired tropes. Meh


PS
EBs
Whillans sit
Helly hansen fibrepile
etc etc

Enty - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to rocky57)
>
> The advert I saw last night just looks like loads of angry people with head cams on antagonising each other.
>
> Probably not going to be a true reflection as I think it is all London based.

This ^^^

E
sleavesley on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Denni)
> [...]
>
> This ^^^
>
> E

+1
Bruce Hooker - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Enty:

What does "This^^^" mean?


Frying pan
kettle
wheel-barrow
screw-driver.
Edradour - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> What does "This^^^" mean?
>

I reckon, and I could be way out on a limb here so reel me in if this is totally left field, that he is expressing agreement at the post above his. I deduce this from the arrows pointing to the post above and the use of the word 'this' which is usually used as a proximal demonstrative. This hypothesis is further enhanced by the use of the hieroglyph '+1" which, in this context, is used to indicate that the poster also subscribes to the point of view previously written.

Or it could all be a Tory conspiracy....

Bruce Hooker - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

OK, sort of shorthand for saying "I agree", ta.


tin opener
lawn mower
spanner
gaiters.
Toby S - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:

F*ck sakes who came up with that sensationalist title? Really helpful!

I seem to recall one of the researchers was on here a while back and she got panned for the program title.
pasbury on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:

A realistic program about my cycle commute in Bristol would be incredibly boring, consisting of many hours of perfectly straightforward pedalling with a (not very) near miss once every other day and running over a dog and eating tarmac once every 15 years.
Toby S - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to pasbury:

That sounds like mine in Inverness!
Scomuir on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:
I saw the advert for it last week, and my immediate reaction was "That's not going to help". May not be fair to base that judgement on a brief advert, but the title alone is enough to justify my concern, in my opinion.
Steve John B - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni: At least it will precipitate a rash of ignorant newspaper columns to complain about ;-)

You never know, it might be interesting despite the sensationalism. Swerving vans with no indicators versus red-light jumping men in lycra (why does the lycra bother people so much?) = WAR
mcdougal - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Steve John B:

I don't think that it's the lycra per se, more the lycra's visual effect when sported by the older gentleman of portly aspect.

Mankini
Tap shoes
Juggling balls
Darning wool
John Rushby - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:

I think a lot of the helmet cam types invite a lot of the shit upon themselves, then post it on Youtube.

I suspect this programme will be so polarised it won't add much.


Knuckle bones of St Barnabus
2 and a half pounds of lean mince
A 9 year old in a box in the cellar
two cartons of UHT milk
a pangolin
Hat Dude on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:

Wow really great idea!

Hook
Line
Sinker
Chris the Tall - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> I think a lot of the helmet cam types invite a lot of the shit upon themselves, then post it on Youtube.
>
You sound like John Cox

"M'lud I submit that this CCTV footage of the alleged burglary is proof that the homeowner was asking for it and the charges be dismissed. Along with the other 50 counts of supposed break-ins"

27 yards of Dental Floss
A Caravan in Zeal Monacorum
A Blues CD on the Hallmark label
A dodgy transformer
Guy - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Chris the Tall: I think Rubbishy is saying that a lot of the helmet cam footage looks like the riders push bad situations to show how bad the driver is where as a lot of other cyclists would have backed off the situation after realising the driver wasn't paying attention or being overly aggressive.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to rocky57:

Never mind the programme, the range of 'equipment' posters are using has given me the biggest laugh of the week on here...!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Irk the Purist - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Guy:

Quite, like the gentleman the other day who clearly predicted that I was going to pull out in front of him at a mini roundabout and promptly accelerated and cut the corner by going over the centre so he could beep his horn at me. He was already forming a post for his internet forum of choice, probably embelished with a load of self righteous hyperbole. Had he carried on at the speed he was going at and gone around the roundabout we could all have gone home safe in the knowledge that nothing happened.

Toby S - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Guy:

True, there's one chap who hollers and bellows at anyone who comes within a few feet of him regardless of speed and volume of traffic. He posts them all on YouTube and strikes me as being a bit hysterical.

2Kg Stornoway Black Pudding
March 1979 edition of Razzle
Collection of Rushby's belly button fluff
Cuddly toy
pasbury on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to mcdougal:
> (In reply to Steve John B)
>
> I don't think that it's the lycra per se, more the lycra's visual effect when sported by the older gentleman of portly aspect.
>

Especially if it's white. Especially especially if it's white and it's raining.


A full tank of gas
Half a pack of cigarettes
Sunglasses
rocky57 - on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Agreed. The Pangolin tops it for me.
Denni on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to rocky57:
> (In reply to Denni)

>
> DMM Renegade
> Beal Jokers 2
> La Sportiva Miura Shoes
> Dragon Cams full set
> (Well why not? It might catch on.)


Looks like you've started a craze!

Bit more info on programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p7q2l





Horatio on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to rocky57:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Yep, should be quite interesting. However, echoing one of the comments on the link, the title is somewhat over dramatising and sensionalising it.


It's not sensational, I'm taking a plank with a nail through it.
Orgsm on 29 Nov 2012
In reply to Denni:

Not sure this is going to help anyone, driver or cyclist. It uses emotive language, it shows angry people. Its about confrontation. It reinforces stereotypes and common fallacies. Maybe I'm wrong and the whole programme will be more balanced. I doubt it.

I have a very pleasant cycle commute. No shouting, no near misses, no angry people. Sure I get the odd beep, but rarely malicious and we all get along in a nice civilised manner. Maybe it because I have a naturally calm temperament and am both a car driver and cyclist.

I'm embarrassed at times by the debate being dominated by extremes of both sides. It only everyone was a bit more tolerant, bit more aware, bit more considerate towards different users on the roads. Mind you that'd be a bit of a boring message to broadcast wouldn't it.

To quote from a WWII message "keep calm and carry on"

I'll be out with my club on our weekly night ride to a country pub that night. But no doubt I'll record it, but I can see how it will be portrayed already, it also feels very "London Centric" which is very different to how the rest of us behave out there (driving or cycling"
Denni on 05 Dec 2012
In reply to A Game of Chance:

The war starts tonight at 9!!
Denni on 05 Dec 2012
In reply to Denni:

Here it goes!
dregsy - on 05 Dec 2012
In reply to Denni: The roads are filled with idiots, it's just the consequences that differ.
paulcarey - on 05 Dec 2012
In reply to dregsy:
I thought it was ok and pretty balanced.
The mum whose daughter died under the lorry was incredibly dignified and I take my hat off to her for getting the company to improve it's safety.
Orgsm on 05 Dec 2012
In reply to Denni:

I was out night riding in the Hertfordshire snow, any good?
marsbar - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Denni: Apparently stunt footage was used and not mentioned.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bbc-doc-portrays-dvd-stunt-cycling-footage-as-standard-behaviour/01...

marsbar

Big mug of tea
Dark chocolate Bounty
Ridge - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to marsbar:
> (In reply to Denni) Apparently stunt footage was used and not mentioned.

I'm finding it hard to get outraged by the use of 'stunt', (whatever that's supposed to mean), footage. The narrator said something along the lines of 'There's even a small number of dickheads deliberately riding like idiots and sticking the footage on youtube', which is exactly what they showed next. It certainly didn't portray it as common cycling behaviour.

Ridge
Sausage buttie
toad - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to marsbar)
> [...]
>
> I'm finding it hard to get outraged by the use of 'stunt', (whatever that's supposed to mean), footage. The narrator said something along the lines of 'There's even a small number of dickheads deliberately riding like idiots and sticking the footage on youtube', which is exactly what they showed next. It certainly didn't portray it as common cycling behaviour.
>
> Ridge
> Sausage buttie

Think this had been changed from the original preview copy released which the "cycling press" (who?) had seen and caused a lot of the initial internet meltdown. This (apparently) didn't stress it was dickwittery. Have to admit I haven't watched it yet - need to do the iplayer thing

Pickled newt eye
Astrolabe
Homunculus
Stuffed crocodile
MG - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to toad:

Marmite
Butter churn
Stripy cat
Yard stick
mariechen - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Denni:

Saw it last night - not as bad as it could have been but not really contributing much either. Anyone else find that cycling warrior kid really annoying?
ti_pin_man - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Denni: it was more balanced than the press said it might be and I thought it was quite accurate, kn0bs in cars, kn0bs on bikes. I was a bit disappointed the 'courier race' footage was used which really isnt how people ride normally in london. In my two years of cycling into the capital, I've been shouted at, had bottles thrown at me, been clipped and brushed by cars, had my hand lifted by somebodies wing mirror as they squeezed past me and seen people being knocked off bikes a few times. Its not for the feignt hearted, but despite the above its the best way to commute and most mornings you dont see anything like this, most mornings, its lovely bit of fresh air.

My own pet hates...
Cyclists without lights, or with really crap lights, this time of year get me very annoyed.
Cyclists on pavements are dumb unless its the only way to stay safe and sometimes its the only way to stay alive.
Cyclists undertaking large vehicles who might turn left is suicide unless you know the lights well enough to know you have plenty of time and the vehicle wont start moving and squish you.
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets, stupido. If you have to go up it, get off and walk it.
Running red lights is a fools game, altho I see more and more cars doing it these days and certainly see cyclists doing it. I've only done it at 7am on Richmond high street when the road was clear bar one pedestrian who had long crossed the road and was miles away (one way street, no traffic crossing, just pedestrian crossing - - France is apparently investigating allowing cyclists to filter right on red lights at certain junctions, it would be left here obviously).
Wearing headphones on a bike in London is a bit daft even if you can hear background noises. Phones on bikes is just plain stoopid.
Drivers are idiots trying to overtake cyclsits when they dont have the room, an assertive cycling position especially in narrow lanes is essential, the highway code advises a metre out from the curb which puts a cyclist in the same part of the road a passenger car seat is. If there isnt room dont overtake numpty.
Filtering between static traffic isnt illegal but needs to be done very carefully.

Rant rant rant ;0) Tongue in cheek but maybe I should buy a helmet cam and join the Urban Guerillas! lol. Mind, these days I go through more Royal parks than roads, so it'd be moslty the deer getting filmed.

As programs like this show, its time that some more money was spent on educating cyclcists and motorists alike and on infrastructure to make it safer for all.

Green tea and some porridge this morning.
ti_pin_man - on 06 Dec 2012
Martin W on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to ti_pin_man:

I agree with most of what you say, except:

> Cyclists on pavements are dumb unless its the only way to stay safe and sometimes its the only way to stay alive

If I choose to leave the carriageway and take to the footway, I become a pedestrian: I get off my bike and push it. It is illegal to ride on the pavement - see Highway Code rule 64: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

> Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets, stupido. If you have to go up it, get off and walk it.

Agree, as above. (Though I seem to recall being told way back when I was a nipper that it is technically an offence to push a bike the wrong way up a one-way street - but that may well be an urban myth.)

> the highway code advises a metre out from the curb

Although I think it would be very helpful if that advice was in the Highway Code - because having official sanction for the practice would be valuable - I can't find it anywhere in the online version. Can you provide a reference?
ads.ukclimbing.com
ti_pin_man - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Martin W:

So if a car/lorry / van moves into where I am cycling youre saying I shouldnt hop onto a pavement to stay alive, I should stay on the road and should wait to be squashed cos its illegal? Thats what I meant, not that cycling on the pavement should be used as a shortcut. I have myself been in this situation where a driver didnt check the blind spot and moved into the inside lane forcing me towards the curb, the only place I could go was the pavement to avoid being hit.

In all such instances, you as a human being have to take the action to stay safe as you see it. Hopefully you make the right decision.

Once you push a bike you become a pedestrian, pushing along a path is perfectly legal which is what I meant.

I'll post it up when I have time to dig it out.
ti_pin_man - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Martin W: I think this explains it better than I ever could:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/

Cyclists very often look to avoid pot holes and glass and road debris that floats into the gutter side of a road and some of the potholes are like grand canyons here in britain and its best to stay out from the curb, drivers usually then have to overtake you like they would a car, as they are supposed to. Assertive not aggressive.
Philip on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to ti_pin_man:
> (In reply to Martin W)
>
> So if a car/lorry / van moves into where I am cycling youre saying I shouldnt hop onto a pavement to stay alive, I should stay on the road and should wait to be squashed cos its illegal? Thats what I meant, not that cycling on the pavement should be used as a shortcut. I have myself been in this situation where a driver didnt check the blind spot and moved into the inside lane forcing me towards the curb, the only place I could go was the pavement to avoid being hit.
>
> In all such instances, you as a human being have to take the action to stay safe as you see it. Hopefully you make the right decision.
>
> Once you push a bike you become a pedestrian, pushing along a path is perfectly legal which is what I meant.
>
> I'll post it up when I have time to dig it out.

I think what he's saying is that if you're forced onto the pavement, you get off and push. Carrying on riding puts you in the same position as the car - a danger to other users.

In some areas the cycle path shares the path. When these were new (the only one I knew about at the time, about 20 years ago) I was almost knocked off my bike by an old bloke who tried to hit me with his walking stick for cycling on the pavement - he obviously didn't know it was a cycle path (and he wasn't in danger as he was in the pedestrian bit).

So really the only safe way is to follow the law yourself and be prepared for the stupidity of others.
ti_pin_man - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to Philip: I agreed above and as stated should only be a last resort to save your bacon :) Shared paths/cycle lanes are a whole other kettle of fish. lol. I use some in Kingston that arent very well marked and am not surprised by pedestrians get the hump, they cant barely see these are shared routes so the best thing is to ride slowly through looking ahead/left/right all the way. I'm not convinced they are always well designed even if they have good intentions.
paulcarey - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to ti_pin_man:
I agree with all of that.

The footage last night of a cyclist on a shared path/cycle route of hitting the pedestrian was pretty bad. I found myself thinking 'Where's your bell?' and 'slow down as you don't know what she is going to do!'.
Monk - on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to paulcarey:
> (In reply to ti_pin_man)
> I agree with all of that.
>
> The footage last night of a cyclist on a shared path/cycle route of hitting the pedestrian was pretty bad. I found myself thinking 'Where's your bell?' and 'slow down as you don't know what she is going to do!'.

Absolutely - that was totally the cyclist's fault. Pedestrians are inherently unpredictable and there is no way he should have been approaching at that speed. That is a perfect example of why I don't like the shared cycle/pedestrian paths - you just can't go fast on them most of the time.
Martin W on 06 Dec 2012
In reply to ti_pin_man:

> I agreed above and as stated should only be a last resort to save your bacon

OK, if that's what you meant (you didn't use the words "last resort" in the posting I replied to) then of course you take whatever avoiding action you need to. I was more picking up on your use of the words "unless its the only way to stay safe" - people use this line as an excuse for lots of illegal behaviour, particularly habitual red light jumping (which I realise you deprecate).

Actually I think Philip's response sums up what I was trying to get at better than me.

I also share the reservations both of you have expressed regarding shared cycle paths. I've been badly spooked by a cyclist skimming past silently and at high speed less than a foot from my shoulder on a shared use path. I'm always extremely careful about approaching pedestrians on shared use paths when I'm on my bike. (I have reservations about the use of a bell: some people seem to regard it as being aggressive, only a very few actually to appreciate it.) I'm even more careful if they have a dog, simply because dogs are even more unpredictable than people.

As someone who at times rides a bicycle, I do know about assertive road positioning. However, the article you linked to about road positioning is not a reference to the Highway Code, which is what I asked for. In fact the article specifically says: the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' aren't defined precisely in road traffic law or in The Highway Code. I think it would be helpful if the one officially sanctioned document which outlines regulations and best practices for all road users included that advice for cyclists, if nothing else so that cyclists can cite it in support of the practice when challenged by non-cyclists (who won't have read Cyclecraft, or be aware of the Bike Radar or CTC forums). I'd put forward as an example of what I mean the number of times on UKC that someone has claimed that cycling two abreast is illegal. The simple, unanswerable response is to point them at Rule 66. It is easy to infer from the Rule 67 that the secondary position is the minimum you should allow yourself to be satisfied with, but it doesn't explicitly state it.

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