UKC

They have a pretty bad attitude on the road, don't they? Every time I see a roadrage incident on my daily commute it invariably involves a cyclist and some other form of motorised transport. And I see quite a lot of incidents each week.

Also around where I am they treat the road like a race track - not to mention jumping red lights.

In reply to SARS:

0/10 must try harder

In reply to A Game of Chance:

Nah just a moan really. I ride a motorbike to work most days and have to put up with their obnoxious behaviors. Personally I just ignore them, because life's too short. But I'm not surprised there are so many cycling accidents - around here they treat it like a peloton.

In reply to SARS:

Yes agree with ya mate!!!

Like my son who was knocked of his bike by a car traveling in the same direction on a straight A class road in Lincs. Totalled his bike by overtaking to close and now the cars insurance company are refusing to talk to him and are/will not pay out and will call his bluff about suing them....

Yep cyclists are a real pain!!

In reply to bluebealach:

Sorry to hear about your son, but I'm glad you agree with me.

In reply to SARS: you are astonished that cyclists get angry when they are faced with dangerous driving on a daily basis? I find THAT astonishing

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Well what I see on a daily basis is cyclists riding dangerously. Much more so than other motor vehicles.

In reply to SARS:
Yes, but probably the cyclists who are getting angry aren't the ones who are riding dangerously, they're the ones who are doing their best to ride safely and are being endangered by the thoughtlessness of other road users...

In reply to SARS:

Other motor vehicles!? You seem confused.

In reply to The New NickB:


doesnt bode well for their observation skills does it?

In reply to dissonance:& The New NickB.

Couple of pedents*.

I cycle everywhere.

In reply to Timmd:
>

pedants

In reply to SARS:

It's London thing. But then there is a higher percentage of cocks down here generally.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Compare New York, which I expected to be far worse for that, but is actually an incredibly friendly but even more crowded place.

Even the Subway, compared with the hive of aggression that is the Tube, is that bit more civilised.

Neil

In reply to SARS:


Agreed. And I am a cyclist. I would even go as far as to say it was a majority that were inconsiderate of other road users. I am sorry to say that I included myself in that statement sometimes.

The cycling movement as a whole need a royal kick up the arse.

In reply to SARS:

Other "Motor" vehicles? are you confusing bikes with motorbikes?

In reply to doz generale:

I think that's already been spotted above...

In reply to EeeByGum:

Disagree, I find the worst behaviour is from motorists and any motorist v bike incident is usually because the motorist has been impatient and tried to squeeze past or generally act like an inconsiderate arse.

Even in the centre of civilisation (Inverness!) I regularly run the gauntlet of muppets who don't look or don't care. Last night I had a woman try and squeeze past me on a one-way street as I was about two bike lengths from a junction. She was going the same direction as me and she nearly forced me off the road. I held my ground though and told her she could bloody well wait her turn.

In reply to SARS:
You wouldn't happen to be one of those non-obnoxious motorcyclists that sit at junctions in the cyclist box would you? No, of course not.

And have you seen the moto-couriers these days? Just as bad, if not worse, than cyclists. But I guess you can't see them through your rouge tinted visor.

No you don't, you get angry - lighten up pal, let's all share the road and be happy.

Oh, that'll be me - it's great fun. How does riding in a peloton increase cycling accident rate?

In reply to SARS:

I cycle 8 miles to work and back most days...at 8 am there is very little consideration to the cyclist....same at 5.30 when people want to get home.

As a cyclist you have to second guess the car driver at all times.

I drive to work as well...I'm certainly more awake when cycling and therfore more alert to my surroundings!

Never been knocked off - but only as I'm so aware of the road and the people on it.

A lot of it comes down to the person, cycling or driving!

As for jumping lights, this is just stupid. 10 seconds before it changes does allow you to at least move before the cars incase of a wobble (clipping) But I would only do it if the road was clear and no peds!

In reply to Toby S:

I suspect that it varies depending upon location. Where I live in London there are huge numbers of cyclists commuting to work. I see the same guys often and there's all the stereotypes. Amongst the worst, for example, are the ultra fit road racers who overtake all the slower cyclists and move without warning into the middle of the lane from the LHS as they do, and then skip lights to keep going.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

No actually, I don't use cycle lanes or cycle boxes at the lights. Sure, sometimes I get caught out by light changes and might end up in a box - but I make an effort to keep out of cycle areas.

Sorry to disappoint you but I actually ride pretty calmly. The day I don't is the day I sell my bike.

In reply to SARS:
Great, I'm impressed - most of the space is often taken up by motors (bikes, cars and vans)
I'm not disappointed, actually I'm pleased. I wish more bike and car/van/bus drivers had your take on it. On the same note, I wish more cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, and adhere to the highway code.

In reply to SARS:

The minority of cyclists behave inconsideratley, which is accpetable. The majority wear lurid lycra, which isnt

In reply to SARS:

Last near miss on my bike was when I was nearly run down by a cyclist going through a red light while I was crossing a light controlled road crossing point on a cycle path. Had he hit me it would have made a great photo...

In reply to SARS:
There are cocks who ride bikes, motorbikes, drive cars, vans and trucks. There are also all the above who consider other road users. Such is life..

In reply to SARS:

Yawwwwnnnnn...

I'm a cyclist, (or was, wouldn't go near a road now!), and I've had to bang on several windows before to stop people knocking me off.

There is a minority of cyclists who behave like scum, just as there are a minority of drivers who behave like scum, the big issue is that there is a MASSIVE number of drivers who are simply switched off and drive on autopilot, and just don't see you.

When a scumbag cyclist meets a scumbag driver, it gets in the news and on youtube and on the telly, whereas if a decent, hardworking cyclist gets knocked off by a very apologetic driver who just didn't see them, it never gets on the news. Cyclist still gets mullered in both cases though.

If the sleepy drivers would just be a bit more switched on, I'd have never had an incident on the road. I've never had a problem with road rage, it's always just been some dopey old sod who hasn't seen me.

Like I said, I don't go near roads any more if I can avoid them, it's not worth it. I'll walk or take the bus.

In reply to SARS:

I saw a cyclist knocked over on Green Lanes in North London this morning, poor guy.

Car turning left off Green Lanes without indicating.

In reply to Jus:

could have been me if I had left home a bit earlier!

In reply to SARS:

I think London's a special case, by virtue of the volume of traffic and increasing number of cyclists. There are idiots - for example, a group of cyclists (an informal peloton if you wish) were waiting at the ligts when another came blasting through. There was an mutter from most, followed by a sharp intake of breath as he nearly got mullered by a bus and a tipper, followed by a few choice terms of endearment.

I don't jump lights. I might go early on a pelican crossing when the pedestrian is clear. I might go early on a T-junction if Im travelling in line with the kerb and there's no traffic with right of way.

I overtake slower cyclists - that involves pulling out, but I look first. Strange how many cars (or indeed coaches) will insist on forcing past even if you're indicating, and how many would rather run you into the back of a parked car instead of letting you pull out to pass it. That's inconsiderate at best, oblivious - perhaps; aggressive - mostly.

In reply to SARS:

I cycle commute daily and each day become a little bit more bitter and angry with car drivers.

I'm staggered by the amount of people who beep at me and drive aggressively/dangerously despite me following the highway code to the letter. i'd say on my daily commute (10 miles) once or twice a day I have to adjust my speed/direction to avoid a collision. I've never forced a car to do this. It's the assumption that somehow cyclists are second class citizens and don't deserve to use the road. My current habit is to sit up and cycle no handed to allow the flipping of the double bird =)

As the roads in the UK (or in Bristol where I live) are so un-cycle friendly I totally sympathise with any vigilante cyclists. No one is looking out for you, so you have to look out for yourself.

oh. This mornings cycle event happened at a pelican crossing. As I approached the crossing the lights started flashing amber and the cars starting moving forward, the crossing was clear so I continued at my speed. Suddenly a father grabs his sons hand and tries to run across the road. All the cars stop half way across the junction. I spot him and throw down the anchors. I come to a (butt clenching emergency) stop before the junction and just in front of him. He starts shouting at me and tries to punch me. Cue: double bird.

In reply to SARS:

Question for cyclists - Disclaimer - I know you have a right to be on the road and i'm not having a go I'm just trying to understand.

On my drive to and from work I drive along a single carriageway A road with a 50 mph speed limit, but the average speed is probably closer to 55 (i know I know). Its a very busy main arterial way with few straights so overtaking on this road is almost always out of the question.

Quite often there will be cyclists on the road and I get stuck behind them. Now I'll give them space and sit back (I'm such a great guy) but its not a little annoying.

Now for my question - a cycle path which is part of the national cycle network runs the entire length of this road. Why would a cyclist want to cycle on such a dangerous road when there was a cycle path that runs alongside it? As said before i'm not saying anyone should have to ride on the cyclepath idf they want to ride on the road i just dont know why they want to.

In reply to Kemics:

Sorry mate, but a lot of drivers in Bristol have that attitude to everything else on the road, be it car, bike, unicycle (there's at least one about), pedestrian or beast. As a cyclist, you're just much more vulnerable.

Also, the roads in Bristol are ridiculously car unfriendly too. There are just too many people on the roads, and the result is impatient idiots decide they would rather endanger someone else's life than have to alter their speed, direction or anything else.

I would cycle, if Bristol was flat. Or better still, downhill in every direction.

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Probably the most hurt I've been recently was on an off-road cycle path that was part of the national cycle network - a tree root had pushed up a few inches through the surface and I hit it at speed becaue I'd been assuming that, y'know, the path wouldn't have a few inches of tree root poking up through it.

You generally have to move a lot more slowly on off-road paths because you can trust the surface a lot less... also they have an annoying habit of either turning into "shared use" pavements, where you have trouble going above walking pace, or having to give way every time a sideroad joins. In general, if they aren't well designed and well looked after, they can be a complete pain in the arse to use, particularly if you normally cycle fairly fast.

Alternatively, they're just a bit dim. It does happen.

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Quite often cycle lanes are very poorly maintained with a lot of pot holes. Many of them are actually quite bike unfriendly. Obviously i do not know if this is the case with your path.

In reply to the sheep:

i cycle it myself recreationally with my niece and there area few potholes and overhanging branches but i would have thought the risk/feeling of personal safety would still tip it in the cycle paths balance.

i guessed this might be the case but just wondered if anything i was missing.

In reply to Toby S:

Yes, that happens. But look at any cycling Youtube video where there are many cyclists and majority will jump the red lights. This is consistent with my own observations. You also see a lot of cyclist riding without or with inadequate lights. Only today a cyclist jumped the curb and then rejoined the road without looking (I had to swerve to avoid).

All of this is common place and certainly doesn't endear anyone to our cause. It is no wonder car drivers have a pop once in a while. There are certainly one or two maverick drivers, but the majority (certainly in Manchester) are considerate and generally give way to cyclists. This not the case for the majority of cyclists I see out and about.

In reply to nickyrannoch:


Why would a cyclist want to cycle on such a dangerous road when there was a cycle path that runs alongside it? As said before i'm not saying anyone should have to ride on the cyclepath idf they want to ride on the road i just dont know why they want to.



Does it matter why they want to? The fact is they're there.

Would you ask the parallel question about the cars that are on the road?

In reply to EeeByGum:

If you'd just nearly been killed by someone pulling out of a sideroad without looking, would you think "well yeah, but some cyclists jumped a red light earlier so I don't really mind nearly dying"?

In reply to nickyrannoch:

I think its the bit about proper cyclists (not me) being able to go faster on the road, so deciding they want to cycle on that instead. Cycle paths are only a recent thing in these parts (like TV and that broadbandy thingy) and so are lovely and pothole free, yet many still choose to cycle right beside them on the busy road.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Tak a chill pill Tim

If they are there - no it doesnt matter i will treat them with due respect as a fellow road user as i'm sure I mentioned above.

No i wouldnt ask a car user the same question as the car can only go on the road. there is no alternative, far less a safer (to my previously discosed - ignorant mind)alternative available to that car user.

As a man from my neck of the woods you'll know the stretch the A85 from invergowrie to Dundee along Riverside.

Would also add there are many many cyclists who do use the cycle path. Hence my curiosity.

In reply to EeeByGum:


you dont think some confirmation bias and source selection might be coming into play?
Luckily there has actually been a proper study carried out (only one i believe).
They found 84% of cyclists obeyed the lights.

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/4756/cycling/stats-red-lights/

The figures on pedestrians injured is also rather telling. Now of course there will be a bias caused by the increased risk of harm but it shows where the effort should be directed.


actually its bizarre. It might be understandable if all car drivers obeyed the laws perfectly but since they dont.

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Also the road surface is generally flatter and smoother enabling cyclists to travel faster. Certainly if i travel purely on the roads on my commute it takes around 5 mins less than if i take the cycle paths. However I invariably choose the path as its a nicer ride, only using the roads when the weather dictates.

In reply to nickyrannoch:

I have a few that I studioulsy avoid - follows:

Wide 50 mph road and good cycle path. No way to get onto it without stopping on a roundabout, dismounting, getting on. It then goes in a different direction to the road. It rejoins near a roundabout, but round a blind bend. The configuration forces another dismount and a standing start out of the sight line. The alternative is to blast down hill at 30mph and away. This bit of raod is actually the safest of my whole commute. Doesn't stop the pious tooting though.

Road with traffic calming measures. These are bypassed by short cycle lanes, which then feed you straight back into the path of traffic which is forced to converge with you by the traffic calming measures. Google 'Cycle facility of the month' in which this one features (Merton).

Several others have bollards, signs and junction boxes and are ill-lit.

One very quite lane which is part of my cycle route was recently 'improved' by savage speed bumps. Despite a request, they refused to make any provison for cyclists.

The only cycle lanes that I regularly use are the ones in London - the one along Millbank being particularly fine, albeit rather slippery. Shame about Vauxhall and Vauxhall Bridge to get to it though.

'Cycle facility of the Month' is fabulous though http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

It tells you all you need to know about why people don't use cycle lanes. Bear in mind that somebody actually went to the trouble of creating these and put their pens and tools down at the end and said to themselves 'Cracking job, that. That makes things so much better'.

In reply to nickyrannoch:


as others have said. Cycle lanes are often poorly maintained, the local sustrans track i would be wary taking the road bike down since i kinda like have round wheels.
In winter there is the additional factor of them not being gritted, depending on surface this can make them a nightmare.
Then you also have the entrance/exit. it might be puts people out onto the road in a dangerous manner. Some near me seem designed by a personal injury law/body shop repair manager.

Lastly some people will take the position that separating out the cyclists is detrimental overall to cyclists. There is a case to be made around familiarity instead of breeding contempt gives greater safety.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Doh! That's pretty funny. ()

(But what's happened to my spelling?)

In reply to SARS:

thanks for all replies. All makes a lot more sense now.

In reply to nickyrannoch:


It would depend on the way the person cycles.

I cycle up a hill every day, with a cycle path. I use the road. The cycle path is on the other side of the road from where I come in and where I am going, and is very busy, so it takes a while to cross over and back. Also, the cycle path doesn't get snow cleared from it and doesn't get gritted. It has quite a lot of pedestrians wearing headphones, who walk in the middle and don't hear me. I come down a hill, so if I stay on the road i can use my momentum to go up the hill, whereas if I use the cycle path, I have to stop dead, cross the road, then start up hill from being stopped.

Other people use the cycle path. They may be more scared of the traffic than me, or may arrive from the other side of the road.

In reply to nickyrannoch: You may be interested in this summary of a DfT consultation. The 6th point suggests that if you're travelling quickly (>30kph/18mph) you should be on the road rather than a cycle path. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultat...

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Does the cycle path have to give way to lots of intersecting side roads?

Is it covered in leaves/ gravel/ broken glass?

Is it hard to get on / off?

These are pretty conclusive reasons for not using a lot of cycle patsh that run alongside roads

In reply to SARS:



Depending on which statistic you look at, motorcyclists are at least a few dozen times more likely to have/cause/be killed in an accident.

Troublemakers for the most part!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety

BW

In reply to nniff:
h.


Thanks for that, had a good giggle! Really doesn't make me feel any better about paying council tax :P

In reply to Kemics:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/December200...

The cycle lane in Merton to which I referred - not so much a cycle lane as a pull in and stop lay-by. I did get roundly abused and harried by a mad woman for not using it. There are more of them uphill from there - it's a 26mph stretch of cycling in a 30mph zone. The woman in question actually forced her way past in the 'calming measure' itself and then stopped 100m down the road to let a car pull in from a t-junction on the right, so I had to stop for her. I then caught her at the lights again, and paased her and left her behind in the traffic. What is it about dual standards that she would voluntarily stop for a car that didn't have right of way 10 seconds after barging past a cyclist?

In reply to SARS: I cycle to work every day and have done for the last 20+ years. I don't jump red light, go on the pavement etc etc and deplore cyclists who do. I make as much use of quieter roads as I can, but also want to cycle at a good speed so don't obsessively seek them out.

My Monday morning cycle ride - in Bristol, already mentioned by a couple of people for it's charming driving:

50 yards from my house, I wait to turn right out of a side road. A 20 something youth in a white van shoves up on my inside then forces his way across the busy main road at high speed. A mile further on I spot him stuck in a traffic jam, and decide to prudently avoid by going down a side street.

A bit further on, I'm cycling across a roundabout. A large middle-aged woman with presumably a school run kid in the passenger seat comes out of the left hand turn of the roundabout, straight across in front of me. I'm dressed in dayglo yellow and it is perfectly light - did she not see me or could she just not give a rats arse?

Now approaching work, I'm going along a main-ish road, indicating to turn right down a side-street. A car waiting to turn right from the side-street starts to pull across in front of me. I should 'No - Wait!' and he does. I then think maybe I shouldn't have shouted so stop to apologise and explain that given the other 2 incidents I'm feeling a tad jumpy. I didn't even have chance to open my mouth - he's out of his car and bellowing a stream of filthy abuse at me fit to burst his lungs. My 'sorry' dies on my lips and I decide to leg it.

Finally at work, I wonder why the hell I cycle!

In reply to SARS: I wave my hand and say thanks whenever anyone gives me any sort of consideration on the road, I also take note of what's behind me and pull in when I'm obviously holding traffic up. When I get pulled out on (broken finger, mashed front wheel near Kings Cross) or cut up (straight over the bonnet of a 4x4 on Kings Road) however I tell them what I thnk about their driving. When people are inconsiderate to you daily and you've had close calls a plenty you do tend to get a bit defensive.

In reply to SARS: On- off cycle commuter in Newcastle, London, Leeds and Bradford for the last 20 years.I'm absolutely convinced that people's behaviour has deteriorated. I have an encounter withdangerous driving when on the bike every week at least. The consequences are so much graver when I;m on the bike, I'm sure I'm more defensive than when driving. It's not a matter of cycling militancy- it's a matter of survival, pure and simple.

In reply to SARS:

I reckon part of the problem is that cyclists occupy a vague area between pedestrians and motor vehicles - all the mobility of someone on foot, and the assumption that they can safely occupy the same space, combined with - in town at least - a pretty much equivalent speed to lots of the motor traffic.
This leads, I think, to cyclists doing things like jumping lights, riding on the pavement and going against one-way streets, because they could easily do the same thing if they got off and pushed, but obviously it's quicker to stay on the bike.

There's also the fact that cycling takes effort, and gets the blood going, which probably results in a less relaxed approach to events.

I'm not saying all this justifies bad behaviour, but maybe explains some of it.

I cycle a fair bit for commuting purposes, and have to say that for the most part motorcyclists (on proper motorbikes - scooters are a different matter) are quite far down my list of likely hazards. They usually give plenty of room, and I don't mind them being in the bus lanes or the advanced boxes, which I actually thought they were allowed to use now anyway.

In reply to SARS: crap attempt at a wind up
im a cyclist and a car driver
if someone uses the size of the car to bully me or risk my life,im more than willing to use my size to do the same back to them if they want an argument.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Pendants more likely.

In reply to nniff and others:

So all in all local councils would be better not to spend money on cycle lanes then? They could spend it on training programs for the minority of aggressive anti social cyclists, train them to stop for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings, for example?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No, people in general would be better accepting that cycle lanes aren't a one-size-fits all solution. A cycle lane that suits a small child going down the road to the playground is almost by definition a bad place for someone who wants to commute 15 miles to work at a reasonable speed...

They'd certainly do well to concentrate on cycle lanes that actually improve safety rather than banging in loads that are useless or dangerous in order to be seen to be doing something or to hit the quota that gets them a subsidy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, but ones for aggressive anti-social road users of all kinds would be a great idea.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


possibly. There are fairly good arguments both ways with regards to cycle segregation.
One thing is certain though there is a decent proportion of cycle lanes built which are an absolute waste of money, at best not improving things (for anyone) and at worse actively making the roads/pavements more dangerous.
See those examples on the link above, while some are amazing stupid others you could find cases of all over the place (there is one at the end of my road, which lasts for about 2m on the pavement before lobbing the person back on the road. handy).


they could. However looking at the stats the money would be better spent targeting car drivers if you want to get value for money.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well yes but it only seems to be the cycling variety that complain on these threads... they clearly are calling for help.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not necessarily - some are good, but they are not always suited to all cyclists. The one along Millbank is great - it's wide, it's f......ff blue and it goes in the right direction.

Half the time they seem to be designed by people with absolutely no grasp of the principles involved at all. The Cycle facility of the month site shows what lamentable, useless and downright dangerous things a lot of them are.

Advance stop lines are good, but only when the road is wide enough to let you reach the front! The reason most people jump lights or go early is to get that bit of extra time to clip pedals in and get going before the cars go thundering past, or turn left across you, or mow you down as you try to turn right.

For what it's worth, this morning I watched a car a little in front of me stop as the lights turned red at a single track humpback bridge. The car behind that pulled out to overtake it and jump the lights. It's not only cyclists who jump red lights.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
>
You mean other legitimate users of the cycle lane might hold you up, slow you down, prevent you going as fast as you want? Chill out and wait a bit.

In reply to nniff:


They are designed by people who are simply adhering to the cycle standards that were created by people who don't know anything about cycling.

All new developments that involve any form of modifying the existing road network must provide cycle facilities, but only in the area that is impacted, hence the occurrence of 2m stretches of cycle lanes or lanes that serve no useful purpose. What is useful for cyclists is not even considered. It is just a box that has to be ticked by the developer.

Bear in mind that cycle lanes are notorious for left turning drivers taking out cyclists riding along them. The one that runs from Tavistock Square - Tootenham Court road and into Marylebone is a nightmare in particular.

Jason McIntyre was using a cycle path when he was killed, a point worth remembering.

They are really only useful for kids and the elderly. Anyone who uses a bike to commute is better on the road, and anyway, as tax payers, cyclists have every right to use the road and be treated (and treat others) with the same courtesy and respect.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Perhaps he refers to segregated systems like the Dutch ones or the Milton Keynes Redways, which suit a "fast walking pace on a mountain bike or hybrid" type cyclist wishing to do short distances at about 10mph, but not at all (due to bends, sightlines and give-ways, as well as bumps in the surface) someone wishing to ride a road bike a long distance at 20mph and above.

The MK system suits me perfectly, being someone who rides a low-speed hybrid as a means of getting around short distances as a healthier alternative to car travel, but I understand why it doesn't suit everyone. But as it's legal in the UK not to use the cycle lane if you do not wish to, such cyclists tend just to use the road anyway.

Neil

In reply to SARS: Are these fat/lazy/burden-on-the-tax-system/road-wearing-down/burden-on-the-NHS/selfish/jeremy-clarksons for real or are you just saying things to wind people up?

Try this, anyone driving a car is a potential murderer, has a weapon deadlier than a handgun at his disposal after passing a very simple test which he never has to repeat in his life. Anyone in a car hitting a cyclist should be done for attempted murder. You know a car can EASILY kill people you drive into, just as a gun you point and shoot at people can easily kill them. The two actions are the same. There should be a blanket 15mph speed limit for motor vehicles on any road which may be shared with pedestrians or cyclists.

In reply to John Rushby:

"They are really only useful for kids and the elderly"

I think that's extreme. They (on the Dutch model) suit most people who are not wearing lycra on a fast road bike, as it were. In London, probably good for your Brompton or Boris Bike rider, but not so much for someone who rides in from the suburbs.

Personally I like the safe feeling of the segregated Dutch or Redway systems, even if they aren't the most effective or fastest way to travel.

Neil

In reply to nickyrannoch: I don't know if it's the same in your area as it is in mine but cycle lanes in Hull tend to be either marked along the side of the road or a portion of the footpath.

When out cycling I'm normally travelling at approx 20mph so for me I prefer to be travelling on the road, in the same direction as the traffic with everybody following the highway code, to varying degrees. Rather than trying to dodge pedestrians who could be either walking towards me or away from me, blissfully oblivious to my approach, often with a dog on an extending lead.

Also, pedestians seem to view cyclists with even more distain than drivers, even when you are on a cycle track. It's amazing how wide two pedestrians can make themselves when they realise a bike is coming up behind them and trying to get passed.

On the cycle track around Ladybower Resovoir there are signs asking cyclists to show respect to pedestrians. Shouldn't the sign just as all track users to respect each other?

Rany over.

In reply to adsheff:

"Anyone in a car hitting a cyclist should be done for attempted murder"

Utter nonsense. Murder requires an intent to kill. If you deliberately drive a car into someone with the intent to kill them, murder is indeed the appropriate charge. I'm sure that has been applied before.

If a cyclist is killed by accident or through incompetent driving, it is manslaughter/causing death by dangerous/careless driving. If not, the appropriate ABH/GBH should be applied, no?

Over-emotional views like this don't help.

"There should be a blanket 15mph speed limit for motor vehicles on any road which may be shared with pedestrians or cyclists."

This one I don't get. Why are frustrated, crawling motorists less of a threat than ones that at, say, 30mph, can get past and out of the way?

Neil

In reply to alan1961:

Here's the Redway Code, the Council's set of (unenforceable, sadly) rules for the use of the MK Redway system. It is balanced in the way you imply.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/oubug/information/redwaycode.htm

Neil

In reply to EeeByGum:


Ah. That would explain this local triumph of urban planning

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/December201...

It's even better with a car parked in the bay in front.

In reply to SARS:
you'll be pleased to hear, there's a website just for you http://www.youdrive.org.uk/

quite remarkable.

In reply to Neil Williams:

You're right, but London and UK cities don't accommodate the Dutch ior Danish designs, so the compromise it something narrow, slippy and filled with bottles/ pot holes/ turning cars / texting offcie juniors wearing Ipods.

Brompton - ha - I got sand bagged by a Brommie on my commute into Leeds a few weeks ago. The bloke on it had calves like Cancellera though!

In reply to John Rushby:


Just back from Denmark and that clearly isn't the case if a) they are well designed and b) both cyclists and drivers (and pedestrians) respect the rules of the road. a) requires money b) is harder and requires a change in attitude from drivers and cyclists.

However careful and responsible people are, having cyclists and traffic on the same piece of tarmac is going to lead to cyclists getting killed. Cycling in traffic is risky and cyclists generally screaming at drivers to be more careful won't change that all that much.

In reply to MG:

The thing I really hate in London is riding in bus lanes. Cyclists and buses are fundamentally incompatible.

Cyclists wish to move at a constant, lower speed, whereas buses alternate between being stationary and moving at a higher speed. The average speed of both is similar. Thus, there is repeated overtaking back and forth, much more so than if the bus were a car.

This is one reason I favour a Dutch-style arrangement which places cyclists away from buses.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Buses are also big and are even more likely to kill cyclists if they hit them than cars. In London they are also generally driven very aggressively.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:
Yeah, I think someone once said that a bus and cycle lane makes about as much sense as a hedgehog and HGV lane...

In reply to SARS:

On the days I cycle all motorists are dicks

On the days I drive all cyclists are dicks

Saying that though cyclists are the most unpredictable group of road users. Motorists generally follow rules and if you see a car/motorbike/wagon etc etc etc in position x highway code dictates that the vehicle will normally (emphasis on normally) do maneuver A. Cyclist may be in position x but they may do maneuver ABCD etc etc at any given time with no prior notice.

The amount of cyclists I see by my way cycling straight on in filter lanes etc causing motorists to slam on is beyond a joke. The cyclists I was behind yesterday doing 6mph on a national speed limit road deserved to lose his bike. Single lane each way so no over take possible.

In reply to Alan M:

"The amount of cyclists I see by my way cycling straight on in filter lanes etc causing motorists to slam on is beyond a joke. The cyclists I was behind yesterday doing 6mph on a national speed limit road deserved to lose his bike. Single lane each way so no over take possible."

Nobody should be "slamming on" anything unless their observation skills are poor or they are cut up, regardless of the speed of another vehicle.

Neil

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Quite. It's the biggest reason I don't cycle as much in London as I would like to.

On a dual carriageway, to me, the lane arrangement cycle-general-bus-central reservation-bus-general-cycle (with the cycle lane possibly replaced with a wide general traffic lane if preferred) makes more sense to me. You get this in Germany but rarely in the UK.

Buses are accessed at stops "inside" the central reservation by way of pedestrian crossings at the traffic lights, which to avoid people running out into the road could be defaulted to red for the road/green for the pedestrians if a bus was detected approaching.

This has the further advantage of buses not driving in the gutter, bumping down grids and hitting trees.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

On this junction 4 different roads merge in to one junction 3 of the roads 40mph dual carriageways. The way the filter lights work is that the cars in the filter lane coming from the south can filter onto the west bound road at the same time as the vehicles coming from the east. The cars from east go staright across the junction east to west etc the cyclists from the south use the filter lane but instead of filtering to the west will go straight on. The vehicles coming from the east have limited view and when they are doing 30/40mph being surprsied by a cyclist results in slamming of brakes. No amount of good observation will help here the vehicles/cyclists from the south should no be there period. If you are inthe filter lane you should go filter West not straight on.

In reply to Alan M:

The cyclists [sic] I was behind yesterday doing 6mph on a national speed limit road deserved to lose his bike. Single lane each way so no over take possible.


Oh, poor you. Must have cost you all of two minutes.

Would you say that a farmer on such a road who does 6mph "deserves to lose his tractor"? Or are farmers different somehow?

In reply to Neil Williams:
It is hard, though. For instance, the setup you've described would require every bus in London to be replaced with ones with doors on the right just as a starter.

My general rule would be to avoid particularly bus heavy bits of road, and it would be nice if cycle routes were designed with this as one consideration, but there's a limit to how far you can go with that as well. Most practically, it'd be good if bus drivers learnt not to overtake cyclists within a few metres of their stops...

Meanwhile, as a cyclist I just mentally step up to amber alert whenever there's a bus around...

In reply to Neil Williams:
I tend to find the bus lanes a bit of a reprieve! Maybe that says more about the rest of the road network in London.

On a different note - I'm interested to know if the Dep of Transport spend on cycling infrastructure is relative to the amount of people who would classify a bicycle as their primary mode of transport.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

"It is hard, though. For instance, the setup you've described would require every bus in London to be replaced with ones with doors on the right just as a starter."

No need, you rejig the central reservation so it is platform-bus-other bit.

Put Street View on and take a look at a Google map for: 53.572531, 9.978259 - it shows it in action in Hamburg (on a wider road, but no reason it wouldn't work on a narrower one so long as there's room for 2 lanes each way and a central reservation).

One place it'd work well is the Kingsway.

"My general rule would be to avoid particularly bus heavy bits of road, and it would be nice if cycle routes were designed with this as one consideration, but there's a limit to how far you can go with that as well. Most practically, it'd be good if bus drivers learnt not to overtake cyclists within a few metres of their stops..."

Often, to be fair, they do, but that slows the bus service down to well below cycle average speed, which is not an ideal thing either.

Neil

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Completely different. There is a cycle lane running parallel to this road. I cycle and drive as a driver i pull in and allow faster vehicles to pass me if Im holding them up. As a cyclist I make sure I am not causing problems to others if there is a cycle lane I use it, if im holding cars up I pull in etc etc its about courtesy.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Aren't buses already below cycle average speed in London?

Even here in the relatively traffic free world of Surrey, I often overtake buses on the cycle to work and don't get re-passed

In reply to balmybaldwin:

"Aren't buses already below cycle average speed in London?"

Yes, but a good part of that reason is their interactions with cycles.

"I often overtake buses on the cycle to work and don't get re-passed"

You are most probably a faster cyclist, I guess riding a reasonably quick road bike? This type of cyclist is generally happy riding on the road.

However, if we want a growth in commuter/general transport cyclists, they're going to be of the other kind - terrified of large vehicles, slow speed (10-15mph at most) etc. Not the ones that interact well with buses.

Also, provincial buses stop longer than London ones, because people mostly spend ages making a cash transaction, stating their destination, and receiving change. In London, a quick blip on the Oyster reader and you're off.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


In Paris there are quite a lot of combined bus and cycle lanes! It's always seemed daft but apparently it wins votes at municipal elections, being seen to be doing something counts more than doing something sensible.

In reply to jfw: Cycle paths are easy to spot - they have lots of "cyclists dismount" signs on them. Few are fit for purpose.

BTW - is it not time this silly "war" stopped.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



Tractors do more than 6mph, and they are different to bikes less of them and no real choice if you want food on your table.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

"BTW - is it not time this silly "war" stopped."

I like the Honda ads of a few years ago - "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere"?

Indeed, all cyclists are pedestrians at some point, many are car drivers and some even also drive lorries, buses and/or trains/trams.

Neil

In reply to SARS: Shoot the lot of them!!!!!

I'm just back from Denmark too.

Loads of cyclists, nicely behaved motorists, very little heavy traffic even on the main bridges of Copenhagen that would be bottlenecks here. Didn't really see any congestion or standing traffic.

The huge number of cyclists make car journeys much quicker because the cyclists are not in cars causing traffic jams.

In reply to SARS: Why can't cars go the same speed as bikes?

In reply to shaun l: The economy's slowed down, maybe the cars should too...

Being a UK tax payer has never been a requirement to use a road, and nor should it be. Everybody has the right to use the road, and rightly so.

In reply to Alan M:
about courtesy.

It is indeed about courtesy. So show some.

In reply to A Game of Chance:

So foreign HGVs should be allowed to use them for free?

In reply to SARS:

There was a timely Independent article today:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/01/30/could-london%E2%80%99s-commuters-...

I thought the second from last paragraph interesting. So clearly I'm not alone.

Actually I don't have an issue with cyclists in general, I've just noticed after two years of commuting by motorbike that it's always cyclists + other in a roadrage incidents and I can only put it down to the fact that too often cyclists don't obey the traffic laws.

In reply to Ridge:

They do, how do you think all that non British stuff gets to,the shop that you buy it from?

In reply to SARS:

Or that they have freedoms on road that you don't , because you are stuck in traffic, not realising that you are the traffic. So you get a sense of "that's not fair!" And can lump them in a group as they are on bikes.

I very much doubt we get road rage about traffic Laws. After all if you did you'd have it with every driver out there as they break the speed limit , or undertake you, or use their phone, or fiddle with a sat nav or radio whilst on the move, or don't clear snow properly from their car etc etc etc..

No I think it's the perception that if you are subject to unofficial c

In reply to SARS:


t it's always cyclists + other in a roadrage incidents and I can only put it down to the fact that too often cyclists don't obey the traffic laws.


Yeah, and all those nasty incidents in Germany in the 1930s, they nearly all involved Jews. I can only put it down to the fact that they must have been doing *something* wrong.

Ooh look, I've committed a Godwin

In reply to A Game of Chance:

I didnt understand your post to be honest. On my motorbike I'm rarely stuck in traffic. I can filter, overtake and undertake. All are legal in the right circumstances.

In reply to SARS:

Legal for cyclists too; yet surprisingly often, I've been nearly attacked by motorists for doing these things on a bike.

A lot of motorists clearly don't think that bikes are allowed to move out to go round parked cars, either. What are we supposed to do? Pull over and tug our forelocks to them?

In reply to SARS:

Undertaking is against traffic law in UK. Why don't you get angry with yourself?.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I know the feeling. As I was maneuvering around a car on the way home today the bint deliberately tried to close the gap on me because she was clearly pissed about being stuck in a jam. I just shrugged and moved forward.

So I know other road users cause problems. Including motorbikers. But, I have had more lip from cyclists and more near misses and seen more near misses from cyclists than any other road user.

In reply to A Game of Chance:

Err no it's not. But I knew that would be your reply

In reply to SARS:


If she was pissed, she shouldn't have been driving at all.

In reply to SARS:


leaving aside the sheer insanity of the implied claim other road users therefore do obey the traffic laws (feel free to make anecdotal claims about red light jumping) can you not, just possibly think of one other reason why cyclists would be more likely to be involved?

In reply to dissonance:

Honestly... I feel the other reasons are:

1. Cyclists are always keyed up, what with the adrenaline pumping
2. Certainly where I live there is an alpha male thing going on. I blame all the rowing clubs nearby
3. They feel vulnerable

Don't underestimate 1 & 2.

In reply to SARS:

Physic eh

See Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 5A & 9, MT(S)R regs 4 & 8 for undertaking. I'm not referring to filtering by the way

In reply to SARS:

I'd say the opposite, people on bikes are the most relaxed, whilst motorists are all steamed up, angry with road rage.

In reply to A Game of Chance:

Undertaking is not illegal. Now undertaking fast moving traffic might be considered dangerous driving, but undertaking itself is not illegal.

In reply to SARS:

Dear SARS. Here's something to try. You walk back and forth about 10m in front of me while I throw axes in your direction, but of course I promise not to hit you you, they will all miss you, even if by inches. Of course I could throw them further from you, or I could even wait until you'd passed, but that would never do, would it. Afterwards, tell me you had no rush of adrenalin.


Small cock?



See 1.

In reply to SARS:


If you undertake any vehicle either on a motorway/ dual carriageway or any other road and a police officer sees you, you will be charged with driving without due care and attention or depending on speeds/conditions etc you could be charged with dangerous driving. Do you realy want the hassle. Quite simple DO NOT UNDERTAKE!!!!!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I see you are unable to read so I will help you out. My previous post described how I try to not hinder other road users.

But, to describe to you the situation The road is a busy 2 lane (1 each way) 60mph link road. The council has built a purpose built hard surface cycle lane that runs the entire length on both sides. The cycle lane runs adjacent to highway but not apart of it.

The cyclist showed no courtesy to other road users by opting to cycle the road at 6mph I know this as that's what my speedometer said. He had ample opportunity to pull in and allow the convey of cars s...he didn't. He could have used the cycle lane...he didn't. I cycle that route twice a day 5 days aweek on a road bike I use the cycle lane to stop being a hindrance to other road users.

I show a lot of courtesy to other road users just not idiots like the cyclist I encountered yesterday.

In reply to SARS:


Honestly, what nonsense. I cycle a lot. If I spent all my time on a bike keyed up, I'd have a heart attack.


I go through all the normal moods while cycling; perhaps my most characteristic mood on a bike is Fotherington-Thomas-style "Hello clouds, hello sky" dreamy happiness. Cycling to me means chilling out and enjoying nature and the sensation of speed. It's not a testosterone fix, not as far as I'm concerned. More like an endorphin overload.

Wait a minute, could that be a factor?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Maybe they'd been reading your posts too much on ukc?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Just wait, Bruce, next time I see you at the lights I'll grab you by the throat with a scream of "Goose Green is British!"

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ha ha!

Tim - I believe you, but I can tell you that it's not like that around here. Here in South West London there's a full on race going on every morning.

In reply to SARS:


You're right, there is. I got tangled up in it twice recently, cycling from Kew to Euston

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Right. I live along the south side of the Thames not too far from Kew - so you should know what I mean.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yeah, but you live somewhere relatively traffic-free, right?

Cycling in London does tend to lend itself to more 'hell I'm about to die' adrenaline-pumping moments than 'hello clouds, hello sky'. Maybe that's more a reflection of cyclists' attitudes, and certainly they/we/I could stand to relax a bit more, but sometimes it's quite hard.
On the other hand, I admit that there's a certain amount of 'commuter cycling adrenaline' I find quite exhilarating, as long as people aren't actively trying to kill me.

In reply to SARS:

I remember the first time someone told me about being in a 'race' on the way to work on their bike. I really had no clue what on earth he was on about, as my own experience had always been the 'hello clouds, hello sky' sort. Even when cycling in London, I found routes that used parks and canals, and it all felt most relaxed to me.

Maybe I have low testosterone levels or something....

In reply to SARS:

I find London relaxing to cycle in as well, however I get really get up if I drive and drive in London.

In reply to SARS:

Have to agree. I've cycled to work pretty much every day for the last 8 years and an over-sized minority of cyclists are utter shite.
There are occasional crappy drivers but in comparison, those on cycles, are an embarrassment.

The cyclists seem to have a real chip on their shoulder, think the world really owes them something (eco-warriors all the way), and in the process fvck over other cyclists. How often do I stop at lights, in the cycle zone, only to have every other cyclist who comes in after push their bikes in front of me...then continue to fart around when the lights turn green! No concept of queuing or any sense of obeying road rules. Pushing by pedestrians on canal towpaths, etc etc.

Quite gratifying seeing the plod out in force ticking off cyclists running reds or blocking footpaths in Islington recently.

In reply to SARS:

Agree. Not to mention the simple fact that most cyclists don't bother with rear vision mirrors. In many countries these are considered as important as brakes on cars yet they are not standard on cycles, especially for the image conscious tw*ts on their racers/single speeds. Makes a huge difference to safe driving.

In reply to SARS:


so just to check you really do believe that shite about other road users generally obeying traffic laws compared to cyclists? Since it would indicate any discussion is worthless.


its more finding it bizarre
So you really cant think of any other reason (like it will be more visible, ease of access etc etc)?

In reply to David Martin:


to safe driving, yes. to safe cycling nope.
Two simple reasons
a)cycling you have far better ability to look around (even than motorcyclists).
b)mirrors for bicycles, like those for most scooters are near enough useles.

In reply to tlm:

Giving all this some consideration, I think Strava has a lot to answer for

In reply to dissonance:

Found quite the opposite. A single handlebar end mirror gives me an instant idea of vehicles behind me. Otherwise, the only way to check behind is turning around which in any form of vehicle can be dodgy (but necessary) and particularly so with handlebars.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

"Honestly, what nonsense. I cycle a lot. If I spent all my time on a bike keyed up, I'd have a heart attack."

Outside London, I agree, it's a pleasant and relaxing mode of transport so long as it doesn't piss it down.

In London, it's unpleasant and scary. That does change peoples' moods.

Neil

In reply to David Martin:

"A single handlebar end mirror gives me an instant idea of vehicles behind me"

It does, but such a small mirror doesn't give a very good view back. I used one when I idiotically turned right across traffic on a dual carriageway and got knocked off (my fault, and I have a weak knee to punish me for that particular piece of idiocy, though I was lucky I wasn't killed as the car that hit me was doing 65mph). I haven't used one since - unless it's the size of a car mirror and is damped against vibration, I find turning my head far safer.

Turning your head also gives an indication, before you even signal, that you might be about to make a manoeuvre. An observant driver will pick up on this and give you more space if they can.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


You really didn't want to do that in reply to Tim.

In reply to David Martin:

I thought about the mirrors thing this morning. To me, the big difference is that I don't have an engine and am not making any noise, so I can hear vehicles coming up behind me. I also can see cars quite well without turning right around, as they are actually to my right, rather than directly behind me. I do tend to look around at times, but I don't find that I need to as much as when I am driving.

To me, the most scary bit of cycling is when cars want to turn right and they speed up so that they can cut in front of me. There are some places in the morning with busy traffic, and they all try to follow each other doing this. One example is cycling around a roundabout, where faster traffic comes up behind me and then cuts in front, rather than behind me. Another, is where there is a university, and about 70% of the traffic is turning off, rather than going straight on. I try to wobble a bit, and give room on my left, so that it is easier for them to pass behind me, but every day is a thrill!

In reply to MG:

<chuckle>


I don't think I'd generalise even about cycling in London. You get crazy people with the light of battle in their eyes in certain places and times, e.g. the routes across Hyde Park at 9am. Elsewhere cycling in the city can be just as laid back and relaxing as anywhere else. For example, I'm always crossing Bloomsbury on a bike, and naturally I don't take the big roads (Woburn Pl, Tott Ct Rd, Gower St, Grays Inn): I take the little ones. And it's dreamily relaxed. What could be better than passing the BM at 15 mph on a totally deserted back street surrounded by Georgian terraces?

(What *is* that quiet N to S rd past the BM called? You know the one I mean.)

In reply to nufkin:


See - I had to go and look up what Strava was! No wonder I'm so relaxed about it all!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Montague St/ Bury Place. It's gorgeous.

In reply to David Martin: One thing I always notice when getting back in a car after spending a significant time cycling is how poor rearward (and indeed forward) visibility is when driving compared to on the bike.

In the car I have three small mirrors giving a fairly limited view directly behind, but the blindspots at the side of vehicle and regions obscured by pillars are relatively huge. On the bike I have completely unrestricted view forward, and with a quick turn of the head I can get a good sense of what is behind and aside of me.

Coupled with the acoustic damping effects of the body, and it often feels like a car is specifically designed to suppress your senses.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Surely when you signal you are going to turn this accomplishes the same thing a bit more clearly? Or don't you signal?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


did you miss this bit?
before you even signal

In reply to Neil Williams:
I agree neil. You can also make brief eye contact when turning your head which will often "humanise" the contact and encourage the driver to give you a bit more space and respect.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes I signal (as others have pointed out), but not until I've first looked to see it is clear and confirmed I want to make the turn and it is clear[1] to do so. The turning of the head gives a bit of an early warning, effectively, if a driver sees it, a bit more leeway in case of error.

[1] More commonly when driving I might well give an advance indication while it is still not clear, on a motorway, for instance, this might mean a car will move from the middle to the right lane to accommodate me moving from the left to the middle to overtake simultaneously. Of course they do not have to accommodate this, but it does help keep the motorway flowing, just as not stubbornly and pointlessly asserting your right of way over someone joining on a slip lane does.

Neil

In reply to JMGLondon:

Yep, that also helps. Eye contact is the key to the "unbarriered streets" type concepts, though those have the disadvantage of being very dangerous for those who can't make eye contact, e.g. blind people.

Neil

In reply to dissonance:

So what should another road user conclude when a cyclist turns his head? Is telepathy involved? All this seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit. Not having fixed mirrors is obviously a source of danger even if turning ones head is often required as well, and signalling is essential though often forgotten.

It's true there are mirrors and mirrors, I recently acquired a large van shaped vehicle equipped with the large mirrors fitted as standard on such vehicles, the difference is amazing, you hardly need the interior mirror anymore and reversing using just the mirrors is much easier than with the wing mirrors on cars.

In reply to Liam M:

"it often feels like a car is specifically designed to suppress your senses."

To a fair extent it is, which is one reason why we have the rules of the road. If everyone was riding horses, in stagecoaches or on bicycles, you barely need them - it's a much slower, more human environment in which conflict can be resolved through human factors instead.

That said, as a tall person I find I do have a blind spot directly behind me, and I wish shorter people wouldn't stand in it

Neil

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"So what should another road user conclude when a cyclist turns his head?"

That that cyclist may be about to make a manoeuvre, and thus should be given a wide berth if at all possible in case they make an error when doing so. One of the many body-language signals/observations that form part of defensive driving.

"It's true there are mirrors and mirrors, I recently acquired a large van shaped vehicle equipped with the large mirrors fitted as standard on such vehicles, the difference is amazing, you hardly need the interior mirror anymore and reversing using just the mirrors is much easier than with the wing mirrors on cars."

I've never seen a bicycle mirror that gave a view as good as a car mirror. As they are, I find them a bit useless (ref my past experience) and would always choose to turn my head, so I might as well not have one.

I agree about van mirrors, modern cars can also almost be used in this way for reversing if you use the electric mirrors to drop them down so you can see the back wheel.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

"That that cyclist may be about to make a manoeuvre, and thus should be given a wide berth if at all possible in case they make an error when doing so. One of the many body-language signals/observations that form part of defensive driving."

... to go further - think of the hazard perception test - that would I think class as a possible hazard.

Neil

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

congratulations Bruce, as usual you've brought your social ineptitude to another discussion.

For your edification: when a cyclist "turns their head", it is such that they are looking back at the oncoming traffic not simply looking to the side to ogle the girl in a short dress. For a cyclist this is the "mirror" part of "mirror, signal, manouevre" as recommended for all road users. For other road users it gives a forewarning that the cyclist is intending to change position in the road - that may be to move out to pass parked vehicles or to turn.

Having done "the look" I tend to sit up so it is even more obvious that I intend to do something different. Then I indicate, then I look again. Then I move if I can. Sometimes I just have to wait a bit.

ALC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No telepathy, just a reasonable anticipation of likely events (such as maybe they plan to turn). Much as when a car slows in front of you, you might anticipate some sort of obstruction ahead. Or when a pedestrian is standing facing the road looking each way, that they may be about to cross.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I am afraid that is just not true!

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Back on a serious note though. I have noticed just how rubbish cyclists are on average at signalling. Many use the method you have just pointed out and then go for it hoping that the act of looking behind is enough to point out to the cars behind them that something might happen. You then get others who put their arm by their sides and do a vague one finger point and some of the braver cyclists raise their arm about 20 degrees before doing the same. I very rarely if ever see cyclists raising their arms a full 90 degrees up and making a clear and bold statement about their intentions.

But as you state, car drivers should clearly be wary that something might happen if a cyclist looks over his shoulder... or not even.

In reply to EeeByGum:


most noticable during winter if you use a headtorch as well.

ermm, alledgedly
it was a mate

honest.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Quick gender/sexual orientation check required!

ALC

In reply to EeeByGum:

It's down to defensive driving.

Any driver can make an error and not do something they should do, e.g. signal correctly, either through incompetence or simply omission.

Defensive driving is about avoiding collisions occurring as a result, even if had the collision occurred it wouldn't be your fault.

Neil

In reply to EeeByGum:

There are a set of arm/hand signals that get used between cyclists to indicate pot-holes, obstructions, etc but I wouldn't use them to indicate anything to a motorist. Also it depends on the relative speed of traffic: I'd swing my arm out at waist level rather than shoulder height to indicate moving past a parked vehicle for instance as I'd want to be close to the brakes in case someone opened a door or stepped out from behind it. There'd still be the look behind though.

ALC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Why is it obviously a source of danger?

I would agree that not being able to sense (see or hear) what is behind you is obviously a source of danger, but you don't need a mirror to do that.

In reply to EeeByGum:


I have a couple of places on my journey where I am going down a steep hill (so need both hands on the brake) and then turning left (so need to indicate) but I can't indicate because of needing to brake and turn. I always feel really guilty at these times if there is anyone around!!

In reply to EeeByGum:


I've also taken to using a 90 degree arm out on the right when I am going straight on on one part of my journey at the moment! There are some temporary traffic lights, and I go through them (on the right hand side of the road, which is the only bit that is open), then pull into the right lane on the left hand side of the road to go straight on.

Unfortunately, any cars behind me get over excited by the fact that they are unable to overtake me through the traffic lights (because the lane is too narrow), and then try to zoom past me afterwards, straight across my path. It is SCARY!!! So I indicate right, then they know that I am NOT going into the left lane!! It seems to work. PHEW!!!!

In reply to SARS:

Living in London I'm sure you see your fair share of bad cyclists and bad drivers.

That said, I've not yet been hit by a car jumping a red light at 20mph on my walk to work.

In reply to a lakeland climber:


And you have demonstrated the sort of unpleasant aggressive attitude that the OP was complaining about. Well done.

In reply to tlm:


So you can "sense" danger? Are you sure this is reliable or that everybody can do it? I'm afraid I can't, even on a bicycle.

In reply to tlm:

Doesn't this imply an inherent danger though? If a car was produced that couldn't signal and brake in certain conditions it would not be allowed on the road.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Did you really not understand that sentence or are you just being pointlessly argumentative?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I think you misunderstand. tlm was saying that if you were not able to see or hear (sense) what was going on behind you could pose as a risk.

And to answer your question directly. Yes, I can sense danger. If I am stood about a foot away from a very large drop, I sense danger.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You can't use your senses when on a bicycle???!!!! Yes - it would be very, very dangerous for you to cycle!

I put hear and see, to make it clear that I was talking about senses, not some sort of psychic ability!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm quite surprised in a way, Bruce. You're a climber. You know that risk is everywhere, in everything, even in boiling a kettle. You know that people are fallible and make mistakes, that even cars with ABS and airbags can crash.

Pedestrians don't even have lights, licences, registration or insurance!!! Imagine! People just being allowed to walk down the street, sometimes even walking on the ROADS where there is no pavement! Or crossing even when there is no pedestrian crossing!!! How awful! I've even seen small tiny people in wheeled vehicles with NO brakes, NO indication of any type and relying completely on another larger human to push them along, sometimes being so unsafe as to FALL ASLEEP as they are being pushed!!!

The world is going to come to an END!!!!

In reply to tlm:

Worse still, the larger human can often be seen pushing them into the road, and the oncoming traffic, first, while they gabble away on their phone

In reply to tlm:

Heh heh heh. This one made me chuckle.

In reply to SARS: personally I love razzing the commute on my fixie, because I can get through faster than I could in a car. I can use cycle paths to skirt red lights, then ride on the road where its smoother. I can overtake buses down the middle of the road where a car would never fit, undertake in traffic, and get through the city (oxford) in much less time than driving round it.
Don't like cyclists, become one. Its better for you, and far more efficient.
Honestly, like the rest of you, I hate car drivers when I'm cycling and hate cyclists when I'm driving. But at least as a cyclist I always indicate, as a matter of safety. I only wish car drivers would indicate as well, again for my safety!
But treating the road like a race track, well, yes. Guilty. Many of us are. It sort of is a race track though, if you're a cyclist, complete with obstacles and danger to keep you on your toes. Like combining a gym session with a platform game. Driving combines the irritation of inferiority with sitting alone in an empty room watching daytime television. No wonder the cyclists are so much happier...

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

I don't.



I'm too slow. I got overtaken by a 73 year old on a hill the other week. He chatted to me as he passed me, (which is how I knew he was 73) but I was too out of breath to respond....

In reply to Ramblin dave:


No, I really find the term a bit puzzling... what does "sense" danger mean? Clearly it is not hearing, seeing, feeling or smelling. Sounds like nonsense to me.

In reply to tlm:

Sensing danger was silly, this post is just ludicrous... like all these cyclist/motorist threads. The truth is quite simple, bicycles and motorised traffic are intrinsically incompatible and can only use the same road if all concerned are very sensible, tolerant and aware of all around them. Drivers pass a test before being allowed to drive, cyclists don't so the onus is really on them to be extra careful. Many do, others, as this and other threads demonstrate feel that it is all the fault of the other person and refuse to accept even gentle criticism.

As several have said, and I am constantly aware of on a bike, as on a motorbike, you are likely to come off second in an accident... up to all of us if we draw the obvious conclusion or not.

In reply to EeeByGum:


How if you don't see it?

When drunk in my youth I climbed up the West Ken air terminal as they'd left some ropes hanging down the outside. Eventually I was standing on a low wall in the dark tottering a little and feeling with one foot in front of me to see what was there... It was only when I lent forward a bit that I felt a blast of hot air coming up on my face, and smelt the sulphurous fumes... I was standing on the parapet of the central heating chimney! At the time I thought nothing of it but I can assure you there is no sixth sense that indicates danger, only the normal five are available in this world. The rest is just fairy tales.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


With experience, you can tell a great about the intentions of a car driver behind you by listening to the sound of the engine. You can tell how fast it's approaching, and you can tell if the engine is being revved impatiently.

These are clear indicators that the driver behind you is potentially dangerous.

So, yes, I can sense danger using one of my primary senses.

Likewise, I can tell if a driver is going to be gracious, because you can hear the engine note drop as they back off the accelerator, allowing the car to coast, and maintain a safe and constant distant behind me. In these instances, if I'm turning right, and they afford me the courtesy of allowing me to manoeuvre safely, I add a little raised-hand flourish to the end of my arm signal to acknowledge their courtesy. I'm not obliged to make any such acknowledgement, but I like to provide both positive and negative reinforcement of driver behaviour.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm not too surprised by this lovely story, Bruce; your posts over the years have convinced me that you have no sense at all...

In reply to captain paranoia:


Quite true.

My only question is: are there really regular cyclists out there who *haven't* learned to listen to the engine-notes behind them??

In reply to Tim Chappell:


NB 'quite true' was a response to Cap. Paranoia's remarks about listening to what's behind you. Though admittedly, it would have done just as well as a response to his comment on Bruce

sn reply to captain paranoia:

That you can use your senses, in this case of hearing, is hardly the same as the mystical "sensing danger", which I refuse to believe, both as I don't believe in the supernatural theoretically and also by personal experience. I'm sure you realise the difference.

As for your development, which reminds me of a kung fu film of the 90s, I'm glad to hear you have honed your senses to such a pitch but still maintain that rear view mirrors, as fitted on all other vehicles as standard, would be more efficient for mere common mortals.

PS. You're going to be buggered when electic cars get more common

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I rode my motorbike home once without my right wing mirror as it had broken off. I don't think I've ever been so scared riding it.

The reality is that most cyclist (a) don't have mirrors and (b) fail to do a lifesaver check as they move out into the road or go around corners - and probably don't even understand the benefit of lifesaver/over the shoulder checks.

You can't pass the CBT, mod 1 or mod 2 motorbike test without using your mirrors regularly and doing appropriate lifesaver checks.

In reply to SARS:

So cars and motorbike without mirrors are scary propositions - agree. You either are surrounded by a lot of metal , with plenty of sound proofing and a noisly engine and road noise from wheels, vastly reducing your ability to see and hear, or you wear a helmet, and have a loud engine, and this have much reduced ability to see things or hear things. You also travel for long periods at high speeds which allow you to travel a mile in less than a minute. Mirrors help but don't completely eliminate your disadvantage, given your circumstances. Some car drivers even have the cheek to put on a radio to drown out the road noise, and thus further dull their senses. Outrageous!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


well there are those who listen to music who will have their ability impaired.

In reply to SARS:


correct because they are of limited use.


i would love to see the evidence for this but i am guessing you wont have any beyond claiming it is so.
Just like those claims about the majority of cyclist jumping red lights.

In reply to captain paranoia:

You put it perfectly. A cyclist's ears are far more useful than a car's mirrors.

I wonder if anyone knows of any stats or research about whether drivers who cycle regularly on the roads make better drivers (accident rates involving other cars or bikes, speeding fines, parking infringements etc)? I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search. My feeling would be that road cyclists as drivers would be involved in fewer collisions at least.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I do see it. That is the point. Since sight is one of my five senses, it is fair to say I sense the big drop... with my eyes!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Do you understand hear and see?
Do you know that those are senses?
Do you know that you can use sense to mean touch, taste, hear, see or smell?
Did you see that I had put see and hear to make my meaning clear?
Did you see that I posted a second time, just to make sure that my meaning was clear?

Bruce - we love you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I agree with you there, Bruce (apart from maybe there are other senses, such as animals sensing magnetism or depth in water)

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I'm sure there are - some people are deaf for a good kick off. Some cyclists are a danger to all (as are some of any group of people that you choose to mention). Some probably don't process the information. Some probably rely on looking. Everyone in the world is an individual.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's just pretty normal for cyclists, Bruce (have a go at cycling and experience it for yourself!) I'm quite good at working out if it is a man or woman driving by the sound!!


They make quite a lot of noise compared to a bicycle. I know if a milk float is coming up behind me, believe me!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

There are plenty around here who haven't learnt to look for hazards in front of them let alone listen for hazards behind them...

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Exactly. People are a mix. The people who are careful cyclists are also probably careful pedestrians and drivers.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I reckon that around 5% of vehicles on my morning commute either don't have their lights on or are driving on parking lights (I know some parking lights are rated for driving but most modern bike lights are brighter than the ones I'm on about). About half of these vehicles are taxis. Interestingly most of the unlit vehicles are some shade of grey - just the thing to stand out on dull, damp mornings when everyone's half asleep.

Bikes: probably 10% have no lights (usually kids or yoofs) and another 10% have only a rear light.

Above figures are purely personal experience and may or may not be applicable in other locations. Levels of ineptitude may go up as well as down.

ALC

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Oh, sure. I suppose what I said had a bit of a normative inflection, as in "wouldn't people be daft if they didn't?".

Continuing on this topic: when I drive slowly cars behind me usually rein it in and wait till I'm out of the way. When I cycle slowly cars behind me routinely try to drive straight through me. It's very curious, the psychology (much of it very evident on this thread) that makes otherwise sane drivers respect other drivers yet treat bikes as obstacles, things that shouldn't be there and have to be pushed aside. And quite alarming.

In reply to tlm:


researchers tend to count more than 5 senses nowadays.
As for sixth sense, there is a reasonably sensible sounding argument that some of what is claimed to be sixth sense might be just subconscious picking up of something eg feeling uneasy somewhere because while you havent concious recognised it you have actually spotted a snake.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

"when I drive slowly cars behind me usually rein it in and wait till I'm out of the way"

When I drive slowly, i.e. complying with a 30mph limit, or a 50mph limit on the motorway, I find that other vehicles, particularly lorries, drive way too close and aren't "reining it in" at all.

This isn't as bad as it was before speed cameras when you "had to" do 40 in a 30 in order not to be intimidated. Cameras have made more people comply with 30s now, in my observation.

Indeed, the lorry thing might make the point - is it the dominance of a larger vehicle over a smaller one?

Neil

In reply to tlm:


dunno some are pretty damn quiet when going slow although once the speed picks up so does the road noise.

In reply to SARS:

Here is some research done in London, where you would imagine that the cyclists are the most aggressive riders. It seems that most cyclists don't jump red lights:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pd...

7.9 The following general conclusions can be made based on the evidence described above:
• The majority of cyclists (84%) obey red traffic lights.
• Violation is not endemic, but 1 in 6 (16%) of cyclists do jump a red light, and at this level may encourage more to do so in the future.
• A much greater number of men cycle during the morning and evening peaks.
When a comparison is made of the behaviour of male and female cyclists it
can be concluded that men are slightly more likely to violate red lights (17% compared to 13%).
• In general cyclists who ride through red lights are more likely to do so whilst travelling straight ahead at a junction. They are least likely to do so when turning right.
• Red light violations are most common by cyclists travelling towards central London in the morning, and away from central London in the evening.

In reply to tlm: Agreed. Only they seem unable to do their maths.

1180 (offenders) / 6322 (non-offenders) = 0.187 = 18.7%

It is actually nearly 19% of cyclists that were seen to jump lights (nearly 1 in 5).

I would hypothesise that this is way higher than red light jumping motorists and even though it is no where near a majority of cyclists, is a massive minority.

In reply to EeeByGum:
>

Not comparable. I comparable activity would be something the motorist knows they can usually get away with, like speeding. I'd bet more than 1 in 5 motorists speed.

The embittered attitude of some drivers is becuase the cyclist can get away with something they know they can't, such as a left turn at a red on a quiet road.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Also there's no definition of 'red light' making it (imho) totally useless.

Chance I will run a red at a cross road or junction - 0%

Chance I will run a red at a pedestrian crossing after the pedestrians have crossed and there is no one waiting - 99%


as for 6th senses. Isn't there some evidence to suggest people can detect when they are being stared at? Anthropologically im sure we spent more time as prey that predators and it makes sense there might be some evolutionary echo of some weird traits.

In reply to Papillon:
Agree - whenever I encounter someone who's in full on frothing at the mouth mode about cyclists jumping red lights, I wonder if they drive along motorways in a constant state of incandescent rage: "LOOK! LOOK! THEY'RE DRIVING AT 80! ALL OF THEM! DON'T THEY KNOW THE SPEED LIMIT IS 70? DO THEY THINK THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAW? GRRRRRRRR"

Or whether maybe just maybe they're a bit quicker to be concerned about the vital importance of constant respect for the law when it's some identifiable Other Group that they can get worked up about...

In reply to tlm:


i posted a link to that near the beginning. The link also had some other interesting figures about the injury rates caused by red light jumping.

In reply to Papillon:

That is a very good point. I do feel that cyclists need to be more accountable. You are quite right about speeding motorists but even they get their come-up-ance for that. I guess if we cyclists wish to be treated fairly, we have to accept the rough (being prosecuted for breaking the law of the road) with the smooth (about 10m of road on my 10 mile commute)

In reply to EeeByGum:


a quick random look gives this as one study.
So 6.1% were infringing before. Given the obvious difference in opportunity that really isnt a significant difference.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1999/01/47e3bf41-bf11-470a-83bf-7f5...

Now a study showing how many cars go into advanced stop zones would be interesting (bearing in mind they exist to remove one of the major perceived needs to jump red lights).

In reply to EeeByGum:


ermm occasionally. However lets look at some figures.
City of London and the number of cyclists issued penalties for red light jumping vs number of cars going into Advanced stop zones.
6000 vs 12. i will let you guess which is which bearing in mind that if the ASZ isnt enforced the chances of red light jumping will increase.
The Met - red light offences in general. 3000 vs 3000.


does anyone claim otherwise?

In reply to dissonance:


Here you go:

http://www.lscp.org.uk/lrsu/www/downloads/publications/Behaviour-at-cycle-a...

36% of cyclists experienced encroachment by all types of motorised vehicles.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The 80mph thing is odd. If anything, the proposed increase in the limit to 80 seems to have been dropped...largely because the status quo works, and if you up the limit to 80 people will just do 90.

Prior to cameras etc, my Dad's approach tended to be to do 10 over in almost every situation, and he was never caught.

Neil

In reply to dissonance:

That is hardly a fair comparison. Driving into an advanced stop zone is hardly crime of the century. The police officer also has to prove that the car driver deliberately drove into the stop zone and could have easily stopped before it. In other words - it is all a bit grey.

Jumping a red on the other hand is clearly dangerous and a flout of the law. Advanced stop zones are just a nice-to-have.

In reply to EeeByGum:


oh, why not? If you are going to talk about red light jumping you really need to consider some of the reasons for doing so and how you can provide alternatives.


and a cyclist going through a red light is?


as are red lights. Should i obey one if it has been designed so it doesnt pick up cyclists


and going into a ASZ is a flout of the law. As for jumping red lights no it isnt necessarily clear dangerous. A casual example of where it is not is when you dont have a ASZ (or someone treats it as a nice to have) and a lorry pulls up alongside indicating left.


no they exist for a specific purpose.
Its always entertaining to see people explain away other law breaking while ranting about those cyclists (to save any inane rants only time i would look at jumping a red light is when there is a specific threat to me or the red light isnt set to register cyclists with no cars around and i deem it safer to cycle through rather than get off and push)

In reply to dissonance: I think the point of red lights is that if no one takes any notice of them, what is the point of having them in the first place? It is one of those societal things.

And it is only illegal to drive into advanced stop boxes if you did it on purpose i.e. creep in when the light is red. If you braked hard to stop the lights and ended up going into the advanced box accidentally, that isn't an offence.

In reply to dissonance:


Was about to post something very similar. Our 'sixth sense' can be considered our subconscious processing of the other senses, and doing pattern matching to find threats we're not consciously aware of. This isn't always reliable, as the pattern matching can be suspect. But, in evolutionary terms, the advantages of a high false positive rate within a very high true positive rate for threat detection may be beneficial...

An example of this pattern matching is my mum, walking in some woods one evening, suddenly finding herself being very spooked, without knowing why. Some time later, she realised that the particular wood reminded her of a scene in WD's Snow White, seen as a child. Her subconscious had found a pattern match, as said 'scary', based on a childhood memory.

In reply to EeeByGum:

If you're having to brake hard not to drive through red lights, you have poor situational awareness. I'd book you for driving without due care and attention :P

In reply to EeeByGum: I think dissonance is right here. It take all sides to obey the rules and respect each other. You can hardly point at cyclists breaking rules if you regard stop boxes as optional.

In reply to Kemics:

"If you're having to brake hard not to drive through red lights, you have poor situational awareness"

You've never had a light go to red in front of you, really? Sometimes, if you are driving at the speed limit, the amber phase (which is configurable - on 70mph dual carriageways it is very long) is too short.

It would help if we had countdowns like some countries do, that way you could plan either a careful deceleration or be sure you'd be able to pass the lights in time.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I remember my driving instructer telling me, "there is only one way a green light can change and when approaching it you should drive accordingly and not race the lights".

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Toby_W:
I don't drive myself, but based on observing drivers around here, amber means "speed up", yes?

In reply to Toby_W:

Within reason... but the idea of the amber phase is that anyone approaching the lights should be able to see it in time to make a safe decision from the speed limit, which is why it varies in length with the speed limit.

Most lights are correct for this, some annoyingly are not.

Neil

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Amber essentially means "stop if not unsafe to do so" and allows you to make a judgement based on how close you are to the lights when you see it, and how close the vehicle behind is.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

but I see why you think that

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Err, the sequence is green->amber->red so to be in a position where you *have to stop* because the light is on red would tend to suggest that you were chancing going through on amber (when you had time to stop before encroaching on the FSZ) but then your exit became blocked so you had to stop ASAP.

Last year I pulled up in to an FSZ half occupied by a car. I looked round to check if the driver was indicating as I was turning right. At this point the lights changed to green and the driver began moving forward even though I was directly in front of her vehicle! I did consider having a "puncture"

ALC

In reply to Neil Williams:
I'm afraid it’s more deliberate than that. This morning I had a lorry pull into the ASZ behind me - his bumper was 2 inches off my back wheel. The fact that I was there and the ASZ is bright green should have given him a clue. This forced me to move forward into the junction. The same lorry also blocked a huge number of cyclists from entering the ASZ, thus leaving them stranded between vehicles.

In reply to JMGLondon:

This sort of thing is, to be fair, one reason I don't use ASZs. I'm not convinced that, unless camera enforcement was provided at *every* junction, drivers are sensible/law abiding enough to respect them, and because they cause a double overtake to occur at every set of lights - an unnecessary road user conflict between large and small vehicles.

Personally, I prefer to wait my turn in line in the primary position in my lane.

Neil

In reply to SARS:

But all this talk of scary drivers and scary cyclists - I do think that the majority of both are pretty considerate - it's just that when they aren't, it tends to stick in your mind somewhat, at least until you have the chance to rinse the poo out of your pants!

I regularly get cars creeping along behind me when there is plenty of space for them to get past (to the extent that I will sometimes stop to let the cautious driver get past!). I've had cars stop and wave me though when they clearly have right of way. I've had pedestrians say sorry for being in my way when I am cycling on the pavement (at walking pace, where I am trying to get from a cycle path to a road or vice versa). I've had drivers cheer me on my way as I struggle up a hill. I've had other cyclists wave and chat and nod. I would say that about 99% of road users are great!

The other 1% that worry me is the ones who seem very het up, impatient and unaware of other road users.

In reply to Neil Williams:



My preference changes, depending on how fast the traffic is moving, how long the queue is, how much space there is to get past, if it is cars, motorbikes or lorries, how long the lights stay green for etc.

In some queues, if you stayed in your place in the queue, it might increase the time of your journey by half an hour or more, and cars might get very upset if you didn't suddenly speed up to 40mph as the queue moved!

I tend to go for what makes most sense in any given situation, putting everyone's safety as the highest priority.

In reply to EeeByGum:

what are you going on about? You seem to be making these statements as if they are some deep insight. They really aint.
Now lets get back to the facts and figures.
These are that the proportion of cyclists who jump red lights, when measured in surveys, are not the majority (and arent even a significan minority).
When compared against motorists the numbers will be higher but then the opportunity is far higher. if you chose not to jump a light the chances are if we are both cycling i still can. However in a car its a tad harder.

Looking at the figures for red light infringements it is clear cyclist do not have a get out of jail free card.

ASZ deal with one of the reasons for red light jumping, however you seem to think they are just a nice to have. I would suggest therefore that you shouldnt complain when a cyclist takes the same approach

In reply to Neil Williams:

Interesting, and how would you judge the exact position and relative speed of following traffic without mirrors? I may believe, just, that a kung fu cyclist in a state of heightened awareness can tell there is a car behind him by ear, but judging anything much finer without visual contact defies belief. Or is it like Starwars Jedis who "feel the force"?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Again you quote things out of context - Neil and Rambling Dave are talking about motor vehicle drivers not cyclists.

ALC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Even allowing for the fact that Neil was talking about motor vehicles and not cyclists, is there a reason that looking behind you in combination with listening for engine noise / road noise wouldn't work?

I don't need millimetre precision and the colour of the driver's eyes but I can usually work out whether I'm being tailgated by a bus or not. If you can't manage this sort of fairly simple environmental awareness then I'd suggest that you probably aren't safe to cross the road, let alone drive a vehicle...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Right let's clear this up.

The idea of 'only' five senses is a myth. There are numerous other pathways for getting information from the environment into our brains than just the five 'primary' senses, that meet the criteria to be regarded 'senses' ie. they have dedicated sensory receptors and dedicated parts of the brain specialised for processing the information.

eg,
Kinesthetic sense (ie. Proprioception - our sense of where our bodies are in space)
Sense of balance (ie. vestibular system)
sense of acceleration
pain
temperature

Additionally with regards hearing, a lot of the processing our brains do on auditory information is to do with 'auditory scene analysis' (eg. inferring things about the environment, such as the shape and size of the room/cave that we are in based on subtle acoustic cues) and detecting changes to our enviornment via very subtle cues. Effectively the evidence suggests we do have some sort of 'early warning system' via our auditory system that isn't necessarily available to conscious awareness.

While the visual system has got a lot of attention from neuroscientists over the last 50 years, the auditory system has been relatively ignored until recently, but it turns out that there is a lot of layers of preprocessing of information going on in our auditory system before the information even reaches our brains, to a much greater extent than happens in the visual system, that science doesn't really understand at the moment. there is now a lot of hard science research going on into studying it. V. interesting area.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


We use our 'Bruce Love' to create a warm and enveloping force field, with a slight tint of pink sparkly aura, which prevents us from ever experiencing any harm on the roads whenever we think of you.
*deadpan face*

In reply to Quiddity:

The "senses" you list are surely just dependent on the primary ones, or are finer points of them. Temperature is covered by "touch", acceleration is interesting but also down to touch really, but internal and balance seems to me to be an ability, not really a sense at all. Clearly the traditional five senses notion is a simplification but as far as I can make out the original remark about "sensing" something behind you was more on the "sixth sense" level, and since, given the fallacious side of this has led to much back-pedalling... which is understandable on a cycling thread.

PS. I really wish that SARS had put his successful but hardly original troll in the "Biking" forum as then people like me who, despite being a regular cyclist, finds such threads both addictive and tedious would not have seen it as I long ago switched the forum off precisely to avoid being dragged like a moth round a flame into such pointless discussions. A bit wicked of you SARS really

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You must be trying wilfully to misconstrue it, then, because it was clarified in the original post and repeatedly since that it meant "see and hear".

In reply to Ramblin dave:

>> as far as I can make out the original remark about "sensing" something behind you was more on the "sixth sense" level


Nah - he needs to feed the thread and keep it going to feed his addiction, having only this single thread and not the rest of the cycling forum to lap up.... As an aside, I always imagine Bruce dressed in a big, furry teddy bear suit.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I could go into specifics but we're splitting hairs, I would argue that subsuming 'pain' and 'acceleration' under 'touch' is intuitive but the evidence of how we actually get this information from the environment suggests that they are done via separate neural pathways and processed in different ways by different bits of the brain, hence they are not really the same thing except in an intuitive sense. Also proprioception and balance are clear examples of senses with relatively well understood transduction mechanisms that are intuitively nothing at all like touch.


You have totally ignored the final two paragraphs in my post you just replied to that address this issue.

In reply to tlm:

"In some queues, if you stayed in your place in the queue, it might increase the time of your journey by half an hour or more"

Fair point. This is one reason I do like dedicated Dutch style infrastructure where it can be provided *properly*.

"and cars might get very upset if you didn't suddenly speed up to 40mph as the queue moved!"

If you move to the front of the queue, rather more cars will take that view, no?

Neil

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Correct, in that situation I was referring to motor vehicle drivers. But it's no different for a cyclist, really - either you've already seen the bus on your tail, or you take a quick look back before slamming the brakes on - particularly given that a cycle does not have brake lights, so the thing that alerts you to the fact that it is slowing is simply that you are rapidly getting closer to it.

(The hand signal for "slowing down" is all very well but prevents you from pulling both brakes, so cannot reasonably be given in that situation).

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

To add to that, as I have a tendency of doing (really should type my posts in Notepad and leave for 10 mins first...)

If a bus rear-ends you because you braked heavily for good reason, it's their fault. But that doesn't remove the fact that you've just been rear ended by a bus and are lying in hospital injured (or worse). So defensive cycling (working on the assumption that others will make errors and accommodating such errors) is the sensible way to go.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:



Not really - it depends if you are turning off, if they are turning off, what the rest of the road is like etc. Sometimes, once you have moved away from the lights, it's then quite easy for them to get past you. I have one bit where I turn right - if I don't get to the front, then I am far more in the cars' way than if I do go to the front.

In reply to tlm:

Saw a couple of good(?) ones at the weekend, both runners.

1. Middle aged bloke running along pavement on left of road crosses fairly major side road without checking that nothing behind him is turning left. He's also wearing headphones.

2. Country road - one of those c-class roads that has white lines down the centre and is wide enough for two trucks to pass. Runner is happily jogging along about 1 metre from the white line. He *is* running towards the flow of traffic. I think he was wanting to run close to the crown of the road rather than on the camber. However traffic usually heads along that road at 60mph (or about 85mph if you are a yoof and wearing a baseball cap).

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

#1 is a muppet.

#2 is not a problem so long as he moves in a bit when traffic comes along towards him.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

#1 yep.

#2 I think that was his intention. He was on a long straight when I saw him so providing he didn't go round any bends in that position not really a problem. Though given the driving ability of said yoofs, if one was overtaking he'd get swiped.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I had a good one this morning - a bloke was just walking up the road, but wandered out into the road without looking, and then gradually crossed the road at an angle, without looking. He was most surprised when I cycled past (carefully and slowly, just in case he veered back). I think pedestrians tend to use their hearing too, and he just didn't bother to look as he couldn't hear anything.....

In reply to tlm:

oh man. I've completely lost count of the amount of pedestrians that blindly step into the road in front of me cycling. Roll on the advent of the electric car because it will cull the feckless in their thousands

... I do however derive a little bit of pleasure by cycling as close as possible when I go around them and shouting "WHOA!"...always fun to make them jump...and might even save their life one day later on =)

In reply to Kemics:

That happens quite a lot on my commute. In the two instances above I was in the car.

ALC

In reply to tlm:

"I think pedestrians tend to use their hearing too, and he just didn't bother to look as he couldn't hear anything....."

Electric cars are, in some countries, fitted with speakers producing sound purely to make them audible to pedestrians.

Neil

In reply to Kemics:


Good to see that some cyclists are conscious of the need to improve their image as far as pedestrians are concerned, well done!

PS. Do you stop at pedestrian crossings for people waiting to cross?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You really do have a problem with cycvlists don't you Bruce, once again you show your assumption that every cyclist breaks every law of the road.

For the record, I have never run a red light, I never ride on pavements, I am always well lit in the dark (and rear light at least in any slightly dodgy visiblity, I always stop at pedestrian zebra crossings, I indicate clearly. I am also courteous and considerate of drivers trying to get past, stopping to let people by on narrow roads with long bits that prevent overtaking (but I also hold my position where necessary). When on the mountain bike I am considerate of other trail users (horses, walkers, wildlife, dogs).

Yes I see others doing these things, but by no means is it everyone.

I have certainly broken more rules of the road in a car than on a bike.

Despite this, it is still alarmingly often that my life flashes before my eyes after an encounter with a motorist who care enough about controling their metal box to give me room, or acknowledge my right to be on the road.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No I don't stop for pedestrians. I run them down with extreme prejudice. If I miss, i'll chase them up on to the pavement. The actual collision usually hurts me just as much, but well, the price you pay eh?

In reply to Kemics:

All very amusing, but you haven't answered the question, think about it and answer tomorrow according to whether you do or not during the day. When I'm riding I do, by the way, in case you wonder, but as a pedestrian I can't recall many cyclists stopping, above all the "keen" types in groups. Once when I made a remark they became very abusive, clearly they shared your amusing attitude. We were crossing the road to go in the baker's opposite who had witnessed the scene and she said it happened all the time.

Apparently it is so odd that just above a cyclist has posted to say he respects the highway code except in a car and seems to think we should find this quite something, when in fact it is altogether banal.

In reply to Kemics:


thats why i use a lance.

In reply to dissonance:


If you swapped to a tasar, you could get the ones that try to run away!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Once when I made a remark they became very abusive, clearly they shared your amusing attitude. We were crossing the road to go in the baker's opposite who had witnessed the scene and she said it happened all the time.

What? you make remarks to french cyclists, they become abusive, and it always happens in front of the same bakery. Amazing...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Since Kemics was commenting about pedestrians who step out in front of him without looking, I assume that this is what you do when you cross the street to go to the bakers. I don't know why you expect cyclist to stop if you do this, although it will hurt the cyclist if they hit you, possibly more than it will hurt you.

I would advise you to follow the Green Cross Code when crossing the road, even in France..

As for commenting about being law-abiding, that comment is made to counter the comments of people like you who say 'all cyclist break the law, all the time'. As shown by research posted earlier, most don't, just as most motorists don't.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Even in France you are supposed to stop for pedestrians who want to cross the road at pedestrian crossings - whether you are on a bicycle, a motorcycle, in a car, tractor or lorry. Surprisingly the French road regulations are quite similar to British ones, except for the infamous "priorité à droite".

The attitudes of road users is similar too.

Still waiting for the Kemics to reply about whether he usually stops for pedestrians on crossings when riding a bike, although I think we all know the answer.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Where did the red herring of pedestrian crossings appear? All the previous discussion was regarding pedestrians stepping into the road without looking, not stepping on to a pedestrian crossing.

Once again, you've subverted comments to suit your warped view of cyclists' behaviour. Or maybe you've been in France for so long that you have trouble comprehending English these days.

I stop for pedestrians at zebra and pelican crossings. On a number of occasions, when I've done this, and stopped in the centre of the lane, I've been overtaken by cars, whilst the pedestrian was on the crossing. Because, as we all know, some drivers have trouble seeing cyclists, whilst at the same time, they are unable to see past the cyclist to the road ahead, so they obviously couldn't see the zebra crossing, or the pedestrian, or figure out why the (invisible) cyclist had stopped in the middle of the road. The other day, it was a woman with a baby in a pushchair who had just started to cross. It wasn't helped by a van parked illegally in the white zig-zag zone, blocking the view of the zebra crossing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Why don't French motorists stop at crossing then? Number of times I've taken my life into my own hands crossing pedestrian crossings in France. Those in Paris are the worst.

In reply to Beat me to it!:

True, but they are supposed to stop. I think there is a slow improvement, maybe due to traffic cameras. Nowadays you do see people stopping - I usually do but I was once rammed deliberately by a smartly dressed city gent at Place de la Nation, he was so furious that I kept stopping for pedestrians.

However, as in Britain, "sporty" sorts of cyclists don't stop, they say their feet are clipped to the pedals and most don't seem to admit that anybody has more right of way than them. As for pedestrians walking in front of vehicles without looking, this is a problem for any driver, which is what a horn, or a bell is for, pity many cyclists don't see the need for a bell, despite it being both common sense and a legal obligation.

One solution might be to do as we did when kids, we used to jam a lolly stick so that the spokes just touched it as the wheels turned making a noise we thought was like a motor. A simple solution that might save an accident or two.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The fitting of a bell isn't a legal requirement in the UK. It's simpler and safer to shout rather than take a hand from the brakes if you have to stop suddenly.

I've been admonished for not having a bell when out mountain biking after having uttered a pleasant "bike!". Using your voice is also less likely to startle a horse than a bell.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

"The fitting of a bell isn't a legal requirement in the UK"

It's illegal to sell a new bike without one, but not illegal to then remove it.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

True, though actually it only has to be "supplied" with the bike - the last couple of bikes have had the bell nicely packaged in a plastic bag

Also, I think N. Ireland requires that the bell be fitted when on a public highway - not been so can't be sure. It's one of those things relating to bikes where the law is decidedly inconsistent or behind the times.

I've heard of people fitting the bell to the chain stay - it's fitted to the bike but is effectively useless.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:


I think that must be the EU regulations too as Decathlon always supply lights and a bell these days whereas they didn't before, so it's only half a legal obligation, but it's still full time common sense. Surely a little tinkle is a sound that all walkers will recognise and unaggressive, whereas shouting something is less consensual? The worst are the fast cyclists on tow paths or well metalled paths who hurtle along in silence with no sound at all until the swish as they pass.

Is a quick tinkle really too much to ask?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


If I remember the Highway Code correctly, road traffic is supposed to give way to pedestrians waiting at Zebra crossings. But pedestrians are also supposed to wait until the traffic has stopped before they cross. It's quite astonishing how many people in London walk onto a crossing without stopping to check the traffic, or even looking, and not giving traffic a chance to stop safely.
Anticipating potrntial lemmings is one of the urban cylcing skills, as is things like spotting left-turning cars who aren't going to indicate.

A bell would help in these situations, but as mentioned above it's probably better just to use the time to brake. Plus they just seem a bit rude - a passive/aggressive way of saying 'get out of my ****ing way'

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If someone steps out in front of you then you need to be slowing down as quickly as possible so you don't even want to be thinking about moving your hands to anywhere other than the brakes. The one tool left to you is your voice so a "bike!" at an appropriate volume for the situation is most useful.

A quick tinkle in public can get you in to a lot of trouble!

ALC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

In my experience ringing a bell near pedestrians (or even some distance away from them) scares the shit out of them and is just as likely to cause them to jump into your path.

One observation of pedestrians in London during rush hour is that they tend to display very little awareness of anything outside the couple of meters directly in front of them, even on busy pavements with crowds walking both ways. The lessons learnt from driving and cycling should be applied to walking in crowded places, although obviously not with a formal set of rules.

The worst are groups of pedestrians walking side by side towards and oncoming cyclist, deliberately crowding out the cyclist and forcing him/her to stop or swerve. The worst is also lorry drivers who hover 2 foot behind your rear wheel beeping at your on a steep hill in the rain, expecting you to obligingly get into the gutter for them. As though it's not possible to be aware of that much engine and metal that close behind you even if it's not beeping. 'The worst' could be applied to a lot of groups doing a lot of different things.

In reply to Trevers:


Pedestrians are odd. They do seem to exist in their own little world, and many of them listen to music, so can't hear anything at all. They walk in groups, and I often just have to stop and allow them to flow around me, as they don't seem to understand that I am moving, or that I take up space. I use cycle paths, and the pedestrians often want to walk on the cycle lane part, not on the footpath part, and really like to stay on that side - I can't always then move onto the footpath side as there may be extra pedestrians on that side too!!! I use the stop and let them flow technique here!

If I say 'excuse me' in a soft voice, they tend not to hear me. If I give a little tinkle, they tend not to hear me. At night, they do tend to notice my light flashing on the ground in front of them, then turn around, stop dead in the middle of the path, like a rabbit in the headlights, then once I have stopped, they shuffle off to BOTH sides of the path (if there are more than one of them). If they have dogs, they go on one side, the dog on the other, with a dark coloured lead stretched out to try and trap me (but they never do catch me as I am on to them!).

They also thrust their small children into my path - small children that DO NOT walk in a linear fashion, but who skip and leap and go in circles, and only look at the pavement, not around them... they will run in one direction with their head on back to front looking in the opposite direction!

It makes my journeys full of fun and excitement!

In reply to tlm: When running I've found it comedy how unaware most pedestrians are.

I've had them look straight at me at about 20m away, yet still yelp in astonishment at my presence when I pass them.

I've had whole groups walk toward me along walled paths, looking at me yet not one make space to pass as if assuming I'll just quantum tunnel my way through.

I've walked along behind similar groups requesting politely to get pass, without even the slightest acknowledgment, or again acting startled as if I've magically appeared behind them.

Being a mugger/pick pocket must be the easiest activity in the world, as so many people act clueless as to what is happening around.

It has informed my driving and cycling though, as I take into account the fact that most other road users can probably be considered blind and deaf.

In reply to tlm: Gosh - do we hate pedestrians now as well? I thought it was just car drivers that were evil? I would have thought we were all pedestrians at some time or other and were reasonably aware that it is possible to cross a road based on hearing. Since bikes make no noise, this theory comes unstuck so as cyclists we just have to be a little more vigilant, make a bit more noise on our bells and voices (not soft voices) and all is well.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yeah thats right ! it's what every single one of them says!

In reply to EeeByGum:

I don't hate cyclists, pedestrians OR car drivers. I love them all. I also am very, very careful and considerate how I cycle around anyone, be it other cyclists, car drivers OR pedestrians. I do use my bell and voice, but it does tend to make pedestrians jump, and quite a lot have music plugged in, so don't hear anything at all. I tend to keep well back (if I am going in the same direction as them) until there is a whole lot of room for me to pass them slowly, leaving a big gap in between me and them. All IS well! But it is quite funny, watching people's behaviour. I'm sure that I am just the same when I am a pedestrian...

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Is that so? I didn't realise that, I thought it was just one or two I had spoken to... Just as well as otherwise some pedant might have accused me of generalising.

In reply to tlm:

You demonstrate very well why mixed cycle/pedestrian facilities are a fundamentally flawed concept.

BTW, you'd best stick to the cycle bit of such paths, since it's illegal for you to stray into the 'pedestrian' part. Whereas it's not illegal for pedestrians to stray into the cycle part...

In reply to captain paranoia:

Agree.


Can't complain too much about that, though, even if it does seem a bit silly - I'd be annoyed if cars could drive in cycle lanes just because cyclists can ride in "car lanes".

In reply to captain paranoia:

Really? Head somewhere like Ghent in Belgium: pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds, motorbikes, cars and trams all sharing the streets with no discernible aggro. It does help that everyone is travelling at low speeds - I think the central part of the town has a 30kph limit though most are going much slower.

ALC

In reply to captain paranoia:

Not always - it just means that you have to cycle slower. I think the ones where there is a separate cycle lane are daft - you may as well acknowledge that pedestrians will go all over the place and save the cost of the white paint... (I like the mixed facilities through parks, along canals and rivers etc - they are great and take me to some very nice places, away from all the traffic)

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Sounds like paradise until you look at the accident rates - Belgium is double that of Britain

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_de_la_route_en_Europe

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
But if there are three times as many cyclists on the roads/cycleways then it is safer - lies, damned lies and statistics!

In reply to EeeByGum:

Whatever happened to looking right, then left, then right again before crossing?

In reply to marmot hunter:
Belgium has 48% of population owning/using bikes, UK isn't on this list so it is safe to assume we're nothing like as cycle-happy, therefore more accidents are likely. UK: 2%, Belgium 8% so 4 times as many journeys are made on bikes, yet accidents are only double. Therefore cycling is TWICE AS SAFE in Belgium despite twice as many accidents.
•People: 10,827,519
•Bicycles: 5,200,000
•Cyclists: ~48%
Belgium: http://top10hell.com/top-10-countries-with-most-bicycles-per-capita/
UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/03/britons-unmoved-cycling-...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What you have to realise about Ghent is that it's bike central: there are multiple bike stands on every street corner and probably 30% of all journeys in the city centre are by bike. The difference in speeds between the various modes of transport is quite low => more time for reactions and lower impact speeds.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Sounds like it's a bit like in Holland, the problem being that transferring one culture to another and where also the objective traffic conditions are different is not at all easy. I wonder if many keen cyclists have emigrated to these more "bike friendly" places? I suppose liking chips and tulips and flat places would be obligatory.

Don't you find cycling on the flat as boring as climbing horizontal cliffs?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't live there but have to visit from time to time. Like the hills me Even if I'm too fat to post good times on them!

ALC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

More like going for a pleasant country bimble in the valley vs. hillwalking, climbing being a bit pointless if it's not steep, vertical or overhanging.

I happen to enjoy both of them in different ways.

Neil