PDA

View Full Version : Needless cyclist deaths on UK roads.


Pages : [1] 2

screwballburling
18th Nov 2013, 13:30
Every time I hear of a cyclist being killed on the roads I shake my head in dis spear.

Why don't the idiot regulators, including Boris get off their backsides and ride around the streets of the Benelux countries, for months if necessary, until they get it into their thick skulls, cycles and motors do not mix. They have been cycling for a very long time there and much longer than the UK., so they should and do know something about it.

Cyclists sharing the road with motor cars buses etc., including heavy trucks, do not mix!!! It does not work!!! Cyclists must be taken off the road, period!!

On the continent, cyclists are confined and share the footpath with pedestrians. All motor vechicals give way to cyclists. e.g., when turning off a road to a side road, i.e., crossing a foot path, the motor vechical must give way to a cyclist. Unless the traffic light for a cyclist, sharing the footpath with pedestrians is red. Running a cyclist over is the same as running a pedestrian over. They throw the book at you for it and so they should.

I have lived in the Benelux for over 10 years and felt very safe cycling there. I do not feel safe riding a bike in the UK unless I am on a footpath. Legally or not.

ORAC
18th Nov 2013, 13:47
Needless? Perhaps Darwinian is a better term.

Smudger
18th Nov 2013, 13:49
A lot of the cyclists in the UK are arrogant a""""""""s who are a danger to the public and shouldn't be on the road OR the pavement and are the CAUSE of most accidents not the victims. Discuss.

maliyahsdad2
18th Nov 2013, 14:06
It would make far more sense to use more pavements for cyclists than the road, especially as there are few pedestrians about these days.

vulcanised
18th Nov 2013, 14:13
Even Boris, champion of cyclists that he is, recently expressed his horror and outrage at their antics when he was treated to a view of live CCTV.

screwballburling
18th Nov 2013, 14:17
Smudger

Yes some of these cyclist are a real danger.

Quite often read the headline:

"70 year old road rage cyclist, takes out juggernaut"

haughtney1
18th Nov 2013, 14:28
Scewball, when was the last time you drove in and around London? Up until about 4 years ago, I used to drive from Hampshire all the way to LCY for work 3-4 times a week via the south circular then up past the Oval, twr bridge, then via lime-house etc etc.
EVERYTIME I made this journey I saw examples of stupidity by various individuals riding their bikes including but not exclusive to the list below.
1. Jumping red lights
2. Squeezing between buses and cars, HGV's, Pedestrians, School kids, and old people on scooters..:ugh:
3. Hanging on to buses, HGV's and private vehicles.
4. Swerving through pedestrians at zebra crossings.
5. Tail-gating private vehicles and then kicking tail lights
6. Riding side by side

Sad for those who die due to plain bad luck....but the rest..refer to ORAC

Noah Zark.
18th Nov 2013, 14:37
Cyclists should also be forced to wear protective items when cycling. At least a helmet, and hi-vis.
They should also have to be insured, in the same way as motorists, even if it for a small amount.

ExRAFRadar
18th Nov 2013, 14:37
And if you want an example of how some of these Lycra clad knobs behave make your way to the Wandsworth roundabout area.

Pedestrians take their life into their hands round there as the bike lanes cross the pavement.

screwballburling
18th Nov 2013, 14:48
Because cyclists are unlicensed is another reason they shouldn't be on the roads but the footpath.

As for yobbo behavior it does seem to be a very British disease indeed. Take the pig swill on the streets on a Friday and Saturday night for e.g., in most towns and cities in the UK. You don't see too much or that on the continent. You know one reason? The cops are armed there and not too afraid to use their weapons. In the UK the youngsters don't give a stuff about the cops.

I don't agree with most of the BS that comes out of Europe. Far from it.

Molemot
18th Nov 2013, 14:54
Whilst the cycling fraternity continue to be untrained, uninsured, unlicensed, uncontrolled, unconcerned with their own self preservation and unidentifiable, rendering them immune from prosecution for their transgressions, then the carnage will also continue....all other road users slavishly following every traffic law will not change this.

Cyber Bob
18th Nov 2013, 15:02
Spot on Smudger. I live in a rural area and it makes passing cyclists extremely difficult. Some noticibly seem to enjoy holding up the traffic in the knowledge that passing them is risking a head on collision on blind bends.

Weekends, less traffic however they ride with 'Friends' and ride side by side cerating more havoc.

CB junior was asked in school when he was a nipper, "What is the biggest contribution to global warming in your county"

CB - Cyclist
CB Junior - Why
CB - Can't get past them on the roads. This equates to spending more time with the engine running and creating more pollution

Unbeknown to me, CB junior actually submitted this and got a 'B' from his tree hugging teacher.

I think that cyclists play by their own rules and as mentioned some take great pleasure in holding up traffic or fannying around. [email protected]'s the lot of them.

Get them to pay road tax and I might change my mind - yeah right.

CB
PS. If my views upset the cycling, tree hugging environmentalists out there - go take a.....................

Lon More
18th Nov 2013, 15:08
Lucky you don't live in Toronto. Dushan would kill you in seconds.

Feckwit cyclists bound here in NL. I'm hoping the owners of Chinese restaurants discover that they taste like chicken

Loose rivets
18th Nov 2013, 15:13
bicycle ride? :confused:

Andy_S
18th Nov 2013, 15:24
......British motorists are united in their hatred of the cyclist, you'll never take that away from them

As both a motorist and a cyclist, I have to take issue with that.

Behind the wheel, I try and be respectful of cyclists and their vulnerability, whilst when on two wheels I try and be defensive and stay out of trouble.

Unfortunately, there is a militant tendency within the cycling community who go to war with the motorist every time they cycle on a public road.

Presumably this thread relates to the recent spate of cycling deaths in London, to which I would make two comments. Firstly, it’s difficult to draw any conclusions without knowing the full details of these accidents. Secondly, while there have been 6 deaths in two weeks in London, does that mean there will be 6 deaths every two weeks? Probably not. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if more pedestrians than cyclists are killed by motor vehicles.

ShyTorque
18th Nov 2013, 15:50
Sounds to me like the selfish, anti-cycling, road-rage ready motorists posting here should chill out a little and think laterally out of their little tin box cocoons.

I live in the country. There are very few pavements around here. What pavements exist are often made impassable due to parked cars. Outside the village there are no pavements for miles.

Maybe every erstwhile motorist should be required to qualify for a provisional licence only after completing a year and a cycling proficiency test on a bicycle, then likewise on a motorcycle. It would teach some what they will probably not ever otherwise grasp. Road sense and consideration for other road users.

sitigeltfel
18th Nov 2013, 16:03
Some certainly have a death wish.. :ugh:

XaQfcSGYLAI

She eventually came forward, and I believe was cautioned.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
18th Nov 2013, 16:49
I would ban them or at least make them cycle within a line drawn off the pavement. Outside of that they are fair game :E

These days, they quite often ride two abreast or in the middle of the road lane.

Remind me, how much road tax do they pay ?:confused:

muppetofthenorth
18th Nov 2013, 16:53
Some certainly have a death wish..

And some motorists don't? I've seen equal - if not greater - dangerous acts from motorcyclists and drivers.

And the road tax argument is utter balls.
1- it's not a road tax,
2 - if you drive a classic car or a brand new low emissions car then you won't pay it either. Are those suddenly going to be banned from the roads?


You wonder why some cyclists dislike some drivers when you get threads full of BS like this?

ShyTorque
18th Nov 2013, 16:53
Remind me, how much road tax do they pay?

Some of them pay as much as any other road user.

Some of them pay considerably more.

MG23
18th Nov 2013, 16:56
Because cyclists are unlicensed is another reason they shouldn't be on the roads but the footpath.

Why should pedestrians have to co-exist with people who clearly have no interest in co-existing with others?

A few years ago I went to the bank in the UK, in a 'pedestrianized' area, and as I was walking out of the bank, I was almost hit by a cyclist blasting along with a kid sitting on the handlebars. Had I not seen them in time, rather than Idiot Cyclist missing me by inches, at least two of us would have gone flying and possibly suffered serious injuries.

Ancient Observer
18th Nov 2013, 16:57
Generalisations from specific incidents are bad. So I will not generalise.

I invite Brits and visitors to stand outside Holborn station, by the traffic lights, to observe the behaviours of cyclists and pedestrians. These are all locals, with few tourists.

They are all mad. (And I am both a cyclist and a pedestrian at different times)

spittingimage
18th Nov 2013, 17:00
No such thing as 'road tax'.

What I believe you refer to is 'vehicle excise duty' which is based, in the UK, on vehicle exhaust emissions. No exhaust emissions on bicycles = no vehicle excise duty payable.

Clear enough ?

ShyTorque
18th Nov 2013, 17:10
Actually, to be pedantic it's now officially advertised as "Vehicle Tax" on the government's own website.

SpringHeeledJack
18th Nov 2013, 17:14
Remind me, how much road tax do they pay ?

Apart from a few of them, probably every bit as much as you! The simple fact is, is that the vast majority of recreational cyclists are motorists themselves. However there is a case to be made for both mandatory 3rd party insurance AND awareness courses for cyclists. The same awareness courses could be recommended for all motorists as well. It is wholly possible, that outside of Advanced Driving Courses, the average motorist never has to be tested and updated on road usage and ability from the time they passed their test at 17yrs old until their dotage :uhoh: The roads have chaged, both in usage, numbers and dangers.

The reason that most of the recent spate of fatal accidents have taken place in London is simply due to the success of the Mayor's initiative to reduce emissions by people using alternative modes of transport. Thousands of 'new' cyclists have acquired a bike and 'off they go' usually with no idea how to interact with the traffic flow or how to behave on the road. The Cycle Superhighways have emboldened many into thinking that there is an invisible force-field around them and that they are immune from the hard reality of coming into contact with a vehicle, whether rightly or wrongly. Drivers of HGV's have my sympathy negotiating their way around the city with this army of two-wheeled gnats buzzing around them at every junction and roundabout. Cyclist need to be aware of just how vulnerable they are and act accordingly and decisively. Sadly many of the new cyclists realise neither and it's only a matter of time before they are caught out.

I don't see how there will be an Amsterdam or Copenhagen in London anytime soon cyclingly speaking, so in the meantime we'd better all learn to get along with each other or there will be more serious incidents. Awareness and respect.



SHJ

spittingimage
18th Nov 2013, 17:14
Ohh .. OK then. No exhaust emissions on bicycles = no vehicle tax payable.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
18th Nov 2013, 17:17
We need some more of these nice chaps to clear the roads of these menaces :E

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w9lmCpIzhFo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dw9lmCpIzhFo

Capot
18th Nov 2013, 18:48
We were out on a birding walk by our local estuary the other day; it's a boardwalk placed there for this purpose to be used by walkers.

An idiot on a bike rode into the back of the group without any sound warning; he was doing about 20mph. He hit two of the (elderly) walkers, but did not stop.

I guess he thought the path was his private racetrack.

As he rode off, face contorted with rage and hate under his ridiculous - and useless - helmet, he passed me spitting out the words "F*****g w*****s".

Not all cyclist deaths are needless.

ShyTorque
18th Nov 2013, 18:54
True, but in such cases it's difficult to get a clean shot and one between the shoulder blades from behind wouldn't be classed as self defence.

Cyber Bob
18th Nov 2013, 19:21
' No exhaust emissions on bicycles = no vehicle excise duty payable'

As I said earlier, these fecker's are holding people up by default the cars are spending more time on the road = more pollution.

As if they are making a difference - to anything:ugh:

Until such times 'Spandex boy' pays road tax, vehicle tax or whatever the purists like to call it, he'll never receive my respect. Always be treated as an inconvenience and hinderence.

That said, there might be a bright side to this - there's snow and ice on the way. Good luck with that 'Wiggo boy'. [email protected]

CB
PS - Respect taxi drivers even less

Lon More
18th Nov 2013, 19:22
BBC news this evening. Another cyclist squashed by a truck. Been there, done it and didn't even feel the bump. If you can't see the driver in the mirrors he can't see you.

500N
18th Nov 2013, 19:28
Darwinian theory of evolution ?

David and Goliath ?

Give way to the biggest ?

It's all well and good that you are "in the right" but if it means
you are squashed under a truck ...................

screwballburling
18th Nov 2013, 19:52
Capot

Yeap, that's the sort of imbecile that would get away with being run over. He shouldn't be allowed to breed, period. Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure this.

The person who will cop it for being on the road cycling, will be the little OAP, who has to cycle because they have closed the bus route down. They have also closed the nearest PO down, so they have no option. This is the person that will lose control of their cycle because a gust of wind catches them broadside and they end up under a truck.

And what will we all say? Stupid cyclist, shouldn't have been there.

chips101
18th Nov 2013, 19:55
I had many years happy cycling between Beckton and London City Airport at all times of the day and night in all weathers.

Simple rules to stay alive I learned.

1/ Cars, HGVs, and Buses can squash me. Give them time and room.

2/ Be seen, Hi vis jacket (I Know!) Lights at night.

One common scenario with a bus and a cyclist is the bus stops and the cyclist overtakes later to be overtaken by the bus which then stops again to be overtaken again by the cyclist.

3/ Stay in there mirrors when overtaking the bus.

The bottom line is a cyclist is a sitting duck, accept it, and cycle to stay alive.

It's not a race.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Nov 2013, 20:22
Remind me, how much road tax do they pay ?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
As I'm sure you know really, most have cars, and thus pay the same as any other car drivers, even when they're choosing to use only a fraction of the space.

Just think what it would be like if all cyclists left their bikes at home and drove instead! To aid your thinking, the difference between "just about free flowing" and "gridlock" can be as little as 2%.

ShyTorque
18th Nov 2013, 20:30
And of course, cyclists don't take up a parking slot thus helping to ensure that fat boy has less chance of having to waddle too far from his two ton 4x4 parked illegally half on the pavement.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
18th Nov 2013, 20:37
I'm sure most do have cars Gertrude. That said, they do not pay vehicle tax for using the roads as a cyclist. I get sick to death of many cyclists slowing up traffic by riding 2-3ft off the pavement or riding two abreast, not something I was taught when a child (who passed a cycling proficiency test).

muppetofthenorth
18th Nov 2013, 20:44
I get sick to death of many cyclists slowing up traffic by riding 2-3ft off the pavement or riding two abreast, not something I was taught when a child (who passed a cycling proficiency check).

Then perhaps you might want to take one of those checks these days. Most will advise cycling a little further out to be more visible, to encourage other road users to overtake you properly instead of just squeezing by and, crucially, to avoid the myriad potholes that litter every road surface in the country.

Just as defensive driving is a thing, defensive cycling is a thing. As this thread has so dramatically pointed out, drivers are not interested in cyclist's safety, so they need to take it on themselves. Some do, some don't.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
18th Nov 2013, 20:51
I don't cycle these days muppet but I do pay vehicle tax. I must read up on the new cycling proficiency test. I look forward to reading where it encourages two abreast riding....

screwballburling
18th Nov 2013, 21:14
Quite right Muppet.

Another very good reason to claim your space if you are forced to ride on the road, is to give parked cars a wide birth, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, someone will open a car door right in front of you. If you'r too close, is good night to you.

muppetofthenorth
18th Nov 2013, 21:25
I don't cycle these days muppet but I do pay vehicle tax. I must read up on the new cycling proficiency test. I look forward to reading where it encourages two abreast riding....

The other downside is that such tests are not standardised. What might be taught in one area is not necessarily going to be the same one taught in another.

Two abreast riding is one of those grey areas. The Highway Code states that cyclists may not ride more than 2 abreast, but that 2 abreast is itself perfectly legal (though, obviously inadvisable in most cases).
But if you have groups of cyclists, would you prefer a longer train of single bikes that you might not be able to see the end of before attempting an overtake or one big group that you must overtake properly? Speaking as an occasional cyclist - and a driver who'd rather not kill people - I'd prefer the latter.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Nov 2013, 22:10
someone will open a car door right in front of you
You need to develop the automatic reflex to turn to the left (or right in places where they drive on the wrong side of the road).

It's a lot softer hitting the emerging idiot motorist than going straight on into the edge of the door or swerving right into the path of the passing bus.

PTT
18th Nov 2013, 22:31
Title is ambiguous. Is it the deaths or the cyclists which are needless?











Bad taste? :E

ShyTorque
18th Nov 2013, 23:06
A few posters here appear to be future candidates for a death by dangerous driving occurrence.

screwballburling
18th Nov 2013, 23:11
PTT

You may avoid the ambiguity by not reading it.

reynoldsno1
18th Nov 2013, 23:32
In Tokyo it is normal for pedestrians to share the sidewalks with cyclists. This has been the case for many years, and pedestrians have the right of way. Japanese cyclists, in general, do not go for the spandex & speed model of behaviour, and have to fit in with the foot traffic.

About 18 months ago I visited mrsr1's relatives there, and there were a number of TV debates going on about the deterioration in cyclists' discipline - particularly in the way that many were now assuming that the natural order of priority was bicycle having right of way over motor vehicle. Thus the bikes were leaving the overcrowded sidewalks and taking to the roads assuming cars would now give way to them, just as they give way to the fleet of foot.

A lot of Toyotas are getting a lot of dents and collecting bits of human ...

FullOppositeRudder
19th Nov 2013, 00:30
In some of the colonies down under it is illegal to cycle on the footpath unless you are under 12 years old or have medical certificate authorising you to do so.

I was hoping for glimpses of wisdom and inspiration (in JB? - yes I know) in this discussion but it's mostly the same old arguments, bias, assumptions and misinformation.

An increasing number of cyclists are now using low profile cameras to record their ride - I do. It's an extra incentive (if one was ever needed) to behave responsibly and to provide evidence (if it's admissible) of what happened if they/I are mowed down by another road user with the mentality of those one sometimes see contributing to cycling vs motoring discussions on the internet.

Mind you, I'll concede that if the bicycle were only invented yesterday it would probably not be allowed on public roads. They defy sound science, and the operator is very vulnerable. The cyclist does have the benefit of a much greater field of vision (and sound) than those who are encapsulated in their steel and glass cocoon. It's arguable that they have much better SA as a result, and this may be a factor in them taking initiatives in traffic which seem (and/or possibly is) stupid - as observed by other road users. That's not to excuse or justify the "silly" things we all see from time to time, but it may explain it - in part anyway.

I won't go on about the silly and dangerous things I see some motorists doing toward cyclists. There's invariably one person who has a good attempt to kill me every time I go out on a 50km run. If some of the comments I read in this forum and others are any indication, I'm surprised it's not more often than that. :(

FOR

mixture
19th Nov 2013, 00:41
I look forward to reading where it encourages two abreast riding....

The highway code says.....

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

Therefore whilst two abreast riding is acceptable, the offending second cyclist should be served an ASBO on narrow or busy roads. :E

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
19th Nov 2013, 03:01
More than two abreast means three or more doesn't it ?

I rest my case then that cyclists riding abreast cause traffic delay issues. Bring on that 2% of extra vehicles :ok:

RatherBeFlying
19th Nov 2013, 03:43
I took to rollerblades after being passed too closely too many times by Toronto drivers -- as dumb as you will find in any large city.

That gave me the ability to go against traffic and hop on the sidewalk (North American term for pavement) when oncoming traffic was too close.

While there's no shortage of idiot drivers, there's oodles of idiot cyclists.

My term is Failed Cyclist Suicide. The last FCS came very close to successful when I did a signalled turn at an intersection at night in a drizzle and spotted an unlit cyclist going the opposite way just barely missing my front fender:eek:

Loose rivets
19th Nov 2013, 04:31
You have a fender on your rollerblades?:p

bosnich71
19th Nov 2013, 05:44
Smudger .... ****. That's enough discussion.

Sorry,I got edited. I don't usually use profane language, not on a blog anyway, but your comment was silly to say the least.

cavortingcheetah
19th Nov 2013, 09:47
Needless? Surely Candide and Admiral Byng come to mind?
'Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.'

Standard Noise
19th Nov 2013, 09:56
I've stayed off this one up til now as I knew it would descend into the "cyclists are all bast4rds" and "motorists are all w4nkers" argument.
There are several common traits shared by both groups, the worst or least law abiding cyclists are mirror images of the worst or least law abiding motorists. Each group thinks they are invincible, each thinks they are always in the right and each blames the other for problems on the road.

The fact of it is, as legislation stands, we are all entitled to use the roads (yes, even the four f**kwits from a Bristol cycling club who loomed out of the fog on the Mendips, riding four abreast on my side of the road and all wearing black or grey lycra and nearly became ornaments on the front of my Discovery, well, when push came to shove, I wasn't going to swerve into the oncoming HGV!), but there seems to be a British disease where we all think we can do as we please and sod the other people around us.

As for pavements, it royally p!sses me off that adults think they can do as they wish on bikes. Last heated conversation I had with a cyclist was on a footpath linking our estate to a local park, it's about 5 feet wide and I was walking along with Max on his lead when a 50 something bloke just barrelled towards us, he moved to the left towards the dog (presumably he didn't like the idea of colliding with an 18st bloke). I barely had time to get Max out of his way. He then came to an abrupt halt (which led me to believe that he wasn't actually planning to) and gave me a mouthful for Max being in his way. Let's just say my expletive ridden tirade must have been louder and more expletive ridden, than he had heard in a while (going by the look on his kisser).

All it takes is a bit of consideration to each other and trying to stay within the rules of the Highway Code & RTA. Another family is suffering this week, down this way in Bath...........is it really worth it?
Jake Gilmore hit-and-run death update: 52-year-old Bath man arrested | Bath Chronicle (http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Jake-Gilmore-hit-run-death-update-52-year-old/story-20099062-detail/story.html)

anotherthing
19th Nov 2013, 10:02
As usual with this particular 'debate' there are a hard core few on either side. This thread the hard core seems to be mainly drivers.

There are good and bad cyclists and drivers. The most vociferous on here probably have an attitude when in their car that they are king of the road.

Considerate driving/cycling and common sense are what is needed. Everyone should ride/drive defensively. That doesn't mean driving like some nerd with driving gloves etc. It means taking account of other users etc.

I cycle, and I drive a 911. How much VED do you pay CB???

Cycling proficiency recommends you cycle one metre from the side of the road... helps prevent punctures as the side of the road tends to be less clean, but it also gives you somewhere to go if you need to get out of the way.

I've been clipped by a bus that overtook me... I was hugging the side of the road when he passed. There are idiots on the road, whatever mode of transport they use

MagnusP
19th Nov 2013, 10:16
Cycling proficiency recommends you cycle one metre from the side of the road...

Edinburgh's High Street is cobbled, and an awful lot of cyclists use the pavement, even outside the nursery, and even when they're delivering their little prince or princess to the nursery. However, quite a few cycle in the shallow granite rainwater gulley at the roadside; more comfortable for them, and less of a danger to pedestrians. A quick hat-tip to them.

radeng
19th Nov 2013, 11:03
I do not understand why pedestrian crossings with lights do not apply to cyclists. Several times have I come very close to being injured because of that, and I'd like to see the offending cyclist fined £1000 and his bicycle(s) summarily crushed.

Living out in the country with no street lights for 5 miles, it amazes me how often on a dark winter evening, you find a cyclist in dark clothing and no lights pedalling his way along the B4096.....How come there haven't been any killed, I know not.

Lightning Mate
19th Nov 2013, 11:04
I think they should also be subjected to random breath tests.

MagnusP
19th Nov 2013, 11:11
Nearly flattened a cyclist the other night. Pitch dark and raining, he had no lights on. Potential Darwin candidate, methinks.

cavortingcheetah
19th Nov 2013, 11:11
'Cycle free, die for nothing' would be more effectively implemented were there a front end charge to the postulation.

Gertrude the Wombat
19th Nov 2013, 12:02
I've been clipped by a bus that overtook me... I was hugging the side of the road when he passed.
The MD of our local bus company does actually sack drivers who try to kill cyclists (all his bus drivers go on a training course where they are put on bikes and made to cycle around mixing it with buses to see what it's like). So might be worth reporting.

SMT Member
19th Nov 2013, 12:21
On the continent, cyclists are confined and share the footpath with pedestrians.Are they now, or are you just generalising on a topic you could benefit from learning a bit more about? Up in my neck of the woods it's an offense for cyclists to drive on the footpath, to the tune of a EUR 130 fine. What we do have are dedicated bike lanes, elevated from the lane used by cars, and the footpath is again elevated from the bike lane. Keeps the different users separated, reducing the danger areas to road crossings - particularly trucks turning right and mowing down a (perfectly legal) cyclist in the process.

Around 40% of all workers and students are using their bicycles for their daily commute in this capitol city, and dedicated 'cycling super lanes' have been created to whisk them to and from the 'burbs. The longest one is 18km, and several tests have shown bikers to beat busses, cars and trains on the runs. Even a 55 year old lady, going at a steady pace, beat the bloke in his Audi. And then there's the added benefit of getting some exercise; you don't see any 100+ kg fatties pedaling along.

screwballburling
19th Nov 2013, 13:09
SMT

Well Europe as you know covers a large area and each has their own little rules etc. I did refer to the Benelux countries, namely Belgium. Up until 10 years ago, you did not ride on the road, period, unless you had a death wish. It was either a foot path, a dedicated cycle lane marked on a foot path or as you mentioned a dedicated complete cycle lane.

I have used Belgium as an example as I think they have it about right as regards to cycling safety. Apart from chocolate and smelly pate, there isn't much going for it really, IIMO.

What they do in other countries in Europe I am not that interested. They cant even agree and implement a common aviation language. National pride takes prescience over safety. So I don't think for one minute the rules will be the same from one neck of the woods to the next.

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Nov 2013, 13:37
We spent 4 months this summer touring in France and Spain in our motorhome and used our bikes an awful lot to get about on.


Cycle paths and footpaths were shared in most locations and cycling in the pedestrianized areas in Seville turned no heads at all, along the river bank of Bordeaux is a happy mixture of walkers and cyclists and I am struggling to think of many places where that was not the case.


In the main it was a mixture of cycle lanes as part of the road and cycle paths as part of the footpaths and worked extremely well.


This was our second summer touring in Europe and without any more name dropping the cycling was fun, well thought out and extremely safe.

Ancient Mariner
19th Nov 2013, 14:23
Oh, another cyclist bashing thread. Carry on.
Per

Cyber Bob
19th Nov 2013, 14:31
"I cycle, and I drive a 911. How much VED do you pay CB???"

I don't cycle anotherthing but I pay VED for and M3, VRS and A4 Cabrio.

Not sure if this trumps your 911 but I think it entitles me to my view.

CB

PS. Not against all cyclists though - have no objection to those who cycle off road especially when using stabilisers.

Capot
19th Nov 2013, 14:37
Nearly flattened a cyclist the other night. Pitch dark and raining, he had no lights on. Potential Darwin candidate, methinks.Yes, well, probably.

But remember that there is a growing PC view, supported by selective evidence from across the Channel, that if a cyclist is injured/killed/annoyed by a motor vehicle the driver of the vehicle must automatically be blamed for causing it, regardless of the circumstances and/or the suicidal stupidity of the cyclist, if that is a contributory factor.

MagnusP
19th Nov 2013, 14:50
Indeed, Capot, but what that lobby fails to understand is, that in the case of "The shade of the late lycra-clad loony v MagnusP", they have in fact already lost.

I used to cycle, always defensively, and, apart from falling over a couple of times, I enjoyed it. Today, cyclists seem to strike a more aggressive position. I wouldn't want to be associated with that.

SpringHeeledJack
19th Nov 2013, 15:16
I think they should also be subjected to random breath tests.

This is the case in Germany and if you are caught over the limit, on a bike, on a bike path, behaving normally......and you drive (most do), you will LOSE your license :uhoh: Very sobering indeed.

The UK is in a rebirth mode regarding cycling, the interest in cycling (due to the massive publicity in 2012) and the desire to keep fit using a low-impact exercise has swollen the numbers of people cycling exponentially. Before and after WW2 there was a massive cycling culture in the UK, but that slowly dwindled as cheaper powered travel options became available in the 70's. It was seen as the poor man's lot socially, young men wanted a motorbike and to then transition to a car, which made one both physically mobile and socially, nudge nudge, wink wink :8

Commuting by bicycle has mushroomed, bolstered by the ever increasing cost of bus, coach and train in main cities and despite many efforts by the government to merge the disparate modes of transport into one, it has proved problematic. There needs to be enforceable legislation that pertains to cyclist responsibilites, i.e working front and rear lights, no jumping red lights, no pavement cycling. Motorists need to be more aware of other road users and I would envisage a re-schooling of us all every 5 or 10 years in some cost effective way.



SHJ

Union Jack
19th Nov 2013, 15:39
Cyclists should also be forced to wear protective items when cycling. At least a helmet, and hi-vis.

In addition to which, any cyclist who values their safety, or that of any cyclists in their family, should have a look at the BLAZE Bike Light by Emily Brooke ? Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/embrooke/blaze-bike-light) which is expected to become commercially available shortly.

Interestingly, especially in view of some of the inflammatory comments made on this thread, this webpage highlights (pun intended:)) that 79% of accidents involving cyclists occur when they are travelling straight ahead and another road user drives into them, which doesn't say a great deal for other road users' situational awareness.

Altogether a brilliant (pun intended:):)) invention from a very clever, and very good-looking, young lady judging by the excellent photographs of The laser light that could cut cyclist deaths - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/13/tech/the-laser-light-that-could-cyclist/index.html)
:ok::ok:

And yes, I gather that she ended up in hospital in London as a result of being struck by a vehicle last year, and I also understand that Boris has also been on TV singing the praises of her invention.

Jack

radeng
19th Nov 2013, 20:03
So in the Netherlands, if a motorist driving along an unlit country road at night, hits a cyclist wearing no reflective clothing and with no lights on his cycle, is it still his fault?

If said cyclist hits a pedestrian not carrying a torch and not wearing fluorescent clothing, whose fault is it?

In both cases , I, being a liberal, would bang the cyclist up for 15 years. And crush the bicycle.

KBPsen
19th Nov 2013, 20:25
Cyclists should also be forced to wear protective items when cycling. At least a helmet, and hi-vis.Why? There is no evidence that helmets does anything other than reduce the number of people who use their bicycle.

I suspect that, as it often is when one group wants to force something on another group, it's mostly about control and 'putting them in their place'.

500N
19th Nov 2013, 20:33
KB

As much as i don't like being dictated to by Gov't about wearing helmets,
on that point I think you are wrong.

Helmets on bicycle wearers do stop head trauma.

That's not to say they don't also stop people using bikes
but they do stop injuries to the head / brain !

KBPsen
19th Nov 2013, 21:01
Helmets on bicycle wearers do stop head trauma.Using Australia as an example, when helmets became mandatory in 1992 then number of cyclists dropped by 30-40% but the number of head injuries remained steady or reduced only marginally.

So the net effect of mandatory bicycle helmets was that a greater proportion of cyclists sustaining head injuries. The overall number of cyclists hospitalized also went up, supporting the notion that an increase in the number of cyclists increases safety and vice versa.

Lon More
19th Nov 2013, 21:04
So in the Netherlands, if a motorist driving along an unlit country road at night, hits a cyclist wearing no reflective clothing and with no lights on his cycle, is it still his fault?


Unfortunately, yes

500N
19th Nov 2013, 21:05
KBP

Where do you get your figures from ?


In regards to "The overall number of cyclists hospitalized also went up,"

Same applies to wearing of seat belts and improved car safety features,
less deaths in accidents and more injuries / people ending up in hospital.

Same applies to wearing body armor in war and / or better / quicker casevac,
less deaths, more survivable injuries.

muppetofthenorth
19th Nov 2013, 21:08
Helmets on bicycle wearers do stop head trauma.

That's not to say they don't also stop people using bikes
but they do stop injuries to the head / brain !

They stop one type of trauma (direct impact), but not all types. There's similar debate in the snowsports world atm (to which I'm an interested party as a freeskier/ski instructor). There is call from some in the snowsports world to make helmets while skiing/snowboarding mandatory as well. But while the aim might be noble, it misses the point in a lot of cases.

A majority of head (and specifically brain) injuries are caused not by impact, but by a rotational energy caused within a helmet. The issue is designing a helmet with enough coverage to be as safe as possible but not increasing the weight, price or making it hard to hard good vision and hearing.

A couple of companies are working on helmets which reduce this.

One company has made airbag-like 'helmets' that you wear as a scarf and that activate in the event of a crash. Being softer (like a scrum-cap but with more depth) they cause far fewer rotational side effects and offer far greater protection upon landing. Expensive atm, but like anything, bit of development and could soon become a mainstream product.

500N
19th Nov 2013, 21:10
KB

Do bicycle helmets reduce head injuries? | The Urbanist (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/10/07/what-are-the-benefits-of-bicycle-helmets/)


Also
Bicycle Helmets | Australasian College of Road Safety (http://acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-road-users/bicycle-helmets/)

DiscussionBicycle riding is a world-wide activity and an important means of transport for millions of people. Head injuries have emerged as a serious problem for bicyclists involved in crashes, and for the community as a whole because in large part the cost of an individual’s injury is a cost to the community.
Over the 20 years 1970 to 1990, bicyclist fatality rates per 100,000 people have fallen by an average of 1.0% each year, but this is a rate of fall less than one-third of that shown by other road user groups. Further, non-fatal injuries resulting from bicycle crashes are grossly under-reported in official road crash statistics. Injury rates are especially high in children and in males.
Several studies, in Australia and other countries, have shown that, depending how the statistics are collected and analysed, bicycle crashes result in serious head injuries in one quarter to two thirds of bicyclists admitted to hospital, and up to 80% if the collisions involved a motor vehicle. Up to 80% of deaths among bicyclists are due to severe head injury.
Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those without.
Several scientific studies have now been conducted into the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. They are known to reduce the risk of severe head injury by at least one third, and up to 85%. Those who do not wear helmets are several times more likely to sustain injury to the brain tissue than do riders who do. Helmets designed to the Australian and Snell standards provide a margin of protection in the real world greater than the respective standards require. The vast majority of head impacts occurring in the real world of traffic are easily survivable if a Standards-approved helmet is worn.


In July 1990 Victoria made the wearing of pedal cycle helmets compulsory, and through 1991 and 1992 NSW and other states and territories followed suit. In the two years after compulsory helmet wearing legislation was introduced in Victoria, the number of bicyclists with head injuries decreased by 48% and 70% in each of the two years, relative to the last year before the law. ACRS believes that legislation, with concomitant enforcement, is the only effective way to rapidly increase wearing rates to 80% or so. There should also be further research on use and design of bicycle helmets to increase acceptability and wearability."

500N
19th Nov 2013, 21:12
Muppet

"One company has made airbag-like 'helmets' that you wear as a scarf and that activate in the event of a crash. Being softer (like a scrum-cap but with more depth) they cause far fewer rotational side effects and offer far greater protection upon landing. Expensive atm, but like anything, bit of development and could soon become a mainstream product."

Yes, I have seen those. Looks good.


And yes, I realise helmets don't stop all types of head trauma but hell,
hitting the concrete without one and hitting it with one, I know what I
would prefer !

I also ride a motorbike.

muppetofthenorth
19th Nov 2013, 21:14
And yes, I realise helmets don't stop all types of head trauma but hell,
hitting the concrete without one and hitting it with one, I know what I
would prefer !

Couldn't agree more. I came off a bike last year (on a proper bike track, nowhere near traffic, just doing my own thing) and broke my collar bone. Had I not been wearing a helmet my head would have taken a hell of a beating. Since then, I wear helmets religiously but before then was only occasional.

500N
19th Nov 2013, 21:17
Ouch :rolleyes:

I've been lucky in that I haven't come of either but on the other hand I do tend
to be not gung ho, even on Quads and I have seen some doosy accidents
of people hooning on a Quad, flipped it completely over a fence,
himself included !!!

KBPsen
19th Nov 2013, 22:32
It's some nice quotes you've found 500N. One of them make claims without any sources to back them up. The other admits that it is unclear if helmets makes any significant difference or if it's an improved bicycle infrastructure that does.

The School of Population Health at The University of Western Australia collected data from Police reports and hospital records pre- and post helmet laws and published a report in 2003. It shows no difference in number of deaths and no difference in the number of head injuries. Despite the number of cyclists dropping significantly. If helmets had a positive effect I think we can agree that the number of head injuries should have decreased at a greater rate than the decrease in the number of cyclists. It did not.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the standards for helmets only require it to withstand impact forces equivalent to falling over while being stationary. So as soon as you are moving you are outside the parameters to which the helmet has been tested. There is also the concern that the design of many helmets may actually increase the rotational forces on the head and neck in case of a crash.

If people want to wear a helmet then by all means wear a helmet. But it should be on a voluntary basis and be an informed decision. Unfortunately most, if not all, campaigns for wearing helmets are trying to scare people into believing that it suddenly has become dangerous to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet.

P.S. As the leading causes of head injuries are falling over and car crashes it should be mandatory to wear a helmet when driving a car or just standing up.

reynoldsno1
19th Nov 2013, 23:27
A 22-year-old woman who posted about “bloody cyclists” on Twitter hours after knocking a cyclist off his bike has been convicted of failing to stop and failing to report an accident, but cleared of driving without due care and attention at Norfolk Magistrates Court today.

Cyclist Toby Hockley sustained minor injuries when Emma Way’s car clipped him on a narrow country lane in Norfolk on 19 May.

Later than day Miss Way, of Watton Norfolk tweeted: “Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!”

Miss Way was forced to defend herself on BBC Radio and national television after a public outcry at the comments, but a Norwich magistrates convicted her of failing to stop after an accident and failing to report it, which she denied.

She was fined £300, had to pay £337 in costs had 7 points added to her licence, but was found not guilty of the more serious charge of driving without due care and attention

Independent.co.uk

They were travelling in opposite directions as well ...:uhoh:

screwballburling
20th Nov 2013, 03:17
Yes real causes for concern here. She shouldn't be allowed on the road. What are they teaching these kids at driving school??

It just re enforces my view that riding on the foot path is a far better choice than chancing it on the road. Fined for riding on the footpath or no fine as it is better than ending up dead. Mind you would you be safe on the footpath with the likes of her driving?

FullOppositeRudder
20th Nov 2013, 05:01
They were travelling in opposite directions as well ...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gifShe must have been Australia as well in recent months. I've twice had to take avoiding action in a similar situation to this in the last three outings.

(And people question why I have a GoPro recording my road runs ..... :rolleyes:). (And yes it is good enough to record number plates)

FOR

maliyahsdad2
20th Nov 2013, 07:36
This just popped up on a different forum.

riding two abreast!

UK Road Cycling Laws and Rules Explained: Cycling Two Abreast (http://tinyurl.com/ncbwyg5)

G&T ice n slice
20th Nov 2013, 08:22
round here the *ssh*les ride 2 abreast and usually 3 feet out from the road edge, but completely ignore the cycle routes that local taxes paid many millions to put in place.

They do the same on all the "B" and "U" class roads as well, where there is often only 1.5 cars width.

then they get all aggressive when you, in your car, crawl along behind them at 5 mph in 1st gear, then waving you past, uphill towards a blind crest where as a local one knows there is also a blind bend.

and lycra loonies do seem to like black bikes, black lycra, black helmets; but at least most (not all) now have some lighting that is visible from more than 5 feet.

Blues&twos
20th Nov 2013, 08:40
screwballburling - pretty unfair to blame the driving schools! They presumably teach all of their pupils how to pass the driving test, and how to drive safely. That a person later drives like an idiot after they have obtained a licence is their own personal choice.

Andy_S
20th Nov 2013, 09:19
Mind you would you be safe on the footpath with the likes of her driving?

It was a country lane in rural Norfolk. There wouldn't have been a footpath. Furthermore, the cyclist was taking part in some sort of race or event, so if there had been a pavement then god help any pedestrian who got in his way.

While I find it difficult to have a huge amount of sympathy with the cyclist, who definitely made the most of the incident and strikes me as a member of the lycra-fascist tendency, I have none at all for the driver; she’s clearly a silly, irresponsible little girl, and one of those infuriating people who can’t ever accept that they’re in the wrong. She’s continually denied any culpability, has said the only thing she did wrong was to make an error of judgment in tweeting about the incident, and has generally cast herself as the victim; I see this morning that she’s now claiming to have been cyberbullied. One hopes she'll be more carefull in the future.

500N
20th Nov 2013, 09:28
"They presumably teach all of their pupils how to pass the driving test, and how to drive safely."

They teach them to pass the test and not break any road rules while doing it !!!

After that ????????

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Nov 2013, 09:35
She’s continually denied any culpability, has said the only thing she did wrong and has generally cast herself as the victim.

According to the BBC article I read this morning she was prosecuted for failing to stop and failing to report an accident and cleared of driving without due care and attention.

That's suggests to me that there is no clear evidence either way as to hers or the cyclists culpability which further suggests to me she may well be be telling the truth.

Andy_S
20th Nov 2013, 09:42
That's suggests to me that there is no clear evidence either way as to hers or the cyclists culpability which further suggests to me she may well be be telling the truth.

It suggests to me that there wasn’t enough evidence to find her guilty (of driving without due care and attention). That doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that she was telling the truth, just that it couldn’t be proven otherwise.

I for one don’t believe for one moment that she was driving, as she claims, at 15mph.

PTT
20th Nov 2013, 09:48
Careful, Andy S, your preconceptions are showing :ok:

Personally, I have no idea what happened or who was at fault or otherwise. I'm not going to assume that one person or the other was doing something stupid at the time, though, and particularly I am not going to assume who was doing it.

SpringHeeledJack
20th Nov 2013, 10:02
“Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier

Admission of guilt ?

“I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!”

Admission of mentality that only cars may be on roads, which legally speaking is far from the truth. She didn't stop, as is required by law, she carried on her way, no doubt wanting to run away from something that she had done. Had she not tweeted (in this case a totally narcissistic user) what had happened the police would've been none the wiser. Had the collision been a few centimetres closer, the likely ending would've been serious injury at best, death at worst.


SHJ

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Nov 2013, 10:12
That doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that she was telling the truth, just that it couldn’t be proven otherwise.



And if spun round it doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination she was lying......


The point I am making and the conclusion you are jumping to

PTT
20th Nov 2013, 10:12
Admission of guilt ?Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but that's not an admission of guilt but a recounting of a fact.

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Nov 2013, 10:18
Admission of mentality that only cars may be on roads, which legally speaking is far from the truth.


Some more Devils advocate stuff, its perhaps a suggestion that the cyclist was infringing on her side of the road hence it was her right of way

G-CPTN
20th Nov 2013, 11:19
convicted her of failing to stop after an accident and failing to report it
Would similar charges have been levelled against the cyclist?

PTT
20th Nov 2013, 11:26
Presumably the cyclist did stop, having been knocked off.

Alloa Akbar
20th Nov 2013, 11:45
Every day in my little town I see cyclists who rely on drivers reactions to accomodate their impatience and stupidity. Cycles and motor vehicles don't mix. I don't care how many cycle lanes we build if it means getting these menaces who are a danger to themselves, off the damn roads.

screwballburling
20th Nov 2013, 12:01
'ere, 'ere, 'ere!

Well I'll be damned, after over 100 posts, finally there is someone who agrees with my original.

God IS great!!

I wonder how much research, overseas, was carried out before these millions were spent on, what I term, useless cycle lanes on roads??

OFSO
20th Nov 2013, 14:51
Needless cyclists deaths ? Does this imply that some deaths are needful ?

RatherBeFlying
20th Nov 2013, 17:59
I once came close to collecting a bunch of cyclists going the wrong way on an off-ramp. I changed into the left turn lane when it appeared and confronted a mass ride coming towards me. Had they been 2-3 seconds closer they would have been over my hood.

My obligation rounding a blind corner is to be able to stop for stationary objects or stray children, but not for idiots at speed in the wrong direction.

screwballburling
20th Nov 2013, 18:43
OFSO

In answer to your question, Yes. Some of the idiot cyclists, deserve what they get, almost.

chips101
20th Nov 2013, 19:21
Can anyone explain to me what the bicycle painted symbols by the kerb indicate with no other signs or guide lines? :confused:

Is this just the local council saying "Hey look" we have x amount of cycle lanes in our borough?

screwballburling
20th Nov 2013, 19:30
chips

It means they prefer the cyclist next to the curb, to enable the undertaker ease of access to scrap you off the road, without venturing too far from the footpath and into oncoming traffic.

ruddman
20th Nov 2013, 19:42
In Australia, its all about 'sharing the road' with bicyclists. Not the other way round evidently. But that's the problem. Bicyclist expect too much.

If I'm driving a car, 60t semi trailers 'share the road' with cars too. But if I'm in a car, I'm sure as hell giving the big boys the room they need. If I don't, its very arrogant of me to assume the big trucks can just nip around me or pass me with ease. I prefer to give THEM room.


Yeah bicyclist? We all share the road. But if you want to 'share the road' on your 20kg bicycle with 1.5 t+ vehicles/trucks, how about use some common sense and make room for the bigger vehicles?



Not THAT hard. :ugh:

radeng
20th Nov 2013, 21:03
ruddman,

But it is too hard. Because for those it's too hard, it's because they are basically THICK and STUPID. Keep out of the way of things bigger and heavier and make sure they can see you......

500N
20th Nov 2013, 21:08
ruddman

Bicyclists haven't got to the stage where Motorcyclists have got to which is they know they haven't nothing to protect them when hit.

It will take time as part of the evolutionary process ;)

As radeng said, "it's because they are basically THICK and STUPID"
so therefore the clever one's will survive !

Nopax,thanx
20th Nov 2013, 21:09
Also something worth considering is that the use of cycle paths (the ones beside the road, rather than cycle lanes) is optional in the UK. We had a guy killed round my way on a bike a few years ago, riding in winter. Two cars coming the other way, one driver saw him and pulled in sharply. The one behind didn't see the rider until it was too late to avoid a collision. The driver was prosecuted and jailed, but freed on appeal. No doubting that he caused the cyclists' death, but he was driving legally. There was a cycle path along the side of the (unlit) road, but the rider chose not to use it.

All in all a very sad case for everyone concerned....

cumulusrider
20th Nov 2013, 21:53
A question.
if a cyclist in the uk is found guilty can he get points on his driving license if he has one?
It would seem logical that an offense such as going through a red light would have the same consequences whether you are riding or driving.

muppetofthenorth
20th Nov 2013, 22:31
Also something worth considering is that the use of cycle paths (the ones beside the road, rather than cycle lanes) is optional in the UK

Now it's getting to the cold and frosty part of the year I will tend to avoid cycle lanes (ie, ones drawn onto pavement).

Reason? They're never gritted.

Cycling on near sheet ice is far more dangerous than cycling on the road in my book. I'd be more than happy to use them if I had reason to believe that the slightest twitch - or leaf - wasn't going to cause me to break my arm/my head/the pedestrian in the lane next to me.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Nov 2013, 22:40
My experience of UK cycle paths (East Midlands, 2006-7) is that they were never maintained - unlit, branches at head height across the whole path, road gravel 3 inches deep etc. Add in the path breaks every 200 yds...
The point is that many cycle paths are unusable. Councils only care that they can claim they have x miles of cycle path. In simple terms, the system is bollocks. Try complaining? I did, politely too - phone, email and letter. Zero replies.
I observed for 2 weeks quite carefully. 96% of cyclists for commuting did not use the cycle paths.

SpringHeeledJack
21st Nov 2013, 05:58
I was going to mention the normally unkempt state of cycle paths in the UK, that is the ones separate from the road, but mr fox has done it better. As well as the above the detrius from the road, including glass and small metal objects make the likelihood of puncturing much higher, especially when it's raining which forces cyclists on to those stretches of road at perhaps the worst times.

Until there is a policy of catering to the growing number of people who choose to cycle to work rather than just box ticking by councils this state of affairs will continue.



SHJ

goldfrog
21st Nov 2013, 09:45
Typical reasons not to use a cycle path. (http://42bikes.warnock.me.uk/2013/11/20/posts-at-new-junction-on-melton-road-by-sainsburys/)

Blacksheep
21st Nov 2013, 09:50
Needless cyclists deaths ? Does this imply that some deaths are needful ? ALL deaths on the road are needless. The plain fact is that as more people switch to cycling, the total number of dead cyclists will rise in proportion to the rise in the total number of cyclists.

Watching news reports on the London deaths, most of them seem to occur at junctions and on roundabouts. If I was a cyclist in London, I'd dismount and push my bicycle to negotiate tight corners and roundabouts as a pedestrian. Its not safe to ride round some of the big London junctions - even driving around them is bad enough!

jabird
21st Nov 2013, 13:44
Things have moved on some way since the early 2012 thread, and there is growing acceptance of the idea of mass utility cycling, especially with the "Get Britain Cycling" report.

Bash the lycra louts all you like, that's not the core point of what is being talked about, nor is it relevant to the tragic incidents in London.

So why even wade back into a topic which I know gets a lot of PPRUNErs going?

Well to that, I ask you a simple set of questions, using pilots' logic:

1) How often do you pilots (and I say you because I am not one and don't claim to be one) have a go at drivers for their poor judgement?

I suspect rather rarely, because (almost?) all pilots are drivers, but few drivers are pilots, just as the majority of UK drivers are not regular cyclists, although that is slowly changing.

2) Even if you do have a bash at drivers, do you really expect them to behave to the same standards that you have been trained? Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those on bikes to behave to the same standard as drivers, or is a comparison with pedestrians more reasonable?

3) Notwithstanding the above, why is it that the majority of driver-cyclist collisions are still driver at fault, even though we do not have continental style strict liability?

4) What can we learn from the aviation industry that can be applied to our streets? I suggest quite a few things. Segregation for starters - you don't sent a Twotter out straight behind a 747 for reasons which are not visible, but which have been understood due to learning from experience. So it benefits all to keep cycles and HGVs separate as much as possible.

5) Whether you ride or not, or have any intention of riding, we're all pedestrians, and road safety measures that help cyclists almost always help pedestrians, unless done badly.

6) One of the concepts worthy of stealing from the Dutch is the home zone, or more technically, filtered permeability. This means very slow speeds on residential streets and through traffic being banned, sometimes using simple bollards. This tends to mean a more pleasant environment too, and dare I say it, house prices are more likely to go up, not down because of it!

Now none of you would be so daft as to try and take off directly from the gate. You go slowly to the runway, and often you need to back track so you can face the wind. Is it really that much to ask that the start and end of each car journey goes a bit slower, so that more local journeys can be made on foot and on two wheels?

7) Yes, cycling advocates like myself like to look to the Dutch for inspiration. So what? They happen to be very good at transport. Their roads are also just as safe as the UK for car users, just a great deal more so for people on bikes and pedestrians.

They still own just as many cars as we do, and have 3x more motorways (both per head). You can park a car in many Dutch towns for a lot less than their UK counterparts, but I still struggle to park my bike at many places in a city like Coventry.

They have a denser train network than we do, and also, to keep everyone here happy - Schiphol has SIX runways, and no APD either. So maybe there's lots we can learn from our friends across the North Sea, and not just in respect of cycling.

And finally.

8) To build a large commercial airport, you need flat land as a prerequisite, and if you don't have it, you reclaim.

The same does NOT go for mass cycling - as anyone who has been to Maastricht, or more recently to Zurich, will attest.

So some road layouts are going to change. Accept it. You will still be able to drive your cars, but I will be able to ride my bike more safely, and as a result, that will mean many others will to. More people on bikes, on foot or in buses means more road space for those who still want to drive.

And please don't blame us for fuel duty, or APD - both brought in long before cycling started to "take off".

radeng
21st Nov 2013, 15:15
But, jabird, when a cyclist wearing dark clothing is cycling along a dark country road at night with no lights on, don't blame the motorist if a) the cyclist is killed and b) his estate is sued for repairing any car damage.

jabird
21st Nov 2013, 15:18
But, jabird, when a cyclist wearing dark clothing is cycling along a dark country road at night with no lights on, don't blame the motorist if a) the cyclist is killed and b) his estate is sued for repairing any car damage.

Clothing is a matter of choice, lights are law, and should be used at night by all vehicles, including cyclists.

In respect of (a), motorist still has duty of care to look out for other users, including pedestrians. However, lack of lights would be taken into account in event of a collision.

(b) You are trivialising the fact there would still be one person dead, and quite possibly others injured.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st Nov 2013, 15:28
In the UK, I mentally slagged off car drivers very often. Not because I expected pilot levels of judgement, forethought or response, but for the more fundamental reason that they were not driving.
They were chatting to their passengers and driving, fiddling with the GPS and driving, sorting out the kids and driving, texting and driving, etc. It is very clear that very many people sitting behind the wheel regard driving as the secondary activity.

I propose fitting all bicycles, motorcycles, etc with a small charge of semtex. When accelerometers detect a collision which will be fatal to the cyclist anyway, the charge goes off, killing the driver who caused the collision.
My name's Draco - I'm here all week.

KBPsen
21st Nov 2013, 15:33
The plain fact is that as more people switch to cycling, the total number of dead cyclists will rise in proportion to the rise in the total number of cyclists. That is not a fact. There is ample evidence to suggest that as the number of cyclists increase the accident rates decrease. Likely causes of this is that drivers become more aware of cyclists and that their increased numbers leads to improvements in infrastructure.

DType
21st Nov 2013, 15:33
radeng
You could add "and cycling the wrong way round a roundabout".
I missed him, but more by luck than judgement, and I do not trust luck when it comes to safety (his OR mine).

Eric T Cartman
21st Nov 2013, 17:06
http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo354/oldbloke60/Moron.jpg

Oxford Street, London last August @ 1710hrs - no wonder cyclist's complaints loose credibility with idiots like this around !

jabird
21st Nov 2013, 17:37
Oxford Street, London last August @ 1710hrs

Presumably he ran the red too? Texting in that traffic is moronic, period - yet don't tell me taxis and car drivers have never done it either? Otherwise, why was a law introduced to ban it?

- no wonder cyclist's complaints loose credibility with idiots like this around !

No, he is one idiot amongst many, just as there are many morons behind the wheels of cars, and dare I say it a few (but thankfully not many) moronic pilots too.

Anybody crashed a bike by leaving their son at the controls?

Point is, the moment there's any kind of aviation incident, this forum is (rightly) rife with people complaining about "sloppy journalism", "sensationalism" and "inaccuracy".

Six people on bikes have died on London's roads in recent days, and all you do is blame the victims.

Next time there's an air crash, please form an orderly queue to blame the passengers.

SpringHeeledJack
21st Nov 2013, 17:37
In fairness Eric the person on the bike is a tourist taking an ill-advised photo (at a guess :8) whilst about 150 metres from Oxford Circus along Oxford Street, all traffic doing 20mph max because of the a) speed limit b) congestion.

That said I've seen people do this in traffic various times around touristy places, so there are plenty of trusting souls about!



SHJ

DX Wombat
21st Nov 2013, 18:09
the person on the bike is a tourist taking an ill-advised photo How on earth do you know that? Unless that is you on the bike or a stupid friend or relative. I can no longer walk my dogs along the local canal towpath thanks to the numbers of cyclists who barge on regardless of pedestrians in spite of the fact that there are notices stating that pedestrians have priority. :mad: In future I shall be inclined to stand still to make them go around me and if they fall in the canal as a result - well hard luck, they should not have been going so fast.

G-CPTN
21st Nov 2013, 18:34
the person on the bike is a tourist taking an ill-advised photo
How on earth do you know that?
It's a Boris bike . . .

Bob Viking
21st Nov 2013, 19:00
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/512672-new-heights-arrogance-lycra-loonies-26.html

I won't reiterate my point that I made several times on the above thread but I will just say that some of you need to pull your head out of your @rse and grow up.
I realise I will now be flamed by several users who believe that all cyclists are the antichrist but just listen to yourselves. What have you become?! How can you sleep at night. It's called prejudice and can get you into a lot of trouble in other walks of life.
BV
By the way, just in case you don't spot the tongue in cheek nature of some elements of my post, as several have previoulsy failed to do (and then accused me of backtracking to save face) I will state the following:
THIS IS A TONGUE IN CHEEK POST BECAUSE THIS IS JETBLAST AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS HERE FOR. :p

Gertrude the Wombat
21st Nov 2013, 22:27
Clothing is a matter of choice
And on unlit country roads at night I choose a hi-ris jacket.

I don't in town, people can see where they're going that much better. But I don't wear black either.

folkyphil
21st Nov 2013, 23:45
5.00pm yesterday...DARK.
There was me, waiting to drive my car out of a very minor road onto a busy "B"road. Cars parked (illegally) right up to the junction. Nothing unusual to have to wait 3-4 minutes before a break in the traffic.
At last... a decent gap! Just driving forward when a P**T,with no lights whatsoever, cycled across my bows.
I STOPPED. However, it was more by luck than judgement that I avoided the 20-ish year old chap. VERY NEARLY another person to add to the statistics.

One the one hand, I concede that the illegally parked cars were partially to blame. The Local authority seem unwilling to accept any responsibility for that part of the equation.
On the other hand, the crass stupidity of the cyclist....
After 45 years of accident-free driving, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that more frequent use of my bus pass is the only way forward!

Carry0nLuggage
22nd Nov 2013, 13:44
Were you lit or wearing hi-viz?

If he had hit you, this is the likely outcome: The handlebars twist in your direction overbalancing the rider in the opposite direction. Because the lower half of the body is constrained by the bike there is no chance to regain that balance; the rider goes down head first with a high risk of broken wrists, collar bones and head injuries. You stagger upright until balance is regained although you are likely to be a bit put out.

This is a useful scenario to remember when faced with twits riding amongst pedestrians ;)

radeng
22nd Nov 2013, 16:27
jabird

I cannot accept that the cyclist is dead because of his own STUPIDITY that others should bear the financial burden. He's breaking the law, and although it's hard price to pay, that happens at times. Such as burglars falling through the roof of the building they're trying burgle.

I can't find any sympathy for the deceased in either case.

jabird
22nd Nov 2013, 20:55
He's breaking the law, and although it's hard price to pay, that happens at times. Such as burglars falling through the roof of the building they're trying burgle.

I can't find any sympathy for the deceased in either case.

So a car driver hits 37 in a 30 zone, invades an advanced stop ("bike") box at red, parks on a pavement or close passes a cyclist - all of these are illegal, and rarely punished, apart from speeding (pavement parking illegal in London, just antisocial anywhere else).

Each of the above puts cyclists and/or pedestrians in danger, and speeding endangers other motorised road users too.

So by your logic, the penalty for each should be hanging at noon in a public square?

Of course, I do not condone cycling without lights for one minute - it is an immensely stupid thing to do, especially when the cost of a basic light and a rack of AAA batteries is almost zero.

However, lights, like any other electronic device, can fail (dare I mention Eastern 404 and the 20c bulb?). As I can find myself riding some distance in the dark (e.g. Ribblehead to Lancaster last weekend), I usually carry a back up light and/or batteries, and have at least two lights on the back, as it is easy for a pot hole (which we, of course, cause) to knock one of them out.

Until we live in an age where each person has the same level of personal liability expectations as you would place on a large corporation (ie an airline), you really cannot say someone "deserved to die" for an offence that is in the same category as the motoring offences mentioned above, but which rarely puts anyone else in danger, especially when the vast majority of those who ride without lights are either below the age of majority, or they have not yet actually passed their driving test.

The moment they have, they will be doing some or all of the above motoring offences, so the people you call cyclists are often just BMW drivers who haven't passed their test yet.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Nov 2013, 21:56
At least the unlit cyclist going fast downhill at night in a narrow lane DID stop and call an ambulance.
What about a lit cyclist going fast downhill at night in a narrow lane who, not unsurprisingly, has trouble seeing an unlit pedestrian dressed from head to toe in black?

I find on my 14 mile cycle ride home from work in the dark that many pedestrians do, like most of the cyclists, wear visible clothing, and quite a few do, like the vast majority of th cyclists, carry lights. But there's always one, head to toe in black, nothing reflective, no light ... somebody else is going to hit him sooner or later even if I don't.

I have no objection at all to people walking along purpose-built cycle tracks alongside unlit country roads, but please try to make yourself look at least a little bit visible.

magpienja
22nd Nov 2013, 22:12
I know some will condemn me but when on my bike I stick to the pavement...self preservation...even if not marked...of course this cant be done is busy central London with busy pavements,

As others have said...bikess have got to be taken away from traffic...

The red painted section on the left of some roads just encourages them to move along the killing zone thinking they are safe cos they are in there own little lane oblivious to all around it seems....I wonder how many of the recent victims are motorists???

Nick.

jabird
22nd Nov 2013, 22:22
I stick to the pavement...self preservation

I won't condemn you, as I've tried approaching cyclists on this, and get same response. You only get the feeling of safety on the pavement. For similar reasons, mile for mile, walking is still more dangerous than cycling.

Your problem doing this on a bike is trying to cross side roads at junctions and pulling out behind parked cars.

A moving car comes round the corner, doesn't see you, bang. Law on their side, even though you think you are protecting yourself.

Pavement cycling also antisocial to pedestrians, who believe (correctly) that space to be theirs, and act as such - but still needs to be put into context of pavement parking, rarely condemned, which can leave pushchair and wheelchair users exposed having to go into roads around cars.

The extent of pavement cycling also varies hugely, depending on the road. I've observed one road where cycle path ends abruptly, by common land, not houses - 80% on path. Turn corner, speeds and volumes reduced, lots of frontages, 80% on road. So wrong to say it is all down to "bad cycling" - often down to how roads themselves are laid out.

SpringHeeledJack
23rd Nov 2013, 10:39
It would be best practice for anyone who is travelling at night in unlit/minimal light conditions to wear/carry some type of luminous/reflective device. However until there is a punishable law, it will be ignored by the majority.



SHJ

spittingimage
23rd Nov 2013, 12:00
Agreed, SHJ. And I would certainly not ride a bike at night without highly visible/reflective clothing and would question the sanity of those who do not.

Additionally, talking UK now, all new bikes these days tend to have a red rear reflector, white front reflector, amber pedal reflectors (x 4) and white wheel revolving reflectors fitted as standard. Addition of the legally required front and red lights for the bike at night is down to the rider. In fact, my bike's tyres have reflective sidewalls too.

Incidentally, 'at night' for bikes is between sunset and sunrise and not some +/- 30 mins arithmetic nonsense. Only just learned this :O !

radeng
23rd Nov 2013, 21:43
I had a colleague who left work one winters night to find his bike light bulb had blown. He was going to walk home and leave his bike - very sensible. I was able to get his bike in my car and took him home. If all cyclists were that responsible...

Unlike the race going down a one and half track wide road riding several abreast and refusing to let an ambulance with twos and blues going get past them...

magpienja
24th Nov 2013, 09:44
I think TFL could do with a TV campaign featuring videos like this one...may just educate a few to understand it from another pair of eyes...maybe a nation wide TV campain,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

I have heard pressure groups asking for compulsory side mounted cameras to be fitted to trucks/buses/coaches/vans ect...but I dont think that that is the answer,

In the course of my duty's I have to drive a large vehicle fitted with reversing cameras and very useful they are....fine in daylight hours but the bright screen/monitor is a major distraction on dark mornings/nights during normal driving,

Granted I can turn it to auto mode so it only comes on when reverse gear is selected..but a side mounted camera would need to be on all the time,

Like it or not...Cyclists owe a duty to themselves for the own safety and need to ride accordingly...lemmings spring to mind,

Accidents like these are not just devastating for the cyclists and there family's but also the poor drivers involved trying to go about there day to day work,

I think cycling is one step up from being a pedestrian and has no place on busy roads...like it or not and I say this as a very keep cyclist myself.

Blues&twos
24th Nov 2013, 10:00
magpienja - brilliant video. I used to drive lorries in and around London and even I was astonished at the number of cyclists hidden from view.

Capetonian
24th Nov 2013, 17:16
The roads are dangerous for cyclists and I don't think most reasonable people object to cyclists using the pavement if they do so with consideration and respect for other pavement users. Unfortunately what I often see is hulking great men, head down, pedalling furiously and at a speed which endangers and frightens other users. These are the ones who are public enemy number one and indeed the cycling community's worst enemy too.

There are also, as I saw last night, in the dark and rain, those who cycle both on the road and on the pavement with no lights and in dark clothing. Quite simply, they are statistics waiting to be recorded for the Darwin Awards.

Krystal n chips
24th Nov 2013, 20:13
" The roads are dangerous for cyclists and I don't think most reasonable people object to cyclists using the pavement if they do so with consideration and respect for other pavement users



Alas, you are never destined to rival Plato it would seem with such profound philosophical proclamations as outlined above.

The roads are dangerous for all road users


Being a reasonable person however, I do object to cyclists using the pavement, this objection being based on the simple theory that pavements are for pedestrians......... and roads for cyclists.

This bit of legislation tends to support my own, and many other reasonable peoples view.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

This debate can, and will rage for ever, but the word education seems to be lacking at times.

.

Blues&twos
24th Nov 2013, 21:08
K&C, I rarely cycle, most of my journeys are in my car because we live out in the sticks. However, I drive into much busier areas every day and as I mentioned earlier in the thread I used to drive lorries for a living.

I absolutely understand in some of these places why cyclists choose to use the pavement. If I had to make the choice between possible death or the minor offence of cycling on a footway, simple logic dictates the latter.

Of course, cycling like a loony on the pavement would be a stupid, irresponsible and dangerous thing to do. If it can't be done safely (e.g. lots of pedestrians), then common sense suggests the cyclist gets off and pushes their bike for a while. On an empty footpath, it causes no problems.

Straighten Up
24th Nov 2013, 23:19
As a london driver and I find most cyclists flout the rules of the road and are aggressive towards drivers. I got flipped the bird as I pulled across a one way street and nearly hit a cyclist going the wrong way down said street all in black with no lights at night!

That being said as a very occasional cyclist, I can't say I wait at every red light particularly ped x and do notice drivers pay no attention to other road users. I've learnt to ride defensively and accept that there are risks with riding a bike as there are in all things we do.

Worst are probably pedestrians walking out in the road with their heads buried in their iwhatsit

jabird
25th Nov 2013, 07:48
Like it or not...Cyclists owe a duty to themselves for the own safety and need to ride accordingly...lemmings spring to mind,

It is a two way process. I'll admit I used to glide down the "left channel" to get to the front of a bus / lorry, and having seen videos like the TfL one, not now. At a recent cycle show, there was a demonstration lorry showing the "natural" blind spots, and how the mirrors did help - but I'm not one to go round working out what devices a lorry has / hasn't got.

Yet there will always be exceptions - what if traffic ahead of the junction is stationary? I'm more likely to try and get through then, but only if bus going straight, still not HGV.

Regardless of whether or not people choose to go down left side, there is nothing you can do to stop a large vehicle taking that same space to your right - unless you deliberately ride in the centre of the lane - and that, of course, is going to get you lots of aggro too!

You also have to consider relative levels of training and machine size, together with where and how you would deliver such training.

I'm all for a rounded "road user ed" type course in secondary schools, and for highway code + cycle training in primary schools before that - both should be compulsory, unless there's a very good reason for opt out.

However, that does nothing for people already on the roads. Cycling can't and won't be licenced, but HGVs are subject to various laws, including recent restrictions placed by TfL on their own contractors.

So we have to keep looking to the most effective ways to save lives, not to mention to promote the lives saved and enhanced through exercise - and like it or not, that is still going to place an emphasis on training of drivers.

Solid Rust Twotter
25th Nov 2013, 09:16
...that is still going to place an emphasis on training of drivers.


...And cyclists.

MagnusP
25th Nov 2013, 09:22
Well, not many cyclists, including some posting here, are unaware that, in the UK at least, it is illegal to cycle on the pavement. Covered in the Road Traffic Act and the Highways (Scotland) Act. But they still do it.

pvmw
25th Nov 2013, 10:35
............ it is illegal to cycle on the pavement

scenario for you:-

Once or twice a week I cycle to the pub. This involoves a stretch on a fairly narrow bridge over a river. One of the major routes out of town, and a very busy single carriageway, and in addition to keep vehicles separated the centre is hatched and there are bollards about every 50 yards. The result is that the lanes are narrow, and narrowed further by the bollards such that there would not be room for a car to safely pass a cyclist (not to mention the lorries).

There is a footpath, separated from the carriageway by a raised kerb. Not wide, but just wide enough. There are not a lot of pedestrians but a few people use it, and as I wish to survive both the trip to the pub and the ride home I use the footpath. Should I see a pedestrian coming I dismount until they pass. I usually get a smile, and occasionally a thank you as well.

You are correct, and I am breaking the law. Would you prefer I rode in the road -and at this time of year in the dark - where my life expectancy could be measured in hours?

Sop_Monkey
25th Nov 2013, 11:03
Exactly! At least when (not if) you die, trying to cycle on the road, you will be able to face your maker with a clear conscience, as at the time of your passing you were legal.

Where are the HSE when you need them?!

fenland787
25th Nov 2013, 17:16
...to reduce cycling injuries on the road by keeping 'em on the cycle paths where they belong?
BBC News - Telegraph pole left in middle of Cambridgeshire cycle path (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-25090489)

magpienja
25th Nov 2013, 17:26
Bikes seem to co exist with pedestrians on pavements with a simple white line drawn on it and a cycle symbol...

Maybe it is illegal to ride a bike on a pavement but maybe its time for the law to be changed in the light of the daily carnage on the roads...I will continue to take my chance with the law and ride my bike carefully on the pavement if its quite enough

I would love to know the % of cyclist involved in some of these accidents...to see how many are motorist as well as cyclists and have a motorists experience...or are just virgin riders thrown in at the deep end,

As far as I see cyclists are the only road users not having to undergo any form of training...even the rider of the most basic moped these days has to undergo some quite involved training an licencing....surly cyclist would benefit no end from compulsory training...seem a no brainer to me.

Patrin
25th Nov 2013, 17:40
I commute every day on a bicycle, I've never really seen it as an issue. My personal experience is that if you as a cyclist respect the rules of the road and other road users then there really is no problem.

The problem starts when cyclists try and do stupid things on the road and expect to get away with it.

The problem is when other road users are not paying attention to what they are doing; what would be a little scrape in a car is a very serious injury for a cyclist.

I think cyclists on pedestrian walkways is often more dangerous to both users.

radeng
25th Nov 2013, 17:50
BBC News - Bournemouth cyclist who injured girl faces jail (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-25093772)

I doubt he'll get as long as I feel he deserves, though.

magpienja
25th Nov 2013, 18:21
What an RAF pilot can teach us about being safe on the road (http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/)

Worth a read.

Capetonian
25th Nov 2013, 18:25
Philip Benwell, 38, of Crescent Road in Bournemouth, pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court to causing grievous bodily harm to nine-year old Leila Crofts.
She was hit by his bike on Pinecliff Road, in Poole, on 26 July.
Leila spent several days in intensive care after the incident.

Precisely this makes me so annoyed. Not an elderly person, not a child, but a full grown man in the prime of life (unless there's something we don't know from the article and he's disabled, but this I doubt).
I see this almost daily in some places in the UK and the authorities seem unwilling to do anything other than turn a blind eye. I appreciate that the roads are dangerous for cyclists, but that does not give them cause to make the pavements dangerous for pedestrians who have the first claim to their use.
I doubt he'll get as long as I feel he deserves, though.
A great pity.

Krystal n chips
25th Nov 2013, 19:31
" I appreciate that the roads are dangerous for cyclists, but that does not give them cause to make the pavements dangerous for pedestrians who have the first claim to their use"

Ah, what a difference a day makes it seems.....


" The roads are dangerous for cyclists and I don't think most reasonable people object to cyclists using the pavement if they do so with consideration and respect for other pavement users


Personally, I prefer to see cyclists on...the road and dismounted when they are on....the pavement.

Being a reasonable person of course.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2013, 19:41
Bizarrely cyclists and pedestrians seem to be able to co exist quite happily every where we cycled on our 4 month Europe tour this year, perhaps here in the UK we need to re think the issue.

magpienja
25th Nov 2013, 20:35
Just needs a bit of re-educating,

Of course some pavements are far to busy and totally unsuitable.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2013, 20:42
We cycled in the pedestrianised shopping centre of Seville, no cars but hundreds of pedestrians and a spattering of teams and no one batted an eyelid. The polite ding ding of the bike bell and pedestrians just politely move over which was the case through so much of Spain, Italy and France.

We could no doubt learn an awful lot from that sharing attitude.

MG23
25th Nov 2013, 20:48
Bizarrely cyclists and pedestrians seem to be able to co exist quite happily every where we cycled on our 4 month Europe tour this year, perhaps here in the UK we need to re think the issue.

The only place I've seen lots of cyclists on the road when driving in Europe is Holland, and there, unlike the UK, they don't seem to think they're Shock Troops Of The Glorious Anti-Car Revolution. They even stopped when I wanted to cross the road as a pedestrian, when I would have been happy to let them go past and cross behind them.

Blacksheep
25th Nov 2013, 20:52
Commuting on the way home tonight, a cyclist pedals happily one handed across the Pelican crossing. Unfortunately we had the green light, he crossed on the red man . . . oblivious because his lugs were plugged with earphones and he was too busy texting with his free hand to notice the traffic :rolleyes:

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2013, 21:21
MG23,

Plenty of cyclists on the country roads in Spain but in the exact same way you describe and according to our expat friends when over taking them in a car, or in our case a motorhome provided you demonstrate care and attention 'sharing' is the norm :ok:

Gertrude the Wombat
25th Nov 2013, 21:30
...to reduce cycling injuries on the road by keeping 'em on the cycle paths where they belong?
BBC News - Telegraph pole left in middle of Cambridgeshire cycle path (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fjet-blast%2F528047-needless-cyclist-deaths-uk-roads-9.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-cambridgeshire-25090489&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fjet-blast%2F528047-needless-cyclist-deaths-uk-roads-8.html%23post8171028)
This, we are told, is something to do with having to build the path in a hurry to use up the money, but it taking longer than that to negotiate to move the pole.

This "having to do crap stuff in a hurry because the money will vanish if you take a little longer and do it properly" is one of the curses of British public life.

gupta
26th Nov 2013, 03:08
Doesn't particularly prove a point but does relate to attitude - "She was in my way"

Daniel Wood jailed for five years for killing Mary Touma, mother of NRL player Joe Thomas (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/daniel-wood-jailed-for-five-years-for-killing-mary-touma-mother-of-nrl-player-joe-thomas-20131122-2y0me.html)

goldfrog
26th Nov 2013, 08:18
Doesn't particularly prove a point but does relate to attitude - "She was in my way"

Daniel Wood jailed for five years for killing Mary Touma, mother of NRL player Joe Thomas (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/daniel-wood-jailed-for-five-years-for-killing-mary-touma-mother-of-nrl-player-joe-thomas-20131122-2y0me.html)

This appears to be a story about a bloke with a drink problem who happened to be on a bike as he had lost his driving license.

ricardian
26th Nov 2013, 09:23
BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25100379) The force said the fines issued were mainly for using a mobile phone while driving or passing through a red light.

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 10:10
The only place I've seen lots of cyclists on the road when driving in Europe is Holland, and

Most cyclists in the Netherlands will be on separate paths by the road, rather than on it - sharing only tends to take place on residential streets or quieter country roads, and generally there with a 60kmh limit.

there, unlike the UK, they don't seem to think they're Shock Troops Of The Glorious Anti-Car Revolution

That's because there is almost total integration between the two in terms of mentality, but separation of road space. Most (80%+) Dutch adult cyclists are also drivers, and most drivers (90%+) are also cyclists.

In the UK, the first is largely, but not exclusively true, but the majority of drivers are not regular cyclists, hence the tension, which is on top of the road design, which remains the core issue.

If you look at most motoring stats, there aren't huge differences between the Netherlands and the UK - they drive similar distances to us, they pay a bit more for fuel, and their roads are slightly safer overall. Car ownership is also very similar.

The key difference comes in terms of attitudes to local transport, where the bike really is king, right across the country, including areas where there are hills, such as Limburg.

One of our biggest ills in the UK is the mentality to punish the car, without providing viable alternatives - not dissimilar to the way APD is all take, without any hypothecation (ie if it is an environment tax, use it to benefit the environment).

Take any typical housing or office development - say you are going to employ 100 people, and want 80 parking spaces. Council says you can have 50, developer wangles that to 60 and thinks it's a good deal.

Then you get pavement parking everywhere, making matters worse for the very people planning restrictions are supposed to protect.

This is the reality - of course, within any lobby, there are those of the far left / deep green / anarchist mentality who want us to stop using petroleum tomorrow, but that is not the majority view.

alicopter
26th Nov 2013, 10:50
Hi, I recently cycled from Marseille to Cherbourg via Bordeaux with a two wheels trailer in the back. More than 1500 kms in total but less than 250 kms on the road!!!...... 10 to 11 hours in the saddle per day, with my dog trotting alongside for 4 hours a day.... Apart from 4 punctures, not a single problem... pure delight. Since, back in the UK and cycling most days, I nearly died many times riding on East-Anglian roads. Lorries brushing against my shoulder!!!!! People driving full beams even after having seen me... people starting at an intersection even when I am cycling five meters away from them wearing a hi-vis waistcoat and having priority on them... pot holes every where on cycle paths (when they do exist) some of them so bad you need a new spine... branches or brambles hanging in your way so long and big they'd pull you off your bike if you'd take them in the middle of your chest... Really not a bicycle friendly place around here... no infrastructures and no education, a bit like not being used to take your litter home, that's what the road side seems to be meant for... rubbish.

spittingimage
26th Nov 2013, 13:57
Hmm .. cannot top that distance but rode 500kms from Hampshire to County Durham last year to visit family. Took me 5 days but, hey, I’m 68 ! Point being though that I only had one close encounter of a metallic kind when some lady, presumably on the school run with a vehicle full of kids, decided to press on overtaking through a ‘pinch-point’ in N Nottinghamshire; a very close encounter. Otherwise no problems .. and no punctures !

I am not a head down speed merchant but just a fairly regular recreational cyclist, largely on roads, for some 60+ years now. Occasionally I get close proximity to a potential incident but, at the modest speed I ride, I can usually see it coming. I have never yet been knocked off my bike and only once have I rear-ended another vehicle with my bike (decades ago, at the age of 14). In general, I would say that the vast majority of other road users are comparatively courteous towards me and this is reciprocated. But I have noted an increasingly self-righteous attitude in some cyclists and other road users in these last few years and this seems to be borne out in the tone of some of the foregoing posts.

BTW I use a rear-view mirror on my bike these days too; a revelation, negligible cost and wholly recommended. And I agree about the roadside litter; it is all too obvious everywhere on a bike.

SpringHeeledJack
26th Nov 2013, 15:21
The simple facts are that cars and trucks aren't going away unless there's an energy Black Swan event, cyclists aren't going away and will only increase in numbers due to commuting costs and the benefits of low impact exercise. Hopefully many people will also want to walk and run for practical and fitness reasons. We will ALL have to get on with each other, bad behaviour, animosity and uncontrolled aggression will only exacerbate the daily grind.



SHJ (Car driver, cyclist, runner, pedestrian,human ;) )

radeng
26th Nov 2013, 17:46
More cyclist road rage

Police plea after cyclist kicks woman and throws keys into hedge (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald) (http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/10832973.Police_plea_after_cyclist_kicks_woman_and_throws_ke ys_into_hedge/?ref=mry)

SpringHeeledJack
26th Nov 2013, 18:12
More cyclist road rage

What might cause a 50 something year old cyclist become SO agitated that they would both kick someone and throw the van keys of said person away ? He's obviously a psychopath! Simple! Case solved! Hang him!

Let me guess, a normally sane ( and short!) 50 year old man cycling along a road is intimidated by a horn honking aggressive motorist who feels that they are being impeded and they pass him a bit too close for comfort. He remonstrates with his body language. The motorist decides to take issue with the man and they argue vociferously. He decides to teach her a lesson in humility and rashly decides to take her keys and lob them away. In the scuffle her leg is impeded upon and off he goes muttering under his breath and closer to a myocardial infarction than before. An educated guess, at best, but in the article the poor woman :rolleyes: was the victim and now if said cyclist is found, he will have to face some serious consequences. Apart from a few individuals that should be under lock and key, it is both justified and normal to react with rage if your life has just been threatened (whether intentional or not). How can 'we' expect any normal person to behave 'calmly' ???

For the most part the 60 million inhabitants of the UK get along very well all things considered, but within that seething mass of people there will be by default a proportion who are anti-social and dangerous. The vast majority are normal (what ever that is), but if threatened the 'fight or flight' software kicks in. Very few are immune.



SHJ

radeng
26th Nov 2013, 18:35
shj

You present lots of assumptions for which you have no evidence. Plus, it does not alter the case of a criminal act of assault.

Which you would, prima facie, be attempting to justify.

SpringHeeledJack
26th Nov 2013, 19:18
Mr Radeng, your supposition that I have scant idea cannot be argued with, the only 2 persons who do know the truth are the cyclist (themselves a motorist most probably) and the van driver. We will never know if the van driver 'assaulted' the cyclist with aggression and then even a bash on the shoulder whilst passing. Certainly something major had happened for him to be so angry, assuming that he was one of the 'normal' folk we all know.

As for the alleged assault (that he kicked her or that he took her keys out of he ignition ?), it is the van driver's word against the cyclist, yet the cards already seemed to be stacked against the cyclist. Without wishing to be presumptuous ;) it could be said that anyone who goes to the trouble of pulling over to remonstrate with another at the side of a road is up for a bit of trouble and as the van driver was a lone woman, it makes me wonder even more. Perhaps we need to revisit our views on the subject of male and female behaviour in this case.



SHJ

G-CPTN
26th Nov 2013, 19:22
anyone who goes to the trouble of pulling over to remonstrate with another at the side of a road is up for a bit of troublePerhaps she is a school-teacher?

that he took her keys out of he ignition, it is the van driver's word against the cyclistShe is unlikely to invent that.

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 19:29
You present lots of assumptions for which you have no evidence.

Which is why he preceded it by "let me guess".

Plus, it does not alter the case of a criminal act of assault.

Which cannot have been proven in a court of law, given that the incident was reported on yesterday.

Which you would, prima facie, be attempting to justify.

No, he is giving a rational account of how things might have unfolded it.

Simple fact is, when you are on a bike in most UK cities, you risk being close / fast passed, cut up, doored or "SMIDSY'd" (sorry mate I didn't see you) on a daily basis. When I was doored the other day, this time on passenger side (but with consent of driver), he tried to blame me with the SMIDSY excuse - even though I have THREE front lights! Then he tried saying he didn't expect me there (on approach to the station, in thick, stationary traffic) - ie he clearly didn't look - but oh no, it is ALWAYS the bloody road tax dodging self righteous cyclists' fault!

Most of us just get on with it, but we all have our breaking point. For everyone else, well, guess what - we are genetically and culturally very similar to out Dutch friends, and they get on fine. Why? Because they've had the good sense to adapt their roads in a way which gives each person breathing space - in their hilly places as well as the better known flat ones.

Bear in mind that UK cyclists cover about 1% of the distance drivers drive, and that we tend to have less than 1/10th of the momentum.

Yet still 2500+ people die each year on the roads, and that's just collisions between motor vehicles. Add 600 pedestrians on top of that, and 125 cyclists.

So all in all, we're about 3 notches down on the Richter scale compared to driving, which has no direct health benefits, but is a cause of significant levels of air pollution. Remember the usual claims about the most dangerous part of your flight being the drive to the airport? That the biggest source of pollution around airports being from the roads, not the runways?

So thank you everyone for what has been a largely informative and useful thread, but you could just as easily start one every day as "Needless motorists deaths on UK roads".

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 19:46
become agitated after she had overtaken him a short time before

Many drivers have no idea how close they actually pass, nor how aggressive a fast pass can be, especially on rural roads, where the relative speed is so much greater.

We don't know enough about this case, but I have even had cars overtaking other cars coming in my direction - but that was on a 20mph road in an urban setting!

So removing the keys in this way could be deemed to be disarming an offensive weapon - although the aggressive act would appear to have been and gone by then.

For anyone who wants "menace" cyclists locked up - fine, but if you want parity, the jails will already by full of dangerous drivers. Better get building those cells!

KBPsen
26th Nov 2013, 20:54
Now that we appear to be using individual incidents as representative of the whole, here's what happened to me some months ago.

I was on my bike on a separate bike track during the daytime when a car, driven by a woman, made a right turn to enter a petrol station. She clipped my pedal so I went down on ass and elbows. She didn't even stop but continued in to the petrol station and started to fill up her car. I was absolutely livid and picked up my bike and ran after her to give her a piece of my mind. When she saw me the first thing she said was "Oh, I didn't see you" and then proceeded to deny any responsibility. The damage to my bike could have happened months ago, that my knees and elbows were bleeding wasn't her fault. She had a right to drive where she did and besides she hadn't touched me so nothing was her fault. When I asked for her name, address and insurance details she refused and started lecturing me on how her insurance was only for damage to her car and nothing else. That 3rd party liability insurance is mandatory didn't seem to interest her.

So what are we to concluded from that experience, radeng?

500N
26th Nov 2013, 20:58
"So what are we to concluded from that experience, radeng?"

She is an idiot and you should do what motorcyclists do to obnoxious drivers,
ride past them when they are stopped and put your foot out at tail light height !

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Nov 2013, 21:02
So what are we to concluded from that experience, radeng?


Not sure what radeng will conclude but in the politest possible terms all you have supplied us with is uncorroborated hear say which makes coming to any meaningful conclusion rather difficult.

G&T ice n slice
26th Nov 2013, 21:11
Many drivers have no idea how close they actually pass, nor how aggressive a fast pass can be, especially on rural roads, where the relative speed is so much greater.

Come up to sunny Cumberland where the roads are 1.5 car widths. Then cycle two abreast with your lycra-clad fellow travellers. Uphill. then be amazed when someone in a clapped out Ovlov sits behind you in 1st gear all... the... way.. up... the... hill... completely ignoring your "wave on past" hand signals, your strange "beating the fist up and down" hand signals.

THERE ISN'T ROOM TO GO PAST YOU YOU STUPID STUPID MORONS

G-CPTN
26th Nov 2013, 21:17
When she saw me the first thing she said was "Oh, I didn't see you" and then proceeded to deny any responsibility. The damage to my bike could have happened months ago, that my knees and elbows were bleeding wasn't her fault. She had a right to drive where she did and besides she hadn't touched me so nothing was her fault. When I asked for her name, address and insurance details she refused and started lecturing me on how her insurance was only for damage to her car and nothing else. That 3rd party liability insurance is mandatory didn't seem to interest her.You were perfectly within your rights to take her registration number and report the incident to the police (I'm assuming UK here).

Supporting photographic evidence with times would help.

As a general rule, the police aren't interested in damage-only collisions (assuming that both parties stop and exchange detail of name, address and insurance company) but where there is injury this must be reported to the police within 24 hours (?), however, under the circumstances, the police should have been informed. especially as the motorist was refusing to comply.
Maybe she was not insured?

KBPsen
26th Nov 2013, 21:22
She is an idiot...Possibly. Had it been the other way around and me at fault the conclusion would most certainly have been "cyclists are idiots". There seems to be a complete inability here to distinguish between individuals and groups bordering on the irrational.

in the politest possible terms all you have supplied us with is uncorroborated hear sayMay I in the politest possible terms as you to look up the definition of hear say.

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Nov 2013, 21:28
I suspected my thoughts may not be well received.........

Union Jack
26th Nov 2013, 21:30
It would be best practice for anyone who is travelling at night in unlit/minimal light conditions to wear/carry some type of luminous/reflective device. However until there is a punishable law, it will be ignored by the majority.

And as previously recommended, for use by day or by night, here's the answer:

BLAZE - Blaze Laserlight (http://www.blaze.cc/)

Cyclists, and their family and friends, please form an orderly queue ....:ok:

Jack

radeng
26th Nov 2013, 21:33
We will have to see what the constabulary say if they ever find the guy.

But it's nice to see the pro-cyclist lobby deriding the reports to support their case of poor cyclists.

I have no sympathy for them.

But I won't be any ruder about them.

I just notice that there has been no condemnation here by the pro-bike lobby of riding without lights on a country road in dark clothing with no street lights for 5 miles. Or for riding so many abreast in a race so that on narrow country road they blocked an ambulance with blue lights and siren for over two miles.

And of course, if you're on a bicycle, you don't need to regard the correct way at roundabouts or pelican or zebra crossings - all of which are common.

But it seems that's all OK if you're on a bike.....

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 21:35
So what are we to concluded from that experience, radeng?

Sounds like the first case of hit and fill up I've heard of!

Oddly enough, we have a garage here (Esso, A45, Canley) that could easily see that sort of incident - busy dual carriageway, terrible toucan crossing (the one where everyone has long crossed by time goes green, annoying all concerned), and a ford with side bridge.

For starters, garages are full of cameras. She has still quite clearly left the scene of the incident, and that is an offence in its own right. Look at the whole sordid Huhne affair - he was banged up for perversion, which was much more serious than the original speeding.

The incident I mentioned above where I had to flee out of a car coming the other way head on at the very least resulted in a ticking off from the boys in blue, because I got the reg and dialled 999.

This, of course, is where I couldn't please Radeng either way. He'd say "where's my evidence" - and at very least police did ask if I had helmet cam, to which I said no, I really didn't want to go down that route. Of course, Radeng will be the first to take a pop at the "morons" who wear them.

Speaking of which:

THERE ISN'T ROOM TO GO PAST YOU YOU STUPID STUPID MORONS

As it happens, I rode Oxenholme - Sedbergh - Ribblehead- Lancaster last Saturday, and it was superb. Not just the scenery (Oxenholme Lakes is a misnomer, lots to the east too), but also because actually, drivers were extremely courteous and there was very little traffic anyway.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting in terms of what these "lycra louts" (usually actually dry fit nylon, exactly same as football replica kits, except we actually use ours for purpose it was designed for) should do.

Bottom line is, as you say, limited space, everyone has equal right to use it (paying "road tax" just means you have a licence to pollute, no more), bikes take up less space, but move through it more slowly. What else do you want?

Moving two abreast means you have a shorter fatter column instead of a long thin one - and as that Highway Code you love to throw at us will advise, cars should always pass with plenty of room anyway, so no guarantee going single file would make it any easier.

Yet this same said group of "morons" has tried to show courtesy and suggest a way through!

Whatever next?

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 21:47
I just notice that there has been no condemnation here by the pro-bike lobby of riding without lights on a country road in dark clothing with no street lights for 5 miles.

Condemned

Or for riding so many abreast in a race so that on narrow country road they blocked an ambulance with blue lights and siren for over two miles.

Sounds like the farcical extreme exception to prove a point. So I ask:

How many was so many? 2 perhaps?

What other options were available? Places to pull over? Side tracks?

Who exactly are "they" anyway? If, as you say, it was a race, as opposed to a typical Sunday group ride, the only riders with control there are the ones right at the back.

Also, I have taken part in race events where there is effectively closure of one side. Police car has then come through with the race leader doing a different circuit / lapping. First time it happened, I kept looking back, and pulled in once, expecting an ambulance. Second time, just kept going.

So point is - to just have the same gripe pasted back further up the thread without context is ultimately meaningless, as is your overall hypothesis that cyclists are out to take over the streets with their lawlessness. After all, if we have no discipline, how can we be a serious threat?

Bottom line is quite simple - nobody is perfect, and there are plenty of bad cyclists, but in terms of danger to others, the threat we pose is minimal.

And of course, if you're on a bicycle, you don't need to regard the correct way at roundabouts or pelican or zebra crossings - all of which are common.

And of course, if you're in a car, you don't need to regard the correct way at junctions, in parking places, on motorways or to the speed in general, all of which are common.

Or to give you a recent example:

What is the "correct" way to deal with a zebra anyway when on a bike?

They're just for pedestrians, aren't they?

Well apparently not, after all, emerge from Coventry station, use the toucan "ie two can = bike + walk" crossing, keep going, then you hit a zebra. So you are allowed up to this point. Council official line is you are allowed to keep going across the zebra.

Regardless of that (together with other confusion where cycling is allowed by signs suggest otherwise - it is all postmodern you know, less is more!):

So I emerge from said path, but wish to turn left at the zebra, which I am perfectly entitled to do, as the zebra is supposed to be there "in addition" to my statutory rights to turn onto the road.

Car already waiting, two people on the crossing - but oh no, I make a relatively wide turn onto the road, and she doesn't like it.

Have I made a mistake? Maybe - could have made more obvious signal, could have taken corner a bit slower, but these aren't even half dashes if there was such a thing as a cycle test.

So let's say she's not happy, and wants to give me a lecture - fine, I'd apologise, explain way I see it, we'd both move on. But oh no, she doesn't want to do that, and instead revs behind furiously (yet it is only the cycling in such a manner that has an offence attached to it!).

Then she tries to undertake through parking spaces (hence me not cycling in them), before finally overtaking and then pulling in to an apartment block 100 yards ahead.

But oh year Mr Radeng, who as a pedestrian always waits for the green man 100% every time, and has a speedometer that can only go as far as 69 (take that however you want), everything in this universe is perfect, apart from the bloody cyclists!

G&T ice n slice
26th Nov 2013, 21:55
THERE ISN'T ROOM TO GO PAST YOU YOU STUPID STUPID MORONS

2 abreast, uphill, narrow road, WHERE THE ***** DO I GO PAST YOU,

wave me on all you like, but if you're 2 abreast there isn't room. So don;t get sarky with me sitting behind you in 1st gear, I can't pass you

BECAUSE YOU'RE 2 ABREAST

and, by the way, I probably know the road better than you, and know that the apparent wide open green area (which I suspect you think I will be willing to drive on) hides a nice invisible ditch - see those marsh grass clumps? that means it's all waterlogged

And... even if it happens to be a bit of green which I know would more-or-less take the car's weight - you are going to be really, really unhappy when I go that route - you'll be pebble-dashed.

So I'll sit behind you in 1st gear crawling up the hill, because I know that ANY other action is going to make you very unhappy.

But still, one or other of you will give me the "up & down closed fist" gesture.

I expect you're from somewhere down south, probably Kendal or or or Lancaster

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 22:22
I expect you're from somewhere down south, probably Kendal or or or Lancaster

No need to suspect, it is in the profile, I was up for the weekend.

BECAUSE YOU'RE 2 ABREAST

I'm afraid that shouting about it, whether here or there, makes no difference. Riding that way is both legal and endorsed in the Highway Code.

Let's put it the other way round, because I can guarantee you 100% that not a single rider in a pack of say 20 lycra clad racing cyclists could POSSIBLY also be a driver:

1) 10 x 2 = 20, as does 20 x 1, ie you'd still complain.
2) As an individual, I'm happy to stop, but in reality, despite our alleged rudeness, it is rare to get so much as a nod of thanks from a motorist.
3) Smiles and thanks both cost nothing, and that neither have any impact on ability to control a vehicle, but moving out of the way does.
4) It can actually be quite tricky to move over, even more so for a group. Let's say they do pull in, then another car appears. Completely saps the momentum, and ultimately, my right to detox my body is equal to your right to pollute it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Nov 2013, 22:34
Riding that way is both legal and endorsed in the Highway Code.





We ride a fair bit but neither of us would see it as an appropriate action, even one endorsed by law, to deliberately hold up traffic behind us. We would when applicable ride single file and if still holding those behind us up we would dismount and step aside.


Common courtesy for fellow road users not only costs nothing but should be actively encouraged.

G-CPTN
26th Nov 2013, 22:42
Common courtesy for fellow road users not only costs nothing but should be actively encouraged.
I have (occasionally) experienced truck-drivers (with a stream of cars behind) pulling into laybys just long enough to allow the stream of cars to disperse.

True knights of the road (some of them).

jabird
26th Nov 2013, 22:45
We ride a fair bit but neither of us would see it as an appropriate action, even one endorsed by law, to deliberately hold up traffic behind us. We would when applicable ride single file and if still holding those behind us up we would dismount and step aside.


Common courtesy for fellow road users not only costs nothing but should be actively encouraged.

I totally agree on all those points, but when groups do ride that way, it is nothing to do with "deliberately" holding up traffic. There are always different factors at play, depending on group size, road, weather and also the type of group.

So what works fine for a leisure group might not work for a club run. The easy answer might be just to "take it easy" - but I've been out with some very casual groups where each junction is taken a different way by different people (sometimes depending on who is leading), and the whole thing turns into a mess!

Besides, given that we're about 1% of all traffic movements, I can't imagine en-masse group riding is anything more than 1% of this 1%!

It is just a nice thing for people to get hot and bothered about. Twenty seats moving forward two abreast at a pace which is slower than you, but still considerably faster than rush hour traffic in the city you have just escaped from.

I've seen 50 seats moving forward 4 abreast around rural lanes with just one driver at the front and a whole load of air, and when they are in this formation they are going to slow you down AND take your tax dollars!

alicopter
26th Nov 2013, 22:46
Seldomfitforpurpose wrote
Common courtesy for fellow road users not only costs nothing but should be actively encouraged.



agreed, and I'd add that cyclists should not have to respect traffic lights, like in France where by law, nowadays you can go through red lights... it improves safety...

Lille : les cyclistes autorisés à griller les feux rouge - Automobile - 19/09/2013 - leParisien.fr (http://www.leparisien.fr/automobile/securite-routiere/lille-les-cyclistes-autorises-a-griller-les-feux-rouge-19-09-2013-3150565.php)

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Nov 2013, 22:47
I have (occasionally) experienced truck-drivers (with a stream of cars behind) pulling into laybys just long enough to allow the stream of cars to disperse.

True knights of the road (some of them).


Just spent 4 months touring some of Europe in our Motorhome and pulled over regularly when causing a bit of a tailback, some wave thanks and some don't, hey ho......

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Nov 2013, 22:59
but when groups do ride that way, it is nothing to do with "deliberately" holding up traffic.



Sorry but if by riding more than single file you are holding up traffic behind you then you are, by definition deliberately holding up traffic.


The drivers in the vehicles behind you should not be inconvenienced simply because you choose to ride 2 or more abreast.


In fact


https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


states


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


Is quite clear and concise.

reynoldsno1
27th Nov 2013, 02:13
A cyclist who left a nine-year-old girl with life-threatening injuries after knocking her down on a pedestrian crossing is facing jail.
Philip Benwell, 38, was charged with causing grievous bodily harm to Leila Crofts by “wanton and furious” cycling under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
The schoolgirl was with an au pair on the crossing when Benwell crashed into her on July 26.
Leila was knocked unconscious and treated for serious injuries at Southampton General Hospital.
Her family kept watch by her bedside and she is now at home with her parents, Chanine Boulton and Darren Crofts, in Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset.
Benwell came off his bicycle in the collision at Branksome Chine beach, Poole, but was seen to walk off.

Telegraph.co.uk
Seems as though everyone thinks they have the right of way ....

G&T ice n slice
27th Nov 2013, 11:26
BECAUSE YOU'RE 2 ABREAST

I'm afraid that shouting about it, whether here or there, makes no difference. Riding that way is both legal and endorsed in the Highway Code.

Fine, fine, you go on cycling 2 abreast on cumbrian 'B' and 'U' roads that are 1.5 vehicles wide. It seems you believe it's your gods-given right.

But (a) don;t wave me past - how the **** do you think I'm going to pull around you, you're already occupying half the damn road
and (b) when I DON'T pass you kindly refrain from giving the "closed fist waved up and down from the elbow" gesture.

Oh, and by the way, quite often I am coming in the opposite direction and when you're 2 abreast occupying half of a 1.5 vehicle width road that leaves 0.75 of a vehicle to squeeze my vehicle into; and Ovlovs and Cumberland stone dykes do NOT mix well

Oh, and when you come round 2 abreast AT SPEED on a blind corner with one or frequently both of you on the WRONG side of the road you'd better hope to meet me, who, as usual, only will be in second gear, foot off the accelerator & covering the brake pedal, ready to stop dead. Because if you meet one of the local farmers........

MagnusP
27th Nov 2013, 11:56
Riding that way is both legal and endorsed in the Highway Code.

Indeed, but while you're waving your copy at us, see if it falls open at rule 66 which includes the admonition to "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends". (my emphasis)

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Nov 2013, 11:57
Fine, fine, you go on cycling 2 abreast on cumbrian 'B' and 'U' roads that are 1.5 vehicles wide. It seems you believe it's your gods-given right.



As I pointed out in #208 its neither his God Given right or his right under the Highway Code which is why I suspect we will hear little more on the subject

SawMan
27th Nov 2013, 12:08
Much the same in the US but with fewer deaths. My thoughts are that if you can't keep up with the traffic speed (legal or not), then you do not belong on the road. If you can't (or won't) follow traffic rules and laws you do not belong on the road. If aircraft flew like many cyclists ride there would be many major crashes daily. Since we don't have ATC on the ground we have to deal with it ourselves, and since many people won't do that properly the situation is getting out of hand.

If you ride or drive, then do so cautiously and courteously (even if the law doesn't require that) or you should not be on the road either. We're all in this together and if we all work together there's room for all of us. There's no room for anyone who insists on doing otherwise whether riding or driving.

Blacksheep
27th Nov 2013, 12:49
It's no use waving the Highway Code at cyclists. They mostly haven't read it and would take no notice of it if they had.

As a boy I rode everywhere. I passed the 'Cycling Proficiency' test as it was required in order to be allowed to bring a bicycle into school. I also had the Cyclists Badge in the Boy Scouts. But in those days traffic was much lighter and both cars and trucks were much smaller. In these days of heavy congestion and larger vehicles, it is time that bicycles were registered and insured and that cyclists were required to pass a driving test and hold a licence - like motor-cyclists, with "L" plates for those who do not hold a full licence.

I think that would go a long way towards making cyclists safer on the road.

ShyTorque
27th Nov 2013, 16:48
So if cyclists "don't belong on the road because they can't keep up with the traffic speed" then where do you suggest they do ride?

As I've noted before, around these parts there is no alternative to cyclists using the road.

A cyclist is going about his legal business and as such is part of the traffic. It's incumbent on every road user to drive (or ride or walk) with due deference to other road users.

But those arrogant damned horse riders really get up my nose!

Not only do they want everyone on the roads to keep completely out of the way of their "skittish" (read unroadworthy) burger filling on four legs, but some of them also moan when my dog barks when they trot rapidly up to us on the damned footpath and then expect us to move off to walk in the farmer's crop to let them by!

Mind you, one of the female riders near here learned a hard lesson about not riding on narrow country footpaths when my dog barked defensively (she's scared of horses so we do our best to give them a wide berth) and the horse bucked and threw her off!

At least, I think she said she was "Bucked off". :E

spittingimage
27th Nov 2013, 17:03
It's no use waving the Highway Code at cyclists. They mostly haven't read it and would take no notice of it if they had.


I think the same could be directed at other road users too .. or at least it would have been some years (decades ?) since they last looked !

By chance, it being some 10 years since I swotted up on it for my HGV test, I bought a nice new copy of The Highway Code about 2 weeks ago (£2.50 from WH Smith). It was a revelation how much has changed in the intervening years. 'Home Zones' anyone ? Or 'Quiet Lanes' ? Worth a look for any road user.

it is time that bicycles were registered and insured and that cyclists were required to pass a driving test and hold a licence

As a cyclist myself, I have no real problem with that though I think it would be an administrative nightmare. What any road test cannot easily evaluate is the candidate's unsupervised attitude towards other road users. Put another way, anyone can pass a road test, cars or bikes. It is how the individual responds to the subsequent privilege and responsibilities of road use that largely determines how safe or unsafe that user is.

As far as cycle insurance is concerned I do make sure I have lots of 3rd party cover in case of causing a newsworthy pileup. But so far it has been a happy waste of money ...

vulcanised
27th Nov 2013, 19:47
It was a revelation how much has changed in the intervening years


Has it become Law in those years?

It always used to be just advisory, but the way some people quote it..............

ShyTorque
27th Nov 2013, 20:30
Certain parts of the Highway Code are reinforced by law. I don't think this basic principle has changed recently, although some individual parts certainly have.

SawMan
27th Nov 2013, 21:23
ShyTorque asks:

So if cyclists "don't belong on the road because they can't keep up with the traffic speed" then where do you suggest they do ride?

I suggest that they slow down and join the slow-moving pedestrians on the sidewalk, where the speed differential can safely be kept similar. Again you'll have the problem of both rider and walker not wanting to cooperate, but at least fatalities will be lower and the road traffic will flow better. Pedestrians toward the buildings, cyclist next to the roads. I did notice you also mentioned "legal"- please re-read my post where I spoke on that. Legalities matter but cooperation and courtesy matter just as much in social interactions such as this. And the law isn't going to prevent some driver from running over you even if it stops them from doing it again later on. Forget legal and aim for courteous and you will be far more successful in the end.

As a society we will have to decide whether we are going to slow all vehicles to bicycle speed or rid the roads of anything that can't keep up with the motorized traffic since we cannot expand the roads to account for both. Cyclists are a small minority compared to drivers so who do you think will most influence the government when the issue is finally raised there? The current system does not work so unless we can accept the current level of cycling deaths and injuries, then change will come. It has to.

jabird
27th Nov 2013, 22:13
As I pointed out in #208 its neither his God Given right or his right under the Highway Code which is why I suspect we will hear little more on the subject

I said it was legal, which it is, and the rule clearly refers to "not more than 2", which 2 is not. The whole rule itself is also advisory:

66
You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

I also made other comments about riding in a way which is appropriate to the road, and pointed out how 10x2 = 20x1, ie riding in single file can make you difficult to pass as well, whilst also mentioning that you cannot always assign collective responsibility to a group.

The same logic applies when you have large numbers of cyclists on urban roads and a car coming behind. Should cyclist a wait behind cyclist b to let car c pass both, or should a go past b? Well car driver might not like it, but I'm not aware of any convention that gives him or her greater right to overtake than a cyclist, especially as a can slip past b quicker (assuming substantial speed difference), and usually without worrying about oncoming traffic.

For the record, in my 20 years of adult cycling, I've probably been out in groups of more than a handful about 10 times, done two triathlons and one sportive. So group riding really isn't a big part of my typical week's cycling, and I think the same goes for most people who ride bikes.

On the few times I've been out with CTC type groups, there are never more than about 10, and usually well spread out over a mile or so between front and back.

Yes, sometimes people in this environment ride two abreast, usually on roads which are wide enough to pass on the other side, and to be honest, no, they don't go back to single file for every single bend. But guess what - when a car approaches, most clusters can quite easily move into single file, let the car pass, and then go back to how they were.

This is nothing to do with arrogance, it is just enjoying the ride, in the same way that most car passengers will take the front seat by choice, unless they need to use a child seat.

Really - of all the problems facing transport in the UK today, two abreast cycling is very very low down the pecking order.

If you like, hands up who wants to do it the Dutch way? Me too! Nice wide cycle paths, 2 abreast not a problem (again, in countryside, might need to move over for oncoming), Bob's your uncle or as Delboy would say, everyone's a winner.

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Nov 2013, 22:15
Whether it was intended to be enforced by law or to rely on the common sense of those partaking if anyone can spot the obvious flaw in


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

please feel free to post.

jabird
27th Nov 2013, 22:23
why I suspect we will hear little more on the subject

please feel free to post.

I really think my last post said all I need to say on the matter. The only time you will find me on a road and parallel to another cyclist on 99% of my cycling is when I am overtaking or being overtaken. I hope I have covered that too.

Today I got undertaken by a t%t with no lights, dark clothes, and then he blared out some siren noise, then turned right straight across me without indicating. Imho, he's a moron. Happy now?

KBPsen
27th Nov 2013, 22:28
Perhaps it is just that angry old men are overrepresented here, or perhaps it is that those suffering from an auto-erotic fixation are viewing everyone else as the enemy, particularity those wearing skin tight clothes. Whatever it is, it is certain that there is tribal us-versus-them sentiment amongst the motorized segment. Where every single experience is an indictment of the whole. As someone once said "You cannot generalise.... "

This short presentation on what should be democratic spaces (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8zZdLw7cs) should perhaps be listened to.

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Nov 2013, 22:39
Happy now?


Consider what you have just written then go back to post #202, IMHO there are some inconsistencies.

FullOppositeRudder
28th Nov 2013, 03:42
In my observation and experience there can hardly be a more dangerous place to cycle than on a footpath. Uneven surfaces, advertising hoardings, outdoor eateries / booseries, pedestrians (dogs and lead optional), vehicles reversing out of driveways, gophers, people on scooters / skateboards / rollerblades, people walking out of shops / front doors and general confusion about most of the above when encountered as opposing traffic. No wonder it's illegal in some countries. :=

It's sadly clear that some people have serious psychological issues and limitations in understanding their legal and moral relationship to other road users. This kind of discussion brings them out of their steel and glass cocoons every time, and we realise anew just how far we have to go before the roads can ever be a safer place for all users.

(sigh .....)
FOR

goldfrog
28th Nov 2013, 08:48
ShyTorque asks:

So if cyclists "don't belong on the road because they can't keep up with the traffic speed" then where do you suggest they do ride?

I suggest that they slow down and join the slow-moving pedestrians on the sidewalk, where the speed differential can safely be kept similar. Again you'll have the problem of both rider and walker not wanting to cooperate, but at least fatalities will be lower and the road traffic will flow better. Pedestrians toward the buildings, cyclist next to the roads. I did notice you also mentioned "legal"- please re-read my post where I spoke on that. Legalities matter but cooperation and courtesy matter just as much in social interactions such as this. And the law isn't going to prevent some driver from running over you even if it stops them from doing it again later on. Forget legal and aim for courteous and you will be far more successful in the end.

If we cyclists had all day to get from A to B pavement cycling would be great, well except for the cars parked on the pavement, cars reversing out of drives, the lack of right of way when crossing side roads that we would have if we were on the main road, pedestrians, dogs on leads, dogs not on leads, signposts, lamp posts, sh1tty surfaces etc etc etc.

But as it is I want to get from A to B in a timely manner so want to go faster than I could on a pavement, and for a lot of the day faster than the bulk of the traffic on the road.

You wish for cyclists and pedestrians to be courteous to each other, my wish is for motorists and cyclists to be courteous to each other, see what I did there?

Capetonian
28th Nov 2013, 09:11
I know this is cruel but .......... the other day I saw two a*holes get what they deserved.

A*hole one parks her Chelsea Tractor (Porsche Cayenne) half on the pavement, across yellow lines, inconveniencing both other road users and pedestrians. A*hole number two, a hulking youth who is cycling along the pavement, rides straight into the opened passenger door of said Porsche Cayenne.

The ensuing row was highly entertaining to watch!

cavortingcheetah
28th Nov 2013, 09:31
Mr Cavenett wishes to excuse cyclists acting illegally because their illegality causes few collisions? Such logic would permit selective culling of cyclists by a maniac armed with a high powered rifle provided that the culler was a bad enough shot as to only take out 32% of his selected targets?

Cyclists caught jumping red lights in London taxi drivers' hidden camera footage - London - News - London Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-caught-jumping-red-lights-in-london-taxi-drivers-hidden-camera-footage-8969043.html)

Sorry, there's the link;

cornish-stormrider
28th Nov 2013, 17:07
Driving to work tonight
I saw two cars amber gamble- and that was it
I saw four motorbikes carry out dangerous filtering or overtakes ( biker myself so I know what I'm talking about)
I saw eight cyclists

Two were dressed appropriately and well lit
Four were sort of lit
Two had nothing

Four on pavements four on road or cycle path
Four jumped red lights or cut lanes

Out of eight I thought one had a chance of getting home without incident

Here is a clue to MR wiggins wannabe
If cycling up a dual carriageway put some ducking lights on your bike
Oh and maybe try riding on the cycle path rather than trying to beat your PB riding home listening to music, the white cords to your headphones showed up quite well in my headlights while I waited at the red light you blew through

Real shame about the total lack of lights on you carbon fibre race bike Eh!

How thick are some of these fools

ShyTorque
28th Nov 2013, 20:35
Sawman wrote:

I suggest that they slow down and join the slow-moving pedestrians on the sidewalk, where the speed differential can safely be kept similar. Again you'll have the problem of both rider and walker not wanting to cooperate, but at least fatalities will be lower and the road traffic will flow better. Pedestrians toward the buildings, cyclist next to the roads. I did notice you also mentioned "legal"- please re-read my post where I spoke on that. Legalities matter but cooperation and courtesy matter just as much in social interactions such as this. And the law isn't going to prevent some driver from running over you even if it stops them from doing it again later on. Forget legal and aim for courteous and you will be far more successful in the end.

I would consider myself courteous and possibly more relevant to safety, defensive and sensible. Whether I'm driving, riding my bicycle or motorcycle or just plain old walking or jogging.

My point, although some including yourself seem to fail to understand it, is that round here (and many other places for the benefit of "townies") there are no "sidewalks". There are roads, that's all. No roadside verges either, other than a narrow strip of sloping grass at the base of walls or hedges.

Those unable to cope with or understand the fact that other users of all sorts have to use the road, just don't deserve to hold a driving licence of any sort, because they are a danger to themselves and others.

btw, As an ex police helicopter pilot I've attended the scene of quite number of fatal road accidents where our role was to ensure no more victims were on scene, then to take evidential photographs and video. All extremely messy (we only got called if they were so).

One memorable morning we attended three "fatals" one after the other. Two of them caused by so called professional HGV drivers, one crushing five people to a pulp in their car against the rear of another artic trailer.

Another memorable event was to photograph the sad remains of a cyclist who had been knocked off by a totally inconsiderate driver, who pulled across the front of him whilst exiting onto a side carriageway in broad daylight, knocking him off his bike. He directly drove off to see his solicitor instead of rendering assistance to his injured victim lying in the road, whose head was subsequently run over by a 4x4 and spread up the carriageway in a ten foot long smear.

Death by dangerous driving is a very serious offence. Some here would be well advised to look it up.

jabird
28th Nov 2013, 22:09
Driving to work tonight
I saw two cars amber gamble- and that was it
I saw four motorbikes carry out dangerous filtering or overtakes ( biker myself so I know what I'm talking about)
I saw eight cyclists ......

If only the playing field was otherwise equal, that would be a fair observation, and we could all move on, but "amber gambling" in a 2 tonne 4x4 at 35mph is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than a cyclist jumping. Yesterday, I also got overtaken turning right by a car doing at about 35, despite already being well away from the kerb and having indicated for ~100 yards.

When I see a cyclist run through a red light in front of me, it annoys me that they are doing it, but he or she is largely putting themself in danger, not me, and not motorists. I'm not aware of any UK cases of a cyclist running a red light and that resulting in the occupant of a motor vehicle being killed, but it must be theoretically possible (and there are enough diggers on this thread!).

So the loser in this situation is most likely to be the pedestrian, but again, cyclists killing pedestrians in the UK actually happens less than once per year, and even when it has happened, there's little association with lights being ignored, or pavement riding for that matter, nor is there enough data to show the cyclist is usually to blame - just like trying to draw conclusions about which UK airports are safe, based on the few that have had fatal mishaps in recent years.

So again, what is the biggest danger to pedestrians - car or bikes? Well by about 1,000 to one, it is motor vehicles.

Yet there's a much bigger danger than all of this, and frankly, the behaviour of a few idiots (using any mode) doesn't change this one bit, is that if people don't walk or cycle, and they don't engage in any other form of exercise, their health is going to take a huge hit as a result.

Now this forum is the first place to put down the scaremongering within the airline industry, so let's keep perspective:

Plane passengers killed by UK registered airlines in recent years - very few.
Road users (all kinds, apart from themselves) killed by bad cycling - very few.

Now let's get back to the real challenges:

UK annual road deaths (all users) - 2,500.
UK annual deaths due to sedentary lifestyles ~ 100,000.

That is where you will find the really unnecessary deaths happening most often.

Blues&twos
28th Nov 2013, 22:22
Bizarre criterion there. Actions only become a problem if someone gets killed?? Even kids playing on the railway becomes a relatively safe past-time by that logic.

cumulusrider
28th Nov 2013, 22:24
Years ago my father and I were passengers in a taxi. Her pulled up by the pavement to let us out. My dad paid then opened the door to get out. Bam.
A cylist riding on the pavement at speed hit the opened door and broke it. Last seen the taxi driver was laying into the cyclist, summery justice. Singapore 1967

Also as an advanced instructor we always taught the 2 second rule. i.e leave a 2 second gap between yourself and the vehicle in front. Last year I followed 30+ cyclist for 4 miles down a rural A road with double white lines. They had less than a foot between them and a 50 vehicle queue behind them. Inconsiderate? definately. Dangerous? probably. Illegal? make your own mind up

jabird
28th Nov 2013, 23:31
They had less than a foot between them and a 50 vehicle queue behind them.

You see, we're back to our silly obsession with large group rides, and apart from the fact that unlike driving, which is sanctioned by licence, these bikes do have a right to be there in natural law, they just can't win, whatever they do:

They ride to wide, they ride too narrow.
Too close to each other, too spread apart.
Too fast, too slow.
No lights, silly flashing lights.
Wear silly lycra, wear dark clothes.
Hiding by the kerb / can't be seen, in middle of the road.
Should be on the pavement out my way, riding on the pavement.

Quite a few farmers around driving cows three or more abreast too, but of course, nobody would have a go at them, would they?

I'm sure you play bullshit bingo every time David Learmonth comes on TV to talk about an aviation incident, but I think I've seen more than enough to call house on this thread!

Bizarre criterion there. Actions only become a problem if someone gets killed?? Even kids playing on the railway becomes a relatively safe past-time by that logic.

No, simple utilitarian logic.

Not condoning the actions of some of my pedalling colleagues, but we really aren't the biggest problem in the world! Nor can you ever train us to behave like pilots, because if you do that, you'd have to train motorists for hundreds of years too!

The key point, as per conclusion in last post, is about quality of life.

All forms of transport contribute to quality of life by getting people and goods from A to B.

Some also cause pollution, either locally or elsewhere, whilst others, by nature of their manual propulsion, help people to get or stay fit. They are also the ones, together with buses, which take up the least amount of our precious road space.

The net benefit to society of cycling is clear and unambigious, and the misbehaviour of some is a small dent in that, nothing more.

As said by HG Wells more than a century ago:

Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia, sometimes following beside the great high roads, but oftener taking their own more agreeable line amidst woods and crops and pastures; and there will be a rich variety of footpaths and minor ways.”

Singapore 1967

At last the UK, in 2013, is starting to wake up to this reality, as many of our Northern European friends did decades ago. For too long, we've beaten up the motorist with ever higher costs as an increasingly stiff stick.

Isn't it about time we dangled a few carrots?

SawMan
29th Nov 2013, 02:32
ShyTorque, I too consider myself a courteous, defensive, and sensible person and driver. But I see daily that most others aren't, and that has to be taken into consideration. It's the reality. In that, we have now a situation where drivers and cyclists generally can't or won't get along. Both have legitimate beefs with the other, both create unsafe situations. But rarely do drivers die due to bikers- it's the reverse which this thread is about. Reality now is the current situation, and most of us (I hope) see that as having gone far enough, too many have died so something must change. Given that, what is it that will get the best result? More to the point, what will get the best result when you consider the people involved and what they are willing to do? For if the people are unwilling you won't gain the planned-for results.

On one side are cyclists, who claim a right to use the road- so far so good, I have no problem with that (as long as they follow the rules, and for the sake of my argument I will say that they do, realistic or not). Do they know or care that they often impede traffic flow? Do they allow for that (whether legally required to or not)? Obviously few do as it is rare that I see a cyclist cede the roadway to motorized vehicles no matter how many are stuck behind them. This is an attitude problem most cyclists have- they are not willing to share the road with non-cyclists when it inconveniences them because the law doesn't mandate that. Horses, cows, and tractors all fall into that same category, most choosing legal over cooperative. Now in the case of the cows or tractors, it may be that they have no other way to get from point to point, but cyclists do- they could walk, drive, hire a ride, or use public transport- options these others don't have. So for most cyclists, they have willingly chosen to cycle but were not forced to. Most people also have similar choices but save for walking (or cycling) their choices force them to use the road as there is no other way. Seen that way, cycling is more optional in comparison, for if the cyclist had a need to arrive sooner they would choose a faster (motorized) transport option.

This is the logical perspective which turns me toward my position that if vehicles and cycles cannot (or will not) cooperate to ensure safety, then the cyclists are the ones who need to cede to the other road users. Besides, they are the minority, so if their presence is a safety issue the logical solution is to remove them from the roadway.

As to their presence on sidewalks, I never said it would not have issues- indeed I pointed out that this too would require cooperation; just between different folks who are more closely matched in speed and physical vulnerability to accident. What it would do is free up motorized traffic flow (drivers main concern) and would probably reduce the fatalities we want to lower. Yes, it introduces other hazards to the cyclist but they are generally non-lethal ones which would seem to be the wiser choice in comparison. And yes, there are places with no sidewalks- in which case everyone uses the roadway already- that which cannot change will not change. Besides, in most cases, places without sidewalks have little cycle traffic or little vehicle traffic at speeds where the two can't co-exist well. There are exceptions, to be sure, but this is by far the most common situation. In these places cyclist deaths are uncommon, especially compared to congested cities which is where most cyclists are to be found.

In summary:
-We cannot remove the drivers from the road.
-We cannot expand most of the roads to create cycle lanes without removing a lane needed by the majority of road users.
-We cannot abide the current situation of too many unneeded deaths.
-We will not somehow cause the cyclists or drivers to change their current habits no matter what laws are enacted.
So what else is left as a solution but to remove the cyclists from the road? And if this be the case, then where do they go?

I hope you see that I am playing something of a 'devil's advocate' here. I happen to be involved in safety functions of several group cycle rides, so I know the situation well. We've never had any issues because our riders are required to yield to other vehicles and we have people stationed to see that they do this, as well as seeing to it that the vehicles yield to the cycles as we control the intersections to allow the cyclists to pass through safely. Everyone gets along fine because everyone knows we're watching. In real life, we can't station Police or spotters everywhere like this or things would be different. Once in my own past a Fuji was my only transportation for about 6 months; it was back in the day when it was the best bike you could get (my age is showing here!). Were it not for my medical problems I'd still have a bike (though probably a lesser one, as my wealth declined with my health).

We have choices, individually and collectively. The choices we've collectively made in the past are no longer working as intended for factors which will not change just because we want them to. That means we are going to have to make other choices or be happy with the way things are now. So what would you choose as a viable solution which would have a high possibility of actually working to prevent more of these needless cycling deaths? If you have a better idea, share it and I'll jump on board with you.

cornish-stormrider
29th Nov 2013, 03:46
Jabird.
I feel i ought to context those two amber gamblers, both junctions were major traffic interchanges in rush hour with staionary traffic waiting to come the other way. NO PEDESTRIANS, and only foolish cyclists who refuse to use the perfectly good cycle path ( i know this as i occasionally ride the path myself)

Now we all know there is an allowed amount of amber depending on what speed you are travelling at and distance to the stop line - the hint is if your stop distance exceeds the available distance you are committed to cross, so you cross this point and the light changes after - too late you are committed. an emergency stop attempt at this point would be more dangerous - aha you cry, you must be travelling too fast.

well point of order - limit is 40 mph, you go thru at say 30, due to road conditions and traffic. you still need a distance to stop in, once that distance has been reduced you will slide to a stop mid junction, etc etc.

now traffic conditions tonight were good, i made the 8 mile journey to work in about 25 mins so pretty reasonable.

it was DARK, not twilight or sun going down, full on need lights to see DARK.
Yet cyclists continue, and by a fair percentage you must agree, to feel they dont need to be seen.

Answer me this - a sales rep, employed by a company gets a car. the employer checks his/her license, carries out their own training and covers all the company policies over everything - as they don't want to be sued.

Now, the same company decides, actually your sales route can be done by pushbike, the company would still carry out training and issue PPE etc as required to keep that employee reasonably safe.

Why then, do so many cyclists feel that taking reasonable care to make sure they can be seen, or wearing a helmet, ensuring their bike is in good order is beneath them...?

I think some of it comes from the extremely snooty attitude that they regard people who ride - what the term - "BSO, Bicycle shaped objects". They feel that because the other rider has spent a fraction of what they have it makes them less skilled, or entitled to use the roads/cycle routes.

I will confess - I never used to wear a helmet, I thought it was stupid and pointless etc etc.

I was extremely lucky to meet mad jock - who did wear a helmet and it damm well saved his life - I bought my first one the next day! Mad Jock was taken out by a van and nealy run over un the road by a second, he was in surgery about to have what was left of his leg amputated when he was recognised and they decided to try the old lobster pot cast trick - which was iffy in his case. Happily he survived and kept his leg, which we drank to.

He was taken out despite being lit up really well, wearing a helmet and doing everything right - don't get me wrong, i'd love for there to be totally separate lanes for cyclists so you cant get squashed (me included) I do not want to have to do first aid on a big squished blob......But until we get the lanes we deserve we have to make the best of what we have.
Car drivers need to be educated about the safe ways to pass/ or wait etc.

cyclists need to be educated about going down the left side of lorries. filtering into a dimishing gap - blatant red light jumping, riding at pedestrians etc - oh thats another sore point, when I am riding on the cycle route and people have loose dogs or walking three abreast nattering I try to be considerate, I slow down, announce my presence and pass safely - i then say thank you, even if they were being difficult, manners cost nothing and they might be better behaved to the next cyclist they meet, whereas if i scream past them at mach 12 making them jump into a hedge or just miss their dog they will be even more difficult to the next person.

I know you all love to beat your PB to work time, maybe you should add ten mins for getting there a bit safer.

Crikey - thats a sermon innit, i'm not perfect by any stretch, but I try to be as safe as i can, whatever i am driving/riding/piloting......

Check your lights won't you?

mixture
29th Nov 2013, 06:28
cyclists need to be educated....

And therein lies the problem, cyclists refuse to be educated because of their holier than thou attitude. Its easier for them to play the victim, find any excuse to blame the driver of the car or lorry, or even the pedestrian rather than consider the reality that they too need to adapt their cycling to suit traffic conditions.

ShyTorque
29th Nov 2013, 08:06
Some folks here show unfair bias. The word "some" is appropriate. "Some" cyclists, some pedestrians, some car drivers.

jabird
29th Nov 2013, 10:39
cornish-stormrider - thanks, long list of questions, so please bear with me if I don't reply til early next week as I'm out a lot of this w/e.

So I'll just leave you with one quick point about sales, having done a fair bit of that work myself:

Frankly, of all the jobs out there, I think a sales rep would be one of the last to consider using a bike, unless they are covering a very high density city patch, or a lot of central offices where they are getting around by bike + train.

So if I can just re-emphasise this - none of the cycling activists I know are saying all journeys should be made by bike all of the time.

"What about the ....." is a common question, and you'd be amazed by how many of those can be answered with pictures of Dutch people (nurses to appointments, families with kids, disabled people on bikes doing just that, but the best model to follow is a system that allows all road users their fair share of space.

Easier to do in planned new developments than historic city cores!

Blacksheep
29th Nov 2013, 12:27
For me there's a difference between riding to get from A to B for work or leisure and riding on the roads as a sport. If one wishes to organise a sporting event for motor cars, one needs all manner of permits and permissions from the police and county council and permission is by no means certain.

Cycling in large groups is "sport" not leisure activity: the event should be advertised in advance and the road should be controlled during the event. As the B654 was, before and during a charity event in Beds/Herts earlier this year. Then there was the chaos inflicted on Surrey by a similar but much larger charity event that closed some towns to normal traffic for several hours. Random 'club' events are a nuisance and the riders are generally a danger to themselves. They also [unsurprisingly] ride flat out at about half the speed of an average Tour-de-France rider, despite wearing all the MAMIL kit.

ShyTorque
29th Nov 2013, 14:43
Sawman, your logic has one basic flaw. Removing cyclists from the road by legislation will never happen, period. Expecting all cyclists to break the law by deliberately using sidewalks is totally unrealistic. The best compromise is better education on all sides. Unfortunately we live in a dumbed down society. Darwinian evolution prevails and will continue.

SpringHeeledJack
29th Nov 2013, 15:10
Cycling in large groups is "sport" not leisure activity: the event should be advertised in advance and the road should be controlled during the event. As the B654 was, before and during a charity event in Beds/Herts earlier this year. Then there was the chaos inflicted on Surrey by a similar but much larger charity event that closed some towns to normal traffic for several hours. Random 'club' events are a nuisance and the riders are generally a danger to themselves. They also [unsurprisingly] ride flat out at about half the speed of an average Tour-de-France rider, despite wearing all the MAMIL kit.

All racing events and cyclosportive events and yes, even small club events, are organized in accordance with national cycling bodies guidelines (and rules) and need both marshals and a police escort if they are to be insured and that is no small consideration these days. They are allowed, and provide a safe outlet for people to wear lycra outside in the fresh air ;)


SHJ

ShyTorque
29th Nov 2013, 16:07
However, one must query the mentality of those cycling organisations who recently exercised their rights by running time trials on the A1, resulting in cyclists being killed in collisions with heavy goods vehicles.

I'm a mere non-competitive amateur, cycling mainly for enjoyment and fitness, but my self preservation instinct would have told me to never consider going anywhere on that road by bicycle!

SpringHeeledJack
29th Nov 2013, 16:36
However, one must query the mentality of those cycling organisations who recently exercised their rights by running time trials on the A1, resulting in cyclists being killed in collisions with heavy goods vehicles.

How right you are! The A1, and various other main roads have been used by time-triallists (riding alone at 1 minute intervals) since before WW2 and used to be known as 'drag strips' due to the effects of slipstream help of the passing cars to garner a fast time. Poor man's cheating :hmm: Most of these start at 5am or 6am...... so as to countermand the traffic congestion later on. That such events are still taking place is a wonder, I wouldn't be able to concentrate for fear of being hit from behind by a distracted driver.

There was an infamous cyclist in the 70's who was banned after overtaking a car on the A2 in Kent whilst descending at 60mph :eek: He was both a national champion and record holder. That said even events on country lanes are potentially dangerous due to blind spots/horse riders/agricultural machinery etc.



SHJ

ShyTorque
29th Nov 2013, 17:21
These events are road racing by another name and I'm surprised they are still allowed on open roads.

A cycling competitor under physical and mental duress is unlikely to be concentrating fully on his road manners. In addition, any form of racing on the road is illegal for all other wheeled vehicles.

jabird
30th Nov 2013, 01:17
one must query the mentality of those cycling organisations who recently exercised their rights by running time trials on the A1

I cannot, for the life of me imagine why anyone sane would want to cycle on any single digit A road, but unfortunately, by the time you get up to 9, you are on the core backbone of Scotland, and that is also very popular with the "JOGGLE"rs, ie John O'Groats to Land's End.

As a general rule, I will avoid any road with A on it, but it is never always that easy if the alternative is 3x as long.

As for the definition of "racing", I suggest the internet is well ahead of the law with apps like Strava that allow people to race each other "virtually", hence, tough one to prosecute, and we're still picking out the lycra clad roadies, when the core issues are about cycling in towns.

However, if you are going to pick on these events, what about all the charitable ones, and dare I also point out that runners will also compete with each other informally, against the clock, sometimes dashing out in front of cars?

Sportives are not, specifically against the clock, but you can time yourself if you wish. I can happily inform ppruners that I am not of the sort of calibre where you need to worry about what sort of speed I am doing, but since I've put a computer back on my road hybrid bike and monitored cadence, I've probably picked up a kmh or so.

Why is this kind of event still a good thing?

Because some people see a distance (20/40/ up to 100 miles), and they set a target to build up to it. That can be a huge boost to personal fitness. some also tie in the physical challenge with raising money for charity - without having to do something really silly like jump out of a plane or off a hydro dam on a tiny piece of string.

Differentiating between so called "good" cyclists and "bad" cyclists based on their motive for cycling or the speeds they can attain really is just another canard, because almost all types of exercise are good (within reason / doctors' advice etc), and cycling is essentially low impact - ie no pounding of knees on pavement, no physical contact - apart from the Tour De France pile ups you all love of course!

As for the commuter rush? Well I got beeped for NOT moving quick enough from a green light earlier, so again, still can't win! Biggest cause of accidental death on UK railways? Slips, trips and falls by some margin - usually in a rush, sometimes due to drink.

Are you guys seriously saying motorists running late for a meeting or couriers trying to empty van quick DON'T rush? Come on! Here's a reality, again from earlier on:

I arrive from bike lane into advance stop zone, courier occupying it.
Light goes green, he revs behind me.
Other van parked in cycle lane, so I check he's not right on my back, move past van, approaching refuge, so stay central. He beeps.
Then he overtakes me, no issues with take itself, but he then shoots over zebra where someone has already started to cross on the other side.

So that's FOUR Highway Code violations, of which the box violation is THREE POINTS + fine - just like the red lights that "all" cyclists jump.

On top of that, you have the other van parking in a cycle lane - clearly a very dangerous thing to do.

I also got FALSELY accused of jumping a light by a pedestrian, who couldn't have even seen the state of the light when I crossed the line (that was the point it turned orange).

So did I see cyclists jump lights today? Yes, of course I did - never denying that, but they are still by far the minority, not the "majority" the taxi drivers (who again, breached bike boxes so many times it wasn't worth counting) were claiming. Later on, I was also fast passed as I was trying to go right by a minicab driver who was too busy talking on the phone to look where he was going.

So please, to even talk of "banning" any type of cycling is laughable. Education for all (preferably compulsory at school level) is always good, but the key thing that needs to change is the way the roads are designed.

Blacksheep
30th Nov 2013, 08:45
Good description of why bicycles and motor vehicles can't mix in modern road conditions. As to keeping fit, we have "The Alban Way" here, but it is overgrown with weeds in places due to lack of use. The Lycra Loonies prefer to use the main roads to get from Stevenage via Welwyn to St Albans. Riding on a cycle path built specifically for cycling simply isn't cool.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Nov 2013, 10:53
Riding on a cycle path built specifically for cycling simply isn't cool.
The purpose built cycle paths round here get plenty of use. One clever trick is to build them in the right place, so that they are actually the shortest distance and quickest route from A to B on a commuter route.

Blues&twos
30th Nov 2013, 11:27
Not sure I'd class parking in a cycle lane as "very dangerous". Not really much different from a cyclist's point if view to negotiating any other obstacle or cycling on a non-cycle path road. Possibly "inconsiderate", but it many places with cycle paths at the kerb, there is no alternative for goods vehicles. I had to park my wagon like this on a number of occasions as there was literally nowhere else to stop. Road design/layout constraints/local authorities only willing to spend the minimum they can get away with to provide cycling "facilities" I guess.

Windy Militant
30th Nov 2013, 11:44
One thing that seems to have been missed is that a large number of fatalities are female cyclists.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Are women cyclists in more danger than men? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm)

This may be down to young women being less familiar with heavy vehicles than men, boys toys and all that.
It's not just cyclists many years ago my brother was following a lorry on the way to Carmarthen when he got to Bronwydd arms the lorry indicated a left turn. The turn off at Bronwydd used to very tight so the lorry pulled over to the right to be able to clear the wall as he made the turn. As my brother had worked with lorries he knew what was coming up so held clear to give the driver room to "bend the Artic" just as the lorry started to turn a young lass in a Mini pulled round my brother and back across along side the lorry. Fortunately for her my brother had a set of air horns on his car which the lorry driver heard and stopped turning. The Mini stopped with the windscreen about two inches from the side of the flat bed this was pre euro barriers so the bonnet had gone under the trailer. She was so shaken that they had to prise her hands off the wheel and drive her car for her to a spot a little way down the road to recover. She had seen the lorries indicator but didn't understand why he was indicating left and then going right. This all happened in far less time than it took to write down. The thing is that both the girl in the Mini and the lorry travelled that road pretty much every working week day, had this happened any other time she would have not slowed down to go around my brothers car and probably gone under the wagon.
I see a similar thing here in Swindon at the Sainsburys round about, a large number of artics head for the truck stop behind the Sainsburys. to get around the roundabout which is a small radius they go from the left lane and cross into the right lane on the round about. If you've been around heavies you expect this and give them room to do it. A number of times I've seen people trying to squeeze past on the inside, it's got to a point now where very often the lorry will position on the centre line to try to stop people doing this, and then get all sorts of abuse from the idiots who don't realise that you cannot physically get an artic around the centre kerb from the right lane.
Possibly a way around the urban cyclist thing is to move the drivers position down lower to the road as they do on some busses, which would mean they would see smaller traffic such as bicycles and small hatch backs wedged across their bows.But again this would mean spending money and take time for the new type wagons to filter out onto the roads.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Nov 2013, 11:57
Not sure I'd class parking in a cycle lane as "very dangerous".
One problem is that some ignorant motorists have the erroneous mind set that if there's a cycle lane then all the bikes "should" be in it, so they can drive as if there are no bikes in "their" part of the road, and not even bother to look for them.

Which breaks down when the bikes have to use "their" part of the road to get past a vehicle illegally parked in the cycle lane.

So this is added danger, but only because of ignorant motorists not driving properly.

ShyTorque
30th Nov 2013, 12:28
Jabird... your response to my post - good rant. But do try to bear in mind, I am also a cyclist. As it happens, I'm just about to go out for a ten miler as it's a nice day. Half of it will be on a cycle path (actually a canal tow path so shared with pedestrians and fishermen, due consideration will of course be given) and the return on a road with no "sidewalk". I won't be racing...

The purpose built cycle paths round here get plenty of use. One clever trick is to build them in the right place, so that they are actually the shortest distance and quickest route from A to B on a commuter route.

Gertrude, good post Therein lies the core of the problem. If they actually put good cycle paths where commuter cyclists actually want to go, many will use them. If others don't and come to grief, just call it unfortunate Darwinism at work.

Blues&twos
30th Nov 2013, 12:55
Gertrude, agreed!

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Nov 2013, 13:21
If they actually put good cycle paths where commuter cyclists actually want to go, many will use them. If others don't and come to grief, just call it unfortunate Darwinism at work.
My cycle ride home from work (14 miles, I only do it once a week, taking the train on the way out) is mostly off the road (on cycle or shared use tracks of widely varying qualities). I just wouldn't do that trip in the dark if the only option was to ride on the main roads.

ShyTorque
30th Nov 2013, 18:06
I just wouldn't do that trip in the dark if the only option was to ride on the main roads.

So hopefully both of us will not succumb to the dumb (i.e. drivers).

A bloke in our village of about my age (the local bee-keeper in fact) works for a landscape gardener about three miles away from his home. He cycles up a busy dual carriageway for a couple of miles, to and from his workplace on the edge of town. His bike is an old one and it has just a hub dynamo and a couple of old fashioned lamps by the looks of it, certainly no modern LED bright lights on it. He's a bit wobbly.... and until recently he wore no hi-viz outer clothing, only his drab coloured work jacket and trousers. Now he wears a rucksack with a thin reflective strip on it but I can't think why on earth he takes that risk, especially at busy times in the dark.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Nov 2013, 18:28
I had to park my wagon like this on a number of occasions as there was literally nowhere else convenient to stop.


Whilst I have no idea of the circumstances of your illegal parking more often than not its as corrected above...............


Bit like the Supermarket Cashpoint Cripples who rather than park in the car park will stop on the yellow lines outside the store in order to hasten their money transaction and **** all other road users!

Blues&twos
30th Nov 2013, 18:57
Not really convenience sake for me - I was having to lug washing machines, dishwashers and fridge freezers to the delivery address. There simply isn't anywhere in many locations to park a 7.5 ton long wheelbase lorry. It's not possible to park up crowded side streets or in most car parks for this type of vehicle and load, especially in London. Where alternatives were available, such as loading/unloading areas for shops, of course I used them. Years ago I drove dustcarts...that was even worse and I quite frequently had to stop in the middle of the road and hold the traffic up whilst the bins were emptied at breakneck speed into the back.

For those who saw my original reply I edited it, as when I read back my original it came over as a bit confrontational, which I genuinely didn't mean it to be!

Out of interest I looked up cycle lanes and parking as I thought it was illegal to park in them. It appears that it is illegal for some, but not all...from the onlline edition of the UK Highway code:

140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

"Unless it is unavoidable" does seems bit vague!

magpienja
30th Nov 2013, 20:02
Its odd we have not to far from me some purpose built dedicated cycle lanes physically separated from traffic and pedestrians running along side a fast/busy duel carriageway...some bikers use it but a lot don't and risk it with the fast traffic,

I just don't understand them,

A few days ago I was driving along a duel carriageway and noticed a bike rider riding on the pavement...a truck was approaching in the n/s lane behind him...what does the bike rider do with the truck only yards behind,

Yes he bounces off the pavement into the n/s lane without looking behind..luckily the truck could very quickly move to the right to avoid him...I see the very same manoeuvre often,

Why do bike riders do such things...in total oblivion of whats behind them...I just don't understand.

Blues&twos
30th Nov 2013, 20:10
Cycle Facility of the Month (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/December2006.htm)

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Nov 2013, 20:46
Its odd we have not to far from me some purpose built dedicated cycle lanes physically separated from traffic and pedestrians running along side a fast/busy duel carriageway...some bikers use it but a lot don't and risk it with the fast traffic,

I just don't understand them
Have you tried cycling along these lanes? It might be that the cyclists prefer to use the road where the cycle lanes are full of potholes and/or broken glass. There's one cycle track on my way home from work that I only use part of, this being the part that isn't full of potholes and covered with gravel.

ShyTorque
30th Nov 2013, 21:22
Why do bike riders do such things...in total oblivion of whats behind them...I just don't understand.

Cos' they're thick/stupid/on their way to their own funeral?

But not all cyclists are so, just as not all car drivers hate cyclists so much that they deliberately try to inconvenience them. But some seem to. Some even publicly admit it here, on a website for professional and supposedly reasonable, intelligent people.

Seems to me that some would run their own Granny down if she dared to ride a bike! :p