Board logo

The war on Britain's roads
jacko - 5/12/12 at 08:19 PM

34 million motorists and 12 million cycles with cameras
it's on BBC 1 at 9pm

woodster - 5/12/12 at 09:26 PM

I'd walk before I'd risk riding a bike in traffic

JoelP - 5/12/12 at 09:31 PM

Have to agree id be on the pavement, bearing in mind a bike will do a lot less damage to a pedestrian than a car will do to a bike!

Bit dramatic calling it a war though, im sure most cars take the utmost care around bikes.

chillis - 5/12/12 at 09:37 PM

Firstly bikes -no driving test for them to pass - why not other road users have to demonstrate basic competancy. The number of cyclists who pull out without looking, but it always seems to be the drivers fault
BBC seem to be trying to stir up a war on the motor car.

scudderfish - 5/12/12 at 09:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
Have to agree id be on the pavement, bearing in mind a bike will do a lot less damage to a pedestrian than a car will do to a bike!

Bit dramatic calling it a war though, im sure most cars take the utmost care around bikes.


If you can't ride a bike on the road, don't ride a bike. As a pedestrian in London I have had many more near misses with cyclists who believe that rules are for lesser people than I have with all other forms of traffic.

jps - 5/12/12 at 09:50 PM

Having cycled a lot over the last 10 years i can confirm that a) the vast majority of cyclists hold driving licences so have had their competency tested in some way (whatever that is supposed to mean!), b) for the most part drivers don't deliberately seem to drive like they want to harm cyclists, BUT some people drive in a ridiculously careless manner around people on bikes...

The main thing to consider is: drive like an arse around other cars, most likely outcome is bent metal and perhaps some minor injury. drive like an arse around a cyclist and you might easily kill them...

steve m - 5/12/12 at 09:56 PM

I know some of our colleages on here are avid bikers, and would hope they treat the safety of riding a push bike sensibly

Last week after a nightshift, at 0620, i pulled out of work, to hear someone shout "fuc**ng wank**r" at me, so i stopped, and this guy on a push bike pullled up next to me, to offers his choice words, as i had apparently cut him up
I have to say i was incredibly embbarrased, and applogised provousley

it was only as i went to pull away, was it quite apparrent that he had no lights, the bike was a darkish colour, and he was wearing black tousers and a black north face coat,

I tried in vain to question how i was to actually seem him in the pitch black, with his attire and no lights,
he just got more angry, so i drove off

But tonight, on the way to work, i overtook a guy on a pushbike, with good lights, and flashing leds front and back, he also was wearing a bright fleuresent jacket with reflectors

I could of seen him 20 yards away in fog!!

Mini rant over, but there are always two sides to a story, and dare say the BBC will slag off all car drivers

Steve

Ninehigh - 5/12/12 at 10:33 PM

Of course they will cars are worse than serial killers, paedophiles and genocide! Especially those that travel at 30.5mph

Seriously though don't you know the universal bike signal for "I'm about to turn right"? It's "..................." maybe accompanied with a look over your shoulder just to make sure a car's there

Maybe they should require a test for bicycles, as there are a whole load of pillocks out there. I've dealt with the ninja cyclist, given away by a confusing glint going up and down (the relectors on his pedals, and btw he was on an unlit 60 road)

Just to present both sides there are a load of pillock car/van/bus/truck drivers too

Mr Whippy - 5/12/12 at 10:48 PM

Watched the program, very scary. Fault is with both sides but the aggressive car drivers have less to loose and sure show it. I use everything on the roads so see it from all angles, tbh I think the only solution is separate cycle paths and lanes where cars and even pedestrians cannot mix, they'd pay for themselves just in reducing the number of cars clogging the city's alone. I personally prefer the very loud, tons of power but driven carefully motorbike option. Wear hi-viz jackets, reflectors and lights and assume they haven't seen you.

Really liked the posting vids on YouTube etc though show the registration numbers, I have taken to putting the Gopro on the cars roof and will be fitting it to the bikes too.

I thought it was a very good program with fair views on both sides.

[Edited on 5/12/12 by Mr Whippy]

paulf - 5/12/12 at 11:14 PM

I also watched this and it was generally fair to both sides , where they failed to make an important point was the bit about the woman that was killed by a lorry turning left after she rode up the inside of it, this has to be the most dangerous thing that you can do on a bike and something i have often seen cyclists doing in town.
Paul

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Watched the program, very scary. Fault is with both sides but the aggressive car drivers have less to loose and sure show it. I use everything on the roads so see it from all angles, tbh I think the only solution is separate cycle paths and lanes where cars and even pedestrians cannot mix, they'd pay for themselves just in reducing the number of cars clogging the city's alone. I personally prefer the very loud, tons of power but driven carefully motorbike option. Wear hi-viz jackets, reflectors and lights and assume they haven't seen you.

Really liked the posting vids on YouTube etc though show the registration numbers, I have taken to putting the Gopro on the cars roof and will be fitting it to the bikes too.

I thought it was a very good program with fair views on both sides.

[Edited on 5/12/12 by Mr Whippy]

coozer - 5/12/12 at 11:57 PM

I wish I had a camera front and back on my truck... I could point out some things.. it happens to me EVERY DAY!

The standard of driving in this country is SHITE..

There are no car drivers on motorways who had any instruction on how to handle our fastest roads..

But cyclists get a bum deal off ALL our drivers as well..

As a truck driver I do shout and rave at ANYONE who comes up the inside cause guess what?? There is a massive blind spot that even other trucks disappear into.. you can all rant and rave and point fingers but its simply a fact of driving such a big motor and anything over than daylight doesn't help.

se7en - 6/12/12 at 12:21 AM

My younger brother was taking his daughter to work one Sunday.

He thought that seeing it was Sunday he would make a left-hand turn where he was not allowed.

Stopped at the traffic lights waiting to turn left, he heard a knock on his window so he winds down the window and without looking he says "go away and mind your business".

The traffic lights change and he drives around the corner and a short distance along he stops to let his daughter out.

Again he hears a knock at his window, he winds down the window, turning round he looks and too his surprise he see a policeman on a push-bike.

He had a lot of explaining to do ....

blakep82 - 6/12/12 at 12:59 AM

that gareth guy was a total cock.
the rest on both sides made valid points, that guy nearly getting taken out by the lorry on the roundabout was scary, but in most cases, i would say the cyclists were in awkward positions which i didn't agree with, but then the drivers reactions were a bit extreme and i didn't agree with that.

the girl vs cemex lorry, i couldn't tell from the video that was shown, but i find it hard to believe that the lorry didn't have indicators on... i doon't know what to make of that, but good on her mum to get in to the cemex agm and make the safety changes she has

mcerd1 - 6/12/12 at 10:01 AM

I've seen far too many bike without any light recently

But also seen far too many cars driving without lights in really bad weather!

and never mind the suacidal joggers that run at night on the roads round here when there is a good pavment 2ft away from them

quote:
Originally posted by paulf
......where they failed to make an important point was the bit about the woman that was killed by a lorry turning left after she rode up the inside of it, this has to be the most dangerous thing that you can do on a bike and something i have often seen cyclists doing in town.

I'm sure we got told never to go up the inside of a lorry at a junction (because of the blind spot) when we were at primary school - and that was regardles which way he was indicating!

[Edited on 6/12/2012 by mcerd1]

vanepico - 6/12/12 at 10:21 AM

saw the last few minutes, those cycist didnt deserve their bikes the way they went straight into the junctions

roadrunner - 6/12/12 at 12:58 PM

I have got myself one of them cameras. As soon as I get some decent footage , I will post it up.

Brad.

rf900rush - 6/12/12 at 01:12 PM

It's simple to me.

Ride like a twat and you will end up dead.
Drive like a twat and you will just still be a twat.

I was just one of the lucky twats in my younger days. Had a couple of close ones.

I personal think the worst victims are ones who kill idiots on bicycles.
You will have to live with it all you life.

vanepico - 6/12/12 at 01:25 PM

I've got a vid on youtube on my bike pointing forward and me getting rear ended by an uninsured driver somewhere!

dave107 - 6/12/12 at 01:47 PM

I drive a car and a bike as much as i can i cycle on cycle tracks wear high vis and have several lights on my bike, some of those cyclists on that program need locking up as do some of the car drivers.

Some car drivers jump red lights, pull out of junctions, go across pedestrian crossings, cut other car drivers up, speed drink drive and talk on there mobile phones and the list goes on, but the same is said for people on motorbikes and push bikes.

jps - 6/12/12 at 02:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by rf900rush
Ride like a twat and you will end up dead.


Problem is, my experience is: ride perfectly reasonably and get creamed by an idiot driver, lie on back for weeks recovering, wear scars for rest of life

quote:
Originally posted by rf900rush
I personal think the worst victims are ones who kill idiots on bicycles.
You will have to live with it all you life.


Indeed. If they'd killed me i'm sure i'd look down from heaven with sympathy that they were still living....

Oh, but of course, your tongue must have been firmly in cheek....?!

Peteff - 6/12/12 at 02:36 PM

I ride a pushbike, motorbike and drive a car and when I'm in the car I move over to let motorbikes pass and keep the kerb side clear to let pushbikes through when stood in traffic. Just lately I have noticed when on the motorbike how many car drivers drive on the white line to stop you getting past and in the car I have seen more cyclists ignoring red lights as well. I didn't watch the programme because the title annoyed me and I can't stand the way everything is sensationalised these days. I was hit on the bike last year by a knob following a tractor and trailer who decided to overtake it as I was alongside him and he then blamed me for knocking his mirror off and ended up settling 50/50.

roadrunner - 6/12/12 at 03:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by chillis
Firstly bikes -no driving test for them to pass - why not other road users have to demonstrate basic competency. The number of cyclists who pull out without looking, but it always seems to be the drivers fault
BBC seem to be trying to stir up a war on the motor car.


I bet most of the cyclists on the road have a driving licence, apart from the kids.!
Pulling out of junctions, who gets hurt when this happens. When you have ended up in hospital twice for cars doing this to you when on a cycle lane, then you might have a different view.

roadrunner - 6/12/12 at 03:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
Have to agree id be on the pavement, bearing in mind a bike will do a lot less damage to a pedestrian than a car will do to a bike!

Bit dramatic calling it a war though, im sure most cars take the utmost care around bikes.


If you can't ride a bike on the road, don't ride a bike. As a pedestrian in London I have had many more near misses with cyclists who believe that rules are for lesser people than I have with all other forms of traffic.


A cyclist should be punished the same as any driver of a motorised vehicle.

jacko - 6/12/12 at 04:49 PM

It would hep if the law was ALL bike riders had to wear high-viz gear and lights on there bikes 24/7 or loose there bikes
+ they should have insurance and pay a licence fee to be on the road's
No i don't ride a bike its to dangerous
Jacko

clanger - 6/12/12 at 05:21 PM

I'm all four, cyclist, driver, motorcyclist and jogger (mcred1 )
got to agree the programme showed both sides of the coin, and some of the cyclists on there deserved a mullering. terrible road manners.....
liked the vigilante handing out leaflets though.........class !!! top bloke, the amount of people you can see on phones in they cars from the saddle is criminal

have been invloved in a few cycle related altercations myself, one notable one was a BMW driver who took exception to me filtering through traffic while he was stuck in the jam. after brake testing me when he got passed me, he decided to swerve towards me the next time I passed him, clipping my handlbars with the mirror. This resulted in the side of his beemer enjoying the company of my cleated left foot to keep my balance to prevent me falling into oncoming traffic. He was none to impressed, stopped in the middle of the high street and grabbed hold of me ranting about calling the police. Great I thought, bring it on.........after a few minutes he realised the error of his ways and possible court appearance regarding assault with a deadly weapon and soon made off at speed....DICK !!!!

I still cycle all year round, lights, flouro, refelctors, you name it, but it would'nt matter if you had a lighthouse jammed up your ring, lots of drivers still would'nt see you !!!!

PS.
Mcred1, try jogging on the pavement in the middle of summer and its bad enough trying to dodge the dogshite, in the winter its nigh on impossible
gutter/ road for me everytime (traffic allowing of course)

coyoteboy - 6/12/12 at 05:55 PM

This has been covered lots. Motor vehicles and cyclists can live together just fine - sure off-road cycle lanes would be nice if they were sensibly constructed but generally they're full of junctions with no right of way, pedestrian crossings and additional lights. That makes them useless for anyone who doesn't want to just go for a sunday tootle with the kids. Likewise on-road cycle lanes are useless, pretty much universally.

All of these items are put in because people can't use common sense and follow road rules (both sides of the argument), not because they're required for safety. Literally hundreds of millions of pounds spend because people won't follow the rules.

jossey - 6/12/12 at 06:05 PM

i think cyclists should have there own road.... then they wont be jumping under vehicles :O)

Bare - 6/12/12 at 06:17 PM

Hawww That's Hilarious.
China is losing it's multi millions fleet of Bicycles as fast as the inmates can possibly manage.
Whilst 'Some' western countries are reverting to Bicycles as fast as they can.
Clearly some are getting Richer while some are becoming poorer.

coyoteboy - 6/12/12 at 07:16 PM

Don't think it's really anything to do with economics, though clearly it helps. Cycling is so much better for you (even counting road deaths/injuries into it and ignoring the fact that they'd decrease massively if there were fewer cars and more bikes) and would work twards reducing the increasing average weight of people too, which would take load off the NHS, which would make life cheaper for all. Plus you wouldn't spend a fortune a week in fuel.

MRLuke - 6/12/12 at 08:20 PM

Where cyclists have their own road they refuse to use it. Bloody stupid.

Grrr.

coyoteboy - 6/12/12 at 09:04 PM

quote:

Where cyclists have their own road they refuse to use it. Bloody stupid.


And this is an example of a problem driver. Cyclists are traffic just like cars and motorbikes, we share roads quite happily when people take a little time and consideration for others, rather than thinking they have more of a right to be somewhere than someone else. Off-road cycle lanes are provided for those who don't feel confident enough to ride on road, or for those location where cyclists are not allowed on the road. They're not there so cyclists don't use the road.

Seriously I can't believe the childish and stupid attitude of some road users. How would you like it if cyclists started pointing out that cars are a waste of space and slower than cycling around towns, so suggesting cars should be limited to A roads and motorways - I suspect you'd be upset at that.

What's worse is there's a whole bunch of idiotic road users who not only believe they're right at all times, but also don't have the slightest idea of road usage rules. I had a GLASS bottle thrown at me by a passing car driver (who looked about 45) because he thought I should be on teh cycle path next to the dual carriageway. The cycle path was a pavement, not only would it have been illegal for me to use it but also dangerous - commuting 34 miles a day on bike would take me a LONG time if I were to stick to pavements and a safe speed on the pavement.

[Edited on 6/12/12 by coyoteboy]

vanepico - 6/12/12 at 09:07 PM

http://youtu.be/c-iF7sXgd7E
Their it is

coyoteboy - 6/12/12 at 09:09 PM

Blatent lack of care by the driver behind there - you were lucky to get out of that walking.

What people don't seem to realise is that cyclists have the right to use the roads by default. Motor vehicle drivers have to take licenses to prove they are safe to use the road because of the threat they pose to others (cyclists and other motorvehicles, as well as peds). Cyclists don't really pose that risk in most cases, hence they're not required to be licensed. But most people forget they have to earn the right to drive a motor vehicle on the road and assume that having a license gives them the right to OWN the road.

I would happily see people applying for a driving license be forced to spend a year cycling in heavy traffic first - that way they'd see how vulnerable cyclists are and how infuriating it is to see so much poor road use. I genuinely think it makes you a better driver when you regularly see the stupid moves people pull without even realising they're doing it.

Of course the same applies for cyclists who run reds and filter inside the left of left turning traffic as it pulls off - they'd be first against the wall when I come to power.

And please no-one pull the road tax question out of the box of straw arguments - I pay more VED than most drivers, on top of the fact that VED doesn't pay for roads and the fact that cyclist infrastructure accounts for a tiny fraction of the annual road construction costs - you'll find if you do the sums that most car owning cyclists actually subsidise car owners who don't ride.

[Edited on 6/12/12 by coyoteboy]

vanepico - 6/12/12 at 09:11 PM

The bloke behind the woman behind me was the one at fault, and he was uninsured, ended up getting money for a new bike in the end

coyoteboy - 6/12/12 at 09:21 PM

This situation is all too common... "I didn't see you" rubbish:



My favourite so far is "I wasn't expecting you to be going so fast so I pulled out". Really. You didn't assess how fast I was moving? I was only doing 20mph on a normal 30 limit A road - I wasn't expecting you to not spend half a second longer to actually judge my speed before pulling out.

[Edited on 6/12/12 by coyoteboy]

jacko - 7/12/12 at 04:14 PM

At the top of my road they have just built a new cycle path costing god knows how much money its been put there for safety of the bikers and do the bikers use it NO i have only seen 1 bike use it in 3 weeks of it been open


It was a wast of tax payers money

Also i see 3 or 4 bikers every morning with no lights or high -vis coats on how can they expect to be safe in the dark
Its madness

[Edited on 7/12/12 by jacko]

coyoteboy - 7/12/12 at 05:24 PM

It is indeed a waste, most cyclists want to be considered traffic and treated like traffic, they don't want segregating with poor facilities, and so most don't use them. We should stop wasting taxpayers money and just educate people better to live with each other on the road. What we're currently doing is building garden walls to prevent a tank invasion, we might as well deal with it with deplomacy instead. It's cheaper and more sense.

There's no reason to force bikes to use lights and high vis 24/7, that's just daft. Same with insurance and tax, such a request shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems and a knee jerk reaction.

jacko - 7/12/12 at 07:44 PM

So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather ride on the road ? I'm puzzled

Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike
All what i have posted i have been thinking of adults And children

Jacko

gazza285 - 7/12/12 at 08:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jacko
So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather ride on the road ? I'm puzzled

Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike
All what i have posted i have been thinking of adults And children

Jacko


If there was a nice safe cycle path it would be used, if it isn't any good then it wont be used.





vanepico - 7/12/12 at 08:43 PM

I can't stand cycle lanes that jump on and off of the road, it is ALWAYS quicker to just use the bloody road, and most of the time it is not even an unsafe bit of road.

If anyone has been to stevenage and seen their cycle lanes, they are amazing! It's like a mini road network, it goes underneath the roads so you are not constantly stopping to cross bloody roads. If you want to make a cycle lane network you have to do it well otherwise it becomes like those pictures.

phelpsa - 7/12/12 at 09:13 PM

The problem is that most cyclists demand consideration without being considerate themselves. They expect cars to leave them filtering space when they won't allow space for faster moving cars to overtake. They expect car drivers to looks out for them coming up the inside at junctions when they don't pay the slightest bit of attention to cars coming past them, swerving around or cycling two abreast. I see this when driving or cycling. They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.

Its the attitude of most of the regular cyclists I know that cars can cause more damage therefore drivers should be more careful. It's that attitude that leads to them putting their lives in other peoples hands and subsequently deaths. Unfortunately in the real world it is those that are most vulnerable that must be most careful and considerate.

Jon Ison - 7/12/12 at 11:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
It is indeed a waste, most cyclists want to be considered traffic and treated like traffic, they don't want segregating with poor facilities, and so most don't use them. We should stop wasting taxpayers money and just educate people better to live with each other on the road. What we're currently doing is building garden walls to prevent a tank invasion, we might as well deal with it with deplomacy instead. It's cheaper and more sense.

There's no reason to force bikes to use lights and high vis 24/7, that's just daft. Same with insurance and tax, such a request shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems and a knee jerk reaction.



Hi Gareth.

vanepico - 8/12/12 at 12:44 AM

quote:
Originally posted by phelpsa
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.


If the car is stationary I'd squeeze through a small gap but if the car is moving, i'm not particularly well visible to them. As far as I'm concerned if you can't dive up the side in traffic there aren't many plus point to having a bike.

In Portsmouth (the islandy bit) there are still thousands of people who haven't twigged that driving anywhere is completely futile, you can actually keep up/beat a car into town in many cases, they then have to park, you just dump your crap worthless bike on a rail with a token bike lock and go about your business.

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 09:21 AM

quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
quote:
Originally posted by phelpsa
They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.


If the car is stationary I'd squeeze through a small gap but if the car is moving, i'm not particularly well visible to them. As far as I'm concerned if you can't dive up the side in traffic there aren't many plus point to having a bike.



So the cars then start moving, who's the one in a vulnerable position? And who has to take the avoiding action to get around the pillock that's now cycling down the middle of the road? I see it every time I drive or cycle around Bath, Oxford, Reading etc.

Next time you squeeze between cars at a red light, think about who's hands your life is in and whether it is a sensible idea to do it at the time.

Oddified - 8/12/12 at 11:33 AM

Dedicated cycle paths/lanes are bit like foot paths, you wouldn't expect to see a mother pushing a pram down the middle of the road if there's a foot path provided, so why do bikes if there's a cycle lane/path provided....

Ian

coyoteboy - 8/12/12 at 12:58 PM

Because pedestrians are not meant to walk down roads, they're meant to walk down footpaths. On the other hand, cyclists are meant to be on the road, the cycle path is an optional lane (and usually shared with pedestrians) as I explained earlier. They're also usually covered in broken glass bottles and not kept clear, unlike roads.

For info, I had a 17.5 mile commute not long ago, which had about 60% of its length "served" by a cycle path that looked like the one above, broken every few hundred yards by a dismount. Utterly pointless.

quote:

Hi Gareth.


Sorry, that literally flew over my head. I've no idea what joke you were making there!


quote:

So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather ride on the road ? I'm puzzled Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike All what i have posted i have been thinking of adults And children Jacko


Don't be puzzled, try it yourself on a regular basis and you'll understand. I don't see it as unreasonable to expect to be treated as traffic. As a kid I was taught how to use the roads on a bike and how to do it safely, I didn't need lanes to segregate me from traffic and I won't expect my kids to need to use them. I find the notion of "drivers are useless so we should keep everyone away from them, oh but they still have right of way" to be the most backward, brain dead solution to a problem I've ever heard. And quite frankly you have no idea how I ride my bike, just as I have no idea how you drive, so please try not to make judgements on things you have no idea about.


[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]

coyoteboy - 8/12/12 at 01:17 PM

quote:

The problem is that most cyclists demand consideration without being considerate themselves. They expect cars to leave them filtering space when they won't allow space for faster moving cars to overtake. They expect car drivers to looks out for them coming up the inside at junctions when they don't pay the slightest bit of attention to cars coming past them, swerving around or cycling two abreast. I see this when driving or cycling. They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.


There is indeed a bit of contradiction in many situations - it IS safe for me to filter to the front (I rarely do as I don't like cars having to overtake me again 3 seconds later) when the cars are stopped, I wouldn't do it if I were doing 15mph more than them, likewise when they're doing 15+mph more than me I don't like them being a foot away - not really surprising.


quote:

Its the attitude of most of the regular cyclists I know that cars can cause more damage therefore drivers should be more careful. It's that attitude that leads to them putting their lives in other peoples hands and subsequently deaths. Unfortunately in the real world it is those that are most vulnerable that must be most careful and considerate.


What you don't seem to see is that it IS the drivers responsibility to look out and be more careful because they are the heavy, person-killing item on the road. If you want to go down the route of smallest vehicle takes most care you're going a bit mental, what you're asking for is the same rule that exists in India. Do you have any idea what it's like driving or cycling (or walking) in India where largest vehicle has right of way? Checkout their road death stats and tell me it's sensible to say the smaller people that must be more careful. This is why road rules exist the way they do and this is why when you get in charge of a car you need to take extra care around more vulnerable road users - that's why it is EXPECTED of you as someone licensed to drive a vehicle. Watch this video and tell me if you'd like to drive in those situations, let alone cycle - it creates an "every man for himself" attitude which we see the beginnings of already here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxHM_oPj_5E

I really don't understand why peope find this so hard, I'm a driver and a cyclist - I don't find the two roles clashing when both sides obey the rules of the road which are laid out to prevent problems. When people stop following the rules on either side it gets dangerous. However the default position of driving carefully around cyclists means they rarely pose a problem even when they don't follow the rules. As a cyclist I've nearly been killed a number of times when drivers don't follow the rules, no matter how carefully I'm cycling.

[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 02:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:

The problem is that most cyclists demand consideration without being considerate themselves. They expect cars to leave them filtering space when they won't allow space for faster moving cars to overtake. They expect car drivers to looks out for them coming up the inside at junctions when they don't pay the slightest bit of attention to cars coming past them, swerving around or cycling two abreast. I see this when driving or cycling. They expect car drivers to leave them a metre of space at all times but are quite happy to squeeze into the 2ft gap between lanes at junctions.


There is indeed a bit of contradiction in many situations - it IS safe for me to filter to the front (I rarely do as I don't like cars having to overtake me again 3 seconds later) when the cars are stopped, I wouldn't do it if I were doing 15mph more than them, likewise when they're doing 15+mph more than me I don't like them being a foot away - not really surprising.


The problem is that you rarely see cyclists thinking ahead... 'in 10 seconds these cars will be going 10mph faster than me, and I'm trapped between them'. What you see is a cyclist sprint off from the lights, swerve across the front of traffic that is by that point travelling faster than they are, then having left the car no room, they get angry that they are being passed so close. There are two party's that could have stopped the situation arising, the cyclist (by waiting on the left and putting himself in a suitable size gap), or the driver (by allowing the cyclist to move away and waiting for a gap large enough gap to pass). The consequences for the cyclist are much greater, so who do you think would have more of a 'vested interest' in ensuring it doesn't arise? What the cyclist has done is put their life in the hands of a party that has no vested interest. Stupid? I certainly think so. Yet I see it every time I drive through a city.


quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:

Its the attitude of most of the regular cyclists I know that cars can cause more damage therefore drivers should be more careful. It's that attitude that leads to them putting their lives in other peoples hands and subsequently deaths. Unfortunately in the real world it is those that are most vulnerable that must be most careful and considerate.


What you don't seem to see is that it IS the drivers responsibility to look out and be more careful because they are the heavy, person-killing item on the road. If you want to go down the route of smallest vehicle takes most care you're going a bit mental, what you're asking for is the same rule that exists in India. Do you have any idea what it's like driving or cycling (or walking) in India where largest vehicle has right of way? Checkout their road death stats and tell me it's sensible to say the smaller people that must be more careful. This is why road rules exist the way they do and this is why when you get in charge of a car you need to take extra care around more vulnerable road users - that's why it is EXPECTED of you as someone licensed to drive a vehicle. Watch this video and tell me if you'd like to drive in those situations, let alone cycle - it creates an "every man for himself" attitude which we see the beginnings of already here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxHM_oPj_5E

I really don't understand why peope find this so hard, I'm a driver and a cyclist - I don't find the two roles clashing when both sides obey the rules of the road which are laid out to prevent problems. When people stop following the rules on either side it gets dangerous. However the default position of driving carefully around cyclists means they rarely pose a problem even when they don't follow the rules. As a cyclist I've nearly been killed a number of times when drivers don't follow the rules, no matter how carefully I'm cycling.



You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that in an ideal world that is how it should be. In an ideal socialist world, everyone would take equal responsibility for the safety of each other. That doesn't exist anywhere.

Any cyclist/driver who is relying on any other cyclist/driver to consider their safety during any manoeuvre is just plain stupid.

When driving I will leave cyclists space because I like my car and I don't want them damaging it, very few drivers think like that. When cycling I will give any car/lorry/bus a wide birth because I quite enjoy being in one piece (and I'm a wimp), and it would appear that very few cyclists think like that! It's the same thing that makes me extremely cautious when passing lorries on the motorway, or getting up the inside of buses on roundabouts etc in my car.

Cyclists CAN help themselves, but the vast majority choose not to!

[Edited on 8-12-12 by phelpsa]

coyoteboy - 8/12/12 at 02:48 PM

quote:

You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that in an ideal world that is how it should be. In an ideal socialist world, everyone would take equal responsibility for the safety of each other. That doesn't exist anywhere.


It works pretty well in the places that have taken the stance that cyclists have right of way and in many european countries who are more cycle friendly.

quote:

Any cyclist/driver who is relying on any other cyclist/driver to consider their safety during any manoeuvre is just plain stupid.


I agree, but not all cyclists are also drivers and many are youngsters, and pedestrians are often even more unpredictable. This is why we must INSIST that motor vehicle drivers take care. Of course everyone needs to look after themselves and respect each other but what I am saying is that no-one should be above the other, which is the position most drivers assume. The number of times I've been told bikes should be on the pavement not the road drives me mad (and I can happily sit at 20ish on the flat.), and I'm not even a slow cyclist and I use lights and follow the rules. I guess part of the trouble is that "bike users" are not always "cyclists", and we must all take care around them.

quote:
When driving I will leave cyclists space because I like my car and I don't want them damaging it, very few drivers think like that.


I think most drivers just don't think much at all, but I'd hope that when driving you leave cyclists room because you don't want to kill them, not because you don't want your car damaged?

It's quite interesting how /most/ people discuss it quite reasonably both in forums and in the pub (with the odd nutcase suggesting banning one or the other and refusing to accept any blame), but that doesn't seem to translate onto the road.



[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]

jacko - 8/12/12 at 04:44 PM

quote:

So if there is a nice safe cycle path / track made for you / bikers or a busy road with buses, cars, vans' lorry's etc you would rather ride on the road ? I'm puzzled Well if you have children i hope you don.t teach them the way you ride your bike All what i have posted i have been thinking of adults And children Jacko


Don't be puzzled, try it yourself on a regular basis and you'll understand. I don't see it as unreasonable to expect to be treated as traffic. As a kid I was taught how to use the roads on a bike and how to do it safely, I didn't need lanes to segregate me from traffic and I won't expect my kids to need to use them. I find the notion of "drivers are useless so we should keep everyone away from them, oh but they still have right of way" to be the most backward, brain dead solution to a problem I've ever heard. And quite frankly you have no idea how I ride my bike, just as I have no idea how you drive, so please try not to make judgements on things you have no idea about.


[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]



Yes you are right i should not make judgement's on you or your family i hope you all stay safe in your cycling

Just some thing i have just seen I have just been to pick my Daughter up from work 3 miles and in that 3 miles i have seen 3 bike riders on main roads [ with a good cycle path next to it ] with no lights or high viz Its very dark out side all i can say is God help them
Jacko

coyoteboy - 8/12/12 at 04:50 PM

Indeed Jacko, a little education as to the use of lights and being visible and they'd all be safe and we wouldn't have to waste cash and limited space on cycle lanes!

(I get just as angry at folk with no lights and jumping red lights as any driver, even when I'm on my bike - the good thing about being on a bike is you're in a good position to speak to them and point out they're being stupid, which is fun).

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 05:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:

You're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that in an ideal world that is how it should be. In an ideal socialist world, everyone would take equal responsibility for the safety of each other. That doesn't exist anywhere.


It works pretty well in the places that have taken the stance that cyclists have right of way and in many european countries who are more cycle friendly.



That is because of the introduction of other rules and therefore consequences for drivers/cyclists to consider that we don't have. It's not because people in other countries are 'better people', they are just as egoist as we are.

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy

quote:

Any cyclist/driver who is relying on any other cyclist/driver to consider their safety during any manoeuvre is just plain stupid.


I agree, but not all cyclists are also drivers and many are youngsters, and pedestrians are often even more unpredictable. This is why we must INSIST that motor vehicle drivers take care. Of course everyone needs to look after themselves and respect each other but what I am saying is that no-one should be above the other, which is the position most drivers assume. The number of times I've been told bikes should be on the pavement not the road drives me mad (and I can happily sit at 20ish on the flat.), and I'm not even a slow cyclist and I use lights and follow the rules. I guess part of the trouble is that "bike users" are not always "cyclists", and we must all take care around them.



So why can't drivers insist that cyclists take care? After all, they are just as responsible for their actions as drivers are. You say drivers expect exceptional treatment, I would very strongly argue the other way. As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of cyclists demand consideration without giving any consideration to others. You can argue this until the cows come home, but it was blatently shown by Mr Gareth (and many others) on that show and is shown by almost every regular cyclist I come across, so my opinion is set!

Just because you can cycle at 20mph doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so all the time. If you come off your bike at 20mph for any reason (your fault or others), it's gonna hurt! So you take that risk.

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy

quote:
When driving I will leave cyclists space because I like my car and I don't want them damaging it, very few drivers think like that.


I think most drivers just don't think much at all, but I'd hope that when driving you leave cyclists room because you don't want to kill them, not because you don't want your car damaged?

It's quite interesting how /most/ people discuss it quite reasonably both in forums and in the pub (with the odd nutcase suggesting banning one or the other and refusing to accept any blame), but that doesn't seem to translate onto the road.



You would think wouldn't you? But I can never remember thinking 'I could kill this person'. Maybe it's because I never let myself get into a position where that could occur. After all, if I could kill them, they could damage my car. So what I do think is 'I'll give this guy a wide berth because if he swerves it'll leave a nasty dent'.

I do however remember being on a bike and thinking 'he could kill me, so I'll let him pass safely' for the same reason that I won't squeeze up the inside of a bus on a roundabout in my car.

coyoteboy - 8/12/12 at 08:55 PM

quote:

That is because of the introduction of other rules and therefore consequences for drivers/cyclists to consider that we don't have. It's not because people in other countries are 'better people', they are just as egoist as we are.


I never said it was.


quote:

So why can't drivers insist that cyclists take care? After all, they are just as responsible for their actions as drivers are. You say drivers expect exceptional treatment, I would very strongly argue the other way.


I never said drivers can't insist that cyclists take care? I said, and have said from the start, that both should take equal care and consideration on the road. What I did subsequently say was that we certainly can't have a situation where the people driving the most dangerous objects get automatic priority and everyone else has to deal with it.

quote:
You say drivers expect exceptional treatment, I would very strongly argue the other way. As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of cyclists demand consideration without giving any consideration to others. You can argue this until the cows come home, but it was blatently shown by Mr Gareth (and many others) on that show and is shown by almost every regular cyclist I come across, so my opinion is set!


Pointless discussing it with you then if your opinions are set, that's a rather narrow minded view - the whole point of these discussions is to come to a sensible outcome, not sit and shout with your ears covered. I didn't see the full programme so I have no idea what "Mr Gareth" said, and some cyclists probably do think they should have the roads to themselves, as do many drivers. That doesn't mean it's the sensible way forward or that the bulk of people think the same way, no matter what you think they think. However I am quite happy to say that I think cyclists and pedestrians should be treated as a slightly special case simply because they are more vulnerable and we're all humans trying not to kill each other. You have no idea what skills or lack of skills a cyclist has, the rules of the road are there to minimise these risks. If both stick to them, as they are, there would be no problems. I've never met or seen a cyclist who apparently thought they deserved more consideration and didn't return it. I've seen bike users who didnt give a damn about the rules and didn't give a damn about people paying them special attention, but none who specifically thought they were immune to the rules but everyone else was in the wrong. Maybe you need to get out on a bike more to meet some more of them?

quote:

Just because you can cycle at 20mph doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so all the time. If you come off your bike at 20mph for any reason (your fault or others), it's gonna hurt! So you take that risk.


Eh? Where did that come from? I'm not even sure what you think I was trying to point out there, but my point was I've been abused despite doing nothing wrong and not even holding anyone up. I'm not sure why you felt the need to tell me 20 isnt always safe (no shit?!).

quote:
You would think wouldn't you? But I can never remember thinking 'I could kill this person'. Maybe it's because I never let myself get into a position where that could occur. After all, if I could kill them, they could damage my car. So what I do think is 'I'll give this guy a wide berth because if he swerves it'll leave a nasty dent'.

I do however remember being on a bike and thinking 'he could kill me, so I'll let him pass safely' for the same reason that I won't squeeze up the inside of a bus on a roundabout in my car.


You're always in a position where you could kill a cyclist, if you don't give them a wide enough berth and they hit a pothole and wobble into you when you're passing too close you could kill them. That should be your biggest worry, not damage to your car.

As for letting someone pass safely - in what situation? You have every right to be cycling in the middle of the lane and if the driver can't pass safely but still try they shouldn't be driving. It's call cycliing defensively and is now actively recommended by pretty much all driving AND cycling authorities because it is proven to reduce accidents by making cars think harder about overtaking (although it does cheese them off at times, irrationally).

Your bus example is not really analogous. Put it the other way, which would be analogous - you're in your 7 enjoying a quiet drive in the only lane approaching some lights, a bus wants to overtake and pull in before the junction and is approaching quickly. Would you expect him to brake or would you expect to pull over to the kerb and cower as he goes past? There's your answer. The only reason you want the bike to pull and be the one that gives way is because it's convenient for you. If you answered the above with "I'd stay in the lane, he can queue behind me as he should" - that's exactly how a cyclist should behave also. If you can't overtake clearly, don't.

[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 10:14 PM

What I disagree with is the attitude of the majority of cyclists (which you apparently can't see), which is that it is car drivers endangering their lives by not showing them due consideration, when in most circumstances they put themselves in situations that are completely avoidable with some prior thought / anticipation / consideration.

My opinion is based on what I have experienced and seen everyday. My ears are open to your opinion, but you aren't going to change my opinion on the attitude of cyclists I have come across. Maybe your experience is different? Afterall, you live a good few hundred miles away!

I assumed that your 20mph comment was saying 'I can almost keep up with traffic so I don't have to show consideration to them'. My point is that if you're going fast enough to make overtaking difficult, are you putting yourself at an unnecessary risk? Would you be safer giving consideration to the other vehicles on the road and slowing down to allow vehicles to pass more safely?

You are choosing different examples (for obvious reasons). My analogy is fine, you squeeze down the middle of slow moving traffic on a bike (as happens everyday in every city) then you are putting yourself in an unnecessary position of risk. Your life is in the hands of someone else. Why do that?

I keep my Seven for the track for exactly the reason you have given Although I do have to wonder how easy the MR2 is to see from some of the buses that drive around here, therefore I always assume that they haven't seen me. Same attitude I take on the bike, and the same attitude motorcyclists are encouraged to take. It's not that bus driver wouldn't take care to avoid me, but why should he have to if I show a little consideration? I have massively reduced the risk of a collision in which I would definitely come off worse.

I'm not saying that cyclists should always give way, but they must consider the consequences of the situation turning on them and weigh up whether it would be safer to assume the other vehicle hasn't seen them.

So the conclusion I can draw from this is that you think car drivers should be take more care. I don't disagree with this, and the reasons behind people taking more care are neither here nor there. My point is that cyclists can help themselves survive on a road network that is less than suited to bicycles and is populated by drivers who aren't necessarily expecting to see bicycles by giving more consideration to drivers and anticipating the situations that could arise.


[Edited on 8-12-12 by phelpsa]

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 10:27 PM

So you say, 'I'm minding my own business and not breaking any laws, everyone else should drive safely around me'.

I say 'What if someone isn't driving safely? Am I in a position where I could be in danger? How can I reduce the risk of being seriously hurt?'

You can rely on your own actions, you can't rely on other people's.

coyoteboy - 8/12/12 at 10:36 PM

quote:

I assumed that your 20mph comment was saying 'I can almost keep up with traffic so I don't have to show consideration to them'. My point is that if you're going fast enough to make overtaking difficult, are you putting yourself at an unnecessary risk? Would you be safer giving consideration to the other vehicles on the road and slowing down to allow vehicles to pass more safely?


That's your assumptions though. However if I'm going that fast that I'm difficult to overtake, don't overtake me until it is safe. You're coming at it from ENTIRELY the wrong direction - you are the one that wants to overtake, I'm travelling perfectly safely and perfectly happily and perfectly within the law like any other road user. If you want to overtake it's your responsibility to do it safely, not mine to slow down to let you past. If you (not you specifically, but anyone) want other people to bow down and move out the way because you present a danger it is YOU that needs to adjust your behaviour, not the other road users.

quote:
It's not that bus driver wouldn't take care to avoid me, but why should he have to if I show a little consideration? I have massively reduced the risk of a collision in which I would definitely come off worse.


You'd massively reduce the risk of collision if you just were not there at all. Would you do that? How far do you take it? I follow your reasoning but there is no reason to put yourself out, just follow the rules and everyone can be fine. It's not too much to ask. You seem like a sensible person who gets walked on because they're too nice.

[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 10:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:

I assumed that your 20mph comment was saying 'I can almost keep up with traffic so I don't have to show consideration to them'. My point is that if you're going fast enough to make overtaking difficult, are you putting yourself at an unnecessary risk? Would you be safer giving consideration to the other vehicles on the road and slowing down to allow vehicles to pass more safely?


That's your assumptions though. However if I'm going that fast that I'm difficult to overtake, don't overtake me until it is safe. You're coming at it from ENTIRELY the wrong direction - you are the one that wants to overtake, I'm travelling perfectly safely and perfectly happily and perfectly within the law like any other road user. If you want to overtake it's your responsibility to do it safely, not mine to slow down to let you past. If you (not you specifically, but anyone) want other people to bow down and move out the way because you present a danger it is YOU that needs to adjust your behaviour, not the other road users.


I agree. That is what should happen. It is not my assumption, it is the view of the general driving population as viewed by myself on a daily basis. They will get past, even if it involves putting the cyclist in danger. I wouldn't do this for reasons I have already explained, you wouldn't do it because you're a cyclist yourself, but other people don't have the same reasons.

I am saying that you could take yourself out of that danger, reduce the risks greatly, by travelling at a speed that would allow people to pass more safely and would reduce the consequences significantly should something go wrong. You don't have to, there's no law, but you'd be silly not to.

And then that begs the question, why help people who won't help themselves?

phelpsa - 8/12/12 at 10:49 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy

quote:
It's not that bus driver wouldn't take care to avoid me, but why should he have to if I show a little consideration? I have massively reduced the risk of a collision in which I would definitely come off worse.


You'd massively reduce the risk of collision if you just were not there at all. Would you do that? How far do you take it? I follow your reasoning but there is no reason to put yourself out, just follow the rules and everyone can be fine. It's not too much to ask. You seem like a sensible person who gets walked on because they're too nice.

[Edited on 8/12/12 by coyoteboy]


If giving buses and cyclists a wide berth is getting walked on then...Maybe I get walked on, but I'm still alive and my car doesn't have a cyclist in the side of it. I'm quite happy that way.

The problem is that following the rules as they are isn't enough. No one sets out to intentionally run over cyclists (as tempting as it may sometimes be ), but these things still happen. Until the rules are changed, it is unfortunately the cyclists who are most vulnerable and therefore must give the most care and consideration if they want to stay alive!