coyoteboy
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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!
|
|
|
|
