Are cyclist part of traffic?
DonDaddyD
Posts: 12,689
Are cyclist part of traffic?
My belief on this is that, no we/they/cyclist are not part of traffic.
I’m aware that the argument ‘cyclist aren’t part of traffic’ has been used to defame cycling and commuting by bicycle but I feel the term, in and of itself, is not inherently bad and has been manipulated to be perceived as something negative.
Certainly to consider a cyclist as not being a part of traffic is not my admission of hating everything about bicycles. I simply accept the fact that bicycles are not motorised vehicles, are more vulnerable than motorised vehicles and with the ever increasing numbers of cyclist and vehicles should be given more special consideration and possibly new rules integrated into the current ones to improve road safety for all. For example: In this country it is illegal to pass through red lights, however in other countries with a higher percentage of cyclists this is allowed and it works. I feel some of the pro-cycling-pro-following the current road rules are too well programmed to consider any alternative and this I feel is detrimental to the advancing of cycling in the UK.
To assume that a guy on a bike is a part of traffic is to assume that the bike is going to react like a car (or motorised vehicle), move like one and give signals like one. All of which a bike can attempt to do but ultimately cannot deliver completely.
If you look at cycle-commuters from behind a steering, its hard to consider them as part of traffic, they don’t move like traffic, they don’t move with traffic and the only time their bike becomes a part of traffic (and by traffic I mean a long queue of motorised vehicles) is when moving to the centre of the lane is the safest option, such as being stopped at the lights and not being able to filter down either side of traffic. Moreover traffic doesn’t filter.
From the perspective of a cyclist I don’t consider myself as part of traffic, I ride alongside it. Again I ride to either the left of traffic or the right depending of the situation. Very rarely do I ride in the centre of any lane, except when safety demands and when there are cars behind me I may move over (a bit) so they can pass or simply hope that they overtake me safely and with ample distance. That is not something I consider behind a steering wheel.
I ride safely, but part of that safety is depending on considering what traffic is doing and then ride my bike with anticipation of how traffic may react. My safety is not determined by riding with traffic because I’m a part of it.
Lastly if bicycles are a part of traffic, why the need for cycle lanes? Its like the increased number and length of bus lanes, its to remove them from traffic.
Who knows, I could be wrong…
My belief on this is that, no we/they/cyclist are not part of traffic.
I’m aware that the argument ‘cyclist aren’t part of traffic’ has been used to defame cycling and commuting by bicycle but I feel the term, in and of itself, is not inherently bad and has been manipulated to be perceived as something negative.
Certainly to consider a cyclist as not being a part of traffic is not my admission of hating everything about bicycles. I simply accept the fact that bicycles are not motorised vehicles, are more vulnerable than motorised vehicles and with the ever increasing numbers of cyclist and vehicles should be given more special consideration and possibly new rules integrated into the current ones to improve road safety for all. For example: In this country it is illegal to pass through red lights, however in other countries with a higher percentage of cyclists this is allowed and it works. I feel some of the pro-cycling-pro-following the current road rules are too well programmed to consider any alternative and this I feel is detrimental to the advancing of cycling in the UK.
To assume that a guy on a bike is a part of traffic is to assume that the bike is going to react like a car (or motorised vehicle), move like one and give signals like one. All of which a bike can attempt to do but ultimately cannot deliver completely.
If you look at cycle-commuters from behind a steering, its hard to consider them as part of traffic, they don’t move like traffic, they don’t move with traffic and the only time their bike becomes a part of traffic (and by traffic I mean a long queue of motorised vehicles) is when moving to the centre of the lane is the safest option, such as being stopped at the lights and not being able to filter down either side of traffic. Moreover traffic doesn’t filter.
From the perspective of a cyclist I don’t consider myself as part of traffic, I ride alongside it. Again I ride to either the left of traffic or the right depending of the situation. Very rarely do I ride in the centre of any lane, except when safety demands and when there are cars behind me I may move over (a bit) so they can pass or simply hope that they overtake me safely and with ample distance. That is not something I consider behind a steering wheel.
I ride safely, but part of that safety is depending on considering what traffic is doing and then ride my bike with anticipation of how traffic may react. My safety is not determined by riding with traffic because I’m a part of it.
Lastly if bicycles are a part of traffic, why the need for cycle lanes? Its like the increased number and length of bus lanes, its to remove them from traffic.
Who knows, I could be wrong…
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
0
Comments
-
JonGinge wrote:yes yes yes yes yes YES
That is all
+lots and lots and lots and lots0 -
-
another gaggle of yes!
i don't understand why a bike would not, where i grew up bikes are uncommon as transport but it's not uncommon for people to walk, (no pavements) or to meet livestock or tractors or, well what ever. I guess i grew up expecting all manner of things in the road.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:yes yes yes yes yes YES
That is all
+lots and lots and lots and lots
+lots more
+ 1 cherry on topGiant Escape R1
FCN 8
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
- Terry Pratchett.0 -
*buries head in hands...*
When on my bike I consider myself 100% part of the traffic, alongside all other roadusers. It would be nice if those other roadusers would more comprehensively recognise cyclists as having equal rights on our highways.0 -
It's in the road, it's traffic.
Or would you like your right to be on the road removed to pavement-based cycle lanes?
0 -
You're all wrong.
I'm not saying bikes aren't a part of traffic and shouldn't be on the road.
What I'm saying is that they are on the road and ride with traffic but are not part of it.
With this mentality additional sets of rules could be established to improve road safety for cyclists and other road users.
And no one has answered my question. Much like bus lanes are employed to remove buses from traffic and not subject them for traffic jams and motorcycles are now allowed in bus lanes like black cabs. If bicycles are part of traffic and are subject to all the rules and expected to act like traffic, what is the need for cycles lanes?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
We're all wrong? You're right in the face of overwhelming opposition?
You should be prime minister.
:roll:0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:You're all wrong.
I'm not saying bikes aren't a part of traffic and shouldn't be on the road.
What I'm saying is that they are on the road and ride with traffic but are not part of it.
With this mentality additional sets of rules could be established to improve road safety for cyclists and other road users.
And no one has answered my question. Much like bus lanes are employed to remove buses from traffic and not subject them for traffic jams and motorcycles are now allowed in bus lanes like black cabs. If bicycles are part of traffic and are subject to all the rules and expected to act like traffic, what is the need for cycles lanes?
Busses are traffic. Motorcycles are traffic. Cabs are traffic.
Hope that clears up your confusion.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Are cyclists part of traffic?
YES
I think that you have a funny definition for traffic DDDThing is as a motorist, today, I don't really consider bicycles as 'part of the traffic'. There are many vehicles (buses for example) that I don't consider 'traffic' chieifly because if a bus stops and I can I will overtake it.
I don't understand how a bus (or anything else using the road for that matter) is not part of traffic? Look up the text book definition you'll find that anything on a road is traffic, from Lorrys right down to peds and cattle (some rural roads
). I mean if I over-take a taxi (also uses the bus lane) stopped for a fair does that mean the taxi is not traffic??? Are we passing on this lack of intergration by overtaking parked motorised veichles? If you are not part of traffic on a bike would you rather be removed from the road all together??? 0 -
What a strange thread.
Definition of Traffic - the movement of vehicles, ships, persons, etc., in an area, along a street, through an air lane, over a water route, etc
So anything moving on a road/route is traffic. How would you describe 30 bikes at a set of lights - would you not say that the traffic is bad today?
Bus/Cycle lanes are supposed to be there to ease/facilitate the movement of buses/cycles (in effect removing them from the main traffic flow - however they are still on the same route as the rest of the traffic).0 -
If we're not traffic what are we? We're not pedestrians. We take up space on the roads and demand respect from other road users. Of course we're part of traffic. To say we're not almost invites abuse from motorists - somehow cyclists don't count as they're not traffic....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0
-
We are very much part of the traffic flow. You have to remember that horses, pedestrians and cyclists were using the road network long before cars became common place. The problem we have in this counry is that motorists generally seem to subscribe to the 'might is right' school of thought. We need the law changed so that people in control of large, motorised, vehicles carry far more responsiblity for their actions than they do at present in the event of an accident. We also need to train car drivers far more effectively so that they recognise the vulnerability of different groups of road users, acknowledge their presence in the flow of traffic, and are able to adapt their driving style to suit the changing circumstances they face more effectively.
The moment us cyclists start believing we're not part of the traffic flow we may as well consign ourselves to riding along predescribed, poorly designed, cycle routes._______________________________
I ain't fat, merely optimised for gravity.0 -
I behave exactly the same whether driving or cycling.
I feel part of the traffic, you need to on the way into brum the traffic isn't that slow and there are alot of 2 lane dual carriage ways on my commute.
Drivers don't seem to mind, If I need to be in the right hand lane I just try to ride a bit faster, they see me making an effort and they are happy. (they also get to look at my bum, this could be part it)Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
Vitus Sentier VRS - 20170 -
lost_in_thought wrote:JonGinge wrote:yes yes yes yes yes YES
That is all
+lots and lots and lots and lots
And lots more. Anything that travels on the roads is traffic.0 -
We are traffic.
We are not like cars in every way, but then why should the car be the defining prototype of what traffic is? Artics, buses and motorbikes also behave differently to cars, with different advantages, limitations, etc. All are traffic, just as we are.
Being traffic and part of the flow means that we all need to understand the requirements of ourselves and the others, and all share the space as well and as safely as we can. And in all practicality, what other choice is there?
We are traffic. But we are not cars.White Condor Italia 2011
FCN 30 -
We're all wrong? You're right in the face of overwhelming opposition?
You should be prime minister.
If every one told you the World was flat and you thought otherwise would you believe them?
Sigh....
Traffic on wiki is defined as:
Traffic on roads may consist of pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using the public way for purposes of travel.
Yes by definition a bus, taxi, horse, tractor etc is considered part of traffic.
Parked vehicles are not, to my knowledge a part of traffic.
Bus lanes are used to reduce congestion and maintain traffic flow. Why are cycle lanes employed? In an attempt to increase safety are cycle lanes now bad, especially the pavement ones, because that removes sperates the bike from the traffic flow?
My thoughts: A bicycle isn't subject to the flow or movement of traffic as much as other road going vehicles. A bike doesn't have to be subject to a traffic jam, looking at a bike as not a part of road going traffic but acknowledging its need to be on the road, opens up the possiblity of new rules being applied to cyclists that could increase road safety - like being able to turn left at a red light (which I'm neither for or against) - and before you rigid pre-programmed naysayers jump on me, it works fine in other countries..Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
And the title of the thread should be "cyclists" not "cyclist".0
-
pllb wrote:Bus/Cycle lanes are ... in effect removing [bus/cycles] from the main traffic flow
Probably semantics but I see it the other way round, they remove cars from the main flow.
Buses, bikes etc can use all the road but have a preferential route available to them that cars are forbidden from.
Bikes, cars, horses, tractors are all traffic when they are on the road.0 -
But don't bikes fall into the "vehicles" category? If not, why not?Do not write below this line. Office use only.0
-
I behave exactly the same whether driving or cycling.
No you don't, if you do then you are likely to be either a dangerous cyclist or a dangerous motorist. You choose.
On a bike do you permenantly ride in the centre of the road?
In a car do you filter along the left or right to get to the front of the queue?
In a car do you undertake?We need the law changed so that people in control of large, motorised, vehicles carry far more responsiblity for their actions than they do at present in the event of an accident.
The rules are ever evolving. If the rules changed to acknoweldge that more than just motorised vehicles have a right to use the road. But also gave allowances that other non-motorised means of transport have a right to the road, that they aren't traffic and are subject to different laws to motorised vehicles (like passing a red at a crossing - to seperate them from traffic) to increase safety, would this be a bad thing.
If the laws are to be changed, peoples thinking and definitions need to change as they have done because the rules are ever evolving.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Headhuunter wrote:But don't bikes fall into the "vehicles" category? If not, why not?
If I've used vehicles I've used it as a shortened version for 'motorised-vehicles'.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:that could increase road safety - like being able to turn left at a red light (which I'm neither for or against) - and before you rigid pre-programmed naysayers jump on me, it works fine in other countries..
I think that should be fine for all vehicles. After driving in the states, turning right on red and seeing how successful it is I would be in favour of the UK adopting it.
TBH there has been occasion when I turn left on red in the UK but only when I judge it is safe* to do so.
* Which is when there are no cameras or police around, obviously 0 -
Gussio wrote:And the title of the thread should be "cyclists" not "cyclist".
Is that of any real benefit to the thread in any way other than to demenstrate how pathetically anal people on the internet can be?
I am really tired of the whole pedant bullsh*t. Yes your English is better than mine, big mutha-f*cking whoop! Its a forum, I'm not here or paid to proof what I write. I write and as long as what I've written is, in principle, understood (not agreed with, understood) then what I've written has served its purpose.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DDD, if you are in a car, you aren't supposed to drive in the centre of the lane. Check the Highway Code.
As for all your other points about cars, "yes" in answer to all of them, when there is enough room and the traffic flow makes it appropriate.
Give it up dude - the "cyclists are not part of traffic" postulate is cobbers.0 -
tarquin_foxglove wrote:
I think that should be fine for all vehicles. After driving in the states, turning right on red and seeing how successful it is I would be in favour of the UK adopting it.
TBH there has been occasion when I turn left on red in the UK but only when I judge it is safe* to do so.
* Which is when there are no cameras or police around, obviously
FINALLY!
Yes, this action (adopted and working well in America) isn't how traffic in the UK is expected to act.
However, removing bicycles from the notion that they are part of traffic but accepting their need to be on the road would enable - in the UK - rules like this to be allowed.
If bicycles weren't considered part of traffic I reckon their would be more justification to close the roads during sportives and road races... but that's another debate.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Always Tyred wrote:DDD, if you are in a car, you aren't supposed to drive in the centre of the lane. Check the Highway Code.
As for all your other points about cars, "yes" in answer to all of them, when there is enough room and the traffic flow makes it appropriate.
On a two lane road you're telling me you don't position your car in the centre of one of those lanes?
It's utter nonsense that a person behaves behind the wheel of a car as they would a bike. I'm going as far as saying that a person would behave differently in a van to a car, and van to a lorry. The size and characteristics of the vehicle influences how we behave and drive said vehicle on the road.Give it up
I'm debating to learn. I always debate to learn. I'm not saying that I'm 100% right, I don't know, much like I don't know if God is real or not. If someone posts with a convincing enough argument then I'm always open to rethinking my stance. Discussion and sharing of opinion is part of how we learn and grow...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Always Tyred wrote:As for all your other points about cars, "yes" in answer to all of them, when there is enough room and the traffic flow makes it appropriate.
Give it up dude - the "cyclists are not part of traffic" postulate is cobbers.
+1
Also, I have no objection to the turning left on red, when it's legal. To do so when it's illegal is, well, illegal!
Quite apart from the fact that other road users won't expect you to do it, and if you're on a bike you're cementing a negative view of cyclists and further enforcing the notion that they are 'not traffic' and should not be treated like traffic.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:FINALLY!
Not quite, I still think bicycles are traffic, I just think all traffic should be able to turn left on red.
The occasions when I've turned left on red have been when I've been driving (the Council are really p***ing me off by sticking traffic lights on filter lanes at well constructed junctions); when I'm on my bike I'm a goody two shoes.0
