Are cyclist part of traffic?

sarajoy

If bikes aren't traffic, then what are mopeds and motorcycles? Quasi-traffic? And how about electric bicycles?

You can go on forever classifying different 'types' of traffic I'd think, but it's all traffic.

Crucially, I think some cyclists are traffic, some aren't. We who use the roads, the junctions, the roundabouts, and claim the road as our own as well as cars - we're traffic.

Young children on bikes, persons/peds/pricks on bikes (i.e. those that stick to pavements whether it allows cycles or not), and those who purely ride on bike-specific trails - are not traffic.

Rockbuddy

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

The thing I can't get my head round is that you think cyclists should not be classed as traffic but as non-traffic you want special rules for riding on the road? As what ??? :? If cyclists aren't traffic then they shouldn't be on the road let alone asking for special rules to everyone else.

I will agree more education for motorised vechiles about current rules and cyclist's rights would be good. Also any new rules to improve road safety would also be good but generally I can't see your argument about cyclist's safety and RLJing, maybe that's just me.

bigmat

I think you have a point DDD, somewhere amongst all of this, but I think fundamentally you are onto a loser suggesting bikes aren't traffic. Maybe if you define traffic in an obscure and narrow way. I think what you are really getting at though is that we shouldn't treat all traffic the same way and that we should look into ways of allowing cyclists to do things that other traffic can't, such as occasional RLJing where safe to do so. Basically legalising what a lot of us already do (seeing as how the "but but but its illegal!!!" point is so often raised against RLJing). Which I'm obviously in favour of.

bracketed

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.

I would rather have my RIGHT to be on the road to be recognised, rather than my need.

And I am traffic - I am going somewhere.

I also don't see what turning left on red has to do with that. But on that point, if you want cyclists to be able to do turn left on red when other traffic can't, do you also want to be able to jump red lights at ped crossings? Because in such a situation, there is very often a pedestrian crossing in that place, which is going to be on green for the peds.

soy_sauce

i still don't think i fully understand what your point really is as that what the cycle lane is for anyway to section an area of the road for cyclists so they won't be as part of the "traffic" and smooth the flow same as the bus lanes.

the left turn in red light is a good idea but this can be implement in a more common way of a extra traffic light which show green for turning left when the main light is in red. - which this is commonly use in the UK anyway.

Kieran_Burns

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.

DDD - this is almost a self-contradictory statement and leads me to believe that you are merely playing Devils Advocate to get a discussion started.

However, let me attempt to get my point of view across:

I am a Libertarian - in that I believe in Individual Freedom and Social Responsibility (which is why I loathe and detest this Govt) as such I firmly believe that individuals have a right to use the roads as they see fit. Of course, it also brings with it the responsibility to use the roads as socially acceptable as they can - for the benefit of all road users. The blanket term for road users is: Traffic.

So, logically - any individual wishing to use the road has the freedom to do so, and the social responsibility to do so safely and due consideration to all others - ALL users. Therefore all traffic must consider all other traffic when BEING traffic.

Therefore: cyclists MUST be considered as 'traffic' to encompass them within the scope of socially responsible road users. To do otherwise would negate their responsibility to other people and likewise others to them.

spen666

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.
.....

it appears from these 2 consecutive sentences that you haven't a clue what you are saying

you are posting for the sake of being heard IMHO

tarquin_foxglove

bracketed wrote:

if you want [traffic] to be able to turn left on red ... do you also want to be able to jump red lights at ped crossings? Because in such a situation, there is very often a pedestrian crossing in that place, which is going to be on green for the peds.

My main experience was driving for a couple of months in the states & subsequent holidays, it appears the presumption is 'turn right on red, unless forbidden to do so'

Generally the junctions where it was forbidden had an integral pedestrian element.

DonDaddyD

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.

You turn left on a red, while driving a car? :shock:

Somehow I can't help but think that if it was me writting that there would be some on this site, cursing my childrens children....

Sarajoy wrote:

If bikes aren't traffic, then what are mopeds and motorcycles? Quasi-traffic? And how about electric bicycles?

I don't know. I was speaking from the perspective of a cyclist whole also drives a car who has been observing the way cyclists ride in traffic.

Rockbuddy wrote:

The thing I can't get my head round is that you think cyclists should not be classed as traffic but as non-traffic you want special rules for riding on the road? As what ???

'Road users' maybe?

I think you have a point DDD, somewhere amongst all of this, but I think fundamentally you are onto a loser suggesting bikes aren't traffic. Maybe if you define traffic in an obscure and narrow way. I think what you are really getting at though is that we shouldn't treat all traffic the same way and that we should look into ways of allowing cyclists to do things that other traffic can't, such as occasional RLJing where safe to do so. Basically legalising what a lot of us already do (seeing as how the "but but but its illegal!!!" point is so often raised against RLJing). Which I'm obviously in favour of.

+1.
Especially the bits in bold, cars and motorised vehicles that weigh several tons and can achieve 60MPH in under 10secs have come along way to be still categorised with a horse and cart.

We shouldn't treat all traffic the same way and on way of getting people to thinking different is to seperate, narrow and better define what is traffic.

Cycling is different to driving a car, alongside a car its less safe on the bike than in a car, sepearte rules should be established to improve cycling safety.
+1

Kieran_Burns

spen666 wrote:

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.
.....

it appears from these 2 consecutive sentences that you haven't a clue what you are saying

you are posting for the sake of being heard IMHO

I like to think I was slightly more diplomatic about it

sarajoy

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm not saying that I'm 100% right

Then you need to work on the tone of your debating. "You're all wrong" isn't "debating to learn" now, is it?

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

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.
.....

it appears from these 2 consecutive sentences that you haven't a clue what you are saying

you are posting for the sake of being heard IMHO

Typo maybe? Let me retype so your superior brain might better understand.

"I'm not saying bikes shouldn't be on the road because I claim that they aren't part of traffic.

What I'm saying is that they have a right to be on the road, they ride with traffic but are not part of it"

DonDaddyD

sarajoy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm not saying that I'm 100% right

Then you need to work on the tone of your debating. "You're all wrong" isn't "debating to learn" now, is it?

You ever thought you may be taking something like that far too seriously I think...

Eau Rouge

"Traffic" isn't a homogenous lump that must all be treated exactly the same or it isn't traffic. We already treat some motor vehicles differently, bus lanes and motorways, for example as well as low and weak and narrow bridges that prevent HGV's using certain roads. There is no problem at all with having certain rules that apply only to bicycles and not the rest of the traffic without making bicycles not a part of traffic.

If the people building off-road cycle paths in this country still thought of bicycles as being traffic even when on an off-rad cycle path, we might actually have a half-decent network of them. They think of us as pedestrians instead, and we get the uselss network we have now instead.

sarajoy

Blimey, obviously I misunderstand.

I think you must type a helluva lot more seriously than you mean to, DDD. You come across far more righteous, angry and defensive than I think maybe you mean to.

DonDaddyD

sarajoy wrote:

Blimey, obviously I misunderstand.

I think you must type a helluva lot more seriously than you mean to, DDD. You come across far more righteous, angry and defensive than I think maybe you mean to.

I think that's the impression many get from me.... not anywhere near the truth really...

Its just a discussion. I have my thoughts, people have their's. I almost never nearly think I'm always 100% correct, 100% of the time.

We come online to share, discuss, debate and perhaps learn... It's just a discussion...

spen666

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.
.....

it appears from these 2 consecutive sentences that you haven't a clue what you are saying

you are posting for the sake of being heard IMHO

Kieran_Burns

sarajoy wrote:

Blimey, obviously I misunderstand.

I think you must type a helluva lot more seriously than you mean to, DDD. You come across far more righteous, angry and defensive than I think maybe you mean to.

80% of communication is visual. So the opportunities to misunderstand people when reading just the written word is multiplied.

I think this is something people need to be reminded of; both when reading and WRITING on forums.

prawny

DonDaddyD wrote:

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?

I don't permenantly drive my car in the centre of the road, it takes up that much space because thats how wide it is, if faster traffic wan't to over take me, i'll move in a bit if it's safe so they can get past.

I wouldn't filter past a line of parked bikes, obviously filtering in a car is not possible, you're just being obtuse.

I don't undertake on my bike unless the traffic on my right is stopped and yes I do that in my car.

DDD usually I agree with you on most things but I think what your getting at here is cyclists aren't cars - so therefore I agree with you.

sarajoy

DonDaddyD wrote:

sarajoy wrote:

Blimey, obviously I misunderstand.

I think you must type a helluva lot more seriously than you mean to, DDD. You come across far more righteous, angry and defensive than I think maybe you mean to.

I think that's the impression many get from me.... not anywhere near the truth really...

Hah, the content of the above changed just as I hit quote!

I'm not trying to personally insult you. But you wonder why people get so worked up in reaction to your posts - it's because often they read as a torrent of "I'm right! Look! This is how it is!" as opposed to "I theorize this is the case, what do you lot reckon?"

I imagine face to face there's am impish grin and a more than a hint of pub-table-debate about you (which I agree is a lot of fun)! BUT, in text this often won't come through unless you specifically chattify your text a bit, throw in some more creative punctuation... OR give in to the emoticons and make it clear when you're tongue-in-cheek.

jeepie

I know what you mean DDD. I think.

Picture this scene.

Dual carriageway; Snaking round an s bend; two lanes of traffic - stationary; queued; no cycle lane or room on the left.

So what you do on a bike is you lane split right down the middle. This works great!! YEAH!!!!!

Now you get to the lights at the front and in the middle of the S-bend and there are two motor cycles queueing ahead who have also lane split. These block your safe passage out in front of the car on the left at the lights (to where an ASL might be, but in this case there is no ASL).....

Then the lights turn green.

Here I don't feel part of the traffic, I feel very much on my own....

Is this example what your getting at DDD?

I mean here you have to clip in and go and pull across a line of fast accelerating traffic that you are not part of....

NGale

Ah right so the fact that I was fined under the Road Traffic Act for going through a no entry sign the other day means that I can now go to court and use your argument that I am not traffic when I'm on my bike to dodge the £30 fine?

Of course we are traffic when we are out on our bikes, we are subject to the same rules and regulations as anyone else using the highways.

And to everyone else, yes I know I broke the law, so did 5 others (the local plod in Dartmouth had fun that day!) and I have already paid the fine.

DonDaddyD

DDD usually I agree with you on most things but I think what your getting at here is cyclists aren't cars - so therefore I agree with you.

WHAT!?! People agree with me? :shock: F*ck me sideways and call me Cricket!

Thank you

I'm not trying to personally insult you.

I know that's why I edited THAT post.

But you wonder why people get so worked up in reaction to your posts - it's because often they read as a torrent of "I'm right! Look! This is how it is!" as opposed to "I theorize this is the case, what do you lot reckon?"

Can you imagine what they're like when they meet me!? :shock:

I imagine face to face there's am impish grin and a more than a hint of pub-table-debate about you (which I agree is a lot of fun)! BUT, in text this often won't come through unless you specifically chattify your text a bit, throw in some more creative punctuation... OR give in to the emoticons and make it clear when you're tongue-in-cheek.

Actually in person, I'm a shy, reserved, introspective soul, whose deep dark eye's tell a million different stories of passion, of laughter, of pain, of joy and of the Man who would be DonDaddyD.

Just ask the Morpeth bunch.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

Actually in person, I'm a shy, reserved, introspective soul, whose deep dark eye's tell a million different stories of passion, of laughter, of pain, of joy and of the Man who would be DonDaddyD.

Just ask the Morpeth bunch.

Actually, in person, he is pretty shy. Which is weird considering how bullish he comes across on here.

Don't know about the dark eyes stuff.

But sarajoy's right, DDD, you'd do well to moderate your tone a bit - it would avoid people getting annoyed when you don't mean something seriously.

Kieran_Burns

I'm still waiting for DDD to respond to my post.... but then as it was couched in reasonable terms I expect he is completely disarmed and unable to do so

DonDaddyD

@Jeepie, that sounds like a scenario where, as a cyclists, you're left exposed and at the mercy of traffic. I can think of other scenario's - Brixton not a road, just the place and every single lights. Also Stretham and to a lesser degree, Tooting and Norbury.

Ah right so the fact that I was fined under the Road Traffic Act for going through a no entry sign the other day means that I can now go to court and use your argument that I am not traffic when I'm on my bike to dodge the £30 fine?

Yeah, bicycle road tax is an absolute outrage and so is having to Insure my bike to have it legally on the road as well as needing a MOT...

[Sarajoy instructions] I'm being sarcastic[/Sarajoy Instructions] but in that is a point... You were fined, but if we were completely subject to law and regulations of being road going vehicle we would be subject to more laws.

I have a question Gale? If you mounted the curb, either one pedalled or got of and wheeled your bike up that road, would you be fined? Could you do that with other road based vehicles (like a car, van etc?)

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

Actually, in person, he is pretty shy. Which is weird considering how bullish he comes across on here.

I say I'm shy but I think I've just become quieter as I've gotten older... one too many arguments born out of strong opinions (far more easier to keep quiet and think to myself that 'you're wrong' )

I'm also aware of how opinionated (I think that is a better word than bullish, don't you?) I can be in person, I just regulate it in social environments to avoid arguments....

biondino

To get DDD to talk, ply him with booze and ask him which male he'd sleep with if he had a choice

lost_in_thought

biondino wrote:

To get DDD to talk, ply him with booze and ask him which male he'd sleep with if he had a choice

Was it Greg T?

Dudu

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.

1. Bikes ARE traffic.

2. If you're not cycling as part of the trafic, you're asking for trouble.

Always cycle as if you are driving a small car.