Filtering dangers - the turning car

BentMikey

Bombing along the A202, this happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50J6_1LpX3g

Top marks to the driver for anticipating a cyclist in the cycle lane. A significant proportion of drives won't though, making this one of the big dangers of filtering. From further back I didn't see the turning car, but I was immediately cautious because of the queuing traffic, and then doubly so when I saw there was a gap. That's often an indicator that someone has left space for another road user to come though. At that point the car came into view, and it was easy to let him go with a jink of my head.

Oh, and this problem isn't confined to undertaking - it's just as likely when overtaking and a car is turning right out of a minor side road, for example.

bigmat

Haven't had chance to check the vid but if it was a cycle lane, surely the cyclist wasn't "filtering" but was just proceeding along his lane and therefore it would have been for the car to give way? Had a very similar incident this morning myself. Was cycling along a bus lane, saw car ahead indicating left but wasn't really concentrating (been feeling rough all weekend) and thought he was filtering left at the next junction, but he then truned left straight across me to take an immediate left turn. Slammed the brakes and was able to avoid him but it was a near miss. My first instinct was that it would have been my fault as I had seen him indicating and didn't slow down, but really he shouldn't have turned across me and should strictly speaking have waited until I had passed on his inside. I guess the point is, you can be in the wrong as in "that was an accident I could have avoided", without technically being in the wrong so far as the rules of the road are concerned. I'd rather be neither though!

Clever Pun

I was in a bus lane in primary and flopped onto the bonnet of a car that came turned right didn't see me and I wasn't able to stop in time, luckily me and the bike were fine the car got a nice dent in the side

I'm much more aware of cars doing this now as usual: expect for them not to see you

BentMikey

@Mat, yes perhaps not technically filtering, but it all falls into the catch-all of passing queuing traffic. From the point of view of this video and our riding in traffic, the hazard is exactly the same.

I think that in both yours and Clever Pun's incidents, the car driver would be at fault:


Turning left
182

Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
Do not cut in on cyclists


183

When turning

• keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction

Headhuunter

Yes, I would say the right turning car, passing through queuing traffic on your side of the road is possibly the biggest danger I encounter on the roads. Forget buses, taxis, minicabs, there's nothing you can do when a bonnet suddenly flies across in front of you from nowhere, let through by the motor traffic on your right. Sometimes you can see what's about to happen and brake, but when the vehicle passes through in front of a high sided van, bus, lorry etc, the 1st you know of it is when the bonnet comes through in front of you.

I have had a few close shaves this way, motorists very, very rarely check if cyclists are coming, they're usually more intent on passing quick as possible through the queuing traffic and accelerating. My bad accident last Nov was caused by a right turning car, although it was simply driving across infront of me rather than actually passing through traffic.

Agent57

One problem is that while drivers tend to be wary of the dangers of turning across lanes of traffic, they simply don't regard cycle lanes in the same way.

Last week, I almost got left-hooked by a car. I managed to slow down enough not to hit him, and when I stopped to speak to him about it, his response was "I was indicating!"

I pointed out that he only started indicating after we were alongside each other, and that indicating doesn't mean it's safe to make the move - or even that other road users have to acquiesce to the signal. If he'd been in the right-hand lane and wanted to turn across the left-hand lane of traffic (one-way system), I dare say he'd have been more cautious.

We simply don't register in the minds of some drivers as potential hazards, or they overestimate how much time they have/underestimate our speed or how much space we need for safety.

Headhuunter

Agent57 wrote:

One problem is that while drivers tend to be wary of the dangers of turning across lanes of traffic, they simply don't regard cycle lanes in the same way.

Last week, I almost got left-hooked by a car. I managed to slow down enough not to hit him, and when I stopped to speak to him about it, his response was "I was indicating!"

I pointed out that he only started indicating after we were alongside each other, and that indicating doesn't mean it's safe to make the move - or even that other road users have to acquiesce to the signal. If he'd been in the right-hand lane and wanted to turn across the left-hand lane of traffic (one-way system), I dare say he'd have been more cautious.

We simply don't register in the minds of some drivers as potential hazards, or they overestimate how much time they have/underestimate our speed or how much space we need for safety.

I never try to pass cars at left turns these days - learnt that one after a few near left hooks. As you say, many drivers only start to indicate as they turn the wheel, and by that time it's too late. The "right hook" is worse though, as cars come out of nowhere and often at speed, right across your path...

Agent57

Headhuunter wrote:

I never try to pass cars at left turns these days

I know what you mean, but the traffic through town is often nose-to-tail and mostly stationary or very slow-moving, and the cycle lane goes up the left side of the road. If I wanted to crawl along at the same speed, I could just sit in a car. So I don't really have much option than to pass cars on the left, junction or not.

I do tend to slow down if I see vehicles in front indicating. In this case, though, he wasn't even turning left as such; just pulling in to drop his passenger off.

Regarding slowing down for vehicles indicating or clearly wanting to turn left, sometimes I find I'm in some strange sort of "you first; no you" situation. I slow or stop and hang behind the vehicle, but the driver has actually noticed me, and seems reluctant to make the turn until I've gone past. It can sometimes take a while before they realise I'm wating for them (or I pass on the right).

W1

Even worse (as happened to me the other day) when a car overtakes you and then left hooks you. They've seen you enough not to run into the back of you, but as soon as they are past you cease to exist!

Headhuunter

Agent57 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I never try to pass cars at left turns these days

I know what you mean, but the traffic through town is often nose-to-tail and mostly stationary or very slow-moving, and the cycle lane goes up the left side of the road. If I wanted to crawl along at the same speed, I could just sit in a car. So I don't really have much option than to pass cars on the left, junction or not.

I do tend to slow down if I see vehicles in front indicating. In this case, though, he wasn't even turning left as such; just pulling in to drop his passenger off.

Regarding slowing down for vehicles indicating or clearly wanting to turn left, sometimes I find I'm in some strange sort of "you first; no you" situation. I slow or stop and hang behind the vehicle, but the driver has actually noticed me, and seems reluctant to make the turn until I've gone past. It can sometimes take a while before they realise I'm wating for them (or I pass on the right).

No what I mean is that I never pass cars on the left at a left turn if the traffic is moving at 10mph or above perhaps, but I'll certainly pass on the left along cycle tracks or filtering, if there is no left turn

Bassjunkieuk

I had a good few the other night in similar circumstances to those mentioned. The best tho was a chap turning right out of a side road (across a lane of traffic) who was looking left down the road to make sure it's clear. He was still moving forward so he wasn't even looking where he was going!!

Thankfully he was only edging out so I nipped round the front and yelled that he should look where he's going which i think is what annoyed me with him.

I also had a driver shot out of slip road, whilst their view was blocked by a car turning right straight in front of me to. I'd already assumed they would do it as they where going far to fast and presumably my high-vis Amberley jacket is easy to miss.....

fnegroni

Interesting topic.
Had a chat about this with a friend yesterday, who also cycle commutes occasionally.

She said that what she found annoying (this was in Oxford) was that when left turning at this particular junction, she stops to let cyclists through, but some of them will instead queue up behind her, and that would then cause confusion because some do then rejoin the cycle path and so the issue is what to do.

I explained that if the cycle lane comes to an end at the junction, then surely it does not have priority and that when indicating well before the junction, any traffic should wait for her to turn. In my view, the cyclist queuing up behind her is acting correctly, whilst the ones cutting straight across are in the wrong.

The whole thing essentially highlights the big issue with cycling and the current road system: if we are part of traffic, without any special lanes, then we would be far safer: in the video, for example, 'technically' the OP is not filtering, some say.
But the OP obviously *is* an experienced cyclist, who knows 'technicality' and 'practicality' often disagree.

If that cycle lane hadn't been there, it wouldn't have removed his right from being on the road, it would have made drivers potentially give more space because the wrong clue (the white demarcation line) is missing, and it would have made it obvious that by filtering to the left of a vehicle, you are essentially at greater risk, and must therefore act accordingly.

Cycle lanes are essentially, IMHO, useless: where they work, their existence is only really required to legally enforce a bad driver to get punished.

Segregated cycle tracks, that's a different story.

Bassjunkieuk

@fnegroni - Depending on the situation and my speed I'll usually hang back if I find myself alongside a car that is indicating left. IMHO I'll always assume the driver hasn't spotted me and would prefer to lose a bit of momentum then get hooked.

This is regardless of wheather there is a cycle lane or not as I'm not a great fan of them either!

Headhuunter

Cycle lanes are a waste of time in my view too but segregated cycle lanes would be even worse. Imagine a 3-4 foot wide lane divided from the traffic by a ridge of some kind. You're flying along at 20+mph when you reach a woman in a flowy floral skirt on a Pashley going at 5mph. Unless you're able to bunny hop the ridge or divider whatever form that may take, into the traffic, you're basically stuck behind the Pashley rider pootling at 5mph.

Basically if we had segregated bike lanes, we'd end up with queues of bikes in them, all going at the speed of the slowest rider. There wouldn't be any space for overtaking. I would avoid them like the plague and take my chances with the motor traffic...

The best way to make cycling safer if to install filter traffic lights at major junctions allowing cycles to head across 1st, just like pedestrians have crossings...

fnegroni

Headhuunter wrote:

Cycle lanes are a waste of time in my view too but segregated cycle lanes would be even worse.

My view is that carefully thought out segregated cycle tracks (not lanes), which follow an independent flow of traffic, with the help of, for example, dedicated underpasses, bridges etc, do work.

That would not mean that cyclists are not allowed on the road just because a cycle track is available near by.

It just gives an opportunity to avoid motorized traffic, especially useful for families, shoppers, and less confident riders.

I take my son around with me quite frequently, and I use a mixture of cycle tracks and roads, and whenever possible, I use the well thought out cycle tracks.

You are *not* supposed to shoot at 20mph down a cycle track if there is a chance of collision with a pedestrian or slower cyclists, if you can't slow down in time.
But that's the same on the road: if you filter too fast between lanes of stand still traffic, chance are, you are going to have an accident.

Just because someone cycles doesn't give them the right to go faster than it is safe not just for them, but for the conditions and other users.

Near where I live, there is an underpass which has been interdicted to cyclists because, most of them would go too fast round blind corners and hit pedestrians (including children).

But if you are a sensible rider, you know you *must* slow down.

That would essentially render riding on the roads safer as it would enable slower or less confident cyclists to avoid the road, and allow faster and more confident cyclists a better chance to negotiate traffic.

Headhuunter

fnegroni wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Cycle lanes are a waste of time in my view too but segregated cycle lanes would be even worse.

My view is that carefully thought out segregated cycle tracks (not lanes), which follow an independent flow of traffic, with the help of, for example, dedicated underpasses, bridges etc, do work.

That would not mean that cyclists are not allowed on the road just because a cycle track is available near by.

It just gives an opportunity to avoid motorized traffic, especially useful for families, shoppers, and less confident riders.

I take my son around with me quite frequently, and I use a mixture of cycle tracks and roads, and whenever possible, I use the well thought out cycle tracks.

You are *not* supposed to shoot at 20mph down a cycle track if there is a chance of collision with a pedestrian or slower cyclists, if you can't slow down in time.
But that's the same on the road: if you filter too fast between lanes of stand still traffic, chance are, you are going to have an accident.

Just because someone cycles doesn't give them the right to go faster than it is safe not just for them, but for the conditions and other users.

Near where I live, there is an underpass which has been interdicted to cyclists because, most of them would go too fast round blind corners and hit pedestrians (including children).

But if you are a sensible rider, you know you *must* slow down.

That would essentially render riding on the roads safer as it would enable slower or less confident cyclists to avoid the road, and allow faster and more confident cyclists a better chance to negotiate traffic.

I'm not talking about filtering at 20mph, I'm talking about cycling along a normal main road traffic flowing next to you. My average speed is about 20mph. Of course I slow if traffic is slower but I'm talking about cycling on the road, not on the pavement, so there are hopefully no pedestrians in the way! I never use off road cycle tracks but I can understand they are fne, what I would object to is some kind of ridge in the road separating cyclists from motor traffic and forcing all bikes to go as slowly as the slowest in some kind of single file queue. It's perfectly possible to be a "sensible" rider and go at 20mph! In fact I find it far safer to be traveling at a similar speed to motor traffic than consderable slower. It allows you to take the lane more easily, move into the traffic to move round a bus or stationary object etc

lost_in_thought

Headhuunter wrote:

Cycle lanes are a waste of time in my view too but segregated cycle lanes would be even worse. Imagine a 3-4 foot wide lane divided from the traffic by a ridge of some kind. You're flying along at 20+mph when you reach a woman in a flowy floral skirt on a Pashley going at 5mph. Unless you're able to bunny hop the ridge or divider whatever form that may take, into the traffic, you're basically stuck behind the Pashley rider pootling at 5mph.

Basically if we had segregated bike lanes, we'd end up with queues of bikes in them, all going at the speed of the slowest rider. There wouldn't be any space for overtaking. I would avoid them like the plague and take my chances with the motor traffic...

The best way to make cycling safer if to install filter traffic lights at major junctions allowing cycles to head across 1st, just like pedestrians have crossings...

+1.

If you're in doubt about this go to Copenhagen and try to cycle. It's dreadful. You can't go above about 5mph, and (I was told - could well be wrong) you're not allowed on the road if there's a cycle lane.

EDIT: Not sure about the filter traffic lights though, I don't know what can be done, apart from perhaps a few 'making an example' prosecutions for cyclist-vehicle accidents, and better education for cyclists and drivers.

fnegroni

I never use off road cycle tracks but I can understand they are fne, what I would object to is some kind of ridge in the road separating cyclists from motor traffic and forcing all bikes to go as slowly as the slowest in some kind of single file queue.

But that's what will happen if we have the so called cycling revolution.

Do you really think we could cycle on the roads as we do now if every other car you see today was a bicycle?

I think you are underestimating the fact that the cycling population, currently, is a tiny fraction and therefore, as of yet, does not constitute an issue for general traffic flow.

fnegroni

BTW, by this I am not saying that the *solution* is to segregate cyclists.

The *solution* is to segregate motor traffic.

CTC did that successfully with motorways back in 1920s.

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

Make motorised transport expensive.

Push for companies to make offices local to their customers, not removed in remote deserted areas.

Incentivate 'working from home' practices for those who can.

This is a plan that can only happen over an extensive period of time... maybe 100 years?

In the meanwhile, what do we do?

Headhuunter

fnegroni wrote:

But that's what will happen if we have the so called cycling revolution.

God I sincerely hope not. The beauty of cycling in cities like London is the ability to filter through gridlocked traffic and travel, most of the time, faster than cars. I would boycott segregated cycle lanes if they built them. No way I'm sitting behind a queue of slow, trundling hi vizzers...

Headhuunter

fnegroni wrote:

BTW, by this I am not saying that the *solution* is to segregate cyclists.

The *solution* is to segregate motor traffic.

CTC did that successfully with motorways back in 1920s.

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

Make motorised transport expensive.

Push for companies to make offices local to their customers, not removed in remote deserted areas.

Incentivate 'working from home' practices for those who can.

This is a plan that can only happen over an extensive period of time... maybe 100 years?

In the meanwhile, what do we do?

I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. Certainly pricing motorists off the road is a possible solution, unfortunately in London Boris has reversed progress of this type of policy, set in motion by Ken and London is now more not less car friendly than it was a few years back. Boris is the motorists Mayor...

BentMikey

Cycling segregation is a disaster. Even in the Netherlands, cycling there is good despite the segregation, not because of it.

tailwindhome

Headhuunter wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..

Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.

Daft idea

W1

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..

Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.

Daft idea

Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..

Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.

Daft idea

Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.

I wouldn't say that I specifically anti car and am trying to drive a wedge between road users, but car use in many major cities in the UK is ridiculously and pointlessly high. I read somewhere that most car journeys in London are a mile or less and average speed is about 10mph. I mean what's the point?! If you don't like cycling then walk! It would provide a solution to the obesity problem and improve air quality. Every year, the UK pays millions in fines to the EU for breaching air quality regulations in many major cities, particularly London. Most of that air pollution comes from pointless journeys by car. It's about time people were priced off the road.

fnegroni

W1 wrote:

Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.

How can *one* message give the impression that *all* cyclists are anti-car?

Did I say I am *anti* car?

I might be against the use of a car when a viable alternative exists, that hardly makes me anti car.

My idea might be daft (*mental* according to you), and sure, it will never happen.

But then you explain to me what would happen in this scenario:

A road that sees 10,000 cars a day: all moving at an average speed of 40mph.
Occasional cyclist, moving at av. speed of 15mph.

That won't hold anyone back for long, opportunities for overtaking will be plenty.

Now imagine this:

5,000 cars and 5,000 bicycles on that same stretch of road in a single day.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..

Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.

Daft idea

Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.

I wouldn't say that I specifically anti car and am trying to drive a wedge between road users, but car use in many major cities in the UK is ridiculously and pointlessly high. I read somewhere that most car journeys in London are a mile or less and average speed is about 10mph. I mean what's the point?! If you don't like cycling then walk! It would provide a solution to the obesity problem and improve air quality. Every year, the UK pays millions in fines to the EU for breaching air quality regulations in many major cities, particularly London. Most of that air pollution comes from pointless journeys by car. It's about time people were priced off the road.

That has nothing to do with cycling, of course. One of the major reasons (in my opinion, of course) as to why there is a problem between cyclists and drivers is because drivers assume cyclists are "anti-car". However there is no reason why choosing to ride a bike should make anyone try to force those who want to sit in a car out of them. If you want to run the obesity/pollution etc lines that's fine, but it's nothing to do with cycling.

I agree that many car journeys are pointless, but I don't begrudge anyone choosing to do so. And I think it does serious harm to the "cycling" campaigns for cyclists to jump on any anti-car band wagon.

W1

fnegroni wrote:

W1 wrote:

Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.

How can *one* message give the impression that *all* cyclists are anti-car?

Did I say I am *anti* car?

I might be against the use of a car when a viable alternative exists, that hardly makes me anti car.

My idea might be daft (*mental* according to you), and sure, it will never happen.

But then you explain to me what would happen in this scenario:

A road that sees 10,000 cars a day: all moving at an average speed of 40mph.
Occasional cyclist, moving at av. speed of 15mph.

That won't hold anyone back for long, opportunities for overtaking will be plenty.

Now imagine this:

5,000 cars and 5,000 bicycles on that same stretch of road in a single day.

You make suggestions such as "keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians" and "Make motorised transport expensive". These are anti-car sentiments. You make these on a cycling forum. That gives the impression that there is a connection between cyclists and being "anti-car". Whether you intend to or not, that is the impression that is given (bearing in mind "impression" is that of the recipient and not the maker of the statement).

I am completely against:
Cyclists being vocally anti-car - this drives a wedge between road users and encourages drivers to be anti-cyclist - not something that is of beneift to us as a group
Cyclists jumping on environmental band wagons, and hence arguably anti-car (depending on one's stance on the environmental impact of cars)
Cyclists trying to force cars off the road - see above
Cyclists being segregated from the roads - because if you put the blocks of segregation in place, there is then an impression that cyclists should be using these facilities, whether they are forced to by law or not.

As I said above, unnecessary car use is bad for everyone (including of course those stuck in their cars). But it is their choice. I choose not to, that's my choice. I also get soaked and frozen occassionally. We are not yet a communist state where people are forced to do things, and I am generally very nervous about any argument that indiviuals freedoms to choose should be any further restricted than they already are.

fnegroni

W1 wrote:

You make suggestions such as "keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians" and "Make motorised transport expensive". These are anti-car sentiments.

No.
The current road network, especially in this country, was not designed to accomodate cars the size and speed of which we see today.

Motorways were invented exactly to enable cars to travel faster and further.
This idea was opposed by the Motorists' Union, who feared that it would lead to motorists' losing the freedom to use public roads.

Guess what: that never happened: not only are motorways very much appreciated, infact we can't have enough of them.

Fast and big cars and lorries demand a road structure built around them.

So I am in a way doing them a favour: if motorised transport is something our economy depends on, and it certainly is in my eyes, why compromise?

You make these on a cycling forum. That gives the impression that there is a connection between cyclists and being "anti-car".

You are quite impressionable I suppose.

Whether you intend to or not, that is the impression that is given (bearing in mind "impression" is that of the recipient and not the maker of the statement).

Exactly. You misread my post, and I get the blame?

I am completely against:
Cyclists being vocally anti-car - this drives a wedge between road users and encourages drivers to be anti-cyclist - not something that is of beneift to us as a group

I am not anti-car.
I am certainly not in favour of the current situation either though.

Cyclists jumping on environmental band wagons, and hence arguably anti-car (depending on one's stance on the environmental impact of cars)

I have never made an environmental claim of any kind in any of the previous posts.
Infact, I might make 'safety' claims. Bringing as an example, family journeys which I do.
Have you ever actually taken a child to school 'sharing' the road as you say?
I have, I do, and I am not happy with it.

Cyclists trying to force cars off the road - see above

I am actually arguing the opposite: build systems for motorists that cater for motorists in a way that the current road network can't.

Cyclists being segregated from the roads - because if you put the blocks of segregation in place, there is then an impression that cyclists should be using these facilities, whether they are forced to by law or not.

Segregation comes in many forms.

As I actually mentioned in a previous post, if the cycle track is not along side the main carriageway, but infact follows a completely independent route, which caters for cyclists, with lane discipline that allows for safe speeds, leisure cycling and safe overtaking, what's to dislike?

W1

fnegroni wrote:

W1 wrote:

You make suggestions such as "keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians" and "Make motorised transport expensive". These are anti-car sentiments.

No.
The current road network, especially in this country, was not designed to accomodate cars the size and speed of which we see today.

Motorways were invented exactly to enable cars to travel faster and further.
This idea was opposed by the Motorists' Union, who feared that it would lead to motorists' losing the freedom to use public roads.

Guess what: that never happened: not only are motorways very much appreciated, infact we can't have enough of them.

Fast and big cars and lorries demand a road structure built around them.

So I am in a way doing them a favour: if motorised transport is something our economy depends on, and it certainly is in my eyes, why compromise?

You make these on a cycling forum. That gives the impression that there is a connection between cyclists and being "anti-car".

You are quite impressionable I suppose.

Whether you intend to or not, that is the impression that is given (bearing in mind "impression" is that of the recipient and not the maker of the statement).

Exactly. You misread my post, and I get the blame?

I am completely against:
Cyclists being vocally anti-car - this drives a wedge between road users and encourages drivers to be anti-cyclist - not something that is of beneift to us as a group

I am not anti-car.
I am certainly not in favour of the current situation either though.

Cyclists jumping on environmental band wagons, and hence arguably anti-car (depending on one's stance on the environmental impact of cars)

I have never made an environmental claim of any kind in any of the previous posts.
Infact, I might make 'safety' claims. Bringing as an example, family journeys which I do.
Have you ever actually taken a child to school 'sharing' the road as you say?
I have, I do, and I am not happy with it.

Cyclists trying to force cars off the road - see above

I am actually arguing the opposite: build systems for motorists that cater for motorists in a way that the current road network can't.

Cyclists being segregated from the roads - because if you put the blocks of segregation in place, there is then an impression that cyclists should be using these facilities, whether they are forced to by law or not.

Segregation comes in many forms.

As I actually mentioned in a previous post, if the cycle track is not along side the main carriageway, but infact follows a completely independent route, which caters for cyclists, with lane discipline that allows for safe speeds, leisure cycling and safe overtaking, what's to dislike?

And, back in the real world.....

You can argue (as you are) that black is white and vice versa, but the sentiments you display are anti car. You are responsible for the clarity of what you are saying, so don't try and fob that off on the recipient. Making cars more expensive to use is anti-car.

This bleating for segregation will of course lead to segregation of bikes off the current road system, not the other way round as in your imaginary land. And I'm opposed to that because (again, in reality) they wouldn't be able to accommodate the varieties of cyclists who would be forced to use them (and if not forced, at least at the receiving end of stick for not using them), from the SCR bandits to the family trains. Funnily enough in my experience the current road system does.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.

I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..

Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.

Daft idea

Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.

I wouldn't say that I specifically anti car and am trying to drive a wedge between road users, but car use in many major cities in the UK is ridiculously and pointlessly high. I read somewhere that most car journeys in London are a mile or less and average speed is about 10mph. I mean what's the point?! If you don't like cycling then walk! It would provide a solution to the obesity problem and improve air quality. Every year, the UK pays millions in fines to the EU for breaching air quality regulations in many major cities, particularly London. Most of that air pollution comes from pointless journeys by car. It's about time people were priced off the road.

That has nothing to do with cycling, of course. One of the major reasons (in my opinion, of course) as to why there is a problem between cyclists and drivers is because drivers assume cyclists are "anti-car". However there is no reason why choosing to ride a bike should make anyone try to force those who want to sit in a car out of them. If you want to run the obesity/pollution etc lines that's fine, but it's nothing to do with cycling.

I agree that many car journeys are pointless, but I don't begrudge anyone choosing to do so. And I think it does serious harm to the "cycling" campaigns for cyclists to jump on any anti-car band wagon.

Not directly to do with cycling but I prefer not to breathe heavily polluted air which frequently exceeds EU health levels, either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian, so IMO as many cars as possible should be forced off the road.