To the cyclist of Superhighway 7 tonight
Comments
-
WGWarburton wrote:fatherted wrote:
and most probably come over as smug and pious. This is why most cyclists wouldn't recommend "tapping" on windows.....Actually, I have tapped on windows for reasonable debate.
I've tapped on windows a few times- usually to warn a driver that they have a tail light out or a soft tyre... Occasionally to point out that their coat is hanging out of the door and getting dirty...
The reaction tends to be defensive, surprised, then grateful...
When I was young & stupid I would sometimes highlight poor behavior. I generally don't bother, now that I'm older.
I'm often tempted to ask taxi drivers not to block ASLs, but I can't convince myself that it would help. With no enforcement there's no incentive for them to bother and they generally seem to regard cyclists as an irritating inconvenience, anyway...
Cheers,
W.
Only ever tapped on a windown once - Young lady with a flat tyre! offered to change the tyre for her, she accepted and I was late for work....
Muppet! :roll:0 -
Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:oh and one day regardless of your mobile TV studio you will pick the wrong person, it must be the law of averages you will one day encounter a nutter.
Theres a video knocking around of a cyclist who took banged on the side of someones van for it coming too close and the guy got out and smacked him one. WIll post the link if I can remember where it was.0 -
JZed wrote:Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:oh and one day regardless of your mobile TV studio you will pick the wrong person, it must be the law of averages you will one day encounter a nutter.
Theres a video knocking around of a cyclist who took banged on the side of someones van for it coming too close and the guy got out and smacked him one. WIll post the link if I can remember where it was.
And the driver was convicted. Without the footage nothing would have happened. Result for helmet cams.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
And the driver was convicted. Without the footage nothing would have happened. Result for helmet cams.
Without knocking on the window nothing would have happened. Result for not knocking on windows
And your point was???
0 -
snooks wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Er, well thats clearly an exaggeration of what he actually does.fatherted wrote:Gaz , take 'em off.
Get some more miles under your belt.
You're young , a lot of us have seen it all before and shouting at drivers and banging on windows shoutung "YOU'RE BEING FILMED, YOUTUBE !!! LJ09 QWE" doesn't help.
Erm....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6g79GZsZws
GOOD FOR YOU, someone after my own heart, I have even reported a taxi drived who pulled out and gave me two fingers, he weas issued with a warning.
Carry on, cyclists stick up for your rights and safety.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
I tapped on a guy's window today. To let him know he had a flat rear tyre.
As for the incident above, the initial pass looked perfectly normal for the UK. The follow-up by the driver was not OK, although I've come across worse without the driver even being aware of what they're doing. The confrontation at the lights certainly didn't help.
This sort of thing is why I find cycling in France, The Netherlands, indeed almost anywhere in Europe, so much more pleasant. My observation is the UK is one of the least cycling friendly countries in Europe, with incidents like this unfortunately being the norm.
Take care out there.0 -
I do agree, I would NEVER knock on a car, at my age I never would, they could even carry a knife, I would however as I have done, hand the vid to the Police and insist that they use the vid as evidence even when the WRONGLY state they can nolt, a get out to save work.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:JZed wrote:Fat-Boy-Roubaix wrote:oh and one day regardless of your mobile TV studio you will pick the wrong person, it must be the law of averages you will one day encounter a nutter.
Theres a video knocking around of a cyclist who took banged on the side of someones van for it coming too close and the guy got out and smacked him one. WIll post the link if I can remember where it was.
And the driver was convicted. Without the footage nothing would have happened. Result for helmet cams.
I have no problem with headcams and have said I fully understand why people use them. However, there is a common theme in both the examples. Cyclist comes close to car/van (we can argue all day whether the driver or cyclist is in the wrong), bangs on window or side of van. Motorist gets out of van/car, then your at the mercy of what happens next.0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:I tapped on a guy's window today. To let him know he had a flat rear tyre.
As for the incident above, the initial pass looked perfectly normal for the UK. The follow-up by the driver was not OK, although I've come across worse without the driver even being aware of what they're doing. The confrontation at the lights certainly didn't help.
This sort of thing is why I find cycling in France, The Netherlands, indeed almost anywhere in Europe, so much more pleasant. My observation is the UK is one of the least cycling friendly countries in Europe, with incidents like this unfortunately being the norm.
Take care out there.
Perfectly normal does NOT mean acceptable, perhaps we have taken crap driving for granted for too long and now we have vid cams at our disposal clamp down on this bad driving.
As for the confrontation at the lights, I heard the woman say thank you, where else could he "speak VERY reasonably" to the abusive moron in the car, he was on a BIKE.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
jeremyrundle wrote:andrewc3142 wrote:I tapped on a guy's window today. To let him know he had a flat rear tyre.
As for the incident above, the initial pass looked perfectly normal for the UK. The follow-up by the driver was not OK, although I've come across worse without the driver even being aware of what they're doing. The confrontation at the lights certainly didn't help.
This sort of thing is why I find cycling in France, The Netherlands, indeed almost anywhere in Europe, so much more pleasant. My observation is the UK is one of the least cycling friendly countries in Europe, with incidents like this unfortunately being the norm.
Take care out there.
Perfectly normal does NOT mean acceptable, perhaps we have taken crap driving for granted for too long and now we have vid cams at our disposal clamp down on this bad driving.
As for the confrontation at the lights, I heard the woman say thank you, where else could he "speak VERY reasonably" to the abusive moron in the car, he was on a BIKE.
No, normal does not mean acceptable. But getting excited about the first close overtake would mean it would take an awful long time to cycle anywhere in London, indeed most parts of the UK. Not to mention risky confronting unknown and possibly highly aggressive drivers.
Until there are some fundamental changes, cycling in traffic unfortunately means being pretty streetwise, and thick-skinned.
We need changes such as 20mph limits in town, more intelligent traffic calming measures (Brittany has some great examples), default driver liability as in, inter alia, The Netherlands, etc, etc. And a distinctly more cycle friendly media. We also need cycliststs to be more tolerant, keep off the pavements, only RLJ when safe (ducks for cover), and be more accepting of other cyclists.
Don't see it happening anytime soon.0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:only RLJ when safe (ducks for cover)
Oh dear.0 -
JZed wrote:Dear fellow cyclists who decide to move right in the road without looking......tread very carefully....I am so fed up of you putting my life at risk when I have to take evasive action out into the line of the traffic that I am contemplating resorting to kicking you of your bike.....look over you shoulder before you pass.....I could be a lorry and then you are truly f00ked.
from another thread....... 0 -
I tapped on someone's window last night - he was parked bang on top of an ASL, I couldn't get past & the lights turned to Green & he/she didn't move, so I tapped on the window to get them to wake up/stop txting/reading...
No adverse reaction from the driver but no thanks or acknowledgement either!1997 Gary Fisher Big Sur
2009 Scott Spark 60
2010 Ghost 5000
2011 Commencal Ramones AL1
2012 Commencal Meta AM10 -
By the way andrewc1342 20mph speed limits are not enforceable in law, only 30 and above.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
Greg66 wrote:andrewc3142 wrote:only RLJ when safe (ducks for cover)
Oh dear.
Well, it is Friday :twisted:0 -
Forward loop wrote:JZed wrote:Dear fellow cyclists who decide to move right in the road without looking......tread very carefully....I am so fed up of you putting my life at risk when I have to take evasive action out into the line of the traffic that I am contemplating resorting to kicking you of your bike.....look over you shoulder before you pass.....I could be a lorry and then you are truly f00ked.
from another thread.......
Stand by this - the woman in the video pulled right with absolutely no appreciation of what was behind. If the cyclist she was passing moved out 6 inches to avoid say a street grid, she has one way to go and the car would have been even closer. I'd like to think I would have looked over my shoulder and decided to wait to pass. I cringe when I see cyclists just move out without looking and really do feel like kicking them (but of course I don't.....I just rant in the rant thread)0 -
jeremyrundle wrote:By the way andrewc1342 20mph speed limits are not enforceable in law, only 30 and above.
Sorry, that's nonsense.
Pass a law saying 20mph limits apply in town and they are as enforceable as any other speed limit.0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:We need changes such as 20mph limits in town, more intelligent traffic calming measures (Brittany has some great examples), default driver liability as in, inter alia, The Netherlands, etc, etc. And a distinctly more cycle friendly media. We also need cycliststs to be more tolerant, keep off the pavements, only RLJ when safe (ducks for cover), and be more accepting of other cyclists.
Won't even respond to the RLJ comment.....
But what are more intelligent traffic calming measures? Speed bumps are no good for cyclists (either we have to ride them too or get squeezed by traffic using the "table top" bumps; pinch points encourage dangerous overtaking to get round before the obstruction - what does Brittany use? 20mph limits are pointless and unenforceable.
I can't agree with automatic liability. It goes against all principles of innocent until proven guilty which is an essential protection. I certainly wouldn't want to have to prove my innocence if, for example, the same principle was applied to bike/ped accidents. As to the media, it would help if cyclists didn't provide the amunition for criticism by (for example) not running red lights [sorry].0 -
O
this is a circle, we are currently going round and round and round and...0 -
Hi,
I've found the following helps me to understand the reactions you sometimes get from drivers:
Not only is your car your own personal space, but when you drive you unconciously project your own sense of space outwards to include the vehicle. This is how you judge spaces, gaps etc... you have a sub-concious mental image of the size of your "whole self" and when you look for a gap in traffic or stop at a line you do it by mapping your larger self onto the world outside.
When someone intrudes on this personal space, eg by tapping a window, or banging on a roof it is perceived as an invasion of personal space- like being bumped into, or pushed. It makes the driver very uncomfortable and defensive, as if someone they just brushed past in the street walked up to them and started wagging a finger in their face!
Given this, you can see why drivers often react very badly to being accosted.
If you want to have a polite and reasonable conversation with someone in a car you start off much better if they see you and understand that you're asking them to listen to what you have to say, rather than invading their space and shouting at them...
My feeling is that the number of situations where a camera will be helpful is vanishingly small. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned and tolerant and only a tiny minority of incidents are the result of anything other than a mistake, misjudgement or lapse of concentration.
I fully accept that someone's misjudgement might kill me, just as I'm also aware that mine might destroy someone's life. We try to avoid it but it isn't sensible to live your life in fear of a freak set of circumstances. The fear is more damaging than the risk.
Cheers,
W.
PS There are corner cases- working in counter-terrorism, systems administration and similar roles requires paranoia as an essential skill... :-)0 -
snooks wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
And the driver was convicted. Without the footage nothing would have happened. Result for helmet cams.
Without knocking on the window nothing would have happened. Result for not knocking on windows
And your point was???
Again, I'm not defending the helmet cammed vigilante here, but I do have some empathy for his initial behaviour. I've had vehicle dangerously, and intentionally cut me up like that for no reason and its utterly infuriating. I'm not going to stop myself from voicing my fury *just* because he might stop his van and assault me. Its the equivalent of a cyclist speeding through a busy zebra crossing, intentionally riding close to pedestrians to scare them. Should pedestrians not reprimand the cyclist because the cyclist might assault them?0 -
WGWarburton wrote:If you want to have a polite and reasonable conversation with someone in a car you start off much better if they see you and understand that you're asking them to listen to what you have to say, rather than invading their space and shouting at them...
it's very hard to start a conversation if you can't get a word in edgeways through all the shouting and swearing. Like the mad woman who I tried to tell had a flat tyre, but before I could utter a word she'd already told me to "F off".0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:jeremyrundle wrote:By the way andrewc1342 20mph speed limits are not enforceable in law, only 30 and above.
Sorry, that's nonsense.
Pass a law saying 20mph limits apply in town and they are as enforceable as any other speed limit.
In the meantime go and ask at any police station and you will be told that 20mph limits are NOLT enforceable.Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps
Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html0 -
WGWarburton wrote:Hi,
I've found the following helps me to understand the reactions you sometimes get from drivers:
Not only is your car your own personal space, but when you drive you unconciously project your own sense of space outwards to include the vehicle. This is how you judge spaces, gaps etc... you have a sub-concious mental image of the size of your "whole self" and when you look for a gap in traffic or stop at a line you do it by mapping your larger self onto the world outside.
When someone intrudes on this personal space, eg by tapping a window, or banging on a roof it is perceived as an invasion of personal space- like being bumped into, or pushed. It makes the driver very uncomfortable and defensive, as if someone they just brushed past in the street walked up to them and started wagging a finger in their face!
Given this, you can see why drivers often react very badly to being accosted.
If you want to have a polite and reasonable conversation with someone in a car you start off much better if they see you and understand that you're asking them to listen to what you have to say, rather than invading their space and shouting at them...
My feeling is that the number of situations where a camera will be helpful is vanishingly small. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned and tolerant and only a tiny minority of incidents are the result of anything other than a mistake, misjudgement or lapse of concentration.
I fully accept that someone's misjudgement might kill me, just as I'm also aware that mine might destroy someone's life. We try to avoid it but it isn't sensible to live your life in fear of a freak set of circumstances. The fear is more damaging than the risk.
Cheers,
W.
PS There are corner cases- working in counter-terrorism, systems administration and similar roles requires paranoia as an essential skill... :-)
+1 Well said0 -
W1 wrote:andrewc3142 wrote:We need changes such as 20mph limits in town, more intelligent traffic calming measures (Brittany has some great examples), default driver liability as in, inter alia, The Netherlands, etc, etc. And a distinctly more cycle friendly media. We also need cycliststs to be more tolerant, keep off the pavements, only RLJ when safe (ducks for cover), and be more accepting of other cyclists.
Won't even respond to the RLJ comment.....
But what are more intelligent traffic calming measures? Speed bumps are no good for cyclists (either we have to ride them too or get squeezed by traffic using the "table top" bumps; pinch points encourage dangerous overtaking to get round before the obstruction - what does Brittany use? 20mph limits are pointless and unenforceable.
I can't agree with automatic liability. It goes against all principles of innocent until proven guilty which is an essential protection. I certainly wouldn't want to have to prove my innocence if, for example, the same principle was applied to bike/ped accidents. As to the media, it would help if cyclists didn't provide the amunition for criticism by (for example) not running red lights [sorry].
I disagree about 20mph limits. They are not unenforceable - why do you think that? They are enforced in, for example, Richmond Park. Arguably not strictly enough but that's a separate issue. What makes other places different? And they are certainly not pointless. 30mph is 50% faster and it makes a huge difference, not just to cyclists, but also to pedestrians and the whole feeling of the streets. 30mph may feel slow to an impatient driver, but hard luck. Towns should be designed for people, not people in cars. Plus the risk of being killed if hit is significantly reduced.
The liability in, for example, The Netherlands, doesn't mean cyclists are in the right whatever. It just means the burden of proof is on the car driver. And my observation from working, driving and cycling and from talking to friends in those countries, it certainly makes drivers think and usually when in doubt give way to the cyclist. As a cyclist and one who would like to see cycling as the normal way of travelling to school, shopping, around town generally, I think that would be very positive.
As for traffic calming, it's not a question of chucking down a few speed bumps and painting cycle lanes that disappear at the most dangerous places. Hard to pin it down, but driving through towns in Brittany the whole road design makes it feel as though it is the car that is the guest. If you see what I mean. Very clever and not sure exactly how they do it but it certainly works better than here.0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:W1 wrote:andrewc3142 wrote:We need changes such as 20mph limits in town, more intelligent traffic calming measures (Brittany has some great examples), default driver liability as in, inter alia, The Netherlands, etc, etc. And a distinctly more cycle friendly media. We also need cycliststs to be more tolerant, keep off the pavements, only RLJ when safe (ducks for cover), and be more accepting of other cyclists.
Won't even respond to the RLJ comment.....
But what are more intelligent traffic calming measures? Speed bumps are no good for cyclists (either we have to ride them too or get squeezed by traffic using the "table top" bumps; pinch points encourage dangerous overtaking to get round before the obstruction - what does Brittany use? 20mph limits are pointless and unenforceable.
I can't agree with automatic liability. It goes against all principles of innocent until proven guilty which is an essential protection. I certainly wouldn't want to have to prove my innocence if, for example, the same principle was applied to bike/ped accidents. As to the media, it would help if cyclists didn't provide the amunition for criticism by (for example) not running red lights [sorry].
I disagree about 20mph limits. They are not unenforceable - why do you think that? They are enforced in, for example, Richmond Park. Arguably not strictly enough but that's a separate issue. What makes other places different? And they are certainly not pointless. 30mph is 50% faster and it makes a huge difference, not just to cyclists, but also to pedestrians and the whole feeling of the streets. 30mph may feel slow to an impatient driver, but hard luck. Towns should be designed for people, not people in cars. Plus the risk of being killed if hit is significantly reduced.
The liability in, for example, The Netherlands, doesn't mean cyclists are in the right whatever. It just means the burden of proof is on the car driver. And my observation from working, driving and cycling and from talking to friends in those countries, it certainly makes drivers think and usually when in doubt give way to the cyclist. As a cyclist and one who would like to see cycling as the normal way of travelling to school, shopping, around town generally, I think that would be very positive.
As for traffic calming, it's not a question of chucking down a few speed bumps and painting cycle lanes that disappear at the most dangerous places. Hard to pin it down, but driving through towns in Brittany the whole road design makes it feel as though it is the car that is the guest. If you see what I mean. Very clever and not sure exactly how they do it but it certainly works better than here.
Well for one I cycle at more than 20 mph on a cruise - and don't think that 30mph is dangerously fast. The limit is a limit, not a target anyway. Even 20 may be considered too fast on some roads and some times. So I don't think lowering the limit will have any realisic effect, except for "capping" SCR.....!0 -
So not quite unenforceable, but otherwise pretty pointless.Sergeant Kevin McKeown of the Met’s Central Traffic Unit advised officers to stop policing the 20mph limit altogether, in accordance with council policy which states that the limit should be enforced solely by “physical measures such as speed humps, entry treatments, kerb build-outs etc.”0 -
andrewc3142 wrote:The liability in, for example, The Netherlands, doesn't mean cyclists are in the right whatever. It just means the burden of proof is on the car driver. And my observation from working, driving and cycling and from talking to friends in those countries, it certainly makes drivers think and usually when in doubt give way to the cyclist. As a cyclist and one who would like to see cycling as the normal way of travelling to school, shopping, around town generally, I think that would be very positive.
+1. Having spent most of my youth in NL, it was a huge shock coming to the UK. The roads here are incredibly inhospitable and dangerous for cyclists by comparison. And I think the circular reason for this is that most people consider roads to be far too inhospitable and dangerous for cyclists. The perception in any accident involving a cyclist is that the cyclist was negligent from the start by even being on a bike on a main road in the first place. The knee jerk reaction to any news story about a cycling mortality is to assume that the cyclist must have done something wrong, or been in the wrong place, to have caused the accident. This just isn't the case in any country that has default driver liability.
Drivers who use their cars to intimidate (swerving at cyclists, intentional close overtaking etc) would think twice if this kind of law was in place. And "Sorry Mate I Didn't See You" wouldn't be a valid excuse.
I'm all for it.0 -
jeremyrundle wrote:andrewc3142 wrote:jeremyrundle wrote:By the way andrewc1342 20mph speed limits are not enforceable in law, only 30 and above.
Sorry, that's nonsense.
Pass a law saying 20mph limits apply in town and they are as enforceable as any other speed limit.
In the meantime go and ask at any police station and you will be told that 20mph limits are NOLT enforceable.
Well, obviously if there is not currently a law to say they are enforceable in law then they are not enforceable in law. And ..... ?0
