ShareTheRoadUK

Headhuunter

Kieran_Burns wrote:

hjghg5 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a bull argument because they're different rules being broken regularly. Don't think I've ever seen a car coast through a red light that's been red for a good 20 secs and I see it all the time on the bike.

I have. Came up to some traffic lights on my bike which were on red. I stopped. Car stopped alongside me waiting to turn right. We both waited for a little bit then the car driver decided it was clear and he was too important to wait for the lights and just set off.

I'll admit that cyclists do it more often, but it does happen (that's not the only time I've seen it, just the one I remember best).

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people that Amber means stop as well, not "Oh go on then, you can make it" like a great deal of drivers seem to think it is.

I have too. I got hit by a moped rider who sailed through a red light to the extent that my lights had actually gone green and I was halfway across the junction before he whammed into me... His excuse was that he was late for band practice...

mybreakfastconsisted

vermin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

True, when you think about it, the advice so often given to newbies after near misses: "You should have taken primary through there to prevent tempting the driver into a left hook" is perverse.

"I'm not saying it was your fault, but maybe if you'd worn a burka instead of that miniskirt, the bloke wouldn't have been tempted...."

Exactly.

Like that bloke who was caught under a left turning lorry. A few people were saying WTF was he doing going up the inside of a lorry - despite that the infrastructure tells you to go there, and in many other instances, going up the inside to get to the front of the queue of traffic makes sense.

Put yourself in the position of a total novice and choose which scenario you might prefer;

1. Being taught how to look after yourself better on the roads, so that you might avoid making mistakes which might lead to accidents, or;

2. Knowing that motorists will be held liable after they've killed you.

It is very evident that a lot of cyclists do not know how to keep themselves safe on the roads.

This simply isn't true, dangerous or risky behaviour by cyclists is implicated in a tiny minority of accidents:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... ents-study

Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds.

Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury

rolf_f

Headhuunter wrote:

I think the point is though that the more cyclists on the road, the safer the roads become for everyone. .

Is it that simple? London seems scarier to me than Leeds for cycling in yet London has vastly more riders. The problem there is that there isn't really enough space for everyone comfortably. Traffic speeds are also higher in Leeds yet I don't tend to see that as a problem but it might encourage a greater perception of risk.

Ultimately, the question for me is this - if, lets say, there was a compulsory form of road cycle training for all of us (whether or not we are car drivers as well) and if, going with that, there was a similar compulsory form of cycle awareness training for drivers (whether or not they are cyclists as well) and ignoring the insane logistics of this, would it actually result in a better road experience for all?

If so, then there might be some value in it. But then the whole putting people off cycling thing comes into play.

slowbike

Headhuunter wrote:

I have too. I got hit by a moped rider who sailed through a red light to the extent that my lights had actually gone green and I was halfway across the junction before he whammed into me... His excuse was that he was late for band practice...

Ban musicians from the road ...

Oh ...

thats me banned then !! :oops:

mybreakfastconsisted

Rick Chasey wrote:

vermin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

True, when you think about it, the advice so often given to newbies after near misses: "You should have taken primary through there to prevent tempting the driver into a left hook" is perverse.

"I'm not saying it was your fault, but maybe if you'd worn a burka instead of that miniskirt, the bloke wouldn't have been tempted...."

Exactly.

Like that bloke who was caught under a left turning lorry. A few people were saying WTF was he doing going up the inside of a lorry - despite that the infrastructure tells you to go there, and in many other instances, going up the inside to get to the front of the queue of traffic makes sense.

Put yourself in the position of a total novice and choose which scenario you might prefer;

1. Being taught how to look after yourself better on the roads, so that you might avoid making mistakes which might lead to accidents, or;

2. Knowing that motorists will be held liable after they've killed you.

It is very evident that a lot of cyclists do not know how to keep themselves safe on the roads. This goes far beyond the negligent driving that causes dangerous situations; I'm talking about all those silly things cyclists do in front of you and you watch with your heart in your mouth, praying that the worst doesn't happen. It's just like holding a child's hand at the side of the road and going through the stop-look-listen routine - failing to stop, look and listen is not a crime, but a lesson that must be taught to help people avoid getting themselves into trouble.

The objection I have is where the effort for change is going. They're campaigning for a band aid when they should be campaigning to change the system.

I reckon 2 would save more lives than 1 anyway .

We've already established education, like the education drivers get, doesn't stop them being idiots or driving badly. why would it be different with bikes?

Exactly. If you want to make the roads safer banging on about cyclists is a waste of time- concentrate on who does the maiming and killing, drivers.

Headhuunter

Slowbike wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I have too. I got hit by a moped rider who sailed through a red light to the extent that my lights had actually gone green and I was halfway across the junction before he whammed into me... His excuse was that he was late for band practice...

Ban musicians from the road ...

Oh ...

thats me banned then !! :oops:

Was it you who hit me? You b@stard!

Widgey

Educating drivers is never going to work though is it. They all know the exact rules of the road and never break any rules, how many times have you noticed this?

Educating drivers would be flogging a dead horse, it will get nowhere. The simpler solution will be to get more people onto bikes, thus having more people in contact with a cyclist. Hopefully adjusting attitudes because they want to look out for their loved one.

airbag

Rick Chasey wrote:

Perhaps.

Personally I think it's crazy that people are OK with having a system whereby you need to be taught the dangers of riding a bike on the road, rather than trying to reduce the dangers as much as possible.

Agree - it is crazy. However there's nothing wrong with admitting the system sucks, and try to do what you can with what you have - I'll try to put pressure on local and national govt. to improve the state of cycling, but temporary workaronds (like bikeability) can still be useful - and even with the best infrastructure possible there will still be some risk, so education would be useful even if the whole of the uk was covered in high-quality facilities (which aren't filled with cars, before 'we do have it, it's called the road network' appears)

Headhuunter

Rolf F wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I think the point is though that the more cyclists on the road, the safer the roads become for everyone. .

Is it that simple? London seems scarier to me than Leeds for cycling in yet London has vastly more riders. The problem there is that there isn't really enough space for everyone comfortably. Traffic speeds are also higher in Leeds yet I don't tend to see that as a problem but it might encourage a greater perception of risk.

Ultimately, the question for me is this - if, lets say, there was a compulsory form of road cycle training for all of us (whether or not we are car drivers as well) and if, going with that, there was a similar compulsory form of cycle awareness training for drivers (whether or not they are cyclists as well) and ignoring the insane logistics of this, would it actually result in a better road experience for all?

If so, then there might be some value in it. But then the whole putting people off cycling thing comes into play.

Almost 4000 people die or are injured on the roads every year. Statistically something like half a person is killed by a cyclist (not sure how many are injured but I'd wager it isn't into 3 figures) so logically if you remove or deduce the number of motorists on the road, so you reduce the number of deaths and injuries. It's as simple as that. To me it seems logical that you do anything you can to discourage motorists from built up areas in particular (be it through congestion charging, forcing motorists onto 1 way systems etc) and anything to get people to take alternative modes of transport be it a bike, public transport or a walk. This would reduce deaths and injuries on the road not to mention damage to road surfaces and pollutants, obesity etc. You force cyclists to pass a test (which is what this is effectively) and watch numbers drop off a cliff. I read a statistic somewhere that the average road journey in London is about 1 or 2 miles at an average speed of about 15mph (probably in Central London), I mean what an utter waste of time!

You say that London seems a dangerous place to ride but IME it's perhaps a bit safer than it was, the sheer number of cyclists has increased the number of (albeit often completely rubbish) cycle paths and seems to have increased motorist awareness, I seem to get left hooked less than before, these days motorists actually slow and stop to let you through before turning left (sometimes...)

jonomc4

I see bike radar have redifined their position.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/s ... nse-35028/

bails87

I read a statistic somewhere that the average road journey in London is about 1 or 2 miles at an average speed of about 15mph (probably in Central London)

It's probably everywhere in London.

On my commute I drive for half a mile on 30mph roads, onto a 40mph dual carriageway for a couple of miles and then onto either a 70mph dual carriageway or a 50mph country road for 10 miles, then another mile or 2 of 40 and 30mph before I park up.

That's almost all the driving I do apart from long motorway trips for MTBing, but the average speed on my car's trip computer is always under 30mph. If you're always on 30mph-40mph roads with a bit of traffic I could easily see the average speed is 15mph.

slowbike

Headhuunter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I have too. I got hit by a moped rider who sailed through a red light to the extent that my lights had actually gone green and I was halfway across the junction before he whammed into me... His excuse was that he was late for band practice...

Ban musicians from the road ...

Oh ...

thats me banned then !! :oops:

Was it you who hit me? You b@stard!

Not this time - I don't ride a moped!! Unless it was really a cyclist making broooom broooom noises - then it might have been me

dodgy

Interesting to see John Stevenson make a very robust response to BikeRadar's follow up.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/s ... nse-35028/

I think John is still employed by BR or at least in the same organisation?

Good on him.

Maybe time to leave this one now, since the issue has been recognised and dealt with in a single day?

Initialised

Shouldn't the compulsory education bit be adding Bikability Level 3 as a pre-requisite to taking Driving Practical?

Anonymous

Headhuunter wrote:

These days motorists actually slow and stop to let you through before turning left (sometimes...)

All good points made HH, but one thing I NEVER see a cyclist do is the opposite of this. When a car is pulling out and you are maybe just a bit too far away but the car lets you go past anyway, how often can you remember just squeezing the brakes and letting them pull out, or ride primary and hold up traffic to allow a car out?

I know I am pretty guilty of squeezing though gaps which aren't really for squeezing through and sometimes making driving in heavy traffic fairly (unnecessarily) hard for drivers, so I wonder if there is a certain degree of less 'they should bend over for cyclists' to a bit more 'perhaps we could not behave quite so recklessly when (not) racing to/from work'.

Rick said earlier that cars hate cyclists as they are terrified of the consequences of knocking one off. I think that's putting himself behind the wheel of a car.
I think cars hate cyclists because they think we are holding them up, and the reckless bikehandling used in the aforementioned racing probably pisses them off no end. Imagine you were on a motorway and saw the same behaviour from another car!??

Anonymous

Like THIS guy says.....this is what we need.

vegeeta wrote:

When I drive, if there's a cyclist then I wait behind until there's good space. After that I generally find it easy to get back on schedule, probably only adding 10 seconds to my journey. But one look on the face of the driver behind and you can tell that Adding a few seconds to their journey is intolerable to them, as they're clearly the most important person in the world.Change attitudes, it's cheaper than building cycle paths

daviesee

coriordan wrote:

Like THIS guy says.....this is what we need.

vegeeta wrote:

When I drive, if there's a cyclist then I wait behind until there's good space. After that I generally find it easy to get back on schedule, probably only adding 10 seconds to my journey. But one look on the face of the driver behind and you can tell that Adding a few seconds to their journey is intolerable to them, as they're clearly the most important person in the world.Change attitudes, it's cheaper than building cycle paths

+1
As I've said on another thread - The current roads are fine (99%) and the current laws are fine, all that is needed is a change in people's attitudes and a bit of patience and courtesy, from everyone. Add in a bit of common sense and everything would be fine.
Never going to happen.

Kieran_Burns

coriordan wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

These days motorists actually slow and stop to let you through before turning left (sometimes...)

All good points made HH, but one thing I NEVER see a cyclist do is the opposite of this. When a car is pulling out and you are maybe just a bit too far away but the car lets you go past anyway, how often can you remember just squeezing the brakes and letting them pull out, or ride primary and hold up traffic to allow a car out?

<snip>

*cough*

http://youtu.be/ZH5b2Ol_qYM?hd=1

*cough*

Headhuunter

coriordan wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

These days motorists actually slow and stop to let you through before turning left (sometimes...)

All good points made HH, but one thing I NEVER see a cyclist do is the opposite of this. When a car is pulling out and you are maybe just a bit too far away but the car lets you go past anyway, how often can you remember just squeezing the brakes and letting them pull out, or ride primary and hold up traffic to allow a car out?

I know I am pretty guilty of squeezing though gaps which aren't really for squeezing through and sometimes making driving in heavy traffic fairly (unnecessarily) hard for drivers, so I wonder if there is a certain degree of less 'they should bend over for cyclists' to a bit more 'perhaps we could not behave quite so recklessly when (not) racing to/from work'.

Rick said earlier that cars hate cyclists as they are terrified of the consequences of knocking one off. I think that's putting himself behind the wheel of a car.
I think cars hate cyclists because they think we are holding them up, and the reckless bikehandling used in the aforementioned racing probably pisses them off no end. Imagine you were on a motorway and saw the same behaviour from another car!??

When I say that these days, drivers are less likely to left hook you, I would hardly say that they are always atruistic in letting me past. I quite frequently find car drivers pull out in front of me forcing me to brake hard or pass alongside them, I assume simply because they "must get ahead of the cyclist". A few weeks ago some van driver pulled out in front of me, I braked hard but even then had to take evasivee action and ended up passing him. His response was to follow close behind me with his horn blaring until the next lights. When I pointed out that he had pulled out in front of me, he said that he had easily given me enough space... If that's the case, how was I able to pass him and end up in front of him?! If he had given me enough space there would have been no way I could've done that!

Anyway the point is that it's a fair amount more awkward for a cyclist bowling along at 20mph or so with a good bit of momentum to have to slow to let a car out and then build that up again than it is for a car driver to lightly touch the brake pedal and then lightly touch the accelerator again....

bails87

And "not being left hooked" isn't exactly a case of drivers doing us a favour, it's them doing what they should be doing as a bare minimum. To say that "not being left hooked" means we should go out of our way to stop and let drivers pull out of sideroads is bit odd. 99% of the time I wouldn't do it as a driver, it's the same when I'm on the bike.

skylla

In the meantime, the Ingenie campaign is offline - possibly for corrections!

Anonymous

Headhuunter wrote:

When I say that these days, drivers are less likely to left hook you, I would hardly say that they are always atruistic in letting me past. I quite frequently find car drivers pull out in front of me forcing me to brake hard or pass alongside them, I assume simply because they "must get ahead of the cyclist". A few weeks ago some van driver pulled out in front of me, I braked hard but even then had to take evasivee action and ended up passing him. His response was to follow close behind me with his horn blaring until the next lights. When I pointed out that he had pulled out in front of me, he said that he had easily given me enough space... If that's the case, how was I able to pass him and end up in front of him?! If he had given me enough space there would have been no way I could've done that!

True - but here you have the WVM mentality so even car drivers hate them!

Headhuunter wrote:

Anyway the point is that it's a fair amount more awkward for a cyclist bowling along at 20mph or so with a good bit of momentum to have to slow to let a car out and then build that up again than it is for a car driver to lightly touch the brake pedal and then lightly touch the accelerator again....

Interval training?