war on britains roads

FSR_XC

It worked wonders for sales of our cameras today, especially the RoadHawk Ride.

Jolly Swagman

FSR_XC wrote:

It worked wonders for sales of our cameras today, especially the RoadHawk Ride.

You should go the whole hog and post a link to your shop

OH ! I just saw it !

jouxplan

Jolly Swagman wrote:

And as for Gareth, Web Developer, 24, well he would try the patience of a saint. I think he used to fag for me at Eton.

Ha! Ha! Ha! That just made me spit out my coffee laughing

You are being a bit harsh on the cyclist who fell over after being punched though! The first punch was not very good, granted, but the cyclist was straddling his bike and was in cleats. I defy anyone in such a situation to maintain balance when someone is attacking them! Anyway, the second punch did more damage I suspect

FSR_XC

Jolly Swagman wrote:

You should go the whole hog and post a link to your shop

OH ! I just saw it !

Thanks for pointing that out, it wasn't intended

Jolly Swagman

FSR_XC wrote:

Jolly Swagman wrote:

You should go the whole hog and post a link to your shop

OH ! I just saw it !

Thanks for pointing that out, it wasn't intended

I'll take a cheque but I prefer cash.

speshsteve

just seen this on iplayer, I hope Gareth reads this forum and this thread and then maybe the penny will drop for Mr Angry. I felt quite sorry for the cab driver at the beginning thank god he didn't fully bite and lamp the kid or he would of been in the sh1t and Mr Angry G would of been even more smug.

I did find it funny when he gave it all the big man and then when approached his voice went up several octaves as he filled his pants and then......as the other guy walked away he played the big man again!

I guess once he finally gets laid ( he might have to pay for it) he might chill a little

thegibdog

jotko wrote:

I avoid that bit of the track altogether now, its bloody dangerous, not helped that there are numerous strava segments through there :roll:

Might be worth flagging them as dangerous.

Phil Fouracre

All a bit of a shame really - turned out to be just as expected, the title gave it away - pointless,confrontational......
What it needs now is for ITV to do a good balanced programme - can't remember, but, am sure this has happened somewhere recently, anyone remember?

diy

Yes Gareth (assuming that was the young kid) was just stupid, he could see the taxi was looking to get in to the bus lane, yet he held out wide and road as fast as he could when all he needed to do was pause pedaling for a moment.

Simm0

A lot of people who drive cars are not very good at it and by the looks of it in London the same goes for cyclists. The programme was quite interesting but is not a good representation of cyclists across the UK. I and those who cycle with me ride our bikes like we drive our cars. We don't run red lights, undertake or weave in and out of traffic and thank motorists for their patience when appropriate. Building good relations with other road users and a bit of mutual respect goes a long way. I think the programme was too much focused on commuters and the extreme views of both sides.

The young cyclist with the glasses is too confrontational IMO. The 50 odd years cabby talked a lot of sense and I found myself agreeing with almost all his points. You can see the feeling of waste in the mother who lost her daughter needlessly and it is good to see her working positively to make things better which is more than our politicians are doing.

There was little mention in this programme of accidents occurring on rural roads or cyclist hit from behind. The law has to change. Having been taken out by a car on a roundabout I am only too aware of lazy policing, the lack of responsibility motorists take for their actions and the hassle, time-scale and frustration involved in getting your bike and body repaired The fact is plain to see, drivers kill cyclists and then claim SMIDSY. This is not accepted in Holland and other parts of Europe and until we have a culture change in the uk we still as cyclists remain cannon fodder

The programme may have caused some awareness of the issues of poor infrastructure and sharing congested road space with vulnerable road users but did not look at any real solutions or interview any politicians about policy change or answers.

binsted

diy wrote:

Yes Gareth (assuming that was the young kid) was just stupid, he could see the taxi was looking to get in to the bus lane, yet he held out wide and road as fast as he could when all he needed to do was pause pedaling for a moment.

Spot on, its called common sense.............just hope his antics don't encourage more to buy a helmet cam with the thought of fame on YouTube

simianwatching

During the summer, I did quite a lot of cycling in France. I spoke to our french host about how much room drivers were giving me and he said it's compulsory in their Highway Code - Le Code de la Route. Sure enough, it states:

Obligations des automobilistes envers les cyclistes
Le conducteur doit réduire sa vitesse lors du croisement ou du dépassement de cyclistes isolés ou en groupe .

Pour effectuer un dépassement le conducteur ne doit pas s’approcher latéralement d’un cycliste à moins d’un mètre en agglomération et un mètre et demi hors agglomération .


Rough translation -
The driver must reduce his speed when he meets or overtakes cyclists riding solo on in a group

To overtake cyclists, the driver must leave at least one metre's space in town and one and half metre's space in the countryside.

The corresponding section in the Highway Code states:
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

Obviously there are cultural differences which mean the French are generally more accepting of cyclists, but I wonder if a better defined safe overtaking limit in our Highway Code would make a difference?

Teddy Westside

simianwatching wrote:

Obviously there are cultural differences which mean the French are generally more accepting of cyclists, but I wonder if a better defined safe overtaking limit in our Highway Code would make a difference?

It would certainly be a start! Personally, I believe the rule should simply state (along with a minimum distance as in France) that overtakers must fully change lanes when overtaking any vehicle. That means switching lanes on multi-laned roads or crossing fully over the centre line on single carriageways. Singletrack roads would obviously just demand the minimum space (or as close to it as is physically possible, using passing places where they exist).

Now, I know that almost no rule is perfect and some people will say some road lanes are actually wide enough (in their opinion) to make a safe enough manoeuvre without following that rule, but they are in the minority (the lanes I mean), and the simpler a rule is, the better understood and obeyed it should be. You could always add a sub-rule that the preceding could only be "disobeyed" if the vehicle in front (in our case, a cyclist) gives a clear "pass me" signal (arm stretched out and circling - be sure it's not a turn indication).

I myself sometimes feel the need to hold vehicles behind me if I deem it unsafe to let them pass but just as equally wave them through if I can see the road is clear over the brow of a hill or round a tight bend. Sometimes I'm thanked for it, just as often I'm treated as if it's what I should do whether I want to or not as the vehicle zooms past.

NewTTer

You guys need to go over and have a look on Cycle Chat, they are hailing this Gaz guy as a hero, but thats because I think they see him as one of their own as he posts there very frequently. They are in there own little bubble over there quite disturbing really.
The commuting section on the forum is full of people with the same attitudes and skills as GAZ the glasses, its very very scary

diy

simianwatching wrote:

The corresponding section in the Highway Code states:
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

Obviously there are cultural differences which mean the French are generally more accepting of cyclists, but I wonder if a better defined safe overtaking limit in our Highway Code would make a difference?

Sorry but that is not right at all see rule:
212 When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
213 Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

This is in addition to 163 which you referenced. 163 has a very clear picture of what is meant by at least as much as a car:


I don't think the laws need to be changed otherwise it amplifies the view that cyclists safety is everyone else's responsibility and being a vulnerable road user means they are immune from needing to apply common sense.

Jolly Swagman

How hard would it have been to imprint a number on all motorists mind? You are more likely to remember a number than something that is subjective.

potters1863

Teddy Westside wrote:

Zingaro134 wrote:

whats the youtube channel of the man that gives out driving tickets

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonofthewindsInc/videos?view=0

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/travel/vigilante_cyclist_patrols_highgate_to_expose_dangerous_drivers_1_1070072

The "speccy 24 year old" is "Cyclegaz" who has a website: "Silly Cyclists"
I started to watch his videos some months back but soon grew tired of the style. And some of the examples were so minor as to be non-events compared to what I've experiences myself. He wants to "educate" everyone (an admirable concept) but I find it all quite annoying after a while.

I've been confronted by motorists threatening physical violence, jamming their brakes on in front of me repeatedly and so on. Incredibly, one time when I threw my hand up in disgust at a dangerously close overtake, the driver actually pulled over, got out and... apologised for not realising how close they were. The one and only genuine apology I've ever experienced.

Perhaps if motorists realised how intimidatory it is to even pass on or near the line marking out a cycle lane in many cases, we might all get a long a little better. Don't get me started on irresponsible cyclists though, they are a large part of the problem when it comes to motorists deliberately being antagonistic.

Thank goodness I ride in leafy Cheshire, those cyclists in London are nutters. I get bad road surfaces and drivers overtaking too close but I ride differently to most of those London cyclists, why ride through red lights, on pavements, up the inside of lorries or buses, I don't.

Had a bloke overtake me very close in a range rover in Knutsford a few weeks ago, upset me a bit, when I caught him at the lights I was indicating to him to give more room when overtaking cyclists, he opened his window, we had a chat about giving cyclists more room and to his credit he apologised, wish there were more like that.

Would hate to ride in London, the drivers would annoy me but so would the cyclists. I realise there must be good cyclists in London too but the program did cycling in London no favours.

buckmulligan

NewTTer wrote:

You guys need to go over and have a look on Cycle Chat, they are hailing this Gaz guy as a hero, but thats because I think they see him as one of their own as he posts there very frequently. They are in there own little bubble over there quite disturbing really.
The commuting section on the forum is full of people with the same attitudes and skills as GAZ the glasses, its very very scary

Blimey, just had a look on there, they're all completely delusional. I think we've finally found the hidden cave of the moronic-lycra-clad-cyclist-stereotype that the Daily Mail constantly throws about, maybe they were right all along!

Briggo

diy wrote:

This is in addition to 163 which you referenced. 163 has a very clear picture of what is meant by at least as much as a car:

Why would you ever give a car that much room when overtaking, the road isn't wide enough.

Jolly Swagman

NewTTer wrote:

You guys need to go over and have a look on Cycle Chat, they are hailing this Gaz guy as a hero, but thats because I think they see him as one of their own as he posts there very frequently. They are in there own little bubble over there quite disturbing really.
The commuting section on the forum is full of people with the same attitudes and skills as GAZ the glasses, its very very scary

I shall send the folks over from Cabbie Chat to sort them out once and for all !

Team4Luke

"a turning point in the safety of cyclists on the road comes when everyone who drives knows someone who cycles"

Team4Luke

what is required is a wholesale review of the current punishments, driving a car you can break the speed limit to killing and yet you will not loose useage of your vehicle, well for the almost the whole part. You even have options of paying fines and speed courses to avoid the slightly worse case of licence points - great !
Other countries (think holland is one), will remove your car from you even for speeding at low levels above the limits for various period lengths.
Only by drivers understanding they no longer have a right to the roads, it is only a priviledge and a removable one and having to use other methods of transport, will ensue a behaviour change.

dynamicbrick

No, that'll simply create more resentment and conflict.

Punishment does not influence behaviour - for example, drink-driving punishments have got steadily more severe, without any real reduction in offending. The real noticeable change came with the campaign to make drink-driving socially unacceptable.

However, cycling is generally socially acceptable, and making cycling on the road socially acceptable isn't going to create a whole world of difference. What is needed - I think - is a properly integrated cycle culture through co-ordinated, far-sighted, pragmatic Government policy (an unlikely thing, I know). Drive a behaviour change through familiarity and empathy, rather than just wielding a bigger hammer.

There are hundreds of things that the Government could do which would have limited impact on the Exchequer, with long term potential benefits (health and infrastructure mainly). Some ideas;

- Free school dinners for kids who ride to school
- Forcing train operators to provide proper cycling carriages like the old Guard's vans you used to get, rather than the silly folding-only policies.
- Forcing station operators to provide decent secure bike storage at stations on heavy commuter lines to a prescribed standard
- Incentives for LAs who have a coherent cycle policy written by someone who's ridden a bike
- Central funding rather than local funding for cycle paths which are separate from roads (you see how many get built then)
- Tax incentives for companies to provide sufficient facilities to encourage cycling to work
- VAT free on bicycles (if they're not already)

Fundamentally, encourage more people to ride for either social, domestic, or leisure purposes. It requires some long-term policy making, with recognition of the economic benefits (productivity is higher with people who exercise in the morning, healthier populace, less traffic, etc.)

diy

Yep agree. Motorists are not the enemy - zero tolerance and tougher punishment is not the answer, in fact it will make people less likely to stop following an accident and more likely to try to hide their identity.

There can be no argument that holds that 31mph in a 30 is substantially less safe than 30mph. We need all road users to focus on the important things: observation, courtesy and awareness of risk, being able to stop in the distance that they can see is clear,

If we want tougher consequences to speeding drivers (of which 99.999999% do it safely) then the same should apply to cyclist who don't stop on the line at red lights.

Team4Luke

drink driving is a poor argument, bad and dangerous driving kills and injures a great deal more people than the random drunk driver, am not certain but stats are around a couple of thousand killed each year on the roads and I will bet the percentage is low for drink being a factor.
How many more people being hurt and killed will it take before your nice thoughts will kick in and have an effect, a behaviour change from your policy would take several decades before were all nice to each other on the road. In the meantime start removing the car from drivers who do harm or drive dangerously instead of letting them off and giving them an option to even get out of points on their licence, take the car off them for a fortnight instead and they won't do it again. Most of the cyclists knocked off as can be seen from all that footage is simply drivers who will not stop at a give way or slow down for another user, if they won't obey the rules of the highway then they have no right to it until they learn it can be taken away.

diy

The stats are publicly available why don't you have a read
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... TMHc#gid=0

Drink Driving accounts for 15% of road deaths, breaking the speed limit is way down on the contributory factors.

butcher of bakersfield

diy wrote:

The stats are publicly available why don't you have a read
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... TMHc#gid=0

Drink Driving accounts for 15% of road deaths, breaking the speed limit is way down on the contributory factors.

I may be reading it wrong (it's a little bit confusing), but looking at the contributory factors in that spreadsheet, speeding comes in above drinking...

...
Exceeding speed limit 13
Travelling too fast for conditions 12
Failed to judge other person’s path or speed 12
Poor turn or manoeuvre 11
Pedestrian failed to look properly 11
Impaired by alcohol 9

Either way, that spreadsheet clearly shows speeding as a common contributory factor.

diy

That doesn't mean speeding is more dangerous than drink driving. You have to look at exposure.
There are a lot more speeding drivers than drink drivers. In other words its risk per km that is important.

Most accidents are caused by errors of judgement (failed to look, failed to judge, incorrect move etc) and that is all about attitude to driving. Something that I don't think can be "beaten" in to people.

dynamicbrick

Team4Luke wrote:

drink driving is a poor argument, bad

No, it's a relevant argument when discussing changing driver behaviour - driving while drunk used to be legal. Then it became illegal. The punishment for drink driving was gradually increased, with no discernable reduction in offending. So the tactic was changed to try to make it socially unacceptable to drive after drinking (I think it was an Aussie idea to approach it from this angle).

People respond far better to peer/social pressure than some abstract concept of punishment should they get caught - if you catch and convict a DD, you're already too late - horse, stable door.

Same applies with other driving habits - notice what happens when you enter 40 or 50 roadworks restriction on the motorway or DC during busy times. Obeying the speed limit in those situations is a pack/herd mentality - the more people slow down, the more people slow down. It only takes a handful to ignore them and the whole concept fails as the pack instinct kicks in. The presence of speed cameras is almost entirely irrelevant.

Similarly, people don't drive carelessly or dangerously because the punishment is relatively mild - they do that because of other factors - emotion, distraction, lack of ability, not having any pride in the task at hand. For example, some people take a perverse pride in being a crap driver, or getting angry behind the wheel, or knowing nothing about the large complicated machinery they're operating.

It's those things you need to change, not how big a hammer you hit them with those things cause an incident. Make saying 'Oh, I'm crap at driving' or 'Oh, I get so angry behind the wheel' the same socially unacceptable thing as 'I always drive after I've been drinking' and then you'll see change.

ben@31

Joeblack wrote:

The traffic droid was the most embarrassing, pulling up people on mobile phones, giving out tickets!! He even grabbed that RLJ by the backpack at the next light, we so often talk about invading personal space and he feels its ok to lay his hands on another person, I'd have gone captain lip on him, people like this only serve to widen the divide between cyclists and road users.

I found that the worst part. That he thought he could grab someone else by their backback, yank them backwards and have a go at them.

If he did that to me, I would hurt him.

I also was not impressed with the way the cycling coppers talked down to people in a patronising way. I might spare the copper from pain (for legal reasons) :-) but I'd let him he's a f***ing d**k and less likely to want to listen to what he has to say.