View Full Version : Causing death by dangerous cycling?
secrets in symmetry
22-May-13, 12:23
The BBC ask Why the war between drivers and cyclists? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22614569)
A motorist's tweet boasting about hitting a cyclist created uproar when it went viral. What does it reveal about the battle on the UK's roads?
Toby Hockley was on the 100-mile Boudicca Sportive ride in Norfolk when he says he was struck by a car and flung into a hedge. The driver didn't stop. Hockley emerged from the hedge, sore but intact.
It sounds like a run-of-the-mill depressing incident from the UK's roads. But the shocking part came later.
A young woman tweeted: "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."
The post was retweeted hundreds of times and took on a life of its own.
Soon cyclists had informed the police, identified the woman, tracked down where she worked and told her employer.
They also ask Is dangerous cycling a problem? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607)
MPs could introduce a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. But how much of a danger do these two-wheeled travellers really pose?
There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than cyclists.
To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green, commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's roads while keeping themselves fit.
But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are "lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them.
Now this debate - regularly articulated, with the aid of Anglo-Saxon dialect, during rush-hour traffic - has found a forum in the House of Commons, where MP Andrea Leadsom has introduced a private members' bill to create new crimes of causing death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless cycling.
Click on the links above to read more.
Is this going too far?
So, a motorist takes a corner too fast, ends up on the wrong side of the road, hits a cyclist head on, fails to stop, leaves the scene leaving the cyclist for dead in the hedgerow, doesn't report it to the police, then brags about it on Twitter justifying their actions by citing the cyclist's non-payment of a non-existent tax.
And the BBC are asking if cyclists are the danger on Britain's roads? Moronic, totally moronic.
secrets in symmetry
22-May-13, 13:15
I've just noticed that the first article is new, but the second one was written over two years ago - so the connection between the two was a little weak. Does that make it better or worse?
This discussion was yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018cbxp
secrets in symmetry
22-May-13, 15:39
That link is hanging on me for some reason....
Cyclists have every right to the road , but as a cyclist and a motor cyclist and a car driver myself, i think we cyclist s should pay something for the upkeep of the roads , Caravanners as well. but when i am driving my car ,what gall s me most is some cyclists two and even three abreast so they can chat . My opinion is that they are leaving their safety to the motorist. Plain ignorance ,stupid and downright dangerous. Every man is his own safety officer .
A bicycle is nt that much narrower than a motor cycle ,so how often do you see us driving two abreast ????
You also have the argument that if it was a slow moving vehicle in front of you, you would overtake it as normal wouldn't you?, so why not 2 or 3 abreast cyclists?. There is far more chance of a cyclist being clipped when a vehicle just moves a little to the right and passes closely than actually doing a proper overtaking maneouvre and giving the cyclist a wide berth. Why do people get hacked off when they see a cyclist in front as being a hold-up when they aren't. It's the inconsiderate and lazy drivers behind them who cannot be bothered to do the "mirrors, indicate, maneouvre" routine as required by the highway code and instead sit behind them causing further tail-backs which the cyclist ultimately gets the blame for. I have had my fair share of problems with cyclists but i still give them the respect they are due and most respect the road and other road users. It's the problem of the loons behind the wheel that think the road is theirs and no-one should interfere with their driving space that should be addressed. Oh and before the critics start, no, i'm not a cyclist, im too old, fat and unfit to be one :-)
but why do some have the need to cycle three or two abreast ,and given the speed they travel at compared to motorists . i know ive been in both places .
riding abreast on the road makes no sense.
I think cyclists should be done for causing death or injury through dangerous or reckless cycling.
tonkatojo
22-May-13, 19:20
I think cyclists should be done for causing death or injury through dangerous or reckless cycling.
Curious, is there such an offence for these saintly cyclists, personally I think use of the road by propelled means the current rules mot/tax/ins/licence should apply to all.
Cyclists have every right to the road , but as a cyclist and a motor cyclist and a car driver myself, i think we cyclist s should pay something for the upkeep of the roads , Caravanners as well. but when i am driving my car ,what gall s me most is some cyclists two and even three abreast so they can chat . My opinion is that they are leaving their safety to the motorist. Plain ignorance ,stupid and downright dangerous. Every man is his own safety officer .
A bicycle is nt that much narrower than a motor cycle ,so how often do you see us driving two abreast ????
Roads are paid for by council tax, and out of general taxation. Everyone who pays any kind of tax be it council tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, or whatever, pays for the roads.
Regarding cyclists riding two abreast, it isn't illegal to do so. Would you complain if it was a tractor in front of you, because they travel quite slowly too.
I would respectfully suggest to you that the problem is not other road users, the problem is impatient drivers.
I think cyclists should be done for causing death or injury through dangerous or reckless cycling.
They are, but it is such a rare occurrence. Since 1999 twenty-five thousand people have been killed on British roads by motor vehicles, in the same period just nine people have died in collisions with bicycles. More people have been killed by pet dogs in the last twelve years than by bicycles.
but why do some have the need to cycle three or two abreast ,and given the speed they travel at compared to motorists . i know ive been in both places .
riding abreast on the road makes no sense.
If twelve cyclists ride two-abreast, they are easier, quicker, and safer to pass than if they are riding in single file. Because instead of having to pull out to the other side of the road to pass for 100 metres or more, drivers only have to pull out to the other side of the road for thirty-five metres.
Regarding cyclists riding two abreast, it isn't illegal to do so. Would you complain if it was a tractor in front of you, because they travel quite slowly too.
it may not be illegal to cycle two abreast , i dont know ??, but as a cyclist i think it selfish and stupid .
i think most tractors travel a bit faster than cyclists?
anyway that s just MY personal views
and i think the revinue from road tax and fuel duty fund a lot more than what,s spent on the roads
secrets in symmetry
22-May-13, 20:41
If twelve cyclists ride two-abreast, they are easier, quicker, and safer to pass than if they are riding in single file. Because instead of having to pull out to the other side of the road to pass for 100 metres or more, drivers only have to pull out to the other side of the road for thirty-five metres.That argument fails if the road is wide enough for the car to pass cyclists riding in single file, but not two abreast.
Empirical evidence also suggests that drivers don't like cyclists riding two abreast - because they're harder to pass.
That argument fails if the road is wide enough for the car to pass cyclists riding in single file, but not two abreast.
Empirical evidence also suggests that drivers don't like cyclists riding two abreast - because they're harder to pass.
That argument fails because if a road is not wide enough to pass you are supposed to wait until it is wide enough to pass. When passing cyclists the Highway Code states that drivers must give as much space when passing as they would when passing other motor vehicles, a minimum of 1.5 metres.
and i think the revinue from road tax and fuel duty fund a lot more than what,s spent on the roads
No, it doesn't. All tax goes into the central pot, and is doled out from there as the taxman sees fit. 'Road tax' has not existed since 1937 when it was abolished. We pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions depending on the age of the vehicle. No-one in Britain is taxed to use roads or to pay for roads, except on a few toll roads/bridges/tunnels.
secrets in symmetry
22-May-13, 21:13
That argument fails because if a road is not wide enough to pass you are supposed to wait until it is wide enough to pass. When passing cyclists the Highway Code states that drivers must give as much space when passing as they would when passing other motor vehicles, a minimum of 1.5 metres.I was referring to a road that's wide enough to pass two bikes riding in single file without having to move over to the other side of the road, but not wide enough to pass two bikes riding two abreast without venturing over to the other side.
No, it doesn't. All tax goes into the central pot, and is doled out from there as the taxman sees fit. 'Road tax' has not existed since 1937 when it was abolished. We pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on engine size or CO2 emissions depending on the age of the vehicle. No-one in Britain is taxed to use roads or to pay for roads, except on a few toll roads/bridges/tunnels.
Your splitting hairs now. regardless of where the cash is spent , the treasury make s a lot more from VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY , AND FUEL DUTY THAT WHATS SPENT ON ROADS. ..
George Brims
22-May-13, 23:46
Your splitting hairs now. regardless of where the cash is spent , the treasury make s a lot more from VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY , AND FUEL DUTY THAT WHATS SPENT ON ROADS. ..
Maybe, but what has that got to do with the present discussion?
I used to cycle a lot before fleeing the country. I'm talking 3500+ miles per year, almost 5,000 one year. In all that time I only hit one pedestrian, and she darted out from between two parked cars, looking away from me, and all of ten feet from a pedestrian crossing - that other people were safely crossing at the time. I was also hit myself - mostly elbow to wing mirror by people who thought 1.5 metres clearance didn't apply to them - about 6 times. And twice people deliberately pushed me off the road - the passenger's hand in the small of my back. Both times they lived to regret that. Never try to outrun a bike in busy traffic. If we don't catch you at the next light we'll get you at the one after that. And definitely never drive drunk, let your mate shove a cyclist, then stop at the next pub for a top-up. That's the way to lose your licence for a long time (third offence!).
secrets in symmetry
23-May-13, 01:20
I know a guy in central La-la Land who cycles everywhere. He has a foldy-up Brompton bike (the one with the small wheels). I thought LA would cure him of cycling, but he's become a bit of a legend. :cool:
Maybe, but what has that got to do with the present discussion?
Mr Brims .
the present discussion got catapulted into the fact that cyclists do not pay what i call road tax. therefore i feel that cyclists have less priority on roads (although they have every right to be there). i feel that while their out there on the highways they should show the same consideration that motorists show them and ride single file.
the present discussion got catapulted into the fact that cyclists do not pay what i call road tax. therefore i feel that cyclists have less priority on roads
You are wrong. All road users have equal priority on Britain's roads.
This is what happens when people think like you:
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/i-knocked-a-cyclist-off-his-bike-i-have-right-of-way-he-doesnt-even-pay-road-tax/
Your splitting hairs now. regardless of where the cash is spent , the treasury make s a lot more from VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY , AND FUEL DUTY THAT WHATS SPENT ON ROADS. ..
You're wrong. Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT and every other tax that goes into the exchequer. 83% of cyclists also own cars and are drivers, it isn't an either/or choice, you can be both. By the way, the public highway includes pavements and paths either side of roads too, not just the road.
Vehicle Excise Duty confers no right of anyone to use roads over and above anyone else. There are hundreds of thousands of cars on the roads today that are VED exempt and pay £0.00 VED, do they have less rights on the roads than people who pay VED?
The simple fact is VED is entirely avoidable, buy a very low-emission, or electric car and you'll pay £0.00 VED.
VED is a lifestyle tax, the same as tobacco duty and alcohol duty. Don't want to pay it? Then you don't have to, get a more efficient vehicle.
i dont mind paying ved duty on my car. it s actually in a very high band. my argument really is inconsiderate cyclists riding two and three abreast needlessy. (i am a cyclist my own self).. .......... i guess i am a petrol head and even if the gvnt GAVE me an electric car for free i would nt be interested in it. ,, basically what your saying is that thing i pay for on my windscreen ?? i have already paid for in council tax , income tax etc. well dont that just not surprise me one little bit . screwed again .
i dont mind paying ved duty on my car. it s actually in a very high band. my argument really is inconsiderate cyclists riding two and three abreast needlessy. (i am a cyclist my own self).. .......... i guess i am a petrol head and even if the gvnt GAVE me an electric car for free i would nt be interested in it. ,, basically what your saying is that thing i pay for on my windscreen ?? i have already paid for in council tax , income tax etc. well dont that just not surprise me one little bit . screwed again .
No, you haven't "already paid for in council tax , income tax etc." because VED is not a payment for using roads, it's a payment to pollute.
No, you haven't "already paid for in council tax , income tax etc." because VED is not a payment for using roads, it's a payment to pollute.
ok i get the point. so even when my vehicle is parked up and not polluting im screwed . sound s just about right . yep.
and my neighbour who do,snt drive do,s nt own a vehicle is also screwed cos he s paying council tax.
ok i get the point. so even when my vehicle is parked up and not polluting im screwed . sound s just about right . yep.
and my neighbour who do,snt drive do,s nt own a vehicle is also screwed cos he s paying council tax.
Your neighbour still uses the public highway though, even if he only walks. The 'public highway' includes pavements, footpaths, cycle paths, bridle paths etc. All paid for from council tax, income tax etc.
As I said, if you don't like paying VED you don't have to. You could get a low emission car and pay £0.00 VED.
Your neighbour still uses the public highway though, even if he only walks. The 'public highway' includes pavements, footpaths, cycle paths, bridle paths etc. All paid for from council tax, income tax etc.
As I said, if you don't like paying VED you don't have to. You could get a low emission car and pay £0.00 VED.
Flynn is absolutely correct.
I have no problem if they wish the cyclist to take part in the VED scheme as a bicycle is a zero emissions vehicle it would be tax exempt under current UK law.
Regarding the charges on dangerous cycling, just because you are on a bike does not make you exempt from the laws of the land, should you cause the death of a person through your own fault whilst cycling then you would (or should) be charged under normal criminal law like manslaughter (or whatever it is called).
Re the insurance thing, if you have a home insurance policy chances are you are covered through that for third party damages whilst cycling, however if you are not insured you are still liable for any third party damage you may cause whilst out and about.
Re cycling two abreast, I ususlly cycle solo but there is an argument that you are safer two abreast as it stops the idiots nipping by close to you and forces them to pass properly using the other carrigeway.
Cyclist take some amount of abuse from the motorist in general, luckily I have thick skin and a pretty good neanderthal vocabulary at my disposal also, not to mention the universal worldwide sign language. Its amazing how many back down when confronted though.
You're wrong. Roads are paid for through council tax, income tax, VAT and every other tax that goes into the exchequer. 83% of cyclists also own cars and are drivers, it isn't an either/or choice, you can be both. By the way, the public highway includes pavements and paths either side of roads too, not just the road.
Vehicle Excise Duty confers no right of anyone to use roads over and above anyone else. There are hundreds of thousands of cars on the roads today that are VED exempt and pay £0.00 VED, do they have less rights on the roads than people who pay VED?
The simple fact is VED is entirely avoidable, buy a very low-emission, or electric car and you'll pay £0.00 VED.
VED is a lifestyle tax, the same as tobacco duty and alcohol duty. Don't want to pay it? Then you don't have to, get a more efficient vehicle.
So spend my own money, about £25.000, on a dismal electric or low immission vehicle to save £400 a year on road tax. I think your clutch is slippin' .
I've a better idea, buy a £400 car every 2 years for the next 10 years. the ultimate in re-cycling.
Or if you really don't want to pay road tax, buy a pre-1971 classic. Will be heaps more fun and probably worth more when you sell than when you buy it.
Sorry, that had nothing to do with cyclists did it? I think live and let live, all road warriors should stick together. Not literally of course. :eek:
So spend my own money, about £25.000, on a dismal electric or low immission vehicle to save £400 a year on road tax. I think your clutch is slippin' .
I've a better idea, buy a £400 car every 2 years for the next 10 years. the ultimate in re-cycling.
Or if you really don't want to pay road tax, buy a pre-1971 classic. Will be heaps more fun and probably worth more when you sell than when you buy it.
Sorry, that had nothing to do with cyclists did it? I think live and let live, all road warriors should stick together. Not literally of course. :eek:
The flaw in your scenario if we all did it would be no car industry.
The flaw in your scenario if we all did it would be no car industry.
Good :Razz
So spend my own money, about £25.000, on a dismal electric or low immission vehicle to save £400 a year on road tax. I think your clutch is slippin' .
I've a better idea, buy a £400 car every 2 years for the next 10 years. the ultimate in re-cycling.
Or if you really don't want to pay road tax, buy a pre-1971 classic. Will be heaps more fun and probably worth more when you sell than when you buy it.
Sorry, that had nothing to do with cyclists did it? I think live and let live, all road warriors should stick together. Not literally of course. :eek:
I don't pay road tax, I pay Vehicle Excise Duty, this is because I don't live in 1935.
Your neighbour still uses the public highway though, even if he only walks. The 'public highway' includes pavements, footpaths, cycle paths, bridle paths etc. All paid for from council tax, income tax etc
As I said, if you don't like paying VED you don't have to. You could get a low emission car and pay £0.00 VED.
Why would i want a useless low emission city vehicle or worse still an electric vehicle. now these electric cars get charged up on an electrical point. how is electricty generated.????? unsightly wind turbines or coal fired generating stations,how environmental friendly can that be. and if one wanted to travel more 60 miles in one day would nt one have park up at a charging point for 5 or 6 hour s , thats just bloody brilliant ,and night time driving would greatly reduce that distance . not forgetting nuclear powered stations that cost endless £millions to clean up and leave future generations with a terrible legacy .
and leave future generations with a terrible legacy .
oh the irony.
I don't pay road tax, I pay Vehicle Excise Duty, this is because I don't live in 1935.
Another erse
Why would i want a useless low emission city vehicle or worse still an electric vehicle. now these electric cars get charged up on an electrical point. how is electricty generated.????? unsightly wind turbines or coal fired generating stations,how environmental friendly can that be. and if one wanted to travel more 60 miles in one day would nt one have park up at a charging point for 5 or 6 hour s , thats just bloody brilliant ,and night time driving would greatly reduce that distance . not forgetting nuclear powered stations that cost endless £millions to clean up and leave future generations with a terrible legacy .
You're out of date. I suggest you read Robert Llewellyn's* blog. He's been using a Nissan Leaf fully electric car for over a year. Here's his blog:
http://llewblog.squarespace.com/electric-cars/
Electric cars are advancing faster than internal combustion cars now. There's even a formula E racing league for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3qS12idt9s
*He of Red Dwarf Kryten fame.
Big f...ing deal , the leaf can go for 90 miles . just dont turn on the a/c or radio or lights and keep the speed to 55 on motorways. .
then get a tow all the way to stoud?? for a top up. quit dreaming man it ll be maybe another 20 years before battery power , in fact i reckon it ll be hydrogen powered cars that will be good enough to excell petrol/diesel . and when the leaf s battery s wear out another £400-£500. every three years. even clarkson reckoned it s crap.
thats a city car end of. i and most folk going from one place to another drive the leaf s max mileage in an hour n a half.
im happy paying £400 yearly for a safe quality good looking vehicle .
You're out of date. I suggest you read Robert Llewellyn's* blog. He's been using a Nissan Leaf fully electric car for over a year. Here's his blog:http://llewblog.squarespace.com/electric-cars/Electric cars are advancing faster than internal combustion cars now. There's even a formula E racing league for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3qS12idt9s*He of Red Dwarf Kryten fame.Just because there is a racing class for electric vehicles doesn't make them any good.
Big f...ing deal , the leaf can go for 90 miles . just dont turn on the a/c or radio or lights and keep the speed to 55 on motorways. .
then get a tow all the way to stoud?? for a top up. quit dreaming man it ll be maybe another 20 years before battery power , in fact i reckon it ll be hydrogen powered cars that will be good enough to excell petrol/diesel . and when the leaf s battery s wear out another £400-£500. every three years. even clarkson reckoned it s crap.
thats a city car end of. i and most folk going from one place to another drive the leaf s max mileage in an hour n a half.
im happy paying £400 yearly for a safe quality good looking vehicle .
If you believe the crap Clarkson comes out with then there's no hope for you.
If you believe the crap Clarkson comes out with then there's no hope for you.The poor range and time taken to refuel with electric cars cannot be disputed.Also the range fluctuates greatly due to atmospheric conditions
The poor range and time taken to refuel with electric cars cannot be disputed.Also the range fluctuates greatly due to atmospheric conditions
Seriously. Read Robert Llewellyn's blog. He dispels all of your claims.
Seriously. Read Robert Llewellyn's blog. He dispels all of your claims.I read it and he didn't.I expect a vehicle to do a minimum of 400 miles between refuels.
I read it and he didn't.I expect a vehicle to do a minimum of 400 miles between refuels.
Do you travel 400 miles every day, 365 days a year?
No................
Then why do you need a vehicle that will do that every day? Use an electric car as a daily vehicle and save yourself a fortune.
No................
Mr Flynn wishes to prove, by pontificating debate, that you are wrong to expect 400 miles from a tankful!
Mr Flynn wishes to prove, by pontificating debate, that you are wrong to expect 400 miles from a tankful!
Speak for yourself. Do not put words in my mouth.
Then why do you need a vehicle that will do that every day? Use an electric car as a daily vehicle and save yourself a fortune.Really, please quantify for me.I drive 200 or so miles twice a week then at my destination my vehicle does not move until I drive home again.I cannot wait to charge up every 80 miles or so as time is against me.How can I make any saving there?
Mr Flynn wishes to prove, by pontificating debate, that you are wrong to expect 400 miles from a tankful!I actually consider 400 miles to be a poor range.600 is a good range.
Really, please quantify for me.I drive 200 or so miles twice a week then at my destination my vehicle does not move until I drive home again.I cannot wait to charge up every 80 miles or so as time is against me.How can I make any saving there?
So you never use your car for anything except those two, 200mile journeys?
I actually consider 400 miles to be a poor range.600 is a good range.
Pointless. Easier to use a train.
So you never use your car for anything except those two, 200mile journeys?The odd job here and there at the weekend also.
Pointless. Easier to use a train.You can tell you're not a caithnesian.
Anyway where is this great electric car money saving plan
Last time I bought a new car with my own money was in 1990. Lost an absolute fortune in 18 months, never again.
And here is the surprise, despite all the frankly, barking technology on modern cars, they are no more economical than they were then.
Stands back and waits for someone to say they get 100MPG from their ridiculouse microscopic city car (which they don't).
I actually consider 400 miles to be a poor range.600 is a good range.
Well that's 50% worse!
Well that's 50% worse!Is it?.......
Is it?.......
Helll yeah! Get into a Toyota Priapus and wind it up every 50 miles. It's much better- almost as efficient as Flynn's favourite train journey from Thurso.
George Brims
28-May-13, 19:46
I read it and he didn't.I expect a vehicle to do a minimum of 400 miles between refuels.
You won't like my Camry then...:~(
I have three colleagues using Nissan Leafs right now. All of them are evangelizing hard to get the rest of us to join in. I get some of their arguments, but my commute is 40 miles each way so if I don't recharge while at work I could run out on the way home. There is a huge tax incentive here right now but I don't know how long that will last. Anyway if I go electric ti will be a Tesla Roadster for me, not the ugly little leaf!
I'm waiting with bated breath for this money saving motoring plan of flynn's.
secrets in symmetry
31-May-13, 23:27
I witnessed two cases of dangerous cycling yesterday.
One cyclist tried to enter a gap narrower than his bicycle. One changed lanes in front of me when there was no space to do so. This is worrying.
I witnessed two cases of dangerous cycling yesterday.
One cyclist tried to enter a gap narrower than his bicycle. One changed lanes in front of me when there was no space to do so. This is worrying.
I witness countless episodes of dangerous driving on a daily basis.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jun-13, 15:52
I witness countless episodes of dangerous driving on a daily basis.I should have been more precise. The two cyclists were a danger to themselves.
I witness countless episodes of dangerous driving on a daily basis.
Does that mean you're the winner?
Does that mean you're the winner?I guess it doesWoohoo
I witnessed two cases of dangerous cycling yesterday.
One cyclist tried to enter a gap narrower than his bicycle. One changed lanes in front of me when there was no space to do so. This is worrying.
The first was silly, the second could have been unavoidable because those in cars were not giving the cyclist the same space and respect they give to other cars.
I should have been more precise. The two cyclists were a danger to themselves.And bad motorists are a danger to themselves and anyone around them
secrets in symmetry
03-Jun-13, 23:18
The first was silly, the second could have been unavoidable because those in cars were not giving the cyclist the same space and respect they give to other cars.The cyclist in the second case signalled, looked around, and pulled out into the lane right in front of me, all in one continuous motion. If I hadn't taken action by stamping on the brakes he would have been squashed flat.
There was no other car in sight....
I've done a search. There is no mention of kittens anywhere in this thread, you terrible terrible scallywags.
The cyclist in the second case signalled, looked around, and pulled out into the lane right in front of me, all in one continuous motion. If I hadn't taken action by stamping on the brakes he would have been squashed flat.
There was no other car in sight....
So a vehicle in front of you indicated their intention to move out, and you did nothing to slow your speed until the last moment? You also approached a vulnerable road user without considering they might need to move to the right. If you see a cyclist ahead always assume they may swerve or move into your lane and approach them accordingly.
So a vehicle in front of you indicated their intention to move out, and you did nothing to slow your speed until the last moment? You also approached a vulnerable road user without considering they might need to move to the right. If you see a cyclist ahead always assume they may swerve or move into your lane and approach them accordingly.
Or stop the car, walk to the nearest pub and stay there.
secrets in symmetry
04-Jun-13, 23:17
So a vehicle in front of you indicated their intention to move out, and you did nothing to slow your speed until the last moment?No. As I said previously, the cyclist signalled, looked around, and pulled out into the lane right in front of me, all in one continuous motion. He did this very quickly, just as I was about to pass him at little more than 20 miles per hour. There was no traffic behind me and none ahead. It was a very foolish move on his part. He was lucky that I am used to cyclists.
You also approached a vulnerable road user without considering they might need to move to the right.No.
If you see a cyclist ahead always assume they may swerve or move into your lane and approach them accordingly.Oh, I do indeed - because I know how a significant number of cyclists ride on the roads.
secrets in symmetry
04-Jun-13, 23:45
I get some of their arguments, but my commute is 40 miles each wayYou drive 40 miles to and from work every day? Does that not drive you crazy?
George Brims
05-Jun-13, 01:24
You drive 40 miles to and from work every day? Does that not drive you crazy?
It did. Years ago!
Actually there are good and bad things about it.
For a start I carpool, so I only drive every second week - nice nap or catch up on book reading in the passenger side - Good.
Carpool with workaholic boss who often wants to talk about work the whole way - Bad.
Greatly reduced parking fees at work to encourage carpooling - Good.
They make us pay to park at work! - Bad.
Carpool lane on the 405 South - Good.
No carpool lane on the 101 or the 405 North - Bad
They're spending a billion dollars adding the carpool lane to the 405 North - Good.
A billion dollars? And 5 years of construction delays? - Bonkers.
It did. Years ago!
A billion dollars? And 5 years of construction delays? - Bonkers.
Mindless. The money would be better spent on public transport.
secrets in symmetry
05-Jun-13, 23:56
It did. Years ago!
Actually there are good and bad things about it.
For a start I carpool, so I only drive every second week - nice nap or catch up on book reading in the passenger side - Good.
Carpool with workaholic boss who often wants to talk about work the whole way - Bad.
Greatly reduced parking fees at work to encourage carpooling - Good.
They make us pay to park at work! - Bad.
Carpool lane on the 405 South - Good.
No carpool lane on the 101 or the 405 North - Bad
They're spending a billion dollars adding the carpool lane to the 405 North - Good.
A billion dollars? And 5 years of construction delays? - Bonkers.Driving every other week must make it tolerable....
Is the new carpool lane on 405 an additional lane? I would guess it is because it surely wouldn't cost a billion dollars to convert existing lanes to carpool lanes. I can see why they're doing it though - 405 should have been upgraded years ago, and taking 101 through downtown can be one of the worst freeway journeys in the civilised world.
I see idiots using the roads (& pavements) every day, dangers to themselves and others. If you want to try and chalk up cyclist, bikers, car drivers or HGV drivers I would guess the same proportion of each will fall into the Wristwatch category. As fer leccy cars, when I can get one that charges for less than £40 per month, do at least 3 hours between charges (guaranteed), preferably 550 miles on a charge and move a family of 4 comfortably for £2000 or less I'm in.
I seen a cracker this morning, driving along minding my own business when a car pulls alongside, I glance over and I see the driver with her mobile in the left hand and a cup of a hot beverage in the right.
George Brims
06-Jun-13, 17:46
I seen a cracker this morning, driving along minding my own business when a car pulls alongside, I glance over and I see the driver with her mobile in the left hand and a cup of a hot beverage in the right.
Oh where to start. In 20+ years of LA freeway driving I see cell phone use all the time (illegal these last several years, mind) but the ones that crack me up (and stress me) are those who can't talk on the phone with just their mouth - they have to use the other hand too. And the makeup appliers - every day. But the two that take the cake were the woman putting on hairspray at 40mph, spray can in one hand, the other *covering her eyes*, and the lady who put on a pair of tights while negotiating the 101 to 405 interchange. It's a wonder I'm still alive with idiots like this around me.
George Brims
06-Jun-13, 17:54
Driving every other week must make it tolerable....
Is the new carpool lane on 405 an additional lane? I would guess it is because it surely wouldn't cost a billion dollars to convert existing lanes to carpool lanes. I can see why they're doing it though - 405 should have been upgraded years ago, and taking 101 through downtown can be one of the worst freeway journeys in the civilised world.
You've just hit my pet hate. They spend godawful amounts of money adding a lane on the right and then, only then, paint the left lane for carpools. When they added the lane on the Southbound side of the 405 not only did our commute get faster because we had that lane, it also got faster on the days when only one of us was going in to work. They took 10% of the traffic out of the other lanes by adding the carpool! Where's the incentive to carpool? If I was in charge people would just get on the freeway
(EVERY freeway) one morning to find the left lane had been marked overnight, and the non-carpoolers had one less lane. However that would probably trigger riots, so it's as well I'm not in charge!
The 405 work is much more extensive, to be fair, than just adding the carpool lane. They have widened it on both sides and it looks like the final layout will have less sharp bends in it and be wider overall, maybe an extra lane both sides.
George Brims
06-Jun-13, 18:01
Mindless. The money would be better spent on public transport.
They're spending money there too but it seems to be horribly expensive and slow. Just this morning they announced work will start next year to extend one of the subways (Purple Line) from just West of Downtown, out through Beverley Hills to Westwood. It's nine miles,with seven new stations. It's planned to start next year and take ELEVEN YEARS! The best new thing they've done is busways, dedicated roads with nothing but express buses on them, which are very popular. Oh and they've just introduced the concept of bus lanes - like we had in Edinburgh when I was in college in the 70s!
However I should point out LA has the second largest public transport network in the US. Look at this and see if you can figure out how to get from A to B! http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/System_Map.pdf
secrets in symmetry
06-Jun-13, 22:17
The 405 work is much more extensive, to be fair, than just adding the carpool lane. They have widened it on both sides and it looks like the final layout will have less sharp bends in it and be wider overall, maybe an extra lane both sides.That sounds great, but maybe not quite a billion dollars worth of great.
Are there any upgrades planned (or in progress) for I5 and 101 through downtown?
secrets in symmetry
06-Jun-13, 22:19
However I should point out LA has the second largest public transport network in the US. Look at this and see if you can figure out how to get from A to B! http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/System_Map.pdfThat map is, like, totally awesome! :cool:
Can you use it as a map, or is it meant to be a mess lol?
George Brims
06-Jun-13, 23:21
That sounds great, but maybe not quite a billion dollars worth of great.
Are there any upgrades planned (or in progress) for I5 and 101 through downtown?
Nothing that I know of. A bit of smoother paving would be a start.
George Brims
06-Jun-13, 23:23
That map is, like, totally awesome! :cool:
Can you use it as a map, or is it meant to be a mess lol?
Well it's been stylized to resemble the classic London Underground so it's not really to scale. Places are roughly right in how they're placed relative to each other.
secrets in symmetry
06-Jun-13, 23:39
Well it's been stylized to resemble the classic London Underground so it's not really to scale. Places are roughly right in how they're placed relative to each other.On a second perusal, it's not as confusing as first impressions suggested, but it's way more complicated than the London Underground Map!
OK, cyclists should not be charged for using the roads..... but should obtain a licence and sit a highway code test and be accountable to the law to travel on main roads like the rest of us. because there are to many of them that don't even know which side of the road to ride on. :eek:
OK, cyclists should not be charged for using the roads..... but should obtain a licence and sit a highway code test and be accountable to the law to travel on main roads like the rest of us. because there are to many of them that don't even know which side of the road to ride on. :eek:I totally agree on that one, I sat my cycling test as a youngster in primary school.Don't know if I can find my liscence though.
What do you class as a main road though?
secrets in symmetry
10-Jun-13, 23:15
I totally agree on that one, I sat my cycling test as a youngster in primary school.Don't know if I can find my liscence though.
What do you class as a main road though?I agree too. Cyclists with no road sense are a danger - both to themselves and to others.
dorothy scott
11-Jun-13, 03:51
Causing death by dangerous CAR DRIVERS YOU MEAN.....
The cyclist in the second case signalled, looked around, and pulled out into the lane right in front of me, all in one continuous motion. If I hadn't taken action by stamping on the brakes he would have been squashed flat.
There was no other car in sight....
No. As I said previously, the cyclist signalled, looked around, and pulled out into the lane right in front of me, all in one continuous motion. He did this very quickly, just as I was about to pass him at little more than 20 miles per hour.
Parrdon me SIS my old bean but there does seem to be a huge inconsistency in your account of the incident. You first claim to have stamped on the brakes to avoid the cyclist after he did a contimuous signal, look manouvre and in the other he did this continuous signal, look manouvre and you were gently gliding past him at little more than 20mph.
Which is it?
secrets in symmetry
11-Jun-13, 23:37
Parrdon me SIS my old bean but there does seem to be a huge inconsistency in your account of the incident. You first claim to have stamped on the brakes to avoid the cyclist after he did a contimuous signal, look manouvre and in the other he did this continuous signal, look manouvre and you were gently gliding past him at little more than 20mph.
Which is it?They're not inconsistent.
I drove past the scene of the incident the following day to double check my estimate of my speed, and on second pass I reckoned it had been about 25mph the previous day, so my initial estimate was a bit low. However, the cyclist wasn't cycling very quickly, and he pulled out so close to me that I had to break hard - despite the fact that I wasn't driving very fast. I wasn't "gently gliding past him", but I was about to....
OK, cyclists should not be charged for using the roads..... but should obtain a licence and sit a highway code test and be accountable to the law to travel on main roads like the rest of us. because there are to many of them that don't even know which side of the road to ride on. :eek:
88% of cyclists also drive. They have already passed driving tests and hold licences. Cyclists are also accountable to the law. Everyone who uses the public highway is accountable to the law.
The mistake you, and other anti-cycle motorists in this thread - are making, is presuming that using a bicycle means the person on it doesn't drive. Cycling and driving are not mutually exclusive. I drive for a living, when I'm not working I prefer to use a bicycle. It's generally quicker, more pleasant, healthier, and vastly cheaper, than driving. When I'm driving often I can barely do more than 20mph, especially on hills, but I don't get any abuse from other drivers. When I'm cycling I get a lot of abuse from drivers.
I think it's a mental issue. Some drivers think "I'm in a car, I'm bigger and more powerful than that bicycle, so I can bully and abuse them out of my way". Funny how those same drivers wouldn't say boo to the 'cyclist' when that cyclist is driving 30 tons of truck.
I think it's a mental issue. Some drivers think "I'm in a car, I'm bigger and more powerful than that bicycle, so I can bully and abuse them out of my way".
Ain't that the hammer on the nail head, big car, small manhoods.
Cyclist take some terrible abuse from the motorist, however you see some dreadful cycling going on out there, you also see some terrible driving.
There are good cyclists and bad cyclists, good pedestrians and bad pedestrians, good motorists and bad motorists.
Thankfully I believe the bad to be in the minority, having said that I normally have a barney with a motor vehicle most times I go out cycling.
i dont think I have ever had a barney with a cyclist when driving, but have had a few with pedestrians.
secrets in symmetry
12-Jun-13, 23:04
88% of cyclists also drive. They have already passed driving tests and hold licences.That figure confuses me - because the fraction of reckless cyclists I encounter on my daily commute to work is far in excess of 12% of the total. Do they get a brain transplant when they climb into the saddle?
Cyclist take some terrible abuse from the motorist, however you see some dreadful cycling going on out there, you also see some terrible driving.
There are good cyclists and bad cyclists, good pedestrians and bad pedestrians, good motorists and bad motorists.
Thankfully I believe the bad to be in the minority, having said that I normally have a barney with a motor vehicle most times I go out cycling.
i dont think I have ever had a barney with a cyclist when driving, but have had a few with pedestrians.
Have you seen Magnatom's YouTube videos? Go to YouTube and search for Magnatom to see them.
That figure confuses me - because the fraction of reckless cyclists I encounter on my daily commute to work is far in excess of 12% of the total. Do they get a brain transplant when they climb into the saddle?
The 12% are children not old enough to hold licences.
Flynn, there are loads of videos online liek that, the car driver was completely out of order.
I flashed my lights....thats a new one on me.
To be fair there are loads of videos highlighting bad cycling also.
I quite fancy one of those camera setups myself. However I managed a good 16 miler in the city last night with no bad words exchanged at all.
FWIW you will probably get an infraction for posting that video, I got one a few months ago for posting a link to a video with bad wordies in it.
FWIW you will probably get an infraction for posting that video, I got one a few months ago for posting a link to a video with bad wordies in it.
Seriously? Wow.
Seriously? Wow.Yup none of that cussing permitted on here.Another bone I have to pick is that I have achieved very little since you posted magnatom's links.It's all too familiar stuff.
George Brims
13-Jun-13, 19:32
FWIW you will probably get an infraction for posting that video, I got one a few months ago for posting a link to a video with bad wordies in it.
This one's a cracker and all the bad wordies are bleeped. Some bits are just constant beeps.
They're not inconsistent.
I drove past the scene of the incident the following day to double check my estimate of my speed, and on second pass I reckoned it had been about 25mph the previous day, so my initial estimate was a bit low. However, the cyclist wasn't cycling very quickly, and he pulled out so close to me that I had to break hard - despite the fact that I wasn't driving very fast. I wasn't "gently gliding past him", but I was about to....
the thing is that one should drive thinking ahead of what the fool ahead of or coming towards you is going to do.
in a perfect world everyone would be properly obeying the rules, but we dont live in a perfect world , do we. such is life sadly.
Driving instructors should have an option to tick a box; This person is too stupid/ignorant/cocky to ever be issued with a licence. NEXT
secrets in symmetry
13-Jun-13, 23:31
The 12% are children not old enough to hold licences.Indeed. So why do so many of the other 88% seem to think they're invincible when they get out of their cars and on to their bicycles?
secrets in symmetry
13-Jun-13, 23:35
Have you seen Magnatom's YouTube videos? Go to YouTube and search for Magnatom to see them.Now there's a marriage made in Hell - aggressive cyclist seduces aggressive drivers, they shout and swear at each other for a short period of time, they separate, and no lessons have been learned on either side.
It rarely happens now I remember about 10 years ago driving home from Dounreay two supercilious idiots cycling two abreast at most busiest dangerous time to be on a bicycle in Caithness! These individuals actually thought it was clever cycling to two abreast in dangerous Dounreay rush hour traffic, they even caused minor accidents with this stupidity, on many occasions these cyclists were reported to Northern Constabulary and Dounreay UKAEA police but nothing was done about it.
It rarely happens now I remember about 10 years ago driving home from Dounreay two supercilious idiots cycling two abreast at most busiest dangerous time to be on a bicycle in Caithness! These individuals actually thought it was clever cycling to two abreast in dangerous Dounreay rush hour traffic, they even caused minor accidents with this stupidity, on many occasions these cyclists were reported to Northern Constabulary and Dounreay UKAEA police but nothing was done about it.
my thought s entirely .... two abreast rediculous
my thought s entirely .... two abreast rediculous
Two abreast is perfectly legal and takes up no more road space than a car. Just because you are in a car does not make your journey any more important than anyone else's.
It rarely happens now I remember about 10 years ago driving home from Dounreay two supercilious idiots cycling two abreast at most busiest dangerous time to be on a bicycle in Caithness! These individuals actually thought it was clever cycling to two abreast in dangerous Dounreay rush hour traffic, they even caused minor accidents with this stupidity, on many occasions these cyclists were reported to Northern Constabulary and Dounreay UKAEA police but nothing was done about it.
What could the Police do about it?
How did they cause accidents?
It rarely happens now I remember about 10 years ago driving home from Dounreay two supercilious idiots cycling two abreast at most busiest dangerous time to be on a bicycle in Caithness! These individuals actually thought it was clever cycling to two abreast in dangerous Dounreay rush hour traffic, they even caused minor accidents with this stupidity, on many occasions these cyclists were reported to Northern Constabulary and Dounreay UKAEA police but nothing was done about it.Did the police not inform the reporters that cycling two abreast is a great (legal) tactic to keep the cyclists safe on the road.The amount of times I M passed by motorists who leave a couple of feet gap is unreal, would you overtake a car with a gap so close?Most drivers don't even realise that they have put you in danger doing so.Overtaking should be carried out in the opposite carriageway!
Now there's a marriage made in Hell - aggressive cyclist seduces aggressive drivers, they shout and swear at each other for a short period of time, they separate, and no lessons have been learned on either side.
Or, as we saw in the video, aggressive driver bullies and abuses cyclist and doesn't like it when that cyclist has a go back.
As I said earlier, it's all about people in cars thinking, "I'm bigger than that cyclist so I can bully them out of the way". Thing is when they get out of their tin box they find themselves face to face with extremely fit people who could easily take them on, so then they start to shout and swear instead and back off.
Or, as we saw in the video, aggressive driver bullies and abuses cyclist and doesn't like it when that cyclist has a go back.
As I said earlier, it's all about people in cars thinking, "I'm bigger than that cyclist so I can bully them out of the way". Thing is when they get out of their tin box they find themselves face to face with extremely fit people who could easily take them on, so then they start to shout and swear instead and back off.
having that view would sure get you into trouble bud, i have two sons that drive and they are both body builders and both are over six foot four inches. love to see your face if you confronted either of them ....
Two abreast is perfectly legal and takes up no more road space than a car. Just because you are in a car does not make your journey any more important than anyone else's.
I know it's fully legal to cycle two abreast like it say's in the highway code only cycle two abreast when the road and traffic conditions are fit to do so, there's time and place to cycle two abreast like early on a Sunday Morning with hardly and traffic on the road not in rush hour traffic endangering your own life and lifes of other road users.
having that view would sure get you into trouble bud, i have two sons that drive and they are both body builders and both are over six foot four inches. love to see your face if you confronted either of them ....
Ultimately, cars can carry bigger people and more of them than bicycles can. You can also get more and bigger guns stowed in a car. And swords. I nearly forgot swords.
I know it's fully legal to cycle two abreast like it say's in the highway code only cycle two abreast when the road and traffic conditions are fit to do so, there's time and place to cycle two abreast like early on a Sunday Morning with hardly and traffic on the road not in rush hour traffic endangering your own life and lifes of other road users.
Cyclists will cycle two abreast, or in primary position, in order to protect themselves from impatient motorists who would other wise attempt to pass dangerously close to the cyclist. If you cannot pass a cyclist and leave as much space as a car width, then you should not pass until you can.
Ultimately, cars can carry bigger people and more of them than bicycles can. You can also get more and bigger guns stowed in a car. And swords. I nearly forgot swords.
Only because people who drive everywhere tend to be unfit, lardy, sweaty mooks.
having that view would sure get you into trouble bud, i have two sons that drive and they are both body builders and both are over six foot four inches. love to see your face if you confronted either of them ....
Thank you for confirming my point. People in cars think they have the right to bully and harass people on foot or cycle.
having that view would sure get you into trouble bud, i have two sons that drive and they are both body builders and both are over six foot four inches. love to see your face if you confronted either of them ....Would turn into a messy situation, fake tan everywhere
Only because people who drive everywhere tend to be unfit, lardy, sweaty mooks.
Car drivers can become fitter than cyclists, simply by colliding their car with the cyclist.
Whatever a "mook" is. Is it something down with you, in Birmingham?
Car drivers can become fitter than cyclists, simply by colliding their car with the cyclist.
And there is the proof of my point that many - usually quite bad - drivers think it is ok to bully, and assault, vulnerable road users.
And there is the proof of my point that many - usually quite bad - drivers think it is ok to bully, and assault, vulnerable road users.
Sooner the lycra-lovers learn who's got the whip hand, the safer they'll be.
Thank you for confirming my point. People in cars think they have the right to bully and harass people on foot or cycle.
sorry buddy. your words.
(As I said earlier,) ................. Thing is when they get out of their tin box they find themselves face to face with extremely fit people who could easily take them on, so then they start to shout and swear instead and back off. .
what i am saying whether your a cyclist or a motorist , given what you just said. not everyone would back off . and with your attitude one could get hurt . very hurt . very hurt indeed .
lots of motorists are cyclists and lots of motorists are extremely fit?... any way as my oldest boy says.when faced with it the only way to combat power is to apply a greater power .
In fairness Flynn did not suggest violence, he stated that in many cases the motorist will back off when confronted.A person can be confronted verbally as we'll as physically.
most cases of verbal confrontation s lead to physical .. that s where thing s kick off.
There is no need to
your absolutely right , there is no need to,... but there are lots of folks that get ratty on the road. road rage is increasing all the time, there has even been murder committied through confrontation on the road, all im trying to say is a little common sense admitting when wrong, an apoligy where needed instead of , im bigger n stronger n you... im trying to say , there s always someone bigger and sooner or later with flynns attitude , one will meet that person.
your absolutely right , there is no need to,... but there are lots of folks that get ratty on the road. road rage is increasing all the time, there has even been murder committied through confrontation on the road, all im trying to say is a little common sense admitting when wrong, an apoligy where needed instead of , im bigger n stronger n you... im trying to say , there s always someone bigger and sooner or later with flynns attitude , one will meet that person.You were the one suggesting that your sons would react badly if confronted.
you were the one suggesting that your sons would react badly if confronted.
i was using my son s stature ,s as an example of what a person with flynns attitude would / could expect .
I dont know how they would react in that situation, im just speculating what might happen.
A cyclist may become angry if you endanger their life. If you find cyclists are generally angry people, then you are a bad driver. I drive for a living, I've never yet met an angry cyclist.
i drove for a living as well, and on my travels i have seen angry driver s ,angry pedestrians ,angry motor cyclists ,AND angry cyclists.
(none of which by the way were angry at me). if you drive or cycle far enough and long enough you will encounter them all
most cases of verbal confrontation s lead to physical .. that s where thing s kick off.
So when a driver endangers and abuses a cyclist, you think the cyclist should just accept it and say nothing?
As I said earlier it is all about perception of size. No car drivers give me any abuse for driving slowly when I'm in the Scania, but when I'm on a bicycle at a similar slow speed many drivers hurl abuse.
It's cowardice on the part of those drivers. They're all big and brave when it's someone on a bicycle, not so brave when it's 30 odd tons of truck.
ive driven from a tranny parcel van to a scammell hauling 100 ton plus and i have never intimidated anyone on the roads .
my opinion is that size dont count much ,(well maybe elsewhere) ;).. and i never got abuse on a bicycle or a m/cycle .. mainly because i obey the road rules .... . anyway this thread to me has gone it s distance . we all have our opinions .
secrets in symmetry
16-Jun-13, 21:13
Or, as we saw in the video, aggressive driver bullies and abuses cyclist and doesn't like it when that cyclist has a go back.
As I said earlier, it's all about people in cars thinking, "I'm bigger than that cyclist so I can bully them out of the way". Thing is when they get out of their tin box they find themselves face to face with extremely fit people who could easily take them on, so then they start to shout and swear instead and back off.I don't know which video you linked to, but your cyclist friend is very aggressive in some of them, and his language is appalling. I'm surprised he is regarded so highly by so many cyclists.
I also have experience with aggressive truck drivers. some are happy to swear at pedestrians, but they won't dare get out of their tin boxes to discuss their improprieties in a calm civilised manner.
I don't know which video you linked to, but your cyclist friend is very aggressive in some of them, and his language is appalling. I'm surprised he is regarded so highly by so many cyclists.
Go out cycling. When someone in a car nearly kills you, or hurls abuse at you for no reason other than your choice of transport, see how calm and polite you are.
secrets in symmetry
16-Jun-13, 23:14
Go out cycling. When someone in a car nearly kills you, or hurls abuse at you for no reason other than your choice of transport, see how calm and polite you are.I cycle frequently. I am a safe, sensible cyclist, and I don't shout abuse at car drivers. They don't annoy me and I don't annoy them. Likewise, car drivers don't shout abuse at me.
George Brims
18-Jun-13, 00:18
A cyclist may become angry if you endanger their life. If you find cyclists are generally angry people, then you are a bad driver. I drive for a living, I've never yet met an angry cyclist.
I've been an angry cyclist many a time but never encountered one driving. I must be doing something right.
http://imaginate.redbull.com/videos/riding_film
Some impressive stunts in that clip.
secrets in symmetry
19-Jun-13, 23:10
Cyclists will cycle two abreast, or in primary position, in order to protect themselves from impatient motorists who would other wise attempt to pass dangerously close to the cyclist. If you cannot pass a cyclist and leave as much space as a car width, then you should not pass until you can.I don't believe that riding two abreast is safer. It infuriates most motorists I know because they are harder to pass than two cyclists in single file.
You can make claims about defensive cycling, and that motorists should appreciate the fragile position of cyclists, but riding two abreast is regarded as aggressive cycling in the mind of many people. You may claim that this should not be the case, and that motorists should be educated, but I think you're on a hiding to nothing on that front.
I don't believe that riding two abreast is safer. It infuriates most motorists I know because they are harder to pass than two cyclists in single file.You can make claims about defensive cycling, and that motorists should appreciate the fragile position of cyclists, but riding two abreast is regarded as aggressive cycling in the mind of many people. You may claim that this should not be the case, and that motorists should be educated, but I think you're on a hiding to nothing on that front.Bearing in mind that you should be using the opposite carriageway to overtake, how does two abreast make overtaking and more hazardous than cycling in file?
I don't believe that riding two abreast is safer. It infuriates most motorists I know because they are harder to pass than two cyclists in single file.
You can make claims about defensive cycling, and that motorists should appreciate the fragile position of cyclists, but riding two abreast is regarded as aggressive cycling in the mind of many people. You may claim that this should not be the case, and that motorists should be educated, but I think you're on a hiding to nothing on that front.
So you're blaming cyclists for some motorists being stupid?
So did anyone take part in the world naked bike ride to raise awareness about ignorant drivers?I am afraid I kept my breeks on.
So did anyone take part in the world naked bike ride to raise awareness about ignorant drivers?I am afraid I kept my breeks on.
Nah, I could of gone naked but I stayed on the trunks road.
secrets in symmetry
20-Jun-13, 23:17
So you're blaming cyclists for some motorists being stupid?No, and here's the point....
Just because some cyclists claim that cycling two abreast is safer (and a defensive position) doesn't mean they're right. In my opinion, they are wrong. They are the aggressors because they gratuitously occupy extra space on the road. Some of them claim that they take up no more room than a car. Perhaps, but they travel much more slowly than a car in many (perhaps most) situations, which destroys the utility of the analogy.
No, and here's the point....
Just because some cyclists claim that cycling two abreast is safer (and a defensive position) doesn't mean they're right. In my opinion, they are wrong. They are the aggressors because they gratuitously occupy extra space on the road. Some of them claim that they take up no more room than a car. Perhaps, but they travel much more slowly than a car in many (perhaps most) situations, which destroys the utility of the analogy.
However your opinion does not reflect UK law, a cyclist may travel slower than a car but do they travel any slower than a tractor or horse?
Also does cyclists riding two abreast take up any more space than a cyclist adopting prime positioning which is encouraged by the IAM?
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 00:14
However your opinion does not reflect UK law, a cyclist may travel slower than a car but do they travel any slower than a tractor or horse?
Also does cyclists riding two abreast take up any more space than a cyclist adopting prime positioning which is encouraged by the IAM?A tractor has no possibility of decreasing its width, a pair of cyclists riding two-abreast does.
In my opinion, the IAM is wrong, as are many cycling organisations. "Prime positioning" is aggressive cycling, and it has no place on today's busy roads - unless you're near a junction, or about to do something a motorist may not expect.
overtaking rules from highway code:Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake - a rule often disregarded by the motorist- - aa
use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road - another rule often ignored with a cyclist approaching.
only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car - yup there is another one disregarded
A tractor has no possibility of decreasing its width, a pair of cyclists riding two-abreast does.
In my opinion, the IAM is wrong, as are many cycling organisations. "Prime positioning" is aggressive cycling, and it has no place on today's busy roads - unless you're near a junction, or about to do something a motorist may not expect.
well if you disregard the opinion of the institute of advanced motorists then that is your call.
An extract from a 2010 road cycling website details further:
Last month, we reported that the IAM were advocating a more assertive stance from cyclists and yesterday they made that a bit more formal with the launch of 'How to be a better cyclist' a guide which provides comprehensive advice for safer cycling. It is aimed at current and would-be cyclists of any level of experience. It also champions the idea of cyclists taking up a primary position on the road.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 00:37
Sadly, they are wrong - as one of my best pals would surely tell you if he were here today. He was a staunch supporter of assertive cycling.
Cycling organisations and the IAM are deficient in human behaviour, geometry and kinematics, and they will continue to sacrifice cyclists until they educate themselves.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 00:39
overtaking rules from highway code:Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake - a rule often disregarded by the motorist- - aa
use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road - another rule often ignored with a cyclist approaching.
only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car - yup there is another one disregarded
This discussion concerns dangerous cycling. Criticism of motorists is tangential.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 00:52
Bearing in mind that you should be using the opposite carriageway to overtake, how does two abreast make overtaking and more hazardous than cycling in file?It's geometry, dear boy. Geometry.
And kinematics.
And human behaviour.
No, and here's the point....Just because some cyclists claim that cycling two abreast is safer (and a defensive position) doesn't mean they're right. In my opinion, they are wrong. They are the aggressors because they gratuitously occupy extra space on the road. Some of them claim that they take up no more room than a car. Perhaps, but they travel much more slowly than a car in many (perhaps most) situations, which destroys the utility of the analogy. They are obeying the Highway Code. It's quite simple, treat cyclists the same way you would treat horse riders, and don't blame them for your own impatience.
This discussion concerns dangerous cycling. Criticism of motorists is tangential.Why don't you just ignore the fact then SIS
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 08:33
They are obeying the Highway Code. It's quite simple, treat cyclists the same way you would treat horse riders, and don't blame them for your own impatience.You are missing the point. Cars generally travel a lot faster than cyclists (except in busy city or town-centre streets), and for cyclists to deliberately slow down traffic by riding two-abreast is not defensive. Why are you surprised that this annoys drivers?
Similarly for "prime positioning" - this slows down traffic deliberately, sometimes by more than 20mph in many areas.
It's geometry, dear boy. Geometry.And kinematics.And human behaviour.It has everything to do with human behaviour and nothing to do with geometry or kinematics
You are missing the point. Cars generally travel a lot faster than cyclists (except in busy city or town-centre streets), and for cyclists to deliberately slow down traffic by riding two-abreast is not defensive. Why are you surprised that this annoys drivers?You are missing the point SIS, a car can drive just as we'll at 20 or 25 mph as it can at 60mph.The motorist should not think that just because they are capable of moving faster then another road user the can bully them out of the way.
A 50cc scooter does around 30mph, they position themselves in the centre or the carriageway, a horse is much slower and does so also.
Why should the cyclist not do the same. Prime positioning makes you much more visible.
And stops idiots squeezing past when there is not sufficient room to do so.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 08:40
It has everything to do with human behaviour and nothing to do with geometry or kinematicsYes, it's human behaviour, geometry and kinematics, the former of which cycling organisations have one-sided opinions, and the latter they generally don't understand. I used to belong to a cycling club in which every other member denied that you have a non-zero acceleration when you are not cycling (or driving) in a straight line.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 08:43
You are missing the point SIS, a car can drive just as we'll at 20 or 25 mph as it can at 60mph.The motorist should not think that just because they are capable of moving faster then another road user the can bully them out of the way.I am not missing the point. It is both selfish and dangerous for cyclists to hold up traffic deliberately, based on some assertion that it increases their safety. You are endangering yourself.
Yes, it's human behaviour, geometry and kinematics, the former of which cycling organisations have one-sided opinions, and the latter they generally don't understand. I used to belong to a cycling club in which every other member denied that you have a non-zero acceleration when you are not cycling (or driving) in a straight line.What has the physics of cornering to do with driving and cycling habits?
I am not missing the point. It is both selfish and dangerous for cyclists to hold up traffic deliberately, based on some assertion that it increases their safety. You are endangering yourself.Is is selfish and dangerous to drive you car at 45mph in a national speed limit area then?
The speed limit is a MAXIMUM speed not a minimum or a target.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 08:51
What has the physics of cornering to do with driving and cycling habits?It has to do with the path you take whilst overtaking, and with the forces exerted by the car, the cyclist, and the ground.
Now I need to put foot to pedal and to cycle to work safely.
You are missing the point. Cars generally travel a lot faster than cyclists (except in busy city or town-centre streets), and for cyclists to deliberately slow down traffic by riding two-abreast is not defensive. Why are you surprised that this annoys drivers?Similarly for "prime positioning" - this slows down traffic deliberately, sometimes by more than 20mph in many areas.Cyclists are traffic too. Just because you are in a car that doesn't make your journey any more important than anyone else's. as I said don't blame other road users for your own impatience. Having to slow to safely pass cyclists will add little more than 30 seconds to your journey. So calm down and be a safer driver.
Cyclists are traffic too. Just because you are in a car that doesn't make your journey any more important than anyone else's. as I said don't blame other road users for your own impatience. Having to slow to safely pass cyclists will add little more than 30 seconds to your journey. So calm down and be a safer driver.Aah but its all in human nature, geophysics and the natural alignment of the planets Flynn, nothing can be done about it. So just cycle on the kerb, accept poor driving and move on.
secrets in symmetry
21-Jun-13, 23:44
Cyclists are traffic too. Just because you are in a car that doesn't make your journey any more important than anyone else's. as I said don't blame other road users for your own impatience. Having to slow to safely pass cyclists will add little more than 30 seconds to your journey. So calm down and be a safer driver.Why are you representing cyclists as innocent faultless angels? Can you really not see the other side of the argument, or do you really believe everything you say?
To some extent, I've been playing Devil's Advocate in my recent posts (because I know from experience that not everything in the cyclist's garden smells of roses), but you are presenting cyclists as angels, and motorists as devils. Many cyclists have no road sense, and some are car-hating idiots who cause no end of trouble for cyclists like us. I really don't get what you're trying to achieve with your constant portrayal of motorists as careless eejits.
Why are you representing cyclists as innocent faultless angels? Can you really not see the other side of the argument, or do you really believe everything you say?
To some extent, I've been playing Devil's Advocate in my recent posts (because I know from experience that not everything in the cyclist's garden smells of roses), but you are presenting cyclists as angels, and motorists as devils. Many cyclists have no road sense, and some are car-hating idiots who cause no end of trouble for cyclists like us. I really don't get what you're trying to achieve with your constant portrayal of motorists as careless eejits.
The difference is an impatient cyclist making a mistake is likely only to endanger themselves, an impatient motorist making a mistake is likely to kill someone.
The duty of care is on the person controlling the more dangerous vehicle. That is why people wishing to use motor vehicles - in other words potentially dangerous machinery - in a public place have to attain a licence to say they are competent and safe to do so. Driving is a privilege, it is not a right.
secrets in symmetry
23-Jun-13, 12:58
The difference is an impatient cyclist making a mistake is likely only to endanger themselves, an impatient motorist making a mistake is likely to kill someone.
The duty of care is on the person controlling the more dangerous vehicle. That is why people wishing to use motor vehicles - in other words potentially dangerous machinery - in a public place have to attain a licence to say they are competent and safe to do so. Driving is a privilege, it is not a right.I take a different view. Since cyclists are more vulnerable, we shouldn't ride provocatively. For example we shouldn't ride two abreast. Doing so may not be illegal, but a lot of legal actions are both provocative and dangerous.
I take a different view. Since cyclists are more vulnerable, we shouldn't ride provocatively. For example we shouldn't ride two abreast. Doing so may not be illegal, but a lot of legal actions are both provocative and dangerous.
You should watch this video. You might better understand the reasons cyclists ride in primary position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVnSBsWNowE
secrets in symmetry
26-Jun-13, 23:33
Riding in primary position is fine is some situations (such as close to junctions), but it can also be a statement of aggression. I know some cyclists who do it simply to stop cars overtaking them. I watch them when I cycle to work, I watch them when I drive, and also when I walk. They are making a provocative statement, which is (unsurprisingly) not popular with motorists, and with many fellow cyclists.
The same people sometimes cycle two abreast simply to annoy motorists. Nothing pleases them more than to "inform" "ignorant motorists" that they aren't breaking any laws.
This is why I left my cycle club....
Having said all that, your video illustrates your points rather well. Cycle lanes can be dangerous, especially the ones that were most likely designed by those who've never cycled in traffic in their lives. Where I used to live, there was a major roundabout with a cycle lane around the edge. It was crazy, I saw a near miss every other day on my way to work.
I wish we had a cycling infrastructure like the Netherlands, with dedicated cycle paths, but it would take decades to get there. There are some in Scotland, but very few are in cities.
400 cyclists stopped by the rozzers fer dangerous drivingcyclebiking stuff:
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/SocialTwitterFeed/ED5624DA2EE3596880257B98002C2549
Great news, it's a shame the forces across the rest of the nation didn't follow suit.I wonder how the conviction rate compares to the motorist over the same timeframe?
secrets in symmetry
28-Jun-13, 23:16
I drove to work yesterday. As I was about to turn right off the main road, I spotted one of the leading lights of my former cycling club in front of me. You can spot him a mile away because he has calf muscles like barrels.
To my surprise, he signalled before he turned right. He doesn't usually do this - his argument is that car drivers should anticipate his movements. So far, so good. He duly turned right in front of me, so sharply that not only did he cut the corner, but he nearly hit the kerb on the right hand side of the road! He then turned left twice without signalling. Then he turned right without looking or signalling, cutting the corner so sharply that he again nearly hit the kerb on the right hand side of the road.
He regards himself as a model cyclist and a model citizen. He is one of the most aggressive people I know. He hates all car drivers - because they're aggressive - in his opinion....
What are we sensible cyclists to do about people like him? They destroy our cause before we can make it.
secrets in symmetry
29-Jun-13, 00:12
400 cyclists stopped by the rozzers fer dangerous drivingcyclebiking stuff:
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/SocialTwitterFeed/ED5624DA2EE3596880257B98002C2549Yes, it's important that we cyclists obey the rules before we rant at drivers. We break the law so often that we make drivers look like angels. We must not do that if we want to improve our lot, and if we want to be taken seriously.
I drove to work yesterday. As I was about to turn right off the main road, I spotted one of the leading lights of my former cycling club in front of me. You can spot him a mile away because he has calf muscles like barrels.To my surprise, he signalled before he turned right. He doesn't usually do this - his argument is that car drivers should anticipate his movements. So far, so good. He duly turned right in front of me, so sharply that not only did he cut the corner, but he nearly hit the kerb on the right hand side of the road! He then turned left twice without looking or signalling. Then he turned right without looking or signalling, cutting the corner so sharply that he again nearly hit the kerb on the right hand side of the road.He regards himself as a model cyclist and a model citizen. He is one of the most aggressive people I know. He hates all car drivers - because they're aggressive - in his opinion....What are we sensible cyclists to do about people like him? They destroy our cause before we can make it.You indicate that you know the fella, so report him to the police!
Yes, it's important that we cyclists obey the rules before we rant at drivers. We break the law so often that we make drivers look like angels. We must not do that if we want to improve our lot, and if we want to be taken seriously.Disagree with the law breaking comment in relation to the motorist.
secrets in symmetry
29-Jun-13, 13:38
You indicate that you know the fella, so report him to the police!Without evidence?
Without evidence?You don't need evidence to report him, just your statement as an eye witness.It's no different to reporting a motor vehicle
secrets in symmetry
29-Jun-13, 13:43
Disagree with the law breaking comment in relation to the motorist.Ok, too many cyclists make drivers look like angels.
I forgot to say that a few days ago I saw a cyclist cycling downhill with his hands in his pockets. He had earphones on and was singing along. This was on the same stretch of road that Barrel Calf Muscles turned right without looking or signalling.
secrets in symmetry
29-Jun-13, 13:47
You don't need evidence to report him, just your statement as an eye witness.It's no different to reporting a motor vehicleI suppose so. They might do something if enough people report him.
The problem here is that his actions on that day were stupid and irresponsible rather than illegal. I'll report him next time I see him doing something illegal or being abusive to a car driver. It probably won't be too long before I see that.
I suppose so. They might do something if enough people report him.The problem here is that his actions on that day were stupid and irresponsible rather than illegal. I'll report him next time I see him doing something illegal or being abusive to a car driver. It probably won't be too long before I see that.Your complaint then is based on opinion rather than the constraints of uk law.No point in reporting that as its useless
secrets in symmetry
29-Jun-13, 22:12
Your complaint then is based on opinion rather than the constraints of uk law.No point in reporting that as its uselessIndeed - unless it's illegal to cut the corner so much when turning right that you're close to hitting the kerb on the wrong side of the road.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.