Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    There was an interesting article on the BBC a while back about the gender imbalance in cycling fatalities in london which seemed to suggest that male cyclists tended to have greater disregard for the rules of the road and a lower casualty rate resulting from much more defensive riding.
    The irony is that the BBCs reporting was being sympathetic to crap women riders doing stupid things like riding up along the blind spot of lorries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Implying bikes are free? You can always walk, too.

    Yeah, it probably is more from willful disregard than ignorance, but either way it's bad.

    I remember a study (well, one professor did it for a few days I think) where drivers left more space if he didn't wear a helmet, and also if he wore a long haired wig (so was assumed to be a woman).

    This 'defensive riding' thing, you can say it's justified for your safety but it is slowing drivers down which is going to cause resentment by people who have a journey to complete. If you have to do that, then it's clear the roads can't handle both cars and bikes together. Also the disregard for rules forces drivers to be more careful

    I think it was pushed too early. We simply don't have the infrastructure for cyclists as well as cars (and we need cars more than bikes), and putting them on the same tarmac as boxes of metal that move faster than them and wobble them out of air pressure and fear will throw up accidents.


    I don't think you understood my point. Decent drivers do have to keep an extra look out for cyclists because of the physical nature of bikes as well as the seeming inability to follow the rules of the road. The parked car is stationary, so no problem. The pedestrian can look around (including behind them), stop and change direction quickly without falling over, and due to lower speed it's easier to work out where the 'danger region' is so again, no problem. The difference is that cyclists can and do veer into your path quickly and without warning, putting extra demand on drivers who are then also stuck behind it for even longer due to not being able to overtake for whatever reason. In contrast to cars, where everyone is in the same situation with regards to protection and insurance, cyclists are brave (or stupid) for being on a bike in the road, and motorists end up having to look after them, and not see them as equal road users. Since you didn't like my football team analogy, it's like when that little girl started crying on BGT a while back (might have happened since then but I stopped watching) and got another go - that's clearly not competing on equal footing, but the elder competitors had to cater for her because choking on stage hurt her more than it would hurt them.



    Bikes are intrinsically vulnerable to cars though, no matter how you look at it. There needs to be separation, and whilst it's one or the other, cars are more necessary. Cyclists have told me not to worry because if a cyclist does something stupid it won't be my fault, but I don't want to be involved in someone's death, even if I'm not going to be punished for it.

    You're right about the penalties not doing anything, drivers tend to prefer fines to points too because they can just pay up and hope they don't get caught next time.
    Whilst bikes aren't free a functional example can generally be found used for £20 with no extra costs. I would expect that to get me further before putting more money in than a £20 pair of shoes, shoes not being free either.

    I think that study was in Bath, it certainly rings a bell. Fascinating stuff, I think it was a few years long on what little I remember.

    I find it notable when driving that certain groups of motorists seem to feel I am also holding them up then as well, the type who overtake and shoot off into the distance for you to tuck in behind them at the next junction having used far less fuel and had a much more pleasant journey whilst still averaging the same speed.

    I'm not convinced that segregation is the answer, it probably is if you seek zero risk but I'm not sure anyone here would want to go that far. The cost of a useful segregated system would be too astronomical to consider.

    I did a long touring trip last summer and was amazed at the differing standards of driving with relation to passing cyclists. Car drivers were the usual mixed bunch, drivers of 7.5 tonners were horrendous as were bus drivers, but large and articulated lorries (with a few foreign exceptions) were all driven like absolute gentlemen. So much so infact that I sent an email about it off to one haulage company in particular who I must have seen over 100 times whilst going through their neck of the woods. This would imply I suspect that there is a training issue producing the differing standards.

    Now this to be fair was mainly cycling long distance along A roads, not city stuff where perhaps keeping a good look out etc is arguably harder, but under such circumstances where everything was playing the motorists way with plenty of space, visibility, and not much traffic at all, the fact that such differences in behaviour were still very evident suggests that training might be the key. The cynic might say potential loss of livelihood could also be key with the lorry drivers, but I would be surprised if they were in any different a situation to the bus drivers in that regard.

    On the wobble issue, if you pass as if the cyclist were a car, ie get over into the other lane, the cyclist can wobble and fall flat on his side without you being worried about hitting him. If you are worried about wobble you are passing too close I would say.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    Whilst bikes aren't free a functional example can generally be found used for £20 with no extra costs. I would expect that to get me further before putting more money in than a £20 pair of shoes, shoes not being free either.

    I think that study was in Bath, it certainly rings a bell. Fascinating stuff, I think it was a few years long on what little I remember.

    I find it notable when driving that certain groups of motorists seem to feel I am also holding them up then as well, the type who overtake and shoot off into the distance for you to tuck in behind them at the next junction having used far less fuel and had a much more pleasant journey whilst still averaging the same speed.

    I'm not convinced that segregation is the answer, it probably is if you seek zero risk but I'm not sure anyone here would want to go that far. The cost of a useful segregated system would be too astronomical to consider.

    I did a long touring trip last summer and was amazed at the differing standards of driving with relation to passing cyclists. Car drivers were the usual mixed bunch, drivers of 7.5 tonners were horrendous as were bus drivers, but large and articulated lorries (with a few foreign exceptions) were all driven like absolute gentlemen. So much so infact that I sent an email about it off to one haulage company in particular who I must have seen over 100 times whilst going through their neck of the woods. This would imply I suspect that there is a training issue producing the differing standards.

    Now this to be fair was mainly cycling long distance along A roads, not city stuff where perhaps keeping a good look out etc is arguably harder, but under such circumstances where everything was playing the motorists way with plenty of space, visibility, and not much traffic at all, the fact that such differences in behaviour were still very evident suggests that training might be the key. The cynic might say potential loss of livelihood could also be key with the lorry drivers, but I would be surprised if they were in any different a situation to the bus drivers in that regard.

    On the wobble issue, if you pass as if the cyclist were a car, ie get over into the other lane, the cyclist can wobble and fall flat on his side without you being worried about hitting him. If you are worried about wobble you are passing too close I would say.
    I think it's become clear that my experiences differing from yours (and JumpingFrog's) is likely down to me being in London. I don't doubt that it's possible, and even easy, for cyclists and motorists to share a wide road, but here the roads are narrow, or when they aren't they have rows of parked cars or a bus lane (that cyclists will weave out of to overtake buses) in each direction, plus frequent junctions where people try to 'force' their way into the road to avoid waiting an hour for a gap.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I think it's become clear that my experiences differing from yours (and JumpingFrog's) is likely down to me being in London. I don't doubt that it's possible, and even easy, for cyclists and motorists to share a wide road, but here the roads are narrow, or when they aren't they have rows of parked cars or a bus lane (that cyclists will weave out of to overtake buses) in each direction, plus frequent junctions where people try to 'force' their way into the road to avoid waiting an hour for a gap.
    Ah London, I missed that point.

    Never ridden there, and I'm not sure I fancy it. On paper such a spectacularly high density of cyclists would possibly make it fairly pleasant, along with the low average speeds around the times of day I tend to be commuting. On the other hand, from my limited experiences of London you have the rush factor, where everyone is in some crazed hurry to get somewhere else two seconds sooner whatever the cost. Not that you don't see that elsewhere, but Londoners seem to be particularly inconsiderate.

    London probably has the most to gain as an area by encouraging more cycling, I'm not sure removing cyclists from the roads is at all likely in London even if it happened outside the M25.

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

    That paper is interesting, although I have some doubts as to how objective it may be, and it would be nice to split figures by large cities and other. It certainly makes a compelling argument, if you choose to assume an unbiased account, for cycling being safe enough on the whole.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    Ah London, I missed that point.

    Never ridden there, and I'm not sure I fancy it. On paper such a spectacularly high density of cyclists would possibly make it fairly pleasant, along with the low average speeds around the times of day I tend to be commuting. On the other hand, from my limited experiences of London you have the rush factor, where everyone is in some crazed hurry to get somewhere else two seconds sooner whatever the cost. Not that you don't see that elsewhere, but Londoners seem to be particularly inconsiderate.

    London probably has the most to gain as an area by encouraging more cycling, I'm not sure removing cyclists from the roads is at all likely in London even if it happened outside the M25.

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

    That paper is interesting, although I have some doubts as to how objective it may be, and it would be nice to split figures by large cities and other. It certainly makes a compelling argument, if you choose to assume an unbiased account, for cycling being safe enough on the whole.
    There might be more cyclists here, but there are a heck of a lot more cars and other motorised vehicles too If there are dedicated cycle routes for most of your journey then go for it, but otherwise I'd definitely advise walking or bussing.

    I can see why you'd think London drivers are inconsiderate, but really, it's essential to be more pushy when there is so much traffic. It's not uncommon to be in a situation where you'd end up stationary until nightfall for a gap if you wait properly, and given the number of encounters you'll have in a journey, having a rural general attitude when driving will really add up those delays.

    I'm not sure about your paper. It's unclear which measure to use out of distance and time, and actually I think a more sensible option would be risk per journey, comparing the shorter, walkable cycling distances to pedestrians, and excluding the inter-city car journeys when comparing to cycling. Really, if I'm comparing safety of methods of transport, I'm going to want to know "If I want to get from A to B, which method will least likely result in my death or injury". I'm also amused by "A mature individual cycling will face risks well below the average." as if that wouldn't also apply for the other methods of transport - new drivers are a bit rubbish, and a lot of pedestrian deaths are from kids running out into the road. I know the author has a point to prove, and they did state that honestly at the beginning, but they're trying to distort the figures throughout with their 280h multiplier. Why are we projecting that cyclists would end up cycling 280 hours a year? They can whizz by rush hour traffic, probably not going to be involved in the school run, and are very rarely going to cycle from home to a domestic holiday. I guess it could be used more as exercise like jogging, but then you'd cycle in a park. That would reduce the danger per unit time, distance and journey but not really where we're looking at which is the roads.

    As you say, I think urban and rural journeys need to be split up, and probably even a separate look at London due to it being at the end of the spectrum. Although I don't see a lot of collisions, the many close calls I've seen are due to skill from either the cyclist or the motorist, and I really wouldn't fancy increasing the number of close calls until we reach some vague 'unacceptable number of deaths' - the danger is there for all to see and it's not going to go away by creating more potential for it to occur. I can see the argument of more cyclists means fewer accidents, but only where it's blocking drivers (or 'defensive riding', as some say) from moving at an appropriate speed which is basically lost productivity or leisure time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    There might be more cyclists here, but there are a heck of a lot more cars and other motorised vehicles too If there are dedicated cycle routes for most of your journey then go for it, but otherwise I'd definitely advise walking or bussing.

    I can see why you'd think London drivers are inconsiderate, but really, it's essential to be more pushy when there is so much traffic. It's not uncommon to be in a situation where you'd end up stationary until nightfall for a gap if you wait properly, and given the number of encounters you'll have in a journey, having a rural general attitude when driving will really add up those delays.

    I'm not sure about your paper. It's unclear which measure to use out of distance and time, and actually I think a more sensible option would be risk per journey, comparing the shorter, walkable cycling distances to pedestrians, and excluding the inter-city car journeys when comparing to cycling. Really, if I'm comparing safety of methods of transport, I'm going to want to know "If I want to get from A to B, which method will least likely result in my death or injury". I'm also amused by "A mature individual cycling will face risks well below the average." as if that wouldn't also apply for the other methods of transport - new drivers are a bit rubbish, and a lot of pedestrian deaths are from kids running out into the road. I know the author has a point to prove, and they did state that honestly at the beginning, but they're trying to distort the figures throughout with their 280h multiplier. Why are we projecting that cyclists would end up cycling 280 hours a year? They can whizz by rush hour traffic, probably not going to be involved in the school run, and are very rarely going to cycle from home to a domestic holiday. I guess it could be used more as exercise like jogging, but then you'd cycle in a park. That would reduce the danger per unit time, distance and journey but not really where we're looking at which is the roads.

    As you say, I think urban and rural journeys need to be split up, and probably even a separate look at London due to it being at the end of the spectrum. Although I don't see a lot of collisions, the many close calls I've seen are due to skill from either the cyclist or the motorist, and I really wouldn't fancy increasing the number of close calls until we reach some vague 'unacceptable number of deaths' - the danger is there for all to see and it's not going to go away by creating more potential for it to occur. I can see the argument of more cyclists means fewer accidents, but only where it's blocking drivers (or 'defensive riding', as some say) from moving at an appropriate speed which is basically lost productivity or leisure time.
    I've only ever dealt with the pedestrians to come to that conclusion! I find it interesting that northern cities seem to often drive just as aggressively but be far more laid back as pedestrians. Its a strange world.

    I actually felt the opposite about 280 hours and thought it was a tad low, a total of an hour and a half a day on the bike commuting, sometimes two to three hours depending where I am working would quickly come to more than 280 a year. Even just doing a short 2 hour exercise run twice a week would put you close. A similar paper in a properly peer reviewed journal would be greatly preferable but I doubt anyone will find one.

    Riding for exercise in a park, thats a good one! It would be safer to do it on the runway at heathrow. Parks are hopeless unless you wish to cycle barely above a walking pace whilst dodging dogs, children, and pedestrians attached by long tripwires to dogs. Exercise requires a road, and ideally some decent hills. Infact riding for exercise and leisure tends to put you on the same roads car drivers want to ride for leisure. Riding for exercise is also where I have had most near misses, probably because I tend to be pushing against the clock far more than when commuting.

    All the arguments about cars and bicycles not mixing apply equally to bicycles and pedestrians, though I believe I'm more likely to kill a pedestrian at 20mph than a car is, especially if riding with the aerobars fitted.

    Lost productivity/leisure time vs the potential long term gains from encouraging exercise could make for a fun debate. A common argument against making helmets mandatory is the net negative effect on population health by discouraging cycling, followed if I remember rightly in Australia by the risk cycling increasing due to a reduction in drivers familiarity with cars. In public health terms whatever way one chooses to go people die, whether by sloth, silly drivers, silly cyclists, silly pedestrians/dogs/children, my preferred option is a few die on the road (though as few as possible would be good) and a lot more people have a far healthier life. With socialised healthcare of course a good deal of that cost is shouldered by the tax payer, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of it on that level.

    One of the great things about debating road use is the massive variety of factors to consider which makes it a rather fascinating area until the 'I pay road tax' brigade arrive.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    I've only ever dealt with the pedestrians to come to that conclusion! I find it interesting that northern cities seem to often drive just as aggressively but be far more laid back as pedestrians. Its a strange world.

    I actually felt the opposite about 280 hours and thought it was a tad low, a total of an hour and a half a day on the bike commuting, sometimes two to three hours depending where I am working would quickly come to more than 280 a year. Even just doing a short 2 hour exercise run twice a week would put you close. A similar paper in a properly peer reviewed journal would be greatly preferable but I doubt anyone will find one.

    Riding for exercise in a park, thats a good one! It would be safer to do it on the runway at heathrow. Parks are hopeless unless you wish to cycle barely above a walking pace whilst dodging dogs, children, and pedestrians attached by long tripwires to dogs. Exercise requires a road, and ideally some decent hills. Infact riding for exercise and leisure tends to put you on the same roads car drivers want to ride for leisure. Riding for exercise is also where I have had most near misses, probably because I tend to be pushing against the clock far more than when commuting.

    All the arguments about cars and bicycles not mixing apply equally to bicycles and pedestrians, though I believe I'm more likely to kill a pedestrian at 20mph than a car is, especially if riding with the aerobars fitted.

    Lost productivity/leisure time vs the potential long term gains from encouraging exercise could make for a fun debate. A common argument against making helmets mandatory is the net negative effect on population health by discouraging cycling, followed if I remember rightly in Australia by the risk cycling increasing due to a reduction in drivers familiarity with cars. In public health terms whatever way one chooses to go people die, whether by sloth, silly drivers, silly cyclists, silly pedestrians/dogs/children, my preferred option is a few die on the road (though as few as possible would be good) and a lot more people have a far healthier life. With socialised healthcare of course a good deal of that cost is shouldered by the tax payer, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of it on that level.

    One of the great things about debating road use is the massive variety of factors to consider which makes it a rather fascinating area until the 'I pay road tax' brigade arrive.
    I don't really doubt the estimates, as it should be pretty easy to extrapolate from a sample (though where that sampled lived would skew the results), but I do question why the author felt the need to scale cycling hours up to 280 (well, I know why he did, but at least he could try harder to justify it ). Sure, some (presumably half of) cyclists will do more than 100-120, and a few will do over 280, but the author has effectively said "People drive more than they cycle which explains the lower risk, so let's pretend cyclists cycle that much too so we can force in a lower risk figure", ignoring the fact that people use cars and bikes for different journeys, and even the same journeys will take different lengths of time.

    Cycling in a park seems okay to me when I go for a walk or run There are those hazards, and whilst I know a cyclist is going considerably faster than a jogger (or even a sprinter) surely there's still enough time to see and avoid stuff?

    Indeed, cyclists don't mix with cars, and nor do they mix with pedestrians. I'm happy with pedestrians being given priority because that's our 'natural state', but despite that pedestrians are almost obliged to move out of the way of even a criminal cyclist on the pavement or jumping a red light (perhaps because they are criminal) because it is easier for a pedestrian to get out of the way than a cyclist to swerve around then back on track. Plus it's like a game of chicken but one is wearing a helmet and expects you to move.

    Another thing I've noticed is the scarcity of bells, cyclists will either try to squeeze past or rely on their voice (and saying thank you maybe half the time). You mention helmets, but that's just another thing that makes bikes more dangerous. Brakes aren't as good as a car's, no bells or lights, cyclists listening to headphones, sometimes you see people wearing black cycling at night and of course the absence of any requirement to learn the rules of the road. If bikes are safe, then it's only because of the huge extra demand put on motorists to look after cyclists' safety for them. For the roads to work, you have to be able to assume (with some room for error) that other drivers are law abiding and won't do anything suicidal, so everyone looks after themselves and it's all fine, but even if there is an accident nobody's really hurt apart from maybe 'whiplash'. Introduce some cyclists and people can just about manage it (though you can see the disagreements already), but chucking ever increasing numbers is only going to end badly. You acknowledge this, but surely a better option is it have dedicated cycle routes than an 'acceptable' death rate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I don't really doubt the estimates, as it should be pretty easy to extrapolate from a sample (though where that sampled lived would skew the results), but I do question why the author felt the need to scale cycling hours up to 280 (well, I know why he did, but at least he could try harder to justify it ). Sure, some (presumably half of) cyclists will do more than 100-120, and a few will do over 280, but the author has effectively said "People drive more than they cycle which explains the lower risk, so let's pretend cyclists cycle that much too so we can force in a lower risk figure", ignoring the fact that people use cars and bikes for different journeys, and even the same journeys will take different lengths of time.

    Cycling in a park seems okay to me when I go for a walk or run There are those hazards, and whilst I know a cyclist is going considerably faster than a jogger (or even a sprinter) surely there's still enough time to see and avoid stuff?

    Indeed, cyclists don't mix with cars, and nor do they mix with pedestrians. I'm happy with pedestrians being given priority because that's our 'natural state', but despite that pedestrians are almost obliged to move out of the way of even a criminal cyclist on the pavement or jumping a red light (perhaps because they are criminal) because it is easier for a pedestrian to get out of the way than a cyclist to swerve around then back on track. Plus it's like a game of chicken but one is wearing a helmet and expects you to move.

    Another thing I've noticed is the scarcity of bells, cyclists will either try to squeeze past or rely on their voice (and saying thank you maybe half the time). You mention helmets, but that's just another thing that makes bikes more dangerous. Brakes aren't as good as a car's, no bells or lights, cyclists listening to headphones, sometimes you see people wearing black cycling at night and of course the absence of any requirement to learn the rules of the road. If bikes are safe, then it's only because of the huge extra demand put on motorists to look after cyclists' safety for them. For the roads to work, you have to be able to assume (with some room for error) that other drivers are law abiding and won't do anything suicidal, so everyone looks after themselves and it's all fine, but even if there is an accident nobody's really hurt apart from maybe 'whiplash'. Introduce some cyclists and people can just about manage it (though you can see the disagreements already), but chucking ever increasing numbers is only going to end badly. You acknowledge this, but surely a better option is it have dedicated cycle routes than an 'acceptable' death rate?
    Whilst there is enough time to see and avoid stuff it precludes maintaining a decent output, which is the whole point of going for an exercise run, a 30 mile circuit against the clock. When it is so much more pleasurable, practical, and functional to use the road I can't see myself using a park (it would also have to be huge not to get boring).

    I suspect the author wants to look at it as a case of 'if someone makes cycling a significant part of their life where possible', which for the most part would I assume include commuting etc. It won't extend to an occasional casual ride. Ultimately as you suggest he is stretching the figures to try and meet his agenda.

    I think bicycles bought whole now have to come with a bell, I've not bought one other than as components for a long time so I'm not entirely certain.

    I'll grant that the perfect option would be an entirely segregated well planned system with enough cycle capacity and absence of constant junctions to slow you to the point where you may as well not bother. My understanding is that the closest thing we have in the UK to this is London. To go the whole hog, and presumably drop casualty rates as you seem to be seeking would cost so much, and be so impractical, that it isn't a pragmatic solution to be arguing for. Any system slower, less direct, or more inconvenient than riding on the road will simply see cyclists on the road. The system would have to match the convenience and coverage of the current road system. The only way I could see it being possible (on a quick think rather than extended thought) would be to take a big city and strip the roads out and replace it with a tram system running on the roads with the rest devoted to cyclists. I imagine the pedestrians would then treat the whole thing as a massive pedestrianised area and make cycling no less dodgy, though probably safer, than sharing the roads is now. Obviously this isn't remotely tenable as a solution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Brakes aren't as good as a car's, no bells or lights, cyclists listening to headphones, sometimes you see people wearing black cycling at night and of course the absence of any requirement to learn the rules of the road.
    Ignoring the rest of the safety stuff that we could argue about all day and is all opinions anyway. Cyclists are required to follow the "Rules of the Road" more correctly known as the Highway Code. All road users are required to follow it.

    Lights are a requirement by the HWC and you do see cyclists getting stopped at night when they don't have them. Just as drivers get stopped for having a dud head light.

    I personally find bells are useless as most people don't consciously hear them (a kind of background noise effect). Shouting makes them jump (just as beeping your horn at people does). So really all a cyclist can do is slow down and go slowly round them. If it's not safe to do this then I'd say dismount.

    Braking:
    Seeing as this keeps coming up, allow me to chuck some physics at it. (I like physics, okay? )

    Bicycle brakes are perfectly fine. Being not on par with a car's doesn't matter. If you cut up a HGV in a car and slam your brakes on allowing for reaction time it will still hit you because they're not on par. This is for perspective and also beside my point.

    What lets most cyclists down is poor braking technique. The 25-75 technique is not known commonly among casual cyclists. This technique means you use your front brakes for 75% of braking effort. When braking your centre of mass shoots forward (due to deceleration), if you can control this to be over the front wheel (so you don't actually go over your handlebars) you get very effective braking due to the increased friction from the extra mass on the front tyre (Friction is linearly proportional to mass). Yes, this takes practise, but so does everything.

    However, many cyclists are scared of the chance of going over the handlebars so use the rear brake more heavily. Due to the load transfer forward, the rear tyre has little mass acting on it making braking here woefully inefficient. Friction between the road and tyre is directly proportional to mass, decrease the mass and you get less friction and hence less possible braking and a very high chance of skidding. Hence why rear wheel skids are so easy to induce. And the contrapositive of this being a "stoppie" due to the very high efficiency of the front brake.

    This same principle applies to motorbikes and cars. In a car the front brakes are much beefier than the rear(e.g. discs at the front and drums at the rear). The load transfer principle is why you shouldn't brake when cornering hard. The centre of mass will go to the front outside corner. Leaving the rear completely light causing you to spin.

    Sorry that was quite in depth, but hopefully it should explain why braking technique is so important. Cars are already setup for it, but bikes need some intuition as they have independent brakes. This should be familiar territory for motorcyclists. Maybe there is an argument for selling bikes with no rear brakes, to force people to learn to brake properly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stacywill)
    This is the thread I need today:

    I drive and I also use the road to ride my road bike. When on my bike I am considerate to cars, even going so close to verges etc to allow them to pass me quicker. When in my car I am considerate to cyclists, it's a shame that the majority of cyclists are not as considerate as I am to car users. A few days ago I was following six cyclists on a very curvy, long road. I know this road well and there is only one safe place to overtake in the entire four mile stretch - it's a national speed limit road. Well these cyclists were going a reasonable speed (around 20mph) so I left a safe (more bigger than necessary gap) distance between me and them and followed them for around two miles until I got to the safe bit to overtake. The little swines got in a line taking up both sides of the road to deliberately annoy me and not allow me to overtake. WHY? Infact they got so much pleasure doing this as they all kept looking back and laughing etc that the two on the wrong side of the road almost got hit by an oncoming car and started to shout abuse at the poor old man who only just managed to brake in time to avoid a collision. The poor man was shellshocked. So I ended up driving behind them the entire stretch of road with 22 cars (at least) behind us.

    Anyhow, this post is appropriate for me today as I was stopped at a red light in Norwich and a cyclist rode straight into the back of my car. Thankfully he realised it was his error and apologised etc, but my children were scared, I almost had a heart attack and my poor car -which isn't even a year old, needs to have a new back bumper AT MY COST as he obviously did not have road cyclist insurance (which after today, think it should be compulsory).

    Moral of the story is that there are good and bad cyclists and good and bad motorists...
    That's not good, you risk cars not noticing you and running you off the road or hitting something in the gutter. Just ride in a straight line a metre from the kerb and if a car can't overtake you under those conditions then they shouldn't be overtaking you on that section of road. I am considerate too but my consideration is pulling out of the way completely to let a few cars pass then getting back in the road especially if it's a slow uphill for me and I see cars backing up behind me. Note that this is not weaving in and out of parked cars but actually fully stopping and looking and signalling to get back in the road.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stacywill)
    And whilst on a roll...any idea why when there is a cycle path, that cyclists STILL ride alongside it on the road?
    Cycle paths are uneven, break up a lot and are often full of glass or even idiot parents who let their toddlers treat it like a pavement. The law actually says that if you're doing more than 18mph you should be on the road anyway.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Implying bikes are free? You can always walk, too.

    Yeah, it probably is more from willful disregard than ignorance, but either way it's bad.

    I remember a study (well, one professor did it for a few days I think) where drivers left more space if he didn't wear a helmet, and also if he wore a long haired wig (so was assumed to be a woman).

    This 'defensive riding' thing, you can say it's justified for your safety but it is slowing drivers down which is going to cause resentment by people who have a journey to complete. If you have to do that, then it's clear the roads can't handle both cars and bikes together. Also the disregard for rules forces drivers to be more careful

    I think it was pushed too early. We simply don't have the infrastructure for cyclists as well as cars (and we need cars more than bikes), and putting them on the same tarmac as boxes of metal that move faster than them and wobble them out of air pressure and fear will throw up accidents.


    I don't think you understood my point. Decent drivers do have to keep an extra look out for cyclists because of the physical nature of bikes as well as the seeming inability to follow the rules of the road. The parked car is stationary, so no problem. The pedestrian can look around (including behind them), stop and change direction quickly without falling over, and due to lower speed it's easier to work out where the 'danger region' is so again, no problem. The difference is that cyclists can and do veer into your path quickly and without warning, putting extra demand on drivers who are then also stuck behind it for even longer due to not being able to overtake for whatever reason. In contrast to cars, where everyone is in the same situation with regards to protection and insurance, cyclists are brave (or stupid) for being on a bike in the road, and motorists end up having to look after them, and not see them as equal road users. Since you didn't like my football team analogy, it's like when that little girl started crying on BGT a while back (might have happened since then but I stopped watching) and got another go - that's clearly not competing on equal footing, but the elder competitors had to cater for her because choking on stage hurt her more than it would hurt them.



    Bikes are intrinsically vulnerable to cars though, no matter how you look at it. There needs to be separation, and whilst it's one or the other, cars are more necessary. Cyclists have told me not to worry because if a cyclist does something stupid it won't be my fault, but I don't want to be involved in someone's death, even if I'm not going to be punished for it.

    You're right about the penalties not doing anything, drivers tend to prefer fines to points too because they can just pay up and hope they don't get caught next time.
    I don't think there needs to be separation, just better cyclist/motorist training. I never get in the way of motorists. Only on very busy cycleways should they be separation. For instance on the new cycle superhighway going through south London it's pretty much just a blue line but the name "superhighway" has drawn hundreds of cyclists and they really do get in the way of motorists on the A3 going through Clapham and Kennington. If they were going to make a cycle path for that many cyclists they should have segregated it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've always held the view that cars and bikes shouldn't be sharing the road.

    Here in MK they don't - we have a network of paths that cyclists and pedestrians share, whilst the cars drive on the grid roads (the main roads through the city) at 60/70mph without issue. The cyclists and pedestrians share the redways without a problem, and I've never hear of any major accidents or deaths on them. I don't see why the whole country can't do this.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.