Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road?
Discussion
otolith said:
Clearance:
Room:
Being passed too closely is a problem in itself, but can be mitigated by reducing the speed differential. The really dangerous thing is squeezing people so that, for example, they've got no way of getting round a pothole. That's why they move out into the road, it gives them more margin for safety than riding in the gutter.
I would never give a car that much room, this was my point. If I was to give them that much clearance/room I'd be off the other side of the road. I give cyclists as much space as possible but to compare it to an overtake on a car is stupid.Room:
Being passed too closely is a problem in itself, but can be mitigated by reducing the speed differential. The really dangerous thing is squeezing people so that, for example, they've got no way of getting round a pothole. That's why they move out into the road, it gives them more margin for safety than riding in the gutter.
I'm relaxed with cyclists, around my way 99% of them are good.
Having driven many times in London it's a different story. Most of them are mental.
yonex said:
PHuzzy said:
The one thing I don't quite get...
When overtaking a cyclist give them as much room as you would when overtaking a car.
Well usually when I'm overtaking a car I'm no more than 2-3ft mirror to mirror but if I were to be that close from their handlebar to mirror I'd be 'wrong' in the eyes of a cyclist. Some overtakes on narrow lanes car to car distance can be even less than that.
Give them as much room as horses When overtaking a cyclist give them as much room as you would when overtaking a car.
Well usually when I'm overtaking a car I'm no more than 2-3ft mirror to mirror but if I were to be that close from their handlebar to mirror I'd be 'wrong' in the eyes of a cyclist. Some overtakes on narrow lanes car to car distance can be even less than that.
The longer this goes on the more depressing it is. Are people really this thick that they have to ask this sort of thing?
I was pointing out that giving a cyclist as much room as you were overtaking a car is dangerous to the cyclist. So I'd suggest changing the wording of that 'rule'.
WinstonWolf said:
If you can't see an outstretched arm what makes you think someone will see a tiny dim indicator?
Do you wave your arm out when you dodge a pot hole? Do you wave your arm out when you swing out to take the primary position? Do you wave your arm out over take another cyclist? Do you wave your arm out when turning left?Generally you need to be indicating what you do more than you do now, go ahead and swing your arm out all time. I'm sure you'll think a button on your handle bars is a better idea at some point.
You guys are literally arguing for the sake of it now, your arguments can come down to a couple of things:
1. I'm not doing something differently because no one else is.
2. Why should do something differently, i like doing it this way but i can't tell you why?
3. Comparing it to something completely stupid eg. If we put indicators on a bike, then why don't we put implants in our penises so we never have to worry about impotency.
4. If you can't see me doing this thing I rarely do but claim to do all the time, then I will not try to improve it by doing other things.
5. Why should I have to let people know my intentions to allow them to plan more effectively, they should just get better.
None of them are constructive or solutions, just loose comments because you realise actually maybe we all need to take some more responsibility on the road. Negotiation works by two parties with problems coming together and meeting in the middle, maybe the indicators don't work maybe they don't? but then we work on another idea to solve to problem. Only one person so far has suggested a better license system which I 100% agree with the rest of you just bang extremely specific hypothetical scenarios and "when I'm in London" that no one cares about.
yonex said:
You have labeled cyclists 
s, made constant reference to lycra wearing, said anyone not agreeing with you is basically a militant or stupid and even tried to question people's sexuality due to their hobby.
I think you are the problem that needs avoiding.
Correction, I labelled angry and unreasonable cyclists s, made constant reference to lycra wearing, said anyone not agreeing with you is basically a militant or stupid and even tried to question people's sexuality due to their hobby.I think you are the problem that needs avoiding.
s, cyclists do wear Lycra though?, I just said that not coming up with something better or a reason is militant and stupid, I genuinely was accounting for everyone it wasn't malicious.Tomalawk said:
Do you wave your arm out when you dodge a pot hole? Do you wave your arm out when you swing out to take the primary position? Do you wave your arm out over take another cyclist? Do you wave your arm out when turning left?
Generally you need to be indicating what you do more than you do now, go ahead and swing your arm out all time. I'm sure you'll think a button on your handle bars is a better idea at some point.
You guys are literally arguing for the sake of it now, your arguments can come down to a couple of things:
1. I'm not doing something differently because no one else is.
2. Why should do something differently, i like doing it this way but i can't tell you why?
3. Comparing it to something completely stupid eg. If we put indicators on a bike, then why don't we put implants in our penises so we never have to worry about impotency.
4. If you can't see me doing this thing I rarely do but claim to do all the time, then I will not try to improve it by doing other things.
5. Why should I have to let people know my intentions to allow them to plan more effectively, they should just get better.
None of them are constructive or solutions, just loose comments because you realise actually maybe we all need to take some more responsibility on the road. Negotiation works by two parties with problems coming together and meeting in the middle, maybe the indicators don't work maybe they don't? but then we work on another idea to solve to problem. Only one person so far has suggested a better license system which I 100% agree with the rest of you just bang extremely specific hypothetical scenarios and "when I'm in London" that no one cares about.
Just hand in your driving licence if you can't cope.Generally you need to be indicating what you do more than you do now, go ahead and swing your arm out all time. I'm sure you'll think a button on your handle bars is a better idea at some point.
You guys are literally arguing for the sake of it now, your arguments can come down to a couple of things:
1. I'm not doing something differently because no one else is.
2. Why should do something differently, i like doing it this way but i can't tell you why?
3. Comparing it to something completely stupid eg. If we put indicators on a bike, then why don't we put implants in our penises so we never have to worry about impotency.
4. If you can't see me doing this thing I rarely do but claim to do all the time, then I will not try to improve it by doing other things.
5. Why should I have to let people know my intentions to allow them to plan more effectively, they should just get better.
None of them are constructive or solutions, just loose comments because you realise actually maybe we all need to take some more responsibility on the road. Negotiation works by two parties with problems coming together and meeting in the middle, maybe the indicators don't work maybe they don't? but then we work on another idea to solve to problem. Only one person so far has suggested a better license system which I 100% agree with the rest of you just bang extremely specific hypothetical scenarios and "when I'm in London" that no one cares about.
EDIT: Hand in your PH membership too while you are at it. We don't need the average IQ of this site being dragged down any further.
Tomalawk said:
We'll have to work this out. As powerfully built director i'm sure you'll know this. You come up basis of a plan, you then break down the details delegate and act. This is something that needs to be worked out, I'm not qualified and neither are you to say what age is a safe age. I'm just saying it's something we need to think about as road users, not as a driver vs cyclists.
Powerfully built directors would spend 5 seconds thinking about it and recognise that there isn't really a problem that needs solving here and even if there were, a "cycling licence" isn't the way to solve it.Bikes are cheap, accessible, safe and healthy.
Sure some are piloted by total douches who need to be reprimanded but that's true of every form of transport most of which are licensed.
Why don't we look at other countries that have introduced a bike license after having had a good think about it... oh wait. No one has.
What would be the unintended consequences of a license?
- Reduction in cycling.
- Increased traffic.
- Worse national health.
- The creation of a DVLA-like red tape machine - because we all want another DVLA.
- Destruction of much of the cycle industry, forced out of business owing to a cratering of demand.
- Lowered driving standards as kids who used to cycle on the roads and learn about the rules of the road would just sit in the back of the car playing angry birds instead.
- etc... etc...
PHuzzy said:
otolith said:
Clearance:
Room:
Being passed too closely is a problem in itself, but can be mitigated by reducing the speed differential. The really dangerous thing is squeezing people so that, for example, they've got no way of getting round a pothole. That's why they move out into the road, it gives them more margin for safety than riding in the gutter.
I would never give a car that much room, this was my point. If I was to give them that much clearance/room I'd be off the other side of the road. I give cyclists as much space as possible but to compare it to an overtake on a car is stupid.Room:
Being passed too closely is a problem in itself, but can be mitigated by reducing the speed differential. The really dangerous thing is squeezing people so that, for example, they've got no way of getting round a pothole. That's why they move out into the road, it gives them more margin for safety than riding in the gutter.
On what basis would we need to indicate in order to avoid a pothole?
Theoretically thats a cyclist changing position within a lane, that noone else should be occupying. In practice, you'll be doing a lifesaver first because people don't give cyclists space. That's two safety measures already to counter peoples awful ability to use roads.
To a properly skilled driver, a cyclist indicating means they are going to turn. If they then only shift within that lane that just adds uncertainty over their intentions, which helps noone.
To a driver who isn't aware of the meaning of hand signals they aren't going to mean anything anyway, so that's not going to help anyone.
Theoretically thats a cyclist changing position within a lane, that noone else should be occupying. In practice, you'll be doing a lifesaver first because people don't give cyclists space. That's two safety measures already to counter peoples awful ability to use roads.
To a properly skilled driver, a cyclist indicating means they are going to turn. If they then only shift within that lane that just adds uncertainty over their intentions, which helps noone.
To a driver who isn't aware of the meaning of hand signals they aren't going to mean anything anyway, so that's not going to help anyone.
Tomalawk said:
Do you wave your arm out when you dodge a pot hole? Do you wave your arm out when you swing out to take the primary position? Do you wave your arm out over take another cyclist? Do you wave your arm out when turning left?
I do when turning left but not in the other examples.The other examples are moves that happen WITHIN THE LANE.
This is really important and I think is often the cause of friction between cyclists and other road users.
The reason why buggering about in your lane without indicating is acceptable is because IT IS YOUR LANE!!
If a driver passes you leaving enough space then all of the moves you list above can happen without any drama or any need for the driver to be alerted to your moves.
There is a reason why taking primary position is also called "TAKING THE LANE".
Because often, if you don't, cretinous moron impatient drivers won't leave you enough room.
So once again, the problem here isn't the cyclist failing to alert the driver to what he is about to do - it is the driver failing to give the cyclist enough room.
It is VERY VERY SIMPLE.
And more to the point - enshrined in the highway code.
Rule 213:
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
otolith said:
PHuzzy said:
otolith said:
Clearance:
Room:
Being passed too closely is a problem in itself, but can be mitigated by reducing the speed differential. The really dangerous thing is squeezing people so that, for example, they've got no way of getting round a pothole. That's why they move out into the road, it gives them more margin for safety than riding in the gutter.
I would never give a car that much room, this was my point. If I was to give them that much clearance/room I'd be off the other side of the road. I give cyclists as much space as possible but to compare it to an overtake on a car is stupid.Room:
Being passed too closely is a problem in itself, but can be mitigated by reducing the speed differential. The really dangerous thing is squeezing people so that, for example, they've got no way of getting round a pothole. That's why they move out into the road, it gives them more margin for safety than riding in the gutter.
I have no axe to grind like some people and most cyclists I come across are well mannered. I just think that it should be common sense to give them as much room as possible rather than the wording of the rule which seems wrong to me.
walm said:
Powerfully built directors would spend 5 seconds thinking about it and recognise that there isn't really a problem that needs solving here and even if there were, a "cycling licence" isn't the way to solve it.
Bikes are cheap, accessible, safe and healthy.
Sure some are piloted by total douches who need to be reprimanded but that's true of every form of transport most of which are licensed.
Why don't we look at other countries that have introduced a bike license after having had a good think about it... oh wait. No one has.
What would be the unintended consequences of a license?
- Reduction in cycling.
- Increased traffic.
- Worse national health.
- The creation of a DVLA-like red tape machine - because we all want another DVLA.
- Destruction of much of the cycle industry, forced out of business owing to a cratering of demand.
- Lowered driving standards as kids who used to cycle on the roads and learn about the rules of the road would just sit in the back of the car playing angry birds instead.
- etc... etc...
There we go! an actual response!Bikes are cheap, accessible, safe and healthy.
Sure some are piloted by total douches who need to be reprimanded but that's true of every form of transport most of which are licensed.
Why don't we look at other countries that have introduced a bike license after having had a good think about it... oh wait. No one has.
What would be the unintended consequences of a license?
- Reduction in cycling.
- Increased traffic.
- Worse national health.
- The creation of a DVLA-like red tape machine - because we all want another DVLA.
- Destruction of much of the cycle industry, forced out of business owing to a cratering of demand.
- Lowered driving standards as kids who used to cycle on the roads and learn about the rules of the road would just sit in the back of the car playing angry birds instead.
- etc... etc...
Good points, but those are all things that would have to be actually analysed and considered to see the effect, we're hypothesising on things we have no knowledge on (unless you have a PHD in every social science, sports science, geography, economics and traffic management?).
Tomalawk said:
WinstonWolf said:
If you can't see an outstretched arm what makes you think someone will see a tiny dim indicator?
Do you wave your arm out when you dodge a pot hole? Do you wave your arm out when you swing out to take the primary position? Do you wave your arm out over take another cyclist? Do you wave your arm out when turning left?Generally you need to be indicating what you do more than you do now, go ahead and swing your arm out all time. I'm sure you'll think a button on your handle bars is a better idea at some point.
You guys are literally arguing for the sake of it now, your arguments can come down to a couple of things:
1. I'm not doing something differently because no one else is.
2. Why should do something differently, i like doing it this way but i can't tell you why?
3. Comparing it to something completely stupid eg. If we put indicators on a bike, then why don't we put implants in our penises so we never have to worry about impotency.
4. If you can't see me doing this thing I rarely do but claim to do all the time, then I will not try to improve it by doing other things.
5. Why should I have to let people know my intentions to allow them to plan more effectively, they should just get better.
None of them are constructive or solutions, just loose comments because you realise actually maybe we all need to take some more responsibility on the road. Negotiation works by two parties with problems coming together and meeting in the middle, maybe the indicators don't work maybe they don't? but then we work on another idea to solve to problem. Only one person so far has suggested a better license system which I 100% agree with the rest of you just bang extremely specific hypothetical scenarios and "when I'm in London" that no one cares about.
walm said:
I do when turning left but not in the other examples.
The other examples are moves that happen WITHIN THE LANE.
This is really important and I think is often the cause of friction between cyclists and other road users.
The reason why buggering about in your lane without indicating is acceptable is because IT IS YOUR LANE!!
If a driver passes you leaving enough space then all of the moves you list above can happen without any drama or any need for the driver to be alerted to your moves.
There is a reason why taking primary position is also called "TAKING THE LANE".
Because often, if you don't, cretinous moron impatient drivers won't leave you enough room.
So once again, the problem here isn't the cyclist failing to alert the driver to what he is about to do - it is the driver failing to give the cyclist enough room.
It is VERY VERY SIMPLE.
And more to the point - enshrined in the highway code.
Rule 213:
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
I could sit here all day copy pasting codes and laws that are completely ridiculous and make no sense, i'm sure you could as well. The other examples are moves that happen WITHIN THE LANE.
This is really important and I think is often the cause of friction between cyclists and other road users.
The reason why buggering about in your lane without indicating is acceptable is because IT IS YOUR LANE!!
If a driver passes you leaving enough space then all of the moves you list above can happen without any drama or any need for the driver to be alerted to your moves.
There is a reason why taking primary position is also called "TAKING THE LANE".
Because often, if you don't, cretinous moron impatient drivers won't leave you enough room.
So once again, the problem here isn't the cyclist failing to alert the driver to what he is about to do - it is the driver failing to give the cyclist enough room.
It is VERY VERY SIMPLE.
And more to the point - enshrined in the highway code.
Rule 213:
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Just because it's in the law doesn't mean it's right.
walm said:
Rule 213:
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Is it just me that thinks it's obvious? Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
The wording seems to mislead a lot of people, who think it means "pass as close to a bike as you would a car" when it means something closer to "give the cyclist the lane to himself" or "don't pass unless it would be safe to pass a similarly slow car". It's not really a complicated message, it's just difficult to codify "overtake considerately and safely" in a few soundbites. You don't need to give as much clearance between you and the cyclist at lower speeds, but you do need to be able to hold your current line if something comes the other way or be very sure that something isn't going to come the other way. And even when you are going at lower speeds, the cyclist still needs enough room to move left and right within his lane if he has to.
What really scares me on the bike is the kind of overtake where you know that if someone comes round the bend, the overtaker is not going to take the head on collision, he's going to swerve into the cyclist. One thing that prevents that is not overtaking unless you are safely able to use the other side of the road.
What really scares me on the bike is the kind of overtake where you know that if someone comes round the bend, the overtaker is not going to take the head on collision, he's going to swerve into the cyclist. One thing that prevents that is not overtaking unless you are safely able to use the other side of the road.
Tomalawk said:
Just because it's in the law doesn't mean it's right.
Please explain what is wrong with any part of this...'Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make'
Seriously, I am interested as it is just really basic common sense?
Tomalawk said:
walm said:
Powerfully built directors would spend 5 seconds thinking about it and recognise that there isn't really a problem that needs solving here and even if there were, a "cycling licence" isn't the way to solve it.
Bikes are cheap, accessible, safe and healthy.
Sure some are piloted by total douches who need to be reprimanded but that's true of every form of transport most of which are licensed.
Why don't we look at other countries that have introduced a bike license after having had a good think about it... oh wait. No one has.
What would be the unintended consequences of a license?
- Reduction in cycling.
- Increased traffic.
- Worse national health.
- The creation of a DVLA-like red tape machine - because we all want another DVLA.
- Destruction of much of the cycle industry, forced out of business owing to a cratering of demand.
- Lowered driving standards as kids who used to cycle on the roads and learn about the rules of the road would just sit in the back of the car playing angry birds instead.
- etc... etc...
There we go! an actual response!Bikes are cheap, accessible, safe and healthy.
Sure some are piloted by total douches who need to be reprimanded but that's true of every form of transport most of which are licensed.
Why don't we look at other countries that have introduced a bike license after having had a good think about it... oh wait. No one has.
What would be the unintended consequences of a license?
- Reduction in cycling.
- Increased traffic.
- Worse national health.
- The creation of a DVLA-like red tape machine - because we all want another DVLA.
- Destruction of much of the cycle industry, forced out of business owing to a cratering of demand.
- Lowered driving standards as kids who used to cycle on the roads and learn about the rules of the road would just sit in the back of the car playing angry birds instead.
- etc... etc...
Good points, but those are all things that would have to be actually analysed and considered to see the effect, we're hypothesising on things we have no knowledge on (unless you have a PHD in every social science, sports science, geography, economics and traffic management?).
That makes me sufficiently qualified to call you a silly little boy.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff