Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road?

[richardxjr]

Tomalawk said:

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.

Just because it's in the law doesn't mean it's right.

Proof that you are a fkwit. Jog on now son.

[oOTomOo]

yonex said:

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?

No. When I was learning to drive I was taught to give a cyclist enough room for them to wobble / fall off.

And as for the pic above with the car overtaking, on that width of road, that's as much room as I'd give a cyclist anyway.
You're not going to be able (comfortably) to overtake with an oncoming car, so why not give the cyclist the entire lane, doesn't matter if they are gutter hugging, 2 ft into the lane or riding 2 a breast. I'll be in the other lane overtaking them.

There's absolutely no substitution for being able to read road situations. The number of people I see jumping on the brakes when they try and overtake a cyclist coming up to some bollards is ridiculous, I know they are going to do it before they've pulled out to overtake.

Mmmh, I've wound myself up now :|

[y2blade]

LiamB said:

Expert pot hole spotters.. Expert aholes more like.

I had a cyclist go into the side of me yesterday while I was filtering on a motorbike, he fell on the floor then promptly got up and basically called me a for not riding a kids toy and that they have right of way EVERYWHERE apparently (he came out from in front of a bus into my side)

I can't fking stand the pro cyclist, anti everything else bds. Stay in your little cycle lane and let me watch the Lycra clad women's arses.

Was your bike ok?

[Mr Gear]

Tomalawk said:

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.

Just because it's in the law doesn't mean it's right.

It doesn't make sense only if you are hard of thinking.

[anonymous-user]

y2blade said:

LiamB said:

Expert pot hole spotters.. Expert aholes more like.

I had a cyclist go into the side of me yesterday while I was filtering on a motorbike, he fell on the floor then promptly got up and basically called me a for not riding a kids toy and that they have right of way EVERYWHERE apparently (he came out from in front of a bus into my side)

I can't fking stand the pro cyclist, anti everything else bds. Stay in your little cycle lane and let me watch the Lycra clad women's arses.

Was your bike ok?

Yes, it landed on his head.

[walm]

yonex said:

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?

Apparently not.
Apparently it is "completely ridiculous and makes no sense".

:exasperated:

[Monkeylegend]

Tomalawk said:

This is my final post on this topic, because it's pointless.

Posted at 11.09

[NoNeed]

If you cyclists want me to give you a whole lane when overtaking, why do a lot of you ride two or three abreast and make that impossible. I have had to get closer to the outside rider than even I would like in a car, maybe down to just a foot of room when this has happened, yet if you were in single file two or three feet is easy.

[walm]

NoNeed said:

I have had to get closer to the outside rider than even I would like in a car, maybe down to just a foot of room when this has happened...

Glad you went ahead and overtook them anyway.

[otolith]

NoNeed said:

If you cyclists want me to give you a whole lane when overtaking, why do a lot of you ride two or three abreast and make that impossible. I have had to get closer to the outside rider than even I would like in a car, maybe down to just a foot of room when this has happened, yet if you were in single file two or three feet is easy.

Because it's less about the gap between you and the rider and more about the gap between you and the kerb which gives them space to move. If they run over each other, they are likely to get hurt. If you run over them they are likely to get killed.

[will_]

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

Insurance liability would depend on the circumstances. Sometimes drivers passing through a green light can be held partially responsible even if they hit someone running a red.

This I need examples of.

Sure.

http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/Documents/AC9300999

In that case, whilst the cyclist ran the red light, the taxi was speeding. Blame was apportioned 80% to the cyclist. But the taxi driver had to take 20% of the blame for the accident, even though his traffic signal was green and the cyclist shouldn't have been there regardless of the speed of the taxi.

Further, in that case, the taxi-driver had a good "response time" - had he not done so, it could be suggested that he would have been held more negligent - even if passing through a green light.

The point is, a green light does not give a road user carte blanche to drive however they wish to do so through a junction. Having said that, (from a liability point of view) it is hard to envisage a situation where a driver will be held liable if they've done nothing wrong. But that's not to say that they couldn't possibly have avoided the accident (and I'm sure you grasp the distinction).

• tap tap* - hello, Mr SFJ? I've answered your question, so perhaps you can now answer mine please?

Here they are for ease of reference:

will_ said:

What I am saying is that a green light is not a free pass to put your blinkers on and avoid looking around you. That is what the law provides for. Do you think differently? Do you not check for, say, emergency vehicles when you cross junctions on a green light? If not, then good practice suggests you should.

Or are you just going to ignore this thread because you haven't got any answers?

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

Insurance liability would depend on the circumstances. Sometimes drivers passing through a green light can be held partially responsible even if they hit someone running a red.

This I need examples of.

Sure.

http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/Documents/AC9300999

In that case, whilst the cyclist ran the red light, the taxi was speeding. Blame was apportioned 80% to the cyclist. But the taxi driver had to take 20% of the blame for the accident, even though his traffic signal was green and the cyclist shouldn't have been there regardless of the speed of the taxi.

Further, in that case, the taxi-driver had a good "response time" - had he not done so, it could be suggested that he would have been held more negligent - even if passing through a green light.

The point is, a green light does not give a road user carte blanche to drive however they wish to do so through a junction. Having said that, (from a liability point of view) it is hard to envisage a situation where a driver will be held liable if they've done nothing wrong. But that's not to say that they couldn't possibly have avoided the accident (and I'm sure you grasp the distinction).

• tap tap* - hello, Mr SFJ? I've answered your question, so perhaps you can now answer mine please?

Here they are for ease of reference:

will_ said:

What I am saying is that a green light is not a free pass to put your blinkers on and avoid looking around you. That is what the law provides for. Do you think differently? Do you not check for, say, emergency vehicles when you cross junctions on a green light? If not, then good practice suggests you should.

Or are you just going to ignore this thread because you haven't got any answers?

Your link isn't evidence, it's a link to a website, nothing more.

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

Your link isn't evidence, it's a link to a website, nothing more.

What?

You asked for an example of a situation where a vehicle passing a green light that is in collision with a vehicle jumping a red light is held partly liable.

It's a court judgment which evidences exactly that. Here is the full judgment:
http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/FullText/AC9300999Q...

Do you think I've just made it up?

I'm genuinely baffled how you don't consider that to be evidence that supports my position.

Now, will you answer my questions and stop side-stepping them?

[walm]

I think he simply means the link is broken. You have to be logged in or something.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

What?

You asked for an example of a situation where a vehicle passing a green light that is in collision with a vehicle jumping a red light is held partly liable.

It's a court judgment which evidences exactly that. Here is the full judgment:
http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/FullText/AC9300999Q...

Do you think I've just made it up?

I'm genuinely baffled how you don't consider that to be evidence that supports my position.

Now, will you answer my questions and stop side-stepping them?

I want to see this data, This Lawtel crap is asking me to sign up because I cannot see your uploads. Preparing for this were we?

[will_]

walm said:

I think he simply means the link is broken. You have to be logged in or something.

How strange. I took the link from another forum.

In which case, fair enough, my apologies.

The case is MALASI v ATTMED (2011), there are plenty of summaries available via google.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40...

Edited by will_ on Thursday 17th April 17:11

[yellowjack]

Tomalawk said:

...Let me know if I'm wrong, but from where everywhere I've read legally I don't need indicators on my car, but I like them so I don't have to wave my fking arm around...

YOU ARE WRONG.


Schedule 1 of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 states that the only exemption for private cars from needing 'Direction Indicators' is "A vehicle first used before 1st January 1936."

Google the RVLRs and scroll down to Table III. That will tell you the lighting requirements for a pedal cycle. Notice the fact that 'Direction Indicators' are NOT required for bicycles.

[y2blade]

yonex said:

y2blade said:

LiamB said:

Expert pot hole spotters.. Expert aholes more like.

I had a cyclist go into the side of me yesterday while I was filtering on a motorbike, he fell on the floor then promptly got up and basically called me a for not riding a kids toy and that they have right of way EVERYWHERE apparently (he came out from in front of a bus into my side)

I can't fking stand the pro cyclist, anti everything else bds. Stay in your little cycle lane and let me watch the Lycra clad women's arses.

Was your bike ok?

Yes, it landed on his head.

[NoNeed]

walm said:

NoNeed said:

I have had to get closer to the outside rider than even I would like in a car, maybe down to just a foot of room when this has happened...

Glad you went ahead and overtook them anyway.

So was I. If they want to live dangerously who am I to stop them.

[Dammit]

That's a good question, although probably not in the way you intended it.

So, lets pose it again:

Who are you, to value your own life above that of three other people?

You must be a jolly impressive individual - I'm sure you are about to tell us about the thousands of lives you've saved, the ground breaking research you have pioneered?