More cycling deaths
Discussion
IroningMan said:
Moonhawk said:
Guy is an absolute nutter to be sure and should face prosecution for that behaviour.
But on a side note - it was interesting to see that the majority of cyclists on that road weren't using the cycle lane. It does question the value of putting infrastructure in place specifically to cater for cyclists if that infrastructure isn't going to get used.
Curious, isn't it.But on a side note - it was interesting to see that the majority of cyclists on that road weren't using the cycle lane. It does question the value of putting infrastructure in place specifically to cater for cyclists if that infrastructure isn't going to get used.
The cycle path in the video doesn't get a very flattering write-up in the road.cc link posted earlier.
Fartomatic5000 said:
Well hang on a minute, why should I trust some numpty in the council with my own personal safety?
On another note, cyclists have just as much right to use the road as anyone else. Just because you're in a tin box doesn't mean you are a superior being.
Your first point is a little offensive and to be honest makes me think "oh right, well, they'll ignore it anyway so I won't bother putting it in". On another note, cyclists have just as much right to use the road as anyone else. Just because you're in a tin box doesn't mean you are a superior being.
Edited by Fartomatic5000 on Monday 1st June 20:19
Your second point, yes, they have the right but that doesn't make it 100% sensible!
See my point about pedestrian/painted black/A14.
Protect yourself. You are responsible for your actions on the road. Yes you can't stop a car from hitting you, but neither can a pedestrian or another driver. But you mitigate by obeying the rules. Drive on the left. If someone is overtaking, be prepared to slow down to ease their progress. Use mirrors. Don't go to fast. Have a roadworthy vehicle. Be able to stop in the distance you can see etc etc. Why should cyclists be treated so differently to other road users? If drivers want to go hell for leather, we have track days. Why do cyclists insist on doing it on unsuitable streets or shared paths? They're not for racing or time trialling, they are sensible routes in areas of reasonably high demand from cyclists and those even more vulnerable than cyclists...
Next time a barrage of Bradleys come down the road, if I step in front of them, as is my right, what do you think the outcome would be? And who would get the blame? If I caused them to swerve and fall off, would they say "that's OK my friend, you have every right to be there, my mistake for going too fast"?
OpulentBob said:
Your first point is a little offensive and to be honest makes me think "oh right, well, they'll ignore it anyway so I won't bother putting it in".
Your second point, yes, they have the right but that doesn't make it 100% sensible!
See my point about pedestrian/painted black/A14.
Protect yourself. You are responsible for your actions on the road. Yes you can't stop a car from hitting you, but neither can a pedestrian or another driver. But you mitigate by obeying the rules. Drive on the left. If someone is overtaking, be prepared to slow down to ease their progress. Use mirrors. Don't go to fast. Have a roadworthy vehicle. Be able to stop in the distance you can see etc etc. Why should cyclists be treated so differently to other road users? If drivers want to go hell for leather, we have track days. Why do cyclists insist on doing it on unsuitable streets or shared paths? They're not for racing or time trialling, they are sensible routes in areas of reasonably high demand from cyclists and those even more vulnerable than cyclists...
Next time a barrage of Bradleys come down the road, if I step in front of them, as is my right, what do you think the outcome would be? And who would get the blame? If I caused them to swerve and fall off, would they say "that's OK my friend, you have every right to be there, my mistake for going too fast"?
Since when does a Pedestrian have a right to step out in front of traffic? Genuine question, if they have, I've missed it. Your second point, yes, they have the right but that doesn't make it 100% sensible!
See my point about pedestrian/painted black/A14.
Protect yourself. You are responsible for your actions on the road. Yes you can't stop a car from hitting you, but neither can a pedestrian or another driver. But you mitigate by obeying the rules. Drive on the left. If someone is overtaking, be prepared to slow down to ease their progress. Use mirrors. Don't go to fast. Have a roadworthy vehicle. Be able to stop in the distance you can see etc etc. Why should cyclists be treated so differently to other road users? If drivers want to go hell for leather, we have track days. Why do cyclists insist on doing it on unsuitable streets or shared paths? They're not for racing or time trialling, they are sensible routes in areas of reasonably high demand from cyclists and those even more vulnerable than cyclists...
Next time a barrage of Bradleys come down the road, if I step in front of them, as is my right, what do you think the outcome would be? And who would get the blame? If I caused them to swerve and fall off, would they say "that's OK my friend, you have every right to be there, my mistake for going too fast"?
Anyway, Jason Wells has made the Wail, lol. For some reason they don't tell us what his house is worth. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106073/Ge...
As guaranteed, most of the comments by the Wail haters can be found here on PH, displaying exactly the same level of knowledge of motoring matters
heebeegeetee said:
Since when does a Pedestrian have a right to step out in front of traffic? Genuine question, if they have, I've missed it.
Rule 170, surely?
(Gives no suggestion that the pedestrian has to give ANY consideration to what's already coming - see cyclist theory above about it being the nasty car driver's responsibility at all times)
ETA she appears to be blind, so maybe that's her excuse.
OpulentBob said:
IroningMan said:
Moonhawk said:
Guy is an absolute nutter to be sure and should face prosecution for that behaviour.
But on a side note - it was interesting to see that the majority of cyclists on that road weren't using the cycle lane. It does question the value of putting infrastructure in place specifically to cater for cyclists if that infrastructure isn't going to get used.
Curious, isn't it.But on a side note - it was interesting to see that the majority of cyclists on that road weren't using the cycle lane. It does question the value of putting infrastructure in place specifically to cater for cyclists if that infrastructure isn't going to get used.
The cycle path in the video doesn't get a very flattering write-up in the road.cc link posted earlier.
IroningMan said:
OpulentBob said:
IroningMan said:
Moonhawk said:
Guy is an absolute nutter to be sure and should face prosecution for that behaviour.
But on a side note - it was interesting to see that the majority of cyclists on that road weren't using the cycle lane. It does question the value of putting infrastructure in place specifically to cater for cyclists if that infrastructure isn't going to get used.
Curious, isn't it.But on a side note - it was interesting to see that the majority of cyclists on that road weren't using the cycle lane. It does question the value of putting infrastructure in place specifically to cater for cyclists if that infrastructure isn't going to get used.
The cycle path in the video doesn't get a very flattering write-up in the road.cc link posted earlier.
At least one cyclist can be seen using the cycle lane in the vid - so the question that arises, why aren't more of them.
The highway code specifically suggests cyclists use such facilities where they are available:
61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 2nd June 07:29
Cheese Mechanic said:
IroningMan said:
Personally I tend to avoid cycling on busy roads - no fun and not necessary.
Likewise, it's just not safe aside anything else. I've thought for many a year, that sharing the same road on a bike, with large numbers of HGV's is not a good idea. Moonhawk said:
Does this apply to the cycle lane in the video though? The fact that some cycle lanes may be bad - doesn't mean they all are.
At least one cyclist can be seen using the cycle lane in the vid - so the question that arises, why aren't more of them.
The highway code specifically suggests cyclists use such facilities where they are available:
61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
I don't know - I've not been there. This was what I read, though:At least one cyclist can be seen using the cycle lane in the vid - so the question that arises, why aren't more of them.
The highway code specifically suggests cyclists use such facilities where they are available:
61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
roadcc poster said:
I used to ride on the 'segregated cycle lane' twice a day for a number of years. There was always an issue with vehicles turning into and out of The Priory hospital which is just a little further along. It has tall brick walls at its entrance. And when when British Tennis were developing their site further along Wandsworth Council allowed them to put hoardings (for a year) on the 'narrow footway' section and told cyclists to dismount. That's how much Wandsworth Council considered cyclists here. The TWO-WAY off-carriageway cycle path, is barely 1.4 metres wide and only has a white line to separate cycles from pedestrians is an anachronism and not appropriate for the use of long-distance commuters and sports cyclists that predominate on this road, or, arguably, more than one cyclist at a time.
1.4m doesn't sound like a lot for a shared-use two-way cycle path. In fact it sounds a lot like a pavement that has been designated a cycleway for reasons that may or may not be in the interests of the people who use it.heebeegeetee said:
Since when does a Pedestrian have a right to step out in front of traffic? Genuine question, if they have, I've missed it.
Seeing as you're in Holland... the answer is Holland. And IMO it's insane. People just walk out onto zebra crossings without looking. Cycles on a roundabout riding in the outer cycle lane get priority. To be fair it works for the Dutch, it's how they're brought up, but it's a big shock for outsiders. I spent eight weeks there on the bounce and still caught myself out.Dutch traffic rules have much to commend but IMO any traffic system which places pedestrians and cyclists in the way of moving traffic is fundamentally flawed.
The other side of the coin is pedestrians not being allowed to cross the road except at designated crossings and when the little man is flashing green. It's fair enough when it's busy, but I had a very interesting chat with a dour Dutch policeman one night over the merits of crossing a road to get to a pub right opposite, rather than walking 200 metres up the road to cross and then back again. It was a pretty all-encompassing conversation regarding common sense and personal responsibilities versus hidebound obedience to illogical rules. The man was a fool.
IroningMan said:
Not to worry. There are more than 150 other examples to choose from.
That is on a brand new route by my work. It is better than the 70mph dual carriage way that runs alongside it but those barriers are a pain. The junction they are beside is blind too so as you approach it to go straight on, you have to stop but as you cross it, cars come around a bend and have to do an emergency stop to avoid T boning you. That would apply to pedestrians as well as cyclists. A lot of money wasted.Steve
OpulentBob said:
To be fair the photo there has been very carefully framed to take the high speed Road it meets at 90degrees out of shot. Context matters.
No, the high speed road runs parallel to the path. The road that crosses the cycle path is a small C road but see my above post as to the design fault in the crossing.Steve
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff