Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing
Discussion
Plenty of people showing their bias above. I thought we'd agreed that there are d
heads on both sides of the equation?
The number of cyclists who deliberately ride to ps off drivers or create confrontational situations are very much in the minority, more who thoughtlessly put themselves in positions that are unsafe. Just as the vehicle drivers who deliberately try to put cyclists in danger are very much in the minority, again more do so thoughtlessly, but because of the relative vulnerability that makes it worse imo and the whole thing is therefore very one sided.
The occasions where a vehicle driver has been prosecuted for holding up other traffic are very rare, if, if, IF it were to be done by cyclists, then why shouldn't they be dealt with? That question hasn't been answered.
In short, I'm not saying they should be dealt with in the manner suggested by the last sentence of the OP, but subject to the same treatment in event of unreasonable behaviour.
heads on both sides of the equation?The number of cyclists who deliberately ride to p
s off drivers or create confrontational situations are very much in the minority, more who thoughtlessly put themselves in positions that are unsafe. Just as the vehicle drivers who deliberately try to put cyclists in danger are very much in the minority, again more do so thoughtlessly, but because of the relative vulnerability that makes it worse imo and the whole thing is therefore very one sided.The occasions where a vehicle driver has been prosecuted for holding up other traffic are very rare, if, if, IF it were to be done by cyclists, then why shouldn't they be dealt with? That question hasn't been answered.
In short, I'm not saying they should be dealt with in the manner suggested by the last sentence of the OP, but subject to the same treatment in event of unreasonable behaviour.
After reading these threads, I thought I would look at the cyclists on the way out of our village last night. The first one was cycling towards me on the wrong side of the road ( a busy A road) with both hands off the handlebars playing with his phone. The next 3 were all cycling on the cycle path at the side of the road. By my reckoning, that is 25% of cyclists that are idiots. Maybe I should work for YouGov ? 
FiF said:
Plenty of people showing their bias above. I thought we'd agreed that there are dheads on both sides of the equation?
The number of cyclists who deliberately ride to ps off drivers or create confrontational situations are very much in the minority, more who thoughtlessly put themselves in positions that are unsafe. Just as the vehicle drivers who deliberately try to put cyclists in danger are very much in the minority, again more do so thoughtlessly, but because of the relative vulnerability that makes it worse imo and the whole thing is therefore very one sided.
The occasions where a vehicle driver has been prosecuted for holding up other traffic are very rare, if, if, IF it were to be done by cyclists, then why shouldn't they be dealt with? That question hasn't been answered.
In short, I'm not saying they should be dealt with in the manner suggested by the last sentence of the OP, but subject to the same treatment in event of unreasonable behaviour.
Stop talking sense.heads on both sides of the equation?The number of cyclists who deliberately ride to p
s off drivers or create confrontational situations are very much in the minority, more who thoughtlessly put themselves in positions that are unsafe. Just as the vehicle drivers who deliberately try to put cyclists in danger are very much in the minority, again more do so thoughtlessly, but because of the relative vulnerability that makes it worse imo and the whole thing is therefore very one sided.The occasions where a vehicle driver has been prosecuted for holding up other traffic are very rare, if, if, IF it were to be done by cyclists, then why shouldn't they be dealt with? That question hasn't been answered.
In short, I'm not saying they should be dealt with in the manner suggested by the last sentence of the OP, but subject to the same treatment in event of unreasonable behaviour.
It's an emotive subjects - and my "cycling bias" does come out when people post stupid things because it encourages a stereotype that throws anyone that rides a bike in the same category. "Riding a bike" (not "cycling") has a very low barrier to entry - consequently there's a high number of knob-heads. If you filter out those on bike-shaped-objects, the standards of positioning / awareness improves (sadly not necessarily consideration of others) - but the stereotype remains. Apparently on PH it's become the norm' to be able to make comments about running over cyclists and it's funny, whereas for a number of people each year it'll be exactly that attitude that results in people not going home to their families (whereas I don't recall too many incidents where a cyclist has killed a motorist).
To simplify, it's a bit like saying that every driver is a meat-head idiot (mis-quoting from another thread about bald tyres) just because we've all seen a scaffholder driving a white van.
I feel cyclists SHOULD have equal access to the roads that cars do.
Equal in the sense that there needs to be some form of law and guidelines involved. Such as:
-Enforcement of standard road traffic laws, with monetary only fines without the provision for license endoresment. i.e running a red light is still £100 FPN as it is in a car however the 3 points isnt present. Possibly a slightly lower fine structure due to the nature of the vehicle
-Equal representation in civil and legal courts. Vulnerable or not cyclists should not be immune to there own action especially at the expense of other road users
-Equal enforcement of traffic guiding measures. Its illegal for motorists (and motorcyclists although thats another argument) to use the cycle lanes and advance
stop box where they are present. There should also be some enforcement for cyclists using these lanes where provided. The biggest disruption on my local roads is cyclist cycling on a bit of road that has been narrowed so a shared cycle path could be put in. This would reduce a lot of the stress that occurs between motorists and cyclists. However provisions should be allowed within legislation for situations where the path is inadequate (not maintained, illegally parked vehicles present, cyclist is overtaking another cyclist etc)
-Extend the ban of cyclists on motorways to also include NSL dual carriageways. Banning cyclists from anywhere is ofcourse a touchy subject however the use of bicycles on this type of road is far more dangerous than the use of tractors or other large noticable vehicle traveling at low speed for both the cyclists and motorists. This ban should also be extended to AM class motor vehicles (Quads/Mopeds limited to 28mph). With this increased cycle provisions should be added to nsl country roads as the presence of cyclists here is also very dangerous for all parties involved.
-Issue some form of required 3rd party insurance for cyclists over 18 as well as small indentifying feature, my suggestion would be a velcro license plate style piece which can be wraped onto the top tube displaying a plate on each side. Plates issues to the cyclists rather than the bike & can be applied for with a free form from post office (or online).
Just my 2 cents. Cycling is good for peoples health and the environment and should be encouraged. However the current situation of cyclists frequently being involved in RTAs as well as the impact they have on commuting infrastructure needs to be looked at.
Equal in the sense that there needs to be some form of law and guidelines involved. Such as:
-Enforcement of standard road traffic laws, with monetary only fines without the provision for license endoresment. i.e running a red light is still £100 FPN as it is in a car however the 3 points isnt present. Possibly a slightly lower fine structure due to the nature of the vehicle
-Equal representation in civil and legal courts. Vulnerable or not cyclists should not be immune to there own action especially at the expense of other road users
-Equal enforcement of traffic guiding measures. Its illegal for motorists (and motorcyclists although thats another argument) to use the cycle lanes and advance
stop box where they are present. There should also be some enforcement for cyclists using these lanes where provided. The biggest disruption on my local roads is cyclist cycling on a bit of road that has been narrowed so a shared cycle path could be put in. This would reduce a lot of the stress that occurs between motorists and cyclists. However provisions should be allowed within legislation for situations where the path is inadequate (not maintained, illegally parked vehicles present, cyclist is overtaking another cyclist etc)
-Extend the ban of cyclists on motorways to also include NSL dual carriageways. Banning cyclists from anywhere is ofcourse a touchy subject however the use of bicycles on this type of road is far more dangerous than the use of tractors or other large noticable vehicle traveling at low speed for both the cyclists and motorists. This ban should also be extended to AM class motor vehicles (Quads/Mopeds limited to 28mph). With this increased cycle provisions should be added to nsl country roads as the presence of cyclists here is also very dangerous for all parties involved.
-Issue some form of required 3rd party insurance for cyclists over 18 as well as small indentifying feature, my suggestion would be a velcro license plate style piece which can be wraped onto the top tube displaying a plate on each side. Plates issues to the cyclists rather than the bike & can be applied for with a free form from post office (or online).
Just my 2 cents. Cycling is good for peoples health and the environment and should be encouraged. However the current situation of cyclists frequently being involved in RTAs as well as the impact they have on commuting infrastructure needs to be looked at.
caelite said:
-Enforcement of standard road traffic laws, with monetary only fines without the provision for license endoresment. i.e running a red light is still £100 FPN as it is in a car however the 3 points isnt present. Possibly a slightly lower fine structure due to the nature of the vehicle
-Equal representation in civil and legal courts. Vulnerable or not cyclists should not be immune to there own action especially at the expense of other road users
Those two are already the case - the FPN is £60 IIRC.-Equal representation in civil and legal courts. Vulnerable or not cyclists should not be immune to there own action especially at the expense of other road users
walm said:
Those two are already the case - the FPN is £60 IIRC.
I thought cyclists where granted the same form of immunity as pedestrians? Where the driver is automatically in the wrong unless he can prove otherwise? Im sure I heard that on the radio not so long ago, maybe it was never implemented, in which case my apologies.Also cyclists can be prosecuted for running reds already? Hell I wish plod would actually enforce that, it would do more good to city traffic than catching cars doing ~35 in 30 (Hurrah for police Scotlands ZERO TOLERANCE speeding!).
caelite said:
I feel cyclists SHOULD have equal access to the roads that cars do.
Equal in the sense that there needs to be some form of law and guidelines involved. Such as:
-Enforcement of standard road traffic laws, with monetary only fines without the provision for license endoresment. i.e running a red light is still £100 FPN as it is in a car however the 3 points isnt present. Possibly a slightly lower fine structure due to the nature of the vehicle
-Equal representation in civil and legal courts. Vulnerable or not cyclists should not be immune to there own action especially at the expense of other road users
-Equal enforcement of traffic guiding measures. Its illegal for motorists (and motorcyclists although thats another argument) to use the cycle lanes and advance
stop box where they are present. There should also be some enforcement for cyclists using these lanes where provided. The biggest disruption on my local roads is cyclist cycling on a bit of road that has been narrowed so a shared cycle path could be put in. This would reduce a lot of the stress that occurs between motorists and cyclists. However provisions should be allowed within legislation for situations where the path is inadequate (not maintained, illegally parked vehicles present, cyclist is overtaking another cyclist etc)
-Extend the ban of cyclists on motorways to also include NSL dual carriageways. Banning cyclists from anywhere is ofcourse a touchy subject however the use of bicycles on this type of road is far more dangerous than the use of tractors or other large noticable vehicle traveling at low speed for both the cyclists and motorists. This ban should also be extended to AM class motor vehicles (Quads/Mopeds limited to 28mph). With this increased cycle provisions should be added to nsl country roads as the presence of cyclists here is also very dangerous for all parties involved.
-Issue some form of required 3rd party insurance for cyclists over 18 as well as small indentifying feature, my suggestion would be a velcro license plate style piece which can be wraped onto the top tube displaying a plate on each side. Plates issues to the cyclists rather than the bike & can be applied for with a free form from post office (or online).
Just my 2 cents. Cycling is good for peoples health and the environment and should be encouraged. However the current situation of cyclists frequently being involved in RTAs as well as the impact they have on commuting infrastructure needs to be looked at.
I commute 18 miles, some of it on A and rural roads. Are you happy to spend millions of pounds to save a few seconds on your journey?Equal in the sense that there needs to be some form of law and guidelines involved. Such as:
-Enforcement of standard road traffic laws, with monetary only fines without the provision for license endoresment. i.e running a red light is still £100 FPN as it is in a car however the 3 points isnt present. Possibly a slightly lower fine structure due to the nature of the vehicle
-Equal representation in civil and legal courts. Vulnerable or not cyclists should not be immune to there own action especially at the expense of other road users
-Equal enforcement of traffic guiding measures. Its illegal for motorists (and motorcyclists although thats another argument) to use the cycle lanes and advance
stop box where they are present. There should also be some enforcement for cyclists using these lanes where provided. The biggest disruption on my local roads is cyclist cycling on a bit of road that has been narrowed so a shared cycle path could be put in. This would reduce a lot of the stress that occurs between motorists and cyclists. However provisions should be allowed within legislation for situations where the path is inadequate (not maintained, illegally parked vehicles present, cyclist is overtaking another cyclist etc)
-Extend the ban of cyclists on motorways to also include NSL dual carriageways. Banning cyclists from anywhere is ofcourse a touchy subject however the use of bicycles on this type of road is far more dangerous than the use of tractors or other large noticable vehicle traveling at low speed for both the cyclists and motorists. This ban should also be extended to AM class motor vehicles (Quads/Mopeds limited to 28mph). With this increased cycle provisions should be added to nsl country roads as the presence of cyclists here is also very dangerous for all parties involved.
-Issue some form of required 3rd party insurance for cyclists over 18 as well as small indentifying feature, my suggestion would be a velcro license plate style piece which can be wraped onto the top tube displaying a plate on each side. Plates issues to the cyclists rather than the bike & can be applied for with a free form from post office (or online).
Just my 2 cents. Cycling is good for peoples health and the environment and should be encouraged. However the current situation of cyclists frequently being involved in RTAs as well as the impact they have on commuting infrastructure needs to be looked at.
Should we be tested for stress? I can imagine all these stressed motorists must be a danger to all those around them.
How about compulsory cycling for all, it's a fantastic way to relieve stress.
caelite said:
walm said:
Those two are already the case - the FPN is £60 IIRC.
I thought cyclists where granted the same form of immunity as pedestrians? Where the driver is automatically in the wrong unless he can prove otherwise? Im sure I heard that on the radio not so long ago, maybe it was never implemented, in which case my apologies.Also cyclists can be prosecuted for running reds already? Hell I wish plod would actually enforce that, it would do more good to city traffic than catching cars doing ~35 in 30 (Hurrah for police Scotlands ZERO TOLERANCE speeding!).
(One of only 5 countries in Europe that doesn't.)
Plod enforcing RLJing happens from time to time.
(And to all but the very hard of thinking is a complete waste of time and clearly causes MORE congestion.)
caelite said:
Just my 2 cents. Cycling is good for peoples health and the environment and should be encouraged. However the current situation of cyclists frequently being involved in RTAs as well as the impact they have on commuting infrastructure needs to be looked at.
And yet you ONLY suggest measures you know a) aren't going to happen, or b) would discourage cycling.That makes you a liar, no?
I can tell you exactly what discourages me, and most of the people I know, from cycling, and it isn't any of that. It's people like the OP, who are one bad day away from completely imaging some slight and running me over. Someone else said you should imagine the other party has a weapon - completely missing that, if you're on a bike, you don't need to.
I wonder what OP would say if the people he was mad at could give an instant 30% chance of mortality to him as easily as he could to them?
Edited by paranoid airbag on Thursday 25th August 17:52
caelite - the problem with all your suggestions are that they cost a huge amount to implement for almost no tangible benefit.
You are simply making up problems that don't exist.
A ban on NSL dual carriageways for example.
Personally I think anyone cycling on these is absolute insanity and thoroughly unpleasant.
So do most cyclists.
Hardly ANYONE does it.
However, for those that do - it's VERY safe. The vast VAST majority of cycle crashes happen at junctions - which are rare on 70mph DCs.
Honestly - google cycle DC deaths. An absolutely TINY number. (I can remember maybe that one in Cornwall that took out two guys - but nothing else.)
It's just irrelevant.
Drivers are generally pretty incompetent but even they can manage to overtake cyclists safely here.
And RLJing FFS.
This very VERY rarely injures a pedestrian.
Makes not a jot of difference to drivers.
You are simply making up problems that don't exist.
A ban on NSL dual carriageways for example.
Personally I think anyone cycling on these is absolute insanity and thoroughly unpleasant.
So do most cyclists.
Hardly ANYONE does it.
However, for those that do - it's VERY safe. The vast VAST majority of cycle crashes happen at junctions - which are rare on 70mph DCs.
Honestly - google cycle DC deaths. An absolutely TINY number. (I can remember maybe that one in Cornwall that took out two guys - but nothing else.)
It's just irrelevant.
Drivers are generally pretty incompetent but even they can manage to overtake cyclists safely here.
And RLJing FFS.
This very VERY rarely injures a pedestrian.
Makes not a jot of difference to drivers.
WinstonWolf said:
I commute 18 miles, some of it on A and rural roads. Are you happy to spend millions of pounds to save a few seconds on your journey?
Should we be tested for stress? I can imagine all these stressed motorists must be a danger to all those around them.
How about compulsory cycling for all, it's a fantastic way to relieve stress.
When I worked about 4 miles from my home I used to cycle to work every day too, rain, snow & shine. Although through a very short stretch of village NSL and mostly suburban roads. I think its a great form of transport, it's cheap and keeps you fit, and the taxpayer has already spent millions in my area putting cycling provisions in place making commuting by bicycle even easier. The problem I have is that I now commute 20miles or so (too long for me to cycle) in the same direction & see the same cycling provisions I used to use on a regular basis being unused by ~60% of cyclists. I have no problem being held up for short periods of time by cyclists it doesnt bother me, however when I need to stare at some lycra tShould we be tested for stress? I can imagine all these stressed motorists must be a danger to all those around them.
How about compulsory cycling for all, it's a fantastic way to relieve stress.
ts arse for 10 minutes as they cycle along the section of road in my village that has been narrowed to include a pristine beachside cycle lane it really does my nut in. I believe that if tax payers are needing to fork out millions to put these provisions in place to relieve congestion and improve safety then there needs to be some form of positive or negative means of guiding riders onto these schemes. I have heard the argument used before that people wont use them as they are shared lanes which they would need to slow down for pedestrians on which I find a hilarious argument based on the affect a single cyclist not using the lane causes to traffic on that road.During rush hour over the summer months the road is essentially limited to ~15mph with the cycle lane empty because the road is very thin & blind and is thus unsafe to pass on in most places.
(This is the road if you are interested: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.0162299,-4.77816... )
walm said:
caelite - the problem with all your suggestions are that they cost a huge amount to implement for almost no tangible benefit.
You are simply making up problems that don't exist.
A ban on NSL dual carriageways for example.
Personally I think anyone cycling on these is absolute insanity and thoroughly unpleasant.
So do most cyclists.
Hardly ANYONE does it.
However, for those that do - it's VERY safe. The vast VAST majority of cycle crashes happen at junctions - which are rare on 70mph DCs.
Honestly - google cycle DC deaths. An absolutely TINY number. (I can remember maybe that one in Cornwall that took out two guys - but nothing else.)
It's just irrelevant.
Drivers are generally pretty incompetent but even they can manage to overtake cyclists safely here.
And RLJing FFS.
This very VERY rarely injures a pedestrian.
Makes not a jot of difference to drivers.
I agree that it is insane and IS uncommon. The fact that it is so uncommon would mean that a ban for the sake of safety would affect very few cyclists & take a hazard out of the equation for drivers to look out for. However I disagree about its safety. I believe it is the illusion of it being safe simply due to the fact that it was so uncommon, the few times I have witnessed it one of them has actually involved a minor RTA between 2 cars (view of cyclist was blocked by high sided vehicle, high sided vehicle moved to L2 suddenly to avoid the cyclists, car behind him had to do the same but was blocked by a car already in L2, YES blame could be pinned on the drivers of both the sprinter van for not slowing down and the driver behind for his paniced evasion). All the other times it has been similar scenarios with close calls between vehicles trying to evade the cyclistYou are simply making up problems that don't exist.
A ban on NSL dual carriageways for example.
Personally I think anyone cycling on these is absolute insanity and thoroughly unpleasant.
So do most cyclists.
Hardly ANYONE does it.
However, for those that do - it's VERY safe. The vast VAST majority of cycle crashes happen at junctions - which are rare on 70mph DCs.
Honestly - google cycle DC deaths. An absolutely TINY number. (I can remember maybe that one in Cornwall that took out two guys - but nothing else.)
It's just irrelevant.
Drivers are generally pretty incompetent but even they can manage to overtake cyclists safely here.
And RLJing FFS.
This very VERY rarely injures a pedestrian.
Makes not a jot of difference to drivers.
Also a very large amount of AM class vehicle fatalities happen on 70mph DCs as they are very hard to control when being buffeted by lorries passing at 56, I dont believe this effect doesnt translate over to bicycles too.
DoubleD said:
If the red light is safe for a bike to ignore then its also safe for a car to ignore.
Win win
Not really.Win win
Cars are a lot bigger and heavier than bikes and they can go quicker.
Rather elementary rules of physics make your comment look a bit wrong, IMO.
However, perhaps you mean it COULD be safe.
And I agree.
The yanks can't drive very well in general but I do think the ability to turn right on red is quite a good innovation by them.
(That would be turning left for us.)
FiF said:
Plenty of people showing their bias above. I thought we'd agreed that there are dheads on both sides of the equation?
Agreed.heads on both sides of the equation?FiF said:
The number of cyclists who deliberately ride to ps off drivers or create confrontational situations are very much in the minority, more who thoughtlessly put themselves in positions that are unsafe.
The problem isn't that cyclists are deliberately riding to piss people off. The problem, and what some drivers are expressing annoyance at, is the proliferation of groups of cyclists. They don't mean to get in the way, or deliberately ride to wind people up.s off drivers or create confrontational situations are very much in the minority, more who thoughtlessly put themselves in positions that are unsafe.But when they made the choice to go for a ride in a group they already decided to do something that would inconvenience drivers and cause this annoyance.
We can argue all day as to whether that ire is warranted or not, but just by being in a bunch of slow cyclists on a free flowing public road you will p
s off a number of drivers.walm said:
DoubleD said:
If the red light is safe for a bike to ignore then its also safe for a car to ignore.
Win win
Not really.Win win
Cars are a lot bigger and heavier than bikes and they can go quicker.
Rather elementary rules of physics make your comment look a bit wrong, IMO.
However, perhaps you mean it COULD be safe.
And I agree.
The yanks can't drive very well in general but I do think the ability to turn right on red is quite a good innovation by them.
(That would be turning left for us.)
caelite said:
Also a very large amount of AM class vehicle fatalities happen on 70mph DCs as they are very hard to control when being buffeted by lorries passing at 56, I dont believe this effect doesnt translate over to bicycles too.
Actually - that's a great point.If it required cyclists to be banned as well as AM class, that seems fair to me.
Most cyclists I have seen on DCs tend to hug the gutter rather than stick in the carriageway which is possibly why they don't suffer as much as the AM class.
caelite said:
WinstonWolf said:
I commute 18 miles, some of it on A and rural roads. Are you happy to spend millions of pounds to save a few seconds on your journey?
Should we be tested for stress? I can imagine all these stressed motorists must be a danger to all those around them.
How about compulsory cycling for all, it's a fantastic way to relieve stress.
When I worked about 4 miles from my home I used to cycle to work every day too, rain, snow & shine. Although through a very short stretch of village NSL and mostly suburban roads. I think its a great form of transport, it's cheap and keeps you fit, and the taxpayer has already spent millions in my area putting cycling provisions in place making commuting by bicycle even easier. The problem I have is that I now commute 20miles or so (too long for me to cycle) in the same direction & see the same cycling provisions I used to use on a regular basis being unused by ~60% of cyclists. I have no problem being held up for short periods of time by cyclists it doesnt bother me, however when I need to stare at some lycra tShould we be tested for stress? I can imagine all these stressed motorists must be a danger to all those around them.
How about compulsory cycling for all, it's a fantastic way to relieve stress.
ts arse for 10 minutes as they cycle along the section of road in my village that has been narrowed to include a pristine beachside cycle lane it really does my nut in. I believe that if tax payers are needing to fork out millions to put these provisions in place to relieve congestion and improve safety then there needs to be some form of positive or negative means of guiding riders onto these schemes. I have heard the argument used before that people wont use them as they are shared lanes which they would need to slow down for pedestrians on which I find a hilarious argument based on the affect a single cyclist not using the lane causes to traffic on that road.During rush hour over the summer months the road is essentially limited to ~15mph with the cycle lane empty because the road is very thin & blind and is thus unsafe to pass on in most places.
(This is the road if you are interested: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.0162299,-4.77816... )
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff