Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing

[walm]

DoubleD said:

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.
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.)

Weight has nothing to do with it. If its safe for a bike then its safe for car.

Come on DoubleD - don't be an ass.

What if there are a bunch of peds crossing.
You could weave through at walking pace on a bike.
Not so easy in something 6ft+ wide.

What if there was a nice empty bike lane ahead of the lights but the carriageway was full of cars.
Safe for bike, not for car.

Also safety involves the inherent RISK when you get it WRONG.
Clearly getting it wrong has EXTREME consequences in a car but very likely just a few scratches on a bike.

This isn't rocket science.

By the way, I don't RLJ on a bike because it annoys drivers. I think it can be done perfectly safely though on many occasions.

[DoubleD]

You are correct on one point. This is not rocket science.

[caelite]

walm said:

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.

Eh well my personal preference would really be to ban AM class all together. A 28mph limited motorvehicle is a retarded idea, 16 year olds should be allowed to step onto 125s which are able to keep a far safer pace for UK roads. Hell even an unlimited 50cc CVT scooter you can get a solid 35 out of which would be far safer than 28, some of the strokers will scream up to 50 with a tail wind. Even A1 class 125cc's CAN be a bit hairy on duals though, the lower powered ones will top out at 60 and will struggle on hills, on a motorbike most of your evasion potential is in the ability to quickly accelerate out of harms way.

The issue ive seen with them hugging the gutter is a lot of vehicles wont slow down and instead will pass at speed well riding the centreline which sucks for everyone involved. However there really is no safe means of using a bicycle on a DC hence why I said they really shouldnt be allowed on there as in this situation it isnt just there own safety they are affecting.

[caelite]

WinstonWolf said:

If the majority of cyclists aren't using the path the path isn't much cop. Be very careful what you wish for, the only way you'll get more cyclists on dedicated paths is to give them priority at junctions. Your wish will work out worse for all of us when we drive...

Thats why I said that incentive should be required for them to use the path, negative or otherwise. Im sure many would move onto the path if £60 FPNs started getting chucked about. And the ones who dont will be in a far smaller minority than before which would for the most part solve the issue.

[anonymous-user]

DoubleD said:

Weight has nothing to do with it. If its safe for a bike then its safe for car.

Do you think red light cameras were installed to catch cyclists?

[DoubleD]

No. Cyclists dont have number plates.

[Finlandia]

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

[gazza285]

Finlandia said:

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

Find me a moped that weighs less that 10kg. You would have to be one fat bd to get anywhere near the combined weights.

[gazza285]

caelite said:

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 tts 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... )

That isn't a cycle lane, that is a pavement with some red paint on it. No priority over side roads, right angle turns, looks pretty greasy and uneven further down the road, ends in a pelican crossing, shared with pedestrians. Given the free choice of riding on that or riding on the road with non of the above problems, is it not obvious why cyclists ride on the road? The only way to encourage cycle lane use is to make them fit for purpose.

[Finlandia]

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

Find me a moped that weighs less that 10kg. You would have to be one fat bd to get anywhere near the combined weights.

As I said, depending on the rider, bike 10kg (~25kg for electric bikes) + rider 100kg or moped 70kg + rider 50kg, not much to it really.

[gazza285]

Finlandia said:

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

Find me a moped that weighs less that 10kg. You would have to be one fat bd to get anywhere near the combined weights.

As I said, depending on the rider, bike 10kg (~25kg for electric bikes) + rider 100kg or moped 70kg + rider 50kg, not much to it really.

Find me a 70kg moped, then find me a 70kg moped that will out accelerate a bicycle across a junction.

[ikarl]

Gilera Stalker 50cc is 80kg if that helps anyone

[Finlandia]

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

Find me a moped that weighs less that 10kg. You would have to be one fat bd to get anywhere near the combined weights.

As I said, depending on the rider, bike 10kg (~25kg for electric bikes) + rider 100kg or moped 70kg + rider 50kg, not much to it really.

Find me a 70kg moped, then find me a 70kg moped that will out accelerate a bicycle across a junction.

Mopeds weigh between approx 55kg and 125kg. A Honda Monkey weighs 68kg, the most sold moped in the EU, a Peugeot Kisbee weighs 90kg, add a light rider and you have a combined weight not far from a big bloke on a push bike.
What does acceleration have to do with it? A moped can probably stop quicker than a cyclist though.

[caelite]

gazza285 said:

caelite said:

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 tts 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... )

That isn't a cycle lane, that is a pavement with some red paint on it. No priority over side roads, right angle turns, looks pretty greasy and uneven further down the road, ends in a pelican crossing, shared with pedestrians. Given the free choice of riding on that or riding on the road with non of the above problems, is it not obvious why cyclists ride on the road? The only way to encourage cycle lane use is to make them fit for purpose.

There are more markings on it now, it is also well sign posted at every entrance. The 2 side roads it cross before it remerges with the road are both very quiet (small navy outpost & marina thats only busy on weekends), you can easily sweep around the right handers at that one junction. The surface looks greasy from the pictures but its not really & in fact its a much better surface for grip than the road if im honest. I used to ride along it every day, only had to stop at the marina once on a blue moon. The road on the other hand is very narrow and frequently traversed by lorries, often drivers will just floor it and hope theres nothing coming around 1 of the 2 blind corners, and if there is something coming they will cut back into you. In my opinion they should have widened the road when they reclaimed the bit of land for the cycle path and added a marked cycle lane on the road but since they didnt do that I know what part I would cycle on.

And I disagree, I feel a negative reinforcement (FPN) would be a suitable way to encourage cycle lane use. Initially there will be complaints and it will not be ideal but as cycle infrastructure improves it will become less of an issue.

Edited by caelite on Thursday 25th August 19:53

[gazza285]

Finlandia said:

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

Find me a moped that weighs less that 10kg. You would have to be one fat bd to get anywhere near the combined weights.

As I said, depending on the rider, bike 10kg (~25kg for electric bikes) + rider 100kg or moped 70kg + rider 50kg, not much to it really.

Find me a 70kg moped, then find me a 70kg moped that will out accelerate a bicycle across a junction.

Mopeds weigh between approx 55kg and 125kg. A Honda Monkey weighs 68kg, the most sold moped in the EU, a Peugeot Kisbee weighs 90kg, add a light rider and you have a combined weight not far from a big bloke on a push bike.
What does acceleration have to do with it? A moped can probably stop quicker than a cyclist though.

From what I have seen, a cyclist will slow, check that they can get across, then accelerate over the junction, a moped doesn't have anywhere near the acceleration, leaving it in danger for much longer, that's why it matters.

[Finlandia]

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

gazza285 said:

Finlandia said:

If it's safe for a cyclist to jump a red light, is it safe for a moped? They weigh about the same (depending on the rider) and have about the same speed and size.

Find me a moped that weighs less that 10kg. You would have to be one fat bd to get anywhere near the combined weights.

As I said, depending on the rider, bike 10kg (~25kg for electric bikes) + rider 100kg or moped 70kg + rider 50kg, not much to it really.

Find me a 70kg moped, then find me a 70kg moped that will out accelerate a bicycle across a junction.

Mopeds weigh between approx 55kg and 125kg. A Honda Monkey weighs 68kg, the most sold moped in the EU, a Peugeot Kisbee weighs 90kg, add a light rider and you have a combined weight not far from a big bloke on a push bike.
What does acceleration have to do with it? A moped can probably stop quicker than a cyclist though.

From what I have seen, a cyclist will slow, check that they can get across, then accelerate over the junction, a moped doesn't have anywhere near the acceleration, leaving it in danger for much longer, that's why it matters.

From what I have seen, many are not slowing down as that means losing momentum and then you can just as well stop.
If acceleration is the issue, why not let motorbikes do the same? A biker can slow, check and accelerate over safely too.

[DoubleD]

Bikes dont weigh very much so cant cause any problems....But what happens when a vehicle has to swerve to avoid a cyclist that has jumped a red light? A cyclist cant cause much damage by itself, but jumping a red light has the potential to indirectly kill.

[caelite]

DoubleD said:

Bikes dont weigh very much so cant cause any problems....But what happens when a vehicle has to swerve to avoid a cyclist that has jumped a red light? A cyclist cant cause much damage by itself, but jumping a red light has the potential to indirectly kill.

Could also be directing causing his own death, potentially traumatising someone. Unhelmeted heading hitting windscreen/bonnet at ~30mph is probably going to scuff the paint too & with the cyclist not being insured driver will have to stomach his own insurance.

[FiF]

spookly said:

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.

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.

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 ps off a number of drivers.

Think the key phrase there is ps off a number of drivers, key word number. Frankly a group out doesn't piss me off, so wouldn't include myself inbthat number, they are usually getting a wiggle on reasonably and most of the ones I've seen have been reasonable. Based on that experience, which I accept may not be typical, I'd argue that someone who gets pissed off at that perhaps isn't that stable and needs to take a look at themselves and their attitude.

I'm still maintaining however that there are a few cyclists, usually singletons, who do seem to ride looking for confrontation.

[SteveSteveson]

caelite said:

gazza285 said:

caelite said:

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 tts 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... )

That isn't a cycle lane, that is a pavement with some red paint on it. No priority over side roads, right angle turns, looks pretty greasy and uneven further down the road, ends in a pelican crossing, shared with pedestrians. Given the free choice of riding on that or riding on the road with non of the above problems, is it not obvious why cyclists ride on the road? The only way to encourage cycle lane use is to make them fit for purpose.

There are more markings on it now, it is also well sign posted at every entrance. The 2 side roads it cross before it remerges with the road are both very quiet (small navy outpost & marina thats only busy on weekends), you can easily sweep around the right handers at that one junction. The surface looks greasy from the pictures but its not really & in fact its a much better surface for grip than the road if im honest. I used to ride along it every day, only had to stop at the marina once on a blue moon. The road on the other hand is very narrow and frequently traversed by lorries, often drivers will just floor it and hope theres nothing coming around 1 of the 2 blind corners, and if there is something coming they will cut back into you. In my opinion they should have widened the road when they reclaimed the bit of land for the cycle path and added a marked cycle lane on the road but since they didnt do that I know what part I would cycle on.

And I disagree, I feel a negative reinforcement (FPN) would be a suitable way to encourage cycle lane use. Initially there will be complaints and it will not be ideal but as cycle infrastructure improves it will become less of an issue.

Edited by caelite on Thursday 25th August 19:53

Fine, once using cycle lanes is mandatory, and they can be mandatory when they are well made, well maintained and given the same priority as the road they run along side. Oh, and the same FPNs to drivers who don't give cyclists the space required in the Highway Code. Sounds fair? Either that or you could accept cyclists have every right to be on the road and it is the drivers that don't give them space that are in the wrong.