Trucks to be banned from turning left

Trucks to be banned from turning left

Author
Discussion

colonel c

7,888 posts

238 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
walm said:
colonel c said:
I never said that. Indeed where I cycle there are no cycle paths at all and very few pavements either.
Sounds pretty selfish of you to use the roads then.
You appear to take offence that I think people should be prepared to have a sense courtesy towards other road users and some semblance of self protection.

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
walm said:
Not really.
Only very very slow cyclists or those accompanying kids use those types of cycle path.

The argument that he is "inconveniencing" "many" other road users is utter tripe as shown in the video since he catches up with them all the time, as is obvious to anyone cycling through a city.

If a cyclist is truly "inconveniencing" you for any meaningful period of time then you really can't drive.
I've lived in a number of developing countries with much higher rates of traffic fatalities than the UK.

I've seen a lot of dead cyclists and riders of small motorbikes who have had what should be a minor spill but instead, the minor spill has been in front or beside a vehicle, they have been run over and killed. A squashed head is quite a sight to see, you actually get little bits of white brain on the ground more than large amounts of blood.

It seems to me that if there is a facility that improves your safety, it is prudent to use it.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
creampuff said:
It seems to me that if there is a facility that improves your safety, it is prudent to use it.
Public transport is massively safer than driving.

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
colonel c said:
walm said:
colonel c said:
I never said that. Indeed where I cycle there are no cycle paths at all and very few pavements either.
Sounds pretty selfish of you to use the roads then.
You appear to take offence that I think people should be prepared to have a sense courtesy towards other road users and some semblance of self protection.
Not offended at all.

You just have a very bizarre attitude that it is discourteous to use a road rather than a cycle path, even though it demonstrably doesn't inconvenience anyone!

The safety point is better but still wrong since the road in question is wide and well sighted at all points. The only possible danger the cyclist is in, is from impatient neanderthals who can't drive and thankfully (despite the evidence on this thread to the contrary) they are a rarity.

Such a rarity that clearly this cyclist thinks it is worth taking that tiny extra risk by using the road not the slow path.
We (everyone not just cyclists) make these risk decisions every day.
Just now for example I bought lunch from across the road.
It was safer to stay on this side and have a sandwich but I really wanted a greasy kebab so I took the risk of crossing that road (and frankly the much higher health risk of a dodgy kebab).

colonel c

7,888 posts

238 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
walm said:
colonel c said:
walm said:
colonel c said:
I never said that. Indeed where I cycle there are no cycle paths at all and very few pavements either.
Sounds pretty selfish of you to use the roads then.
You appear to take offence that I think people should be prepared to have a sense courtesy towards other road users and some semblance of self protection.
Not offended at all.

You just have a very bizarre attitude that it is discourteous to use a road rather than a cycle path, even though it demonstrably doesn't inconvenience anyone!

The safety point is better but still wrong since the road in question is wide and well sighted at all points. The only possible danger the cyclist is in, is from impatient neanderthals who can't drive and thankfully (despite the evidence on this thread to the contrary) they are a rarity.

Such a rarity that clearly this cyclist thinks it is worth taking that tiny extra risk by using the road not the slow path.
We (everyone not just cyclists) make these risk decisions every day.
Just now for example I bought lunch from across the road.
It was safer to stay on this side and have a sandwich but I really wanted a greasy kebab so I took the risk of crossing that road (and frankly the much higher health risk of a dodgy kebab).
Ok. Guess we will have to agree to see things differently. Hope the kebab was good. smile

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
creampuff said:
It seems to me that if there is a facility that improves your safety, it is prudent to use it.
Public transport is massively safer than driving.
Driving remains quite safe and taking public transport could increase journey times to an extent that it is not possible to earn a living, depending on route. OTOH using a bike path involves a minimal increase in journey time and a substantial increase in safety. But if you want to pointlessly risk having your brains smeared over the road like I said I've seen several times, go right ahead, it is your prerogative.

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
colonel c said:
Hope the kebab was good. smile
Good in a bad way; damn good - thanks!

Creampuff - do you honestly believe that you know better than pretty much every single cyclist?
You say that the journey time increase is minimal and the safety improvement substantial, yet if that were the case surely SOME cyclists would use these paths.
Yet, empirically we see hardly anyone using them.

I am sure you (probably fairly) believe that this means that cyclists are just nutters but there must be one or two rational ones out there!

Just my opinion but the road really isn't that dangerous.
I found most of the danger at junctions and ironically cycle paths usually make you go over more of them since you have to stop at minor roads rather than keeping going as you do on the main road!

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
walm said:
You just have a very bizarre attitude that it is discourteous to use a road rather than a cycle path, even though it demonstrably doesn't inconvenience anyone!
I'm not sure this is the case. Your case that cycling does not delay traffic is based on cycle and motor traffic in various city locations having about the same average speed. This doesn't demonstrate that cycling does or does not delay other traffic, it just shows that despite lower peak speeds, cyclists are able to filter and use road space unavailable to larger vehicles. This provides no information as to if motor traffic speeds are affected by cycles or not.

I Googled this up as I felt sure that this would have been studied by traffic planners and traffic engineers. I came up with this study, paper here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...
And summaried in easier to read tabloid newspaper article here:
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/real-talk...

The finding of this research is that cycles on the main roadway DOES slow down other types of road traffic.

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
walm said:
Good in a bad way; damn good - thanks!

Creampuff - do you honestly believe that you know better than pretty much every single cyclist?
You say that the journey time increase is minimal and the safety improvement substantial, yet if that were the case surely SOME cyclists would use these paths.
Yet, empirically we see hardly anyone using them.

I am sure you (probably fairly) believe that this means that cyclists are just nutters but there must be one or two rational ones out there!

Just my opinion but the road really isn't that dangerous.
I found most of the danger at junctions and ironically cycle paths usually make you go over more of them since you have to stop at minor roads rather than keeping going as you do on the main road!
Since you have posted opinion, I will reply with my own opinion. I think British cyclists are overly aggressive, rude and less concerned of their effect of other road users than cyclists in other countries. I think British cyclists have a "speed at all costs" mentality. I have lived and pedal cycled to work in a number of countries, my opinion is that where dedicated cycle infrastructure is provided, it is used. I don't see many continental European cyclists cycling on the roadway if a bicycle path is provided. I certainly like to use bicycle paths when they are available because they are safer and being segregated from motor traffic, I find it a lot more pleasant.

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
creampuff said:
The finding of this research is that cycles on the main roadway DOES slow down other types of road traffic.
Thanks for that. Seems very interesting and does appear to contradict my suggestion.

Perhaps I have just commuted at odd times (usually quite early and quite late) because I honestly don't think I have ever held anyone up for more than a few seconds.
And typically when they have overtaken they just end up behind another car.
I can probably count on one hand the number of times the delay I caused meant someone missed a green light for example.

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
I'd welcome any further links about that subject (if cycles on a carriageway slow average traffic speeds). One article, even a scientific article, just gives an idea rather than saying for sure. I'd like to read other measured studies of traffic speeds or computer simulations and in more than one country.


Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
creampuff said:
I'd welcome any further links about that subject (if cycles on a carriageway slow average traffic speeds). One article, even a scientific article, just gives an idea rather than saying for sure. I'd like to read other measured studies of traffic speeds or computer simulations and in more than one country.
You won't find many, if any, it's a bit un-PC to say the least.

Studies in Sweden show that cycling puts a strain on the healthcare system. Information gathered from the police and insurance companies as well as hospitals points out cyclists as the largest group of injured in traffic, with a hospitalization for 24 hours or more at approximately 3,500/year. Same information also points to a accident rate of approximately 90% as lone cycle accidents or cyclist on cyclist accident.

This study is well hidden in the back corner of the internet, and will probably never make it to any news or made official.

A bit O/T, but there you go.

mp3manager

4,254 posts

195 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
How hard would it be to add a camera that looked back along the side of an HGV? Maybe mounted on a bracket by the front bumper. These cameras aren't very big and wouldn't be obtrusive.
Not hard at all.
But there's already six mirrors, two side windows and one big window up front to keep lorryists occupied.
Which is plenty to be going on with, seeing that God only gave lorryists, like myself, two eyes...just like everybody else.



But what's really needed is a big boxing glove on a scissor arm. smile

Biff...Biff...Biff!!




Edited by mp3manager on Friday 4th September 21:21

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
creampuff said:
Driving remains quite safe and taking public transport could increase journey times to an extent that it is not possible to earn a living, depending on route. OTOH using a bike path involves a minimal increase in journey time and a substantial increase in safety. But if you want to pointlessly risk having your brains smeared over the road like I said I've seen several times, go right ahead, it is your prerogative.
Cycling is also quite safe.

Using a shared use bike path like the one in the example will double the journey time of a fit cyclist even without the repeated stops.

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
Cycling is also quite safe.
If you consider the risk of being a casualty as a cyclist about 20 times higher than the risk of being a casualty as a car occupant safe.

colonel c

7,888 posts

238 months

Tuesday 15th September 2015
quotequote all

Clip here highlights some of the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMRWCi8uriw

Cyclist shouting 'I'm on My Side Of The Road, I've Not Broken Any Rules'. So that's OK then.


TokyoRich

135 posts

180 months

Tuesday 15th September 2015
quotequote all
creampuff said:
Since you have posted opinion, I will reply with my own opinion. I think British cyclists are overly aggressive, rude and less concerned of their effect of other road users than cyclists in other countries. I think British cyclists have a "speed at all costs" mentality. I have lived and pedal cycled to work in a number of countries, my opinion is that where dedicated cycle infrastructure is provided, it is used. I don't see many continental European cyclists cycling on the roadway if a bicycle path is provided. I certainly like to use bicycle paths when they are available because they are safer and being segregated from motor traffic, I find it a lot more pleasant.
Totally agree, having worked in Japan, Holland, and China, all of which have a large number of cyclists, it really only appears to be the UK where such a large number of cyclists are so aggressive.

Having just re-read this entire (and fascinating) thread, I seem to have come up with a solution. Given it appears that there seems to be little desire by the cyclists represented here to make use of cycle lanes why don't we turn them into truck lanes (clearly not the little path ones but the big ones that have taken over London and other cities) and put cyclists back on the road where they clearly want to be..

There solved.



Strocky

2,630 posts

112 months

Tuesday 15th September 2015
quotequote all
Re the thead titlem typical of the right wing attitude prevalent on PH biggrin