The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

Disastrous said:

Batfink said:

As a commuter cyclist. I like the thought of educating drivers on how to overtake cyclists but fining them is hardly a good solution and probably will cause more issues and pointless resentment.

I ride a combination of busy A-roads and country lanes to get to work. Its about 3-4 minutes faster by car on a good day, but I regularly filter down the middle of the road to pass the queues. I could drive my car but the car does not warm up in the journey and the days when I sit in a traffic jam are purely frustrating, so I save it for the weekend and for the family duties.

Generally I don't have a problem and this thread highlights the issue some people face perfectly. Its a simple lack of respect and too big a dose of self importance. Its quite easy to drive and ride with courtesy towards others using the road and its effortless to use the same roads together if people take notice of whats around them.

I obey the rules of the road just like I should, stop for lights etc. I like to thank drivers if they move over to aid me passing, let me out etc.
If I can move over to help them pass I do the same. I've even pulled onto the path to let bigger lorries through on the narrower or busier parts.
I don't feel like I have more rights than anyone else and just share the roads as any other road user.

Of course there are days when you get annoyed at something, but how up tight do you really have to be to bottle it up until you get home so you can moan on a forum or facebook! To be once its over its done...

Club Cyclists can be a pain. They never look backwards to see what traffic is building up but at least the are mostly at the weekend.
I've never really had problems as a driver overtaking pairs of cyclists running side by side. Most move over if the road is thin. As a cyclist I do find cars can very silently come up on you so you have to give them time to notice you.
Lycra - its not the greatest look for men but theres no need to bully people over it. I wear it because its practical in all weathers, its more comfortable and dries better. I started wearing normal clothes at first but it does not work for anything other than a light commute of a couple of miles.
Lights. Bright lights can be horrible to drivers but worse are dim lights or no lights. I angle my front light as best I can to avoid directly shinning into drivers eyes. Really other cyclists should do the same where they can, but its a compromise as forward visibility helps spot the road holes. Helmet lights should be off road only.
Cycle paths are great when specially developed and great for low speed inner city areas. But for outer urban environments they are just painted paths. I cycle at 18-20mph average. I cannot safely use those paths with pedestrians. On faster urban roads I'm closer to the speed of most cars so it's better I ride with them. Some cyclists will be better on those paths but certainly its no good for me.
Filtering can be a little nerve-racking and you have to keep your wits about you. I try to ride centrally down past traffic so oncoming traffic does not need to move over. I will be close to cars but it works as long as people do not leave a big gap from the kerb. I never overtake the big lorries unless there is a clear opposite road (or I nip on the path) as I understand they have less visibility and there is less road space to maneuver safely

Generally the modern lifestyle has made roads favour the car, but bikes do work for some. Its saved me a fortune financially and I've never been fitter. I've commuted for 5 years now by bike and the roads are fine to use. Yes I've been hit by a car, yes i've been buzzed by cars driving too fast and too close, but its not stupidly dangerous. Maybe I can count 20 incidents over that time that shook me up badly. Theres been a few mistakes by me as well, not many will have pissed off drivers but they generally meant I was either on my arse on the floor or nearly there lol

I've accidentally written a lot. To summarise people need to simply chill out and learn to deal with the unexpected and people doing occasional stupid things

Edited by Batfink on Tuesday 1st November 12:01

I predict that such a sensible, balanced post will be near-ignored here on PH...

I agree, it is a good post.

I could apply a lot of it to myself.

The reality is that there is no serious deterrent to actually protect cyclists from idiots in cars. The sort of cretin that would 'buzz' another road user is the sort of punter that would be best removed completely from the road network for everyone's benefit.

Clamping down on the militant hatred of cyclists or any of the other types of road user should be done very publicly and very aggressively.

But in reality the way we are going we are probably going to see more and more people weirdly blaming other road users for their failures to do simple things like leave 5 minutes earlier etc. There seems to be an ever growing group of people with rage issues or militant beliefs that no amount of education is going to fix.

[Devil2575]

DonkeyApple said:

I agree we can use cars more intelligently, that is really my whole point. But bikes really are inflexible. You do only have to look at how our modern lives work to see that the car meets so many more requirements than a pushbike can.

And again, a chap with one eye is a sample of one and an absolute statistical anomaly. What about the bloke with no eyes? There are more of them and you don't see them being carried around on pushbikes do you?

The push bike only works for a small number of people and even then it only works for some of their needs. It really is that simple.

What we don't want to be doing is ploughing excess funds into such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport for the masses when it is clear that far superior results can be achieved by advancing the existing core means of transport rather than taking actions which make them even less efficient.

In Northern Europe far more people cycle far more often. Are they so fundamentally different to us that they can deal with such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport and we can't?

How many trips do we use cars for where we are alone in the car and we are not transporting lots of stuff?

I reduced my annual milage by 50% 4 years ago. A combination of walking and cycling as well as a decisions about where I live and work made this possible.

The funny thing was that in my last house I convinced myself that I couldn't commute by bike because it was simply too far and the roads were too dangerous. When I moved we picked somewhere closer to work and I started to commute by bike. Now after cycling for 4 years I wouldn't think twice about commuting from my old house and in reality it wouldn't have been much longer or harder than my current commute. It was all about perception.

[Mave]

DonkeyApple said:

Exactly. But bikes for all isn't the solution. So what I am saying is that the solution lies in dealing with the issues directly and not heading off down the blind alley of trying to force everyone into bikes. You'll only ever be able to get a relatively modest percentage of journeys switched over to bikes so you need to ensure a proportionate investment and actions that don't impact negatively on the primary means.

I agree that we shouldn't be forcing everyone onto bikes (although I disagree with the significance of the switchover that could be achieved in congested cities, with the right investment), but the OP policy isn't doing that. It's trying to remove the barriers to people using bikes, with proportionally very little investment.

[herewego]

Devil2575 said:

DonkeyApple said:

I agree we can use cars more intelligently, that is really my whole point. But bikes really are inflexible. You do only have to look at how our modern lives work to see that the car meets so many more requirements than a pushbike can.

And again, a chap with one eye is a sample of one and an absolute statistical anomaly. What about the bloke with no eyes? There are more of them and you don't see them being carried around on pushbikes do you?

The push bike only works for a small number of people and even then it only works for some of their needs. It really is that simple.

What we don't want to be doing is ploughing excess funds into such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport for the masses when it is clear that far superior results can be achieved by advancing the existing core means of transport rather than taking actions which make them even less efficient.

In Northern Europe far more people cycle far more often. Are they so fundamentally different to us that they can deal with such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport and we can't?

How many trips do we use cars for where we are alone in the car and we are not transporting lots of stuff?

I reduced my annual milage by 50% 4 years ago. A combination of walking and cycling as well as a decisions about where I live and work made this possible.

The funny thing was that in my last house I convinced myself that I couldn't commute by bike because it was simply too far and the roads were too dangerous. When I moved we picked somewhere closer to work and I started to commute by bike. Now after cycling for 4 years I wouldn't think twice about commuting from my old house and in reality it wouldn't have been much longer or harder than my current commute. It was all about perception.

I heard just yesterday that Brits are the fattest nation in Europe.

[battered]

herewego said:

I heard just yesterday that Brits are the fattest nation in Europe.

Go on holiday in EU and look around, it's easily proven. The old myth about Italian women being gorgeous until the age of 25 and then enormous is long gone compared to our own home grown UK biffers of both sexes.

The advent of fast food is bringing up a few stragglers though.

[Mave]

DonkeyApple said:

But in reality the way we are going we are probably going to see more and more people weirdly blaming other road users for their failures to do simple things like leave 5 minutes earlier etc. There seems to be an ever growing group of people with rage issues or militant beliefs that no amount of education is going to fix.

Totally agree with this. At the risk of going off topic I think the UK has a significant mental health problem (no 1 cause of death in young to middle aged men anyone?). Sitting fuming in traffic jams and glaring at cyclists (not directed at you donkeyapple!) strikes me as a symptom...

[G321]

herewego said:

I heard just yesterday that Brits are the fattest nation in Europe.

It was on dispatches (I think) last night and it said that the UK's men were the fattest in Europe and women were the 2nd fattest. British people are generally lazy and anyone getting out doing some exercise in whatever form should be encouraged

[herewego]

G321 said:

herewego said:

I heard just yesterday that Brits are the fattest nation in Europe.

It was on dispatches (I think) last night and it said that the UK's men were the fattest in Europe and women were the 2nd fattest. British people are generally lazy and anyone getting out doing some exercise in whatever form should be encouraged

And yet some people are arguing that everybody should go everywhere by car.

[WinstonWolf]

DonkeyApple said:

Devil2575 said:

DonkeyApple said:

The bike is far too inflexible a tool which is why it was superseded in the first instance. It works only for a rigid minority, it is a massive failure for a society.

Really?

How many of those reasons that people need to use a car are actually based on preference?

The reason the bicycle was superceeded wasn't because it was inflexible, it was because the car is easier and more convenient. It was the mass ownership of cars that changed the shape of our towns, where we live etc that has ended up in a situation where cars are now much more of a requirement. It wasn't the other way round. Also, a lot of the things that we think we could not cope without, we actually could, we think that there are other options because we don't have to.

I work with a lad who suffered a blood clot in his eye. One of the side effects is a loss of vision and as such he cannot drive. He has had to find other ways of doing things. The world hasn't stopped, his life hasn't fallen apart, it's just that circumstances have forced him to consider what his alternatives are.

Cars are easier, they require a lot less effort and are more convenient. But it is possible to use them a lot less than we currently do.

Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 1st November 12:31

I agree we can use cars more intelligently, that is really my whole point. But bikes really are inflexible. You do only have to look at how our modern lives work to see that the car meets so many more requirements than a pushbike can.

And again, a chap with one eye is a sample of one and an absolute statistical anomaly. What about the bloke with no eyes? There are more of them and you don't see them being carried around on pushbikes do you?

The push bike only works for a small number of people and even then it only works for some of their needs. It really is that simple.

What we don't want to be doing is ploughing excess funds into such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport for the masses when it is clear that far superior results can be achieved by advancing the existing core means of transport rather than taking actions which make them even less efficient.

Using cars more intelligently? Such as not needlessly clogging cities up in rush hour?

Bikes are not inflexible at all, they're quicker for a great many journeys, you get fitter and they take up a fraction of the space of the car. They're not suitable for every journey, but they're suitable for far more than most lazy sods use them for.

Swapping the car for the bike is using the car more intelligently.

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

DonkeyApple said:

I agree we can use cars more intelligently, that is really my whole point. But bikes really are inflexible. You do only have to look at how our modern lives work to see that the car meets so many more requirements than a pushbike can.

And again, a chap with one eye is a sample of one and an absolute statistical anomaly. What about the bloke with no eyes? There are more of them and you don't see them being carried around on pushbikes do you?

The push bike only works for a small number of people and even then it only works for some of their needs. It really is that simple.

What we don't want to be doing is ploughing excess funds into such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport for the masses when it is clear that far superior results can be achieved by advancing the existing core means of transport rather than taking actions which make them even less efficient.

In Northern Europe far more people cycle far more often. Are they so fundamentally different to us that they can deal with such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport and we can't?

How many trips do we use cars for where we are alone in the car and we are not transporting lots of stuff?

I reduced my annual milage by 50% 4 years ago. A combination of walking and cycling as well as a decisions about where I live and work made this possible.

The funny thing was that in my last house I convinced myself that I couldn't commute by bike because it was simply too far and the roads were too dangerous. When I moved we picked somewhere closer to work and I started to commute by bike. Now after cycling for 4 years I wouldn't think twice about commuting from my old house and in reality it wouldn't have been much longer or harder than my current commute. It was all about perception.

Again, the importance of trying to take mainland European data and cite it as where we could be doesn't take into account key data that really does have a massive impact. You need to start looking a social cohesion, employment types, topography just for starters before you can say whether 15% in one city is better or worse than 5% in another.

You also cite another sample of one. I could cite my own example of the fact that I simply have no need for a car and that a bike would be far less convenient than walking or the tube for me but samples of one are worthless.

You mention moving closer to work. That is an incredibly relevant metric. If you look at where the bulk of the UK population work and then how far away they live and how regularly they change work then on that alone you can start to imagine some quite stark cultural differences between the UK and the mainland. Then you can also look at the topography, how many major U.K. Conurbations are relatively flat in contrast to the bigger geology of the mainland? Looking at the vital, smaller details and difference truly highlight how invalid arguments like 'look at some European cities' or 'our average journey is less than 5 miles'. The devil really is in the detail but in these threads the more militant views on either side are incredibly simplistic but drown out moderate debate especially as many people hold the base view that if you don't agree you have to be the opposition etc.

[DonkeyApple]

Mave said:

DonkeyApple said:

Exactly. But bikes for all isn't the solution. So what I am saying is that the solution lies in dealing with the issues directly and not heading off down the blind alley of trying to force everyone into bikes. You'll only ever be able to get a relatively modest percentage of journeys switched over to bikes so you need to ensure a proportionate investment and actions that don't impact negatively on the primary means.

I agree that we shouldn't be forcing everyone onto bikes (although I disagree with the significance of the switchover that could be achieved in congested cities, with the right investment), but the OP policy isn't doing that. It's trying to remove the barriers to people using bikes, with proportionally very little investment.

Yup. Going back to the OP then I can't see any positive argument against penalising dangerous and aggressive road users as efficiently as possible.

[heebeegeetee]

DonkeyApple said:

Again, the importance of trying to take mainland European data and cite it as where we could be doesn't take into account key data that really does have a massive impact. You need to start looking a social cohesion, employment types, topography just for starters before you can say whether 15% in one city is better or worse than 5% in another.

You also cite another sample of one. I could cite my own example of the fact that I simply have no need for a car and that a bike would be far less convenient than walking or the tube for me but samples of one are worthless.

You mention moving closer to work. That is an incredibly relevant metric. If you look at where the bulk of the UK population work and then how far away they live and how regularly they change work then on that alone you can start to imagine some quite stark cultural differences between the UK and the mainland. Then you can also look at the topography, how many major U.K. Conurbations are relatively flat in contrast to the bigger geology of the mainland? Looking at the vital, smaller details and difference truly highlight how invalid arguments like 'look at some European cities' or 'our average journey is less than 5 miles'. The devil really is in the detail but in these threads the more militant views on either side are incredibly simplistic but drown out moderate debate especially as many people hold the base view that if you don't agree you have to be the opposition etc.

So Europe is doing it wrong then? We, with our obesity, and type 2 diabetes epidemic, and diabetes in children which used to be unheard of, has got it right?

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Only someone with sub-normal thinking would fail to see the logic in this.

Oh hello...

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's how big your penis is.

[DonkeyApple]

Mave said:

DonkeyApple said:

But in reality the way we are going we are probably going to see more and more people weirdly blaming other road users for their failures to do simple things like leave 5 minutes earlier etc. There seems to be an ever growing group of people with rage issues or militant beliefs that no amount of education is going to fix.

Totally agree with this. At the risk of going off topic I think the UK has a significant mental health problem (no 1 cause of death in young to middle aged men anyone?). Sitting fuming in traffic jams and glaring at cyclists (not directed at you donkeyapple!) strikes me as a symptom...

I think it could possibly be even simpler than that. You only have to float around PH to witness the all pervading and traditional hatred by so many of those they see as more successful.

As such, would people exhibit so much aggression towards cyclists if they were all poor people rather than affluent professionals who exhibit all the attributes of the people the angry ones have to work for etc? It's 'Bitter Mans' chance to stick it to the type of person he blames for his personal failures in life. And on the flip side you see 'Superior Man' ttting about on a bike.

I actually think that the car v bike thing we see so often is much more to do about the joyous British class system than anything else.

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You're deluded.

[DonkeyApple]

heebeegeetee said:

DonkeyApple said:

Again, the importance of trying to take mainland European data and cite it as where we could be doesn't take into account key data that really does have a massive impact. You need to start looking a social cohesion, employment types, topography just for starters before you can say whether 15% in one city is better or worse than 5% in another.

You also cite another sample of one. I could cite my own example of the fact that I simply have no need for a car and that a bike would be far less convenient than walking or the tube for me but samples of one are worthless.

You mention moving closer to work. That is an incredibly relevant metric. If you look at where the bulk of the UK population work and then how far away they live and how regularly they change work then on that alone you can start to imagine some quite stark cultural differences between the UK and the mainland. Then you can also look at the topography, how many major U.K. Conurbations are relatively flat in contrast to the bigger geology of the mainland? Looking at the vital, smaller details and difference truly highlight how invalid arguments like 'look at some European cities' or 'our average journey is less than 5 miles'. The devil really is in the detail but in these threads the more militant views on either side are incredibly simplistic but drown out moderate debate especially as many people hold the base view that if you don't agree you have to be the opposition etc.

So Europe is doing it wrong then? We, with our obesity, and type 2 diabetes epidemic, and diabetes in children which used to be unheard of, has got it right?

This is an example of stifling the debate. You know all too well that nothing that I have written has alluded to that at all yet you think it appropriate to try and respond to a post by attempting to twist its meaning tonne negative and to shut it down.

And I really don't think the sudden 'will no one think of the children' deviation does anything to elevate the conversation. That's all rather base to be honest.

Of course, we could look at the real issues of obesity such as bad diet, bad education, alcohol consumption, smoking, possibly excess/incorrect welfare, depression, unemployment, social depravation, childhood issues etc as I really don't think that trying to bring such a complex subject matter into an argument as to whether drivers who buzz cyclists should be reprimanded or that forcing all fat people to ride a bike does much to further any debate? What about a spot of Jew hating instead of fatty bashing? Would that elevate the conversation further?

Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 1st November 14:35

[Magic919]

I see the building quote pyramids and arguing about how to argue have finished off the thread.

[Mr Snrub]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Now the weather is getting worse it will be even lower. Saw 3 cyclists today, 1 looked too young to drive and another was using the pavement anyway.

[Batfink]

Devil2575 said:

In Northern Europe far more people cycle far more often. Are they so fundamentally different to us that they can deal with such an inflexible, unsuitable means of transport and we can't?

How many trips do we use cars for where we are alone in the car and we are not transporting lots of stuff?

I reduced my annual milage by 50% 4 years ago. A combination of walking and cycling as well as a decisions about where I live and work made this possible.

The funny thing was that in my last house I convinced myself that I couldn't commute by bike because it was simply too far and the roads were too dangerous. When I moved we picked somewhere closer to work and I started to commute by bike. Now after cycling for 4 years I wouldn't think twice about commuting from my old house and in reality it wouldn't have been much longer or harder than my current commute. It was all about perception.

I'm not the only one then. I did it the opposite way. I was sick of commuting by car and moved my work nearer. Its a five mile journey now. On good days its 13 minutes on the bike, where it was 45 minutes by car (now about 10 minutes by car). I now do less than 3000 miles a year by car.
The weather does make it st some days but I push myself to ride the bike no matter how poor the weather. I keep a change of work clothes, towel and shoes in the office and bring in clean clothes when needed but also a change of cycling clothes.
It takes a bit of preparation but when most commutes are single occupant cars then its not a massive inconvenience except when the weather turns torrential or below freezing. On the flip side the summer is much better than the car.