Careless drivers overtaking cyclists in Cambridge face fines
Discussion
Is there a cycle-related discussion equivalent to Goodwin's Law?
"As an online discussion of cycling continues, the probability of a reference to non-payment of "Road Tax" approaches 1.”
captain_cynic said:
Except that a motorist, w
ky or otherwise, pays road tax (and fuel excise). And seeing as they're paying... doesn't that grant a measure of ownership?
Q.E.D.ky or otherwise, pays road tax (and fuel excise). And seeing as they're paying... doesn't that grant a measure of ownership?JordanM200 said:
DaveH23 said:
The only alternatives I can think of is to pass dangerously or mow them down.
Am I missing something here but what are you suggesting otherwise?
Genuine question.
Well the article is suggesting people are currently not giving enough room, correct? Not enough room = dangerously passing? Am I missing something here but what are you suggesting otherwise?
Genuine question.
As others have said, it is OK for cyclists to run red lights, but if motorists would do this, it would be done with a bat of an eyelid? I think not. They don't pay roadtax, think they own the roads.
captain_cynic said:
Except that a motorist, wky or otherwise, pays road tax (and fuel excise). And seeing as they're paying... doesn't that grant a measure of ownership?
If road tax still existed, and if payment granted a measure of ownership, then when I'm not using the car, I expect the same road space that my car takes up! ky or otherwise, pays road tax (and fuel excise). And seeing as they're paying... doesn't that grant a measure of ownership?I think the one important FACT is that a cyclist is a human on a bike- would you feel comfortable with taking a risk overtaking closely if it was you or one of your family on the bike? Just a little patience helps the World go round, and makes it a happier place.
Antony Moxey said:
Toltec said:
Pistonheader101 said:
im almost certain bike lanes aren't 1.5m wide
They do not need to be, but the traffic lane next to it should be wide enough so you can pass a cyclist in the cycle lane at the requisit spacing without needing to leave yours.It will be interesting if the coppers get/and how they deal with any of the following......
Young folk screaming out of an open passenger window.
Blast of the horn as they go past (often combined with the above) just for sts and giggles
Over enthusiastic/sustained use of the windscreen washers (perhaps I looked dehydrated!)
but as with all these things it's the isolated few, most people are nice and generally tolerant.
I don't really ride much anymore, certainly not on the road.......at least off road riding you are expecting the surface to be rubbish, gone are the days you can trust (especially at night) a road surface on a road bike, you have to concentrate on that as well as traffic etc. We all see people steering round stuff in 4x4's with many inches of suspension travel, think what it's like in a road bike with a few mm of suspension travel!
Young folk screaming out of an open passenger window.
Blast of the horn as they go past (often combined with the above) just for s
ts and gigglesOver enthusiastic/sustained use of the windscreen washers (perhaps I looked dehydrated!)
but as with all these things it's the isolated few, most people are nice and generally tolerant.
I don't really ride much anymore, certainly not on the road.......at least off road riding you are expecting the surface to be rubbish, gone are the days you can trust (especially at night) a road surface on a road bike, you have to concentrate on that as well as traffic etc. We all see people steering round stuff in 4x4's with many inches of suspension travel, think what it's like in a road bike with a few mm of suspension travel!
Scottie - NW said:
Rawwr said:
Then again, I have decent senses of perspective, rationality and consideration.
But don't the vast majority also think that of themselves?I don't disagree with the rest.
How's that?
JordanM200 said:
Well the article is suggesting people are currently not giving enough room, correct? Not enough room = dangerously passing?
As others have said, it is OK for cyclists to run red lights, but if motorists would do this, it would be done with a bat of an eyelid? I think not. They don't pay roadtax, think they own the roads.
They don't pay road tax? There's no such thing. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty and it's an emissions-based tax. Since cyclist don't emit anything harmful to the atmosphere, surprise surprise they pay no "road tax". Maintenance of roads comes out of council tax, no?As others have said, it is OK for cyclists to run red lights, but if motorists would do this, it would be done with a bat of an eyelid? I think not. They don't pay roadtax, think they own the roads.
What a muppet!
DonkeyApple said:
Seems logical. No reason why you can’t wait until there is enough space to pass without endangering someone on a bike safely.
I fully agree, there is no excuse for endangering cyclists with poorly judged overtakes, and I have no qualms about people that do this being punished.OTOH there does seem to be an increasing number of people who take things to the other extreme, and are too terrified/stupid/drugged/blind to overtake cyclists even when a safe opportunity arises, resulting in enormous tailbacks of frustrated drivers.
JordanM200 said:
Well the article is suggesting people are currently not giving enough room, correct? Not enough room = dangerously passing?
As others have said, it is OK for cyclists to run red lights, but if motorists would do this, it would be done with a bat of an eyelid? I think not. They don't pay roadtax, think they own the roads.
I'll bite tooAs others have said, it is OK for cyclists to run red lights, but if motorists would do this, it would be done with a bat of an eyelid? I think not. They don't pay roadtax, think they own the roads.
As pointed out roads are paid for from general taxation so by your own reasoning cyclists have some ownership, probably as much as the car driver no? (if you agree that paying tax gives you some sort of right over the road, which by the way is a retarded point of view)
secondly, i literally cant remember the last time i went through traffic lights on amber and nobody followed me......i think id be right in saying that every set of lights i go through at least 1 car if not several go through ilegally. The issue of 'jumping' lights is not limited to cyclist and for sure car drivers are not defined as light jumpers
no problem with penalising bad driving - and always give a lot of space for cyclists, but I am intrigued as to where and how they made a decision that they can base it on 1.5m?
The ability for a cyclist to avoid bad road surface / oily, wet or icy patches is something you as a driver can also anticipate, so you can factor that into your decision...
1.5m is I would suggest impracticable in a city - there simply isn't that amount of space...
slow down and give enough space as per the HC but to specify a measurement which is not based in law simply leaves it all open for a decent lawyer to get it thrown out of court... as long as the driver can show that they give the same space they would have done to a car then that should be sufficient...
to suggest that if uncertain, leave cc amount of space - does make sense, but to prosecute / criminalise people based on a measurement not set in law is interesting to say the least!
Highway Code said:
Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
... ...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
... ...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
Highway Code said:
Rule 212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
So, absolutely - you must give them room - but the only HC reference to an actual measurement is at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car which logically would vary based on speed... If you overtake a car at 40mph / 60mph / etc. then you would give more space than if you were overtaking a parked car, or even one moving slowly in a town setting where you might leave only a few inches between you and the car... what it is not (despite the common fallacy) is leaving the space of a car - it is leave as much space as would be between you and a car you overtake... - room means the space between you and the thing you are overtaking - i.e. the distance apart...When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
The ability for a cyclist to avoid bad road surface / oily, wet or icy patches is something you as a driver can also anticipate, so you can factor that into your decision...
1.5m is I would suggest impracticable in a city - there simply isn't that amount of space...
slow down and give enough space as per the HC but to specify a measurement which is not based in law simply leaves it all open for a decent lawyer to get it thrown out of court... as long as the driver can show that they give the same space they would have done to a car then that should be sufficient...
to suggest that if uncertain, leave cc amount of space - does make sense, but to prosecute / criminalise people based on a measurement not set in law is interesting to say the least!
Car-Matt said:
I'll bite too
As pointed out roads are paid for from general taxation so by your own reasoning cyclists have some ownership, probably as much as the car driver no? (if you agree that paying tax gives you some sort of right over the road, which by the way is a retarded point of view)
secondly, i literally cant remember the last time i went through traffic lights on amber and nobody followed me......i think id be right in saying that every set of lights i go through at least 1 car if not several go through ilegally. The issue of 'jumping' lights is not limited to cyclist and for sure car drivers are not defined as light jumpers
We aren't talking about going through an Amber. I am in Cambridge every day, and have experienced at least every day, where a cyclist will go through a blatant red light, some points where pedestrians are still in the process of crossing. As pointed out roads are paid for from general taxation so by your own reasoning cyclists have some ownership, probably as much as the car driver no? (if you agree that paying tax gives you some sort of right over the road, which by the way is a retarded point of view)
secondly, i literally cant remember the last time i went through traffic lights on amber and nobody followed me......i think id be right in saying that every set of lights i go through at least 1 car if not several go through ilegally. The issue of 'jumping' lights is not limited to cyclist and for sure car drivers are not defined as light jumpers
WinstonWolf said:
DoubleD said:
WinstonWolf said:
DaveH23 said:
JordanM200 said:
So basically, motorists will sit behind slow travelling cyclists for ages waiting for a safe pass, causing even more chaos and traffic in Cambridge. Just what the place needs, more traffic
The only alternatives I can think of is to pass dangerously or mow them down. Am I missing something here but what are you suggesting otherwise?
Genuine question.
JordanM200 said:
We aren't talking about going through an Amber. I am in Cambridge every day, and have experienced at least every day, where a cyclist will go through a blatant red light, some points where pedestrians are still in the process of crossing.
The inference is i go through on amber, whats behind goes through on red.akirk said:
no problem with penalising bad driving - and always give a lot of space for cyclists, but I am intrigued as to where and how they made a decision that they can base it on 1.5m?
The ability for a cyclist to avoid bad road surface / oily, wet or icy patches is something you as a driver can also anticipate, so you can factor that into your decision...
1.5m is I would suggest impracticable in a city - there simply isn't that amount of space...
slow down and give enough space as per the HC but to specify a measurement which is not based in law simply leaves it all open for a decent lawyer to get it thrown out of court... as long as the driver can show that they give the same space they would have done to a car then that should be sufficient...
to suggest that if uncertain, leave cc amount of space - does make sense, but to prosecute / criminalise people based on a measurement not set in law is interesting to say the least!
Why would you leave less space for a parked car? There is more danger here............Highway Code said:
Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
... ...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
... ...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
Highway Code said:
Rule 212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
So, absolutely - you must give them room - but the only HC reference to an actual measurement is at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car which logically would vary based on speed... If you overtake a car at 40mph / 60mph / etc. then you would give more space than if you were overtaking a parked car, or even one moving slowly in a town setting where you might leave only a few inches between you and the car... what it is not (despite the common fallacy) is leaving the space of a car - it is leave as much space as would be between you and a car you overtake... - room means the space between you and the thing you are overtaking - i.e. the distance apart...When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
The ability for a cyclist to avoid bad road surface / oily, wet or icy patches is something you as a driver can also anticipate, so you can factor that into your decision...
1.5m is I would suggest impracticable in a city - there simply isn't that amount of space...
slow down and give enough space as per the HC but to specify a measurement which is not based in law simply leaves it all open for a decent lawyer to get it thrown out of court... as long as the driver can show that they give the same space they would have done to a car then that should be sufficient...
to suggest that if uncertain, leave cc amount of space - does make sense, but to prosecute / criminalise people based on a measurement not set in law is interesting to say the least!
Rawwr said:
Scottie - NW said:
Rawwr said:
Then again, I have decent senses of perspective, rationality and consideration.
But don't the vast majority also think that of themselves?I don't disagree with the rest.
How's that?
JordanM200 said:
We aren't talking about going through an Amber. I am in Cambridge every day, and have experienced at least every day, where a cyclist will go through a blatant red light, some points where pedestrians are still in the process of crossing.
I don't go through red lights (on bike or in my car), I can't condone another cyclist doing it - but It generally only has consequences on the cyclist. A motorist going through a red light can cause an awful lot of damage!JordanM200 said:
We aren't talking about going through an Amber. I am in Cambridge every day, and have experienced at least every day, where a cyclist will go through a blatant red light, some points where pedestrians are still in the process of crossing.
Have you ever watched a set of pedestrian lights and noticed how the red lights are ignored? Possibly ignored them yourself, maybe?Mr2Mike said:
DonkeyApple said:
Seems logical. No reason why you can’t wait until there is enough space to pass without endangering someone on a bike safely.
I fully agree, there is no excuse for endangering cyclists with poorly judged overtakes, and I have no qualms about people that do this being punished.OTOH there does seem to be an increasing number of people who take things to the other extreme, and are too terrified/stupid/drugged/blind to overtake cyclists even when a safe opportunity arises, resulting in enormous tailbacks of frustrated drivers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff