Careless drivers overtaking cyclists in Cambridge face fines
Discussion
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.
Then the pedestrians should drag the chap off his bike and administer a sound thrashing. A sharp thwack with an umbrella normally brings an errant cyclist into line. The more IT orientated throbber types should wear head cams and post footage of the killer cyclist on YouTube.
akirk said:
Car-Matt said:
Why would you leave less space for a parked car? There is more danger here............
work it out 
more to do with ability to drive an accurate line - the faster you are going, the more space and contingency you need in case you wobble (not talking about the cyclist!)
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.
And clearly you are one of the hard of thinking, because...
markymarkthree said:
For those that couldn't be arsed to read the BBC story, it does say this.
"We will also be taking action with cyclists who take risks.
"We must respect each other when driving and riding, and we all have a responsibility to ensure the safety of others."
Officers will also be targeting cyclists who disobey traffic signs and lights, display reckless behaviour and fail to use lights in the dark.
...if you'd bothered to read the article that prompted the thread, then you'd know that those police cyclists aren't going to be blinkered into dealing solely with offences and poor driving committed by car drivers. "We will also be taking action with cyclists who take risks.
"We must respect each other when driving and riding, and we all have a responsibility to ensure the safety of others."
Officers will also be targeting cyclists who disobey traffic signs and lights, display reckless behaviour and fail to use lights in the dark.
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.
I've had it myself on well sighted full 2-lane roads with no oncoming traffic. Some myopic Mr Magoo type who even tooted his horn at me and pointed to a lay-by. I simply shrugged my shoulders and pointed to the completely empty opposite lane. Some morons just have no idea what different types of lane divider and white lines mean, so they refuse to cross any of them. Others have no idea what they mean, and will happily cross all of them, even the solid ones. It's symptomatic of poor driving, not poor cycling, when idiots fail to act when it's safe to overtake.
FWIW I've not met another cyclist yet who actively wants to have impatient motorists behind them on the (open) road. Far better for them to get past and f
k off into the wild blue yonder. Sometimes different in town, especially when there are queues ahead. Far better to stay behind a cyclist if you're just going to join the back of a queue in a few seconds. 'Horses for courses' and every case judged on it's merits, etc, etc...Plug Life said:
Where will the plain-cloth cyclist coppers hide the strobe lights?
If it's a serious question, they don't need them.They work in a team, and will radio ahead to an officer in uniform who will wave the errant driver in for a chat. Sometimes backed up by a motorcycle officer too.
In most cases reported so far, the police have restricted their role to "giving advice" rather than charging drivers with anything. Obviously where other offences (no MOT/tax/insurance, dangerously unroadworthy cars) are identified, charges are brought. And some stops have "failed the attitude test" to the point where a summons is deemed to be the best way to educate. And as in a lot of these police "crackdown" operations, they often trawl up individuals with warrants issued for their arrest. Because "once a mouth-breather, always a mouth-breather" and the sorts of oafs who will deliberately try to close-pass a rider are often the same sorts of oafs who have "form wi' da 5-oh, innit, bruvv..."
yellowjack said:
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.
I've had it myself on well sighted full 2-lane roads with no oncoming traffic. Some myopic Mr Magoo type who even tooted his horn at me and pointed to a lay-by. I simply shrugged my shoulders and pointed to the completely empty opposite lane. Some morons just have no idea what different types of lane divider and white lines mean, so they refuse to cross any of them. Others have no idea what they mean, and will happily cross all of them, even the solid ones. It's symptomatic of poor driving, not poor cycling, when idiots fail to act when it's safe to overtake.
FWIW I've not met another cyclist yet who actively wants to have impatient motorists behind them on the (open) road. Far better for them to get past and f
k off into the wild blue yonder. Sometimes different in town, especially when there are queues ahead. Far better to stay behind a cyclist if you're just going to join the back of a queue in a few seconds. 'Horses for courses' and every case judged on it's merits, etc, etc...I've mentioned it in the past where I attended a speed awareness course. What scared me wasn't what the tutor showed, asked and taught us, and he queried if I was a biker (I am) as I was obviously well aware of the road around me, and able to easily answer the questions set, the scary thing was how little the other attendees knew. Some didn't even know the speed limit on a motorway.
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?
No, it's the opposite way round. Cyclists have a crown given right to be on the road, whereas drivers are merely licensed.ky or otherwise, pays road tax (and fuel excise). And seeing as they're paying... doesn't that grant a measure of ownership?Mr2Mike said:
They are most of the traffic, but not all of it. Some vehicles can have a disproportionate impact on congestion e.g. buses, though that's for a different topic.
??? Buses dramatically reduce traffic (unless that was your point?)Edited by Ed/L152 on Thursday 22 February 17:19
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.
My sympathies; in the space of an hour you've gone from being in Cambridge 5 days a week to having to endure the traffic madness every day.Every day I see at least one car go through a red light, at some points where the lights controlling another stream of traffic have changed to green.
akirk said:
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...
I would be interested to hear how you reconcile that opinion with the photograph from the Department for Transport website.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...
If that's how much clearance you leave to a car, you must have wide roads round your way.
feef said:
This.
I've mentioned it in the past where I attended a speed awareness course. What scared me wasn't what the tutor showed, asked and taught us, and he queried if I was a biker (I am) as I was obviously well aware of the road around me, and able to easily answer the questions set, the scary thing was how little the other attendees knew. Some didn't even know the speed limit on a motorway.
I've heard similar from other people. I've mentioned it in the past where I attended a speed awareness course. What scared me wasn't what the tutor showed, asked and taught us, and he queried if I was a biker (I am) as I was obviously well aware of the road around me, and able to easily answer the questions set, the scary thing was how little the other attendees knew. Some didn't even know the speed limit on a motorway.
The courses sounded more like "driving awareness" rather than "speed awareness" with the speeding being a symptom of the lack of knowledge and/or observation.
My mother in law chose not to attend one because she'd heard that the course tutors were "Patronising". I have witnessed my mither in law's driving, it might have done her good.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff