Should drivers in London start paying for the damage, deaths and misery they cause?

[spindrift]

Here's what happens if you don't take a strong primary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=cIP7pAJNYVw

Things to note- it was a 30mph zone, the cyclist was doing 30.

The driver, who seems a bit dim, says "I didn't overtake you!"

And after that dangerous close pass at 30mph just where the road narrows at a pinch point, the driver has only just parked and opened the car door when the cyclist catches up. There was no point to the overtake, it didn't make any difference to the driver's journey time.

Ask yourself if your child was riding along that road, would you really overtake like that?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by NCT

No you don't quite need to be in the gutter but where the double yellow lines are is quite reasonable. It's up to you to read the road just like any other road user and upon discovering obstacles look back, signal and manoeuvre. Hogging the middle of the road is no better than middle-lane hogging on a motorway.

The vast majority of cyclists do cycle a perfectly reasonable distance from the kerb. However, two things that cyclists have to cope with that drivers don't (and I speak as both a cyclist and a driver):

1. Bumps and holes, broken glass and other obstacles - cars ride serenely, almost obliviously, over these things. Bicycles don't. They feel these things massively. And, since the vast majority of these things tend to be along the side of the road, bicycles have to cope with these things far, far more often.

2. Looking back is easy to do in a car. You have a mirror. On a bike, looking back is far more hazardous. It can unbalance you. And it completely takes your eyes off the road ahead.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by JimB

2. Looking back is easy to do in a car. You have a mirror. On a bike, looking back is far more hazardous. It can unbalance you. And it completely takes your eyes off the road ahead.

One thing I've always wondered is why mirrors aren't standard/compulsory on bikes. It's irresponsible to expect people only to look in front.

[Gigamac]

Originally Posted by NCT

If you need to be one whole metre away from the kurb then how are earth are you supposed to achieve anywhere near the space efficiency of this?!

You'd only be marginally better than an car. In fact speed differential is the biggest capacity constraint so you are probably worse than a car.

No you don't quite need to be in the gutter but where the double yellow lines are is quite reasonable. It's up to you to read the road just like any other road user and upon discovering obstacles look back, signal and manoeuvre. Hogging the middle of the road is no better than middle-lane hogging on a motorway.

Oops, oops, and oops...

Double yellow lines are not good for grip.
Gutters are not good for grip or stability or potential damage.
Leaves, rubbish and grit collect roadside.
Doors opening are a hazard roadside.
Cycling out from the kerb gives you a margin other road users don't otherwise allow for your safety.
Pedestrians and their bags are a big hazard kerbside.

Your points all sound really hypothetical, or else just plain wrong. If you cycle with that approach you have my sympathies.

[Gigamac]

Sorry, but all those motorists who preach cyclists coming up left side are responsible for their own drums should try getting caught in the middle of the road amidst aggressive traffic with no bug metal wardrobe on wheels around them for protection.

[Gigamac]

And..,

Those who think cyclists should be obliged to use cycle provision when it exists should also say this while also signing a decree acknowledging:

It is a fact that designated cycle space is often cohabited with pedestrian walkway, and as such seems to attract pedestrians all over it as they seem hypnotised by the colour. For a cyclist with miles to cover this is a real problem, and wouldn't happen for those motorists that can't even be bothered to walk to the end of the road for a pint of milk.

Cycle ways sharing pavements mean cyclists must stop at every side road when their route should allow them to continue at a constant pace. This means a considerable loss of energy in deceleration and in recovering speed, and a doubling of journey time and wear and tear on the vehicle.

A significant amount of cycle track in the UK is narrow and in the gutter, where grit, potholes, grids, stray pedestrians and parked cars are manifest.

Cycle provision often means a red surface which was put down some time ago as a cheap quick fix, has weathered and worn, and gas become rough and bumpy to use.

Cycle way provision needs planning from the cyclists perspective. Making rules to oblige people to do this and do that is just petulant chauvinism.

Just to mention one or two thoughts on current cycle provision.

[Gigamac]

Originally Posted by Gigamac

Sorry, but all those motorists who preach cyclists coming up left side are responsible for their own drums .

Drums=demise

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by JimB

Yep. Me too. Possibly the biggest hazard to cyclists in London.

And if the traffic islands don't get you, the stupid speed bumps will.

There's a side road in Fulham where they put these low chicanes - perfectly possible to ride or drive over but I guess the idea is that people don't.

So whereas before I used to have no problems cycling down that road, now I find cars heading straight at me because the stupid chicane put them on to the other side of the road.

Speed bumps do the same. People will go all over the place to avoid them.

Sure, speeds might be lower, but things are far less predictable now. I wish they'd all be dug up :-)

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Ask yourself if your child was riding along that road, would you really overtake like that?

That's what I ask on the occasions where I've narrowly missed injury and had to have a conversation!

I also use it on cyclists who plough through crossing pedestrians: "would you ride past your daughter like that?"

These people aren't 'drivers' or 'cyclists'. They're thoughtless pricks. Be thoughtful to your fellow humans people!

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by NCT

One thing I've always wondered is why mirrors aren't standard/compulsory on bikes. It's irresponsible to expect people only to look in front.

I don't think anyone expects people 'only to look in front', do they?

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by Gigamac

A significant amount of cycle track in the UK is narrow and in the gutter, where grit, potholes, grids, stray pedestrians and parked cars are manifest.

I think drivers and cyclists alike will enjoy a re-post of this site!

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...month/book.htm

[JimB]

Originally Posted by cnapan

That's what I ask on the occasions where I've narrowly missed injury and had to have a conversation!

I also use it on cyclists who plough through crossing pedestrians: "would you ride past your daughter like that?"

These people aren't 'drivers' or 'cyclists'. They're thoughtless pricks. Be thoughtful to your fellow humans people!

I don't mind cyclists going through red lights / pedestrian crossings etc, so long as they slow down and are careful to check whether anyone is crossing. I do it often enough when I'm on my bike, after all!

What does annoy me is if, as a pedestrian, I'm walking across a road 30 yards or so beyond a red light and a cyclist who has just jumped it hurls a volley of abuse in my direction for crossing in front of them. Drives me mad. If you're going to jump a light, you should accept that you have zero right of way for the next 100 yards at least.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Gigamac

Oops, oops, and oops...

Double yellow lines are not good for grip.
Gutters are not good for grip or stability or potential damage.
Leaves, rubbish and grit collect roadside.
Doors opening are a hazard roadside.
Cycling out from the kerb gives you a margin other road users don't otherwise allow for your safety.
Pedestrians and their bags are a big hazard kerbside.

Your points all sound really hypothetical, or else just plain wrong. If you cycle with that approach you have my sympathies.

Those points are blown ridiculously out of proportion. As a semi-regular cyclist using roads not infrequently I find the edge of the road perfectly fine to cycle on. Don't exaggerate with the work gutter.

There are times where the road is genuinely too narrow for anyone to overtake you then assertive cycling is of course justified as you are making no difference cycling next to car doors or a metre away from them, but plenty of times where a lane on a 1+1 road is actually 4 metres or the bus lane is quite wide and it's safe to use the edge of the road, there is no reason not to use it. In Octoman's example when it was a simple case of one car wanting to go through on a country road then pulling over once is enough for the cyclist and if he didn't use the middle of the lane it wouldn't have been a tight squeeze in the first place. Yes that particular cyclist was an arsehole.

If you encounter something look back, stick your hand out, then my experience is the vehicle behind you will slow down and flash their headlight to let you through. Putting your thumb up while indicating usually helps. If you are afraid of vehicles attempting to overtaking you just keep sticking your right hand out in a star shape (it doesn't even need to leave the handlebar) and it does the trick. I once stopped behind a row of parked cars to invite the bus behind me go through first, but the bus actually stopped to let me through. Courtesy really works better than plain assertiveness.

If you think as a cyclist you claim moral high ground over motorists, remember the only justification is space efficiency. If you can't achieve that then at least be honest about having a negative impact* on other road users.

* at least a marginal one. Especially if the cyclist is a former bus passenger then his/her marginal effect is everyone else having a potentially slower and less reliable journey. If it's a case of motorists switching to the bike en masse then there will be a tipping point after which the effect is positive, but there are so many prerequisits that goes with it.

Originally Posted by Gigamac

And..,

Those who think cyclists should be obliged to use cycle provision when it exists should also say this while also signing a decree acknowledging:

It is a fact that designated cycle space is often cohabited with pedestrian walkway, and as such seems to attract pedestrians all over it as they seem hypnotised by the colour. For a cyclist with miles to cover this is a real problem, and wouldn't happen for those motorists that can't even be bothered to walk to the end of the road for a pint of milk.

Cycle ways sharing pavements mean cyclists must stop at every side road when their route should allow them to continue at a constant pace. This means a considerable loss of energy in deceleration and in recovering speed, and a doubling of journey time and wear and tear on the vehicle.

A significant amount of cycle track in the UK is narrow and in the gutter, where grit, potholes, grids, stray pedestrians and parked cars are manifest.

Cycle provision often means a red surface which was put down some time ago as a cheap quick fix, has weathered and worn, and gas become rough and bumpy to use.

Cycle way provision needs planning from the cyclists perspective. Making rules to oblige people to do this and do that is just petulant chauvinism.

Just to mention one or two thoughts on current cycle provision.

"Have to mix with riff-raff pedestrians" ...

This just shows how some militant cyclists would rather pick a fight with stronger and faster traffic than work with slower and more vulnerable pedestrians. They want others to slow down for them but they won't slow down with pedestrians. And they wonder why motorists don't have time for them.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by cnapan

I don't think anyone expects people 'only to look in front', do they?

They kind of do if seemingly nobody's bothered thinking about fitting rear-view mirrors to bikes. A cyclist needs to go whats going on behind them and constantly looking back can indeed be a bit tricky and I guess it's kind of understandable that some prefer using the middle of the lane than checking behind more regularly. Having rear-view mirrors is a no-brainer IMO.

[billdsd]

Originally Posted by NCT

Those points are blown ridiculously out of proportion. As a semi-regular cyclist using roads not infrequently I find the edge of the road perfectly fine to cycle on. Don't exaggerate with the work gutter.

That is because you have absolutely not concept of the dangers involved with riding on the edge.

A bus travels slowly in the middle of the lane and they are considered normal. A bicyclist does the same thing and they are "hogging" the road. It's a pathetic double standard.

Lanes are designed for ONE line of traffic; not two. Two lines of traffic in the same lane is bad enough on its own but you further want it to happen with a significant speed differential between the two lines of traffic in the same lane. That's insane and you only create this silly rationalization because of your delusions of entitlement and your delusion that bicyclists are less deserving of a right to use the road.

Edge riding creates all sorts of dangerous situations. Surface hazards, while significant, are the least of the problems. It makes bicyclists less visible. It sets them up for drivers turning in front of them. In places where there is parallel parking it sets them up to collide with suddenly opened doors. It also encourages poorly trained bicyclists to pass slow traffic in places where it is not safe to do so.

Essentially, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is time for you to actually study the subject because pontificating about a subject which you know nothing about is not working.

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/lhd/index.htm
Cyclecraft by John Franklin ISBN 0117037400

[Gigamac]

Originally Posted by NCT

Those points are blown ridiculously out of proportion. As a semi-regular cyclist using roads not infrequently I find the edge of the road perfectly fine to cycle on. Don't exaggerate with the work gutter.

There are times where the road is genuinely too narrow for anyone to overtake you then assertive cycling is of course justified as you are making no difference cycling next to car doors or a metre away from them, but plenty of times where a lane on a 1+1 road is actually 4 metres or the bus lane is quite wide and it's safe to use the edge of the road, there is no reason not to use it. In Octoman's example when it was a simple case of one car wanting to go through on a country road then pulling over once is enough for the cyclist and if he didn't use the middle of the lane it wouldn't have been a tight squeeze in the first place. Yes that particular cyclist was an arsehole.

If you encounter something look back, stick your hand out, then my experience is the vehicle behind you will slow down and flash their headlight to let you through. Putting your thumb up while indicating usually helps. If you are afraid of vehicles attempting to overtaking you just keep sticking your right hand out in a star shape (it doesn't even need to leave the handlebar) and it does the trick. I once stopped behind a row of parked cars to invite the bus behind me go through first, but the bus actually stopped to let me through. Courtesy really works better than plain assertiveness.

If you think as a cyclist you claim moral high ground over motorists, remember the only justification is space efficiency. If you can't achieve that then at least be honest about having a negative impact* on other road users.

* at least a marginal one. Especially if the cyclist is a former bus passenger then his/her marginal effect is everyone else having a potentially slower and less reliable journey. If it's a case of motorists switching to the bike en masse then there will be a tipping point after which the effect is positive, but there are so many prerequisits that goes with it.

"Have to mix with riff-raff pedestrians" ...

This just shows how some militant cyclists would rather pick a fight with stronger and faster traffic than work with slower and more vulnerable pedestrians. They want others to slow down for them but they won't slow down with pedestrians. And they wonder why motorists don't have time for them.

Riff-raff pedestrians?

Where did that come from? I think you are giving other commentators attributes they don't have just to make your points seem valid and authoritarian : NOT GOOD!

[Gigamac]

"Courtesy really works better than plain assertiveness." - I agree with that, sir! Now, about the star shaped hand thingy: would a twirling wave be ok?


Moral high ground?

Some people think its a debate over moral high ground... It's not at all! It's a discussion about how people feel they are treated on the road. Moral high grounds just lead to authoritarian prescriptivism : NOT GOOD!

I don't know about multiple prerequisites. Sounds a bit bureaucratic to me.


Riff-raff pedestrians?

Where did that come from? I think you are giving other commentators attributes they don't have just to make your points seem valid and authoritarian : NOT GOOD!

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by billdsd

A bus travels slowly in the middle of the lane and they are considered normal. A bicyclist does the same thing and they are "hogging" the road. It's a pathetic double standard.

Essentially, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is time for you to actually study the subject because pontificating about a subject which you know nothing about is not working.
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/lhd/index.htm
Cyclecraft by John Franklin ISBN 0117037400

Absurd. One doesn't have to study the subject of bloody "Cycle Craft" to get on one's bike and experience the road. I've cycled (carefully) in cities across the world, and no where but in London have I experience the nasal, autistic, arrogant pedant-cyclists such as those being so vociferous in this thread.

Anyone with a brain understands that a cyclists can't have the same rights/presence on a road as a car or a bus, for so many reasons it's not worth my time to delineate. If you're a cyclist, you need to be extra-aware, you need to be looking behind you whenever you manoeuvre, and you need to be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary. And it's not bloody safe to travel on a flimsy, unstable, noiseless bicycle at 30mph ever. If you're already such a cyclist-martyr and safety-obsessive, then you should bloody well be prepared to sacrifice a little speed for the safety of pedestrians and your own safety.

And that comment above vis-à-vis double-standards: how is it even possible for you do be so solipsistic that you can't understand why a fucking bus should take precedence over a cyclist?

[Gigamac]

Road sides only need to be slightly risky to be life threatening.

The more you reduce risk the better.

I think it's fair to point that out, and I don't think ridiculous is an appropriate word at all.

[spindrift]

If you listen to experts, the police, the Institute of Advanced Motorists then you can learn from their experience and take steps to make yourself safer on the roads. It's the same principle in law- a bus driver MUST COMPLY with various regulations, stipulations and laws before they can drive a bus in London. A cyclist has no such compunctions because it is recognised that the potential for harm is much greater if you are in charge of a twenty ton vehicle. That some people think peoples' rights are diminished according to what vehicle they choose to use is quite chilling when you think about it- it seems to follow the principle that Might is Right so if I took a Sherman tank on the roads anybody who gets killed it's their fault.

Why on earth do drivers get so angry when they are held up for 30 seconds by a cyclist? What difference will that 30 seconds make to their day? There's too much anger, both on the roads and on this thread.