Share the Road

1235718

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Though cyclists don't stop because they have the ability to see openings and time intersection crossing,
    Not buying this. Cyclists are going slower, so have the opportunity to observe more. It doesn't follow that they necessarily use it. I've seen cyclists hit cars.
    and because it takes 30% more effort to start forward from stopped than slowly rolling.
    This is the primary reason cyclists do not like to stop completely.
    A problem is that cyclists are noticed more not that they do things wrong more.
    The problem is that cyclists are noticed less. This is why they are run into. The human brain only has so much ability to process the information that is constantly fed into it. So what it does is prioritise. This process is not entirely conscious. People driving will notice other cars more readily than bicycles or pedestrians.



  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    If a dedicated cycle infrastructure were built, the fastest and safest thing would be to restrict cyclists to it. The way pedestrians are restricted to theirs.

    I wonder about this. There is considerable variation in the speed of cyclists. At one end, you have fit commuters who are averaging 20 mph or more on their several mile ride; at the other end, you have Grandma pootling along at walking pace.

    For cars, it is reasonable to expect people to drive close to the speed limit in good conditions, and apart from things like tractors, it's reasonable to expect other cars not to impede the flow of traffic by driving excessively slowly.

    You can't have the same expectations for cyclists - Grandma's walking pace is all she's got, and it will get her to the corner shop just fine.

    When cycling on roads, cyclists behave like traffic - Grandma will pootle along next to the gutter, and faster people will pass her on the outside. This doesn't seem to be what happens on cycle paths - there, Grandma occupies some random piece of tarmac, and the faster people shoot past in whatever gap they can see.

    It seems like you would enhance safety by ensuring slow cyclists keep to the inside on cycle paths too.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    And, you judge all motorists by the standard of Audi drivers too?

    No. I know there are a fair number of bad drivers out there, inattentive and/or hostile. The vast majority of drivers, however, manage to get from Point A to Point B without being a danger to anyone. Most are law-abiding; it's a minority who blow through red lights or stop signs.

    Where I live, though, cyclists who even slow down for stop signs (let alone yield signs) are the rarest of exceptions. I'm happy to share the road; too many cyclists - like Karl, judging by his posts - aren't.

    And, once again, I don't know how roads are paid for where you live. Where I live, fuel taxes are collected at the pump. They go toward paying for roads. Cyclists pay nothing toward anything in their capacity as road users.

    I pay for a license to drive, too, and if I drove as if I owned an Audi, I'd be ticketed and fined; if I did it often enough, I'd lose my license. But the only threat faced by cyclists for bad behavior comes from the laws of physics. I think common sense dictates that anyone who uses the common thoroughfares with any kind of vehicle should be tested and licensed, if we're all to be treated equally.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    And, once again, I don't know how roads are paid for where you live. Where I live, fuel taxes are collected at the pump. They go toward paying for roads. Cyclists pay nothing toward anything in their capacity as road users.

    On average in the US, half the cost of road building and repairs comes from gas taxes, road tolls, and other charges on motorists; half the cost comes from general taxation.

    So your cyclists pay just as much as everyone else in their capacity as taxpayers.

    Damage to roads scales as the fourth power of the axle weight. In other words, big trucks are very costly, cars cost a little, and cyclists do almost precisely zero damage to the road.

    Seems to me like cyclists are already paying their fair share.

    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I pay for a license to drive, too, and if I drove as if I owned an Audi, I'd be ticketed and fined; if I did it often enough, I'd lose my license. But the only threat faced by cyclists for bad behavior comes from the laws of physics.

    That's not even slightly true. Cyclists can get pulled over and ticketed for running stop signs or failing to signal, just like cars can.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    As I recall, Karl said he would use the infrastructure most suited to his needs, which on evidence of most cycle paths in the UK would be the existing roads because most cycle ways are not laid out in a manner that meets his requirements of getting from A to B in the shortest time (or pose hazards to cyclists; we've had mention of cycle ways covered in litter or partially blocked by street furniture, or are not sufficiently segregated from pedestrians).
    This is evaluating current cycling paths. And I would agree with him there. But that is not a dedicated cycling infrastructure. And it certainly does not represent what could be done. Again, one of the biggest factors in bicycles being hit is the difference in speed. And visibility. That will never change. If a dedicated cycle infrastructure were built, the fastest and safest thing would be to restrict cyclists to it. The way pedestrians are restricted to theirs.

    Pedestrians are not limited. Not in the UK. The only highways they cannot use are motorways and a small number of special roads.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    And, you judge all motorists by the standard of Audi drivers too?

    No. I know there are a fair number of bad drivers out there, inattentive and/or hostile. The vast majority of drivers, however, manage to get from Point A to Point B without being a danger to anyone. Most are law-abiding; it's a minority who blow through red lights or stop signs.

    Where I live, though, cyclists who even slow down for stop signs (let alone yield signs) are the rarest of exceptions. I'm happy to share the road; too many cyclists - like Karl, judging by his posts - aren't.

    Don't know where you got that idea. You've been reading what you want to read, not what I've posted. I'm happy to share the road; I'm not happy to be close passed, left hooked (that'd be right hooked over there), generally treated as if I'm not there, blamed for congestion (clogging up the roads - absolutely risible!) and forced onto crappy cycle paths as if I'm an inferior scummy subspecies. I do reserve the right to filter through slow or stationary traffic caused by motor vehicles clogging up the roads, which they do almost constantly.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    And, once again, I don't know how roads are paid for where you live. Where I live, fuel taxes are collected at the pump. They go toward paying for roads. Cyclists pay nothing toward anything in their capacity as road users.

    On average in the US, half the cost of road building and repairs comes from gas taxes, road tolls, and other charges on motorists; half the cost comes from general taxation.

    So your cyclists pay just as much as everyone else in their capacity as taxpayers.

    Damage to roads scales as the fourth power of the axle weight. In other words, big trucks are very costly, cars cost a little, and cyclists do almost precisely zero damage to the road.

    Seems to me like cyclists are already paying their fair share.

    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I pay for a license to drive, too, and if I drove as if I owned an Audi, I'd be ticketed and fined; if I did it often enough, I'd lose my license. But the only threat faced by cyclists for bad behavior comes from the laws of physics.

    That's not even slightly true. Cyclists can get pulled over and ticketed for running stop signs or failing to signal, just like cars can.

    And 99% of the time drivers get away with illegal driving - tailgating, speeding and close overtaking of vulnerable road users being three things I see daily without any consequences to the drivers involved. This "poor me, can't put a foot wrong without the law coming down on me" is part of the completely mythological "war on the motorist" narrative.
  • Rocinante wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    It never ceases to amaze me the number of cyclists I see (often at the last minute) after dark in dark clothing and no lights on. Despite being nearly invisible, they still run red lights into the path of faster moving vehicles or move across a busy carriageway to turn right without warning. I really don’t have a problem sharing the road with cyclists and make a conscious effort to look out for them, but they need to take some responsibility themselves.

    I don't disagree, but if you mow one of these idiots down they'll be a contender for the Darwin awards and you'll have a cracked bumper
    And the emotional trauma of having injured or killed a cyclist
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    But - and without condoning bad cycling which I have to keep saying - this seldom actually happens. From analysis of incidents in the UK at leasr, far and away the main cause of cyclist KSIs is driver error. Hit from behind is a common cause (no, not from injudicious filtering, but not being seen, often in broad daylight, and at speed), as is pulling out from a side road into a cyclist's path. Turning left across a cyclist's path is also common. This is often made more likely by cycle lanes which direct cyclists up the left side of the traffic.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    And again - Stevenage has a purpose built cycle infrastructure which is virtually unused. Other new towns, such as Harlow and Telford also have cycling routes built into the infrastructure, but both are shared with pedestrians - quite wide tracks split 50/50. Telford's is on the old railway lines through the town, Harlow on the old lanes between the previous villages that existed before the modern grid of roads was built. Pedestrians are a hazard on both and Harlow's tracks, which I know quite well, do not necessarily take you where you want to go, so the chances of using the cycle tracks for a journey varies on how convenient they are to use. I only used use them some of the time and I prefer using them as much prettier and quieter.

    Cars do not look out for bicycles: I've cracked my right elbow twice: cars without indicators turning left on me, I slid off the back of the rear onto my right elbow, we were all moving quite fast, for London - me trying to get speed up to go up the next hill on that road. (Turning used as a cut through near the embassies in London, the offenders had CD plates, as the cabbie who checked I was OK pointed out.) I've cracked ribs from a driver opening a car door in my path just in front of me, bent the bike wheel from hitting the door, cracked ribs from landing on top of the door. I must have been moving about 20mph. That's a rapist's trick too (that driver just hadn't looked). Cyclists have good reason to go wide on parked cars. I've also broken my right elbow from being hit by a motorbike from behind and going over the handlebars. He was turning left on a nasty junction and I was going straight over. He hit my back wheel. At least he fell over too and bent bits of his beloved motorbike.

    I have photos of the bike superhighway in London in its early stages along the A2 Bow Road, invisible under parked cars, taken from the top of a bus, I used to prefer using the old London Bike Group routes following side roads, which worked because you could ride through the fire gates or cut through a corner of a park. Most entertaining when followed by a car hoping for a new rat run. But in 2016, following the completion of the superhighway, cyclists made up 70% of Blackfriars Bridge traffic and there are objections and myths growing up around the building of bike lanes in London.

    The other things bikes have to avoid are debris in the road and those big drain covers when covered with ice, as they are a major skid hazard. And the left hand side of the road is often where all the junk gets dumped.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Here the cycle lanes peter out just as the road gets narrow - so the least safe places are the least provided for. The town meets its obligations - and nothing improves at all.

    :rolleyes:
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Pedestrians are not limited. Not in the UK. The only highways they cannot use are motorways and a small number of special roads.
    This is a dedicated pedestrian path. It is the raised concrete bit on the edge of the roadway. Surprised you’ve never encountered one.
    They are called pavements or sidewalks.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Pedestrians are not limited. Not in the UK. The only highways they cannot use are motorways and a small number of special roads.
    This is a dedicated pedestrian path. It is the raised concrete bit on the edge of the roadway. Surprised you’ve never encountered one.
    They are called pavements or sidewalks.

    They are dedicated to pedestrians. However pedestrians are not legally required to use them. The UK has no jaywalking laws.

    This is just as well, as many motorists think pavements are parking spaces and so block them, forcing pedestrians out into the main carriageway.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Here the cycle lanes peter out just as the road gets narrow - so the least safe places are the least provided for. The town meets its obligations - and nothing improves at all.

    :rolleyes:

    Yes, they do that with ours as they approach pinch points such as pedestrian islands. In a way that's good, there's not room for a cycle and general use lane at this point. As long as cyclists and drivers appreciate the correct thing for the cyclist to do at this point is to take the lane - ride centrally in it - all is well. If either think that the right thing to do is hug the gutter so drivers can squeeze through, or hop onto the pavement, then problems ensue.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Pedestrians are not limited. Not in the UK. The only highways they cannot use are motorways and a small number of special roads.
    This is a dedicated pedestrian path. It is the raised concrete bit on the edge of the roadway. Surprised you’ve never encountered one.
    They are called pavements or sidewalks.

    They are dedicated to pedestrians. However pedestrians are not legally required to use them. The UK has no jaywalking laws.
    When pedestrians start walking in the lanes in the direction of traffic as a means of travel, you'll have more of a point. Pretty sure one will be given a ticket, or at least pulled out of traffic if one does that.
    This is just as well, as many motorists think pavements are parking spaces and so block them, forcing pedestrians out into the main carriageway.
    Except in London, where it is illegal, the law needs to be better addressed regarding this. And ticketing more aggressive.

    The point, that you seem to be avoiding, is that the normal flow of pedestrians and cars are separated. This is safer and faster for both. Gaps and ambiguity in the application does not invalidate the concept.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Here the cycle lanes peter out just as the road gets narrow - so the least safe places are the least provided for. The town meets its obligations - and nothing improves at all.

    :rolleyes:

    Yes, they do that with ours as they approach pinch points such as pedestrian islands. In a way that's good, there's not room for a cycle and general use lane at this point. As long as cyclists and drivers appreciate the correct thing for the cyclist to do at this point is to take the lane - ride centrally in it - all is well. If either think that the right thing to do is hug the gutter so drivers can squeeze through, or hop onto the pavement, then problems ensue.
    Drivers would be more likely to be patient with this if cyclists pulled to the side where possible to clear the backlog. Some do, many don't.
    Share the road is a shared responsibility. Drivers should be considerate of riders and riders should be considerate with drivers. Sometimes this means yielding one's right of way for the benefit of the group. This should work both ways. Though I will grant that people driving have a higher percentage of failing to yield. Not a monopoly, but a higher percentage.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    @lilbuddha - on many of the lanes and side roads in the UK pedestrians have to walk in the road as there is nowhere else to walk. That includes quite a bit of this area, which is not far out of London. We only have pavements in the middle of towns or bigger villages, so to reach several of the more interesting local pubs means walking along these lanes from where the cross country footpaths finish.
  • @lilbuddha - on many of the lanes and side roads in the UK pedestrians have to walk in the road as there is nowhere else to walk. That includes quite a bit of this area, which is not far out of London. We only have pavements in the middle of towns or bigger villages, so to reach several of the more interesting local pubs means walking along these lanes from where the cross country footpaths finish.
    This is true throughout the world. Most infrastructure conversations focus on dense urban areas because that is where the need is the greatest. In the more rural areas, there is less of a need for rigidity in structure. The biggest issue is in the areas in the middle where they might have a greater need than current infrastructure meets. This is the downside of growth without rebuilding.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Here the cycle lanes peter out just as the road gets narrow - so the least safe places are the least provided for. The town meets its obligations - and nothing improves at all.

    :rolleyes:

    Yes, they do that with ours as they approach pinch points such as pedestrian islands. In a way that's good, there's not room for a cycle and general use lane at this point. As long as cyclists and drivers appreciate the correct thing for the cyclist to do at this point is to take the lane - ride centrally in it - all is well. If either think that the right thing to do is hug the gutter so drivers can squeeze through, or hop onto the pavement, then problems ensue.
    Drivers would be more likely to be patient with this if cyclists pulled to the side where possible to clear the backlog. Some do, many don't.
    Share the road is a shared responsibility. Drivers should be considerate of riders and riders should be considerate with drivers. Sometimes this means yielding one's right of way for the benefit of the group. This should work both ways. Though I will grant that people driving have a higher percentage of failing to yield. Not a monopoly, but a higher percentage.

    What backlog? This backlog idea is largely mythical. The only queues I experience on roads are made up of and consist entirely of motor vehicles. I have a particular pedestrian island in mind regarding this and motor vehicles freely overtake me leading up to the narrowing and would cut me up if I didn't take the lane as I approached it. Your model of drivers stuck behind cyclists largely simply doesn't happen, certainly not for more than a few tens of seconds. It's a non-problem which doesn't need solving. Yes, I also drive.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    But - and without condoning bad cycling which I have to keep saying - this seldom actually happens. From analysis of incidents in the UK at leasr, far and away the main cause of cyclist KSIs is driver error. Hit from behind is a common cause (no, not from injudicious filtering, but not being seen, often in broad daylight, and at speed), as is pulling out from a side road into a cyclist's path. Turning left across a cyclist's path is also common. This is often made more likely by cycle lanes which direct cyclists up the left side of the traffic.
    How many of those accidents occur after dark to cyclists without lights?
  • I don't know what KSI means.

    Where I live cycling without lights usually means poor and cannot via travel another method. We have a cycling coop which recycles and refurbished bikes otherwise in the city garbage dump. Inequality in transport possibilities is a big issue. If your bike is not stolen it is cheaper to ride a bike than take a bus over the course of a month as refurbished bikes are $75-150. Sometimes free.

    On other
    the thing is, I meet the impatient car passing me at the next intersection and then they pass again only to repeat.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But - and without condoning bad cycling which I have to keep saying - this seldom actually happens. From analysis of incidents in the UK at leasr, far and away the main cause of cyclist KSIs is driver error. Hit from behind is a common cause (no, not from injudicious filtering, but not being seen, often in broad daylight, and at speed), as is pulling out from a side road into a cyclist's path. Turning left across a cyclist's path is also common. This is often made more likely by cycle lanes which direct cyclists up the left side of the traffic.
    How many of those accidents occur after dark to cyclists without lights?

    My one catastrophic collision was also in broad daylight, also to be met with "sorry mate, didn't see you". Fortunately, enough people did see me to have the driver prosecuted.

    And I still carry the injury 25 years later.

    Yes, some people don't have lights, and cycle after dark. I've not driven into one yet. Yes, most people do, and cycle after dark. I manage to avoid driving into them, too. I'm not quite sure why you're trying to (yet again) put the entirety of the blame on cyclists. If there weren't cars, they wouldn't hit cyclists.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Share the road is a shared responsibility. Drivers should be considerate of riders and riders should be considerate with drivers. Sometimes this means yielding one's right of way for the benefit of the group. This should work both ways. Though I will grant that people driving have a higher percentage of failing to yield. Not a monopoly, but a higher percentage.

    Amen, amen, ahh-men on sharing the road, although I disagree about the percentages of failing to yield. (As a driver, I yield for courtesy and safety; as a cyclist, I yielded for self-preservation - but I was a rarity. And as a pedestrian, I try not to jaywalk or step into the intersection when the "Don't Walk" light is flashing.)

    The point about vehicle taxes paying for roads is not that there shouldn't be accommodations for cyclists (and pedestrians). It's that all the anti-car ranting seems not to take that into account; the "tin box," as Alan has it, is a necessity for most around here and elsewhere to get around. Acting like Jef the Cyclist is not helpful.

  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    edited March 2018
    All but one of my catastrophic accidents happened in daylight - and I have always ridden with lights, and back then the fluorescent shoulder and waistband strips and around my ankles fluorescent straps as bike clips. These days I wear either a fluorescent yellow waistcoat or waterproof jacket and the same fluorescent ankle strips.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But - and without condoning bad cycling which I have to keep saying - this seldom actually happens. From analysis of incidents in the UK at leasr, far and away the main cause of cyclist KSIs is driver error. Hit from behind is a common cause (no, not from injudicious filtering, but not being seen, often in broad daylight, and at speed), as is pulling out from a side road into a cyclist's path. Turning left across a cyclist's path is also common. This is often made more likely by cycle lanes which direct cyclists up the left side of the traffic.
    How many of those accidents occur after dark to cyclists without lights?

    Very few. I seem to recall that some 2% of cyclist collisions had lack of lights as a contributing factor.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But - and without condoning bad cycling which I have to keep saying - this seldom actually happens. From analysis of incidents in the UK at leasr, far and away the main cause of cyclist KSIs is driver error. Hit from behind is a common cause (no, not from injudicious filtering, but not being seen, often in broad daylight, and at speed), as is pulling out from a side road into a cyclist's path. Turning left across a cyclist's path is also common. This is often made more likely by cycle lanes which direct cyclists up the left side of the traffic.
    How many of those accidents occur after dark to cyclists without lights?

    Very few. I seem to recall that some 2% of cyclist collisions had lack of lights as a contributing factor.

    I was wrong. It's 0%. The number is too low to register as a whole number percentage: RAS50013, Contributory factors: reported accidents by region, England, latest available year, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665195/ras50013.ods

    I think the 2% might have been those caused by running red lights.

    Now can we concentrate on the real issue, which is dangerous drivers killing people?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Share the road is a shared responsibility. Drivers should be considerate of riders and riders should be considerate with drivers. Sometimes this means yielding one's right of way for the benefit of the group. This should work both ways. Though I will grant that people driving have a higher percentage of failing to yield. Not a monopoly, but a higher percentage.

    Amen, amen, ahh-men on sharing the road, although I disagree about the percentages of failing to yield. (As a driver, I yield for courtesy and safety; as a cyclist, I yielded for self-preservation - but I was a rarity. And as a pedestrian, I try not to jaywalk or step into the intersection when the "Don't Walk" light is flashing.)

    The point about vehicle taxes paying for roads is not that there shouldn't be accommodations for cyclists (and pedestrians). It's that all the anti-car ranting seems not to take that into account; the "tin box," as Alan has it, is a necessity for most around here and elsewhere to get around. Acting like Jef the Cyclist is not helpful.

    There is no anti-car ranting on here. Just recognition that cars are the main source of danger, congestion and pollution in our cities, and the main factor preventing other road users from using the roads freely. A fact I can recognise as a driver.
  • All but one of my catastrophic accidents happened in daylight

    My one significant bike accident was after dark. I was wearing a fluorescent yellow top with reflective patches, and had bright lights. The other guy was a pedestrian, who quite literally stepped backwards into the road in front of me, leaving me nowhere to go.

    The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing, and carried no lights or reflectors, but that didn't really matter. I could see him perfectly well standing on the street corner on his mobile phone - I just wasn't expecting him to walk backwards into the road.

    Rossweisse wrote: »
    The point about vehicle taxes paying for roads is not that there shouldn't be accommodations for cyclists (and pedestrians). It's that all the anti-car ranting seems not to take that into account; the "tin box," as Alan has it, is a necessity for most around here and elsewhere to get around. Acting like Jef the Cyclist is not helpful.

    The point about vehicle taxes paying for roads is wrong. It is often used by car drivers to assert their primacy (it's my road because my taxes pay for it - where's your tax disk and insurance, cyclist?), and is, as I said earlier, factually incorrect. Enough of the price of roads is paid for from general taxation that by any measure the cyclist is already paying over the odds for the use he gets from the road.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure why you're trying to (yet again) put the entirety of the blame on cyclists. If there weren't cars, they wouldn't hit cyclists.
    What do you mean “yet again”? Where have I even once put the “entirety of the blame” on cyclists?
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    You're deflecting. "Oh, how many of those accidents were caused by cyclists being dicks?"

    Some, probably. But not measurably due to not having lights. This is Hell: if you're going to post unsupported (and unsupportable) allegations, brace yourself for a paddling.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    You're deflecting. "Oh, how many of those accidents were caused by cyclists being dicks?"

    Some, probably. But not measurably due to not having lights. This is Hell: if you're going to post unsupported (and unsupportable) allegations, brace yourself for a paddling.

    Or even better, readily refutable allegations.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Pedestrians are not limited. Not in the UK. The only highways they cannot use are motorways and a small number of special roads.
    This is a dedicated pedestrian path. It is the raised concrete bit on the edge of the roadway. Surprised you’ve never encountered one.
    They are called pavements or sidewalks.

    That isn't what you had initially said
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    If a dedicated cycle infrastructure were built, the fastest and safest thing would be to restrict cyclists to it. The way pedestrians are restricted to theirs.
    Since pedestrians are not limited to pavements/sidewalks your comment is irrelevant.

    Of course, if there was a dedicated cycle infrastructure equivalent to pedestrian infrastructure - running alongside all existing roads - then that would be a step forward. Of course there would also need to be protection of that space, with significant fines for anyone who blocks it (by driving/parking on it) - as there also needs to be better protection of pedestrian only areas.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    This is Hell: if you're going to post unsupported (and unsupportable) allegations, brace yourself for a paddling.
    You’re accusing me of using “unsupported and unsupportable” allegations, yet you made the unsupported and unsupportable allegation that I had “yet again” put the “entirety of the blame” on cyclists. I ask again, show where I did that even once and I will accept the paddling.
  • SpikeSpike Admin
    edited March 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Or even better, readily refutable allegations.

    How about this for starters (and not even an allegation, something that actually happened).

    One evening not long ago I wanted to cross the road. (Not even driving a car - see what I just did there?). I pressed the button and waited for the traffic lights to change. The lights changed to red and two lanes of traffic came to a stop. The green man illuminated, so I proceeded to cross the road. Suddenly, I nearly got knocked flying by a cyclist who shot between the two lanes of stationary traffic. I hadn’t seen him because he was in dark clothing and had no lights on and couldn’t hear him because pedal cycles tend to make no noise. He then had the nerve to swear at me for having the audacity to use a pedestrian crossing according to the Highway Code while interfering with his God given right to ignore a red traffic light.

    Pedestrians get injured too you know.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Or even better, readily refutable allegations.

    How about this for starters (and not even an allegation, something that actually happened).

    One evening not long ago I wanted to cross the road. (Not even driving a car - see what I just did there?). I pressed the button and waited for the traffic lights to change. The lights changed to red and two lanes of traffic came to a stop. The green man illuminated, so I proceeded to cross the road. Suddenly, I nearly got knocked flying by a cyclist who shot between the two lanes of stationary traffic. I hadn’t seen him because he was in dark clothing and had no lights on and couldn’t hear him because pedal cycles tend to make no noise. He then had the nerve to swear at me for having the audacity to use a pedestrian crossing according to the Highway Code while interfering with his God given right to ignore a red traffic light.

    Pedestrians get injured too you know.

    Idiots sometimes ride bikes. However the carnage is almost entirely down to motor vehicles, so can we forget your gnat straining and attend to the camel?

    When cycling I have a motorist caused near miss every day -often several. Mostly close overtaking.

    It's not like your gnat has any bearing on the implication of yours which the figures showed to be bollocks,
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Or even better, readily refutable allegations.

    How about this for starters (and not even an allegation, something that actually happened).

    One evening not long ago I wanted to cross the road. (Not even driving a car - see what I just did there?). I pressed the button and waited for the traffic lights to change. The lights changed to red and two lanes of traffic came to a stop. The green man illuminated, so I proceeded to cross the road. Suddenly, I nearly got knocked flying by a cyclist who shot between the two lanes of stationary traffic. I hadn’t seen him because he was in dark clothing and had no lights on and couldn’t hear him because pedal cycles tend to make no noise. He then had the nerve to swear at me for having the audacity to use a pedestrian crossing according to the Highway Code while interfering with his God given right to ignore a red traffic light.

    Pedestrians get injured too you know.

    Idiots sometimes ride bikes. However the carnage is almost entirely down to motor vehicles, so can we forget your gnat straining and attend to the camel?

    When cycling I have a motorist caused near miss every day -often several. Mostly close overtaking.

    It's not like your gnat has any bearing on the implication of yours which the figures showed to be bollocks,

    Yes, and idiots drive cars too. I accept that and see it every day.

    As you probably know, I’m a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (as I believe you are too, or at least used to be) and a DVSA Approved Driving Instructor. As such, I am careful to be considerate to other road users and to pay particular attention to people on two wheels, and I instil this into my pupils as well. That said, I believe responsibility has to come from both sides. I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but here in London the vast majority of cyclists I see after dark don’t have lights on and probably more than half are wearing dark clothing.

    The title of this thread is “Share the road”. Surely this implies shared responsibly on both sides.
  • Spike wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    This is Hell: if you're going to post unsupported (and unsupportable) allegations, brace yourself for a paddling.
    You’re accusing me of using “unsupported and unsupportable” allegations, yet you made the unsupported and unsupportable allegation that I had “yet again” put the “entirety of the blame” on cyclists. I ask again, show where I did that even once and I will accept the paddling.
    Wasting your time, bruv. They don't want to hear reason or reality.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Here the cycle lanes peter out just as the road gets narrow - so the least safe places are the least provided for. The town meets its obligations - and nothing improves at all.

    :rolleyes:

    Yes, they do that with ours as they approach pinch points such as pedestrian islands. In a way that's good, there's not room for a cycle and general use lane at this point. As long as cyclists and drivers appreciate the correct thing for the cyclist to do at this point is to take the lane - ride centrally in it - all is well. If either think that the right thing to do is hug the gutter so drivers can squeeze through, or hop onto the pavement, then problems ensue.
    Drivers would be more likely to be patient with this if cyclists pulled to the side where possible to clear the backlog. Some do, many don't.
    Share the road is a shared responsibility. Drivers should be considerate of riders and riders should be considerate with drivers. Sometimes this means yielding one's right of way for the benefit of the group. This should work both ways. Though I will grant that people driving have a higher percentage of failing to yield. Not a monopoly, but a higher percentage.

    What backlog? This backlog idea is largely mythical. The only queues I experience on roads are made up of and consist entirely of motor vehicles. I have a particular pedestrian island in mind regarding this and motor vehicles freely overtake me leading up to the narrowing and would cut me up if I didn't take the lane as I approached it. Your model of drivers stuck behind cyclists largely simply doesn't happen, certainly not for more than a few tens of seconds. It's a non-problem which doesn't need solving. Yes, I also drive.
    As a driver, I agree - and I'm also curious as to how pulling over is supposed to work. If traffic is heavy, and cyclists are supposed to pull over to let cars past, how is the cyclist going to make any progress at all? And if traffic is light then what prevents cars from overtaking the cyclist in the usual way?
  • That comment was mostly from driving mountain roads where passing can be very dangerous to all concerned, and less about city traffic.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Spike wrote: »
    I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but here in London the vast majority of cyclists I see after dark don’t have lights on and probably more than half are wearing dark clothing.
    'Vast majority'.

    And still they don't figure in the accident statistics. :neutral:
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Spike wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure why you're trying to (yet again) put the entirety of the blame on cyclists. If there weren't cars, they wouldn't hit cyclists.
    What do you mean “yet again”? Where have I even once put the “entirety of the blame” on cyclists?

    You're getting very antsy on this. 'Yet again' referred to you being one of a number here who seem to think that if a car hits a cyclist, the cyclist must be doing something wrong. And on a comment on common situations where cars hit bikes, you jumped in with a 'bikes without lights' thing.

    Which isn't even a cause of accidents, apparently.

    I drive. I drive a lot. I cycle a lot less than I used to. I'm adjacent to a university town, so I know about lightless cycles. And yet, I've never hit one, and when I cycle-commuted, it was cars that nearly killed me. I couldn't give a monkeys how careful or how qualified you are personally. Not every driver on the road is Spike-approved.

    There's the 20mph zone in my local area. I reckon I'm the only driver who actually goes 20 in it. Hell, I've been overtaken in it. Let's fix the things that actually matter first. We can hand out free lights to the bikes when drivers have stopped ploughing them over.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    'Yet again' referred to you being one of a number here who seem to think that if a car hits a cyclist, the cyclist must be doing something wrong.
    Point out a post where anyone says this. The most I've seen is saying that cyclists do wrong things, not any where it is said they are the most likely problem.
    I ride, btw. I won't call myself a cyclist as I have only one real road bike¹ and not a scrap of lycra, but I ride the same roads I drive.² I've seen bad behaviour by nearly every form of conveyance on those roads. The major difference is in the consequence of that bad behaviour.


    ¹An ancient one with only 12 gears and the original side-pull brakes, so another strike.
    ²Well not A roads or Free-ways.
  • edited March 2018
    Normal cyclists don't wear lycra. You're thinking recreational sporty cyclists which are the minority and many are not real people, just wannabe real people. Real people don't drive shiny Audis, BMWs or $80K 4WD crewcab pick-up trucks with front ped and cyclist killing grills on them either. They drive little econo boxes which are 10+ years old without TV screens in the dashboard.

    Normal cyclists wear normal clothes and commute and get around by bicycle. Most commuter cyclists have simple bicycles with enough gears to get them to and from work, stores, and other usual destinations. Because I live in a cold climate, I have 3 bicycles. One is a 7 speed commuter bike with rack on the back so I don't wear a knapsack, and a platform on the front to hold 2 shopping bags. My other two are recycled mountain bikes with studded tires for winter, which I got (1) for nothing, (2) for $50. Real cyclists are real people, average Joes and Janes, who need to get somewhere. I'm probably unusual because I like to work on my own bikes which is why they don't cost much or are free. But all the normal cyclists in our local cycling advocacy group don't pay large amounts of money for bicycles either (the expensive ones are stealing bait). Normal people ride what they have until they fall apart. We joke that our locks cost more than our bikes.

    What we really need is more people who think and feel that traffic has been so bad that they've been driven (pun intended) to ride a bike and take the bus/train/subway/tram. Or walk.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but here in London the vast majority of cyclists I see after dark don’t have lights on and probably more than half are wearing dark clothing.
    'Vast majority'.

    And still they don't figure in the accident statistics. :neutral:

    This is the thing. Of course they should have lights. Of course responsibility should be taken by all road users, but the point is (a) it's amazing how you see all these apparently invisible cyclists, and (b) people are overwhelmingly killed and seriously injured (KSI) by motor vehicles, so attention focused on cyclists is aiming at the wrong target.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but here in London the vast majority of cyclists I see after dark don’t have lights on and probably more than half are wearing dark clothing.
    'Vast majority'.

    And still they don't figure in the accident statistics. :neutral:

    Maybe this proves that drivers are being more careful than you are suggesting
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    ... it's amazing how you see all these apparently invisible cyclists

    Often at the last minute, hence my earlier post about nearly colliding with one when I was on a pedestrian crossing.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    There's the 20mph zone in my local area. I reckon I'm the only driver who actually goes 20 in it. Hell, I've been overtaken in it.

    Yep, me too. Often by cyclists :wink:
  • Chris Froome trains in your manor, does he? otherwise it must be a 20 zone at the bottom of a long hill.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Spike wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    ... it's amazing how you see all these apparently invisible cyclists

    Often at the last minute, hence my earlier post about nearly colliding with one when I was on a pedestrian crossing.

    Ah, the 'nearly hit by a cyclist', aka 'wasn't hit by a cyclist'.

    Again, not saying that cyclists can't be dicks. But pretty much every single journey I ever make on a bike has a 'nearly hit by a car' moment, whether it's passing too close, cutting in, turning, light-running, dooring, rear-ending, or pulling out in front. And not counting the deliberate attempts to knock me off - the horn-sounding, litter throwing, water pistols, deliberate swerving.

    Drivers (including me) should have mandatory front and rear dashcams and GPS linked to speed limiters. They should also be made to cycle during the rush hour as part of their test. Advanced motorists can have the added joy of riding a horse down a country lane.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    That comment was mostly from driving mountain roads where passing can be very dangerous to all concerned, and less about city traffic.

    I don't drive much, but I can say that I've never been held up by cyclists in urban areas. Generally the cyclists I see are travelling at a decent speed (maybe 15mph) so if the road is semi-clear and it takes a minute or two before I can pass then it's a very small delay before I reach the back of the line of cars waiting at the next set of lights, and even if I can't pass I'll still be at the same point at the back of the line - ie: over that 100m or so stretch while I'm behind the bike I might be driving more slowly than I would be if the bike wasn't there, but in terms of total journey time irrelevant.

    It's probably that in rural areas I've been delayed a bit more, on roads where passing a slower vehicle is often difficult - either due to poor visibility around corners, or when you can see round the corner there's traffic coming the other way. In which case I'll be behind the bike for much longer, and often at a more significantly reduced speed (15-20mph in a 50 or 60 zone is more significant than 15-20mph in a 30 zone). And, yes I do see some stupidity in that situation. Which is just another example of the same stupid behaviour we all see elsewhere - drivers too close to a slower vehicle in front, passing where it's not safe, passing without leaving adequate space, cutting back in very soon after passing etc. Sometimes it isn't even a red Audi.
Sign In or Register to comment.