Priorities of road users to be changed to place responsibility on those that pose the greatest danger to others.

[krus_aragon]

I remember Newport Road before they put in the bus lanes. It wasn't fun.

I didn't know Newport Road pre-bus-lane, but (other than Rumney hill) it's fairly tame now.

The Gabalfa roundabout (3 lanes, no markings) would be my pick of dicey places in Cardiff to be on a bike.

 

[Bikeman78]

I didn't know Newport Road pre-bus-lane, but (other than Rumney hill) it's fairly tame now.

The Gabalfa roundabout (3 lanes, no markings) would be my pick of dicey places in Cardiff to be on a bike.

It was rubbish. The bus lanes went in around 2005 to 2010. Fortunately I only used it occasionally back then to cycle to Sainsburys on Colchester Avenue. I whizz down Rumney Hill at around 30 mph. I often overtake cars that panic when they see the speed camera and slow down to 25 mph. I don't cycle up it. There's another route through the side roads with a more gentle gradient.

Average deaths per 1 billion km from 2001 to 2010 higher for pedestrians

cyclists: 28
pedestrians: 35

For KSI though it's the other way round

cyclists: 553
pedestrian: 322

Either way it's the same order of magnitude, and the argument always seems to be victim blaming (Pedestrians should wear helmets // cyclists shouldn't need to wear helmets) rather than blaming the cause of the deaths (car drivers - usually ones travelling below the speed limit)

Thanks. Saved me the bother of looking it up again. I must say I was surprised. I assumed that cycling would be statistically less safe. Motorcycles are in a league of their own. My ex father in law was always trying to convince me to get a motorbike. I politely declined.

 

[The Ham]

It was rubbish. The bus lanes went in around 2005 to 2010. Fortunately I only used it occasionally back then to cycle to Sainsburys on Colchester Avenue. I whizz down Rumney Hill at around 30 mph. I often overtake cars that panic when they see the speed camera and slow down to 25 mph. I don't cycle up it. There's another route through the side roads with a more gentle gradient.


Thanks. Saved me the bother of looking it up again. I must say I was surprised. I assumed that cycling would be statistically less safe. Motorcycles are in a league of their own. My ex father in law was always trying to convince me to get a motorbike. I politely declined.

In part, motorcycles are in a league of their own, due to the speeds that they can travel at whilst giving little more protection than being on a cycle.

Obviously there's times when they don't help themselves, like when they are traveling much faster than the speed limit or don't wear leathers (or worse still shorts and t-shirts).

Also, you have to remember that there's likely to be an element of truth to the old wives tale that "you'll write-off you first car" and if so when applied to a vehicle which gives you little protection it's not going to end well.

Having said that it's possible to ride/drive defensively and be involved in few crashes (clearly there's always going to be things beyond your control), with those which you are involved in typically being relatively low speed and/or being due to ice/poor road conditions.

 

[edwin_m]

In part, motorcycles are in a league of their own, due to the speeds that they can travel at whilst giving little more protection than being on a cycle.

Obviously there's times when they don't help themselves, like when they are traveling much faster than the speed limit or don't wear leathers (or worse still shorts and t-shirts).

Also, you have to remember that there's likely to be an element of truth to the old wives tale that "you'll write-off you first car" and if so when applied to a vehicle which gives you little protection it's not going to end well.

Having said that it's possible to ride/drive defensively and be involved in few crashes (clearly there's always going to be things beyond your control), with those which you are involved in typically being relatively low speed and/or being due to ice/poor road conditions.

There is also skidding - if you skid in a car it remains upright and danger only arises if going off the road or hitting another vehicle. A skid on a two-wheeler, or hitting something like a pothole, seriously endangers the rider even if none of those consequences arise.

 

[83A]

Motorcycles are in a league of their own. My ex father in law was always trying to convince me to get a motorbike. I politely declined.

I own a car, I also cycle but my first love motorcycles. Ironically these days on the road I actually feel safest on my motorcycle! It’s a large 1200 CC adventure bike and I tower above everyone except trucks giving a fantastic view of the road. It’s got plenty of power to get me around obstacles but not enough to get me into trouble, although it’s got ABS and traction control anyway. I find cars seem to see me way off due to the excellent LED headlights.

I also follow the ATGATT (All The Gear All The Time) principal and never ride without my protective textile suit helmet gloves and boots.

I think it also makes you far more aware as a road user in being able to preempt what idiotic move a car driver will make next !

 

[Meerkat]

Maybe every driver should have to do cycle proficiency and some time out on the road before getting a driving licence

 

[Factotum]

Maybe every driver should have to do cycle proficiency and some time out on the road before getting a driving licence

That is something I have advocated for many years. 1000 hours logged on a bicycle before you can take a driving test :-0

Seriously: I have taught or at least supervised a fair number of young people driving. And the ones who were cyclists learned more quickly and drove more carefully from the start than the non cyclists

 

[Bikeman78]

I own a car, I also cycle but my first love motorcycles. Ironically these days on the road I actually feel safest on my motorcycle! It’s a large 1200 CC adventure bike and I tower above everyone except trucks giving a fantastic view of the road. It’s got plenty of power to get me around obstacles but not enough to get me into trouble, although it’s got ABS and traction control anyway. I find cars seem to see me way off due to the excellent LED headlights.

I also follow the ATGATT (All The Gear All The Time) principal and never ride without my protective textile suit helmet gloves and boots.

I think it also makes you far more aware as a road user in being able to preempt what idiotic move a car driver will make next !

I know where you are coming from. I only learned to drive in my 30s and I still feel more confident pulling out at a busy junction on my bike. No chance of stalling a bicycle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know where you are coming from. I only learned to drive in my 30s and I still feel more confident pulling out at a busy junction on my bike. No chance of stalling a bicycle.

Won't be an issue once all cars are electric, though perhaps at the moment an automatic might mean you get less stressed?

 

[Bikeman78]

That is something I have advocated for many years. 1000 hours logged on a bicycle before you can take a driving test :-0

Seriously: I have taught or at least supervised a fair number of young people driving. And the ones who were cyclists learned more quickly and drove more carefully from the start than the non cyclists

I lived in Cardiff for years before I learned to drive. The fact that I had cycled or travelled by bus across most of the road network was very helpful. Especially as the test centre and test routes are the other side of town from me.

Won't be an issue once all cars are electric, though perhaps at the moment an automatic might mean you get less stressed?

I'm okay now to be honest but it took a few years. Electric cars will be very useful when it comes to pulling away from a stand.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That is something I have advocated for many years. 1000 hours logged on a bicycle before you can take a driving test :-0

Seriously: I have taught or at least supervised a fair number of young people driving. And the ones who were cyclists learned more quickly and drove more carefully from the start than the non cyclists

I think that is due to more experience of the roads of course. But how many of those cyclists started of cycling with experience of the roads !. That is why I am in favour of all cyclists starting off by taking a course and test. It will help them understand the dos and don'ts of the road. It is, after all, what is required for car drivers.

 

[Factotum]

I think that is due to more experience of the roads of course. But how many of those cyclists started of cycling with experience of the roads !. That is why I am in favour of all cyclists starting off by taking a course and test. It will help them understand the dos and don'ts of the road. It is, after all, what is required for car drivers.

The different requirements reflect the fact that errant drivers are apt to kill people whereas errant cyclists are likely to get killed. You quickly learn road sense when cycling.
I helped with a Cycle Proficiency scheme a few years ago and, insofar as it was entirely off road, it wasn't much use. Especially since the instructor advised the pupils to ride home on the pavement

 

[Peter Sarf]

The different requirements reflect the fact that errant drivers are apt to kill people whereas errant cyclists are likely to get killed. You quickly learn road sense when cycling.
I helped with a Cycle Proficiency scheme a few years ago and, insofar as it was entirely off road, it wasn't much use. Especially since the instructor advised the pupils to ride home on the pavement

Although it is illegal afaik to ride on the pavement, as a pedestrian I would never complain about a cyclist riding on the pavement. But I often want to lecture cyclists that ride too fast on the pavement !.

There is certainly more natural selection when it comes to cyclists compared to people in metal boxes. That is why I hope a training course would ensure a few more of them don't die while learning the hard way.

 

[AM9]

Although it is illegal afaik to ride on the pavement, as a pedestrian I would never complain about a cyclist riding on the pavement. But I often want to lecture cyclists that ride too fast on the pavement !.

There is certainly more natural selection when it comes to cyclists compared to people in metal boxes. That is why I hope a training course would ensure a few more of them don't die while learning the hard way.

Er, the natural selection principle doesn't work like that. Unless drivers that take cyclists off the road are mpermanently banned from driving, they are still around to kill even the safets most experienced cyclists. A case of assuming cyclists that are killed cause their own deaths. Pure victim blaming from the driving fraternity!

 

[Jim the Jim]

Although it is illegal afaik to ride on the pavement, as a pedestrian I would never complain about a cyclist riding on the pavement. But I often want to lecture cyclists that ride too fast on the pavement !.

As a pedestrian and a cyclist (who generally sticks to the rules when cycling myself) - it depends on the pavement. Cycling on the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway: OK, I'm not that bothered. Cycling on a pavement beside a quiet road: I'd really rather you didn't. Cycling towards me with no intention of stopping on a narrow pavement (no room to pass) beside a very quiet road ... I've shouted at people for that before.

 

[Bikeman78]

As a pedestrian and a cyclist (who generally sticks to the rules when cycling myself) - it depends on the pavement. Cycling on the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway: OK, I'm not that bothered. Cycling on a pavement beside a quiet road: I'd really rather you didn't. Cycling towards me with no intention of stopping on a narrow pavement (no room to pass) beside a very quiet road ... I've shouted at people for that before.

Councils don't help matters be making some pavements joint use. There isn't any obvious logic as to which pavements cyclists are allowed on.

On another note, Cardiff city centre was at a standstill at 16:30 today. I got the bus from home. Central station to home took 45 minutes. I just missed a bus and walked to the next stop where I caught up the previous bus that should have been seven minutes ahead. People in cars would have taken longer still as they couldn't use bus lanes. On my bike the journey would have been 25 minutes.

 

[AM9]

Councils don't help matters be making some pavements joint use. There isn't any obvious logic as to which pavements cyclists are allowed on. ...

I agree that there should be some visible distinction between;
a) shared pavements which fully meets the standards for shared use - and both user groups adhere to the rules of the path
b) cycling permitted pavements where hazardous road conditions are unsuitable for cyclist use - here the pedestrian has absolute priority and strict cycling speed limits are applied (e.g. 5mph)
c) pedestrians only pavements - cycling on these is a strict liability offence, any wheeled vehicle (except accessible scooters) must be carried or pushed at a walking pace.
This would define the use of such highway space making it easier for all users.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Er, the natural selection principle doesn't work like that. Unless drivers that take cyclists off the road are mpermanently banned from driving, they are still around to kill even the safets most experienced cyclists. A case of assuming cyclists that are killed cause their own deaths. Pure victim blaming from the driving fraternity!

Put bluntly. If a cyclist is prepared to cycle up the left side of a lorry that is indicating and turning left even though there is a space possibly wide enough for a car then the cyclist needs training. Of course it would be nice if the lorry driver saw the cyclist in the mirror BUT if the cyclist puts themselves in an area that a lorry in front of them is turning into then they are being dangerously foolish. I would not do it in my car and I would expect to take the blame for the resulting collision - it could quite possibly kill me in my car. Mirrors are not a very good way of seeing what is passing you from behind and that is why motorists should always indicate even if they see nothing in their mirror - I always indicate. Never assume someone has seen you in their mirror.

I had a cyclist show me their head cam footage of how foolish some cyclists are. The cyclist pointed out to me the difference between a cyclist who knows what they are doing and one who is a danger to themselves. They had stopped as they approached a hazard and two cyclists went whizzing past them into the "valley of death". As a car driver I could only agree. That does not mean there are not cyclists killed or injured by the fault of car/lorry drivers. But it does not mean all cyclists are killed by someone elses negligence or impatience.

As a pedestrian and a cyclist (who generally sticks to the rules when cycling myself) - it depends on the pavement. Cycling on the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway: OK, I'm not that bothered. Cycling on a pavement beside a quiet road: I'd really rather you didn't. Cycling towards me with no intention of stopping on a narrow pavement (no room to pass) beside a very quiet road ... I've shouted at people for that before.

I agree. There are some very suitable pavements for cyclist use and some very inappropriate roads for cyclist use.

My biggest surprise recently was as I crossed on a zebra crossing and an electric scooter came whizzing of the pavement towards me as they crossed the road in the opposite direction to me. But that is really someone over relying on other peoples reaction times. I will blame that on impatience and lack of understanding.

 

[AM9]

Put bluntly. If a cyclist is prepared to cycle up the left side of a lorry that is indicating and turning left even though there is a space possibly wide enough for a car then the cyclist needs training. Of course it would be nice if the lorry driver saw the cyclist in the mirror BUT if the cyclist puts themselves in an area that a lorry in front of them is turning into then they are being dangerously foolish. I would not do it in my car and I would expect to take the blame for the resulting collision - it could quite possibly kill me in my car. Mirrors are not a very good way of seeing what is passing you from behind and that is why motorists should always indicate even if they see nothing in their mirror - I always indicate. Never assume someone has seen you in their mirror. ...

Well this is going to change, (which is why I started this thread), and the onus will be based on the risk that an individual highway user poses to others. So in the case of a cyclist being on the kerbside of a motor vehicle, the driver is obliged to:

a) establish that the roadspace that they are going to move into is clear of cyclists/pedestrians​

b) give priority to cyclists turning into and pedestrians crossing side roads.​

In the case of cyclists, once motor vehicle drivers learn the priority rule (probably helped by awareness of a few high-profile prosecutions) a major cause of cyclist serious injuries and deaths will be at least reduced.

My biggest surprise recently was as I crossed on a zebra crossing and an electric scooter came whizzing of the pavement towards me as they crossed the road in the opposite direction to me. But that is really someone over relying on other peoples reaction times. I will blame that on impatience and lack of understanding.

What do you mean by an 'electric scooter'? Is it a 'disabled person's three or four wheeled pavement vehicle, or the latest gadget, the electric two wheeled stand-up scooter which is illegal both on pedestrian-only areas and ordinary roads.*
* apart from the current experimental schemes with compliant licensed geo-fenced hired scooters.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well this is going to change, (which is why I started this thread), and the onus will be based on the risk that an individual highway user poses to others. So in the case of a cyclist being on the kerbside of a motor vehicle, the driver is obliged to:

a) establish that the roadspace that they are going to move into is clear of cyclists/pedestrians​

b) give priority to cyclists turning into and pedestrians crossing side roads.​

In the case of cyclists, once motor vehicle drivers learn the priority rule (probably helped by awareness of a few high-profile prosecutions) a major cause of cyclist serious injuries and deaths will be at least reduced.

Well it is going to be unworkable. I cannot see how a lorry driver can look forwards while turning and simultaneously look behind to see if anything is zooming up to take the space the lorry is turning into into. I am not going to find that easy in my car especially so as looking round gets harder/slower as you get older.

BUT If the motor vehicle driver is not indicating left then they are at fault. If the motor vehicle has just overtaken the cycle then the motor vehicle is at fault. But if the cyclist is going faster than the vehicle indicating left then the cyclist is doing a dangerous thing. It would be the same situation if both vehicles are motor vehicles. You should not overtake on the left side of another vehicle regardless. If the law is being changed then I am afraid I no longer agree with the law.

I can see vehicles driving slower so as to be more careful of what is in front while they spend more time looking behind. That is then more of an encouragement to cyclists (and other road users) to zip up the left side.

I have always tried to be careful when turning left in case a cyclist is squeezing past me. Not because I fear the law but because I do not want to hurt someone. If the law is no longer on the side of the leading vehicle turning left on that one then something is wrong. It does not matter even if it is two cars colliding or even two cycles.

Actually I have not yet found actual detail as to what the changes are just the sentiment behind them. So maybe there is a lot of mis-interpretation so far ?.

What do you mean by an 'electric scooter'? Is it a 'disabled person's three or four wheeled pavement vehicle, or the latest gadget, the electric two wheeled stand-up scooter which is illegal both on pedestrian-only areas and ordinary roads.*
* apart from the current experimental schemes with compliant licensed geo-fenced hired scooters.

Sorry. Two wheeled scooter. I wonder if it was licensed.

 

[AM9]

Well it is going to be unworkable. I cannot see how a lorry driver can look forwards while turning and simultaneously look behind to see if anything is zooming up to take the space the lorry is turning into into. I am not going to find that easy in my car especially so as looking round gets harder/slower as you get older.

BUT If the motor vehicle driver is not indicating left then they are at fault. If the motor vehicle has just overtaken the cycle then the motor vehicle is at fault. But if the cyclist is going faster than the vehicle indicating left then the cyclist is doing a dangerous thing. It would be the same situation if both vehicles are motor vehicles. You should not overtake on the left side of another vehicle regardless. If the law is being changed then I am afraid I no longer agree with the law. ...

Motor vehicles should drive more cautiously when there are cyclists near them. If that means going slower, then that is what it will take to reduce the level of injuries and deaths endured by cyclists. As I said at the head of this thread, the new philosophy is that each road user must behave according to the risk that they present to others. In this context, cyclists are far more at risk than those in a 2 tonne steel box. Motor vehicle drivers need to understand that and then modify their driving accordingly in accordance with the changes to the law. Your agreement (or disagreement) with such changes in the law does not matter, only your compliance with it is important.

... I can see vehicles driving slower so as to be more careful of what is in front while they spend more time looking behind. That is then more of an encouragement to cyclists (and other road users) to zip up the left side.

I have always tried to be careful when turning left in case a cyclist is squeezing past me. Not because I fear the law but because I do not want to hurt someone. If the law is no longer on the side of the leading vehicle turning left on that one then something is wrong. It does not matter even if it is two cars colliding or even two cycles. ...

The problem in your understanding is in your words "If the law is no longer on the side of the leading vehicle". This conversation is about cyclies and motor vehicles against a new ethos that risk based priorities will be the default position in the future. That is exactly what causes problems now, - the motor vehicle driver with it's extra available power overtakes the cyclist to be the first at the decision point. AFAIK, there hasn't been any mention in this thread about changes in the priority of same class vehicles, nor do I beleieve any other articles have even intimated that so it is a strawman argument.

Actually I have not yet found actual detail as to what the changes are just the sentiment behind them. So maybe there is a lot of mis-interpretation so far ?.

Sorry. Two wheeled scooter. I wonder if it was licensed.

I think the word is philosphy rather than sentiment.
As foir the two wheeled scooter being licensed, even if it was, using one on a pedestrian crossing is still illegal.

 

[ashkeba]

You should not overtake on the left side of another vehicle regardless. If the law is being changed then I am afraid I no longer agree with the law.

This has never been the law. The highway code explicitly allows overtaking on the left in slow traffic and be serious, the fastest cyclists will most be overtaking slow motorists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This has never been the law. The highway code explicitly allows overtaking on the left in slow traffic and be serious, the fastest cyclists will most be overtaking slow motorists.

Overtaking on the left, i.e. moving left, passing and moving back right, is strongly discouraged, though it isn't specifically illegal, it would be done as Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Careless Driving or Dangerous Driving depending on just how much of a risk it posed.

When traffic is moving in queues, one need not change lane if one's own lane is at that point moving faster than the one to the right. This is the scenario that will typically arise on a busy road with a cycle lane on the left.