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

[Failed Unit]

I cycle around 150km per week, I also find that the majority of road users are perfectly fine. It is just a shame that the aggressive ones stand out in my mind.

You get a few that catch you out (but their actions are positive) such as flashing to let you turn right but you have already stopped it really hurts if they were flashing for another reason. Some of the readers of this thread will know Coppers Green Lane (Between WGC and St Albans). Some motorists will overtake you on the double white lines, illegal of course but as both me and them can clearly see nothing is coming the other way I have no issue with this.

My biggest pet hate is when motorist block you from progressing when you are not impacting them. I have lost count of the amount of times I have got overtaken, then needed to stop 10m later as the motorist is turning right, or more commonly they can't pass the multiple parked cars where I can as I can just keep riding without crossing the centre line.

I tend not to force my way into the boxes at the traffic lights in towns such as St Albans that are designed to protect cyclist, as again some motorist don't seem to like this. Passing on the left is never a good idea anyway.

As I have said the law itself won't alter behaviors but will help with prosecutions if required should something go wrong. I tend to cycle slowly on town centers as pedestrians do step right out in front of you (as they do EVs). Others don't. I certainly don't like red light jumpers as it gives us all a bad reputation. On most debates covering this topic you get the following.

• Cyclists should pay VED
• Cyclists should be insured.
• Cyclists jump red lights
• Cyclists should be trained
• Cyclists should have MOT
• Cyclists should not be on the road when a cycle path exists.

Most of these arguments are destroyed by other people on the discussion groups. The training is interesting as you only pass your driving test once, it doesn't mean you are a good drive 5 years later so unless people proposing this also cover retesting drivers I suspect this will go quiet quickly.

I am hoping that it helps the horse riders a lot, as they will also be protected by this change. But sadly they will still be passed too close and too fast by some.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Land cost is tiny in the grand scheme of things, at least outside of cities. A 5 mile 3 metre wide cycle path across open country would be about 5.5 acres / 23,000 sqm, of land, or under £50k based on field costs near to me. The cost to pave and maintain that would be far higher - https://www.pathsforall.org.uk/medi.../estimating-price-guide-for-path-projects.pdf puts cost at £45/sqm, so £1m. The land cost would be a rounding error.

With the rise of e-scooters/bikes making 5 and even 10 mile trips a doddle I'd love to see a proper off-road cycle network connecting villages being built.

It'd help just to put an MK Redway spec (2m wide) shared-use path alongside all main roads, to be honest. I have a good friend who lives in Buckingham and I visit him often, it'd easily be within cycling reach but that it is impossible, other than taking a very long and slow route via Winslow, to avoid riding on the A421 or A422 for a few-miles stretch, and that would be grim.

One thing I find notable is that around West Lancashire most rural roads except the smallest seem to at least have a footway, and some have Dutch style cycle provision (e.g. the A59 through Ormskirk and on via whatever-it-is towards Southport, both of these having Dutch style provision for most of their length, i.e. a separate footway and cycleway on both sides), but down South they tend not to.

 

[Ediswan]

That’s still racing - people going for fast times aren’t prioritising safety.

There is an unfortunate but repeated scenario of somebody practicing for a time trial killing themselves by riding into the back of a lorry, sometimes one parked in a layby.

I agree the flashing ones shouldn’t be so bright, but they are brilliant for making cyclists stand out, particularly in busy areas and in the rain.

Some front lights are far too bright as well, or badly aimed. Sometimes referred to as "Weapons Grade" lighting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is an unfortunate but repeated scenario of somebody practicing for a time trial killing themselves by riding into the back of a lorry, sometimes one parked in a layby.

One thing that really doesn't help is that the riding position of a road bike is such that people don't naturally look ahead all the time. If down on the drops due to attempting a time trial it's even worse. A hybrid (you can get flat-barred road type bikes for instance) is much safer in this regard, albeit maybe not quite as quick.

Some front lights are far too bright as well, or badly aimed. Sometimes referred to as "Weapons Grade" lighting.

Yes, blinding the oncoming traffic is really unhelpful*. I think it would make sense to require by law dim-dip functionality on cycle lights above a certain lumen value.

* I've actually nearly taken a cyclist out because of this - two of them were riding two abreast on a narrow-ish but two-way road at night with no street lighting, the one on the kerbside had one of these super-bright lights which took away my night vision entirely, the effect of which being that with my headlights dipped I couldn't see the cyclist riding alongside him on his right, and as such passed very close to him. Scary for both of us no doubt.

 

[miami]

There is an unfortunate but repeated scenario of somebody practicing for a time trial killing themselves by riding into the back of a lorry, sometimes one parked in a layby.

Thoughts and prayers with the lorry. Was it written off?

When I search for cyclists and lorries the results come back witht he dozens of stories about cyclists being seriously injured and indeed killed by lorries, perhaps you could link to some reports of these repeated scenarios?

Meanwhile statistically we're up to 24 pedestrians killed by motorists driving on pavements this year alone - not to mention the serious injuries, and those stats don't include people forced to walk in the road to avoid the lorry drivers who illegally drive on the pavement.

 

[Failed Unit]

Thoughts and prayers with the lorry. Was it written off?

When I search for cyclists and lorries the results come back witht he dozens of stories about cyclists being seriously injured and indeed killed by lorries, perhaps you could link to some reports of these repeated scenarios?

Meanwhile statistically we're up to 24 pedestrians killed by motorists driving on pavements this year alone - not to mention the serious injuries, and those stats don't include people forced to walk in the road to avoid the lorry drivers who illegally drive on the pavement.

I do feel for disable people in this situation. I sometimes wish they would just carry on and damage the vehicle that has blocked the footpath as they pass it. But they are thankfully too nice (and unfortunately stuck)

 

[AM9]

Otherwise known as "gross overkill", I suspect, just like people with dashcams and helmet cams who invariably seem to be out to pick a fight by driving or riding aggressively or asserting a right of way in a manner that puts them at risk.

Drive, ride and walk defensively, give people room to be stupid and humour them, and your chance of coming to harm is very small and your stress levels will be well down. "Here lies AM9, he had the right of way" is not what you want on your gravestone. "Aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?" (Ref: that excellent Honda ad from the early 2000s)

Maybe you didn't read (or understand) my post #116 which in part was an expansion on post 75#. There I'd described how I give the impression to be committed to crossing, but in fact I always leave myself the option of stepping back for my own safety. It doesn't stress me, it's just a way of asserting a right of way with an option to back out in the interests of self preservation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe you didn't read (or understand) my post #116 which in part was an expansion on post 75#. There I'd described how I give the impression to be committed to crossing, but in fact I always leave myself the option of stepping back for my own safety. It doesn't stress me, it's just a way of asserting a right of way with an option to back out in the interests of self preservation.

I was referring specifically to the bit I quoted which was talk of "lapel cams". Defensive pedestrianism, such as what you describe, would obviate the need for such a thing, just as I've never felt a need for one when cycling as I cycle defensively so rarely come to any kind of grief (and the one case I did have a serious crash it was my own fault anyway). Most users of helmet-cams appear to be on a mission of some sort.

 

[Meerkat]

One thing I find notable is that around West Lancashire most rural roads except the smallest seem to at least have a footway, and some have Dutch style cycle provision (e.g. the A59 through Ormskirk and on via whatever-it-is towards Southport, both of these having Dutch style provision for most of their length, i.e. a separate footway and cycleway on both sides), but down South they tend not to.

Round here the shared use paths are pretty rubbish for cycling on because they were cheap - one feels like a ploughed field as though they just laid tarmac straight onto the grass verge!

Some front lights are far too bright as well, or badly aimed. Sometimes referred to as "Weapons Grade" lighting.

Try driving in the Surrey Hills at night when mountain bikers come out of the woods with lights that could illuminate the moon, including really bright ones on their helmet as they look at you…..

 

[AM9]

... Meanwhile statistically we're up to 24 pedestrians killed by motorists driving on pavements this year alone - not to mention the serious injuries, and those stats don't include people forced to walk in the road to avoid the lorry drivers who illegally drive on the pavement.

It's strange that you refer to pedestrians being killed on pavements yet only mention lorries when it comes to blocking pavements, forcing pedestrians to walk in the road and illegally driving on the pavement. There are far more private car drivers that regularly park on and block pavements as though it was their right and the pavement was just an extension of the road for cars.

I was referring specifically to the bit I quoted which was talk of "lapel cams". Defensive pedestrianism, such as what you describe, would obviate the need for such a thing, just as I've never felt a need for one when cycling as I cycle defensively so rarely come to any kind of grief (and the one case I did have a serious crash it was my own fault anyway). Most users of helmet-cams appear to be on a mission of some sort.

It was a quip really but in fact, despite many cyclists and motorists driving defensively they still get killed or seriously injured by drivers through driving without due care or sheer dangerous behaviour. Were it not for some recorded evidence, there would be even more of the drivers still wreaking havoc on the roads. Maybe you should be stereotyping most car drivers with cameras in their vehicles to present a balanced argument.

 

[miami]

It's strange that you refer to pedestrians being killed on pavements yet only mention lorries when it comes to blocking pavements, forcing pedestrians to walk in the road and illegally driving on the pavement. There are far more private car drivers that regularly park on and block pavements as though it was their right and the pavement was just an extension of the road for cars.

That goes without saying surely, given that I linked to a story of a van driver killing an innocent little boy, a car driver plowing into someone walking thorugh town, and another car driver killing a pedestrian. Hell one of the injury stories wasn't even on the pavement, it was on the

Fairly sure it's illegal to park your car in someone's living room too, but that happened near me a couple of months ago. A lorry smashed into a 400 year old building and drove off without stopping too, but the usual defenders of "oh poor driver I bet he didn't even see it" were out on facebook.

Car drivers parking on the pavement is sadly normal (indeed car owners treating the road as an extension of their property is also common, strangely the council won't let me put a skip on the road outside my house without charging me, but a car is fine)

It just happened to be that that story had come up today (presumably because lorry drivers blocking pavements is more unusual)

Either way, the deaths caused by motorists, especially car drivers, shows exactly where the enforcement needs to be. Not on bikes and scooters and horse riders and pedestrians. Sadly a large number of the public don't want existing laws (like it being illegal to drive on a pavement unless doing so to enter a property -- giving way to people already on the pavement) enforced

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was a quip really but in fact, despite many cyclists and motorists driving defensively they still get killed or seriously injured by drivers through driving without due care or sheer dangerous behaviour. Were it not for some recorded evidence, there would be even more of the drivers still wreaking havoc on the roads. Maybe you should be stereotyping most car drivers with cameras in their vehicles to present a balanced argument.

In the original post that started this subthread I actually did.

 

[Bikeman78]

Otherwise known as "gross overkill", I suspect, just like people with dashcams and helmet cams who invariably seem to be out to pick a fight by driving or riding aggressively or asserting a right of way in a manner that puts them at risk.

Drive, ride and walk defensively, give people room to be stupid and humour them, and your chance of coming to harm is very small and your stress levels will be well down. "Here lies AM9, he had the right of way" is not what you want on your gravestone. "Aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?" (Ref: that excellent Honda ad from the early 2000s)

I bought a camera early last year after being cut up by a lorry. Against my better judgement I had a big row with the driver a few seconds later when I caught up. Now I just say nothing and send the footage to the Police. I have only reported a handful of drivers in 18 months. Most of the time I can't be bothered.

Thoughts and prayers with the lorry. Was it written off?

When I search for cyclists and lorries the results come back witht he dozens of stories about cyclists being seriously injured and indeed killed by lorries, perhaps you could link to some reports of these repeated scenarios?

Meanwhile statistically we're up to 24 pedestrians killed by motorists driving on pavements this year alone - not to mention the serious injuries, and those stats don't include people forced to walk in the road to avoid the lorry drivers who illegally drive on the pavement.

Mad isn't it? Recently I saw a double decker bus drive along the pavement because he couldn't be bothered to wait a few seconds for an oncoming bus to drive around a parked car.

 

[The Ham]

If you are arguing for equivalence between the behaviour of motorists and cyclists then presumably you are also arguing for equivalence in responsibility and so you disagree with the changes that are being made. Equally, I assume that you believe that cyclists should have things like compulsory third party insurance and a bike test for roadworthiness similar to the MOT ... even a bicycle tax.

At what age would you start having to pay a bicycle tax? My children typically start riding (without stabilisers and sometimes on the road, very much supervised and where there's rarely traffic) aged about 5, do they need to pay such a tax?

If so I'll be pushing a LOT harder for better cycle infrastructure (as would almost all cyclists), which even if we exclude the admin costs of the scheme (which works likely only just about cover the costs, even at £15 per person) would likely wipe out any income from the tax for decades to come.

I would also highlight that cyclists are being required to behave towards pedestrians in the same way that cars are expected to behave towards cyclists and lorries are expected to behave the same way towards cars. In doing so the road users with the ability to cause greater harm are all being treated equally when it comes to their responsibility to those to whom they can do the harm to.

 

[ashkeba]

* I've actually nearly taken a cyclist out because of this - two of them were riding two abreast on a narrow-ish but two-way road at night with no street lighting, the one on the kerbside had one of these super-bright lights which took away my night vision entirely, the effect of which being that with my headlights dipped I couldn't see the cyclist riding alongside him on his right, and as such passed very close to him. Scary for both of us no doubt.

Do you not have to apply the brake if dazzled while driving in this country then?

 

[bramling]

On my journeys to/from work, car drivers can reach speeds of several mph above the speed limit. The priority of car drivers is often to maintain their speed at all costs no matter what other road users may get in their way.


Another gripe I have is the extremely frequent overtaking of car drivers with no thought to traffic flow, such just before some obstruction that applies to them, such as parked cars.


And I often cringe at the sense of entitlement car drivers exhibit and their complete disregard for other road users.


Do you have any rationale for this bizarre claim?


Where is this? This is not my observation. Car drivers can be bad in many aspects, but zebra crossings is an area where I find they are actually generally very good.

Nor is it mine.

Whilst I agree with the intent of the above, I’m not sure “sense of entitlement” and “car drivers” really goes together. What it seems like to me is a proportion of people are self-entitled, and these people will be likely to cause issues wherever they go and whatever they do. Perhaps the metal box cocoon nature of a car gives some people the confidence to do things they wouldn’t in a face-to-face situation, but it still hints at an unpleasant underlying personality.

Really we just have to accept the fact that it’s a *people* issue rather than anything else. As to whether cycling attracts more than its fair share of unpleasant people, I wouldn’t like to say!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you not have to apply the brake if dazzled while driving in this country then?

I was not dazzled per se, but rather the excessively lit cyclist blocked the view of the other one.

 

[Bikeman78]

I did see a nasty accident on New Bridge Street, near Blackfriars station in London.

A cyclist was going down the hill towards the bridge fairly quickly when a pedestrian stepped right out in front of them at a pedestrian crossing. I was at the crossing myself and the cyclist did have the green light (we were on red). I suspect in this case as we had just crossed the road, the person didn't realize that green light didn't apply to crossing the cycleway. Others did try to stop the pedestrian by shouting watch out, but it was a hard enough impact to bend the front wheel of the bike.

I guess this law would be interesting here, the pedestrian was 100% at fault and admitted it themselves (guess the should be insured to compensate the cyclist ) - But also you could argue that the cyclist was going to fast (but not above the speed limit) as pedestrians not respecting crossing in front of stations is not unusual. People that know the area can probably picture exactly what happened.

You've reminded of an incident I witnessed whilst driving along Crwys Road in Cardiff. I stopped at a Pelican crossing. On oncoming cyclist nearly got taken out by a car that emerged from a side road close to the crossing. He was so busy shouting at the driver that he then collided with a lady crossing the road and fell off his bike. The lady then apologised to the cyclist! How very British; the one person that had done nothing wrong was the one that said sorry.

The link below shows where I stopped. The other car emerged from the right by the building with the green netting.

34 Crwys Rd - Google Maps

 

[The Ham]

I was not dazzled per se, but rather the excessively lit cyclist blocked the view of the other one.

The problem is that cyclists get accused of not having good enough lights, so some go over the top a little (especially if they are cycling on unlit roads and need to see where they're going).

Likewise, with the comments up thread about flashing cycle lights being distracting. Well it could be argued that by attracting your attention to them you can not argue that you weren't aware of them.

Not that having flashing lights and being covered in highly reflective material will ensure that you're not hit:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18204449.gmp-echo-call-caution-sussex-police-car-hit-a23/

(News story about a police car which was hit whilst stopped at the edge of dual carriageway, with blue lights flashing).

 

[Bikeman78]

The problem is that cyclists get accused of not having good enough lights, so some go over the top a little (especially if they are cycling on unlit roads and need to see where they're going).

Likewise, with the comments up thread about flashing cycle lights being distracting. Well it could be argued that by attracting your attention to them you can not argue that you weren't aware of them.

Not that having flashing lights and being covered in highly reflective material will ensure that you're not hit:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18204449.gmp-echo-call-caution-sussex-police-car-hit-a23/

(News story about a police car which was hit whilst stopped at the edge of dual carriageway, with blue lights flashing).

I can think of two incidents near me in the last few years where Police vehicles have been hit, one was rear ended by a bus and the other taken out by a Royal Mail lorry at a junction.

Flashing lights are a lot easier to spot on a bicycle than a steady beam.

 

[The Ham]

I can think of two incidents near me in the last few years where Police vehicles have been hit, one was rear ended by a bus and the other taken out by a Royal Mail lorry at a junction.

Flashing lights are a lot easier to spot on a bicycle than a steady beam.

Indeed, it's why when I'm cycling in the dark I'll have a fishing light so that I'm more easy to spot and a solid light and so I can see where I'm going.

I've even for lights for when my children are in their scooters on the way home when it's dark, even though they stay in the footway, so that they can be seen from a distance as they cross roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can think of two incidents near me in the last few years where Police vehicles have been hit, one was rear ended by a bus and the other taken out by a Royal Mail lorry at a junction.

Flashing lights are a lot easier to spot on a bicycle than a steady beam.

Nothing says bicycle like a flashing light, so they are very effective indeed.

The problem is that cyclists get accused of not having good enough lights, so some go over the top a little (especially if they are cycling on unlit roads and need to see where they're going).

When cycling on unlit roads bright lights are a great idea, and with LEDs a cyclist can be as well lit as a motorcyclist - this is great. However, like with cars and motorcycles, they really do need a legally mandated dim dip feature for oncoming traffic, and to use it (I have a Lezyne light which does have a brightness switch, so clearly some cyclists are just inconsiderate and don't use it even if they have it).

With regard to this case I mentioned, the cyclist with inferior lights should have ridden on the inside if riding two abreast and would have been protected rather than put at higher risk by the other cyclist with the brighter light.

 

[Falcon1200]

I have to admit I do not have lights on my bike, however I never cycle in the dark or during inclement weather. I do wear a bright yellow luminous top, and I too am aghast at the cyclists, often with far more expensive bikes than me, and going much faster, who think that all-black clothing is suitable.

As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist, I try and consider others when out and about, and to be fair most do reciprocate. There are always those who think the rules do not apply to them, so changing the rules won't make much difference to them !

 

[miami]

and I too am aghast at the cyclists, often with far more expensive bikes than me, and going much faster, who think that all-black clothing is suitable.

My neighbour's car is all black. I think that all cars should be bright yellow, perhaps with reflective stripes.

The highway code implores pedestrians to dress up in fancy dress to walk at night (rule 3), and even during the day (rule 5), rather than making it the responsibility of the cyclist, horse rider or driver to ensure they can see obstacles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My neighbour's car is all black. I think that all cars should be bright yellow, perhaps with reflective stripes.

I would like cycling to be safe in normal clothes, Dutch style, as that is the key to growth of utility cycling, which is the most important type. Leisure cycling is also good because it's exercise, but isn't as important as it doesn't take cars off the road (indeed it often adds them if driving to your chosen start point). Utility cycling both removes cars from the road and provides exercise.

However, the mind boggles as to why the likes of Team Sky chose black for their dedicated cycling kit. Why would you not choose a bright colour for a garment specifically intended for cycling?

 

[ashkeba]

I have to admit I do not have lights on my bike, however I never cycle in the dark or during inclement weather. I do wear a bright yellow luminous top, and I too am aghast at the cyclists, often with far more expensive bikes than me, and going much faster, who think that all-black clothing is suitable.

All black clothing is suitable because it is slimming and I need that! But my bike has good german dipped headlights and back light and if you cannot see those, you would not see me even if I was dressed like a railway track worker.

 

[miami]

However, the mind boggles as to why the likes of Team Sky chose black for their dedicated cycling kit

I'm not style expert, but probably the same reason I chose dark blue for my car - I like the colour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All black clothing is suitable because it is slimming and I need that!

Nobody really looks good in cycling lycra, even people who have a cycling body! It is purely practical clothing, and so making it a bright colour would improve that practicality.

 

[AM9]

... However, the mind boggles as to why the likes of Team Sky chose black for their dedicated cycling kit. Why would you not choose a bright colour for a garment specifically intended for cycling?

I don't think that Team Sky have a problem being seen, especially by motorists as apart from the team cars and TV crews, there aren't any motor vehicles around - only other cyclists. The only practicality that they are interested in is their image and a clear billboard for their sponsors.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't think that Team Sky have a problem being seen, especially by motorists as apart from the team cars and TV crews, there aren't any motor vehicles around - only other cyclists. The only practicality that they are interested in is their image and a clear billboard for their sponsors.

They then sold that kit to the MAMILs I see riding around the Surrey Hills though