Death By Dangerous Cycling - New Laws

[WotEver]

Plenty of trucks in the US with two signs on the back, ‘Passing Side’ and ‘Suicide’, with ‘Passing Side’ obviously on the outside edge. Europe (including the UK) is a little more discreet, with a ‘No Entry’ symbol on the nearside. It’s a shame that some cyclists ignore that obvious warning. 

[Tigerr]

A major benefit of the bicycle as an ideal urban transport is that it can filter, and indeed cyclists are encouraged to filter through stationary traffic to the advance cycle safety position at the front. This is safer, and achieves more efficient traffic and cycle progress. It is unfortunate that many people driving vehicles are under all sorts of weird impressions that this is somehow 'cheating' and ought to be stopped, or resent waiting for cyclists to move off, or don't/can't look properly before they pull away and e.g. turn left onto the cyclist they just passed. 

These are temporary issues though. As cyclist numbers increase it becomes less easy for drivers to assume/assert 'road ownership' or 'status derived right of way', and they will learn to drive properly. At the moment though these drivers are trapped in a frustrated feedback loop of wanting to control, legislate, and punish what they see as aberrant cyclists on 'their' road. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Tigerr

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

A major benefit of the bicycle as an ideal urban transport is that it can filter, and indeed cyclists are encouraged to filter through stationary traffic to the advance cycle safety position at the front. This is safer, and achieves more efficient traffic and cycle progress. It is unfortunate that many people driving vehicles are under all sorts of weird impressions that this is somehow 'cheating' and ought to be stopped, or resent waiting for cyclists to move off, or don't/can't look properly before they pull away and e.g. turn left onto the cyclist they just passed. 

These are temporary issues though. As cyclist numbers increase it becomes less easy for drivers to assume/assert 'road ownership' or 'status derived right of way', and they will learn to drive properly. At the moment though these drivers are trapped in a frustrated feedback loop of wanting to control, legislate, and punish what they see as aberrant cyclists on 'their' road. 

At first read this seems quite sensible however it doesn't take into account the cyclist who comes up the inside who you haven't just passed or passed so far back that they might have turned off and had their tea.

 

I still think whether there is a cycle lane, space at the front for cyclists or what ever it is positively insane to goup the inside of a vehicle which may be turning left.

[droshky]

10 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

A major benefit of the bicycle as an ideal urban transport is that it can filter, and indeed cyclists are encouraged to filter through stationary traffic to the advance cycle safety position at the front. This is safer, and achieves more efficient traffic and cycle progress. It is unfortunate that many people driving vehicles are under all sorts of weird impressions that this is somehow 'cheating' and ought to be stopped, or resent waiting for cyclists to move off, or don't/can't look properly before they pull away and e.g. turn left onto the cyclist they just passed. 

These are temporary issues though. As cyclist numbers increase it becomes less easy for drivers to assume/assert 'road ownership' or 'status derived right of way', and they will learn to drive properly. At the moment though these drivers are trapped in a frustrated feedback loop of wanting to control, legislate, and punish what they see as aberrant cyclists on 'their' road. 

 

Steady on, tigerr, common sense, here?.....as you say, weird.

[KevMc]

35 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

A major benefit of the bicycle as an ideal urban transport is that it can filter, and indeed cyclists are encouraged to filter through stationary traffic to the advance cycle safety position at the front. This is safer, and achieves more efficient traffic and cycle progress. It is unfortunate that many people driving vehicles are under all sorts of weird impressions that this is somehow 'cheating' and ought to be stopped, or resent waiting for cyclists to move off, or don't/can't look properly before they pull away and e.g. turn left onto the cyclist they just passed. 

These are temporary issues though. As cyclist numbers increase it becomes less easy for drivers to assume/assert 'road ownership' or 'status derived right of way', and they will learn to drive properly. At the moment though these drivers are trapped in a frustrated feedback loop of wanting to control, legislate, and punish what they see as aberrant cyclists on 'their' road. 

Pray tell how is it more efficient traffic progress to allow the slowest & fewest road users to group in front of the faster users at a traffic lights and delay the movement of the faster vehicles ?

[Sir Nibble]

This really shouldn't be so difficult to sort out if each half of the debate would just lost the "me first" attitude. I can't for the life of me understand why the highway code isn't fit for purpose but the recent 1.5M guidance is a place to start. Personally I think anyone unable to control their vehicle to within half a metre is not competent to drive but that's just quibbling about the figure. The trouble is that some car drivers will complain that it's too difficult to pass and probably most cyclists would laugh at the idea they too need to allow clearance. This is the responsibility of both parties.

[KevMc]

21 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

This really shouldn't be so difficult to sort out if each half of the debate would just lost the "me first" attitude. I can't for the life of me understand why the highway code isn't fit for purpose but the recent 1.5M guidance is a place to start. Personally I think anyone unable to control their vehicle to within half a metre is not competent to drive but that's just quibbling about the figure. The trouble is that some car drivers will complain that it's too difficult to pass and probably most cyclists would laugh at the idea they too need to allow clearance. This is the responsibility of both parties.

One of the problems with the 1.5m guidance is the abysmal state of the road and the (some would say necessary) swerving performed by cyclists when confronted by a pothole. I try to give cyclists half a road width in fast moving traffic but it isn't always possible.

[roland elsdon]

44 minutes ago, KevMc said:

Pray tell how is it more efficient traffic progress to allow the slowest & fewest road users to group in front of the faster users at a traffic lights and delay the movement of the faster vehicles ?

And the average speed of motorised traffic before congestion charging was... about the speed of walking. Bloody cyclists responsible no doubt. Its quite simple too many toobig vehicles being used too often. Can you imagine london if the cyclists all drove nice sensible range rovers, it would clear up the congestion overnight ....

[KevMc]

1 minute ago, roland elsdon said:

And the average speed of motorised traffic before congestion charging was... about the speed of walking. Bloody cyclists responsible no doubt. Its quite simple too many toobig vehicles being used too often. Can you imagine london if the cyclists all drove nice sensible range rovers, it would clear up the congestion overnight ....

I wasn't being specific to London ... there are cyclist spaces at traffic lights all over the place.

[Machpoint005]

7 minutes ago, KevMc said:

I wasn't being specific to London ... there are cyclist spaces at traffic lights all over the place.

If you come off the M60 clockwise at Junction 26 there is one - just after the "motorway ends" sign. I've never worked out why.

[Sir Nibble]

11 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

And the average speed of motorised traffic before congestion charging was... about the speed of walking. Bloody cyclists responsible no doubt. Its quite simple too many toobig vehicles being used too often. Can you imagine london if the cyclists all drove nice sensible range rovers, it would clear up the congestion overnight ....

There is more to the country than London, controversial I know. I drive 25 miles each way on B roads every day and the single solitary cause of congestion is 15mph cyclists on 50mph roads.

[Tigerr]

1 hour ago, KevMc said:

Pray tell how is it more efficient traffic progress to allow the slowest & fewest road users to group in front of the faster users at a traffic lights and delay the movement of the faster vehicles ?

Because if the cyclist(s) have to  stop further back, spread out in among the cars, then very few either cyclists or vehicles get to move away before the lights change. Cars can't pass cyclists safely under those conditions. When drivers in this situation become frustrated they are tempted to close pass, harass, or speed dangerously to get through the amber. 'Accidents' are increased, and overall traffic flow is reduced. (I myself have been rammed from behind by an enraged white van man who felt impeded in this way and that attempted murder was justified in getting through on amber). 

Improving overall urban traffic flows through lights is one reason for the adoption of advance cycle boxes.

As has been pointed out - in town cycles are actually much faster than cars, but as your post indicates the car driver mentality lags behind, because drivers think their vehicle is 'fast' even when it is essentially just a component of a traffic jam.  The ability to accelerate before joining the back of the next jam is not going anywhere fast.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Tigerr

[KevMc]

8 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

Because if the cyclist(s) have to  stop further back, spread out in among the cars, then very few either cyclists or vehicles get to move away before the lights change. Cars can't pass cyclists safely under those conditions. When drivers in this situation become frustrated they are tempted to close pass, harass, or speed dangerously to get through the amber. 'Accidents' are increased, and overall traffic flow is reduced. (I myself have been rammed from behind by an enraged white van man who felt impeded in this way and that attempted murder was justified in getting through on amber). 

Improving overall urban traffic flows through lights is one reason for the adoption of advance cycle boxes.

As has been pointed out - in town cycles are actually much faster than cars, but as your post indicates the car driver mentality lags behind, because drivers think their vehicle is 'fast' even when it is essentially just a component of a traffic jam.  The ability to accelerate before joining the back of the next jam is not going anywhere fast.

Again you are looking at congested cities ..... this is not the only place where cyclists are given preferential treatment at traffic lights

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

Plenty of trucks in the US with two signs on the back, ‘Passing Side’ and ‘Suicide’, with ‘Passing Side’ obviously on the outside edge. Europe (including the UK) is a little more discreet, with a ‘No Entry’ symbol on the nearside. It’s a shame that some cyclists ignore that obvious warning. 

Oddly enough, in a line of stationary traffic, I'm just as comfortable travelling up the outside but then you have to be equally alert to the half wit who, fed up with waiting in the traffic queue, will execute a U-turn into the path of overtaking traffic (motorcycles also suffer the same issues). What I do find, whether going up on the inside or the outside, is that some infantile drivers will edge their car towards whichever  side I am coming, the defence,"I didn't see you" doesn't wash when there is obviously a deliberate attempt to obstruct.

 

This idea of not using a cycle lane when it is present if it involves passing inside of vehicles is basically saying that there should be no cycle lanes. The actual danger (ignoring the inept drivers who are likely to do many unexpected things) lies being alongside the lead vehicle at a set of traffic lights, since that is the only one who may have a reasonable excuse not to have seen you. The other risks lie in passengers who, having got fed up of sitting in the queue of traffic, throw open their doors to get out and walk. This risk could be reduced by the adoption of the 'Dutch reach' whereby you use your inside arm (right arm sitting on nearside, and left arm sitting on the offside) to open the car door which forces you to look backwards before opening the car door.

 

The funny part about this whole debate is that it is the cyclists that are being killed, but the drivers that are expressing the outrage, how weird is that?

[cuthound]

53 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

Because if the cyclist(s) have to  stop further back, spread out in among the cars, then very few either cyclists or vehicles get to move away before the lights change. Cars can't pass cyclists safely under those conditions. When drivers in this situation become frustrated they are tempted to close pass, harass, or speed dangerously to get through the amber. 'Accidents' are increased, and overall traffic flow is reduced. (I myself have been rammed from behind by an enraged white van man who felt impeded in this way and that attempted murder was justified in getting through on amber). 

Improving overall urban traffic flows through lights is one reason for the adoption of advance cycle boxes.

As has been pointed out - in town cycles are actually much faster than cars, but as your post indicates the car driver mentality lags behind, because drivers think their vehicle is 'fast' even when it is essentially just a component of a traffic jam.  The ability to accelerate before joining the back of the next jam is not going anywhere fast.

 

So please explain why is it more dangerous for motor vehicles to pass lights on amber (a legal move according to the highway code if it is not possible to stop safely), but not dangerous for cycles to pass lights on red (an illegal move)?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

So please explain why is it more dangerous for motor vehicles to pass lights on amber (a legal move according to the highway code if it is not possible to stop safely), but not dangerous for cycles to pass lights on red (an illegal move)?

So please explain who has said it is not dangerous for cycles to pass through red lights?

[cuthound]

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So please explain who has said it is not dangerous for cycles to pass through red lights?

 

No one has said it, but it can be observed many times on any journey in a city where there are red lights and cyclists.

 

It is extremely dangerous because there is a good chance of them being hit by a vehicle correctly passing through on green lights, particularly as many lights now operate with minimal overlap between red one way and green the other.

 

No wonder so many cyclists are injured if they cannot work this out for themselves ?

Edited August 20, 2018 by cuthound

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

Because there is a good chance of them being hit by a vehicle correctly passing through on green lights, particularly as many lights now operate with minimal overlap between red one way and green the other.

 

No wonder so many cyclists are injured if they cannot work this out for themselves ?

I'll perhaps try the question again, WHO has said it is not dangerous for cycles to pass through red lights????????

[Machpoint005]

No, cyclists should not go through red lights.

Yes, some of them do (I saw one do so early this morning, in fact).

 

What business is it of any motorist?* The motorist isn't risking his/her life. "Mind your own business" as we used to say.

 

 

 

* apart from the one who hits the cyclist, of course

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Machpoint005
see footnote

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

No one has said it, but it can be observed many times on any journey in a city where there are red lights and cyclists.

 

It is extremely dangerous because there is a good chance of them being hit by a vehicle correctly passing through on green lights, particularly as many lights now operate with minimal overlap between red one way and green the other.

 

No wonder so many cyclists are injured if they cannot work this out for themselves ?

Yes, I thought that was probably the case. I can also observe drivers carrying out dangerous manoeuvres on most journey's that I have driven on, overtaking where it is unsafe, excessive speed in built up areas, unsignalled turns and, oddly enough, going though red traffic lights, no-one would say that any of these manoeuvres were not dangerous. Once a cyclist does it however it is the cause of outrage.

[cuthound]

11 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I'll perhaps try the question again, WHO has said it is not dangerous for cycles to pass through red lights????????

 

See my previous post, no one in this thread has said it.

 

Are you saying that it doesn't happen on a very regular basis?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

See my previous post, no one in this thread has said it.

 

Are you saying that it doesn't happen on a very regular basis?

You were asking for an explanation of something that no-one had asserted, rather makes an 'explanation' meaningless doesn't it? Cyclists who ride through red traffic signals may well know it is dangerous, as do drivers who overtake in unsuitable locations, travel at excessive speed in urban areas or drive through red lights themselves, what 'explanation' for all of these behaviours are you looking for?

[cuthound]

18 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

No, cyclists should not go through red lights.

Yes, some of them do (I saw one do so early this morning, in fact).

 

What business is it of any motorist?* The motorist isn't risking his/her life. "Mind your own business" as we used to say.

 

 

 

* apart from the one who hits the cyclist, of course

 

 

 I have seen motorists take evasive action and collided with something else, so it can become their business.

 

15 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Yes, I thought that was probably the case. I can also observe drivers carrying out dangerous manoeuvres on most journey's that I have driven on, overtaking where it is unsafe, excessive speed in built up areas, unsignalled turns and, oddly enough, going though red traffic lights, no-one would say that any of these manoeuvres were not dangerous. Once a cyclist does it however it is the cause of outrage.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Every road user has a duty to behave in a safe and considerate manner, however the reduction in traffic police means many get away with it, which then encourages others to do the same.

 

However in cities it is much more common for cyclists to do dangerous manoeuvres than motorists. Count the examples of cyclists and drivers in the video embedded in post #58 if you require proof. 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by cuthound
To add the last sentance

[Sir Nibble]

39 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

 

 

The funny part about this whole debate is that it is the cyclists that are being killed, but the drivers that are expressing the outrage, how weird is that?

It doesn't seem that odd to me. I really don't want to kill a cyclist and get quite exasperated that so many cyclists seem so reluctant to cooperate with that. It's usually the cyclist who doesn't look behind before manouvering, undertakes and zips through dangerously small gaps whilst the motorist near on has a heart attack trying to prevent multiple suicides.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 I have seen motorists take evasive action and collided with something else, so it can become their business.

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Every road user s a duty to behave in a safe and considerate manner, however the reduction in traffic police means many get away with it, which then encourages others to do the same.

I'm not really sure about that argument, so if I see someone taking his/her life in their hands by overtaking in a dangerous location I'll feel inclined to do the same? no doesn't seem to work for me .

 

The one area of lawbreaking that does encourage others is excessive speed on Motorways where the limit is 70mph, who keeps to that limit, from what I see as I drive around, pretty much no-one. But of course that is acceptable because on a clear road why bother to keep to the speed limit; the inept cyclist would argue that if there is nothing coming through the lights from the counter direction why should they stop (I'd disagree with them). I have, however, had the circumstance of the  loops in the road surface supposed to detect vehicles, failing to detect a cycle, am I supposed to sit there to wait until a vehicle big enough to activate the loop arrives?