Death By Dangerous Cycling - New Laws

[Wanderer Vagabond]

8 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

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.

You seem to consider cyclists to be a race apart however I am a pedestrian,cyclist,motorcyclist and lorry driver dependent upon circumstances. These cyclists you refer to carrying out all of these dangerous manoeuvres, would you really prefer they got off their bikes and back into their cars to do them?

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

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? 

 

So how do you explain the numbers of cyclists running red lights in large cities then?

 

In your example of loops in the road, you do the sensible thing. Look and if it is safe to do so cross, howe er in the video in post #58, that doesn't seem to be why cyclists are jumping red lights.

 

In some ScandinaIan cities, out of peak hours, one set of lights is green and the other flashes amber, so if the way is clear, those with the flashing amber can cross without having to stop. However in the event of an accident it is clear which party is in the wrong.

[Sir Nibble]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You seem to consider cyclists to be a race apart however I am a pedestrian,cyclist,motorcyclist and lorry driver dependent upon circumstances. These cyclists you refer to carrying out all of these dangerous manoeuvres, would you really prefer they got off their bikes and back into their cars to do them?

That's the odd thing. I imagine most cyclists have a driving licence so it's not ignorance that causes this unsafe behaviour, sense of entitlement I suppose. Jump on the 1.5M clearance, embrace it, apply it to both groups and enforce it and the carnage will stop. I bet it's the cyclists who would resist that most strongly though.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

So how do you explain the numbers of cyclists running red lights in large cities then?

 

In your example of loops in the road, you do the sensible thing. Look and if it is safe to do so cross, howe er in the video in post #58, that doesn't seem to be why cyclists are jumping red lights.

 

In some ScandinaIan cities, out of peak hours, one set of lights is green and the other flashes amber, so if the way is clear, those with the flashing amber can cross without having to stop. However in the event of an accident it is clear which party is in the wrong.

Again you are asking me to 'explain' something that I haven't argued for. By the same token can you 'explain' the number of cars (and particularly white van men) who jump red traffic lights? I can't, and I have no idea of the numbers, but like cyclists it is enough to see on any drive through a major city. Having seen two significant collisions as a result of such behaviour and then seen the aftermath, it is possibly because, should an accident occur, they will lie and say that the light was green (based upon anecdotal, first hand evidence). Perhaps the 'explanation' you seek is that the cyclists will probably do the same.

[George and Dragon]

6 hours ago, WotEver said:

There ARE some cycle lanes (which, bizarrely, disappear at the approach to roundabouts) but all of the instances I’m referring to (I very nearly wiped out a cyclist myself a few weeks back and yes, I was indicating left and yes, my indicators work) are at lights with no cycle lane. 

There are cycle lanes installed where it's cheap to do so. Where they are most needed is where it would be much more expensive (junctions and roundabouts) and, of course, there would need to be (expensive) measures installed to give cyclists who didn't only want to turn left the chance to make their manoeuvre without being crushed under the wheels of a larger, heavier vehicle.

It's a fact that the road system in the UK has, for the past 60 years, been designed with the 'needs' of the car in mind. Pedestrians and cyclists come a long way behind.

[Sir Nibble]

Near where I used to live a new crossroad was established with traffic light control. Despite no one ever jumping the lights there were constant accidents. Then cameras were installed to photograph vehicles passing a red light. No more accidents, stopped overnight.

[Machpoint005]

53 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

So how do you explain the numbers of cyclists running red lights in large cities then?

 

In your example of loops in the road, you do the sensible thing. Look and if it is safe to do so cross, howe er in the video in post #58, that doesn't seem to be why cyclists are jumping red lights.

 

In some ScandinaIan cities, out of peak hours, one set of lights is green and the other flashes amber, so if the way is clear, those with the flashing amber can cross without having to stop. However in the event of an accident it is clear which party is in the wrong.

We seem to have an unfortunate tradition in the UK of only obeying traffic rules if they suit us. The opposite is true in Scandinavia (and much of continental Europe, for that matter, especially Germany). 

 

For example, when turning right in Germany etc, you give way to pedestrians who are crossing the side road. Everybody does so.

 

The same is true in the UK: (Highway Code)

Rule 170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

• watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

So it's the same rule - but how often does it actually happen?

 

This one is food for thought as well:

 

Rule 178

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

[George and Dragon]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

[M]any lights now operate with minimal overlap between red one way and green the other.

 

I suspect different timings apply in different local authorities.

I worked in a city where the overlap between red on one direction and green on the other had to be increased because of the number of yobs running the red light after it had changed (I've seen as many as five). This of course is self defeating - the longer overlap means more vehicles run the red.

 

Traffic engineers seem to have no national guidelines as far as I can tell. For example, I would have thought it made sense from a traffic management point of view to allow vehicles travelling at the speed limit to progress. In the same way, why would you allow a queue of traffic to move forward 30 metres only to be stopped by the next set of lights?

[Machpoint005]

Finally this one:

 

Turning left

Rule 182

Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

Rule 182: Do not cut in on cyclists

 

 

1 minute ago, George and Dragon said:

Traffic engineers seem to have no national guidelines as far as I can tell.

Perhaps this means they have the freedom to take local conditions into account?

[George and Dragon]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

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? 

I believe the law says that you must

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Perhaps this means they have the freedom to take local conditions into account?

Maybe they do. But there are some curious outcomes.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

35 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

I believe the law says that you must

 

The Highway Code says otherwise:-

 

"...Rule 176

You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care...."

 

My case m'lud would be that since the Traffic Lights (road loops) are not able to detect a cycle, they are not working so I will treat the junction as outlined in the Highway Code

[Sir Nibble]

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The Highway Code says otherwise:-

 

"...Rule 176

You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care...."

 

My case m'lud would be that since the Traffic Lights (road loops) are not able to detect a cycle, they are not working so I will treat the junction as outlined in the Highway Code

The red light is working, you should stay put. I once came across a temporary light stuck on red. When after some time I got out and pitched the whole issue over the hedge I got cheered by the rest of the queue! Shouldn't have done it I know.

[roland elsdon]

The only people who jump red lights are idiots be they drivers cyclists or whatever. However as a cyclist crossing traffic lights the issue can be the impatient drivers of push and go vehicles ( automatics) who surge off the minute the light goes amber.

When a cycle is on the major road and there is a minor road at right angles it seems ok just to pull out or drive to the junction at top speed to intimidate the rider, that seems to be getting quite prevalent in the uk

[Sir Nibble]

We still seem to be stuck on the blame game instead of looking forward. Driving as a whole is definitely becoming more and more competitive with the bullies taking over the playground and not a prefect in sight.

[LadyG]

On 19/08/2018 at 15:52, Machpoint005 said:

Or drivers who park their cars on the pavement so that parents/grandparents with buggies have to go into the road to get past?

Here in Toytown pedestrians phone 101, report the felony, and a policeman duly turns up. Don't ask me how I know.

[It involved a breakdown, steering locking. and a pavement].

Edited August 20, 2018 by LadyG

[Sir Nibble]

It's sometimes said that the car has been a great liberating influence. It looks more and more like it's actually enslaved us.

[Tigerr]

5 hours 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 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. 

 

Are you actually putting that selected hits polemic rant video forward as evidence of cyclists being more commonly dangerous manoeuvres than car drivers? I hope not as that would suggest your grasp of data points and reality is dangerously thin, to the extent it might simply discredit any further contribution as from a dimwit. Obviously not the case.

The key thing to remember is that cyclists, however much they may be  resented, as they pass by, healthily, happily, are not actually killing hardly anyone, but are massively victims of drivers inability to manage their over specified poisonous speed fetishising vehicles - which is a scourge on our society. Of course, like toad in the wind on the willows, drivers don't want to admit they are unable to drive properly, and very much want someone to blame, and cyclists are a great target. poop poop!

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

......….cyclists are a great target.

1 point for static cyclists

5 points for moving cyclists

10 points for 'weaving' cyclists

25 points if they are on the footpath

50 points for tandems.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

The red light is working, you should stay put. I once came across a temporary light stuck on red. When after some time I got out and pitched the whole issue over the hedge I got cheered by the rest of the queue! Shouldn't have done it I know.

I think that approach is even more unwise than passing through a stuck red light. If you are unable to make your case (Highway Code says,".. If the traffic lights are not working...." not '...If they are not illuminated....' a failure to recognise a vehicle due to a faulty road loop I would suggest means that they are not working) the worst that is going to happen to you as a driver will be a fine and penalty points on your licence, to me as a cyclist a fine. By pitching the whole shebang over the hedge you become liable to a criminal conviction for Criminal Damage. Criminal record? or penalty points? I know what I'd rather have.

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

It's sometimes said that the car has been a great liberating influence. It looks more and more like it's actually enslaved us.

That is a very valid point with a considerable element of truth. There was a fascinating article concerning a Dutchman, Walter Dresschler, who had noticed that in the streets around his home in Amsterdam a lot of the cars never moved. Some of them had plants starting to grow under them, and the reason that they weren't being moved is because people were afraid of losing their parking place. They wanted their cars outside of their homes but then daren't use them. He came up with a proposal to remove these unused cars into a car park for free, their owners use a car sharing scheme and use the space on the street occupied by the car for flower tubs, a lawn for children to play, a picnic area or other pleasant purposes. The reaction he got to this suggestion was general hatred. The cars he was trying to get moved were not being used for probably 99% of the time, but heaven forbid anyone wanting to take away the owners right to park outside of his home.

 

This seems to be reflected generally here, my daughter living in Bristol rarely moved her car for fear of losing her parking space and even in the West Country town in which I have a property hardly anyone moves their car after 5pm because they will lose their space. The sole purpose of car ownership these days seems to be almost just so that you can keep it outside of your address, hardly a liberating influence.

[roland elsdon]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

1 point for static cyclists

5 points for moving cyclists

10 points for 'weaving' cyclists

25 points if they are on the footpath

50 points for tandems.

Thats so not funny sorry

best friend killed by lorry driver (5 year sentence)

brother killed by drunk driver who left him dead at side of road and went home. 

friend deliberatly knocked down and crippled by vengeful car driver (15 years  sentence.)

I still ride daily and race and with my wife on a tandem 

 

What are you saying ?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

What are you saying ?

We can all quote tragedies in our, and our friends lives, unfortunately  that is 'life'.

Most of what we do is a risk, all we can do is minimise that risk, and having seen some cyclists 'performing' they seem to have a death wish.

 

Feel more sorry for those who have suffered agony and death simply by living - Cancer does not choose the 'idiots' it attacks without thought or regard  - how many parents expect to bury their child ?. That is just 'not right'.

 

If you cannot make, or see a joke, when Tigger said 'cyclists make good targets', then I feel sorry for you.

Put your bitterness behind you and get on with living.

[Tigerr]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

1 point for static cyclists

5 points for moving cyclists

10 points for 'weaving' cyclists

25 points if they are on the footpath

50 points for tandems.

I suspect you think that is funny.  It isn't, given the actual deaths involved, and lives ruined, but your post does imply a lot about you as a person, and not in a good way, and on reflection you may regret posting in that way.  

[cereal tiller]

3 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

I suspect you think that is funny.  It isn't, given the actual deaths involved, and lives ruined, but your post does imply a lot about you as a person, and not in a good way, and on reflection you may regret posting in that way.  

Not intended as Funny but more an example of Irony and the Human condition?am sure Alan Royal Enfield did not mean to cause offence..

[GUMPY]

Cyclists need to be more aware of obstructions

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Loddon

[DHARL2]

On ‎13‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 09:45, Tanglewood said:

but cyclists can tinkle a bell and whizz past at 15.  

 

I wish they would ring their bell!   Normally all you here is a thurming of the tyres on the towpath and then I have the chance to jump into the bush, grab the dog as they wizz by!      Occasionly they do ring a bell and then I have a chance to safely step to one side.   I dont mind doing that as those cyclists are usually the ones that remember that they are sharing the towpath with other usesers (are so arnt going as fast as others anyway) and not on a cycle path which seems to have childeren, dogs, boaters, fishermen etc gettign in their way!