bradley wiggins/cycling

[DaveR]

"Friend, you're sounding a little deranged. Most folk don't hate cyclists. They just want a lot of them to act more responsibly. You know, stop the red light busting , trying to overtake on the inside, riding at night without lights etc. Jeez"

I think frustrated rather than deranged, to be fair. Anyone with any interest in the 'cycling debate' (if such a thing exists) has heard this argument go round and round in circles a million times before. The one thing that never changes, and the most important thing, is that in an encounter between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, it is the cyclist who is at risk. If a cyclist does something stupid and puts themselves in danger, that is their individual action and they have to take the consequences. However, it has no relevance at all to debates about tax, insurance and licensing for cyclists (which are all stupid ideas, frankly), nor does it ever excuse a vehicle driver of the responsibility to drive sensibly and have specific regard to the vulnerability of other road users. And the stats clearly show that, if the aim is to stop people getting killed/seriously injured, tackling bad driving should be a higher priority than bad cycling.

I agree that it would be better if all cyclists didn't jump red lights or ride at night without lights. But as a car driver neither of these things present any risk of harm to you. Get over it.

BTW, overtaking on the inside is fair game, if there is enough space. You need to start actually looking in your nearside mirror - that's what it's there for.

[silverfox]

"...I agree that it would be better if all cyclists didn't jump red lights or ride at night without lights. But as a car driver neither of these things present any risk of harm to you. Get over it..."

No physical harm perhaps. However, the presumption that it is nearly always the driver's fault means I could be sued by a dangerous and reckless cyclist for his or her injuries, possibly losing my house to pay the bills.

[Loz]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BTW, overtaking on the inside is fair game, if there is enough space. You need to start actually

> looking in your nearside mirror - that's what it's there for.

How to instantly lose an argument.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think any driver that doesn't check passeger side mirrors in London is running a real risk of not only injuring cyclists but motorcyclists too. It takes just a second to check that mirror, it's no great inconvenience to do so.

One accident I had was at a junction. I came up the cyle lane on the inside (the lights were on red) and as I was parallel with the lead car the lights changed. That driver then turned left and took me round the corner with her, my head stopping inches short of her back wheel when she stopped. So there you go...a driver not checking mirrors before moving off, even when alongside a cycle lane with a cylists box in front of her. According to the Police, Insurers and everyone else, her fault entirely.

[Alec John Moore]

Your signature was quite apposite in that last post, DJKQ.

[Loz]

Ah - different DJKQ. That is a cycle lane on the inside. In that case it is up the driver.

But if there is only kerb on my nearside then it is a dumb place to cycle. And DaveR's attitude of 'F... you I gonna cycle there' doesn't marry well with his much more enlightened "If a cyclist does something stupid and puts themselves in danger, that is their individual action and they have to take the consequences."

Cyclists do need to realise they are vulnerable and not cycle on the nearside of a car. Sneaking in that space between car and kerb is not a clever place to be.

[binary_star]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> binary_star Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What cyclist haters are failing miserably to

> > understand

>

> Friend, you're sounding a little deranged. Most

> folk don't hate cyclists.

I know. Where did I say they did?

[northlondoner]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Friend, you're sounding a little deranged. Most

> folk don't hate cyclists. They just want a lot of

> them to act more responsibly. You know, stop the

> red light busting , trying to overtake on the

> inside, riding at night without lights etc. Jeez"

>

> I think frustrated rather than deranged, to be

> fair. Anyone with any interest in the 'cycling

> debate' (if such a thing exists) has heard this

> argument go round and round in circles a million

> times before. The one thing that never changes,

> and the most important thing, is that in an

> encounter between a cyclist and a motor vehicle,

> it is the cyclist who is at risk. If a cyclist

> does something stupid and puts themselves in

> danger, that is their individual action and they

> have to take the consequences. However, it has no

> relevance at all to debates about tax, insurance

> and licensing for cyclists (which are all stupid

> ideas, frankly), nor does it ever excuse a vehicle

> driver of the responsibility to drive sensibly and

> have specific regard to the vulnerability of other

> road users. And the stats clearly show that, if

> the aim is to stop people getting killed/seriously

> injured, tackling bad driving should be a higher

> priority than bad cycling.

>

> I agree that it would be better if all cyclists

> didn't jump red lights or ride at night without

> lights. But as a car driver neither of these

> things present any risk of harm to you. Get over

> it.

>

> BTW, overtaking on the inside is fair game, if

> there is enough space. You need to start actually

> looking in your nearside mirror - that's what it's

> there for.

Just wait in line like everyone else rather than squeezing into every available space. Anyone doing this is taking a terrible risk .

The idea that bad cycling is less reprehensible because they're the ones who get hurt , is so ass backward , it doesn't merit a considered response.

Insurance and registration would have helped my friend whose car was damaged by a careening bike as she sat waiting in traffic.

Red lights are not optional for any road user. So it wouldn't merely be "better" if cyclists observed them...it would be complying with the law.

[DJKillaQueen]

That's partly, true but I always think that as long as a motorist can see you then it's ok. Vans, lorries, buses etc are a different level of risk though. What I would also say is that if a car is on a dual carriageway, the driver has to be as aware of what is to her or his left. We know that cyclists are common place on London's Road's and like motorcyclists they require more effort to see. So for me, part of being a good driver in London is about being continuously aware of what's around you. And if you want to be truly accident free, you have to expect people to do stupid things.

[Applespider]

Problem is that sometimes it's the only place to be if you're on a road where the traffic speed is normally above your average cycling speed and then it slows. If there's a 2-3 foot gap between car and kerb, I don't see anything wrong with pedalling down the nearside while being aware that passenger doors might open etc. It's one of the reasons that urban cycling is faster than urban driving at times - you can get through gaps where cars can't.

Having said that, even though cycle lanes encourage it, it's not always the right thing to do. Squeezing down the side of cars though where the cyclist is pushing themselves along with one foot on the kerb since it's too narrow to cycle but they MUST get past, is dumb though. It goes without saying that going down either side of stationary HGVs or waiting on the left of a car indicating a left turn is downright suicidal.

Stopping behind cars though can frustrate the drivers behind you since as you can't accelerate along with them, they'll miss the next set of lights (or whatever) and blame you (sometimes buzzing you to make their point).

Drivers tend to dislike cyclist filtering through to overtake on the offside - and that's not particularly safe anyhow since if the traffic starts moving, you're then trapped on the wrong side and need to get back across the flow of traffic.

Really - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Perhaps we should all just give up on the road and hop on the pavement

[binary_star]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just wait in line like everyone else

In slow-moving traffic motorists should: "be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side"

Number 151 from the highway code: https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/general-advice-144-to-158

And:

"It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully."

Number 211: https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213

[Loz]

A bit of creative editing there binary_star. Number 151 is part of "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders", not just 'motorists'. That section also applies to cyclists. It also states:

- In slow-moving traffic, you should not change lanes to the left to overtake

And, don't forget, the cycling part of the highway code (59 to 82) explicitly states: These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section).

The highway code is not just for motorists - cyclists must abide by it as well.

[red devil]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps we should all just give up on the road and

> hop on the pavement

I wouldn't bother if I were you...

http://static2.vouchercodes.co.uk/images/blog/3186_landscape-strollers.jpg

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A bit of creative editing there binary_star.

> Number 151 is part of "General rules, techniques

> and advice for all drivers and riders", not just

> 'motorists'. That section also applies to

> cyclists. It also states:

>

> - In slow-moving traffic, you should not change

> lanes to the left to overtake

>

> And, don't forget, the cycling part of the highway

> code (59 to 82) explicitly states: These rules are

> in addition to those in the following sections,

> which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway

> section).

>

> The highway code is not just for motorists -

> cyclists must abide by it as well.

Loz there was no editing, creative or otherwise, it was a direct copy and paste! Yes the Highway Code applies to *all* riders/drivers...that includes motorists!!! I wasn't trying to say cyclists were exempt, I was highlighting that cyclists are allowed (and other drivers/riders should expect them) to be passing on either side of slow moving traffic.

ETA: it was in reply to someone else's comment that cyclists should be waiting in line like everyone else. My point was that they don't have to and shouldn't be expected to.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

It also states:

>

> - In slow-moving traffic, you should not change

> lanes to the left to overtake

You don't need to change lanes to pass traffic on either inside if you're filtering (rather than over/undertaking)

[DaveR]

So, exactly as predicted, the "debate" continues to go round in circles. The most revealing comment from northlondoner, ever true to type: 'why don't you wait in line?'

Meanwhile, yet again I had an unwelcome encounter with the tarmac on my way home tonight, when a guy runs out into the street in front of me. I hit the brakes, he's fine, I'm over the bars and hoping there's not a car too close behind me.

So forgive me for not being that interested in nice interpretations of the highway code.

[Huguenot]

With you DaveR.

There is something about cars, maybe the advertising, maybe the sense of achievement, maybe just a ton of fuck you, that turns you into a total twat.

The idiots on here hypothecating about street nicies, are doing it behind 40 years of crumple zone and 100 years of smug.

Ridiculous examples of isolated behaviour are irrelevant. Most people on a bicycle are simply scared shitless. Of twats in cars.

[silverfox]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Meanwhile, yet again I had an unwelcome encounter

> with the tarmac on my way home tonight, when a guy

> runs out into the street in front of me. I hit the

> brakes, he's fine, I'm over the bars and hoping

> there's not a car too close behind me.

>

> So forgive me for not being that interested in

> nice interpretations of the highway code.

Sorry to hear of your accident DaveR. For your information, I was taught on my cycling proficiency course that if you pull the left (back) brake slightly before you pull the right (front) brake the bike won't tip forward and propel you over the handle bars.

Also, given the fears Huguenot raises, perhaps bicycles should be banned and instead cycle enthusiasts could pedal cycle rickshaws/pedicabs instead. That way they can pursue their love of cycling and contribute to the community at the same time by giving a couple of commuters who are going in the same direction a free lift.

[Jeremy]

Nice balanced post there, Huguenot! To state the obvious once again: some motorists drive like idiots, not all of them. Some cyclists ride like idiots, not all of them.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that because cyclists are only putting themselves at risk, they shouldn't be criticised. First of all because it assumes that non-cyclists don't care about the safety of cyclists. Secondly because it's not actually true.

Any rational person would realise that it is the responsibility of all road users (motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians) to act responsibly.

[DaveR]

"I fundamentally disagree with the idea that because cyclists are only putting themselves at risk, they shouldn't be criticised"

I don't think that anyone has said that. The truth is that I don't really care what people think about 'cyclists'. I've entered into the debate before, on here and elsewhere, but it's not really helpful. It's just obfuscation, mealy-mouthed dissembling, and outright denial of the most basic fact i.e. if you get in a car and drive on the road, only one thing matters - are you going to drive safely? Use all your mirrors, and your indicators, all the time? Don't pass until it's properly safe, and leave plenty of space? Drive calmly, patiently, and with respect and consideration for everyone else on the road? Most importantly, don't drive as if there is some kind of valid debate out there about what is safe and what it not. Don't look at that cyclist passing you on the inside and think 'if I go past him a bit too close for comfort, it's not my fault - he shouldn't have been there'.

I should add that all of this applies equally to me, because (like the vast majority of people who cycle) I also regularly drive. I can't claim to be a perfect driver, but I do my best to drive safely, and that's all I'm asking of anyone else. But when I point this out, and someone says this:

"Ah, but what about cyclists.....insurance...knocked my mate's wing mirror off....went through a red light etc. etc."

I can't avoid thinking that they are just a little bit more likely to go out and drive like an idiot.

Edited to add: thanks for the tip, silverfox. Must be just my slow reactions, or maybe that advice was intended for occasions when you have a little more time to think.

[woodrot]

how practical do you think it is to impose & then enforce an insurance requirement for cyclists ?

[Jeremy]

Can't really disagree with any of that, Dave.

[titch juicy]

As a commuter cyclist in london, i can honestly say the most danger i've felt recently is from other cyclists. Drivers seem to have become a lot more aware over the last couple of years and seem to be driving accordingly. I think drivers are become more fearful (of injuring cyclists) and cyclists are becoming less fearful and careful; i put it down to safety in numbers.

It's ridiculous to suggest that a cyclist cycling badly is only a danger to themselves- if a car has to swerve/brake hard to avoid a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic, then there's every chance they'll cause a bigger accident.

And of course it's not all cyclists- ashamed to say it's almost always men. But reactions from other cyclists i speak to waiting at lights while others charge through is always one of frustration.

As far as undertaking goes- it's perfectly legal and should be safe to do so given enough space.

[malumbu]

What really bothers me is that pedestrians neither have to have insurance, pavement tax, or pass any sort of walking proficiency test. They rarely bother to follow the highway code, stop suddenly without indication, no signal mirror manhoover. And they cross roads without looking and run red lights. I'd have compulsory indicators and stop lights and indicators.

Right I started this thread so I will finish it.

Miles cycled in London = about 40,000

Hit and run by a Merc and left for dead (Red Post Hill) = once

Knocked off by a hired white van (Sydenham) = Once

Near misses with a taxi = twice

With a bus = three times (and once with ?500 compensation, and this without any impact so I ask my dear readers did Thames buses have anything to hide)

Near misses with blue light vehicles - three

Road rage (where people threatened to kill me after I had asked them politely to give me more space) = three times

Witness to a crazy woman on the Brixton Road try to take out a cyclist = once

At fault for near misses with vehicles - a couple of times, and profuse apologies

Near misses with bike, mostly recently - three times

Near misses with pedestrains on phone, i pod, texting, numerous times

Times I have almost got hit by a bike twice, only once my fault and rather embarrasing

So scientifically, vehicles most dangerous, followed by pedestrians, and a close thing between me and other cyclists.

That's definitive.

I'll leave it with an anacdote. Spot a younger rather studious looking cyclist giving a car a very polite lecture on the Old Kent Road. So I think, why can't I be more reasonable to other road users (a bit of nudge theory here). Next junction the driver, who has stopped at this point, runs out into the road and shouts I'll have you you cant, I'll kick your fackin head it, and on and on for about five minutes at the very reasonable cyclist. I'll be waiting for you you cant. etc etc. I rest my case

[Applespider]

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> how practical do you think it is to impose & then

> enforce an insurance requirement for cyclists ?

Not very. It doesn't work particularly well for motorists and if it's a nominal fee, it's not going to cover the costs of setting it up and administering it.

Many cyclists have insurance in any case - either if they've joined LCC/British Cycling - or on their home contents. Sadly, they're probably also the sensible ones who are less likely to need it!