Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: RobG on 17 September 2016, 18:04:26
-
If, when passing a cyclist, at least 5 foot (app 1500mm) of space is not given by said motorist/s, any police in proximity who notice the "offence" will whack a fixed penalty on the vehicle driver :-X
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
-
So whats the overtaking distance?
-
About time too :y
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
Any police won't do. It has to be traffic police. We have a small police station about 100 yds from us, they call in to use the bog, I think, or just skive for half an hour. The drive past all kinds of minor offences every day but don't bother stopping or owt. It's not their job.
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
Any police won't do. It has to be traffic police. We have a small police station about 100 yds from us, they call in to use the bog, I think, or just skive for half an hour. The drive past all kinds of minor offences every day but don't bother stopping or owt. It's not their job.
I'd be worried about that :o They (so more than one) call at yours to use your bathroom facilities and there both in there for 1/2 hour :o :o ::) ;D
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
Any police won't do. It has to be traffic police. We have a small police station about 100 yds from us, they call in to use the bog, I think, or just skive for half an hour. The drive past all kinds of minor offences every day but don't bother stopping or owt. It's not their job.
I'd be worried about that :o They (so more than one) call at yours to use your bathroom facilities and there both in there for 1/2 hour :o :o ::) ;D
I, for one, wouldn't want to use the crapper any time soon after STMO. :)
-
...and what was this thread about again? ;D
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
Any police won't do. It has to be traffic police. We have a small police station about 100 yds from us, they call in to use the bog, I think, or just skive for half an hour. The drive past all kinds of minor offences every day but don't bother stopping or owt. It's not their job.
I'd be worried about that :o They (so more than one) call at yours to use your bathroom facilities and there both in there for 1/2 hour :o :o ::) ;D
All those doughnuts can bind you up a little. ;D
-
About time too :y
Also about time the police stopped and fined cyclists using a pedestrian crossing as an extension of a designated cycle path >:(
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
Any police won't do. It has to be traffic police. We have a small police station about 100 yds from us, they call in to use the bog, I think, or just skive for half an hour. The drive past all kinds of minor offences every day but don't bother stopping or owt. It's not their job.
So what you`re implying is that if a non traffic police officer witnessed a motorist who is obviously pissed, they can`t/won`t arrest him/her ???
-
Sounds about right to me. Anyone who cycles regularly would probably agree. :y
Then again, when was the last time you noticed Police in proximity of anything motoring related, hence all the mobile phone drivers. ::)
Any police won't do. It has to be traffic police. We have a small police station about 100 yds from us, they call in to use the bog, I think, or just skive for half an hour. The drive past all kinds of minor offences every day but don't bother stopping or owt. It's not their job.
So what you`re implying is that if a non traffic police officer witnessed a motorist who is obviously pissed, they can`t/won`t arrest him/her ???
No, Rob, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, round here anyway, non traffic police officers will ignore minor traffic violations, such as parking on double yellows or using mobile devices, or even speeding.
If you were being a complete prat, then I'm sure you'd get a pull, but not in the normal course of things.
-
About time too :y
Also about time the police stopped and fined cyclists using a pedestrian crossing as an extension of a designated cycle path >:(
And riding with no lights, 99% don't seem to have lights, and when you polite say to them"excuse me me,your lights don't seem to be working" the reply is normally not "thank-you kind motorist,I will attend to that fault,with my bicycle's illumination" :)
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence. Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.
And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say. As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists. I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.
At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely. Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules. If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly? Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway :)
-
Quite agree , when I joined the London Ambulance Service back in 1979 defensive driving was drummed into the new staff & it stays with you , the majority of drivers I see seem to adopt an aggressive approach slap dash & careless.
-
I'd advocate a ten-year cycle of driving brush-up. Not a test per se, but just like a Pass Plus or a CBT you can't really fail, unless you actually try and kill someone, so to speak. Just a refresher, it's amazing how many people make driving mistakes because then genuinely don't realise some very basic rules of the road, not because they actually don't care.
It's these sorts of details of the rules of the road which are ideal candidates for such a refresher course.
-
I'd advocate a ten-year cycle of driving brush-up. Not a test per se, but just like a Pass Plus or a CBT you can't really fail, unless you actually try and kill someone, so to speak. Just a refresher, it's amazing how many people make driving mistakes because then genuinely don't realise some very basic rules of the road, not because they actually don't care.
It's these sorts of details of the rules of the road which are ideal candidates for such a refresher course.
Doing this for everybody would soon degenerate into the usual bureaucratic bun fight. But sending a randomly selected percentage of licence renewers for an evaluation wouldn't be too hard to do. Every licence renewal should also be dependent on a current eye test.
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence. Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.
And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say. As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists. I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.
At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely. Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules. If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly? Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway :)
I agree with the bulk of your statement, but having super bright lights arguably makes other cyclists etc around you LESS visible by virtue of glare. Deliberately dazzling other road users is equally as much of an offence as using foglights in clear conditions.
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence. Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.
And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say. As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists. I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.
At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely. Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules. If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly? Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway :)
I agree with the bulk of your statement, but having super bright lights arguably makes other cyclists etc around you LESS visible by virtue of glare. Deliberately dazzling other road users is equally as much of an offence as using foglights in clear conditions.
It was more of a tongue in cheek comment as I don't really know for sure. I don't deliberately point my lights up at an intensity that will cause issues but the light I use is very bright (and legal). As long as it is pointed to the ground in front of me I figure there is not much more I can do, not that being very visible makes any difference to one or two motorists who, unfathomably, cannot see a 20 stone cyclist in daylight with flashing lights wearing hi-vis.
-
Reading it did make me wonder if someone has collected stats on motorbicyclists getting pulled out on pre and post drls :-\
-
Riding on an empty crossing
Cycling on a pedestrian crossing gives the motorist the right to swerve around said cyclist and proceed as normal.
-
Riding on an empty crossing
Cycling on a pedestrian crossing gives the motorist the right to swerve around said cyclist and proceed as normal.
If you say so.
-
Illegal: Cycle across Zebra crossings
Zebra crossings are for pedestrians only. If you are on your bike, you don’t count as a pedestrian, so you’ll need to dismount and cross. You can however cross on Toucan crossings, which are the button controlled traffic lights that allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross on the green signal.
Equally, in law if you did cycle across a zebra crossing then you are not a ‘pedestrian’ so a motorist who fails to give way to you won’t be committing an offence if they cut in front of you – case law precedent if you are interested is Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR.
-
I never said it wasn't wrong or illegal but you mentioned pedestrian crossing, not zebra. There is a difference in that some pedestrian crossings are also shared use and distinguishing them is not always evident to a motorist.
But if you wish to put your license/freedom in jeopardy to put said cyclist in danger by swerving/not giving way/deliberately putting their safety at risk....I'm not able to stop you nor am I going to be able to change your opinion toward cyclists.
-
About time too :y
Also about time the police stopped and fined cyclists using a pedestrian crossing as an extension of a designated cycle path >:(
Agree, two types of pelican crossing where I cycle. Pedestrian only, which if on a cycle path have a 'cyclists dismount' sign and those that are designated pedestrian and cyclist crossing, my nearest is where a cycle path crosses a 60mph road and that has a green light showing a pedestrian and a bicycle. I always walk across if the former. What would be good is for the 10-20% of motorists that think stopping at a pedestrian crossing with red lights, is optional, learn that it is mandatory! >:( >:( Had a particularly nasty near miss recently at the Sandhurst Tesco Meadows roundabout. Speed limit is 30mph, a van and other traffic had stopped at the red light on the dual carriage inside lane and I was part way across and could not see until at the offside edge of the van, that a car on the outside lane doing about 60mph was making no attempt to stop, had to pull back to avoid an accident, where they made no attempt to slow down or stop. >:( >:(
I would also like to see a clampdown on cyclists on paths solely for pedestrians as this a common problem in Sandhurst, where some are cycle paths and the narrower ones are not.
-
it`s a ruddy bun fight, no one will give way or gives a toss about the other road users. I edged out of a driveway blocking a cycle path for all of 10 seconds. The lycra loon up the road started hooting & screaming at me when he was still 25 metres away. No, he was not interested in giving way, the drama queen.
I screamed back him "Look behind you" & he did ;D ;D Ohh panto season all year round :D
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence. Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.
And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say. As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists. I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.
At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely. Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules. If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly? Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway :)
I agree with the bulk of your statement, but having super bright lights arguably makes other cyclists etc around you LESS visible by virtue of glare. Deliberately dazzling other road users is equally as much of an offence as using foglights in clear conditions.
It was more of a tongue in cheek comment as I don't really know for sure. I don't deliberately point my lights up at an intensity that will cause issues but the light I use is very bright (and legal). As long as it is pointed to the ground in front of me I figure there is not much more I can do, not that being very visible makes any difference to one or two motorists who, unfathomably, cannot see a 20 stone cyclist in daylight with flashing lights wearing hi-vis.
Maybe you could try these :D
https://www.firebox.com/Bike-Balls/p7358
-
Maybe you could try these :D
https://www.firebox.com/Bike-Balls/p7358
Some people here seem so stressed I think they might need a pair of these instead: http://www.imaginarte.com/niceballs-eng
-
Hmmm.... how to ease tension....
Is there a God? Discuss :D
-
This might be more effective:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdptkx80pnlx8l1/MAMIL%20destroyer%21.jpg?dl=0
Ron.
-
it`s a ruddy bun fight, no one will give way or gives a toss about the other road users. I edged out of a driveway blocking a cycle path for all of 10 seconds. The lycra loon up the road started hooting & screaming at me when he was still 25 metres away. No, he was not interested in giving way, the drama queen.
I screamed back him "Look behind you" & he did ;D ;D Ohh panto season all year round :D
;D ;D
-
Hmmm.... how to ease tension....
Is there a God? Discuss :D
Most definitely, without TB none of us could or would..........
on OOF. ???
-
http://road.cc/content/news/206060-west-midlands-police-issues-prosecution-notices-14-close-pass-drivers (http://road.cc/content/news/206060-west-midlands-police-issues-prosecution-notices-14-close-pass-drivers)
14 down. :y
-
Hmmm.... how to ease tension....
Is there a God? Discuss :D
Most definitely, without TB none of us could or would..........
on OOF. ???
TuBy is not the messiah, but he is definitely a very naughty boy :P ;D ;D
-
How often, on a road devoid of parked cars, do you see a cyclist only 0.75m from the kerb?????
(http://road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/passing-distance-west-midlands-police.jpg?itok=tSq05L92)
-
http://road.cc/content/news/206060-west-midlands-police-issues-prosecution-notices-14-close-pass-drivers (http://road.cc/content/news/206060-west-midlands-police-issues-prosecution-notices-14-close-pass-drivers)
14 down. :y
Asked whether the prosecutions had come about as a result of the recently launched initiative in which a cycling officer radios ahead to colleagues after experiencing a close pass, the unit replied: “No these are straight prosecutions from 3rd party camera footage following complaints from cyclists.”
:y
-
How often, on a road devoid of parked cars, do you see a cyclist only 0.75m from the kerb?????
More often than I see motor vehicles giving cyclists the correct amount of space when overtaking and that is a fact ;)
I also see quite a few cyclists that hug the kerb, dangerously so. Probably due to them having been on the receiving end of a few punishment passes.
-
It seems that the last 0.75m of road surface around me is exempt from pothole repairs so a valid point, IMHO. ::)
-
It seems that the last 0.75m of road surface around me is exempt from pothole repairs so a valid point, IMHO. ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYEPPU9wdQY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYEPPU9wdQY)
Another 'reason' ::)
And the pri... driver continues rolling through the junction :o
-
It seems that the last 0.75m of road surface around me is exempt from pothole repairs so a valid point, IMHO. ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYEPPU9wdQY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYEPPU9wdQY)
Another 'reason' ::)
And the pri... driver continues rolling through the junction :o
Car driver should have stopped before edging.... Clearly looking left as he pulled out, probably didn't even see the bike.
Equally rather than forcing the situation, cyclist should have anticipated it. Afterall it was completely predictable...
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
........................
When I was younger I was told that if I stood too near the edge of a railway station platform I would get sucked off. I've been going to the local train station daily for the last thirty odd years in hope that it would happen but no luck so far. ::)
On a serious note, I always give cyclists plenty of room in case they wobble/fall off but, just to put this in to perspective, some of our back roads are only nine feet wide. How do I get a six feet wide car past a bike and still leave five feet clear? :-\ There must be some massive tailbacks in Cornwall now. ;D
-
some of our back roads are only nine feet wide. How do I get a six feet wide car past a bike and still leave five feet clear? :-\ There must be some massive tailbacks in Cornwall now. ;D
I agree with you there, there are so many roads that are quite narrow and not built for giving this amount of room.
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
........................
When I was younger I was told that if I stood too near the edge of a railway station platform I would get sucked off. I've been going to the local train station daily for the last thirty odd years in hope that it would happen but no luck so far. ::)
On a serious note, I always give cyclists plenty of room in case they wobble/fall off but, just to put this in to perspective, some of our back roads are only nine feet wide. How do I get a six feet wide car past a bike and still leave five feet clear? :-\ There must be some massive tailbacks in Cornwall now. ;D
;D ;D ;D Is that what train spotters are actually waiting for? :D
As for narrow roads I was thinking about that too. I guess it would depend on the road but if it was that narrow a slower pass would be ok at a safe opportunity. Personally I would signal the driver to wait until I found a spot I was happy with and signal the driver to come past. As I am higher up than car drivers I can see more of the road ahead so that mutual understanding between road users would have to be there. There is a road near me where you have a blind summit with a chicane at the top, a nightmare for cyclists as it is uphill and you are doing 10mph at most but it is too narrow for a motorist to pass safely. My technique is to take the lane (that means cycle in the middle to stop motorists from passing) when it is safe and if a motorist comes up I use my hand to signal that they should wait. When I get to see over the summit and check it is clear I move left and signal the motorist to pass. They usually get frustrated with me at first but when they realise I am helping them they understand and almost always give a wave although not all trust me and some wont pass until much later. That's their choice.
On your travels you might get a prick cyclist who cannot think outside of his own reality but that won't count for nowt to the rozzers when you speed past him at 60mph and send him head first in to the hedge and his helmet cam footage leaves you no choice but to plead guilty ::)
-
On your travels you might get a prick cyclist who cannot think outside of his own reality but that won't count for nowt to the rozzers when you speed past him at 60mph and send him head first in to the hedge and his helmet cam footage leaves you no choice but to plead guilty ::)
.. and, just for balance. Cyclists today on my way home from work. Country lane, narrow but plenty of safe passing opportunities. Cyclists looked back, saw me in a car, carried on 2 abreast. >:(
-
On your travels you might get a prick cyclist who cannot think outside of his own reality but that won't count for nowt to the rozzers when you speed past him at 60mph and send him head first in to the hedge and his helmet cam footage leaves you no choice but to plead guilty ::)
.. and, just for balance. Cyclists today on my way home from work. Country lane, narrow but plenty of safe passing opportunities. Cyclists looked back, saw me in a car, carried on 2 abreast. >:(
I often think that this time of year is when the ill will to cyclists is the highest. You have the tail end of the summer cyclist still cycling to work/pub contemplating when they should revert back to pre-summer transport and who thinks that if there are street lights then riding with no lights is ok for a week or so while they switch between pavement and road when it suits them.
And that image stays with motorists all year.
While the rest of us who cycle all year round, obey the rules, are courteous and safe get all the agro from October to April.
Just a theory, you understand ;D
-
On a serious note, I always give cyclists plenty of room in case they wobble/fall off but, just to put this in to perspective, some of our back roads are only nine feet wide. How do I get a six feet wide car past a bike and still leave five feet clear? :-\ There must be some massive tailbacks in Cornwall now. ;D
You've rumbled their lycra clad nefarious plan! They won't be happy until all roads in the UK are a 20mph limit, right Matt? :P
(Just kidding, honest)
-
I often think that this time of year is when the ill will to cyclists is the highest. You have the tail end of the summer cyclist still cycling to work/pub contemplating when they should revert back to pre-summer transport and who thinks that if there are street lights then riding with no lights is ok for a week or so while they switch between pavement and road when it suits them.
And that image stays with motorists all year.
While the rest of us who cycle all year round, obey the rules, are courteous and safe get all the agro from October to April.
Just a theory, you understand ;D
These were Lycra clad and making a constant 20 MPH on an undulating road, so quite fit (well, the woman looked to be from behind, at any rate). :P
It's not hard to see how a few bad eggs spoil things.
-
On your travels you might get a prick cyclist who cannot think outside of his own reality but that won't count for nowt to the rozzers when you speed past him at 60mph and send him head first in to the hedge and his helmet cam footage leaves you no choice but to plead guilty ::)
.. and, just for balance. Cyclists today on my way home from work. Country lane, narrow but plenty of safe passing opportunities. Cyclists looked back, saw me in a car, carried on 2 abreast. >:(
I don't bother or normally worry too much over cyclists. However, the situation Kevin describes really gets me angry. A simple move into single file, and everybody is happy....but no.....and its not only country lanes. >:(
-
Ever since we had the Tour de Yorkshire the amount of lycra clad wanna be`s has increased ten fold and at weekends the country roads are full ignorant cyclists riding two and three abreast and not one group has ever gone into single file to allow cars to pass safely >:( >:( >:(
It`s no wonder they get a bad name.
-
They won't be happy until all roads in the UK are a 20mph limit, right Matt? :P
So long as the speed limit doesn't count for cyclists ::)
Which according to case law that is currently how it stands (stands back and waits for the fireworks)
-
Ever since we had the Tour de Yorkshire the amount of lycra clad wanna be`s has increased ten fold and at weekends the country roads are full ignorant cyclists riding two and three abreast and not one group has ever gone into single file to allow cars to pass safely >:( >:( >:(
It`s no wonder they get a bad name.
You do know that single file isn't required? And how would you safely pass a long row of them?
Like a lot of other road users that aren't cars, cycles have characteristics that car drivers simply have to accept. As I've said before, many road users are temperamentally unsuited to what they are doing.
-
Ever since we had the Tour de Yorkshire the amount of lycra clad wanna be`s has increased ten fold and at weekends the country roads are full ignorant cyclists riding two and three abreast and not one group has ever gone into single file to allow cars to pass safely >:( >:( >:(
It`s no wonder they get a bad name.
You do know that single file isn't required? And how would you safely pass a long row of them?
Like a lot of other road users that aren't cars, cycles have characteristics that car drivers simply have to accept. As I've said before, many road users are temperamentally unsuited to what they are doing.
Maybe not but it is common courtesyEver since we had the Tour de Yorkshire the amount of lycra clad wanna be`s has increased ten fold and at weekends the country roads are full ignorant cyclists riding two and three abreast and not one group has ever gone into single file to allow cars to pass safely >:( >:( >:(
It`s no wonder they get a bad name.
You do know that single file isn't required? And how would you safely pass a long row of them?
Like a lot of other road users that aren't cars, cycles have characteristics that car drivers simply have to accept. As I've said before, many road users are temperamentally unsuited to what they are doing.
Depends on what you call a long row....5?...10? or more? that you would have to assess in the same way you over take a couple of slow moving cars by making sure the road is straight enough and with enough clear space to safely overtake.
There have been some cycle racing going on near Harrogate for years and these are single riders sent out on timed intervals a bit like the Isle of Man TT races and there`s never an issue with this as you come across single riders every couple of hundred metres and they`re usually shifting a bit too.
The ones that get my goat are the ones that ride in close groups of about 6 or 7 riding two and three abreast so they can all chat and couldn`t give a hoots about anyone else outside their little bubble.
-
The last time I came upon a group riding 2-3 abreast down a narrow road they were courteous beside one who appeared to be deaf (maybe he actually was ;D) - once I was spotted behind them they split into two groups of 3 and went single file, I overtook each group when it was clear and safe to do so.
Not like I could hammer down that stretch of road, anyway, despite how initially grump inducing meeting them was ;)
-
https://youtu.be/o9pmw2ckQSU
-
Ever since we had the Tour de Yorkshire the amount of lycra clad wanna be`s has increased ten fold and at weekends the country roads are full ignorant cyclists riding two and three abreast and not one group has ever gone into single file to allow cars to pass safely >:( >:( >:(
It`s no wonder they get a bad name.
You do know that single file isn't required? And how would you safely pass a long row of them?
Like a lot of other road users that aren't cars, cycles have characteristics that car drivers simply have to accept. As I've said before, many road users are temperamentally unsuited to what they are doing.
Required in who's eyes ?
The lycra clad idiot who drives through red lights on a regular basis ?
The lycra clad idiot who rides on the pavement when it suits him ?
The lycra clad w@nker that nearly ran me and the dog over this morning while on a zebra crossing after 2 lanes of traffic stopped and he couldn't be arsed to ?
He did have a very nice camera bolted to the top of his helmet though which would have been used to prosecute me for smashing fook out of him if he would have had the balls to stop instead of riding off laughing >:(
Matt is spot on with his opinion of motor vehicles passing too close to push bikes BUT to say that just because the law states that a cycle doesn't have to travel in single file then its okay to do what the fook you like is 'dangle berries'.
Its about time cyclists remembered that they are vulnerable and should take more care to avoid accidents, rather then deliberately holding up other traffic just because they can >:(
The roads are plenty big enough for all modes of transport IF everybody took a little time to use that road in a safe, respectful and courteous manor :)
Sadly, when a motorist breaks the law, the police tend to hound and prosecute to the max.
When a cyclist breaks the law, he whines about it "not been fair" and blubs about those "horrible motorists" and gets away with friggin murder >:( >:(
So you tell me, what is the real problem here ?
-
They won't be happy until all roads in the UK are a 20mph limit, right Matt? :P
So long as the speed limit doesn't count for cyclists ::)
Which according to case law that is currently how it stands (stands back and waits for the fireworks)
You are quite correct G, but the absence of a speed limit for cyclists doesn`t give them immunity for "speeding" as they can be charged and prosecuted for "cycling furiously" and/or "cycling dangerously or carelessly".
-
You do know that single file isn't required? And how would you safely pass a long row of them?
Like a lot of other road users that aren't cars, cycles have characteristics that car drivers simply have to accept. As I've said before, many road users are temperamentally unsuited to what they are doing.
Required in who's eyes ?
The lycra clad idiot who drives through red lights on a regular basis ?
The lycra clad idiot who rides on the pavement when it suits him ?
The lycra clad w@nker that nearly ran me and the dog over this morning while on a zebra crossing after 2 lanes of traffic stopped and he couldn't be arsed to ?
He did have a very nice camera bolted to the top of his helmet though which would have been used to prosecute me for smashing fook out of him if he would have had the balls to stop instead of riding off laughing >:(
Matt is spot on with his opinion of motor vehicles passing too close to push bikes BUT to say that just because the law states that a cycle doesn't have to travel in single file then its okay to do what the fook you like is 'dangle berries'.
Its about time cyclists remembered that they are vulnerable and should take more care to avoid accidents, rather then deliberately holding up other traffic just because they can >:(
The roads are plenty big enough for all modes of transport IF everybody took a little time to use that road in a safe, respectful and courteous manner :)
So you tell me, what is the real problem here ?
I have never said it's OK to do whatever you like. But cyclists riding in single file or blocks is often a case of choosing the least bad option. Pulling over is only advisable when it is safe to do so. On a narrow, busy or even fast moving road taking charge of the traffic is what any road user who has had instruction is specifically taught to to do. You do it in a car. A cyclist riding in the middle of his lane due to bad conditions(which could be the road surface, traffic, whatever) is no different to a truck driver swinging out early to make a tight turn: it is to reduce the need to explain, and figure out who is going to pay for, the 'accident'.
I've explained the real problem many times: many people who use the roads are aggressive, incompetent, incapable, unaware of their surroundings, day dreaming, on the phone, lost, not looking or thinking what they are doing, and think that the laws and adopted best practice don't apply to them. That's just what people are like; there's nothing to be done about it.
-
But we can complain about it endlessly because we're British, damnit!
-
But we can complain about it endlessly because we're British, damnit!
Ah, that's the crux of the issue... We've become a bunch of whining ninnies with no stiff upper lip ::)
-
Anyone who thinks that passing a cyclist with anything less than the legal limit of 1.5m should go to their local train station, wait for a train to approach on a pass-through without stopping, stand between the platform edge and the yellow and put their back to the oncoming train. Only then will you get a feel for how flippin terrifying a close pass can be.
I agree that cyclists not following rules should also be brought to book but lets keep in mind the severity of the offence. Riding on an empty crossing (not condoning it btw) is very minor compared to scaring the cr@p out of a cyclist by passing too close and potentially putting them in harm's way.
And I don't believe that 99% of cyclists are as you say. As I mentioned some while back an observation driving in London last year showed that the majority of red-light runners were (in both actual number and in terms of road user %) mostly cars, vans and lorries not cyclists. I make sure I am lit up like a Christmas tree day and night and I probably hurt people's sight with the brightness of my lights but I don't care.
At the end of the day it is up to you to drive in a defensive manner and treat other road users safely. Whether the other road user is law-abiding or not, if you kill or hurt them you risk paying the price if you too were not following the rules. If a cyclist is breaking the law and gets run over he pays with his/her life. So why not just wait a couple of seconds and pass a cyclist properly? Time spent waiting to overtake a cyclist is usually taken off the time you would have spent at the next light/queue anyway :)
Problem is with battery LED illumination being so bright now that actually causes problems as the only thing other road users can see is your lights and not other less well illuminated dangers. My personal opinion is that cycle lights need to be regulated in line with other road vehicles now given the output.
-
LED's should be banned from all vehicles. They do not light the way in front and are a danger to oncoming traffic.
-
You do know that single file isn't required? And how would you safely pass a long row of them?
Like a lot of other road users that aren't cars, cycles have characteristics that car drivers simply have to accept. As I've said before, many road users are temperamentally unsuited to what they are doing.
Required in who's eyes ?
The lycra clad idiot who drives through red lights on a regular basis ?
The lycra clad idiot who rides on the pavement when it suits him ?
The lycra clad w@nker that nearly ran me and the dog over this morning while on a zebra crossing after 2 lanes of traffic stopped and he couldn't be arsed to ?
He did have a very nice camera bolted to the top of his helmet though which would have been used to prosecute me for smashing fook out of him if he would have had the balls to stop instead of riding off laughing >:(
Matt is spot on with his opinion of motor vehicles passing too close to push bikes BUT to say that just because the law states that a cycle doesn't have to travel in single file then its okay to do what the fook you like is 'dangle berries'.
Its about time cyclists remembered that they are vulnerable and should take more care to avoid accidents, rather then deliberately holding up other traffic just because they can >:(
The roads are plenty big enough for all modes of transport IF everybody took a little time to use that road in a safe, respectful and courteous manner :)
So you tell me, what is the real problem here ?
I have never said it's OK to do whatever you like. But cyclists riding in single file or blocks is often a case of choosing the least bad option. Pulling over is only advisable when it is safe to do so. On a narrow, busy or even fast moving road taking charge of the traffic is what any road user who has had instruction is specifically taught to to do. You do it in a car. A cyclist riding in the middle of his lane due to bad conditions(which could be the road surface, traffic, whatever) is no different to a truck driver swinging out early to make a tight turn: it is to reduce the need to explain, and figure out who is going to pay for, the 'accident'.
I've explained the real problem many times: many people who use the roads are aggressive, incompetent, incapable, unaware of their surroundings, day dreaming, on the phone, lost, not looking or thinking what they are doing, and think that the laws and adopted best practice don't apply to them. That's just what people are like; there's nothing to be done about it.
Fair enough Nick :)
A little bit over the top on my part maybe ::)
Probably due to the prick on the crossing nearly hitting me my dog then riding off laughing his tiny cock off >:( >:( >:(
Bastard >:( >:( >:(
Imho, that highlighted lot basically sums up the majority of those who have turned to lycra (cos its the "In" thing to do)
Obviously things need to change here and daft videos and even more persecution by the police isn't going to change a thing imo.
From what you have said on here, your not one of the lycra w@nkers who weave in and out of traffic, ride on the pavement or believe traffic laws don't apply to you so a question for you if I may ?
What needs to be done / how do we stop these oppswits who ride there bikes like this and give the sensible push bike riders a bad name ?
Bearing in mind, a motor vehicle owner / driver need to pass a test, maintain his vehicle to a reasonably standard, and have liability insurance before he can even use the public highway.
How can the playing field be made more level ?
-
LED's should be banned from all vehicles. They do not light the way in front and are a danger to oncoming traffic.
I can live with LED lights as long as they are pointed at the ground in front of the bike.
Strobe lights are oppsing dangerous to other road users and will cause accidents due to the blinding affect on coming traffic >:(
-
Imho, that highlighted lot basically sums up the majority of those who have turned to lycra (cos its the "In" thing to do)
Obviously things need to change here and daft videos and even more persecution by the police isn't going to change a thing imo.
From what you have said on here, your not one of the lycra w@nkers who weave in and out of traffic, ride on the pavement or believe traffic laws don't apply to you so a question for you if I may ?
What needs to be done / how do we stop these oppswits who ride their bikes like this and give the sensible push bike riders a bad name ?
Bearing in mind, a motor vehicle owner / driver need to pass a test, maintain his vehicle to a reasonably standard, and have liability insurance before he can even use the public highway.
How can the playing field be made more level ?
That highlighted list isn't specific to one type of road user: it applies to ALL of them! Some of them applied to me before I was perfect ::)
The oppswits will eventually succumb to traffic bigger and less delicate than they are.
I don't think there is anything to be done about improving people's attitudes unless we allow roadside executions; a cure that is worse than the problem.
One thing to do: remove all of the cycle lanes created by painting lines on roads and pavements, to ensure that pedestrians are on the pavement and vehicles are on the road.
-
YES Nick! Those lanes are pointless anyway because the buggers STILL ride on the pavements, ignoring them.
Ron.
-
YES Nick! Those lanes are pointless anyway because the buggers STILL ride on the pavements, ignoring them.
Ron.
I would like to see it for several reasons:
They've been carved out of roads and pavements that were already struggling with traffic levels.
They're dangerous and inconvenient for cyclists, which is why many(including me at times) don't use them. They are often in even worse condition than the roads.
I strongly believe that vehicles(of whatever type, and we should include horses too) belong on the road. Segregating pedestrians is necessary as their requirements are very different. Anyone who has used the 'roads' in Ashford town centre where they mix all the users together will have experienced this.
-
Apart from my personal view that cycles and horses are inappropriate on today's roads, sharing FOOTPATH space with vulnerable pedestrians (young children, the elderly and me) is dangerous in the extreme. Cyclists generally do not carry third party insurance and therefore could not meet any claims made against them for injury, or worse, due to their reckless riding.
Ron.
-
Cyclists generally do not carry third party insurance
Specialist insurance is available to cyclists intelligent enough to have it. Failing that, if you can get the details of said errant cyclist to pass on to the relevant authorities they should (if they can be bothered) be able to ascertain whether house contents insurance is in force. If so, a claim can be made against said policy, been there, done it.
-
YES Nick! Those lanes are pointless anyway because the buggers STILL ride on the pavements, ignoring them.
Ron.
Those lanes are not the fault of the cyclist. They are often designed by morons who have never touched a bicycle and thus have no idea how to create a safe segregated space. I have covered this subject before in some detail and I would estimate that around 90-95% increase the risk of a cyclist getting hurt if there were to be used. I rarely use them due to the speeds I go, sharing space with pedestrians while I am passing them in close proximity at 25mph+ is not healthy for anyone.
-
Cyclists generally do not carry third party insurance
Specialist insurance is available to cyclists intelligent enough to have it. Failing that, if you can get the details of said errant cyclist to pass on to the relevant authorities they should (if they can be bothered) be able to ascertain whether house contents insurance is in force. If so, a claim can be made against said policy, been there, done it.
Any insurance (except motor vehicle) with 3rd party cover will by default indemnify a cyclist up to the minimum legal requirement for motor vehicles. Home insurance normally also covers the entire household thus I am pretty sure that your statement is wrong, I would argue most cyclists have 3rd party through their, their partner's or their parent's home insurance. Personally, I have 2 club memberships and Triathlon England membership all of which come with 3rd party cover while I am cycling as standard. Add the home insurance and I am insured 4 times over for 3rd party when I am cycling. :y
-
YES Nick! Those lanes are pointless anyway because the buggers STILL ride on the pavements, ignoring them.
Ron.
Those lanes are not the fault of the cyclist. They are often designed by morons who have never touched a bicycle and thus have no idea how to create a safe segregated space. I have covered this subject before in some detail and I would estimate that around 90-95% increase the risk of a cyclist getting hurt if there were to be used. I rarely use them due to the speeds I go, sharing space with pedestrians while I am passing them in close proximity at 25mph+ is not healthy for anyone.
A case in point ref the design of cycling infrastructure:
http://road.cc/content/news/206414-leeds-bike-path-barriers-too-narrow-bikes-use
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815343/You-stop-s-LAW-Angry-pedestrian-blocks-cyclist-gives-earful-tries-speed-zebra-crossing.html
;D
-
I am pretty sure that your statement is wrong,
What part. If a cyclist lives on his/her own with no home contents insurance, it must follow that unless they have specific insurance to cover them as cyclists then none will be in force for third party liability
-
YES Nick! Those lanes are pointless anyway because the buggers STILL ride on the pavements, ignoring them.
Ron.
Those lanes are not the fault of the cyclist. They are often designed by morons who have never touched a bicycle and thus have no idea how to create a safe segregated space. I have covered this subject before in some detail and I would estimate that around 90-95% increase the risk of a cyclist getting hurt if there were to be used. I rarely use them due to the speeds I go, sharing space with pedestrians while I am passing them in close proximity at 25mph+ is not healthy for anyone.
Highway Code Rule 125 springs to mind... ::)
No reason why appropriate speed, or limits for that matter, don't apply just because you (the Royal one) have no apparent limit and are riding on a shared surface. It should be noted also that the urban limits apply to ALL road users.
-
YES Nick! Those lanes are pointless anyway because the buggers STILL ride on the pavements, ignoring them.
Ron.
Those lanes are not the fault of the cyclist. They are often designed by morons who have never touched a bicycle and thus have no idea how to create a safe segregated space. I have covered this subject before in some detail and I would estimate that around 90-95% increase the risk of a cyclist getting hurt if there were to be used. I rarely use them due to the speeds I go, sharing space with pedestrians while I am passing them in close proximity at 25mph+ is not healthy for anyone.
Highway Code Rule 125 springs to mind... ::)
No reason why appropriate speed, or limits for that matter, don't apply just because you (the Royal one) have no apparent limit and are riding on a shared surface. It should be noted also that the urban limits apply to ALL road users.
So I should be forced to use the shared use path and slow down, whereas I could go on the road and do a speed at which I can ride safely on the roads? Sounds a bit like a class-system on the roads.
-
I am pretty sure that your statement is wrong,
What part. If a cyclist lives on his/her own with no home contents insurance, it must follow that unless they have specific insurance to cover them as cyclists then none will be in force for third party liability
And how many fit in to that category do you think? Certainly not a figure which supports the use of the word 'generally' (which by default means the majority) It is not as clear cut as you make it out, thus to say that 'cyclists generally do not carry 3rd party insurance' is wrong. If you had said that cyclists are not required to have any insurance then you would have been absolutely correct. Also, don't forget that insurance covers your liability, not having insurance does not mean you cannot follow up that person for damages through a legal process to recover losses.
The lycra mob that is so lovingly referred to here* will normally have a nice bike which if it does not have specific cycle insurance will be insured through the house contents. Either way they will have 3rd party. I suspect, as sad as it is, that it will be the poorer cyclists who will not have contents insurance and who would be liable to large sums in the event of an incident for which they were responsible.
*I am a lycra cyclist and I can tell you that the generalisations made here are wrong, another case of the minority blemishing the majority. I go fast but I adhere to the limit, I stop for lights and zebra crossings, I take the primary position when I have to and assist motorists to safely overtake when it is tricky to do so, I do not ride without lights (day or night), I do not ride on the pavement and guess what? So do the majority of lycra buddies I have.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815343/You-stop-s-LAW-Angry-pedestrian-blocks-cyclist-gives-earful-tries-speed-zebra-crossing.html
;D
Good on him for being so controlled, I would have pushed him off.
-
Regarding insurance for cyclists, even those rare beasts that actually have any third party insurance will not be covered for illegal acts, e.g. cycling on footpaths or for and damage/injury caused after jumping red lights, etc.
Ron.
-
even those rare beasts that actually have any third party insurance
Talk about not listening to the facts
-
Re the pavement thing... Not at all... When riding along any given shared channel, be it pavement, road or bridleway, everybody has a responsibility to use appropriate speed for the conditions*.
That applies equally for anything other than pedestrians, be it KW ridding his push bike in his flip flops, you in Lycra, the tattooed nutter at work on his sports bike, all the way upto me or Biggriffin in a full fat artic :y
*Conditions being anything from the weather, surface state, other 'traffic' etc.
There may well be times where it's actually in your interest to ride on a shared path at a lower pace than trying to go faster in heavy traffic on the road.
Being unlicensed, and generally unregulated isn't the carte blanche that some might think. Every mode of transport bears a burden of responsibility, even the more vulnerable.
-
lycra buddies
*shudder* :P (unless said buddies are female, 17-30, fit, attractive, leggy, with shapely posteriors.. well there might still be shuddering but it would be the other kind ;D)
That applies equally for anything other than pedestrians, be it KW in his flip flops..
Hold on, does KW in flip flops not count as a pedestrian? Wait.. are you saying KW isn't human? :o :D
-
Lol, edited to make a bit more sense ;D
-
Re the pavement thing... Not at all... When riding along any given shared channel, be it pavement, road or bridleway, everybody has a responsibility to use appropriate speed for the conditions*.
That applies equally for anything other than pedestrians, be it KW ridding his push bike in his flip flops, you in Lycra, the tattooed nutter at work on his sports bike, all the way upto me or Biggriffin in a full fat artic :y
*Conditions being anything from the weather, surface state, other 'traffic' etc.
There may well be times where it's actually in your interest to ride on a shared path at a lower pace than trying to go faster in heavy traffic on the road.
Being unlicensed, and generally unregulated isn't the carte blanche that some might think. Every mode of transport bears a burden of responsibility, even the more vulnerable.
That is where I have to disagree. If you were to restrict the roads a car could use because of their vulnerability towards HGVs I think there would be a significant reaction. Lets say A roads and motorways should be for HGVs and car remain on B roads because they are smaller, more vulnerable and they find the narrow lanes easier to negotiate? Sensible?
Instead, and quite rightly there are no restrictions on which types of roads a motorist can use and if they choose to use the B roads rather than A roads then they must of course go slower due to the conditions. The same applies to all road users.
Don't forget there are different levels of road user in each category with differing levels of experience. I have a lot of cycling experience and I would have the confidence to cycle almost anywhere I was legally allowed to, other cyclists would not but it is up to them to decide where their own limits are and where they cycle. It should not depend on the existence or not of additional infrastructure for cycling and the arbitrary opinion of motorists who have little knowledge of it means to cycle on todays roads because the last time they used pedal power was in their teenage years.
-
lycra buddies
*shudder* :P (unless said buddies are female, 17-30, fit, attractive, leggy, with shapely posteriors.. well there might still be shuddering but it would be the other kind ;D)
You need to come to my triathlon club young man :P
-
If we need to give cyclists at least 1.5 metres space (I always do), should they also have to give us a similar amount of space ?
I had 3 encounters yesterday where they were less than an inch from the side of my car, and the 3rd one took up position smack in the centre of the road, and seemed to relish the fact that he had a long queue of traffic built up behind him, which couldn't possibly get past without wearing him as a bonnet mascot.
-
I did say the Royal you rather than the personal you ::) but rightly, each person has the responsibility to do what is best for them.
Although the personal you, has taken considered responsibility for your choice of routes. You are fully aware of the risks involved, and based on your experience and ability, you rightly feel both able and entitled to use the road. I would not consider myself fit enough, or now confident enough, to ride on the roads locally, and therefore consciously or otherwise limit my cycling to safe areas (both for me and for others), ie bridleways in the New Forest :-X
By the same token, there are people who won't drive on the Motorways because 'everyone drives so fast' or those who won't do more than 45-50 everywhere and then complain about being bullied by lorries on the dual carriageways and motorways ::)
In the case of the latter, those people could arguably be considered both irresponsible and selfish...
-
If we need to give cyclists at least 1.5 metres space (I always do), should they also have to give us a similar amount of space ?
I had 3 encounters yesterday where they were less than an inch from the side of my car, and the 3rd one took up position smack in the centre of the road, and seemed to relish the fact that he had a long queue of traffic built up behind him, which couldn't possibly get past without wearing him as a bonnet mascot.
An interesting observation for a motorbicyclist ::)
-
I did say the Royal you rather than the personal you ::) but rightly, each person has the responsibility to do what is best for them.
Although the personal you, has taken considered responsibility for your choice of routes. You are fully aware of the risks involved, and based on your experience and ability, you rightly feel both able and entitled to use the road. I would not consider myself fit enough, or now confident enough, to ride on the roads locally, and therefore consciously or otherwise limit my cycling to safe areas (both for me and for others), ie bridleways in the New Forest :-X
By the same token, there are people who won't drive on the Motorways because 'everyone drives so fast' or those who won't do more than 45-50 everywhere and then complain about being bullied by lorries on the dual carriageways and motorways ::)
In the case of the latter, those people could arguably be considered both irresponsible and selfish...should be taken out and shot.
Fixed that for you. :y
-
Indeed ;D
-
By the same token, there are people who won't drive on the Motorways because 'everyone drives so fast' or those who won't do more than 45-50 everywhere and then complain about being bullied by lorries on the dual carriageways and motorways ::)
In the case of the latter, those people could arguably be considered both irresponsible and selfish...
All of those traits are included in my list.
-
If we need to give cyclists at least 1.5 metres space (I always do), should they also have to give us a similar amount of space ?
I had 3 encounters yesterday where they were less than an inch from the side of my car, and the 3rd one took up position smack in the centre of the road, and seemed to relish the fact that he had a long queue of traffic built up behind him, which couldn't possibly get past without wearing him as a bonnet mascot.
An interesting observation for a motorbicyclist ::)
As a motor bicyclist I never rode less than an inch from the side of cars and certainly never held up a queue of them. I also never asked for them to be required to give me 1.5 metres of space when overtaking me for obvious reasons. ;)
-
I was thinking of 'filtering' in particular... passing stationary, queuing vehicles at anything much over walking pace should be considered irresponsible and dangerous...
-
I was thinking of 'filtering' in particular... passing stationary, queuing vehicles at anything much over walking pace should be considered irresponsible and dangerous...
only dangerous when the stationary opps wit that you're along side decides that she no longer wants to queue & quickly turns right into a side road and you have no option but to turn with her as your bike engine scrapes along her driver's door >:(
-
I was thinking of 'filtering' in particular... passing stationary, queuing vehicles at anything much over walking pace should be considered irresponsible and dangerous...
Rubbish. It's the main reason for using a motor cycle in traffic. Otherwise you might as well be another car with only one occupant. I think the American term of lane-splitting is more appropriate(filtering is what you do at the end of an on-slip road), and is acceptable when the speed differential is reasonable. That will depend on circumstances, and a blank-and-white answer isn't possible.
-
An interesting read:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/28/will-car-drivers-ever-learn-to-share-the-road-with-bikes
-
That is where I have to disagree. If you were to restrict the roads a car could use because of their vulnerability towards HGVs I think there would be a significant reaction. Lets say A roads and motorways should be for HGVs and car remain on B roads because they are smaller, more vulnerable and they find the narrow lanes easier to negotiate? Sensible?
Thing is, we already do restrict the types of roads different vehicles can use .. unless bicycles and mopeds (or is it scooters? I can never remember the distinction) are now allowed on motorways? ;)
If we need to give cyclists at least 1.5 metres space (I always do), should they also have to give us a similar amount of space ?
I had 3 encounters yesterday where they were less than an inch from the side of my car, and the 3rd one took up position smack in the centre of the road, and seemed to relish the fact that he had a long queue of traffic built up behind him, which couldn't possibly get past without wearing him as a bonnet mascot.
I watched a cyclist (no lycra) squeeze up the inside of a line of cars at the lights the other day, the kerb narrows in as the lights are just after a narrow bridge. He could have waited in the gap I'd left in front of me but instead chose to drag the zip on his pannier down the side of the car in front of me, instead. I thought that was nice of him.
I guess the problem is that everyone wants to be going as fast as absolutely possible for whatever mode of transport they're using; cars want to do the limit (or more) always, lorries want to sit on their limiter always (even if there is traffic in front of them, in my experience, so they're 1" from your bumper..), bicycles want to go as fast as their legs will carry them.. all of them can do so but in different situations and rarely if they're on the same stretch of tarmac at the same time.
Nobody has any patience anymore which, I suppose, is the modern affliction.
-
Nobody has any patience anymore which, I suppose, is the modern affliction.
I think that is the crux of the problem and it is always easier to blame another road users than consider the problem in its entirety. I think I might have been on to something with the road design standards I posted about earlier this year.
-
To be honest,I think there is a broad spectrum of road users,who have a total disregard for their own and others safety,that includes pedestrians right the way through to professional drivers.People are now to far up their own backsides to consider the needs of others,sort of dog eat dog and f**k you..I'm doing it my way and tuff if you don't like it! attitude :(
-
An interesting read:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/28/will-car-drivers-ever-learn-to-share-the-road-with-bikes
Almost definitely not for some sensible practical reasons and some totally irrational ones :D