Increased Police Vigilance

[onewheeldave]

 

Where have I condoned driving unsafely and not giving enough room to cyclists? I have said that people do overtake in situations like this. Are you really too unintelligent to read and understand what I have said?

I am not saying what you imply - I am saying it HAPPENS.

 

It does happen, we agree fully on that. If that's all you're saying, and, you want to minimise being misunderstood, then I'd recommend, when posting that it does happen, also point out that it's in total breach of the highway code.

 

i.e. instead of putting an emphasis (and, by implication, the blame) on cyclists riding, legally, 2 abreast, put the emphasis on the over close passing motorist who is contravening the highway code (and putting lives at genuine risk).

[RonJeremy]

It does happen, we agree fully on that. If that's all you're saying, and, you want to minimise being misunderstood, then I'd recommend, when posting that it does happen, also point out that it's in total breach of the highway code.

 

i.e. instead of putting an emphasis (and, by implication, the blame) on cyclists riding, legally, 2 abreast, put the emphasis on the over close passing motorist who is contravening the highway code (and putting lives at genuine risk).

 

Please don't tell me what to do, when you have misunderstood my (fairly) plain English. You need to read posts more carefully if that is what you think. I don't need any lessons on the highway code or referring to it. Might I suggest that if you are that unaware of what is going on around you, then you do not jump any red lights.

 

Now... do I get an apology?

[gimp27]

Should you?

 

It's against the law for sure- no ones saying otherwise.

 

But illegal acts are not equal- there's a scale of consequences, and there's a scale of enforcement reaction when those laws are broken.

 

Thus, being caught smoking a joint, is generally seen as, and treated as, fairly trivial, Dropping a TV from height into a crowd of people is seen as, and treated as, very, very serious.

 

(Indeed, it is fairly likely that some of those on threads like this, ranting that cyclists shouldn't go through reds on the grounds of safety, purely because 'it's illegal and that's the end of it...' themselves routinely break the law themselves, by, for example, their cannabis usage. If so, they should re-assess their 'argument').

 

Similarly, a cycle going through a red, is seen as, and treated as, trivial in comparison to going through in a large metal four wheeled box, as the consequences of the former, both hypothetically and in terms of actual statistics, are considerably less likely to result in severe injury/death.

 

You may note that that isn't rocket science either.

 

I had to highlight the bold bit dave, as cycling through a red light could ultimately lead to the cyclist getting struck by a car and becoming very dead indeed, which throws a little doubt on the mentality of todays cyclists if your lack of care regarding traffic lights is anything to go by.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 20:29 ----------

 

Your implication is that if there is only one cyclist you don't need to cross the line, suggesting that you just barge past regardless of how close you pass. You said

"What a stupid comment - if you want to give about 2 - 3 feet of wobble room to a cyclist and the road is wide enough then of course it makes a difference whether you are 3 feet across the line or zero feet. It is very simple maths."

 

Whether it's a single cyclist or a pair riding abreast you generally should be crossing the line, not just squeezing past, a single lane isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist with adequate room, in the main.

 

Have you ever ridden a bike?

 

It does make me wonder why cycle paths are not made the same width as roads lanes, if the spacing is an issue. Bikes ride along quite happily in them, with cars passing them a foot or so away, and there is no problem. So why is it that when there is NO cycle path, the motorist instantly becomes a beast for passing the cyclists, yet in reality the only difference to a cycle lane or no cycle lane is a white line. That is it, a white line. You never see vehicles lunging out when passing a rider in a cycle lane, but as soon as the cycle lane is gone, the cyclists whinge and moan that cars are too close????? I dont think that motorists hate cyclists......I truly believe its the other way round.

[biotechpete]

Just to re-state: the cyclists here, myself included, only go through reds in the many scenarios where they is no danger to them. Because they are entering a clear stretch of road where there are no cars.

 

Like we've said, the motivation is because, in our judgement, it's safer to go through the red, than launch on the green with a pack of hasty car drivers jockying for position.

 

I'm happy to admit that some other cyclists do launch themselves into real danger through bad judgement or impatience- but that's irrelevant to the case I've made.

 

And, for those who do put themselves in that danger- that's their choice, as are the consequences.

 

Almost certainly they'll be the ones to get hurt, as when car hits bike, it's amost alwys the cyclist who gets maimed/killed.

 

 

 

Cylists do not impede- you simply have to overtake them leaving the proper amount of room.

 

If you can't, it's cos the opposite lane is full of cars, or, because the side of the roads are occupied by large numbers of parked cars.

 

If the roads weren't clogged to the absolute max and beyond, with ludicrous amounts of cars, you'd be able to overtake. Use your eyes, open your mind, see the real cause.

 

Every cyclist on the road is one less car, and one less car is one less vehicle clogging the road system.

 

You got the bit where I said i'm also a cyclist right? So I don't need my mind opening, thanks all the same.

 

And I can assure you that I am regularly impeded by cyclists to a massively substantial degree. Whether it be those who refuse to use the cycle lanes, or those who ride in peletons or those who ride their bikes up the steepest hills in the peak district wobbling all over the road. Often i cannot overtake safely due to the nature of the roads i drive on. They impede me to the extent that it can make me 20-30 mins late for work. The reason is that cyclists, especially on A roads, are massively slower than cars. It's the only reason I don't currently cycle to work, it would take me half a day each way.

 

You forget in your argument that cyclists on the road, which the highway code tells you to overtake as though they were a car, are slower than most cars and hold traffic behind them so by adding to congestion not easing it.

[dean9]

Does anyone use a tractor on a daily basis?. they are slower and will hold up traffic more effectively than any berk on a bike.

mind you they go over cycles and wont even notice:)

[onewheeldave]

Please don't tell me what to do, when you have misunderstood my (fairly) plain English. You need to read posts more carefully if that is what you think. I don't need any lessons on the highway code or referring to it. Might I suggest that if you are that unaware of what is going on around you, then you do not jump any red lights.

 

Now... do I get an apology?

No you don't.

 

Your English isn't that plain, as half the time you're saying you're not blaming the cyclist (for riding, as the law allows) 2 abreast, the other half you are.

 

The picture you linked to shows clearly that if the motorist overtakes properly, i.e. as if it's passing a car, then there is, in that picture you linked to, space for another cyclist abreast of the first one. Suggesting that there is a bit of vagueness in your understanding of the highway code.

 

I don't know if you're familiar with the expression 'taking up primary position'? It's where cyclists, as recommended in situations where there is a danger of motorists attempting to overtake when it is unsafe to do so, take the center of the lane to prevent unsafe overtaking.

 

It has a similar effect as riding 2 abreast i.e. makes overtaking impossible unless the driver is homicidal.

 

If a driver attempts to unsafely overtake in that scenario, is the cyclist also, in your eyes, being irresponsible by doing the legal, and, recommended manouver?

[altus]

It does make me wonder why cycle paths are not made the same width as roads lanes, if the spacing is an issue. Bikes ride along quite happily in them, with cars passing them a foot or so away, and there is no problem. So why is it that when there is NO cycle path, the motorist instantly becomes a beast for passing the cyclists, yet in reality the only difference to a cycle lane or no cycle lane is a white line. That is it, a white line. You never see vehicles lunging out when passing a rider in a cycle lane, but as soon as the cycle lane is gone, the cyclists whinge and moan that cars are too close?????

The recommended width for cycle lanes is 2 metres. Many of those in Sheffield aren't even half that. Such narrow lanes are dangerous because they don't give cyclists room to manoeuvre (dodge debris, be blown sideways by crosswinds, etc,) and encourage motorists to think "well it must be safe to pass them that close otherwise they wouldn't have built them so narrow. A number of cyclists, me included, think no cycle lane is preferable to a too narrow one.

 

I dont think that motorists hate cyclists......I truly believe its the other way round.

 

The vast majority of motorists and cyclists just want to get along fine. There are some misunderstandings by those who don't realise how their actions affect others and how the others are supposed to behave (e.g. some motorists think cyclists should ride near the kerb when cycle training courses teach that is dangerous). The hating bit applies to the extremists on both sides. That you think it's only one way says more about you than who does the hating.

[onewheeldave]

You got the bit where I said i'm also a cyclist right? So I don't need my mind opening, thanks all the same.

 

And I can assure you that I am regularly impeded by cyclists to a massively substantial degree. Whether it be those who refuse to use the cycle lanes, or those who ride in peletons or those who ride their bikes up the steepest hills in the peak district wobbling all over the road. Often i cannot overtake safely due to the nature of the roads i drive on. They impede me to the extent that it can make me 20-30 mins late for work. The reason is that cyclists, especially on A roads, are massively slower than cars. It's the only reason I don't currently cycle to work, it would take me half a day each way.

 

You forget in your argument that cyclists on the road, which the highway code tells you to overtake as though they were a car, are slower than most cars and hold traffic behind them so by adding to congestion not easing it.

 

Why don't you overtake them then? Pull out to the opposite lane, giving them the proper amount of space, and overtake?

 

If the answer involves the fact that the opposite lane is chock full of cars, or one/both lanes are chronically narrowed by hundreds of parked cars, then, I'm wondering why, of the actual causal factors preventing you overtaking, you fixate soley on the cyclist.

 

Cos it's the object in clearest sight in your field of vision? That's logical (not).

 

I'll say again- open your mind, the real cause of your delays ain't the odd cyclist, it's the stuff on the periphery of your vision that's the main cause i.e. the monsterous excess of cars clogging up the road system.

[Eater Sundae]

I had to highlight the bold bit dave, as cycling through a red light could ultimately lead to the cyclist getting struck by a car and becoming very dead indeed, which throws a little doubt on the mentality of todays cyclists if your lack of care regarding traffic lights is anything to go by.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 20:29 ----------

 

 

It does make me wonder why cycle paths are not made the same width as roads lanes, if the spacing is an issue. Bikes ride along quite happily in them, with cars passing them a foot or so away, and there is no problem. So why is it that when there is NO cycle path, the motorist instantly becomes a beast for passing the cyclists, yet in reality the only difference to a cycle lane or no cycle lane is a white line. That is it, a white line. You never see vehicles lunging out when passing a rider in a cycle lane, but as soon as the cycle lane is gone, the cyclists whinge and moan that cars are too close????? I dont think that motorists hate cyclists......I truly believe its the other way round.

 

Too narrow cycle lanes are a particular problem, IMO, for the reason that it entices motorists to pass too close.

 

Many cycle lanes do not meet the recommended width for cycle lanes. A couple of particular bad ones, IMO, are on Bramall Lane and Clarkehouse Road. In both cases both the cycle lane itself and the adjacent motor vehicle lane are too narrow. But because they are there, motorists can be enticed into thinking it is safe to overtake because they stay within their lane. I think it would be safer if the cycle lanes were removed in these cases.

[onewheeldave]

 

It does make me wonder why cycle paths are not made the same width as roads lanes, if the spacing is an issue. Bikes ride along quite happily in them, with cars passing them a foot or so away, and there is no problem. So why is it that when there is NO cycle path, the motorist instantly becomes a beast for passing the cyclists, yet in reality the only difference to a cycle lane or no cycle lane is a white line. That is it, a white line. You never see vehicles lunging out when passing a rider in a cycle lane, but as soon as the cycle lane is gone, the cyclists whinge and moan that cars are too close????? I dont think that motorists hate cyclists......I truly believe its the other way round.

 

Most experienced cyclist do not "ride along quite happily in them"- they actively avoid them as most cycle paths are badly designed and dangerous.

 

Cyclists who do use them, tend to be inexperienced, naive and under the common delusion that cycles are inconveniences on the road and that their proper place is to be riding, cowed and afraid, on s*itty, ill-thought out bits of painted tarmac covered with crap/broken glass and obstructed by illegally parked cars.

 

While being zipped past by motorists, many of who's misunderstanding of the highway code is so great, that they are often genuinely under the impression that cyclists are 'supposed' to be in the cycle lane.

 

Cyclists are under no obligation to be in the cycle lane, and, every responsible cycling authority makes it very clear that, in many cases, to be in the cycle lane is a hazardous act, and not recommended.

Edited December 30, 2014 by onewheeldave