Increased Police Vigilance

[RonJeremy]

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?

 

Laughable. Good night x

[Becky B]

If you mean me? Where have I whined about a cyclist jumping a red light?

 

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.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:43 ----------

 

 

That's the same picture I posted a link to - is that for the stupid who cant scroll down?...

 

Well you said you come round a blind corner and have to brake because they are "all over the road". The "numpty" coming the other way is the one at fault for overtaking unsafely (i.e. on a blind corner), not the cyclists for riding in a primary road position. I hope you always overtake as shown in the picture you linked to...

 

 

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

 

[/color]

 

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.

 

It's been explained in other posts quite eloquently, but there isn't "no problem". The white line just makes the motorist think the cyclist is somehow protected or impervious, so they think even less about overtaking than when there's no cycle lane. Clarkehouse Road being a prime example of the road being too narrow for a cycle lane but there's one there anyway.

[RonJeremy]

Well you said you come round a blind corner and have to brake because they are "all over the road". The "numpty" coming the other way is the one at fault for overtaking unsafely (i.e. on a blind corner), not the cyclists for riding in a primary road position. I hope you always overtake as shown in the picture you linked to...

 

 

 

It's been explained in other posts quite eloquently, but there isn't "no problem". The white line just makes the motorist think the cyclist is somehow protected or impervious, so they think even less about overtaking than when there's no cycle lane. Clarkehouse Road being a prime example of the road being too narrow for a cycle lane but there's one there anyway.

 

Perhaps pedestrians should walk in a pack on a blind corner on a B road just to make sure they are in the way of cars so they have to make an unnecessary overtaking manoeuvre on the wrong side of the carriageway? Seems like the logical extension of this train of thought

[Squiggs]

Perhaps pedestrians should walk in a pack on a blind corner on a B road just to make sure they are in the way of cars so they have to make an unnecessary overtaking manoeuvre on the wrong side of the carriageway? Seems like the logical extension of this train of thought

 

Ah, so you're comparing cyclists to pedestrians on country lanes, presumably you think that cyclists should cycle into oncoming traffic then, rather than with the traffic flow?

 

Seems like the logical extension of this train of thought

[monkey69]

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.

 

 

I must admit i feel that way most of the time when i ride the city streets.

If anything when cars, buses, lorrys start to get too close then its a question of time Vs safety!. can i get off and push the bike for a while until the mass of traffic dissipates? or do i really need to get a move on so a take a brave pill(so to speak) and plough on

[Cyclone]

Well, we know it's against the law- no-one's disputing that. Is that really the reason why it's annoying. (note that many people routinely break laws they personally feel are not good laws, eg, anyone who smokes the odd bit of cannabis).

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

Bit of a strawman there, as I asked for the reason why it's annoying.

 

Your statement above is circular as it's basically saying 'it's annoying cos people find it annoying, and, those annoyed people then go on to be hostile to all cyclists.

 

Incidently, to conclude anything about all cyclists from the actions of some (a minority , in this case), is really bad logic, and, the source of any negative consequences arising is clearly a consequence of that bad reasoning.

 

That's not what strawman means. Nor is it circular.

We don't need to understand why other people find it annoying, to know that they do. And it's one of the main reasons I personally find it annoying, that it winds up other road users who then bleat on about cyclists as if we all behave like red light running idiots.

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 11:02 ----------

 

The former comment - what were my words which gave you the impression I can't negotiate a blind corner?

 

I've explained the overtaking - simple maths. You need more room to overtake a wider object than a narrow object. To say or claim otherwise is just plain stupid. I mean properly properly stupid and unintelligent. Do I need to draw a picture for the imbeciles?

 

You're just describing again your lack of understanding of how to overtake.

 

Pictures and more words won't alter it, to overtake 1 or 2 cyclists, you should be entirely on the other side of the road.

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 11:07 ----------

 

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.

 

Narrow cycle lanes on the road are dangerous, precisely because traffic starts passing far too close to the cyclists.

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 11:10 ----------

 

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.

 

You spend that long on these steep, narrow roads, with peletons of bikes on them, that they can make you 20 - 30 minutes late.

Either you're very, very unusual, or you're making it up.

 

If I totalled up the entire time delay caused by me to cyclists over my entire life, I expect it is approximately zero.

Although there was one day, when there was a bike race on in the peaks, when I had to follow quite a few bikes (in a minibus), and it must have cost me entire minutes.

 

Every other time, you pass the cyclist at some point, and then soon catch up with traffic ahead of you, having therefore lost no time at all.

[onewheeldave]

We don't need to understand why other people find it annoying, to know that they do.

But it's usefull to understand. Cos often the reasons, when brought out in the open, turn out to be b*llsh*t.

 

e.g. driver who had a problem with me being in the middle of the lane and him not being able to pass. By his aggressive and insistent horn honking he clearly thought I was being deliberately obstructive and he was clearly annoyed by this.

 

The reality- parked cars down both sides of the road- me in the middle well away from parked car line on the left, as I know that to be closer in means I get wiped out if/when some idiot opens his/her right door to get out.

 

The real reason driver can't overtake me- sh*t loads of parked cars that are at least as much the cause of his issue as me, in fact more so, cos of their much greater numbers.

 

99% of delays motorists attribute to cyclists, are, in reality, a result of the mass overclogging of road systems by cars (and vans/lorries etc).

 

So that's why it's good to get drivers to actually give a bit of thought to the thought processes that leads to them being annoyed, so their reasoning can be analysed, compared to actual reality, and flagged up as b*llsh*t.

 

Cos make no mistake- there is great prejudice against cyclists here, and, cyclists are dying and being maimed as a direct result.

 

It's time to challenge and destroy that prejudice.

 

 

 

And it's one of the main reasons I personally find it annoying, that it winds up other road users who then bleat on about cyclists as if we all behave like red light running idiots.

I'll tell you what is annoying matey- you constantly being an apologist to that crap.

 

motorist gets annoyed cos he/she has issue with a cyclist running a red light = motorist deems it right and good to be angry at ALL cyclists

 

That is b*llsh*t, it's not valid reasoning and each time you bring it up and give it credence, it gets entrenched in the minds of the less intelligent motorist as being in some way valid.

 

Any motorists who extrapolates from one/several cyclists to ALL cyclists is clearly lacking in reasoning ability, and, you'd be doing a much greater service to cycling if you flagged it up as the prejudice it is, rather than trying to pass it off as some kind of excuse for why some motorists despise cyclists.

[RonJeremy]

Ah, so you're comparing cyclists to pedestrians on country lanes, presumably you think that cyclists should cycle into oncoming traffic then, rather than with the traffic flow?

 

Seems like the logical extension of this train of thought

 

Good point!

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 13:08 ----------

 

 

You're just describing again your lack of understanding of how to overtake.

 

Pictures and more words won't alter it, to overtake 1 or 2 cyclists, you should be entirely on the other side of the road.

 

Even the highway code picture doesn't show this, What a load of garbage

[Penistone999]

Suggestion noted and duly dismissed, as cyclists have every right to be on the roads- arguably, more so than motorists.

 

Really ?

 

cant wait to hear why .

[gordius]

Really ?

 

cant wait to hear why .

 

Pop this book on your Christmas list for next year:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/