Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[Isabelle]

Going back to helmets I know there is no evidence that they reduce serious injuries but I would not go out without mine.

I'm a big believer that if I hit my head in a collission I would come off far worse without a helmet than with one.

Its a personal choice for me and I also wear one for "the look" because if I spend big money on the kit like I do then I need the helmet to complete the set.

Someone said drivers pass you closer when overtaking than they do if you are not wearing an helmet (think it was Cyclone) I haven't witnessed this myself but will endeviour to take that thought on board.

Someone also mentioned cyclists are allowed 3 feet from the curb then another 3 feet when passed by a motorist well I cycle very close to the curb usually inches and that is my compliment to the motorist so he doesn't need the whole 6 feet but it seems to encourage them to pass closer.

 

Cyclists are entitled to ride in the middle of the lane if they wish, most don't out of courtesy to other road users. Riding in the gutter isn't a good idea, it leaves no room to swerve if there is a pothole, or if a driver overtakes too closely there is nowhere to go but into the kerb. And I can tell you from personal experience, riding into the kerb is painful, I have a permanent bruise on one leg from that incident still.

[onewheeldave]

Cyclists are entitled to ride in the middle of the lane if they wish, most don't out of courtesy to other road users.

 

They most certainly are. Taking 'primary position' in certain circumstances is strongly recommended by cycling advocacy groups, essential in minimising risk of harm, and, most (experienced) cyclists will, when those circumstances arise, most definitely take the middle of the lane.

 

Those circumstances include any where it is possible that a motorist behind could otherwise attempt to overtake when to do so, in the judgement of the cyclist, be dangerous.

 

i.e. 'pinch points', when passing parked cars (in anticipation of possible opening doors) etc, etc.

 

In Sheffield, it would also be recommended when on roads with tram lines on them, especially when wet, as it's dangerous to cross them (which is necessary when not in the middle of them, due to jutting out tram stops).

[Cycleracer]

They most certainly are. Taking 'primary position' in certain circumstances is strongly recommended by cycling advocacy groups, essential in minimising risk of harm, and, most (experienced) cyclists will, when those circumstances arise, most definitely take the middle of the lane.

 

Those circumstances include any where it is possible that a motorist behind could otherwise attempt to overtake when to do so, in the judgement of the cyclist, be dangerous.

 

i.e. 'pinch points', when passing parked cars (in anticipation of possible opening doors) etc, etc.

 

In Sheffield, it would also be recommended when on roads with tram lines on them, especially when wet, as it's dangerous to cross them (which is necessary when not in the middle of them, due to jutting out tram stops).

 

Though I understand your point and there both valid ones I choose to ride near the kerb because I am more comfrotable with it and though the tram limes are more dangerous when wet if crossed correctly there safe..

Wouldn't argue with you or Isabell but its just a personal position I ride in

[Cyclone]

Two wrong do not make a right and this thread is about Cyclists. If you want to complain about speeding motorists on this route, I suggest you create your own thread to discuss it. A speeding car has no effect on the reason for a cyclist to ignore a red light at said junction.

 

You were claiming that more cyclists break the rules than motorists. Changed your mind?

[onewheeldave]

Though I understand your point and there both valid ones I choose to ride near the kerb because I am more comfrotable with it and though the tram limes are more dangerous when wet if crossed correctly there safe..

Obviously crossing them correctly (as close to 90 degrees as possible) is essential in minimizing a slip, but it's never going to be 100%. Cross wet lines, however 'correctly' and they'll occasionally send you over. A lot of cyclists have broken bones crossing them, some have died.

 

The only way to guarantee not coming off when they're wet, is to not cross them i.e. stay bang in the middle of them.

 

 

Wouldn't argue with you or Isabell but its just a personal position I ride in

 

....I cycle very close to the curb usually inches and that is my compliment to the motorist so he doesn't need the whole 6 feet but it seems to encourage them to pass closer.

 

As everyone on this thread can agree, a small %-age of motorists are inept and dangerous to cyclists. They will squeeze by, regardless of the danger they put you in.

 

As a cyclist, you'll be passed by hundreds of motorists every ride. That means, over time, you will be passed by one of the small number of murderously inept idiots.

 

That's why, in situations where there's insufficent space for passing, a responsible, experienced cyclist, will always take the center of the lane and thus render passing attempts impossible.

 

The reason that your cycling close to the curb "seems to encourage them to pass closer" is because it does encourage them to pass closer.

 

They're in a metal box- they will not be killed or hurt if they hit you. They are sometimes in a rush. A small portion of them hate you, cos you're a cyclist, and cyclists get to go through reds/don't pay 'road tax' and all the other cliched rubbish we get on every thread like this.

 

You're totally entitled to ride next to the curb if you choose. But, if safety is important to you, then it's the wrong position.

[Cyclone]

This has got me thinking about insurance and licencing. I have taken out CTC membership to get third party insurance.

 

Hope that makes the Clarkson fans happy. I am now insured (although I've never had to have a claim made against me in 30 years). CTC will now have a bit more money to campaign for better cycling facilities etc. too.

 

As to training/licencing, it's compulsory in the Netherlands to get a Verkeersdiploma (traffic certificate) from age 12 (according to Wikipedia). Doesn't seem to act as a barrier to cycling there. What's good for the goose is good for the gander so let's bring it in here. While we're at it, no provisional driving licence until you've passed your cycle traffic certificate unless physical disability stops you cycling.

 

Because cycling in the Netherlands is entirely equivalent to cycling in the UK

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 22:45 ----------

 

To answer the question posed in the title, it's probably because a large proportion of cyclists like to use the road, whilst showing complete disregard for its rules and other users, including, but not limited to, running red lights.

 

So why then is there not widespread animosity towards drivers who do exactly the same, but with far more dangerous vehicles (if what you were claiming were actually true, which it isn't).

[Eater Sundae]

Obviously crossing them correctly (as close to 90 degrees as possible) is essential in minimizing a slip, but it's never going to be 100%. Cross wet lines, however 'correctly' and they'll occasionally send you over. A lot of cyclists have broken bones crossing them, some have died.

 

The only way to guarantee not coming off when they're wet, is to not cross them i.e. stay bang in the middle of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As everyone on this thread can agree, a small %-age of motorists are inept and dangerous to cyclists. They will squeeze by, regardless of the danger they put you in.

 

As a cyclist, you'll be passed by hundreds of motorists every ride. That means, over time, you will be passed by one of the small number of murderously inept idiots.

 

That's why, in situations where there's insufficent space for passing, a responsible, experienced cyclist, will always take the center of the lane and thus render passing attempts impossible.

 

The reason that your cycling close to the curb "seems to encourage them to pass closer" is because it does encourage them to pass closer.

 

They're in a metal box- they will not be killed or hurt if they hit you. They are sometimes in a rush. A small portion of them hate you, cos you're a cyclist, and cyclists get to go through reds/don't pay 'road tax' and all the other cliched rubbish we get on every thread like this.

 

You're totally entitled to ride next to the curb if you choose. But, if safety is important to you, then it's the wrong position.

 

I've had to stop and think about my driving after an incident this very morning.

 

I was travelling up the dual carriageway section of Halifax Road, behind a transit sized van and a car. The van was blocking my view ahead. I was suddenly aware of a cyclist in my lane. I'd not seen him previously because of the van. Also, neither the van nor the car had signaled that they were moving out, mainly because they didn't. They squeezed past the cyclist, staying within the left lane, with barely any movement over to the right.

 

I'm normally quite anal about giving cyclists plenty of room when overtaking, partly because I should but also to set a good example to other road users and maybe make them think about their own behaviour. Today I was suddenly close to a cyclist and travelling faster than him. Thankfully I had enough time to check what was behind me and to my right and I was able to brake a little before signaling and moving over to my right to give him a wide berth - although it was probably more a case of mirror-manoeuvre-signal that mirror-signal-manoeuvre.

 

It all happened quickly and there was no real problem in the end, just a bit of rushed action to recover the situation - it would have been more hairy had there been someone to my right and I would have had to brake harder and await a gap, which in turn may have been a problem had anyone been closer behind me.

 

But it has made me think...

 

Should I have left a bigger gap, especially as the van was blocking my view? Yes.

Should the two drivers in front have given the cyclist a wider berth? The van driver certainly should. The car driver was in the same situation as me, he may have seen the cyclist very late with the van driver being in front of him

Should the cyclist have been further out into the road, thus forcing all overtaking traffic to make a clear cut decision to change lanes? In retrospect, I think yes.

 

Most incidents/accidents are created by a combination of events, none of which are critical on their own, but can combine together to cause a problem.

 

I think it's important that we all learn what we can from close calls

[hicksy3]

Because cycling in the Netherlands is entirely equivalent to cycling in the UK

 

 

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. Cycling in the Netherlands is probably a more enjoyable activity than in the UK, due to the greater regard other road users have for cyclists. Part of this is quite likely because, according to Wikipedia, cycle training is compulsory at around age 12.

 

You have previously stated, or implied, that training would be a barrier to greater participation in cycling. The fact that in a jurisdiction where training is compulsory it has clearly not reduced cycling participation is an argument against this. Cycling may be different in Sheffield and the Netherlands but I refuse to accept that people are fundamentally different.

 

Proper training, delivered through school PE or PSE lessons could well, in the long run, reduce animosity towards cyclists. Particularly so if it was compulsory to have completed this before applying for a provisional driving licence.

[Squiggs]

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. Cycling in the Netherlands is probably a more enjoyable activity than in the UK, due to the greater regard other road users have for cyclists. Part of this is quite likely because, according to Wikipedia, cycle training is compulsory at around age 12.

 

You have previously stated, or implied, that training would be a barrier to greater participation in cycling. The fact that in a jurisdiction where training is compulsory it has clearly not reduced cycling participation is an argument against this. Cycling may be different in Sheffield and the Netherlands but I refuse to accept that people are fundamentally different.

 

Proper training, delivered through school PE or PSE lessons could well, in the long run, reduce animosity towards cyclists. Particularly so if it was compulsory to have completed this before applying for a provisional driving licence.

 

Something like this could be positive if delivered in the right way

 

i.e. incorporating it into schooling, and applied to 12 year olds from the date of implementation (i.e. not dragging every current cyclist into a scheme, similar to how if you passed your test before a certain date you can drive a 7.5T truck)

[Eater Sundae]

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. Cycling in the Netherlands is probably a more enjoyable activity than in the UK, due to the greater regard other road users have for cyclists. Part of this is quite likely because, according to Wikipedia, cycle training is compulsory at around age 12.

 

You have previously stated, or implied, that training would be a barrier to greater participation in cycling. The fact that in a jurisdiction where training is compulsory it has clearly not reduced cycling participation is an argument against this. Cycling may be different in Sheffield and the Netherlands but I refuse to accept that people are fundamentally different.

 

Proper training, delivered through school PE or PSE lessons could well, in the long run, reduce animosity towards cyclists. Particularly so if it was compulsory to have completed this before applying for a provisional driving licence.

 

Surely there are lots of factors why cycling is popular in the Netherlands, infrastructure being the obvious one.

 

It could be that cycling is popular DESPITE training, because of all the other factors.

 

Having said that, I think that cycle training is probably a good idea as a general life skill and as a precursor to other types of road use. A bit like kids learning the recorder before some of them move onto other instruments.