Police action on motorists endangering cyclists

[willman]

Overtaking on the inside is a complex manouvre which requires you to pass on the inside AND pass back in front of the car you undertook.

Undertaking does need to do that.

[soopah]

I cycle a lot and the behaviour of a good proportion of my fellow cyclists enrages me. There's no excuse for swerving about all over the place looking at a mobile phone or jumping red lights and I see it almost every day.

 

The problem with this whole argument is that as much as people cycling irresponsibly irritates me or anyone else, they shouldn't be dying for it. Drivers need to allow for the inescapable fact that cyclists are vulnerable on the roads.

 

I think Strava has a lot to answer for too in regards to how some cyclists behave on the road, and off-road too.

I'm often cycling to work, but since the schools have gone back the amount of loonies on the road has massively increased. I too have cars that are in the highest VED bracket and my bikes cost more than most people's cars.

 

The fact of the matter is that cars are allowed to use the road by privilege. Cyclists, walkers and horses are using them as a right.

 

Again, the amount of trouble causers on both sides is small, but it only takes one lapse of judgement to kill someone. There's not much the cyclist can do to avoid a collision in many cases.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 14:39 ----------

 

And there should be some way of enforcing a minimum standard of maintenance for using your bike on the road. No idea how you would enforce it. I see bikes so badly set up, rusty, flat tyres, making a horrible racket and the poor rider with their seat too low.

None of this makes an enjoyable experience.

 

Granted, this is usually on those supermarket BSO's instead of an actual bike.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 14:44 ----------

 

If you join British Cycling, it costs £35 a year and you get liability insurance and discounts at various shops.

 

Easy way to shut up the "Cyclists don't pay insurance" crowd.

Next one is wear one of these

http://ipayroadtax.com/shop/

[Cyclone]

Oh go on then, let's do it...

 

Muscle memory - The ability to reproduce a particular movement without conscious thought, acquired as a result of frequent repetition of that movement. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muscle_memory

 

I would hope that nobody has frequent repetitions of having to swerve out of the way.

 

(Muscle) Reflex - An action that is performed without conscious thought as a response to a stimulus. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reflex

 

I never mentioned anything about reflex time.

 

I shall concede the point, with the caveat that operating a car AT ALL is not a reflex action, it must be learned. So the reflex to swerve, relies on the muscle memory of how to steer a car.

[shims]

So, cars cost more to run than bikes. So what?

Much of the cost is not occupational. It is forced onto motor-vehicle owners. Cars go up the road, bikes go up the road. One set of commuters has to have pay a series of fees and meet various regulations, the other does not.

 

You think this should include bikes.

I suppose a £0.01 should cover the amount of wear and tear that a bike does.

Then I'd like a 90% rebate on my car VED please since I'm choosing to use the bike, which is reducing damage, reducing congestion and reducing pollution.

Well, put me out of my misery. Should you pull over, or should I? Or is it something you think should only apply to cycles?

You're a motorist who owns a bike. You use it for convenience and possibly cost. If you were massively concerned about congestion and reducing pollution you might elect to not own a car at all. This 'pull over' stuff you keep going on about is nonsense, by the way.

 

They're wrong though aren't they. A) they're not being delayed at all. B) They don't pay a premium, c) they most definitely don't have priority.

Wrong on so many counts it starts to make them look a little stupid if they have that opinion.

No they are not wrong about being delayed. As we both can see, it can depend on the circumstances. Hence your caveat. They pay premiums that are not applicable to cyclists. I didn't say they have priority. I said they may feel they do.

 

Only for clarity.

It was clear what you were stating - an absolute, where none exists.

 

But you agree, so why did you suggest otherwise before?

It's not always the case. We've agreed on this.

 

Ah yes, for example the A57.

I too have had to slow down for a bike on a road sometimes.

You know what happens after that though... I speed up again. And then I reach a queue somewhere. End result of the cyclists being on the road. Nothing. My journey time is entirely unaltered.

If a stretch of your commute is on a 60mph road for three miles and you drive at 60mph it will take you three minutes. If you drive on the same road at sixty for two miles and at 10mph for one a mile in the middle (because you are stuck behind a bunch of cyclists who won't drop to single file despite causing a tailback and regardless of what they are required to do according to the Highway Code) the same stretch of road will have taken eight minutes. If you tend to drive at the speed limit (conditions permitting) as many drivers seem to, you will reach you destination later. UNLESS you make up the time by speeding.

 

Incompetent and dangerous are quite different things. If you meant the legal definition of dangerous.

I was referring to drivers who will endanger you due to their incompetence. Or in some cases their disregard for other road users.

 

That's victim blaming.

I'm not blaming anyone for what they choose to travel in or on. Obviously a large sturdy vehicle is safer than a light, fragile one in the case of an impact. Not everyone drives or rides safely. They never will. It's a risk you have to bear in mind when making choices. Motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists would traverse different zones in a more ideal world.

 

Irrelevant. The fact is that your car is more likely to be damaged by another car than by a bike.

Not irrelevant: down to probability due to the disparity of numbers involved. Cyclists can and do damage cars. You seem to see situations as black and white with no grey area e.g. as always vs. never / legal vs. illegal. That may keep debates going around and around but is not necessarily accurate or likely.

 

This does seem to be getting increasing pedantic / purposeless.

[RootsBooster]

I shall concede the point, with the caveat that operating a car AT ALL is not a reflex action, it must be learned. So the reflex to swerve, relies on the muscle memory of how to steer a car.

 

Hahah, a little part of me does sometimes enjoy when we get this petty.

[soopah]

You know it's usually quicker to pass cyclists riding two abreast than in single file right?

Single file is meaningless, as most cyclists will take the lane if they feel tucking to the side will cause them to be in danger.

[shims]

The running costs of walking include shoes and fuel (food)

 

Running costs of cycling include tyres, various wearing components and fuel (food)

 

Running costs of a private jet or yacht...

It's all pretty proportional. I don't whine that I can't afford to run an aircraft carrier.

Owning a majority of motor vehicles will incur VED. Almost all will require paying for a MOT or PSV and the preparation required to pass this along with registration and insurance. (There is a disproportionate amount of duty on road fuel too compared to your breakfast or lunch). Cyclists are required to comply with none of this, despite sharing the same roads and being just as capable of commuting carelessly or causing accidents. That isn't my idea of proportionate.

[Santo]

Owning a majority of motor vehicles will incur VED. Almost all will require paying for a MOT or PSV and the preparation required to pass this along with registration and insurance. (There is a disproportionate amount of duty on road fuel too compared to your breakfast or lunch). Cyclists are required to comply with none of this, despite sharing the same roads and being just as capable of commuting carelessly or causing accidents. That isn't my idea of proportionate.

 

Buy a bike then!

[soopah]

Buy a bike then!

 

Most people tend to think that bikes are cheap.

 

A good bike costs as much as a reasonably new small hatchback.

Each tyre can cost as much as a car tyre, as can brake pads.

Lube etc is usually more expensive for bikes, a little 250ml bottle of chain lube is the same price as 5L for my car.

 

This is if you're doing it properly and care about your bike, safety and performance.

 

They usually are less of a burden on the health system due to being healthier.

[Cyclone]

Much of the cost is not occupational. It is forced onto motor-vehicle owners. Cars go up the road, bikes go up the road. One set of commuters has to have pay a series of fees and meet various regulations, the other does not.

Which doesn't make it okay for car drivers to behave dangerously, doesn't give them any 'right' to the road and doesn't mean that cyclists should have to pay.

 

 

You're a motorist who owns a bike. You use it for convenience and possibly cost. If you were massively concerned about congestion and reducing pollution you might elect to not own a car at all. This 'pull over' stuff you keep going on about is nonsense, by the way.

You were the one who said that motorists expect cyclists to get out of the way because they pay more tax.

 

 

No they are not wrong about being delayed. As we both can see, it can depend on the circumstances. Hence your caveat. They pay premiums that are not applicable to cyclists. I didn't say they have priority. I said they may feel they do.

And they'd be wrong wouldn't they.

They are not delayed are they, you've never been delayed have you, I've never been delayed, it would be a really weird journey where a cyclist had delayed a motorist.

 

 

If a stretch of your commute is on a 60mph road for three miles and you drive at 60mph it will take you three minutes. If you drive on the same road at sixty for two miles and at 10mph for one a mile in the middle (because you are stuck behind a bunch of cyclists who won't drop to single file despite causing a tailback and regardless of what they are required to do according to the Highway Code) the same stretch of road will have taken eight minutes. If you tend to drive at the speed limit (conditions permitting) as many drivers seem to, you will reach you destination later. UNLESS you make up the time by speeding.

Yes, indeed. It's really difficult to make up a scenario where any delay happens isn't it.

It has to involve a stretch of road with no other traffic doing < than the speed limit. No other congestion. A very short journey. A very unlikely length of the journey where you're held up, and not just 1, but a whole group of cyclists who are delaying the motorist.

Ooooh, what if a tractor had driven the entire 3 miles at 10mph... Should it be legal to run tractors off the road?

 

I have no idea what point you were ever trying to make to be honest, I might go back and look at your first post to see if I can see one.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 15:05 ----------

 

Most people tend to think that bikes are cheap.

 

A good bike costs as much as a reasonably new small hatchback.

Each tyre can cost as much as a car tyre, as can brake pads.

Lube etc is usually more expensive for bikes, a little 250ml bottle of chain lube is the same price as 5L for my car.

 

This is if you're doing it properly and care about your bike, safety and performance.

 

They usually are less of a burden on the health system due to being healthier.

 

I think you're confusing people who want to race with people who want to commute.

Even if I did have a bike which cost many thousands, I wouldn't ride it to work, I'd have a beater (I do), because riding through the winter is hard on the bike, and I wouldn't want to grind up an expensive bike for my commute.