A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Wolfshade]

Cycling and cyclists is one of the most misunderstood philospophies in the UK. Like LGBT, Feminists, Audi drivers, cyclists are a classic "minority outrgroup" who suffer from overgeneralistaions of negative behaviour and attributes.

Such outgroups are common tragets for the less intelligent journalist, such as ranting and raving about asylum seekers or those reliant on social security. Sure, there are members of that population which are negative and engage in damaging behaviour, but it is not really fair to make such assumptions of everyone.

So what does a cyclist want?

Cyclists should have the same rights and repsonsibility as car drivers
Cyclists should have the same consideration for road infrastructure
Cyclists should not be subjected to discrimination or abuse simply because they ride bikes

So there you have it the cycling philosphy isn't about car hating ideology, but simply and ideal that we should not be discriminated against because you choose an alternative mode of transport. There are more extreme views who rather than demand equality to car drivers what they should have superior rights for socio-economic reasons.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes cyclists should have a registration so they are traceable when they've done criminal damage and failed to stop, or so they can have cameras enforce their failure to obey red lights.
And the removal of advance stop lines.

Good Idea Wolfie, equality for all.

[Wolfshade]

More cars run red lights than cyclists and the effect of a car/lorry running a red light is much worse than a cyclist. Though to be honest it doesn't bother me as cyclists should stop at the red lights.

Registration plates I am not so sure of. On the one had yes to have accountability is a good thing, it might just force car drivers to give them the same respect as they do for each other. The problem comes with whether or not it is a good thing for society.

The scheme would have a lot of problems would I be able to have one registration for all of my bikes or would each one need its own registration? Then the problem is that every bike would need to be registered all the way down to toddlers tricycles.

The question is whether or not this scheme is good for society? Cycling is a good thing for society, this is unquestionable (well it is able to be questioned but the arguments against are not as strong as the arguments for) so society must encourage its use. So they scheme must be sufficiently simple that it does not deter people.

Advanced Stop Lines are sightly worrysome. The number of times I get into the box to find that there is already a car in there is tiresome (whether they did so legally or no is debateable), but the whole purpose of them is to enable cyclists to get away ahead of traffic, now if that is occupied it is unclear what the cyclists should do. Should they slink into the box and move off as if it were empty or should they push on the minimum distance to clear the car in the box and move off when the lights change? Certainly the intention of the law is to allow cyclists to move off infront of cars so taht is unclear.
There is the problem that they are also almost the indentical shape to a HGV's blind spot.
I use them regularly and they help me get ahead of cars, and certainly if I am turning across traffic they are brilliant.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah it's an interesting thing with the blind spot.
And as you say, as a responsible cyclist it makes little difference to you with the red lights/accountability.
A plate per person or even household seems fair enough, maybe bring it in from an age where you can actually be pursued for the infractions?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Cycling and cyclists is one of the most misunderstood philospophies in the UK. Like LGBT, Feminists, Audi drivers, cyclists are a classic "minority outrgroup" who suffer from overgeneralistaions of negative behaviour and attributes.

Such outgroups are common tragets for the less intelligent journalist, such as ranting and raving about asylum seekers or those reliant on social security. Sure, there are members of that population which are negative and engage in damaging behaviour, but it is not really fair to make such assumptions of everyone.

So what does a cyclist want?

Cyclists should have the same rights and repsonsibility as car drivers
Cyclists should have the same consideration for road infrastructure
Cyclists should not be subjected to discrimination or abuse simply because they ride bikes

So there you have it the cycling philosphy isn't about car hating ideology, but simply and ideal that we should not be discriminated against because you choose an alternative mode of transport. There are more extreme views who rather than demand equality to car drivers what they should have superior rights for socio-economic reasons.

I'm laughing IRL reight now, because this scans so much like the intro to the feminism thread.
I agree BTW, I'm a pedestrian through and through.
I'd cycle if it was even vaguely safe on the roads. (My wife cycled to work for a year, got hit by a car twice. Neither even stopped)
But things like adults cycling on the pavement, or zipping through pedestrian crossings etc really makes my blood boil.
Therefore I agree entirely, all cyclists and bicycles should be subject to enforced ordinances, and should receive better rights as road users and input into civic planning.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm laughing IRL reight now, because this scans so much like the intro to the feminism thread.
I agree BTW, I'm a pedestrian through and through.
I'd cycle if it was even vaguely safe on the roads. (My wife cycled to work for a year, got hit by a car twice. Neither even stopped)
But things like adults cycling on the pavement, or zipping through pedestrian crossings etc really makes my blood boil.
Therefore I agree entirely, all cyclists and bicycles should be subject to enforced ordinances, and should receive better rights as road users and input into civic planning.

Kaptin maybe you should check this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24355-Wolfie-s-Guide-to-Thread-De-Railment) and this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24231-Abbey-Home-Studios-Warmace-400C) for some of his earlier parody work

[Wolfshade]

I'm laughing IRL reight now, because this scans so much like the intro to the feminism thread. Happy coincidence ;)

I agree BTW, I'm a pedestrian through and through.
You have even more problems then, I am talking of road design and consideration of paths of desire and traffic enginerring and research and junk.

I'd cycle if it was even vaguely safe on the roads. (My wife cycled to work for a year, got hit by a car twice. Neither even stopped)
But things like adults cycling on the pavement, or zipping through pedestrian crossings etc really makes my blood boil.
Therefore I agree entirely, all cyclists and bicycles should be subject to enforced ordinances, and should receive better rights as road users and input into civic planning.
Well this part basically sums up the issue. People cycle on footways (not pavements, the terminology is strage but it is a footway you walk on most probably ;) ) because they don't feel safe, this brings them into conflict with pedestrians who are more vulnerable and travelling much slower. Perhaps if they had better infrastructure the cyclist would feel safer on the road...

[Wolfshade]

Kaptin maybe you should check this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24355-Wolfie-s-Guide-to-Thread-De-Railment) and this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24231-Abbey-Home-Studios-Warmace-400C) for some of his earlier parody work

I had forgot the how to derail thread...

How ever there is a semi-serious point that I am tired of being hit by 'bus.

[Psychosplodge]

Again?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

What number Bus?
Do you think the bus companies should give better training?

[Wolfshade]

What number Bus?
Do you think the bus companies should give better training?

Someone has read their guide to derailment....

TfL are doing driver trainign for professional drivers (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/22830.aspx) but the problem is that outside of London (and Oxford) the density of cyclists means that it is less finacially worthwhile...

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Someone has read their guide to derailment....

TfL are doing driver trainign for professional drivers (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/22830.aspx) but the problem is that outside of London (and Oxford) the density of cyclists means that it is less finacially worthwhile...

I'd say even one saved human life justifies the financial cost.

Here in Bournemouth motorists are in a tizzy because one of our major junctions is being cyclist made friendly and it's slowing traffic etc.
This is the roundabout my wife was nearly killed on by some jerk who drove away.
All in all I am glad.

[Wolfshade]

Unfortunately, society measures things in money not lives.

It is "interesting" that one of the claims why some people are so against cycling infrastructure is that it will slow down their journeys, which is a legitimate concern, however, these sorts of people tend to suggest that cycling should be confined to the pavement which would signficantly slow down a cyclists own journey time.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Not to mention make my life harder!
On the subject of idiocy and cycling;
Couple of weeks back I was walking home when a car and cyclist were both approaching down a steep hill.
Car stops at give way point, checks traffic and begins to pull away.
Cyclist comes down said hill at break-neck speed corners into traffic, undercutting the car and causing them have to stop.
"Huh, Lycra-lout jerk." I think.
Because we get a lot of the around here, it's hilly and they'd rather nearly mow you down on a zebra crossing or on the footpath than apply the breaks.
THEN the car comes out of the corner at an unsafe speed, hammers it along to reach a parallel with the cyclist, and winds down the window. They then have a shouting match, whilst moving at high speeds, in a built up urban area.
If i'd had a camera I'd have taken a picture and reported them both.
Moral of the story?
"Don't forget that the guy being inconvenienced by a jerk may also be a jerk."

[Wolfshade]

This is one of the problems in trying to raise awarness/defend cyclists is that there are some idiots on the road, and they are often "high profile".

This is of relevance: A speeding cyclist, momentum - and how sustained velocity is the enemy of consideration (http://invisiblevisibleman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-speeding-cyclist-momentum-and-how.html)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

To be honest my biggest gripe is moronic behavior on both counts.
EG the guys who hit my wife and drove off, VS the woman who plowed her bike into the driver's side of our parked car because she was on her mobile and didn't notice a bright red car pull out to join the flow of traffic and then stop. We were stationary a full minute!
Mind you the number of pedestrians that wander blithely into traffic still shocks me too.
I have decided that people are idiots.

[Wolfshade]

I have decided that people are idiots.
This is true.

[Wolfshade]

A number of cyclists having met with violence or poor behaviour have started to record their rides. Not because they particularly want to watch them again but because having had an incident or having a friend who has had one they feel the need for some impartial evidence of what has happened. This has spread through the community and there are quite a few cyclists who will record their daily commute. Indeed this idea has started to creep into the motorcycling community.
This started as there were a number of incidents which the CPS did not take to court as there was lack of evidence.

However we now have this from the CPS:

In relation to the concept of prosecution of mobile phone and other minor traffic offences from video submissions where and accident has not occurred, the ACPO Roads Policing following guidance form the Crown Prosecution Service and expert advice from Road Policing bodies, concluded that prosecution for offences based solely upon video evidence submitted by members of the public are unlikely. The value of evidence that has not been seized and stored according to the police business processes is limited form an evidential point of view.
The ACPO recommends that a suitable letter to the registered owner of the vehicle would be proportionate where the submitted clips meet a high enough standard.

"Minor traffic offences" are any offence which doesn't actually cause a collision, so parking on double yellows, illegal overtaking, crossing solid white lines, crossing stop lines, use of mobile phones et al.

So it is a fixed penalty if a Policeman sees you do them, but a letter telling you off if you are just caught on camera because a policeman's sight is more important than reviewable evidence...

[Wolfshade]

double post.

[Psychosplodge]

But police, and police recordings have to obey a certain standard, and will do it routinely.
The time/cost they'd have to spend to prove the video isn't doctored because it isn't to that standard would out weigh the "public interest"

[Wolfshade]

In the same way they do with CCTV from other sources?

But seriously we are also talking about if I walked in off the street to the police station with the recorder going showing no break no opportunity to tamper with it on the original device.

[Psychosplodge]

Fair enough.

[Wolfshade]

Driver who killed two cyclists avoids life ban and jail term (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3879137.ece)

Background:


Mrs Fyfe, 75, died two days after McCourt clipped the back wheel of her bike as she cycled through Edinburgh in August 2011.

At the end of his trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, it emerged that McCourt, 49, had previously been jailed for two years after being convicted in 1986 of causing the death of another cyclist, 22-year-old George Dalgity, by reckless driving.

The Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh rejected claims that the sentence of 300 hours and 5 year driving ban was insufficient.


Lord Menzies wrote: “Despite the sheriff’s error in treating the fact that Mrs Fyfe was not wearing a cycle helmet as a mitigatory factor, we are unable to say that the sentence of a community payback order with the maximum number of unpaid hours was unduly lenient.

“It did not fall outside the range of sentences which the sheriff applying his mind to all the relevant factors could reasonably have considered appropriate.”

So the original judgement which failed to take into account the previous murder also wrongly took into account a "mitigating facotr of not wearing a helmet" it was still considered the correct sentence.

[Psychosplodge]

See the second one, I'm not sure warrants jail, it's an accident same as clipping a car parked near a corner. It's unfortunate that a cyclist will just come off worse in this case.
But the first should have warranted jail.

[Wolfshade]

Still sounds very similiar to involuntary manslaughter.

[Psychosplodge]

If you're in an accident, and they can't apportion blame, and the other car driver dies, you're very unlikely to go to prison for it.
It's just unfortunate as a cyclist the death part is more likely.
Especially as blind spots are getting worse in modern cars. Did you know you can hide an entire bus behind the front pillar of an insignia they've made them that wide?

[Wolfshade]

There is no such thing as an accident, they are collisions since under normal conditions they require someone at fault to make them happen.

But this is where strict liability comes in, so if you drive into the back of someone it is always your fault, regardless of how erratic their braking is or whatever, similiarly cars coming out of side roads are always at fault for a collision. Hence they are two of the most common insurance scams. This one he deliberately drove into the back of a cyclist no whether that was because of inattention or whatever you whould have thought having been in a collision with one before he would be more wary.

I didn't know that about the insignia, it is worrying. It also suggests that cyclists to avoid such issues should be more central in the lane, though I know that that will not be what you would want.

[Psychosplodge]

I would imagine it's even worse the closer you're sat to the windscreen?
But I've certainly noticed it in modern cars, the blindspots are far bigger than in my older car.

[Wolfshade]

It is also that cars are getting wider.

[Psychosplodge]

That too. But I've also realised the smaller the oncoming car, the more likely it is to be on my side of the road...

[Wolfshade]

A study to analys vehicle behaviour demonstrated a couple of surprising things.

Firstl in general, car drivers make assumptions of the risk of passing a given cyclist based on how they look. So a cyclist in hi-viz with helmet will be passed closer than a cyclist in normal clothes, as the hi-viz helmeted one is seen as being more professional and so more likely to behave in a particular way. Which means that the work they do with the helmet and hi-viz is undone.

Secondly, white van drivers are the worst, passing more closely more frequently than any other group.
Thirdly, red van drivers are universally the best group giving the most time and waiting for the safest time.

This third point was quite a confusion and general outlier in the whole "van" category. Then it was suggested at a conference that the reason for this is that red vans are most commonly Royal Mail vans and most Royal Mail posties have done routes on bikes.

[Wolfshade]

All cyclists run red lights.

This is the assertion that is often labelled at cyclists. From my own experiance I do see some who do, but then I also see many who don't. But it seems to be less of an issue where for instance a motorcycle filtered past traffic into the advanced stop line, then across that and waited. Though woe betide a cyclist who did that.

Anyway, finally I have some figures. Bearing in mind that these are based on London cycling trends and urban areas tend to see more traffic violations than surburban and rural areas.

Anyway, I digress:

From TFL. Average proportion of cylists who run red lights 16%, or 84% don't. Which I think is too high, but falls in line with other research. That study suggested cars were the next most common, but given that cyclists make up less than 20% of the traffic flow it would seem to be in terms of numbers cars are the worst offenders.

Women were less likely to run 13% compared with men 17%.

On average, the majority of both male and female cyclists went straight ahead at the junction following violating a red light. This was also true of male cyclists at individual junctions. However there was a 45:55 split between female cyclists turning and going straight ahead.

[Wolfshade]

Northumbria Police has been forced to apologise to a cyclist after he was wrongly pulled over by an officer for 'undertaking.'

or perhaps "Official: Police do not understand the law"

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/83213/caught-on-camera-newcastle-cyclist-lays-down-the-law-to-traffic

For those of you who can't be bothered with the link.

Cyclist approaches trafficlights with Advanced Stop Line, there is a police car parked in that box, cyclist filters down the ASL approach and the lights change "undertaking" (read: filtering) past the cop car. Police man pulls over cyclist and tells him off, cyclist tries to explain what that he was fine to do that and that the police were breaking the law, police man then turns his back and generally dismissive. All this is caught on camera and the cyclist reports this to the police. Northumbria Police have since apologised and accept that their officer was in the wrong. A statement said: "All officers are aware of the laws and rules of the road and we'll ensure they are reminded about this where necessary."


Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

[Denzark]

I don't accept cycling is a 'philosophy' - there may be some hippy green types who do it as a means to save the planet, but i expect they are in the minority. It is merely a mode of transport. Now no-one should be allowed to ignore the law of the land. If that was the case, cyclists would be safe - full stop. Because when car/cyclist accidents in which the car is blameworthy, would be against the law. Where the car driver is not blameworthy, it is either a genuine accident - unavoidable - or the fault of the cyclist.

That being the case, there is no need for extra protection for cyclists - the car driver is alreay either driving lawfully - any incident is not their fault - or unlawfully - sanctions apply.

If cyclists want to inhabit a space with vehicles that pay excise license, have a required standard of serviceability (ie MOT) and a required standard of training (ie drivers license) - without doing any of these things themselves - then I feel a certain level of risk can only be expected.

Also, what you have said about Audi drivers is a damned lie - they are the new nobbers of the road. As are all German car drivers. In descending order of nobbishness - Audi-BMW-Mercedes*-VW. *Except for Sprinter White Van drivers - they transcend a new plain of of ****tishness.

[Wolfshade]

Yes I am unsure it is a philosophy is the best term. My approach to it is certainly a philosphy of life, a critical thinking of problems, it is just that these are about the problems associated or that rise from an experiance of cycling. "As Plato said, we never learn anything we do not enjoy and have fun engaging."

It is not just a mode of transport. Indeed it is the reason why we have roads and cars. There is a certain mindset to some who drive who believe that they own the road and it is against this world view (or philosphy) that I am railing against. I am not saying that cars are useless and everyone should go by bike, but a lot of journeys are just as quick by bike or perhaps should be walked.

The trouble is that while cyclists are considered to be second class citizens there will be a conflict between them and car drivers. No one should be allowed to ignore the law of the land and if everyone were to obey it perfectly we would not need police. But we still hear where people are murdered despite that being illegal, kids are touched inappropriately again despite that being inappropriate. Most of these crimes come from an abuse of power and as you point out in a car-cycle collision the cyclist will come off worst. The car has the power and if you are not equal to that you are treated as a lesser. I refute the idea that there are genuine accidents, the closest comes to a mechanical failure, otherwise there is always someone to blame.

The duty pays for your emission rates, if I were to get VED for my bike it would be £0. Just like those vehicles with low emission rates. VED has nothing to do with road maintainence, if you believe that that is the case you are sorely mistaken. The government spends £9bn on road building, it recieves £5.4bn from VED. What happens is that money is allocated from the treasury based on income tax, VAT and any other levy, all this money is put into a pot and divvied out. Another fun fact is that cyclists are more likely to own are car and thus contribute to VED than non-cyclists.
Also, roads were originaly built for bikes not cars but don't let history stand in your way.
Bikes have to have a standard of roadworthiness as required in law, don't forget cars under 3 don't require an MOT, and that the MOT itself just judges that on that day it passed the mandatory tests. Bikes are far simpler, and I would imagine that most cyclists spend more time maintaining their bikes than you your car.
The driving licence is a bit misleading, firstly there is no legal requirement to have one, unlike cars, that you know can kill people, there is nothing wrong with not having one, but I refer you back to the point cyclists are most likely to be car owners anyway so already have that knowledge. I am in favour of bikeability schemes (that is the new cycling proficency). But what the licence would do is to impose a barrier to cycling which is a bad thing. Cycling is good for society and the more that cycle the better it is, anything to restrict that is a retrograde step.
And finally, what risk do they expose themselves to if all car drivers are following the rules? The jag that almost side swiped me today if I had a cycle license, my £0 VED disc and with a serviced bike how would that have not have happened? How would that risk be mitigated or reduced?

But why stop there I hope you would also require pedestrians to pass tests, have insurance, be road worthy before stepping out of the front door, after all they also use the road...

Also bonus points for not calling VED road tax :)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I don't accept cycling is a 'philosophy' - there may be some hippy green types who do it as a means to save the planet, but i expect they are in the minority. It is merely a mode of transport. Now no-one should be allowed to ignore the law of the land. If that was the case, cyclists would be safe - full stop. Because when car/cyclist accidents in which the car is blameworthy, would be against the law. Where the car driver is not blameworthy, it is either a genuine accident - unavoidable - or the fault of the cyclist.
While I would not agree with the term Philosophy, they do have a strong community and are as deserving of that label as groups like ours here. There are people for whom it's an A->B thing too of course.
I have always believed that if someone is going to take a vehicle onto the road (motorised or otherwise) they should take a theoretical and practical test AND have a set standard of maintenance. In fact I'd say all of the regulation that applies to the use of a motorcycle should apply to the use of a bicycle. Including the mandatory use of safety gear and a mandatory standard for said safety gear.
http://cyclehelmets.org/1182.html
For example.

[Wolfshade]

There is a manadory requirement for safety equipment, but that is to survive an impact of up to 12mph, roughly the speed that you would hit falling side ways. It isn't madatory that you use one as the evidence is less than clear that they are beneficial. For every article that says that they are there is another that says that they aren't.

Also, where mandatory helmet laws have been introduce cycling participation has decreased. This is detrimental to governements aims to get more people cycling and would actually make the cyclist a rarer beast and therefore more likely to be involved in collisions. It is a critical mass thing, get enough people cycling so they are common enough and the safety of it increases massively, hence Holland has no helmet laws but the lowest injury/death rate for cyclists in the world.

[Denzark]

Yes I understand 'road tax' is not road tax etc. Good point about emissions which I had totally forgotten though. I guess what I am trying to point out is that a group of totally unregulated persons (cyclists) are wanting to use, for their own benefit, an asset (the road) where the primary users (drivers) are heavily regulated - and expecting the primary users to make concessions just to facilitate the ease of the cyclists.


At the end of the day, regarding your Jag incident, there must have been someone blameworthy. If you, unlucky. If him, then there are sanctions. If both of you were compliant with the law and this was one of the rare, genuinely unavoidable actual bon fide (near) accidents, then there seems to have been nothing that could have been done. I don't see a need to mitigate risk to the detriment of others if there is genuinely no-one at fault. You can't be totally risk free - if you make the call to be a lycra ninja, you wears your helmet and takes your chances.

[Psychosplodge]

Is there a reason the inflating jackets and armour horse riders wear aren't widely used by cyclists Wolfie?

[Wolfshade]

I'm not asking for concessions, I am asking for the same rights and privelliges. I am allowed to cycle down the middle of the road if I want, I should be granted the same space that a car is given while being overtaken. But that isn't the case.
So you are still up for regulating the pedestrians also... but the issue is that you see that the primary users are motorised vehicles, certainly they are numerically superior, but the use of primary makes it bad, it says this is mine though because I am nice I will allow you in your inferior mode to use it. Which is the issue.

"Interestingly", there is a push to have a more dedicated cycle awareness for learner drivers, as most cyclist-car collisions have the car driver at fault. But I do see some riders and think you really need to learn roadcraft, but on the same side we have people who are certified safe drivers who also make similiar errors in judgement.

With the jag incident he was in the wrong yet had I not moved out of the way I would be hit and I would be the worse off and all the paperwork in the world wouldn't have mitigated that. I was then told off for whoooshing up the inside...

[Morgrim]

I'm not sure if this is an Australian thing or just a local thing, but when I was in primary school we had a 'bike week' where the police came and taught us all the road rules as they related to bikes and we had to do courses and a test on it. We didn't get a formal licence at the end but it was rather similar to what you do when you're getting your car licence. Riding on the road is less common in my area though because a lot of the paths are deliberately designed and dual use and split into lanes so as to reduce cyclist/pedestrian friction. (Most of the roads into or out of the city are freeways and bikes are forbidden from them because they can't make the minimum speed limit, so ensuring there are cycle paths is the only option.)

[Wolfshade]

In the UK there used to be a "Cycling Proficiency" test run by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and most schools had a trained assessor to schools to train those to use the road and then those who passed got a certificate. This has been superceeded by Bikeability which is ran from central government (Department of Transport) via local government. Though you can get them to train any group.

There are three levels and correspond to different age groups (http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/the-three-levels/)

Cycling is prohibited on motorways, but there are only two I think roads in England with a minimum speed limit. There is little joined up infrastructure, but some of what exists are just painted on road lanes which run out abruptly or have parked vehicles in them :(

[Denzark]

I'm not asking for concessions, I am asking for the same rights and privelliges. I am allowed to cycle down the middle of the road if I want, I should be granted the same space that a car is given while being overtaken. But that isn't the case.

You see Wolfy this illustrates a major fact of what is wrong with British society - people talk about rights and not duty. You do currently have the same rights as anybody. You can come on the road unmolested - if anyone deliberately does anything unsafe/unlawful there are sanctions - this is equally apparent whether you use the road ensconsed in your car or on your bike. You can't be given any more rights as those currently in existence are sufficient for your safe passage from a to b. Admittedly this assumes people will comply with the RTA - but there is no new allocation of 'rights' that will make them more susceptible to do so.

As to cycling down the middle of the road, I did my ROSPA certificate many decades ago - but I still remember they taught to cycle as far over (around 90cm) from the edge of the pavement as possible - not down the middle. And also to go single file - something the lycra bandits in their amateur pelotons seem to forget. I don't however recall a mandatory distance that a car should overtake by - it is the minimum safe distance to get around.

So why does your 'right' to do these things outweigh the rights of the car user to drive at the speed limit, unimpeded by cyclists?

[Psychosplodge]

I do remember when I was learning to drive my instructor telling me the minimum safe distance to pass a cyclist is the space for them to topple over sideways without going under your wheels, which is probably impossible if they're 2+ abreast...

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I do remember when I was learning to drive my instructor telling me the minimum safe distance to pass a cyclist is the space for them to topple over sideways without going under your wheels, which is probably impossible if they're 2+ abreast...

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
Bam.
In short, a driver is not overtaking a cyclist "safely" as defined by the existing rules and regs if they A) do so in the same lane and B) do so in a no overtaking area.
How many motorists have you seen do that!?!

[Wolfshade]

I know on paper that I do currently have those rights, but the number of times that I have had to take evasive action to avoid being hit by vehicles who fail to give way to me when I legally have right of way, or have vehicles try and turn through me and passess so close that I could touch the vehicle with my elbow, I don't have any of these experiances when in my car. You only have to look to how the CPS and Police deal with these to suggest that there needs to be a see-change in society.

There is nothing in law that mandates where anyone using a road is positioned as long as they are in one lane. If I want to cycle just to the left of the central white line I am legally allowed to do that, and should be able to do that without being hounded (of course common sense tells me not to do it). The centre of lane offers the best visibility for a cyclist to see and be seen, many collisions where cars turn ut of side roads into cyclists is because they are too far in and car drivers expect to see other road users in certain sections of the road.

Single file - again, this is not required under law. You are again restricting what I can and can't do even though there is no law to support this.

You should:
...
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
...

Note that what consitutes as narrow and busy is not defined. So I will ride two abreast if it is not busy or on narrow roads, though to be honest I prefer single file as I get a better slip stream.

There is no quoted figure for the minimum distance, the code states:

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:
not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
...
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215).
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as _much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg

The image suggests you should clear your lane but nothing is mandated. In Europe there are various defined figures between 1 - 1.5m . There was a campaign to clarrify this to a minimum of 3' though that never got anywhere.

Your last line is pure gold, not withstanding that for large chunks of my personal journey are at the speed of free flow traffic.
There is nothing in law that requires you to drive at the maximum speed limit. It isn't a right but a duty not to exceed it.

This is what happens when motorists think they have a right to make the speed limit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

As a motorist my right to the same application of the laws of the road, or the manner in which I am treated on the road are not dependent on the speed along which I drive. If I were to drive at 20mph through a 40mph zone I would have the same rights as if I were driving at 40mph. Your rights are not speed dependant.

Also, there are parts of my journey where I can exceed the speed limit (non-motorised transport are excempt from speed limits except under particular circumstances) so at these points because I can and do go faster than cars should I have a greater right to use the road?

[Denzark]

We are starting to drill down into this now. There is clearly a difference between rights and courtesy. In accordance withrule 163, I must not 'get too close to the vehicle i intend to overtake'. And I must give 'at least as much room as I would a car'.

As you said, there is no minimum safe distance stipulated in law - you stated an attempt to make it 3' went nowhere. So, it is my right as the car driver, to judge what is too close and what isn't - and to give you as much room as I would a car.

So, if I would normally give a car 1cm clearance, I can do that to a cyclist - nothing prohibits that. And there is no obligation to consider what a cyclist considers safe beyond what I consider safe. If I pull off a manouevre without causing the cyclist injury, he is by definition safe - even if he is soiling his lycra in abject terror.

I wouldn't do that of course - not becuase I see anything in law that stops me but because it would be discourteous. However it would seem I would not be rewarded by a similar courtesy of not hogging the middle of the road, going in single file (all best practise according to ROSPA) or not pootling along at 20 in a 40.

And thats why the cyclists have no sympathy - becuase they think it should all be slated their way. And with a sense of entitlement and moral rectitude because they probably do not contribute to either the pollution or obesity rates.

[Wolfshade]

I think your 1cm pass would be invalidated by rule 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
...when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down...

If you passed me with a 1cm gap from your wing mirror (I hope) then I would swerve out of your way. So it is not just what you feel comfortable with it is what the vehicle you are overtaking feels comfortable with.


I am not sure what point you are trying to make here:

I wouldn't do that of course - not becuase I see anything in law that stops me but because it would be discourteous. However it would seem I would not be rewarded by a similar courtesy of not hogging the middle of the road, going in single file (all best practise according to ROSPA) or not pootling along at 20 in a 40.

And thats why the cyclists have no sympathy - becuase they think it should all be slated their way. And with a sense of entitlement and moral rectitude because they probably do not contribute to either the pollution or obesity rates.

[This may not be related to what you are saying above] While it is not incumbant to have courtsey I would like to think most people do, and rights are universal, irrespecitve if you are being the least courteous white van driver. For instance if I am filtering to lights cars will often nugde away to make more space for me. My road position changes with what I am doing, if I am keeping up with traffic I will "take the lane" (or primary position) if the traffic starts to get away from me I will move to a secondary position, as close to the curb as I feel is safe, similiarly when I know I need to slow down. Studies have shown that the cyclists attitude/disposition affects the over taking drivers behaviour. If I wear a helmet and lycra/hi-viz cars will pass me closer than if I am just in normal clothes as they percieve that I am more experianced and therefore more predictable. Also, the distance between curb and bike reflects (almost exactly) to the gap over taking vehicles give the bike. So if I ride within 1' of the curb chances are cars will overtake me witha 1' gap, it is not till you are in the centre of the lane that cars will give you an entire lane to yourself. So for me to mitigate the risk to myself I have to take that primary position. Now I manage the risk based on my speed, road layout, road surface etc. so I will vary where I am on the road, if we are approaching blind corners I will take more road, similiarly at pinch points and where bollards exist, just to discourage the vehicle squeezing past me.

I don't think it should be all slated my way, I think I should be given the same space and consideration as any other road user. You wouldn't half overtake another car then turn left, but that happens, you wouldn't fail to give way to a HGV already on a round-a-bout but this happens. Do I think red light jumping cyclists should be fined? Yes, but then so should cars/lorries/busses universality.

[Psychosplodge]

Well I did get a minor for going straight through a gap between a a parked car and oncoming car with no change of speed, but I think I'd probably leave a cyclist a bit more space...
I really need to understand why women in small cars like micras and clios think a head on collision is preferable to them clipping the kerb on their side?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

My Mrs tends to drift left (pffh) and therefore I'm always surprised by how far right some cars seem to end up!

[Houghten]

However it would seem I would not be rewarded by a similar courtesy of not hogging the middle of the road, going in single file (all best practise according to ROSPA) or not pootling along at 20 in a 40.

How exactly do you expect a cyclist to do 40mph?

I can just about do 30 on a very steep hill.

[Denzark]

I think your 1cm pass would be invalidated by rule 167

If you passed me with a 1cm gap from your wing mirror (I hope) then I would swerve out of your way. So it is not just what you feel comfortable with it is what the vehicle you are overtaking feels comfortable with.




I am not sure what point you are trying to make here:


This is of course entirely subjective. A cyclist may only feel comfortable if I give them 3.5m clearance. You would then be in an argument as to whether or not they were forced to swerve had they done so and claimed it was dangerous or whatever.

The point I am trying to make is that you refer to a couple of things as people's rights - specifically cycling 2 abreast, or going 20 in a 40. My understanding of your comments is that you support a position that people have the right to conduct themselves as they please on the road, as long as it is in accordance with the letter of the law. That flips over to car drivers as well. Ie as long as I could justify in a court of law that the distance I pass a cyclist at is reasonable, that distance could be anything.

I want to drive safely, within the letter of the law, to the speed limit. Why should I be stuck behind someone who wants to do less than the speed limit - what is it that makes their rights to not drive at the speed limit, more important than my right to drive at the speed limit?

BTW I don't think the Sheppey business is relevant - as it is unreasonable for anyone to drive outside the capabilities of their car matched against the conditions. The conditions are clearly everything. It is as unreasonable for someone to drive at the speed limit in deep fog as it is reasonable to expect all road users to drive at the limit on a clear dry day with good vis and a straight road.

[Denzark]

How exactly do you expect a cyclist to do 40mph?

I can just about do 30 on a very steep hill.

I don't - I assumed Wolfy was referring to cars when he mentioned people doing 20 in a 40. However I do expect cyclists to get as far into the kerb as safely possible, so I can overtake them quickly and easily and recommence doing the maximum the speed limit allows. After all it is far safer for me to be 100 metres away and still accelerating, because they were in the kerb - than it is for me to be 10 metres behind them and impatient, because they insisted on their 'rights' to be as far out to the centreline as possible.

[Wolfshade]

How exactly do you expect a cyclist to do 40mph?

I can just about do 30 on a very steep hill.

My top speed on a commute is 43mph, it would have been faster but the traffic lights at the bottom of the hill were red. I regularly push north of 35...


This is of course entirely subjective. A cyclist may only feel comfortable if I give them 3.5m clearance. You would then be in an argument as to whether or not they were forced to swerve had they done so and claimed it was dangerous or whatever.

The point I am trying to make is that you refer to a couple of things as people's rights - specifically cycling 2 abreast, or going 20 in a 40. My understanding of your comments is that you support a position that people have the right to conduct themselves as they please on the road, as long as it is in accordance with the letter of the law. That flips over to car drivers as well. Ie as long as I could justify in a court of law that the distance I pass a cyclist at is reasonable, that distance could be anything.

The acid test for these sorts of things is what a "reasonable person" would consider. As a confident cyclist I am more secure with vehicles passing closer than an inexperianced. It is a subjective thing and with all subjective things in law it is a grey area.
Myself, I very rarely cycle two abreast and most cyclists I mean on the road are single file for the aero-benefit. But if the traffic conditions are suitable then two abreast is arguably safer. As for going 20 in 40 that is fine. The law grants you no right to do that speed, it only demands that you do not exceed this. Indeed the highway code goes on to mention that you should drive at speeds that are suitable for the conditions.


I want to drive safely, within the letter of the law, to the speed limit. Why should I be stuck behind someone who wants to do less than the speed limit - what is it that makes their rights to not drive at the speed limit, more important than my right to drive at the speed limit?

Because the person infront of you regardless of their chosen mode of transportation only has the duty not to exceed the speed limit. They don't specifically have a right to do that speed, especially if the road conditions do not allow it. It is people who think that they have a right to do that speed when accidents occur like Sheppy island.

You have every right to want to, but unless you can safely and legally overtake them then their right to road space is equal to yours, if they wish to go slower you have no additional rights over them and they do not lose any rights. Simple. The law allows you up to a speed, it does not demand that you drive at that limit nor say that you can ever make it. Consider a single carriageway country road that has the national speed limit, you would have difficulty driving round it at 60. This is a fallacy to think that you have a right to drive at the speed limit. If it is not safe and legal to overtake the vehicle in front then you will sit behind them until it is. As an aside if the driver is driving at a speed that is dangerously slow, they could be charged with dangerous driving, but again, that is a rather grey subjective area.


BTW I don't think the Sheppey business is relevant - as it is unreasonable for anyone to drive outside the capabilities of their car matched against the conditions. The conditions are clearly everything. It is as unreasonable for someone to drive at the speed limit in deep fog as it is reasonable to expect all road users to drive at the limit on a clear dry day with good vis and a straight road.

The Sheppey business is entirely relevant, it is what happens when people think that they have a right to do a certain speed, despite what the road conditions are. If the road condtions are not conducive of higher speeds then you are forced to go slower, e.g. traffic or slower moving vehicles.



I don't - I assumed Wolfy was referring to cars when he mentioned people doing 20 in a 40. However I do expect cyclists to get as far into the kerb as safely possible, so I can overtake them quickly and easily and recommence doing the maximum the speed limit allows. After all it is far safer for me to be 100 metres away and still accelerating, because they were in the kerb - than it is for me to be 10 metres behind them and impatient, because they insisted on their 'rights' to be as far out to the centreline as possible.

I was thinking of cars since they have the same intrinsic rights.

You expect cyclists to get as far into the kerb as safe as possible, if I think that the safest part is the centre of the lane again this is just as subjective as you wishing to pass within 1 cm, only without rule 167 getting in the way. But it is incumbant on the vehicle making the over take to do so, the only thing the vehicle being overtaken has to do is not behave (more) erratically.

It is of course much safer for all involved for you to move out into another lane than to try and squeeze past as cyclist in the same lane, which kinda points to you giving more space on the overtake to be honest.

[Wolfshade]

A slight aside from a blog I read. The bloger hasn't posted for almost two months.


I have been quiet on here in recent months. I find it is hard to write about cycling without getting angry. Anger is not generally a constructive or attractive emotion so I have just kept it to myself, until now.
I am angry that I am eleven times more likely to get killed cycling to work as driving to work.
I am angry that were I to get killed on my way to work, the criminal justice system would probably fail those I leave behind by applying 'momentary inattention' to virtually every piece of potentially lethal driving.
I am angry that those who endanger me go unpunished and free to do so again.
I am angry that a senior CPS official asserts (absurdly) that my video evidence does not support my complaint of dangerous driving against an HGV driver who nearly crushed me.
I am angry that the Met Police have no ambitions for 'Roadsafe' beyond a public relations exercise to pacify angry cyclists and will not find the resources to prosecute bad drivers.
I am angry that no police force will 'act' on intelligence of bad driving unless it comes to them in their predetermined bureaucratic format.
I am angry that those who attack cyclists (like me) avoid conviction whereas cyclists who lash out at motorists who endanger them get prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I am angry that when police are eventually compelled to enforce ASLs, they put at least as much effort into prosecuting cyclists who stop ahead of the stop line to get ahead of traffic.
I am angry that two of my sporting heroes have gone in for victim blaming.
I am angry that a leading charity with close links to otherwise commendable law firms goes in for extreme victim blaming fronted by an ex Olympic oarsman.
I am angry at the cynicism of government ministers voting for the APPCG report which they have no intention of implementing.
I am angry that when tailgated by an HGV driver, I get told I am putting myself in danger by riding on the road ahead of him.
I am angry that, whereas Olympic lanes can be built overnight, there has been no spade into the ground to implement the London Mayor's cycling vision, whilst in the meantime more people on bicycles are being killed and injured.
I am angry that by the time action is consulted over and eventually taken, more people on bicycles will have been killed or injured by unsafe HGVs.
I am angry that nobody educates motorists that the way I ride is recommended and not provocative.
I am angry at sloppy, lazy, journalism which incites malevolence towards those of us on bicycles.
I am angry that civil litigation funding changes will make it harder for cyclists who are killed/injured to get the representation they need.
I am angry on behalf of my clients who often struggle to get that to which they are entitled.
I am angry at Eric Pickles.
That, dear reader, is why you have not been hearing much from me lately.

[Denzark]

A slight aside from a blog I read. The bloger hasn't posted for almost two months.

Some of these I sympathise with others I don't. I will elaborate on the 2 I take most issue with:


I am angry that a senior CPS official asserts (absurdly) that my video evidence does not support my complaint of dangerous driving against an HGV driver who nearly crushed me.
I am angry that no police force will 'act' on intelligence of bad driving unless it comes to them in their predetermined bureaucratic format.



With regard to the former, he is a QC- so he should have some idea of the law. Were he a layman I would state he does not know what constitutes evidence and what does not. That being the case, if he is so sure that the footage he captured is evidential in nature sufficient for a prosecution, he should use some of his 'hard-earned' QC wages (probably gained from legal aid provided to some criminal or other) and take out a private prosecution. That, as he is so sure what is evidential, would then form case law and change this situation through the medium of legal precedent.


With regards to the latter, I call bollocks. I know what the predetermined bureacratic format is for the recording of police intelligence. The form carries the protective marking 'RESTRICTED' with the caveat 'INTELLIGENCE'. These are 'ratings' under the Government Protective Marking Scheme (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200552/HMG_Security_Policy_Framework_v10_0_Apr-2013.pdf). Uncleared civilians are not entitled to see those forms - so the idea that intelligence is not recorded from civilians unless on said form, is utter tosh. What is more likely is that what he views as 'intelligence' is not 'actionable' - ie the information is assessed by a trianed analyst to be insufficient to instigate police action.

[Psychosplodge]

Bloody cyclists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-24364332)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Poole near where I live has a level crossing in the middle of the main shopping street. 70 incidents a year seems pretty minor!

[Wolfshade]

I wondered if that would be posted.
There are several comments I would make, the first is that the cyclist on the otherside is perfectly sensible, go back watch it again and you see him waiting. The second, the related videos all show other near misses with all peoples, cars, vans, pedestrains. I don't think it is fair to say it is a sole cyclist issue. More of a general lack of understanding of how level crossings work.

[Psychosplodge]

I know, That's why it was such a short statement.
I think they went back the way they came to change their underwear though...

[Wolfshade]

I know, That's why it was such a short statement.
I think they went back the way they came to change their underwear though...

Yup. Hopefully, the won't do that again mind. (It is why I always have emergency trousers with me)
http://www.sluggy.com/images/comics/020408a.gif

[Psychosplodge]

I feel you've posted that before.

[Wolfshade]

Probably. Doesn't make it any less true.

[Psychosplodge]

Fair point.

[Psychosplodge]

Idiot (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24367601) motorist to balance the idiot cyclist

[Wolfshade]

Wow, just wow, how do you not notice that

[Psychosplodge]

Not notice? It's got a charger attached to the battery, it's clearly deliberate.

[Wolfshade]

Cochabamba, Bolivia, has approved a bill that will make it a legal requirement to use a bike one day a week to make their journeys. The move comes in order to improve the pollution in the city and surrounding areas. The bill also sets out provision for cycling facilities (both lanes and parking) and bike education for schools. It is hoped that this act will become law before 10 January.

http://www.opinion.com.bo/opinion/articulos/2013/1005/noticias.php?id=107883

A bit extreme I think, but hmm, food for thought.

[Psychosplodge]

That seems enforceable.

[Wolfshade]

Yeah that is what I was thinking. Though it is a novel way of dealing with the polution and shows at least good intent, after all inactivity is worse for your health than smoking.

What is of particular importance of this is it is the first (that I am aware of) thing like this in a 3rd world country. Most of the cycle schemes are in the 1st world.

If they do use it the benefits will be huge just in terms of healthcare both for the system and for the individual.

[Wolfshade]

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_1200/images/News/M1%20cyclist%20(source%20BCH%20Road%20Policing%20o n%20Twitter).jpg

For clarity that is the M1...

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah the sign gives it away. Is that the Nottinham-Mansfield bit or do they have the variable speed stuff further south too?

What do they do you for when they catch you doing that?

[Wolfshade]

Nah, it is Sarf bound J9, Hertfordshire.

It is "managed motorway" finished Dec-12 at a cool £327 million.

The tell you you are a dumbass:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/13/article-2457495-18B6A0BE00000578-510_634x248.jpg

[Mr Mystery]

To be honest my biggest gripe is moronic behavior on both counts.
EG the guys who hit my wife and drove off, VS the woman who plowed her bike into the driver's side of our parked car because she was on her mobile and didn't notice a bright red car pull out to join the flow of traffic and then stop. We were stationary a full minute!
Mind you the number of pedestrians that wander blithely into traffic still shocks me too.
I have decided that people are idiots.

There's a town up the road from me you should never, ever visit.

Not only does Sevenoaks play home to Gloria Hunniford (a most unpleasant woman...) but it's denizens are famous lemmings. I learned to drive in that town, and without shadow of a lie, they'll just walk out into the road. Doesn't matter if they have good LoS or not, they'll just pop straight out, and then give the driver a dirty look......

[Psychosplodge]

Nah, it is Sarf bound J9, Hertfordshire.

It is "managed motorway" finished Dec-12 at a cool £327 million.

The tell you you are a dumbass:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/13/article-2457495-18B6A0BE00000578-510_634x248.jpg

Seems lenient.


There's a town up the road from me you should never, ever visit.

Not only does Sevenoaks play home to Gloria Hunniford (a most unpleasant woman...) but it's denizens are famous lemmings. I learned to drive in that town, and without shadow of a lie, they'll just walk out into the road. Doesn't matter if they have good LoS or not, they'll just pop straight out, and then give the driver a dirty look......

Have you never been to Leek?
I swear the average denizen has about the road sense of a pheasant. I have literally never drove anywhere with such a clueless pedestrian population. They had to put barriers round a new crossing because the people are incapable of correctly using a staggered two phase crossing correctly.
And yes they do the same thing, step out, then glare at you when you inform them of your presence.

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah, but Leek doesn't have the Hunniford, a woman of such few scruples as soon as her daughter died after a very private, and therefore dignified battle with cancer, published the diaries kept during that traumatic time....

Vile, vile, vile.

[Psychosplodge]

No, they're still at least thirty years behind the rest of the country, don't think they've realised that people publish diaries as books...

[Wolfshade]

Alex Paxton.

You probably have never heard of him. But he is taking to court to appeal a fixed penalty notice (FPN) that could change the face of FPN/ASL/the world (ok maybe not).

The background is he is cycling down a road, it is a busy 3 lane section and he needs to turn right. Thankfully there is a ASL to enable him to make the turn infront of motorised vehicles to improve his chances of survival. When he filtered to the cycle box it was already occupied by another vehicle, which he alleges did so illegaly (there are legal ways to occupy it you see). So he crossed the stop line and waited a small distance infront of the filled box and didn't move off until the green light showed. A Policeman saw this and radioed a colleague round the corner about it. This second policeman issues a FPN despite not seeing the infringement.

Firstly, do I think that the policeman was right to issue the FPN? Yes, it is clear cut Rule 71 and 178 make it clear enough.
Secondly, and I have only just thought of this, if the ASL was illegaly occupied why didn't the policeman ticket it?
Thirdly, do I think Alex Paxton has the right to appeal? Yes.

To expand on the third point.

Clearly the point of ASL is to "Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows." I think if Paxton's actions were in line with that spirit, he waited for the signal before moving off had just proceeded anyway then clearly he would have showed a reckless disregard for the law.
I would not have put myself in his position, but I can understand why he did what he did.

If Paxton is sucessful in his appeal it will compel the Police to use their discretion when issueing FNP, which I think is a good thing. However, the bad side of this is if he wins the appeal and it encourages others to cross stop lines while feeling "justified".

I think that this is far from an open and shut case as rule 61 illustrates.

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities.
Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
If the box is filled then clearly it is not safe to use and therefore the rider is advised not to use it. So the whole appeal could be rejected on this basis. Either that or the issuing officer thought the behaviour was reckless which as it was unsighted at the time would be harder to prove.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, having witnessed a cyclist ignore a pedestrian crossing this very morning, and simply weave *between the people crossing*....I'm not feeling a great deal of sympathy with this character at the moment.

Sorry. I'm aware I'm being harsh. Will probably lighten up by tomorrow. Overall, I'm sick of Cyclists seemingly demanding to be treated like a vehicle and a pedestrian at the same time.... I know it's a minority, but they're still arsebrains.

[Wolfshade]

Oh certainly I am not asking for sympathy for this character, it could just result in an interesting peice of case law if the appeal works. I have very little sympathy for this character, just because you have one person doing something wrong doesn't mean that you should.

I think the whole ASL thing is of concern over how well it is enforced and how well they are planned.

I have seen examples of them:
+ Without filter lanes, so you cannot enter them
+ Where the filter lane is narrower than standard handle bars
+ Where the box is 4 or 5 car lengths long
+ Where you cannot see the traffic lights within the box

I think you get arse brains in all forms of transport to think one group is without sin is a fallacy. Possibly with the exception of trains as they have systems that force them to conform to the rules, speed limiters automatic stopping etc.

[Wolfshade]

Well the Alex Paxton case has been scheduled for a full hearing starting 5th. Unless the CPS decide that it is not in the public interest to do so.

There was another case heard yesterday.

One the death of Philippine De Gerin-Rica after she was run over by a lorry. Philippine has the dubious honour of being the first person killed on a "Boris" bike in its 3 year history.

She was cycling on the Cycle Superhighway 02 (CS2) at the Aldgate gyratory. Having recently been redisgned by TfL the road which drops from 3 to 2 lanes, the nearside lane being only 3m wide, which incorporates a blue "cycle lane". The lorry 2.4m wide the handlebars 0.67m something had to give.

Coroner Mary Hassell said the lanes gave riders a “false sense of security” and confused motorists. A police accident investigator told her they were nothing more than a “blue strip of paint” at the inquest of Brian Dorling [whom the Coroner presided over the day before].

The blue tarmac unfortunately has no legal status, unlike designated cycle lanes.

A Lawyer for TfL suggested that the who incident would have been avoided had the victim been wearing Hi-Viz. The inquest also heard that there had been complaints raised about the safety of this scheme but pressed on regardless.

The coroner Hasell has delieved two narrative verdicts in the last 48 hours (for both Gerin-Rica and Dorling).

[Wolfshade]

I was reading a Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 (Dec. 1999) produced by the Department for Transport. The leaflet discusses how cyclists behave at road works and how the current provisions are used by cyclists, highlighting best practice and worst practice.

In it was a table discussing lane width and overtaking safety, which touched on a previous discussion here about the space to give when overtaking.

Effective Lane Risk
Width (m)
<2.75 Cars: very few can overtake
HGVs: cannot overtake

2.75-3.25 Cars: most can overtake but without adequate safety
HGVs: cannot overtake

3.25-3.50 Cars: most can overtake with adequate safety
HGVs: cannot overtake

3.50-3.75 Cars: most can overtake with adequate safety
HGVs: overtaking possible but without adquate safety

>4.00 Cars: most can overtake with adequate safety
HGVs: most can overtake with adequate safety

Given that the maximum width of a lorry is 2.6m and typical handle bars are 0.6m wide then it suggests that a passing distance of 0.8m is the minimum distance to pass safely.

[Wolfshade]

The almighty thor:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/D_W4xE7_7TI

[Wolfshade]

This one amused me.
Labour MP and former Minister for Sport Kate Hoey who wrote:


The real menance on Britain's roads are selfish, aggressive, law-breaking and infuriatingly smug Lyrca Louts

Has be fined £240 for driving her mini through a red light on London’s Victoria Embankment on 3 July this year. Now I am sure she wasn't wearing lycra while she was partaking in this selfish aggressive law breaking...

[chicop76]

I have more issues with motorcycles than with bikes.

Anyway if the bikes choose to run red lights which they often do they put their life at risk. Even worst when they choose to run red lights.

I seen some cities make bike lanes. I for one will be getting a bike to cut down on gas consumption.

Anyway I think the main issue in America is bike rides tend to ignore laws and complain when it is convenient for them to do so. Motorcycles are a bit different. I hate it when they speed between cars at 90mph are higher. Also I think it is messed up when cars almost run over motorcyclist.

All I got to say cars are much bigger.

[Wolfshade]

In a similiar vien to the inflation jackets for horse riders that Splogy is an advocate of..
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00475/Headgear_475744a.jpg
Original article here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3920497.ece
Also includes a nifty video of a cyclist being repeatedly knocked off his bike.

"[Anna Haupt] and Terese Alstin developed the Hövding helmet, a collar that sits around a rider’s neck, with sensors that detect movements indicating an imminent crash. It inflates in milliseconds. They began creating the device seven years ago when helmets were made compulsory for children in Sweden.

The device, which has been cleared by European safety standard regulators, is now available to British customers through the company’s website and costs €399 (£337). It has a rechargeable battery, is waterproof, and is put on with a zip. It looks elegant, sitting on a person’s shoulders like a scarf. "

Though if you are cold enough to need a scarf you are doing it wrong, still in shorts.

[Psychosplodge]

Fifth cyclist in nine days... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24936942) I think they're doing it wrong.

[Wolfshade]

Yup I saw, the very worrying part is it is another one on the cycle superhighway, which is supposed to make things easier and better. It certainly seems to have failed with specific regard to design around junctions. If I had to cycle though london I would avoid CS2 like the plague.

[Mr Mystery]

There was very nearly a 10th....

Coach home is at T Junction, red light, waiting to join main road. Green light goes. Coach (nice and big, can't really miss it) pulls away smoothly. Moron cyclist stegs it out from traffic on the left, clearly feeling traffic lights don't apply. Very, very nearly disappears under our coach.....

And this folks, is how you give all cyclists a bad name.

[Wolfshade]

More worryingly there were 69 pedestrians killed, but that seems to be unreported.
Maybe they need a lobby group.

[Mr Mystery]

Or people need to stop driving/cycling like utter fannies?

[Wolfshade]

Or people need to stop driving/cycling/walking like utter fannies?

ftfy

What we need is a complete re-think in terms of road design and how people actually use them, rather than how it is theorised people will use them.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeedy.

As came up in (I think) another thread, what about the old Beeching Lines? Get them reopened. Boom. Instant cycle highways.

They've got some in Edinburgh. Popular with Dog Walkers and Cyclists, and being an old 'two way line' has room enough for multiple users. One I used to use with my Grandad and cousins goes from the outskirts, right into the centre. Glorious run, nice and flat too. Other cities have these, so why not use them?

[Wolfshade]

Which is fine in general, but then once in the city they then need to move about, and spread out from a single point. Which is why people walk/cycle from bus/train/tram stops.

Birmingham City are embarking on an adverturous plan which is trying to incorporate parallel off road routes along with on road routes. It does have the advantage of the huge number of canals (obligatory mention: most canals in the world has Birmingham) which with their toe-paths also enable a vast number of routes.

[Psychosplodge]

tow path.

[Mr Mystery]

There will always be issues. Such as utter, utter selfish gits on South Eastern Trains. They don't have enough seats, and cost a packet to use (hence me using the coach). Which leads to many people having to stand.

Except the standing room is reduced because of people taking their sodding folding bikes on board, and leaving them by the doors, whilst they toddle off and have a nice bit sit down.... which is bloody infuriating. I'm not adverse to sitting on the floor on a train. But you can't do it when some chinless goon has dumped their bike there.

Oh, and don't forget to be first off the train, so you can hold everyone up by unfolding the infernal contraption as soon as you disembark.

[Psychosplodge]

Just remove it as you get on...

[Mr Mystery]

It's been more than tempting to just dump them on the platform.

But hey, I get the coach now! Half the price, far more luxurious (not only guaranteed a seat, but it reclines. And air conditioning) and drops me right outside my door. Lovely.

[Wolfshade]

You used to be able to stow bicycles in the guard van, but that is on the decline.
There is a problem of overcrowding on trains at peak times generally which is futher compounded by people needing to cycle or wheelchairs or pushchairs and indeed many carriers have banned them during peak hours, you know those hours that most people who commute use.

Cycling round London makes a lot of sense though. If I come in by train then I will need to walk or use public transport to get to my destination, if that additional journey is under 7 miles then it is quicker to cycle.

In Birmingham there are train stations with full bike lockers which you can rent so you can cycle to the train station, securely lock the bike then get the train to the centre. If you are just going to the centre it is compact enough to walk to your destination, something which isn't quite so in London.
And to be quite snobish, if I have a sub 10kg bike then why I would choose to use a Boris bike is beyond me, at almost two and an half times the weight, poor gear ratios (for a regular cyclist) then it is not really a sensible option. But being snobish isn't a good argument.

While I dislike folding bikes, I can see their appeal.

Of course if you want to guarantee a seat you could go by coach and avoid the issue of lack of seats and folding bikes.

It appears you do :D see I'm a genius.

[Wolfshade]

Wow. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24960489

Japan builds automatic underground bike shed.

[Mr Mystery]

Moron driver found unsurprisingly guilty of hitting a cyclist after bragging about it on Twitter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25000788).

Also says 'it was the biggest mistake of my life so far', which worryingly shows she's actively planning a way top it.

Perhaps run over a line of school children, flee the scene and then tweet about that?

[Psychosplodge]

I disagree, I think that scarf she went to court in was possibly the biggest mistake of her life.

[Mr Mystery]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4634670337428072&w=183&h=147&c=7&rs=1&url=http%3a%2f%2fcan-of-schlitz.blogspot.com%2f2011%2f05%2fmiracle-whip-vs-mayonnaise-mlb-style_04.html&pid=1.7

And a bit more from Aunty, including how everyone on the road can avoide being a jackydanny (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24987425)

[Wolfshade]

If you read that article the worst mistake was the tweet not the hit and run. I am glad that she is found guilty, after the initial incident she went on a PR offensive with each interview contradicting the previous and the whole thing was rather suspect.

I might disagree with the point of wearing helmets, the evidence for them is far from conclusive.

[Psychosplodge]

Well that was the only thing that got her caught wasn't it? silly girl...

[Mr Mystery]

And now she's going for sympathy, claiming she was cyberbullied (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25013820).

Settle down love. It's not like someone's knocked you off your bike and then nicked off is it?

[Psychosplodge]

No but did you see the mark on here paintwork the #bloodycyclist made?

[Wolfshade]

http://www.bloodycyclist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/0546B-CC09.jpg
Huzzah!

[Psychosplodge]

Not yet, but I can clip him if he wants?

[Wolfshade]

I am tempted to get that jersey or an I pay road tax one :)

http://ipayroadtax.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FredWhittonChallenge2011cr-682x1024.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

That's it. Upset the people that won't get hurt if they clip you... :D

[Wolfshade]

Well yes I did think it was akin to wearing a red shirt in a bull run / away mission.

[Psychosplodge]

probably...

[Wolfshade]

The single most bizarre exchange in the London Assembly that I have seen.


http://youtu.be/cKhfRfLQ85Q

[Wolfshade]

So one knee jerk reaction after another.

Borris considers banning lorries at peak times. For some context, lorries make up about 5% of london's traffic and yet are involved in the majority of collisions, London is Europes largest construction site and the lorries are needed to continue to feed the construction, a lot of these drivers get paid by the trip so are encouraged (or is that incentivised (shudder)) to make the journey as quick as possible.

and

Zero Tolerance Policing in the Capital, next week only. (that was supposed to be said in the deep trailer voice over voice). Traffic officers will be on duty on every major street, looking out for drivers using mobile phones, stopping in Advanced Stop Line ‘bike boxes’ and cyclists riding on the inside of HGVs. Given the previously highlighted lack of awareness of rules of the road I am not sure this is going to do anything. Also, why not do it continually, it is simple policing and can generate quite a nice revenue stream and the only way to enforce a certain behaviour.

[Psychosplodge]

Because its a lot more effort than sitting behind a camera in the back of the van getting someone doing 34mph in a 30mph zone.

[Wolfshade]

I will accept that a lot of drivers while less safe while on the phone are not dangerous a blurry line of distincition, but Tuesday I follow a white van with the driver on the phone and it was a nightmare. So, he drives past me on his phone, I am waiting to join the road he is on and I think, oh he is on the phone, he turns left without signalling, then meanders down the road all the while straddeling the white line, this road is wide enough to pass parked cars without crossing the white line down teh centre, then suddenly he brakes swings right and turns left. At no point did he ever get up to speed, indeed I usually cycle down that particular stretch faster than he was driving. It was seeing such appaling driving that makes me glad it was the middle of the day with no one around.

[Psychosplodge]

But was it the van, the phone, or both affecting his driving?

[Wolfshade]

Who knows, I would assume that it must be 'phone otherwise he wouldn't have passed a driving licence.

[Psychosplodge]

You'd think, but the number of people that change lane without even a glance in their mirror or over their shoulder is so high licence possession means nothing...

[Wolfshade]

Mandatory re-tests every 5 years?

[Psychosplodge]

Nope.
That'd just price the poor off the road.

[Wolfshade]

Huzzah!

That would drive the fuel cost down.

If the retest was free it would cost too much, unless it were free unless you failed? Governement only driving instructors to provide lessons at cost? Hmm impractical, too much government.

[Psychosplodge]

Nope, it'd drive it up to maintain profits, like energy saving measures have added to fuel bills...

[Psychosplodge]

Met chief wouldn't cycle in London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25052674)

[Wolfshade]

The question is what is the mayor's office doing?

[Wolfshade]

Hard hitting documentery of the phenomeon of "hulking" and it's application to sports science.


http://vimeo.com/74449197

[lattd]

What confuses me is cyclist who choose to have a tiny light on a bike while they wear dark clothes on a dark bike at night time without a helmet, so many times I want to shout at them to put a high vid or make themselves more visible!

[Wolfshade]

"Interestingly", with hi-viz becoming more common place it is often not the best colour to wear as it becomes part of the scenary. What is better is reflective material.
The helmet argument is very hard to talk about given the hugely conflicting research, some studies show helmet wearing increases collision rates.
As for tiny lights, the question is whether they have lights to be seen or to see. I often cycle in unlight area and on high beam it is equivalent to my cars full beam, so I am ok, but this light on low is washed out by normal low pressure sodium lamps.
I think it is also fair to say that there are a number of cars that drive around with headlights which either broken or just have side lights, which is annoying.

I have heard a conversation at work when one chap was complaining that cycle lights were too birght and they thought the oncoming light belong to a motorbike not a cycle.

[Psychosplodge]

It's the idiots with the flashing ones that annoy me.

[lattd]

Oh don't get me wrong I have just as many gripes with car drivers, even if I am one there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle be it two wheels or four but better road training for all is the way forward.

[Wolfshade]

Hmm I was wondering if there were specific laws regarding this.

Plenty it seems.

I know it is illegal to ride a bike without lights and reflectors between sunset and sunrise, though I can push it in the dark. (It seems strange dismounting and pushing a bike along the side of the road (where there is no pavement) makes me legal). The lights/reflectors must be clean when required.

You can have flashing lights if they are between 1-4 Hz, and are brighter than 4 candela.

Red ones on the back white on the front, same with reflectors, and on pedals too.

Sunrise and Sunset that is the times, not hours of darkness, so a cyclist has to light up about 30mins-hour before a car does. "Interestingly" they do not need to light up in reduced visibility like a fog bank, but I think that would be very wise.

[Psychosplodge]

Just cause they can have them doesn't mean they should. It might be because they aren't tilted away from oncoming traffic, but flashing lights of the type commonly used by cyclists just seem to really screw with my nightvision

[Wolfshade]

Yeah I know what you mean about them. I don't know why you would use them, since during the off phase you could easily hit a pothole. If you have the ability to be steady state why not do it?!

I also agree with you about the messing up night vision, they also distort where the bike really is. I have heard it argued that thye ar useful as only cyclists use them, but I don't really hold much truck with that. If I were to have a flashing front light, then I would only use it in built up areas and where I had a solid beam also on.

[Wolfshade]

Following the number of deaths in the capitol, the police decide to fine cyclists, that will improve safety...


All, can you please cascade this onto your troops. Officers have four months to do 40 cycle tickets. Ten per month, 2.5 a week. Most officers are nearing or have even achieved their other targets. This will give them a renewed focus for a while.

The whole point of Operation Safeway, was to improve rule compliance for all modes of transport, from red light jumping, to eating cereal, to entering box junctions illegal. Also, to advise road users where there behaviour/road craft could be improved.

Though this also included adivising people to wear hi-viz in teh same week determined research has shown that wearing it makes no discernable difference to how close you are passed in daylight hours.

Some serving Policemen, questioned how this policy of fining cyclists would help save lives, so it isn't all bad news, there is still some common sense in the met.

Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones, said that he did set a target of 40 tickets per officer, but not for fining cyclists specifically, 40 tickets per officer for "jumping traffic lights, careless or inconsiderate cycling, stopping in safe zones for cyclists at traffic lights or on cycle superhighways." and that Davies got the wrong end of the stick.
He goes on to say:

“The e-mail from the inspector was a genuine misinterpretation of my direction. The offences that relate to the cycle highway and advanced stop lines can actually only be committed by motorists; and contravening traffic lights is dangerous regardless of who commits it... Our intention from the very beginning has always been to target dangerous road use by all road users and encourage everyone who uses our roads to be responsible and consider others around them. I am grateful to The Times for bringing the issue to my attention, and that inspector has now issued a corrective instruction to his officers

[Psychosplodge]

See, now they're just like the motorist :D

[Wolfshade]

The Curious Case of Alex Paxton (

Summary :

Paxton could not use the "cycle box" so crossed the advanced stop line in order to move off in advance in spirit of the purpose of the advanced stop line. This was witnessed by a Police man who radioed a colllegue at it was this collegue who issued the fixed penalty notice.

---

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case this week on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction.

Specifically, Paxton's defence was that this maneourver put himself in a lesser danger than using the ASL as it was. The issuing officer did not see the incident so could not judge whether or not this was the case.

It seems like a common sense situation...

[Psychosplodge]

So what about those junctions where you will be there forever till you cross the induction loop that was there before they bothered painting the ASL box?

[Wolfshade]

It is why most junctions are switched to timers and the council should sort them out when they implement the paint, sorry asl.
The problem is also experianced by cyclists who do not have enough metal to set off the induction loops.

As an aside radar are better than loops, (loops are nortiously poorly constructed, often too deep) they are more sensative, and most importantly, far far far cheaper to install and maintain and so are replacing the loops.

[Mr Mystery]

Large part of the problem is that it's a real 'us and them' mentality on all sides, compounded by non-cohesive laws for road users of all stripes.

Highways Act could do with an overhaul to tackle this. When we stop treating cyclists as a 'special case' and lump them in with other road users, but with specific laws, then we'd erode the us and them mentality.

In particular, I'm in favour of 'when riding a pushbike of any description, you are part of the traffic. If you are caught switching from road to pavement, without following a cycle lane (many of which switch between the two surfaces) then the Police will chainsaw off your legs' as that is a pet hate of mine.

[Psychosplodge]

The police generally would prefer cyclists on pavements from what I remember when they're asked in interviews...

[Mr Mystery]

So they can menace pedestrians? Nah. Got wheels? Not a buggy or a pram, or a wheelchair or other mobility aid? Get on the road.

Especially those sodding microscooters.....

[Psychosplodge]

They just need to exercise courtesy... Oh right...

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Round Canary Wharf, they're fond of mounting pavements at traffic lights, whilst people wait to cross. One more tries that, and rings their girly little bell, and I'm going to chin them.

[Psychosplodge]

You ought to consider living somewhere a bit more civilised mystery.

[Mr Mystery]

Got to be where the work is!

[Psychosplodge]

I'm not sure southern weighting offsets the actual disadvantages of being down there.

[Deadlift]

I'm not sure southern weighting offsets the actual disadvantages of being down there.

Northern muppet ;)

[Wolfshade]

I agree with you, to some extent.

In built up commuter traffic most cyclists are part of the traffic flow, that is, because of the volume of traffic there is congestion and most can keep up with the speed of the vehicles around them, or indeed, exceed them. In such cases there needs to be no special consideration.

Outside of built up times/areas the difference between bike and car is really noticeable, yes I can make peak speeds of 40mph but outside of this it is almost impossible to cruise at traffic speeds (indeed this years Tour de France, average speed was about 25mph, and that is pack riding for the most part, Wiggins Olympic gold on the road was about 30mph..)

So you have a situation whereby you treat them the same, or you treat them differently.

If you treat them the same, then you have a near universality of law and no requirement for specific cycling infrastructure. Equality for all, despite the modes being less than equal. You would also need to change driver behaviour so that they only see "vehicle" regardless of class and treat them all the same, so same space when over taking, same minimum lighting requirements, same road laws.

Alternatively, you observe that they are different and so treat them differently, in the same way other class of vehicles are treated differently, HGV/LGV/Motorcycles/Horse/Coach/Minibus/Taxi. From this everything else flows, if you wish to encourage cycling because you think that it would have a net benefit on society/economy then you have to consider how best this is achieved. Ultimately, the best solution would be one where cyclists and motor vehicles are totally segregated, then you don't have to worry about how the two modes interact with each other and you can have things specifically designed for each, rather than being a compromise of the two. Because it is expensive and often impractical to have total segregation you end up with hybrid approaches, so you have the advanced stop lines and parallel on pavement cycle paths which aren't used which are often implemented to look like they are trying to be cycle friendly, when infact they end up being a waste of time and space as they are not clearly or correctly set out. Indeed in my own locality, there are two sets of ASLs which are technically illegal to enter as there is no filter lane.

I am a little confused by your wording because on the one had you are arguing against having cycles as a special case then have them being a special case.
At the moment all vehicles have to follow the same rules for signage and road use, even the ASL isn't an exception since the cyclist should never cross the stop line while a red light is showing while entering the box. The only notable exception is that Horse & Cycle do not need to obey speed limits.

If the government (local/national) is serious about tackling congestion then you need to take cars off the street which is better trains/trams/bus and better cycle facilities.
Trains and Trams are fine and great (until the tram runs along roads where it just adds to the congestion) as they are an "off road" solution so you are in real terms reducing the number of people on the road. But, trains and trams are often expensive uncomfortable and inconvient, especially as you move out of the urban sprawl.
Busses are a solution, but again are often expesnive, uncomforabtle and inconvienet, and if there is an accident then the bus is still sat in the same traffic the cars are in, so you end up having to have seperate bus lanes. Which in theory are good, but in reality, they end up taking out a lane of unrestricted usage halving the road capacity and making things twice as bad for the cars. So it does make the bus quicker, but you need about half of the car users to convert to the bus to get back to where you were before the bus lane was put in.
If you have a bus lane (as you want people to favour public modes) then it doesn't hurt to allow bikes along the bus lane, this in theory segregates them but then you end up with conflicts as buses need to stop to let people on/off so the lane has to be wide enough to get the cycle through or there needs to be another solution, like bus islands.
(similar to this : http://www.cyclemanual.ie/wp-content/uploads/5.1/5.1.5.2.2_Island-2_3D.jpg)

It is all a mess to be honest and I don't think that there is a quick win.

N

[Psychosplodge]

Northern muppet ;)

You're just jelly :p

[Mr Mystery]

I agree with you, to some extent.

In built up commuter traffic most cyclists are part of the traffic flow, that is, because of the volume of traffic there is congestion and most can keep up with the speed of the vehicles around them, or indeed, exceed them. In such cases there needs to be no special consideration.

Outside of built up times/areas the difference between bike and car is really noticeable, yes I can make peak speeds of 40mph but outside of this it is almost impossible to cruise at traffic speeds (indeed this years Tour de France, average speed was about 25mph, and that is pack riding for the most part, Wiggins Olympic gold on the road was about 30mph..)

So you have a situation whereby you treat them the same, or you treat them differently.

If you treat them the same, then you have a near universality of law and no requirement for specific cycling infrastructure. Equality for all, despite the modes being less than equal. You would also need to change driver behaviour so that they only see "vehicle" regardless of class and treat them all the same, so same space when over taking, same minimum lighting requirements, same road laws.

Alternatively, you observe that they are different and so treat them differently, in the same way other class of vehicles are treated differently, HGV/LGV/Motorcycles/Horse/Coach/Minibus/Taxi. From this everything else flows, if you wish to encourage cycling because you think that it would have a net benefit on society/economy then you have to consider how best this is achieved. Ultimately, the best solution would be one where cyclists and motor vehicles are totally segregated, then you don't have to worry about how the two modes interact with each other and you can have things specifically designed for each, rather than being a compromise of the two. Because it is expensive and often impractical to have total segregation you end up with hybrid approaches, so you have the advanced stop lines and parallel on pavement cycle paths which aren't used which are often implemented to look like they are trying to be cycle friendly, when infact they end up being a waste of time and space as they are not clearly or correctly set out. Indeed in my own locality, there are two sets of ASLs which are technically illegal to enter as there is no filter lane.

I am a little confused by your wording because on the one had you are arguing against having cycles as a special case then have them being a special case.
At the moment all vehicles have to follow the same rules for signage and road use, even the ASL isn't an exception since the cyclist should never cross the stop line while a red light is showing while entering the box. The only notable exception is that Horse & Cycle do not need to obey speed limits.

If the government (local/national) is serious about tackling congestion then you need to take cars off the street which is better trains/trams/bus and better cycle facilities.
Trains and Trams are fine and great (until the tram runs along roads where it just adds to the congestion) as they are an "off road" solution so you are in real terms reducing the number of people on the road. But, trains and trams are often expensive uncomfortable and inconvient, especially as you move out of the urban sprawl.
Busses are a solution, but again are often expesnive, uncomforabtle and inconvienet, and if there is an accident then the bus is still sat in the same traffic the cars are in, so you end up having to have seperate bus lanes. Which in theory are good, but in reality, they end up taking out a lane of unrestricted usage halving the road capacity and making things twice as bad for the cars. So it does make the bus quicker, but you need about half of the car users to convert to the bus to get back to where you were before the bus lane was put in.
If you have a bus lane (as you want people to favour public modes) then it doesn't hurt to allow bikes along the bus lane, this in theory segregates them but then you end up with conflicts as buses need to stop to let people on/off so the lane has to be wide enough to get the cycle through or there needs to be another solution, like bus islands.
(similar to this : http://www.cyclemanual.ie/wp-content/uploads/5.1/5.1.5.2.2_Island-2_3D.jpg)

It is all a mess to be honest and I don't think that there is a quick win.

N

I just want it to be covered by a single Road Traffic Law, so the rules for Cars, HGV, Bus, Taxi, Cycle, Donkey, Pogo Stick etc are all laid out in the same place, even if they apply differently or have their own caveats. This will help to break down the 'us and them' that occurs at the moment.

Plus, how about an actual cycling proficiency test? Legal one. As in 'want to ride a bike as an adult on the road, then you had better sit your test'. Include hazard perception and that. Right now, it's all on the motorists, and seeing how idiotic/suicidal some cyclists can be, that's just not fair. Like the cyclist I see on my way home. Tottering off up the road, wobbling from side to side, no reflectors, no lights, no helmet, taking that hill in the highest possible gear, and causing a tailback....when just to their left there's a generously porportioned cycle lane....

PArt of the law? If there's a cycle lane....you must use it.

[Wolfshade]

It is a mine field there are 36 different laws (just including the latest amendments) that pertain to "The Highway Code". Trying to make one consolidated bill would be a nightmare, and this is excluding things like "lights must be up to British/EU standard" then the standard being laid out elsewhere.
For some parts I think it makes sense others not so much. The highway code does a good job as a single consolidated peice.

I would be in favour of a cycling proficiency test (now called bikeability), but, if it were to be a barrier to cycling then it would not be a good thing. One also needs to consider how dangerous they are.
Number of people killed by cyclists : 0
Number of people killed by vehicles: 1,754
Clearly, a motorised vehicle is much more dangerous and so requires much more strict teaching. When you include the wider seriously injured (normally you would KSI rates) then it becomes even more apparent. DfT figures suggest that between 60-75% of all collisions are solely the fault of the driver, compared with 17-25% for the cyclist (adult only, under 18s this figure is somewhat higher). So clearly the vast majority of the responsibility should be on those most likely to cause the accident, i.e. the motorist.

The slippery slope argument (how I hate these) is that pedestrians far more commonly cause accidents and cause themselves to be injured than cyclists so do you propose a mandatory test for them?

You only need reflects and lights if you are cycling in the hours between sunset and sunrise. Helmet wearing is not compulsory and in studies shows that it exposes the rider to greater risk. But as for your cyclist going up the hill, if you are to treat him as a car then he has every right to go up that hill at whatever speed is appropriate, in the sameway if you were stuck behind a milk float, you have no right to make the speed limit, just a responsibility not to exceed it.
I take your point about the cycle lane, but I wouldn't make it madatory, indeed, governmental advice is that if you go faster than 16mph you shouldn't use them (as you are going too fast for pedestrians). But with most cycle lanes they are poorly concieved and inadequate.
Take for instance one that I regularly don't use:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCMGWoilgIU/UDY7dvUo8oI/AAAAAAAAAGM/4ex1lBQxL0s/s1600/Untitled.png
If I use the road, I have priority and no obstructions. If I were to follow the cycle routes, I have to stop for each lights, negotiate all the lamp-posts that are in the way, the pedestrians who pay no heed to the markings on the pavement, the bus stops, the parked cars obstructing my views.
Not to mention the on road facilities are often too narrow, full of debris, iron works and parked cars. Oh yeah and the buses that pull in and out again forcing you out of them.
In actuality, the number of times the box jucntion is illegally obstructed means that it is quicker at times to use the toucan crossings.

[Wolfshade]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/12/1/1385902593069/Die-in_pic_main.jpg

An estimated 1,000+ cyclists demonstrated outside TfL over the recent spate of deaths, by performing a "Die-In", think flash mob meets planking. Though this was pre-arranged and there was suitable policing of the event.

[Psychosplodge]

If they all got back up, they're doing it wrong.

[Wolfshade]

Unless they shabbled...

[Wolfshade]

Birmingham City Council have just annouced that from a 10 camera trial over an 11 week period they have raised fines worth £1.7million from illegal use of bus lanes. To put it into context, that is almost 60,000 drivers or 780 per day. So far 933 appeals with 272 upheld ~30%.

[Mr Mystery]

Heres a thing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25018543)

Think it was mentioned before in this thread (or something akin to it). Seems like a really good idea to me.

[Wolfshade]

The infalting helmet was, thgouh it would do little to stop you being crushed under the wheels of a tipper truck...

[Mr Mystery]

The infalting helmet was, thgouh it would do little to stop you being crushed under the wheels of a tipper truck...

See, Trams used to have 'Cow Catchers', which from how they've been described to me by my (now deceased) Granddad were a sort of gate that would swing down to prevent people going under the tram's wheels, not only saving lives of pedestrians and cyclists, but also helping to prevent derailment of the tram.

Surely trucks could have something like that installed. Even if it's only an 'under the carriage' airbag. A bit like the inflatable gutter guards at a bowling alley. And yes I'm being serious.

Turns a severe squishing into a series of broken bones.

[Wolfshade]

Cow catchers were good ideas.

There is an attempt to get the hgvs to have the same sort of things, current designs (apparently) pull things down under the wheels and not pushing them away.
The trouble is that the construction vehicles (or at least this is what the construction vehicle lobby says) is that often they operate on non-paved roads and so need the big open wheels without obstructions otherwise the ground would be impassable to them.

It wasn't too long ago that articulated lorries didn't need to have a cage between the hinge and the rear wheels so you could drive under them.

[Mr Mystery]

So have them 'redeployable'.

Down when driving on proper roads, only raisable when doing under a specific speed (linked to a speed limiter).

All issues solved there. After all, just how fast are you likely to drive an HGV down a potholed dirt track anyway?

[Wolfshade]

Who knows?

There are lots of things that can be done, some of them are inexpesnive, like all body sensors. There was a conference a couple of months ago looking at radically redsiging the lorry which would have a siginficant beneficial impact on fuel economy and reducing blind spots though by how much it is unknown only that it "would". Also as part of teh conference was extending them by a further 8.5m which is not an insiginificant amount and would only further compound urban lorrying as already a large number of junctions aren't "lorry friendly" i.e. the lorry cannot perform a turn (either bend in road, roundabout or turn at junction) without signficantly infringing on surrounding lanes.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_images/bc_campaigning/2013/20130712_lorry_hgv_MAN-Concept_S.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

After all, just how fast are you likely to drive an HGV down a potholed dirt track anyway?



As fast as possible?

[Mr Mystery]

If only they hadn't gutted the rail network.....

Silly short sightedness.

[Wolfshade]

It is cheaper to move frieght on the road rather than rail. Also, rail could only ever provide a partial solution and would have to be moved on road from the station/depot to site.

[Mr Mystery]

Still better than honking great lorries clogging up our motorways and that.

And at the risk of sounding a bit....shall we say UKIP....it would dramatically reduce the number of left hand drive lorries on our roads, which are a bloody menace.

[Wolfshade]

Don't get me wrong I do agree with you. Another solution is to use the canals again. You can transport a tremendous amount of stuff on them, and some very heavy loads. Further more as you are floating it is quite fuel efficient and most cities have canal ways. (Fun Fact: Birmingham has more miles of canals than Venice)

[Mr Mystery]

That's very true.

We need to get freight moving in other ways. As mentioned already, not all of our roads are built for it, and many (due to our historically avant garde approach to town planning) can't be made safe for it.

It's inevitable that some will end up on the road, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore other possibilities, especially in cities where it could significantly relieve traffic pressure.

[Wolfshade]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3941085.ece

At the top of the video shows how priority lights for roundabouts work.

What it shows is that people fundamentally do not understand how people will use them. What would end up happening, unless the cycle lane was physically segregated, upon seeing the cycle light was red and the motorist light was green the cyclists would just merge and be on the roundabout anyway... I am also concerned what this additional delay in the timings would have on the through put of the roundabout and how it would interact with all the other traffic light controlled junctions in the area.

[Traffic light timings are a complicated business and how they interact with other nearby junctions is even more so, so to optimise them is a seriously non-trivial excercise]

[Wolfshade]

Allow me to introduce Maria Leijerstam, a welshwoman aiming to cycle to the southpole.
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/Maria%20Leijerstam/Maria%20Leijerstam%20riding%20(%C2%A9%20whiteicecy cle).jpg
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/preview_500/images/Maria%20Leijerstam/Maria%20ICEland.jpg

She is aiming to be the first, though there are others

Spaniard Juan Menendez Granados is already on the continent with a normal upright, though with the weather he has been unable to cycle yet.
American Daniel Burton is on the continent and has done about 5 or 6 nautical miles.


Follow her ride here: http://www.whiteicecycle.com/

[Psychosplodge]

Rather her than me.

[Wolfshade]

Gustaf Håkansson – the 'steel grandpa'
(full story: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/dec/11/gustaf-hakansson-sweden-cycle-race)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2013/12/11/1386759379340/Bike-blog--Swedish-Gustaf-006.jpg

Short story: Gustaf won a 1,000 mile race after being told he was too old to take part.

Longer story: The year was 1951, Gustaf a spritely 66-year-old signs up to race in a 1,000 mile race traversing most of Sweden only to be told that he had neither the strength nor the stamina to compete with the other racers at half his age.

Unpreturbed, he cycles 600 miles to the starting line and on the race day turns up with a homemade bib with a number 0, his trusty roadster, panniers, mudguards and a lamp.

Five days, five hours and 1,000 miles later rather than seeing a slender 30-something cross the winning line, this wizened grandpa comes flying over the line with his beard blowing in the wind. The second place was over a day behind him.

Håkansson of course cheated, well as much as someone not allowed in a race can cheat. The other riders were forced to stop and meet at a check point at the end of the day. Gustaf had no such truck with ideas, instead he stopped for an hour for a quick nap then back on the road.

Media at the time was less interested in the race as when the steel grandpa would carp it, with police trying to stop him to have a medical, he laughed passed them. He did befall one problem, with 800yrds to go he gain his first puncture. Dismounted and pushed his bike then with a few yards to go remounted to cross the line.

[Wolfshade]

Wow:


http://youtu.be/HhabgvIIXik

[DarkLink]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3941085.ece

At the top of the video shows how priority lights for roundabouts work.

What it shows is that people fundamentally do not understand how people will use them. What would end up happening, unless the cycle lane was physically segregated, upon seeing the cycle light was red and the motorist light was green the cyclists would just merge and be on the roundabout anyway... I am also concerned what this additional delay in the timings would have on the through put of the roundabout and how it would interact with all the other traffic light controlled junctions in the area.

[Traffic light timings are a complicated business and how they interact with other nearby junctions is even more so, so to optimise them is a seriously non-trivial excercise]

Yeah, while roundabouts reduce fatal car accidents, they tend to increase minor collisions. Which isn't a big deal for cars, but minor collisions aren't so minor for cyclists.

[Wolfshade]

That is an interesting view point, over here a significant number of junctions are round-a-bouts so the consequence on collision rates is not investigated. Looking at the articles I wonder how much of that is because they are not common place, whereas over here they are. The preference for them is more to do with the increased flow rates through a junction, but then they mess about with them with traffic light controls and different lane controls, i.e. some have two or three concentric lanes, others have lanes that spiral out from the centre.

[DarkLink]

I don't know about the priority lights, but I'm just speaking as a civil engineer. Albeit transportation was not my main focus, but the rule of thumb for roundabouts is that you have more accidents of less severity. The reason is pretty simple. Roundabouts have a lot more moving parts, coming from awkward directions that makes it difficult to see if you're going to hit someone if you try and merge over or something, whereas a traditional intersection you just stop at red, go at green, and you don't have to worry about getting clipped from behind. However, since all the traffic in a roundabout is going the same direction at low speeds, cars just kind of bump into each other and leave a fairly minor dent. In a traditional intersection, if someone blows a red light and tbones someone, that's two totaled cars and probably a few hospital trips.

Now, I haven't really studied the priority light stuff, but it seems to me at a quick glance that it kind of defeats the purpose of the roundabout. Roundabouts keep traffic moving more smoothly than a traditional intersection, at the minor expensive of introducing more complexity that increases the minor accident rate. You get generally higher volume and lower major accidents. Adding lights back in removes the advantage of higher volume, and if people blow through red lights in normal intersections they'll blow through them in roundabouts as well, so I don't see there being an advantage in major accidents.

Just my initial thoughts after watching the video.

[Wolfshade]

No it is quite right, though sometimes if the different feeder streams are not sufficiently balanced then the roundabout will become in effect closed to certain directions which is then countered by using lights to balance, though this works best on roundabouts which are large enough to allow multiple green lights on different sections of the round about at the same time, though of course this isn't quite as good as when you have a nicely balanced exit/entry points.

I was just wondering if there were a cutural bias between areas that have roundabouts as part of the normal traffic infrastructure like in the UK, to them being a much rarer beast in the states.

Let us see what mythbusters say:

http://youtu.be/OvoFjirrgYA

Of course also on the down side is that roundabouts take up much more room, but seem to deal with more than 4 directions easier, though with a grid layout system that is dominant in the states (and other cities) this is less of a problem.

I think in terms of cycle friendly, minimal impact the dutch solution is the nicer one, there is an "outter ring" that is bike only
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69167000/jpg/_69167075_dutchroundabout_tfl_624.jpg

Of course then there are some round abouts which are beyond help:
http://americanlivewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rotatoriaMagica.jpg

[DarkLink]

It's definitely true that you can't just freely swap out lights with roundabouts. Each has its advantages, and there are places where one is clearly better than the other. If you need to place five roundabouts concentrically about a central roundabout, you probably should have just stuck with traditional lights. But sometimes city planners are like "oooohhhh, pretty, can we have one", and engineers just hang their heads and sigh.

[Psychosplodge]

I'd imagine the magic roundabout probably flows better than lights would, especially at rush hour.

[Wolfshade]

The magic roundabout flows really quite well, the issue comes when it is used by non-locals.

[Wolfshade]

Ventura County says no to fixies

(http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/dec/11/fixed-gear-bikes-banned-on-county-park-trails/)


A hit-and-run collision between two bicyclists on the Ojai Valley Trail left one man critically injured. A second rider fled after the crash but apparently was riding a bicycle without brakes at a high speed, according to parks director Ron Van Dyck.

[Fixies are bikes without a free wheel, so the pedals will continue to rotate while the bike is in motion, they often have only a front brake, or none at all, the the rider forcing the pedal stationary to stop the bike]

But what I find strange is the cause and effect. Or rather a rule waiting for an excuse.

Imagine a pedestrian to be hit by 4x4 in a hit and run, would the county then ban 4x4s?

Seems a little over the top, certainly I can see the reason for banning brakeless bikes, that makes sense, but to ban them owing to 1 incident, a little ott.

[Psychosplodge]

Fixies sound dangerous, just the idea of the pedals whipping round when you don't need them to.

[Wolfshade]

The idea is that you always have your feet on them, they are great on the flat, but the lack of gearing can be a bit of a *****. They are cheaper and lighter than geared option so are often used for bike couriers, or even some communting bikes also they require much less maintance.

Also they are hipster and indie, ugh.

[Wolfshade]

The idea is that you always have your feet on them, they are great on the flat, but the lack of gearing can be a bit of a *****. They are cheaper and lighter than geared option so are often used for bike couriers, or even some communting bikes also they require much less maintance.

Also they are hipster and indie, ugh.

[Wolfshade]

Boris Bike vs Mount Ventoux

Can you rent out a Boris Bike, drive across France, ride up Mont Ventoux and get back to London in 24 hours?


http://www.youtube.com/embed/HUWCeAzkc2Q

Mont Ventoux has become legendary as the scene of one of the most grueling climbs in the Tour de France bicycle race, which has ascended the mountain fifteen times since 1951. The mountain achieved worldwide notoriety when it claimed the life of British cyclist Tom Simpson, who died here on July 13, 1967 from heat exhaustion caused by a combination of factors, including dehydration (caused by lack of fluid intake and diarrhea), amphetamines, and alcohol, although there is still speculation as to the exact cause of his death

[Psychosplodge]

Well? can you? I'm feeling lazy...

[Wolfshade]

Back in the docking station 23:59:38..

[Psychosplodge]

Brilliant.

[Wolfshade]

Well so we had the Boris bike up the Ventoux, now we have the Boris bike in Gambia:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/News/Boris%20Bike%20in%20the%20Gambia%20(source%20Ben%2 0Phillips%20on%20Twitter).jpg
(Ben Phillips on Twitter)

Chris Tierney said; "That's a hell of a commute, but with property prices these days...", while Ian Sanders wrote; "Good luck finding a docking station."

Lee Sam said: "That's a long distance cyclist there,"

BBC London's Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards added: "Some overcharge on that bad boy."

It is still unclear how the bicycle came to be in Africa.

A Transport for London (TfL) spokesman said it was a real Boris bike and that they were sometimes donated to African charities.

He said: "We have previously given a number of bikes to charities in Africa. We are still trying to work out where this particular one came from."

[Psychosplodge]

Do double white lines apply to cyclists?

[Wolfshade]

As in those down the middle of the road to denote no over taking?

[Psychosplodge]

Those would be the ones.

[Wolfshade]

I shall investigate, I know that they have recently (within the last 5 years or so) made an excemption to how they work for motorised carridges (cars), as to whether or not they apply specifically to non-motorised transport I shall investigate, in the mean time:


129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

My initial thoughts are that it should do as it resides in a block of rules headed "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)" how this interacts with filtering and other things I shall explore!

[Psychosplodge]

Some idiot was on local news complaining about buses/lorries but was crossing them while doing it... (footage was helmet cam) While the bus was slowish, it didn't look to be sub 10mph...

[Wolfshade]

I am almost sure that all road users regardless of method of locomotion have to obey road markings.
Standard caveats apply (this is my personal opinion, it may not represent reality, this is not advice etc.)

If the road is wide enough then you can overtake/filter regardless of speed if you remain within the lane, i.e. not crossing the white line.

If the vehicle you are overtaking is stationary you can pass it, as long as it is safe to do so, regardless of what it is.
If the vehicle is a cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle you can pass them if they are travelling under 10mph.

The cyclist was in the wrong from your account, a bus/car/lorry as long as it is moving cannot be overtaken even if it is travelling at 0.1 mph.

[Psychosplodge]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2j636g6.gif

[Wolfshade]

BoJo says no to fantastical suspended veloroutes

http://www.lbc.co.uk/ask-boris-on-lbc-watch-in-full-73708

architects impression:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria_600/images/News/SkyCycle%20image%20(picture%20-%20Foster%20and%20Partners).jpg

The initial stretch works out about £34 million per kilometre, which while expensive is still much cheaper than the M74 extension which was about £86.5 million per km...

I have no idea...

[Psychosplodge]

I think £34M/km is ridiculous when you think about whats involved in building that type of thing. You're just sinking holes and erecting posts, it's essentially like fencing for the most part. The actual cycle way should be relatively easy to lay after...

[Wolfshade]

It is a silly idea. They would recoup the cost by charging £1/journey...

Of course the better idea would be to sink the cars below the surface and you could also do some carbon capture on the emission gas and leave the surface to bus, cycle and pedestrians...Or just not bother with the whole lunacy...

[Wildeybeast]

Of course it's silly. If that things up there, it will get int the way of the hover cars.

[Psychosplodge]

you were born post 1980, you were never promised hovercars, you were promised a cyberpunk dystopia, and they delivered...

[Wildeybeast]

No, I was promised time travelling hover cars. And hover boards.

[Psychosplodge]

That's a film, I thought you meant the annual futurologists guessing what the future holds...

[Wildeybeast]

A who doing what now?

[Psychosplodge]

Those people the news pull out from under their rocks every newyear to tell us whats going to happen.

[Wildeybeast]

Oh them. Nope, I refer to get my future predictions from films. For a start they are more reliable

[Wolfshade]

A TAXI driver has been found guilty of deliberately swerving into a cycling policeman.

A jury at Bolton Crown Court heard how Ivor McAiney was having a hot drink as he drove his private hire Astra car in Market Street, Farnworth, at 6.40am on April 16 last year. Adam Lodge, prosecuting, told the court that DC Adam Gleave was also on the road, cycling to work in Farnworth, when he was forced to brake by McAiney who, cup in hand, performed a u-turn in front of him.

DC Gleave pointed at the motorist, indicating he should watch where he was going, but further along the road McAiney drew level with the officer, wound down his window and shouted an obscenity at him. The court heard he then jerked his steering wheel to the left, trapping the cyclist between the taxi and a parked car. DC Gleave banged on the Astra to get McAiney to stop.

McAiney drove off and the cycle toppled over, with DC Gleave’s feet still clipped into the pedals. His wrists were bruised in the fall and his clothing and bike damaged. But he managed to get the model and partial number plate of the car and police arrested McAiney an hour later at the S and D taxi office.

McAiney, aged 52, of St Germain Street, Farnworth, denied assault causing actual bodily harm and dangerous driving but, following a two-day trial, a jury unanimously convicted him. Judge Timothy Stead will decide whether McAiney should be jailed or not at a sentencing hearing on February 10 and granted him bail in the meantime.

From:http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/crime/10930821.Taxi_driver_deliberately_swerved_into_pol ice_officer_on_bike/?ref=nt

[Wolfshade]

Brompton World Championships:

The Brompton World Championships is a serious affair, with a Le Mans style start, our intrepid velocipes race to unfold their bikes, then with ties flapping in the breeze race to the finish.

http://blog.brooksengland.com/wps/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Brompton-start-4.jpg_e_af8ba28684316da01e58114594b09e57.jpg

Sensible attire is required, no lycra, no shorts. Trousers or skirts along with a shirt and tie (or bow-tie), and jackets.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/2899781094_3faf184a30_m.jpg

[Mr Mystery]

Edinburgh plans £10m cross-city cycle path (http://m.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/10m-cycle-path-to-cut-through-heart-of-edinburgh-1-3267478).

Motorist groups throw teddy from pram. Despite the city having effective and extremely reasonably priced public transport meaning few actually need to use a private car....

[Psychosplodge]

seems disproportionate to spend £10m for the twenty or thirty people that will use it.

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno man. Dedicated cross-city cycle route, separated from pedestrians and traffic? In a busy city? Seems pretty appealing.

And £10m is nowt these days.

[Psychosplodge]

If it was seperated it wouldn't be holding up the motorists.
Like when they built our trams to cut journey times, and then built half the route down the roads, so if there's traffic it justs sits there too...

They'd be better just giving it me so I could retire.

[Wolfshade]

£10m isn't too bad.

Works out about £20/person (based on whole population circa 495,000). Cheaper than the tram at £595m, or the £292 million spend on roads. Which to put into context, that the £10million is a capital project not an ongoing cost, unlike the £292m which is a continued commitment.

The point is that you can acutally fold other projects into it, like isntalling fibre-optic cable under it (http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/NEWS/10929805.New_cycle_route_could_lead_to_faster_broa dband/?ref=rss)
Also, they need to do something to address congestion, history shows that the more capacity you install into road systems the more congestion you create. The more money spent on cycling the more cyclists you get which has benefits in health, congestion reduction etc.

[Wolfshade]

NEWS FLASH: Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement
In other news: the term "responsible" remains undefined.

Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.

The confirmation came in an email sent to a cycle campaigner in London just two days after the Metropolitan Police confirmed nearly 1,000 cyclists had been fined for pavement cycling as part of its Operation Safeway.

In a letter emailed to Donnachadh McCarthy of the pressure group Stop Killing Cyclists, which has recently held protests outside the headquarters of Transport for London (TfL) on Southwark Bridge Road and at Vauxhall Cross, the minister said that original guidance issued by the Home Office 15 years ago when Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were introduced, and repeated in 2004, was still valid.

That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999 said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

[Wolfshade]

This made me feel quite sick.

A suspected drunk driver in Brazil has been arrested after driving six kilometres with a dying cyclist embedded in his windscreen.

Jose Adil Simioni, 58, was stopped by other motorists who blocked his car in busy traffic. Witnesses at first thought the body was a doll and they were seeing some sort of prank, but it turned out to be Marco Aurelio Dlovski who was on his way home from work when Simioni hit him on a bend. Simioni, allegedly too drunk to realise what had happened, carried on driving with Marco’s body slumped on his car.

CCTV footage shows a motorcyclist blocking Simioni, and then onlookers surrounding his car in Pinhiaius, near the town of Curitiba, in south-east Brazil. Marco was pronounced dead on the scene by paramedics who covered the 31-year-old’s body with a white sheet before freeing his body from the windscreen.

Eye-witness Viriginia Cordeiro, who helped stop Simioni’s car, said: “People thought at first it was a doll on top of the car. When I realised it was a person I began shouting to other motorists to stop it.”

One police officer said:“The driver was quite clearly drunk and had trouble walking. We had to bundle him into the back of our patrol car quickly to save him being attacked by onlookers.”

Simioni faces manslaughter and drink-drive charges.

There is a video of this, for once I am grateful for my proxy server..

[Psychosplodge]

How many points do you get for a cyclist?

[Wolfshade]

Readers are warned that they may find this video distressing
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=2bb4c21b3620

[Wolfshade]

From a blog:

Here’s how not to be a dick to a female cyclist in six simple steps*


1. Do not fetishise her

Women on bikes don’t want your pervy comments any more than they want your rude ones. Victoria Pendleton probably gets a tiny bit of sick in her mouth every time some guy tells her how much he likes to look at her in cycling shorts.

Many women already feel self-conscious putting it all on show, so make like you haven’t noticed it, okay?

If you have some creepy thing about tight Lycra, keep it to yourself, or look online for some like-minded weirdos to share it with instead.

2. Do not harass her

I know you might not be one of them, but those guys exist. The ones who shout things out of car windows, or worse, film your arse as you ride along (yep, it happens). Don’t do it - it’s probably illegal and it’s never ended well for any guy who’s tried it with me.

3. Don’t put mean comments under reviews of women’s clothing

When we review women’s clothing at road.cc, we do it so women know whether a bit of gear is worth forking out for. When we photograph a woman wearing it, we do it so she gets a vague idea of whether she likes the look of it.

What we don’t do is photograph it so you get to leer all over that woman in tight clothing, comment on whether or not she is ‘really’ a cyclist or suggest some super-helpful diet or exercise tips for her to look more like a ‘real’ cyclist.

Besides being unpleasant for the woman in the picture, take a second to think about how an 'ordianary' woman thinking about taking up riding is going to feel about the reception she might get.

4. Don’t put mean comments under reviews of men’s clothing, either

One of our male reviewers often gets mocked for being too skinny, and some bloke last week decided to point out that he doesn’t have 'proper cyclists legs' - which was quite funny as he's just got a semi-pro contract with a Belgian team for the season.

Just don’t body snark - it just makes you look like a dick.

5. Do speak out

If you see a woman (or a man) getting abused for any reason, do speak out. Tell that person their Tweet wasn’t cool. Call out the pervy guy on the club run. The person on the receiving end will be grateful and if 0.00001% of knobs change their attitude because of what you said, that’s still progress.

6. Don’t give unsolicited ‘advice’

The girls you know who cycle might really want your advice on what protein shakes to have for breakfast, or how sprint intervals will make them leaner, or whatever. If they want it, they’ll ask.

If they don’t, they’ll just carry on riding whatever bike they chose, wearing whatever they picked out for the purpose, eating whatever tastes good. But thanks for your concern.

[Psychosplodge]

Woe betide anyone exercising freedom of choice (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572)

[Wolfshade]

So the ASA knows more about cycling than Cycle Scotland. I have issues with the "See Cyclist, Think Horse", but their response here is quite apt. There claim helmets increase safety is less than unanimous with several papers showing that they are detrimental to safety. ROSPA acknowledge that the safest place is in the middle of the carriageway.

[Wolfshade]

Presumably the ACA will also require all of the Highway Codes to be stopped as they feature this image:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as _much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg
Very similiar to the issue they raised in the advert

Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic

Also, there is no reference to riding within .5m of the parking line anywhere to be found, utter drivel.

[Psychosplodge]

Whats a parking line?

[Wolfshade]

Sorry, technically it doesn't exist, if it were to, it would be either a "edge marking" like the solid white line that denotes the difference between running lane and hard shoulder. But most roads don't have them, or any edgemarking or parking restriction (sing/double yellows)

[Mr Mystery]

So the ASA knows more about cycling than Cycle Scotland. I have issues with the "See Cyclist, Think Horse", but their response here is quite apt. There claim helmets increase safety is less than unanimous with several papers showing that they are detrimental to safety. ROSPA acknowledge that the safest place is in the middle of the carriageway.

Indeed. There is no reason for a cyclist to hug the kerb. They're a legal road user, and should be given requisite space.

I remember when I was a nipper, we were told to give them the same space you'd give a Mini.

[Psychosplodge]

I was told give them enough space to fall off.

[Wolfshade]

The road positioning argument is an emotive one. Firstly, the only rule is that you should stay to the left of the centre white line (if it exists), other than that you are free to go where you like.

To summarise two stereotypical positions

The Driver:
I want to be able to pass cyclists without interuption to my travelling. This means the cyclists should be as near the curb as possible so I can pass without changing lanes.

The Cyclist:
I want to cycle on the safest peice of road.

For me, it is a matter of compromise, and I am sure that my positioning has annoyed drivers and will continue to do so.

There are essentially two positions "primary" and "secondary". The primary position is the centre of the lane, this is the safest position to take up, and is very defensive. I use this position for three purposes, i) When there are no cars behind me, ii) When I am travelling at the speed of the traffic, and iii) To discourage overtaking. Point 3 is the most contentious as it is a deliberate impeeding approach. I use it on blind corners or on the approach to pinch points/bollards or other obstructions that could force a car to pass me either too close, or might cause a car to have to swerve into me to avoid any obstacles.
The secondary position is about where my passengerside wheels of my car would go, or in the middle of the third of a lane that is closest to the curb. From this position my visibility is reduced and is a more risky loaction (people expect to see vehicles in the middle of the lane and so look there not at the edges). I use it when my speed is less than traffic, the point is that it makes it easier for the car/lorry to overtake me. And the slower I go the more to the curb I tend to get, but this is fraught with difficulties as it is next to the curb where the majority of iron works are, which are very slippy, and where there is tremendous amounts of detritus. Because of the camber of the road this is also where water pools and where most potholes appear so it is more tricky.

It is quite awkward to get it right but it is a balancing act between my percieved safety and other road users convience.

[Wolfshade]

On the back of rising train fares and fuel prices, ever greater numbers of commuters are getting on their bikes, as the cycle to work scheme sees a huge growth in uptake. With today’s RPI figures highlighting that regulated rail fares are to increase, on average, by 4.1% next January, increasing numbers of employees are opting to reap the benefits of cycling to work as a cheap and healthy way to commute.

Figures published today by the Cycle to Work Alliance (Cyclescheme, Cycle Solutions, Evans Cycles and Halfords) highlight a 22.5% increase in take up in the second quarter of 2013, when compared to the same period in 2012. This follows a similarly large 19.3% year-on-year increase for the first quarter of 2013.

Overall, the second quarter has seen the scheme encouraging over 29,000 new cyclists to commute to work by bike, with over 44,000 new cyclists signing up to the scheme in the first half of this year. With MPs set to debate the findings of the Get Britain Cycling report in Parliament on 2nd September, these latest figures highlight the desire and interest among the UK population to take up cycling and demonstrates that the cycle to work scheme remains a proven, cost effective and affordable way for individuals to do so.

[Wolfshade]

Justice for All


A South Wales man who claimed he had been blinded by the sun has been jailed for a year for causing the death of a cyclist through careless driving in August last year, with the judge who sentenced him saying he had failed "to adjust to a natural, not uncommon, hazard."

Mr Jones, from Wales, was knocked off his biked by Michael Bisi then ran over by a following car. Both drivers stopped at the scene with Bisi, accourding to a witness stated "I think I clipped him". Leaving a peice of pape on the cyclist with his name mis-spelt and his telephone number, missin a digit, cynical perhaps?

When the Police eventually traced him down, he told them he didn't believe that he had touched the cyclist. When the Police pointed to the damage to the front and side of his car, he admitted he might have done.

Bisi's car would have been unable to pass an mot owing to defects with tyres and lights or so pressed the prosecution. Bisi pleaded guilty to this but by way of mitigation said that he was blinded by blow sun and so would not have seen Jones for 10 seconds.

Judge Rees said: “Your decision to leave the scene is hard to understand. Regrettably, the impression given to the deceased’s family is that you were fleeing the scene and showed callous disregard for his welfare...You made no attempt to contact the police yourself...This was a serious failure to adjust to a natural, not uncommon, hazard of low sun. Given the width of the road, it is hard to understand why you failed to give Mr Jones a wide berth...You did stop, but then left without giving adequate details of your identity...Previous convictions for driving offences all point to a general disregard for road safety.”

The previous convictions were five convictions for driving while disqualified and unisured, a fine for driving while using a mobile phone and a fine for driving with defective tyres.

Bisi is sentenced to a 12 month prison sentence, banned from driving for two years and a fine of £120.

The imposition of a custodial sentence on Bisi for that lesser offence of causing death by careless driving in a case in which a cyclist is the victim is relatively uncommon, the usual, low sun is mitigation enough normally to kill someone...

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26034659

[Wolfshade]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26034659


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26034659

Is this where I post my Strava segments showing an average 30mph, Peaks of 45mph? Oh yess, science it works britches!


Also so you can post things that have already been covered before.

Gosh what a n00b.

:p

[Wildeybeast]

Justice for All



Mr Jones, from Wales, was knocked off his biked by Michael Bisi then ran over by a following car. Both drivers stopped at the scene with Bisi, accourding to a witness stated "I think I clipped him". Leaving a peice of pape on the cyclist with his name mis-spelt and his telephone number, missin a digit, cynical perhaps?

When the Police eventually traced him down, he told them he didn't believe that he had touched the cyclist. When the Police pointed to the damage to the front and side of his car, he admitted he might have done.

Bisi's car would have been unable to pass an mot owing to defects with tyres and lights or so pressed the prosecution. Bisi pleaded guilty to this but by way of mitigation said that he was blinded by blow sun and so would not have seen Jones for 10 seconds.

Judge Rees said: “Your decision to leave the scene is hard to understand. Regrettably, the impression given to the deceased’s family is that you were fleeing the scene and showed callous disregard for his welfare...You made no attempt to contact the police yourself...This was a serious failure to adjust to a natural, not uncommon, hazard of low sun. Given the width of the road, it is hard to understand why you failed to give Mr Jones a wide berth...You did stop, but then left without giving adequate details of your identity...Previous convictions for driving offences all point to a general disregard for road safety.”

The previous convictions were five convictions for driving while disqualified and unisured, a fine for driving while using a mobile phone and a fine for driving with defective tyres.

Bisi is sentenced to a 12 month prison sentence, banned from driving for two years and a fine of £120.

The imposition of a custodial sentence on Bisi for that lesser offence of causing death by careless driving in a case in which a cyclist is the victim is relatively uncommon, the usual, low sun is mitigation enough normally to kill someone...

I never get why sentences for driving related deaths are so low. 12 months for killing someone (so six with good behaviour) is appalling. Yes he didn't mean to, but his careless actions led directly to the death of another person.

[Wolfshade]

I don't know or understand either. Especially if you consider PC Keith Wallis jailed for a year for his part in pleb gate is seems strange. It is part of the privilege that motorists seem to enjoy.

If you accidentally stab someone then you will get done for manslaughter, do it with a car and you are very unlucky (less than 1-10) to see gaol time.

It seems also strange that you can use mitigation like low light as an valid excuse.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm assuming its because you shouldn't be punished for an accident, and they er on the side of caution?

[Wolfshade]

We are through the rabbit hole. There are no accidents.
The closest thing is mechanical failure, and then you have to prove that you have regular maintance.
I don't see how you can accidentally drive into anyone. When I am driving my car I am solely responsible for what happens. Yes certainly, if someone runs out infront of you, you slam your brakes on and hit the person, it isn't an accident, the person who ran out is at fault.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't agree. There's a corner near me where three months a year at various times in the morning the sun is in a position where you cant see even with sunglasses. You're not to know this, and if somethings in the road its not your fault is it? If for example a cyclist had fell off its not your fault you hit him, but its hardly the fault of the cyclist either is it?

[Wolfshade]

Low sun is a hazard, so are flooded roads, but what you do is adjust your speed to mitigate the risk. You wouldn't hurtle at 70 round a blind corner? If you drive into the back of a car because you are blinded by low sun, you are at fault. In winter if you are travelling towards the rising/setting sun it is natural to expect it.
If the cyclist falls off and you hit him, then it is their fault for falling off. It might sound cynical but you know the times I fall off my bike unassisted are all because I have not adjusted to road conditions, i.e. going too fast for a bend/roundabout, the local authority might have a case to answer if the road has not been treated for ice properly, or poor maintainance of the road surface/draingage and that is a seperate issue. The other thing I would point out is that you should be leaving sufficient space that you can stop in time, or be wide enough that you can pass them without issue. The same way if the car in front of you suddenly comes to a stop, then you should be able to stop in time too.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but I know the road does that.
If you were driving down it on a morning it occurs...
I can see what you're getting at.

[Wolfshade]

Imagine if I shot you in the dark and you were in another room could I get away with it because I couldn't see what I was doing (the Pistorius defence...)?

[Psychosplodge]

Well no because I'm a white male, but your wife, someone from an ethnic minority? possibly, unless they were a burglar.

[Wolfshade]

This is it, the privelge of the motorist.

[Wolfshade]

Bedfordshire's new roundabout:

http://www.transportxtra.com/files/14183-l.jpg

Dutch-style.

[Wolfshade]

Stay Back stickers and why they are a bad thing.

There has been, in recent months, a surgence of stickers saying things like "Stay Back" or "Do not pass on this side".

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KL2UeTh6ysU/T3G6MbBYCJI/AAAAAAAAAGg/5MTT_vGSisk/s1600/crossrail-vehicle-safety-standards-compliance-08.jpg

Some vary between advice in the look out or becareful to the other extreme above which say do not. Now to some extent they are faily common sense and so in that vain are not a bad thing. The issue is that it seems to be putting the onus of safety on the cyclist and not on the driver and it is quite quite insidious. It suggests that cyclists should defer to the motorist, when in reality, all are [should be] equal on the road.

Indeed, the issue isn't that the cyclist is passing on the left (or right) which is legal (and encouraged by most on road infrastructure) it is that there is insufficent visibility in the cab to see them doing this. So why aren't their stickers in the cab saying things like "caution: insufficient visibility" or some such. The issue is akin to saying that the problem with stab victims is because they were doing something risky and not addressing the fact that there is a person with a knife. In this case, the issue is that lorries can't see and that is what should be addressed.

With the stickers becoming common place people begin to think that the reason why cyclists get hit becomes solely down to them being too close or filtering on the left. (Now there are of course times when this is quite correct, but it should not be the automatic assumption).

A number of cycling organisations have banded together to lobby this point, there main criticisms are that:

1. The ‘cyclists stay back’ wording is not acceptable for use on any vehicle, because of its implication that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicle users.
It also undermines the responsibility of drivers of such vehicles to use their nearside mirrors as required by the Highway Code in Rules 159,161,163, 169, 179, 180, 182, 184, and 202.
Non-use of nearside mirrors is associated with a significant proportion of incidents where cyclists are hit by motor vehicles.

2. It is not appropriate to have stickers aimed at cyclists on the back of any vehicle smaller than a heavy goods vehicle.

3. Stickers are appropriate on the rear of high-cab lorries, because of these vehicles’ blind areas, and the resultant danger to other road users.

4. Stickers on lorries should be worded as warnings rather than commands, with appropriate graphics.

[Psychosplodge]

Should you be passing a vehicle on the left if it's indicating to turn? Which essentially the biggest issue isn't it?

[Wolfshade]

Generally I would say no.

But it all depends. If the traffic is not moving, then why not, doubly so if there is an advanced stop line.

I would say it isn't the biggest issue. It is an issue.

And in the specific cases where traffic is moving you can see a point for them, however generally it shouldn't be needed and certainly on smaller vehicles there are not the blind spots that exist on hgvs.

Worryingly (and I hadn't realised this before)


183

When turning [left]


keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.




So if I am in the cycle lane I should have priority, now common sense tells me this is not the case but it should be. (I wasn't aware of that until I have just double checked).

[Psychosplodge]

Thats certainly interesting.

[Wolfshade]

I always thought that it should be the case, but I didn't realise it was.

I think that there is a lack of awareness in the driving lessons about the behaviour of cyclists and what the infrastructure means. I am not sure how this would be achieved. But certainly, it might help to understand how to react to those things if you are taught.

I can imgaine though the short change I would recieve for complaining of vehicles not giving way to me in the cycle lane.

[Wildeybeast]

So if all road users are equal, why do cyclists not have to obey traffic lights?

[Psychosplodge]

because some are more equal than others?

[Wolfshade]

So if all road users are equal, why do cyclists not have to obey traffic lights?

They do. But before you start going on about how "all" cyclists run red lights, when you look at the numbers there are far more motorised vehicles that do it in every survey of the numbers...

Just because a number of people do something doesn't mean everyone does. It is like after observing the welsh taxi driver who deliberately ran over a group of pedestrians saying that all car drivers drive at pedestrians.

People in glass houses must be careful where they lay their stones.

Look at the number of motorists who drive without insurance (estimated by the AA to be 1 in 25), without VED, without a valid licence, without a valid MOT.
Look at the number of motorists who drive above the speed limit. This one is so big that the ACPO advise is not to bother to charge people speeding in a 20 zone because no-one drives at that speed. Then look at the average speeds on the motorway (this is based on yesterdays data aver speed 78 mph, that is including on average 10% of the flow that is restricted to 60 or below)

[Wildeybeast]

I know, just pulling your leg. Tbh, I see more drivers stopping in the designated cyclist bit at traffic lights than cyclists going through the lights. That on just concerns me because of the complete lack of regard for their own safety or concern for pedestrians.