I think your scale is a bit off in that photo though Graham.
I tried to make it the same as the HC photo, the rider's shoulders sitting roughly at the car roof height. But I'm the first to admit I'm no artist!
2 effects. One - a door opening will hit him, two if the car cuts in on him he has nowhere to go.
Hmm.. I don't think he'd get hit there unless someone really had a good go at suddenly throwing the door open as wide as it would go. And he does still have a fair bit of space to his left to move to if the car cuts in on him (though why would it given it can pass in the same lane?)
No wonder you think segregating cyclists is a good thing - you think riding in a dangerous manner is acceptable.
That's just how I would balance the risks on that photo.
I'm perfectly happy to take the primary in other circumstances where I think it is necessary and have said as much before on here. I typically back you up in such debates.
Not sure what that has to do with my views on segregation though? surely if I was happy to ride in a dangerous manner I'd be against segregation? 😕
Please - get some training. Try to learn and understand why certain road positioning is always safer.
Not done any official training (I'd like to sometime soon). But I have read Cyclecraft and I do understand the point of the primary position.
Half a meter from the parked car is not safe, one meter between the car and the bike is not safe
I'd say that's quite a bit more than 50cm from the parked car in my image. That was my intent anyway. Looks to be about the height of his handlebar away to me.
Personally I support that pic being in the HC as it's an easy one to bring out when people think giving a cyclist 1ft of space is plenty, [b]but I agree it's an ideal (or maybe even just an extreme counterpoint), and I certainly don't always give that much room to cyclists when driving[/b], though I will if I can.
There are cases when it's difficult. As I said before, common sense n all that, on both sides. Sometimes you have to pass a little closer, and a little more cautiously.
But the highway code used to state that you should give a cyclist enough room to fall in the road. Which I quite like. Not the bit that cyclists are randomly falling in the road, but it suggests that the driver should expect the unexpected, rather than to leave loads of room, just because.
It has reason that way. And if you look at the picture, imagine the cyclist is about to unknowingly sink into a pothole, slip a foot from the pedal and crack his stotts on the cross bar. A good bit of wobbling later and he's faceplanting the centre of the lane.
Suddenly that space doesn't just seem 'generous'. It's vital to that dude's survival.
aracer - Member[i]'1. That is not the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a 'car'.
4. The car is still on the same side of the road not leaving enough clear space for a 'car'.'[/i]Well make your mind up - is it too far out or not enough?
It's two different points. Firstly, you wouldn't leave a 2.5M gap between two cars during an overtake. Secondly, if you were overtaking a car then you wouldn't do it and still keep that side of the lines as that wouldn't leave enough space for the car being overtaken.
The tag line is refering to leaving the same space as if you were over taking a car. The photo though shows a much larger gap between the two road users and the car positioned not far enough over to pass a car [safely].
[i]'3. The overtake is being performed right after a roundabout at which point you're 99% unlikely to have been able to properly assess an overtake of a 'car' - unless you weren't paying attention at the roundabout.'[/i]
I don't see any problem at all with overtaking a bicycle there though - and the HC doesn't suggest you shouldn't overtake cyclists in locations where you wouldn't overtake cars. Though in actual fact I don't see any problem with overtaking a car there either if the driver of the overtaking car is concentrating properly - if you start looking at the overtake as soon as you're clear of the roundabout, then you'd easily be able to safely be making the overtake at that point.
I disagree that you'd be able to perform a safe overtake in that short a distance.
[i] 5. The attitude of the car is such that it is clearly not settled / under full control therefore demonstrating that the driver hasn't planned the overtake.[/i]Now you're just being silly. How do you get that from the photo? I see no tyre smoke, skid marks or exaggerated body roll. Sure it might not be totally level with the horizon, but if you're suggesting that shows it's not under full control you're really grasping at straws - you reckon you can tell from that picture how much camber there is on the road and how much the camera is distorting the perspective? Are you also suggesting that the car should overtake without any lateral acceleration at all?
What sort of an idiot would think that the only indication of lack of control is tyre smoke, skid marks etc... The car is clearly not level to the ground. It's you who is 'straw grasping' if you think that's caused by road chamber at that point. IMO you should take your position before starting the overtake not be aiming to reach it part way through or even after the overtake.
[i]6. The car is still 'moving out' to do the overtake even though it is level with the cyclist.[/i]Is it? Skidding sideways you think? Because otherwise it's hard to see how it's moving out when the front and rear wheels are parallel with the white line (to the level of accuracy you can derive from that photo).
Who said anything about skidding? It's a follow-on point from 5.
I disagree that you'd be able to perform a safe overtake in that short a distance.
Easily if the car was going at the same speed that bike is probably doing (15mph?) but then presumably you're objecting because you wouldn't be able to overtake a car doing 30mph at that point 🙄
The car is clearly not level to the ground. It's you who is 'straw grasping' if you think that's caused by road chamber at that point.
Ah, so your whole objection is because the roof of the car isn't parallel with the horizon? Try actually looking a little harder at the pic - like at the amount of tyre showing below the front bumper on each side - to get an idea of how much body roll there is. You might end up with a slightly different impression...
Though actually even if there was the amount of body roll you're imagining, it's a huge leap from there to being out of control.
Who said anything about skidding? It's a follow-on point from 5.
No it's not. Even were there the amount of body roll you're imagining, that doesn't mean the car is moving out - you could easily have lots of lateral acceleration whilst the car is already moving back in. The only indication of which direction the car is moving laterally is the direction it's pointing in (if you're happy to discount skidding). Basic GCSE physics, acceleration != velocity
Yes it is a follow-on point. Regardless of whether that car is moving out or (more worringly) starting to move back in, at that point in an overtake (being next to the other road user) a car should be moving forward not moving over or in.
It's not an objection. The car is not level, you may well be 'special' and able to see the driver's side front wheel but I don't see anything in the shadow.
Regardless of what points you wish to make up to fit you point of view, the photo, tag line and implied advice don't really tally up. It's not the position to take or the width of gap to leave if it were a car being overtaken.
Personally, when I'm driving and overtaking a cyclist I leave a wider gap between my car and the cyclist than I would if I were overtaking another car.
I disagree that you'd be able to perform a safe overtake in that short a distance.
Easily
I've over taken a car in that distance, many times, although admittedly would have been a NSL road/roundabout rather than what I'd assume is a 30 zone. And my car isn't even the boy-racer "R" version either.
Is that road going downhill? Cos that's where this thread has headed very rapidly (more rapidly than that car passing a cyclist) 😉
wow, this thread needs a red and a blue corner. ding ding, round 3.
Gary M, I'm a shift worker so there's no specific time I'm up and down that section of road, but I'll be the guy on the black Dolan cx wearing baggies so gis a wave if you see me.
Having lived in many parts of the UK I can say that the section the OP is talking about is one of the worst 'marked' cycle lanes I've ever seen. Specificaly the section from the VW garage near Giffnock north into Shawlands. I actually find myself going quicker here to stay ahead of the cars (regardless of the so called cycle lane) to beat them all into Shawlands where there is NO cycle lane and the road narrows dangerously IMO. I totally understand why Gary M timed himself, in fact, from the Eastwood Toll to Shawlands I can beat most cars during my commute home, making overtaking utterly pointless.
It's not an objection. The car is not level, you may well be 'special' and able to see the driver's side front wheel but I don't see anything in the shadow.
It's the basis on which you describe that photo as "inaccurate, deceptive, plainly wrong" - apologies if you think there's some better word than "objection".
Thought about taking an eye test before you next drive? The outline of the drivers side wheel can quite clearly be seen - so maybe the very bottom is a bit lost in the shadow, but it's fairly straightforward to work out where it is. Mention of the shadow reminds me of another important point though - if the shadow of the car is parallel to the car (as is the case in that picture), then the car is level with the road surface.
Regardless of what points you wish to make up to fit you point of view, the photo, tag line and implied advice don't really tally up. It's not the position to take or the width of gap to leave if it were a car being overtaken.Personally, when I'm driving and overtaking a cyclist I leave a wider gap between my car and the cyclist than I would if I were overtaking another car.
Good job it says "at least" then - or did you miss that bit?
"at least"
That just makes it more inaccurate.
so maybe the very bottom is a bit lost in the shadow,
So you can't tell where it is. or see it.
Well done for perpetuating things though, if only those nasty people who buulied you at school could see you now! 🙄
Dispite your insistances to knowing exactly what's going on in the photo you still haven't said anything to counter my point. The photo and advice doesn't tally up and is inaccurate.
To be honest, I suspect that any photographer taking that photo would have done so with the car completely stationary to ensure A) he gets everything in focus, B) he can take multiple shots without requiring the car to drive in circles all day, C) he doesn't get himself or his equipment run over.
To me the apparent "roll" of the car is probably just the road camber.
Either way I think there are far more problems with that particular HC rule than subtle details about the implied directional force acting on the car in the supporting photo.
Dispite your insistances to knowing exactly what's going on in the photo you still haven't said anything to counter my point.
No - you're just ignoring all the things I say which contradict your position. As I said, given quite normal visual interpretation powers you can easily work out where the tyre is on both sides, but you claim you can't, which you appear to think supports your case. I presume you can't work out any way of refuting my point about the parallel shadow, so have just ignored it.
The thing is, it's you who's claiming that you can tell from the photo how hard the car is cornering etc., so it seems to me it's you who need to prove your case, not me. I'm simply pointing out that the photo doesn't show what you claim.
Either way I think there are far more problems with that particular HC rule than subtle details about the implied directional force acting on the car in the supporting photo.
Bingo.
I'm not ignoring the points you make, I'm not agreeing with the assumptions you've made up to justify your beliefs about the attitude of the car.
Moving on from that, you still haven't countered my overiding points about the photo. It isn't the road position you take when overtaking a car or the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a [moving] car.
Either way I think there are far more problems with that particular HC rule
Exactly, and poorly illustrated in a bad photo.
I have ridden the segregated bit of the A77 coming down from Whitelees and I think it's a great idea,much better than riding with cars ,HGVs etc whizzing a couple of feet past you at 60mph.Every A road should have one.
Also ridden the A77 cycle lanes back in towards town but only of an evening so no commuter chaos experience but plenty of parked cars.I ride on the edge or just outside of the cycle lane so I won't get doored. The road layout is not ideal due to space constraints mainly I reckon but it's a damn site better than many others I have ridden on.
I'm not ignoring the points you make, I'm not agreeing with the assumptions you've made up to justify your beliefs about the attitude of the car.
So if you're not ignoring it, explain to me why you disagree with my point about the parallel shadow? Not that you've provided a sliver of evidence to support your beliefs - remember you're the one complaining about what the car is doing, based solely on the evidence from that photo.
Exactly, and poorly illustrated in a bad photo.
So why have half your points about how hard the car is turning if they're so unimportant? Anybody might think you're busy trying to discredit the photo by any means possible. We could have spent our time discussing the important point rather than wasting it all discussing your photographic interpretation skills.
Moving on from that, you still haven't countered my overiding points about the photo. It isn't the road position you take when overtaking a car or the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a [moving] car.
How about you answer my initial question then - do you think the car is too far out or not far enough?
It doesn't matter what you agree is a safe distance really does it?
X% of people will still ignore it and even for the ones who apply it there will be times when they can't (due to other road users or conditions).
Use your common sense and if you keep getting knocked off or keep running cyclists over then perhaps you don't have any.
How about you answer my initial question then - do you think the car is too far out or not far enough?
Answered on several occasions.
You're the one who asked why I thought it was a bad photo. I gave you a list of points. You're the one who has made the 'attitude' of the car an issue and repeatedly raised it. If you believe that the car is level and moving forward because you can 'see' something in the shadows then that's your choice. I disagree.
We could have spent our time discussing the important point rather than wasting it all discussing your photographic interpretation skills.
It's nice to know I have such power over what you choose to type. You've had plenty of opportunity to 'discuss' the 'important point' but you chose not to.
It doesn't matter what you agree is a safe distance really does it?X% of people will still ignore it and even for the ones who apply it there will be times when they can't (due to other road users or conditions).
Perhaps a good reason to make it law? As they have done in some US States:
http://www.3feetplease.com/advocacy
That doesn't guarantee everyone will obey it obviously - but it does make it easier to prove dangerous driving for those that ignore it then cause injury.
Answered on several occasions.
Go on then, remind me. I've checked your initial response and you didn't give a straight answer there.
I gave you a list of points. You're the one who has made the 'attitude' of the car an issue and repeatedly raised it.
Did I? One of your initial points included "The attitude of the car is such that it is clearly not settled / under full control", and you then claimed that one of your other points was a follow on from that. I've simply showed why you're wrong. Given you still seem to be claiming you're correct on those points it seems you're the one making a big thing about the attitude of the car...
Still not got an answer about how the parallel shadow shows the car isn't rolling?
I see that I'm still exerting that power over you.
You haven't showed me I wrong, you've made a load of assumptions and then stated them as fact. You seem to be able to 'see' something in the photo I can't. Well good for you sport, well done. For the third time I disagree with you that the car is level and only moving forward. If you wish to beleive it is then huzaar.
Your actual question;
aracer - Member[i]'1. That is not the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a 'car'.
4. The car is still on the same side of the road not leaving enough clear space for a 'car'.'[/i]Well make your mind up - is it too far out or not enough?
And my response;
It's two different points. Firstly, you wouldn't leave a 2.5M gap between two cars during an overtake. Secondly, if you were overtaking a car then you wouldn't do it and still keep that side of the lines as that wouldn't leave enough space for the car being overtaken.
I think that quite clearly answers the question you asked.
Is this the 'important point' you wanted to discuss? I'm not sure as you're quite clearly incapable of accepting someone has a different opinion to you.
mk1fan - Member
I see that I'm still excerting that power over you.
Wow.
And this [i]was[/i] such an interesting thread.
The ghost of TJ is with us still 😀
It doesn't matter what you agree is a safe distance really does it?
X% of people will still ignore it and even for the ones who apply it there will be times when they can't (due to other road users or conditions).
Perhaps a good reason to make it law? As they have done in some US States:
http://www.3feetplease.com/advocacyThat doesn't guarantee everyone will obey it obviously - but it does make it easier to prove dangerous driving for those that ignore it then cause injury.
I'm not usually impressed by X law works in country A therefore it will be effective in country B tbh. They are a different people, different cars, different roads, different laws etc. But even if we did it here, how would it be enforced? I get wound up in my car by tailgaters. Do the police do anything? Nope, because it can't be easily caught on a speed camera.
That's part of the issue here. The anti-car lobby have been banging on for years about speed being the real killer. While careless and inconsiderate driving has been forgotten about. Well done anti-car lobby, welcome to the unruly dangerous roads you created! As long as we are under the speed limit (or not within camera range) then we can drive how we like 🙂
If there was more focus on safe road use (for drivers and cyclists) and less on one specific set of figures (speed limits) we'd all be in a better place.
I'm not usually impressed by X law works in country A therefore it will be effective in country B tbh. They are a different people, different cars, different roads, different laws etc.
Totally agree, but if anything the US is more firmly anti-bike than the UK.
how would it be enforced?
It probably wouldn't be, like most traffic law.
But it would clarify the above HC rule and would give us a stronger legal foothold (much like the proposed [i]"car is at fault against a bike unless proven otherwise"[/i]) making it easier to prosecute dangerous drivers.
And it would also mean councils could be taken to task over on-road cycling "facilities" that encourage drivers to pass far too close.
You haven't showed me I wrong, you've made a load of assumptions and then stated them as fact.
Yeah - like assuming that the normal laws of physics apply in that photo. As I've pointed out several times, you're the one making assumptions about what that car's doing based on what you can see in the photo - you back it up. Or you could just explain to me why I'm wrong about the parallel shadow.
I think that quite clearly answers the question you asked.
Except it doesn't - you talk about how much space you'd give a car, not about how much space that car should give a cyclist. It's quite a simple question - should that car be further out or closer in to the cyclist?
Only one way to settle this.
Aracer, mk1fan, get ready!
[img] 
[/img]
That's part of the issue here. The anti-car lobby have been banging on for years about speed being the real killer. While careless and inconsiderate driving has been forgotten about. Well done anti-car lobby, welcome to the unruly dangerous roads you created! As long as we are under the speed limit (or not within camera range) then we can drive how we like
Blaming an 'anti car lobby' for the dangerous roads is beyond incronguous. Perhaps Top Gear?
Enforcement, and penalties applied, with regard to motoring laws in general is appallingly bad - [url= http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/culture-clash ]Conduct regarded as dangerous in other walks of life is, in a motorist, merely careless, and that which would otherwise be careless is excusable.[/url]
In a generation the average power and acceleration of cars has changed massively - the law has barely kept step. Speed limits are still poorly enforced. For a start mobile, covert, cameras are what are needed - not the ridiculous bright yellow things the "Pro-law breaking"/"anti-pedestrian and cyclist" lobby have managed to force to be installed.
Zero tolerance for dangerous driving and speeding, bigger penalties, change in culture (driving a privilege not a right, you screw around you lose it quickly)
As I've pointed out several times, you're the one making assumptions about what that car's doing based on what you can see in the photo - you back it up. Or you could just explain to me why I'm wrong about the parallel shadow.
And by your own words you're guessing / assuming what / where things are in the shadow.
For someone who seems so upset about missed opportunities to discuss 'the important points' it seems odd that you continue to bleat on about what you presume to be fact about an issue you deem unimportant.
You're not going to change my mind based upon your assumptions. Move on. For all you know we could both be wrong and the driver is reversing down the road.
It's quite a simple question - should that car be further out or closer in to the cyclist?
That is a simple question but it's not the one you asked so it really isn't a great shock that it wasn't answered.
I'm not putting the whole blame for dangerous roads on the anti-car lobby, I am saying their obsession with speed over careful and considerate driving has had a negative effect on road safety.
On car developments, I think you must have missed the massive improvements in braking, tyres, control, abs, TCS and loads of pedestrian safety regulations that went along with it. You've took a very selective view of car development there no?
Also I don't think there really is an anti-cycling lobby. The drivers who are a danger to us cyclists (yes I am one) never think about bikes for one minute - which is the problem.
You can go all hard-core and take a zero tolerance policy. But if the people committing the offences don't respect the law anyway (some drive uninsured, drunk, with drugs, while banned, in unsafe cars etc), what do you think that's going to achieve? I reckon very little.
I think better driver and cyclist education is a start. But ultimately, while you have two such different modes of transport sharing the same lanes, there will always be casualties. Maybe one day we'll get proper cycling lanes. In the meantime I try my hardest not to be casualty or cause one by cycling and driving with my wits about me.
For a start mobile, covert, cameras are what are needed
If you want revenue raising rather than improve safety... I agree 100%
not the ridiculous bright yellow things the "Pro-law breaking"/"anti-pedestrian and cyclist" lobby have managed to force to be installed.
Since the idea is to improve safety, I think it's great that speed camera zones are identified in advance. What's wrong with technology (GPS etc.) to give you an extra warning in advance that there's a section of road coming up that's "dangerous" ?
"It's quite a simple question - should that car be further out or closer in to the cyclist?"
That is a simple question but it's not the one you asked so it really isn't a great shock that it wasn't answered.
Well make your mind up - is it too far out or not enough?
How about you answer my initial question then - do you think the car is too far out or not far enough?
Apologies for not adding "in that photo" as you clearly thought we were discussing something else.
Still no answer though.
In that photo the distance between car and the cyclist is more than enough.
But that's not the point of the photo or the crux of that HWC 'rule'.
[u]If[/u] by that photo the HWC is trying to demonstrate that you should take the same road position that you would if you were overtaking a [moving] car at the same point then it's wrong as you should be fully on the other side of that road.
[u]If[/u] by that photo the HWC is trying to demonstrate that you should leave the same width gap between the vehicle you're overtaking then it's wrong because you wouldn't need to leave 2.5M between cars.
As I originally said, it's a bad photo and a bad rule.
I think better driver and cyclist education is a start.
?? Is this the same gwj72 that roundly dismissed education earlier saying:
My system has worked flawlessly for years whereas you live in a world where people need to be taught how to ride bikes and they're still being slaughtered like dogs in the street.
😀
Anyway agree with what you just said but...
Also I don't think there really is an anti-cycling lobby.
I don't think they are quite as organised as a "lobby", [url= http://sparetheroadblog.blogspot.co.uk/ ]despite some attempts to do so[/url], but there is definitely a large number of people who hate cyclists and don't want us on the roads or on the paths. Just whack in your choice of swear word + "cyclists" into google and you'll find some choice examples. Or just read the comments below practically any cycling story on a local newspaper or YouTube video.
No I've always supported education, what I don't believe in is abandoning alert driving/riding in substitution for rules / laws (were I thought this thread was going). Simply on the basis that you can't rely on anyone to follow them or make the right call at the right time.
I'll be honest with you.. Every cycling forum I've been on has a large number of car-hater posts on it. I use car forums a lot too, but I can't remember seeing one about cyclists, apart from to actually discuss bikes. MTB is really popular on the car forum's I've used, maybe not so much commuter perspective though. That's not to deny it altogether mind. And it's pretty obvious why cyclists would be the more aggrieved with the situation so likely to be more militant and vocal.
Regardless, this shouldn't be about cyclists vs car drivers. It's about idiots doing either.
Regardless, this shouldn't be about cyclists vs car drivers. It's about idiots doing either.
Agreed. Truth is most adult cyclists are also drivers. In fact the stats suggest they are [i]more[/i] likely to own a car than non-cyclists! So car hating makes little sense.
I think better driver and cyclist education is a start
Explain to me how my 6 GCE O Levels will protect me against a 32 ton HGV travelling at 60 mph 😉
Explain to me how my 6 GCE O Levels will protect me against a 32 ton HGV travelling at 60 mph
Maths!
"if a HGV travelling at 60mph leaves location A at 3pm...."
🙂
On car developments, I think you must have missed the massive improvements in braking, tyres, control, abs, TCS and loads of pedestrian safety regulations that went along with it. You've took a very selective view of car development there no?
Fair enough - point taken. However, they don't change the fact that at a higher speed you have less time to react and modern cars are capable of getting to a higher speed much more quickly. The 'pedestrian friendly' features are pretty minor and given the number of high fronted 4x4s on the road the overall position probably hasn't got a lot better. Johnny dickhead is now racing between the lights in a Focus RS (sub 5 second 0-60) rather than an Escort XR3i (9.6 second 0-60). I think cars are a lot lot safer for the occupants for sure. Not so much for other road users - risk compensation comes into it as well.
Also I don't think there really is an anti-cycling lobby. The drivers who are a danger to us cyclists (yes I am one) never think about bikes for one minute - which is the problem.
There are a huge number of people who think it's acceptable to talk about how they 'hate cyclists' and to do so is acceptable in 'polite society' and the pages of newspapers.
You can go all hard-core and take a zero tolerance policy. But if the people committing the offences don't respect the law anyway (some drive uninsured, drunk, with drugs, while banned, in unsafe cars etc), what do you think that's going to achieve? I reckon very little.
I think a large part of that is to do with the fact that they don't think they'll get caught. Speaking to a German friend through Nicolai there's *no way* he'd take any chances driving on drugs or drunk as there's a good chance of getting caught and it would be an immediate ban (and I think a large fine).
If you want revenue raising rather than improve safety... I agree 100%
Why? If you want people to drive within the speed limits? It's a tax on the stupid - there's no need to speed and no need to get fined. I've never got a ticket. I'd say it's about making a statement that the law is the law.
You do not exceed max speed limits
You do not drive with excess alchohol or any drugs in your system
You do not pass lights at amber or red
You make it clear that the rules apply in one case and should see compliance increase across the board. You say 'well 40 in a 30's fine' you're in the same ballpark as 'a few seconds after the light changes to red is not a problem'
What's wrong with technology (GPS etc.) to give you an extra warning in advance that there's a section of road coming up that's "dangerous" ?
or to alert you than you're breaking the speed limit an eliminate any chance of you getting a ticket? My satnav can be set to display the current speed limit, flags your speed in red if you're exceeding the limit and can be set to beep to remind you. It's non-invasive, doesn't require to to take your eyes off the road and very useful if you're find yourself on a section of road where you're unsure of the limit.
If you have trouble controlling your car you can get tools to help you.
car-hater posts
I don't hate cars either as a form of transport or as a piece of technology. Katie and I combined do more miles per year by bike than we do in our shared car though we wouldn't be able to do the best of that riding without using our car to get there. I *do* hate the way that 'car culture' is so ingrained in our society that even on a cyclists forum any post about safety or cyclists on the road will inevitably result in the sort of 'victim blaming', almost cyclist-hating posts that have appeared on here. That's ****ed up.
eek. hadn't finished.
You can go all hard-core and take a zero tolerance policy. But if the people committing the offences don't respect the law anyway (some drive uninsured, drunk, with drugs, while banned, in unsafe cars etc), what do you think that's going to achieve? I reckon very little.
The scum of the earth break the law. You increase the chance of them being caught, you lock them up. That's taken as read. The difference is that otherwise law abiding people think speeding, speaking on their mobile, jumping red lights, doesn't matter and I think a large part of that is to do with the fact that they don't think they'll get caught. Speaking to a German friend through Nicolai there's *no way* he'd take any chances driving on drugs or drunk as there's a good chance of getting caught and it would be an immediate ban (and I think a large fine).
I take your points. My problem with compliance is that people are generally shit at assessing risk. There will always be a large amount of people (probably more than you could lock up), that look at the [i]certainty[/i] of getting a bollocking for being late against the [i]possibility[/i] of getting done for speeding and take the wrong choice. I don't think an increased chance of being caught would change things enough to justify the expense of it (accepting that every life lost is a tragedy).
I still don't think speed is the issue though. I was driving to the lakes last saturday at 6.30am. Nothing on the road, certainly no bikes on the M6! I *may* have dipped above the maximum speed limit. Would I do that in a built up area, road with cyclists on, possibility of kids or pets in the road? No way. I would usually go a lot less than the speed limit to increase the margins for error.
Truth is, sometimes the speed limit is too much. If you just hammer the speed figure and not the roadcraft, I'm not sure that's the right approach. I'll concede without real world trials we'll never know for sure though.
Truth is, sometimes the speed limit is too much. If you just hammer the speed figure and not the roadcraft, I'm not sure that's the right approach.
AFAIK the maximum speed limit has a big overiding caveat "up to xxx mph but only if safe to do so" or something along the same lines.There was a landmark case a few years back when someone got convicted when driving below the prescribed speed limit but tragically killed a pedestrian.
Every cycling forum I've been on has a large number of car-hater posts on it. I use car forums a lot too, but I can't remember seeing one about cyclists, apart from to actually discuss bikes.
Not that I agree there are a large number of car haters on here. Like Simon I'm certainly not a car-hater - I actually do rather more miles in a car than on a bike, though recently there's probably not that much in it - but like him I hate the way car culture is so ingrained in our society.
But even if there were, don't you think there might be a reason for that? I mean it's not like cyclists kill that many drivers.
yeah, my next sentence that you didn't quote was..
And it's pretty obvious why cyclists would be the more aggrieved with the situation so likely to be more militant and vocal.
simons_nicolai-uk - Member
You can go all hard-core and take a zero tolerance policy. But if the people committing the offences don't respect the law anyway (some drive uninsured, drunk, with drugs, while banned, in unsafe cars etc), what do you think that's going to achieve? I reckon very little.
The scum of the earth break the law. You increase the chance of them being caught, you lock them up. That's taken as read. The difference is that otherwise law abiding [b]people think speeding, speaking on their mobile, jumping red lights, doesn't matter and I think a large part of that is to do with the fact that they don't think they'll get caught.[/b]
+1
I still find it amazing that the UK law authorities are happy with what almost amounts to anarchy on the roads.
Truth is, sometimes the speed limit is too much
The clue in the word "limit". As a driver you're supposed to drive at an appropriate sipped for the location and conditions but under no circumstances faster than.....
If it said "at least" you would have a case.
Sorry gwj - completely missed that sentence when I read your post. In which case ignore my second para - though the first still applies.
I still find it amazing that the UK law authorities are happy with what almost amounts to anarchy on the roads.
I'm quite happy to admit to being an anarchist on that basis. Only in one respect and only in some circumstances, and in fact the evidence suggests I will get caught (I have been twice). I have quite often on here admitted speeding on NSL roads (or on roads which should be NSL 😉 ) - I do so totally deliberately. IMHO one of the causes of this anarchy is the existence of laws which are totally discredited to most people - like the majority I consider the speed limit on motorways to be too low, and also that some roads have arbitrarily low speed limits. Like the road I most recently got caught on which would to anybody sensible be a 70 limit, yet is a 50 limit, despite being safer to travel on at speed than the 60 limit road I'd just joined it from. The trouble is, such disrespected laws lead to lawbreaking, which leads to disrespect of other more important laws (most particularly to disrespect for the far more important 30 limits) and hence to anarchy.
hang on. I'm pretty sure I am the one arguing that speed limits aren't the problem, it's people judging what speed to do correctly. As I also said, I do drive under the limit when the risk warrants it.
So why tell me about driving under the limit?
Oh, but you didn't think I'd leave the debate about the picture did you? I mentioned the important bit above - the rule says "at least". The picture shows a car giving at least as much room to the cyclist as you'd give to a car. The wording makes it quite clear that the amount of space you'd give a car is a minimum (in the same way as discussed above the speed limit is a maximum). It's a perfectly reasonable picture of a car giving at least that much room, and actually a good illustration of the amount of room to give when possible. As I already mentioned earlier on this thread, I do give as much room (or more) to cyclists as shown in that photo when possible, but in some circumstances when that's not possible will pass at the minimum recommended distance.
On that basis I see nothing at all wrong with that photo (I presume we can now ignore criticisms of the photo which require you to deduce the dynamic behaviour of the car from minimal evidence?) In fact I'd argue that it's far better than a photo of the car passing at minimum clearance, as that would encourage drivers (I'm making the generous assumption here that they read and pay attention to the HC) to aim for that much clearance, which given average skill levels would often result in rather less.
Nonsense.
The picture shows a car giving at least as much room to the cyclist as you'd give to a car.
So you're stating that in the photo that distance is the minimum distance to leave between the vehicles when overtaking.
You're an idiot.
I presume we can now ignore criticisms of the photo which require you to deduce the dynamic behaviour of the car from minimal evidence?
You're the one who was continually bleating on about it and claiming your [u]assumptions[/u] must be the one true fact. Unprompted you feel the need to raise it again. 🙄
It would be a great photo if the text on the bottom said say, 'When overtaking a bicycle leave at least four foot clearance'. But it doesn't.
Crikey. Do you think this picture was shot from the grassy knoll? Tell us about the shadows again... 😉
I still find it amazing that the UK law authorities are happy with what almost amounts to anarchy on the roads.
I've been to countries where some of the time people don't even drive on any particular side of the road, and when you pull out of junctions (which you don't stop for) it's up to the oncoming traffic to swerve around you.
Relatively speaking, we have very orderly roads. They can always get better, but we have to be realistic about it and this thread has gone well beyond realism now. I can see everyone sat with their tin foil hats on. I can see that because I obviously have access to advanced wormhole technology.
However, there are some very real problems that would benefit from being addressed, with the way cyclists are treated on the roads. It's hard enough trying to explain the reasons for this without going into crop circles and clothing made from hemp.
Meanhile, in another universe...
Every cycling forum I've been on has a large number of car-hater posts on it. I use car forums a lot too, but I can't remember seeing one about cyclists...
I have. I put my tuppence in, of course 😈 A lot of people hate cyclists. Not so much because we hold them up....it's because they feel uncomfortable around us. Uncomfortable with the idea that they might feel pushed into a situation which could potentially kill or seriously injure. That in itself says there's something wrong with the integration between cars and cycles on the road.
That's not the voice of car enthusiasts though. That's the general public. I find many so called petrol heads courteous. Some drive like the end of your penis (I've been to plenty of meets to see that), but most take a lot of pride in their driving and so act accordingly around other road users. The negative Clarkson / petrol head comments that keep getting thrown around in debates like these (not so much on this forum) don't help either.
A bit of balance is always a good thing to have.
So you're stating that in the photo that distance is the minimum distance to leave between the vehicles when overtaking.
No. Do you want some help with English comprehension - I did try to highlight the important bit?
Oh, and thanks for the ad-hom.
You're welcome. I call 'em as I see 'em.
The picture shows a car giving at least as much room to the cyclist as you'd give to a car.
In which case then, you'll need to help me with comprehending what you said there.
What do you mean by 'at least as much room'? Is it the distance between the cyclist and the car? Or is it something else?
Sorry, if you're determined not to understand I really CBA
More like you can't explain yourself. It's a simple question and no answer from you.