[Closed] Cycle lane etiquette - new driver question

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/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.

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.

@simons_nicolai-uk

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

not the ridiculous bright yellow things the "Pro-law breaking"/"anti-pedestrian and cyclist" lobby have managed to force to be installed.

"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

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.

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.

If you want revenue raising rather than improve safety... I agree 100%

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.

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.

@aracer

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]

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.