fine for me.
or was that just a cunning ploy to get everyone to visit the thing?
I'm in
Yep - compulsory rider training voted for.
They did mean a skillz course didn't they?
Mandatory training for drivers is the issue, not the cyclists! The percentage of fatal accidents involving a cyclist and no other vehicles is rather small!
njee20 - Member
Mandatory training for drivers is the issue, not the cyclists! The percentage of fatal accidents involving a cyclist and no other vehicles is rather small!
I see more bad cycling on a day-to-day basis than bad driving.
"compulsory rider training "
Not really sure what this option was trying to suggest.
Was it trying to suggest everyone who cycles including kids needs to pass a test !!
Or was it trying to say drivers need to experience cycling as well.
I put other and wrote in cycling section needs to be added to driving test.
I see more bad cycling on a day-to-day basis than bad driving.
I don't, but even so, bad cycling is irritating, bad driving kills people.
njee20 - Member
Mandatory training for drivers is the issue, not the cyclists! The percentage of fatal accidents involving a cyclist and no other vehicles is rather small!I see more bad cycling on a day-to-day basis than bad driving.
True but I see more bad walking than driving and cycling. Them pedestrians really need to take a test before they use the pavement, they could hmm bump into someone or maybe stub their toe.
Bet you don't. You just don't "see" the bad driving because it is commonplace.I see more bad cycling on a day-to-day basis than bad driving.
Cars driving way too close too each other - almost more cars doing that than not doing it. Also driving over the speed limit, or up to the speed limit even if conditions aren't suitable.
Thought the last question on Bicycle Licences betrayed the IAM agenda the most…
Looking over the results thus far though it looks like most of the responses have been from Cyclists…
Buggerypoo I still can't get onto it!
The link isn't obvious - click the name of the poll?
it's fascinating stuff DezB!
glenp - Member
> I see more bad cycling on a day-to-day basis than bad driving.Bet you don't. You just don't "see" the bad driving because it is commonplace.
Cars driving way too close too each other - almost more cars doing that than not doing it. Also driving over the speed limit, or up to the speed limit even if conditions aren't suitable.
Bet I do. Cyclists running through red lights, filtering through lanes when inappropriate, cycling at night with no lights, cycling on pavements, overtaking without so much as a backward glance or a signal, cycling too close to parked cars etc. etc. The standard of cycling in this country is, quite frankly, appalling.
Whilst our driving is exemplary?
I see more bad driving simply because I see about 100 times more cars than cyclists! I'm gonna come back to my safety point too (which is the issue here after all), that bad cycling very rarely kills people, I did see the stats last week, whilst bad driving frequently kills people.
Done.
Have the questions been set by the Daily Mail?
[url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedalcyclist2008.pdf ]Here[/url].
0 fatilities from cycling accidents involving no other persons. 8 fatalities in collisions with pedestrians (don't know if it's the rider or the ped), 52 fatalities with a car.
Even slight injuries... 280 involving no other vehicles, 11,308 involving cars.
Those cyclists, they sure are dangerous, we need to train them better!
Seen quite a few "cyclist" riding up one way streets the wrong way around us and then across a busy T-junction - thus to driver we are "all a nuisence. I do however think that driver education would be a good use of money to reduce cyclist accidents myself 🙂
BTW how many accident are unrecorded!
How many accidents occur when driving that are not recorded? Are all insurance claims recorded into this thype of data. Don't forget that people in cars may not be injured in a collision but a collision with a car and a cycle is likely to result in a claim/injury?
I'm sure if car drivers where forced to cycle through traffic once a year, to refresh their driving licence, they might show a bit more consideration for cyclists.
njee20 - all that proves is that if you ride like a complete plonker with no other traffic on the road you'll get away with it most of the time. If you mix in 2 ton lumps of steel moving at 30mph you might not be so lucky.
I'm not condoning bad driving but drivers have a lot more to lose (finiancially) by ignoring the rules of the road than cyclists (who just lose their lives but assume it won't ever be them who's unlucky).
Interssting facts and stats here (page 7 etc.)
Did't say bad cycling didn't exist druidh, just that there is tons more bad driving. For every bike you see on the road you see what? 100 cars? 200? Whatever the figure you can bet that a very big numer of them would struggle to stop if the car in front slammed on the brakes. Or at least are driving so close they can't observe the road ahead for themselves and are just reacting off the driving of the person in front. That's a hell of a lot of bad driving, and that's before we even think about speeding. And risky overtaking. And poor observation. All of which, as njee20 says, is life-threatening. People die on our roads every day, and none of them because of cyclists.
I also ticked “Other” and suggested Cycle safety training for everyone, Drivers AND cyclists, as well as compulsory helmet use…
Don’t see how you can increase the level of training/education for one group of road users and not the other… Compulsory helmet use seems like a fair enough idea but it’s more a mitigating measure where as training is prevention prior to RTAs, that’s my theory anyhow…
glenp - Member
People die on our roads every day, and none of them because of cyclists.
That's quite a leap to make. How many cyclists are killed by cars due to their own actions?
At most 115 in a year. And it's likely to be far less than that, say 25% down to bad cycling, so that's 29.
How many car drivers die in a year... according to [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/fatalities2008.pdf ]this[/url] it's 1257, how many of those died because of bad cyclists?
And you're most likely to die in an RTA if you live in Scotland!
surely all these stas need to be presented 'per million miles covered' or something?
yes, there may be more car drivers killed but there may be more car drivers drivign more miles?
Edit: note to self read link first - says you are 10 times more likely to die riding a bike than drivign a car (for the same distance).
Very few - there have been several studies published (one quite recently I believe) and drivers are implicated in over 70% of all accidents with cyclists.
Any cyclist who votes for mandatory training or licensing is an idiot.
surely all these stas need to be presented 'per million miles covered' or something?
But then they don't support my argument quite as well!
Cyclists: 32 fatalities/billion km
Cars: 2.2/billion km
But then how it's skewed by speed surely.
"But then they don't support my argument quite as well!"
oh, sorry, happy to revert to the previous method of calculation then 😉
as well as compulsory helmet use…
Really? I disagree. We should have a debate about that.
druidh - Member
Bet I do.
I'll take that bet. One small Iron Horse Sunday Team.
On my 13-mile commute I may see 30 or 40 incidents of bad cycling but could give a running commentary on the bad driving - holding both groups to the same standards of roadcraft.
I think the issue here isn't Cyclist v Car drivers v Pedestrians it's about trying to be 'seen' deeling with a problem. It's easier to try and push around with say 1-million cyclists than 30-million car drivers.
What happens when public money is wasted on t&t'ing cyclists and there's no reduction in accidents or improvement in safety?
But then how it's skewed by speed surely.
Also significantly skewed by cars doing lots of miles on motorways which are far safer than other roads.
Really? I disagree. We should have a debate about that.
OK...
[i]far safer than other roads. [/i]
due to lack of bicycles competign for space, perhaps?
aracer - Member"as well as compulsory helmet use… "
Really? I disagree. We should have a debate about that.
On this thread? or on another? 😆
Druidh - you simply are not noticing the bad driving as it is "normal". As said above - lack of space between cars, on the phone, bad parking, cutting corners, running red lights, poor lane discipline, steamed up windows, passing too close to bikes, lack of indicators and observation etc etc.
I agree with you about some of the rubbish cyclsts tho - mainly around the university areas 🙂
Found my link:
See Table 7.4, page 8 - drivers to blame in 79% of fatal and serious injury accidents with cyclists.
I wasn't even going to bite on the compulsory helmet point!
Personally I actually even see more drivers jump red lights than cylists - had one the other day sail straight through the bit of road I was about to use when I had a right turn phase (they were going straight and were on red). I had to stop and wait for them.
What a dull poll! (accessed it on another PC). The pdf doc was far more interesting.
far safer than other roads.due to lack of bicycles competign for space, perhaps?
Given the number of drivers who manage to kill themselves or others on non-motorways without any cyclist interaction, that would seem unlikely to be a major factor.
TandemJeremy - Member
Druidh - you simply are not noticing the bad driving as it is "normal". As said above - lack of space between cars, on the phone, bad parking, cutting corners, running red lights, poor lane discipline, steamed up windows, passing too close to bikes, lack of indicators and observation etc etc.
Great - that's at least 3 folk on this thread who must be following me when I cycle to and from work every day. Tell me what you're riding so I know who too look for on Monday. I've been driving or 30 years - I think I can recognise bad driving when I see it.
I dont see why your all arguing with DruidH there is lots of bad cycling around.
I would imagine that per hour traveled there is far far more bad cycling than driving however as people have pointed out there are ALOT less fatal accidents from cycling. Basically because cyclists cant go as fast as cars ie cycling is safer so to me its seems less important that there is bad cycling than driving.
Hence why we have a driving test but not a cycling test.
However in some incidences bad cycling can cause an accident involving a car this is bad.
The only thing I'd question is riding on the pavement always bad cycling ?
On dual carriage ways in towns (not inner city ie about reading size) often cycling on the pavement is safer as they are completely empty. So personally in some instances I will do this and maintain it is good cycling.
I've been driving or 30 years - I think I can recognise bad driving when I see it.
Thus speaks the voice of experience 😉
Druidh - have a look. See how many drivers indicate properly ( mirror indicate manouver) and how many leave a two second gap let alone keep to the speed limit.
We both cycle round the same city and I see the majority of cars driving badly. Its about where you draw the line and what you notice.
"as people have pointed out there are ALOT less fatal accidents from cycling"
but only because there's a lot less cycling not because it's safe (as we have seen - there is 15 times more deaths/mile covered cyclign than driving).
What a cracking circular argument this is!
perhaps we should all just agree that cycling is safer than driving (regardless of the evidence available to the contrary), that bad drivers cause all the accidents and that cyclists are paragons of virtue at all times and leave it at that?
What a cracking circular argument this is!
+1 I do love a bit of curmudgeonly interweb shouting on a Friday afternoon...
but only because there's a lot less cycling
Well that rather depends on how you define "less". If you want to use time spent doing it, which is actually a better measure then I'd suggest that like for like (ie excluding motorways and similar roads) there's little difference.
You're missing the point anyway - remember that 79% of the cyclist deaths are due to drivers. Now explain to me how less miles covered cycling distorts that one? If you look at the number of deaths of 3rd partys caused by cars and cyclists per mile covered I think you'll find the cars are way, way ahead.
but only because there's a lot less cycling not because it's safe (as we have seen - there is 15 times more deaths/mile covered cyclign than driving).
Although those statistics apparently look a lot better for cyclists if you ignore motorway driving. Motorways are jolly safe, and people drive massive distances on them, thus making a large proportion of the miles covered in those statistics (whereas on that sort of long trip most cyclists will drive or take the train or something), so they have a disproportionate effect on the car statistics.
So you could say, in the situations where driving and cycling are comparable (getting places in town, ignoring the use of cars as long distance travel, which is a different kettle of fish), there isn't a massive difference in safety.
The obvious important difference anyway is that with a few very rare exceptions, cyclists typically only risk causing their own death. Car drivers very often cause the death of others. Hence the obvious need for regulation of car drivers, but no obvious need to regulate cyclists.
Joe
I'm not in favour of regulation of cyclists but I do feel that;
a) cyclists who jump red lights and generally ignore 'the rules' do themselves (and other cyclists) no favours.
b) cyclists regularly perform manouevers on the road that seem (to my eyes) to be at odds with any sense of self preservation.
c) cars can easily kill a pedestrian or cyclists - knowign how some peopel drive cyclists ought to cycle 'defensively' in the same way that people should drive on the motorway (ie. anticipate an accident, not just arrive at it in daze).
The first two make a lot of drivers aggresive to all cyclists and probably increase the number of accidents.
I'm not condonign bad driving but to imply cyclists are blameless in all of this is a bit rich...
Ok - as a fully qualified sad geek I can see a traffic light controlled junction from my window, I watched 3 or 4 cycles of the lights and counted the cars who turned right or left.25 used indicators, 12 did not. So thats 1/3 of car drivers who turned didn't indicate.
6 car drivers jumped the red lights. Probably 150 cars thru the junction ( only estimated) while I watched. 4% jumped a red light - not amber but red.
The vast majority did not leave a 2 second gap between vehicles
3 cyclists. 2 obeyed the road rules, one rode a bit of pavement then pushed his bike when meeting pedestrians.
The point I was making ( and others I think) is that most car drivers do not notice the bad driving nor how common it is as it is "normal" to drive badly. Not that cyclist were paragons of virtue but that much of the poor car driving is not seen by car drivers.
I'm not condonign bad driving but to imply cyclists are blameless in all of this is a bit rich...
I don't think anybody is implying that - simply that from a road safety perspective, bad driving is orders of magnitude more significant than bad cycling (hence policing resources should be allocated to reflect that).
Druidh - next time you give me a lift somewhere I'll point out all the bad driving I see - that should drive you crackers quickly
b) cyclists regularly perform
This is what gets me; because SOME cyclists are idiots, lots of people refer to cyclists as a whole as being idiots. But with motorists it tends to be "Did you see what that idiot did", not "motorists are idiots.
IMO, idiots are everywhere, but the idiocy of some is more likely to cause death than that of others.
verses - everyone does somethign silly soemthimes. In that respect we're all idiots. I wasn't trying to imply that all cyclists did stupid things all the time. In the same way that most drivers don't do stupid things all the time - just often enough to cause problems for cyclists.
wwaswas - however IME good motorist is a tiny minority. The vast majority in towns drive too close together and exceed the speed limit. A large minority do not indicate properly if at all and most pass too close to cycles
I reckon verses has summed it up pretty nicely. I agree with druibdh too - there is some shocking cycling around, but equally there is some shocking driving.
I get a bit annoyed when I see cyclists jumping reds, as it gives us all a bad reputation in the eyes of some drivers. As a pedestrian I had to stop crossing at a green man recently so a cyclist sailed through. I was quite pleased when the other cyclist sitting at the red shouted some abuse at him. If I stop at a red on my bike and some idiot on a bike sails through, I tend to mutter something about not saving any time when I inevitably catch up 200yds later.
In my experience when driving, drivers either tend to accidentally sail through reds (seen that a few times really, and not exactly excusable, but mistakes CAN happen) or fail to stop as they are changing or just changed. Cyclists who blatantly jump reds when they have been red for several seconds are even more inexcusable.
To cut a long story short, there are bad cyclists and bad drivers and I get annoyed when I see either!
Anyway, back on subject... survey completed!
I don't disagree TJ, I think we see ourselves as 'cyclists' and take pride in what we do on a bike (like IAM members, I guess).
The cyclists and motorists that cause problems are more likely to be seeign their mode of transport as a convenient way of getting from a to b as quickly as they can. It's probably true a car driver who makes a mistake is more likely to kill or injure someone else, though.
Well from my experiences today i can surmise that :-
A) Drivers in heavily-trafficked urban areas are more likely to make a dangerous manoevre - one flatbed wagon accelerated past me uphill and pulled in to turn left before his vehicle was past me, & one idiot overtook me as i was passing a parked transit van with another car coming the opposite way, he was speeding to get past me and the other car had to take avoiding action.
B) Drivers on open moorland roads give plenty of room to this particular cyclist.
Not exactly scientific i know.
TJ - when I'm driving you're usually asleep
(Thank your chosen deity)
two second gap let alone keep to the speed limit.
Is this recommended (by anyone other than TJ) or even practical in a city?
Recommended in the Highway Code IIRC.
How long have you been driving Al?
A mere 23 years druidh - I must therefore be 77% as good as you 😛
or very, very tired?
Fantastic illustration of my point. Driving far too close has become so normal that most people don't even know it is dangerous, or believe it is possible to drive without doing it (not picking on you cynic-al). I must admit that I am something of a born again driver in this regard, but once you start driving with the specific aim of keeping as much gap as possible to the car in front (four seconds is very nice) the whole experience of driving changes.Is this recommended (by anyone other than TJ) or even practical in a city?
agree verses point good
not looked at survey yet but very doubtful if a "cycling license" or having to be insured will make much difference to those cyclists that choose to ride busy pavements, ignore reds or ride without lights etc
it will just be another hard to enforce pointless law after all makes very little difference to those that drive and choose to ignore what they are supposed to have learnt to get a license
awareness campaigns make more sense and driving change in public opinion
interestingly we may be seeing a shift in public opinion on speed with the objectors seeming more and more a ranting minority
oh and as to motorways being safer because no cyclists - turn it around and give the cyclists a 100ft wide road costing Xmillion/mile and see how safe it would be - one of the problems in "the dangerous cycling debate" is that road users other than motorised are forced to the edges and forced to accept maximum inconvenience so commuters can get home to watch their favourite TV programs - big road programs are justified on economic benefit thru reduced congestion - but drive on those roads outside of peak hours and they are empty(ish) huge capacity for social convenience and the way we choose to live
I can see that glenp, my guessis rush hour would last about 3 times as long and few serious accidents would be averted.
big road programs are justified on economic benefit thru reduced congestion
By and large, big road programmes are no longer justified at all, it's now about reducing traffic levels and increasing public transport use, walking and cycling. Good all round!
cynic-al - Membertwo second gap let alone keep to the speed limit.
Is this recommended (by anyone other than TJ) or even practical in a city?
My point made in one! Two second gap is the recomended - by highway code, IAM etc etc. No one does - just try counting it. Most of the time you re lucky if you get 1 second.
Al - actually average speeds rise if people do this as you don't get the speed up and slow down concertina effect - same as a 20 mph limit around town increases average speeds on congested roads
Druidh - YGM about hillwalking. I'll be driving
[i] No one does - just try counting it. Most of the time you re lucky if you get 1 second.[/i]
I try to do it on the way home when I take the m-way. Usually get 3 or 4 cars jumping into the gap just before their junction 🙁
Oh dear.....*TJ FAIL ALERT*
WOOP WOOP WOOP!!!
126
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should[b]leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances PDF below)* [/b]
allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front [b][u]on roads carrying faster-moving traffic[/b][/u] and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front
*12-23M at 20-30mph - fair enough, not generally complied with I'd say.
EDIT:
Al - actually average speeds rise if people do this as you don't get the speed up and slow down concertina effect - same as a 20 mph limit around town increases average speeds on congested roads
WTF? In town?
My point double-made! Of course congestion doesn't go up - you still get there at the same speed, probably faster because you don't have to brake when the car in front dabs his brakes (because the car in front of him…). The gap is in seconds remember - slow moving traffic means the distance is small.I can see that glenp, my guess is rush hour would last about 3 times as long and few serious accidents would be averted.
Sadly congestion is getting worse, in the South East at least, so that's obviously not working!
My point double-made!
Erm how does me disagreeing with you make you right?
Sorry, I just don't see how bigger gaps in cities would improve traffic flow. Folk go from green light to red light at constant speeds.
By and large, big road programmes are no longer justified at all
not big but £11m pounds to change a couple of junctions/provide some bus lanes on A61 in to Sheffield will reduce journey times at peak times by 3 minutes over 4 miles
no improvements for pedestrians (except narrower pavements due to bus lanes) and cyclists will be able to share the bus lanes - a useful breather since proposal also includes increasing speed limit on the narrow lane dual carriageway
the proposal says that a future park n ride would find the bus lanes would help encourage switching but the site and costing for the park n ride isn't in the proposal
lots of words about change but no action
My take on this is that schools (at secondary level) should teach the Highway Code, road awareness, etc., leading to sitting the Theory part of the Driving Test at the end of the course.
That way pedestrians and cyclists at least have an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the ways of the road even if they haven't taken a driving test.
If you know you are going to encounter a red light why drive so close? You are merely in a rush to join the queue.
You made my point because my point was that most drivers are so oblivious to bad driving that they do it all the time, never understanding.
When you drive too close to the car in front you relinquish control to the driver in front - he brakes and you have no choice but to do the same. He also masks the road ahead so you drive by his eyes.