[Closed] Institute of Advanced Motorists - cycling poll

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

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...

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?

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 - Member

two 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?

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.

I hear what you are saying glenp, just because I disagree does not make me wrong.

My point is that if all drivers are closer together then more cars get through before the red light. You can't see past the driver who is 2s ahead either - and the bigger gap allows more stuff to happen in it.

All applying only to congested city driving of course, and I'm saying I'm right per se, I just don't see that you are (in those narrow circumstances).

12-23M at 20-30mph - fair enough, not generally complied with I'd say.

As 30 mph is around 13 m/s so 23 m gap is almost two seconds! 12 m at 20 mph is 1 1/2 seconds. Try counting the time gaps or looking at the distance.

The bigger gaps and slower top speed giving higher average speeds is well proven - its by reducing bunching up. Cars speed up and slow down less so average speeds are higher - not always and not always significant but its a well known phenomonon on congested roads - no nmatter the speed limit

I think to a degree you are arguing against something that you haven't tried. I'm not talking about crawling inner city traffic, but actually 2 seconds is still is reasonable gap under any circumstances.

Here's an example that actually happened to a friend of mine who does drive too close (and cycles, so he really should see sense, but can't for some reason). He was following a car along an A road at night and the car in front swerved unexpectedly to avoid a cyclist. So my friend then is also swerving on his reactions to avoid the same. Luckily nothing was coming the other way so all was well, but all my mate could say to me was that the cyclist was not visible enough, not admitting that if he'd been a few seconds further back down the road not only would he have had much more time to deal with it but probably would have seen the bike for himself.

I reckon a number of seconds gap is not really a practical way of putting it, because you do (I admit) kind of get drawn into moving queues sometimes. Better to just make your priority number one to maximise the space around your vehicle. If you haven't tried it for a few months you just won't realise how much better it is. If you do try it and get used to it you will never go back.

glenp - your example is on an A-road.

Cars speed up and slow down less so average speeds are higher - not always and not always significant but its a well known phenomonon on congested roads - no nmatter the speed limit

Even for a short stretch between traffic lights?

Can both of you wake up to the fact that that's what I'm talking about?

Al You are right of course. Everyone else is wrong as is all the research.

Please show me the research that relates to the situation I have been discussing (rather than yours).

Yes, even for the short stretch between lights - if you go with the flow and don't rush you may even get the "green wave" effect.

Well, we've gone off topic really. The point was that bad driving goes unnoticed, whereas bad cycling gets the opposite sort of attention - ie people remember instances of bad cycling because it confirms the bias that is constantly reinforced in the media and elsewhere.

For heavy urban areas, town high streets etc, I would like 20mph limits - then you just roll along gently rather than racing to the next red light.

IMO there is no solution to this via legislation; applying the same rules to bicycles that are enforced on cars just doesn't work.

I commute daily through Cambridge, a city with a quite a few cyclists and a larger number of idiots on bicycles. I generalize somewhat but the "cyclists" are in hi-viz jackets, stop at red lights and have a bike with working brakes and lights; the others don't and it really winds up the motorists. Since the average motorist cannot distinguish between the two groups on bikes they decides we're all as bad as each other. So I've been the brunt of motorist's frustrations on a handful of occasions without any provocation on my behalf. C'est a vie.

But here is the rub. On a bike in this city I feel significantly more at danger from other people on bikes than I do with cars. Sure the cars have the potential to inflict greater injury, but they are generally stationary in traffic or moving in a predictable manner.

Then there is summer with the massive increase in hire bikes. Lethal. How does the training and licensing solve this problem? It doesn't. Yellow sticker on the down tube = accident imminent.

I've had far more close calls with motor vehicles than people on bikes in Cambridge.

I am generally passing other rides so I can assume they're idiots and give them a wide berth.

I regularly have vans and buses half overtake and then try to squeeze me off the road when something comes the other way. Its less frequent with cars as they can normally fit into the bits of road they want to occupy.

In addition to safety, there are other potential benefits to be gained by speed limit reductions in
urban areas. Those suggested in the literature include an increase in traffic flow and consequent
reduction in congestion and delays, [b]particularly where the roads are functioning at near capacity.[/b]
Further, reductions in speed bring about a reduction in vehicle operating costs with less wear and
greater energy (fuel) efficiency, and less pollution and noise (see e.g. Carlsson, 1997; Kallberg and
Toivanen, 1998; Cameron, 2000; Elvik and Vaa, 2004).

You can follow the references from here if you want to