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 certainty of getting a bollocking for being late against the possibility 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.

@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 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.

+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 assumptions 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.