Cyclist Vs motorist-this time its personal.....

[ultrazenith]

I see driverless cars as the saviour of road cycling safety, as they will eliminate driver error altogether.

 

[Rod_Saetan]

For all of you that love to cycle in the door zone lest you upset a driver perhaps you should watch this.

https://twitter.com/GMcycling/status/628543130300776448

Yeah, Mile End Road, I go down there every day and it has been particularly difficult whilst they install the new segregated CS7 - but at least they are installing a segregated lane bike path here.

I don't think it's necessarily that people love to cycle in the door zone lest they upset a driver, I think it's probably that people often aren't fully aware of the potential pitfalls and vulnerabilities of being a Cyclist in a City. I often see what appear to be conscientious Cyclists (hi-viz, lights on their bike, helmet, clearly do a lot of miles) way ahead of the ASZ I assume as they think that being that far ahead means they are out of danger's way, except that they can't see the signal for a green light resulting in them being static after the motorised traffic has had 10 metres of accelerating to get to their position.

Taking the lane is all well and good, but when a Bus driver eager to get back to the depot for a cuppa sits 12cm from your rear wheel at 20 mph for 300 yards its fairly intimidating, you have to know when is the right time to move in and when its the right time to put yourself front and centre. Cycle training should be mandatory if you ask me, for everybody, at a young age, then even if people don't become Cyclists but become HGV drivers, at least they have a better awareness. The other positive side effect of this is that if you instill confidence in Children to cycle they will continue and then be more likely to use it as transport in the future. During the tube strike this week I tried to count the number of 'private vehicles' - ie not buses, lorries, vans, Taxis I saw with just one person in, it was about a third, and I was breezing past the lot of them as they sat in their little financed boxes combusting money.*






*Yes, I'm a smug prick.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I'm sure we've all been in a similar position.

So, what's the answer?

All of us sharing our experiences on here will not change the situation.

Any ideas? :?

Well this is a message board on a site focussing on a certain group of cyclists or collectors interested in a specific area of cycling.

Not really a campaigning medium.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that discussing these issues here will not change the situation.

Any discussion on this issue is valuable.

My particular answer is to lobby for more cycle ways.

Some people see that as a retrograde step.

There are large distances involved in the rural highlands, we have the potential to create a huge interconnected cycle system that keeps motorised traffic completely separate from pedestrian and cycle traffic.

It just takes some imagination and a lot of funding.

Sorting out the problems faced in extra urban areas is completely different, and studies have shown complete separation might not be ideal, as it is not practical.

That leaves a dangerous fudge, where cyclists are sometimes separate, then mixed.

That intersection is where many of the fatalities occur.

I really don't know the answer to that.

In London I use the canals and old railways where available, but I am still dodging taxis to get to them.

Up here I might cover a half dozen road miles on a forty mile loop.

Different worlds. Different solutions.

What JamesM says fits best with the approach I take to defensive riding.

I would rather force a driver to slow down than have them push me into the kerb.

I have been hit a few times doing this, but they have always slowed to near my pace before hitting me.

If it were left to me, London would have roads shut off to moronised traffic in order to provide huge safe areas for cyclists, pedestrians and the like. Barriers would close occasionally to allow waiting moronised vehicles cross over, but they would always have to wait.

They may call me a dreamer.

 

[scottmac]

I'm sure we've all been in a similar position.

So, what's the answer?

All of us sharing our experiences on here will not change the situation.

Any ideas? :?

Well this is a message board on a site focussing on a certain group of cyclists or collectors interested in a specific area of cycling.

Not really a campaigning medium.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that discussing these issues here will not change the situation.

Any discussion on this issue is valuable.

My particular answer is to lobby for more cycle ways.

Some people see that as a retrograde step.

There are large distances involved in the rural highlands, we have the potential to create a huge interconnected cycle system that keeps motorised traffic completely separate from pedestrian and cycle traffic.

It just takes some imagination and a lot of funding.

Sorting out the problems faced in extra urban areas is completely different, and studies have shown complete separation might not be ideal, as it is not practical.

That leaves a dangerous fudge, where cyclists are sometimes separate, then mixed.

That intersection is where many of the fatalities occur.

I really don't know the answer to that.

In London I use the canals and old railways where available, but I am still dodging taxis to get to them.

Up here I might cover a half dozen road miles on a forty mile loop.

Different worlds. Different solutions.

What JamesM says fits best with the approach I take to defensive riding.

I would rather force a driver to slow down than have them push me into the kerb.

I have been hit a few times doing this, but they have always slowed to near my pace before hitting me.

If it were left to me, London would have roads shut off to moronised traffic in order to provide huge safe areas for cyclists, pedestrians and the like. Barriers would close occasionally to allow waiting moronised vehicles cross over, but they would always have to wait.

They may call me a dreamer.

It seem highlandsflyer, that when I have posted on here in the past, you always try to to ridicule me. You have made sexual remarks against me in the past and always need to have a dig at anything I have posted on Retrobike. I find that nobody on the planet has as much experience as you regarding any subject posted on this forum. You have a story for EVERYTHING in life and I am sure you are a god in your own outside loo, but I really can't be ar$ed posting here, when all you do is try and belittle me, and others too I'm afraid, with your condescending and patronising manner. :roll: I have reported you to moderators on several occasions, but I come on here for a chat and a bit of banter, not to be ridiculed.

Well it seems enough is enough as far as I am concerned and this is my final post.

May I add, that I do agree with some of what you have last posted, regarding "Different worlds. Different solutions."Alas, defensive riding and the remark of, "I have been hit a few times doing this, but they have always slowed to near my pace before hitting me." is totally moronic. Shall we all wait to get hit and end up under the wheels of a car? This is not what cycling is all about, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyhow, if I carry on it will just look like sour grapes on my part, so stay safe Retrobikers.

I'm off to ride my bike!

 

[02gf74]

Re: Re:

That happens to me almost every time I venture onto the road for a mile or so between off road. Drivers really are getting worse, and there are many more of them!

Yep which is the reason i took my road bike out about 10 times last year and i think 0 times this.

And the thing is, these morons think they get held up by cyclists but in reality far far more time is lost due to other traffic, junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights. They wont take on another car but hitting a cyclist wont cause the same damage as another car or bus.

One solution is for police to take a harder line., the driver in op should not just get a caution but a fine and points on his license, a punch or two in the face would not go amiss.

 

[greencat]

Personally, I favour a presumed liability on the part of the motorist in any accidents with non-motorised vehicles or pedestrians.

I sit on the fence regarding more segregation between cycles and cars. It may encourage the less confident, but it also contributes to the sense of cyclists not being "real" traffic.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Yes, I have looked at the stats from places like Holland and such, some of which have been posted on here before. These demonstrate different things depending on which way you look at them. My hope is we see huge uninterrupted trails and paths where people can dump the car or not even take the car, and spend hours in the saddle. Not really talking about town or city riding. The studies do describe issue where paths cross or join/leave motorised traffic.

Seems there is no perfect solution.

I love, for example, being able to head out for a couple of hours knowing, despite the gales blowing, I am unlikely to be in a collision with a vehicle I had no idea was coming.

I have an issue with the presumed liability thing, I think we went through that debate lately and certainly on other sites it has been rumbling on.

Personally, I feel I drive with a great deal of care and attention to other traffic. I would hate to be put in the position of having had a collision and then being assumed at fault. I know it would not necessarily pan out that way, for example if there were witnesses and evidence pointing clearly to the other party being at fault. My fear is the occasion I am trundling along the remote B road at 20, as I do very often, and some loon on a downhill rig flies out from the woods by the road. If a deer does the same, I am not up in court.

For justice to exist there needs to be a fundamental assumption that all begins equal.

If my insurance company needs to indemnify me against presumed liability, it is going to cost me more.

The backlash of that would be renewed calls for cyclists to share the insurance burden.

I also think it would encourage an attitude I think is increasing amongst cyclists, though still a minority, that they are automatically in the right.

 

[firedfromthecircus]

I have an issue with the presumed liability thing, .

For justice to exist there needs to be a fundamental assumption that all begins equal.

Where is the equality on the road?
That's right. It doesn't exist. The damage that a car can inflict when crashed is many times greater than a cyclist. And it increases the larger the vehicle is. Our current licensing system takes this into account. If you want to drive larger vehicles you have to take a further test to prove capability.

So when cars and cyclist are on the road in such unequal positions why does there suddenly have to be equality in the court?

The last time PL came up on this forum I was utterly disgusted at the fact that there were cyclists on a cycling forum arguing against better protection for cyclists. :facepalm:

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Your HGV license does not cause you to be considered as having a heavier burden of proof when involved in an incident.

Neither does a PSV license.

The point is that every case should be taken on its own merit. If we are to go down the prescriptive route with all Law then we will have courts run by robots and automatic convictions.

I would rather have my day in court, and start that day eye to eye with my accuser.

I need to read up on the whole issue, I can see your point and perhaps I have my head up my arse.

Not for the first time, but at least it is warm.

 

[Woz]

I sit on the fence regarding more segregation between cycles and cars. It may encourage the less confident, but it also contributes to the sense of cyclists not being "real" traffic.

Having lived in a city with segregation, the "other" side effects are not pleasant. Also,
practically to belive that there
will always be a cyclel lane where
exactly you want to go is fantasy and the inevitable of mixing with
cars will always happen.

The car driver and cyclist must
therefore simply learn how to
share finite space.