Cycling question

[mseries]

Rule 163 of The Highway Code says "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" - most motorists don't do this,

 

[RogerS]

Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?

How much room are you supposed to give a cyclist when you pass ? If the cyclist is in secondary position and you allowed the correct amount of space to pass you would be in the next lane no ?

Don't you mean 'primary' position?

 

[Bigbud78]

Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?

How much room are you supposed to give a cyclist when you pass ? If the cyclist is in secondary position and you allowed the correct amount of space to pass you would be in the next lane no ?

Don't you mean 'primary' position?

You said next to the Kerb, even in secondary (a safe distance from the kerb) there is not enough room for a car to safely pass without crossing into the next lane. Hence why being in primary is safer for the cyclist as it prevents unsafe overtakes when in the secondary position.

 

[bugbear]

The thing is these articles are usually based on London who's traffic numbers are hugely different from the other cities,

The thing is, these articles are usually written by lazy London based journalists.

BugBear

 

[mind_the_goat]

Applies to cars as well as lorries, it would be quite possible to pull up to the left of a car and not be noticed. It would also be a mistake for a cyclist to assume no signal means the vehicle is going straight on. I always rarely over/undertake a row of traffic at a junction but I do admit to sometimes hopping up on the pavement and passing traffic that way, clearly, checking the route for pedestrians.
As a sat nav user I would be more interested in an option to avoid right hand turns, not left hand ones, I would imagine drivers of larger vehicles would find that a much bigger advantage.

We have a busy single carriageway road here which is really to narrow for cyclists to share with motorised traffic. Several tens of thousands of pounds have recently been spent providing a cycle lane separate from the road. Most cyclists still seem to use the road which annoys the hell out of me,

 

[bugbear]

. Several tens of thousands of pounds have recently been spent providing a cycle lane separate from the road. Most cyclists still seem to use the road which annoys the hell out of me,

Since it's in the UK, I suspect the cycle lane is poor to the point of unusability.

We have such an item in our town; the cost was high and the benefit (to either cyclists or cars) is zero.

Being seen to Spending Money seems to be the priority.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... the-month/

BugBear

 

[mind_the_goat]

Jacob, why must you be in the centre of the lane? Is this your own viewpoint or suggested by others? TBH I can't see what's wrong with a cyclist being nearer the kerb..seems just being bloody minded to stick in the middle of the road. Surely you can ride off equally as well from the nearside? So why p**s off other road users ?

This is for the same reason why a bike shouldn't get on the left of a stationary vehicle, if the bike keeps his position in the queue but on the left, another vehicle will likely occupy the space, and quite possibly forget the bike is there. Also remember the bike can accelerate quicker for the first few feet so is unlikely to hold you up, unless of course you try to get in front it it so you don't get held up once moving, then risk pushing the bike into the curb.

 

[mind_the_goat]

Since it's in the UK, I suspect the cycle lane is poor to the point of unusability.
We have such an item in our town; the cost was high and the benefit (to either cyclists or cars) is zero.
Being seen to Spending Money seems to be the priority.
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... the-month/

Interesting, I assume the preferred route is round the outside, on the grass?
I've not used our new path but it looks much much smoother than the edge of the road, or the middle of it to be honest. Don't think there are any unnecessary obstacles just the normal road markings at entry and exit points. Given that I drive on that road a lot, I think had I wanted to cycle that way before the path was provided I would have used the pavement.
It was really built to provide a safer route to local school, I'd like to think the kids use it but I try to avoid it at that time of day.

 

[RogerS]

.....Also remember the bike can accelerate quicker for the first few feet so is unlikely to hold you up, .....

Not in my Tesla, it ain't :wink:

Seriously though, I challenge that statement. I did a little quick Google and came up with these figures for a bike.
0-10 mph--------- 1.4 seconds
0-15 mph--------- 3.2
0-20 mph--------- 5.0
0-30 mph--------- 18.0
0-35 mph--------- 33.0

If anyone is interested the original is here

I think that most cars will out accelerate those figures. That 0-20 time, in one of our cars we're close to 60mph. :shock:

 

[bugbear]

.....Also remember the bike can accelerate quicker for the first few feet so is unlikely to hold you up, .....

Not in my Tesla, it ain't :wink:

Seriously though, I challenge that statement. I did a little quick Google and came up with these figures for a bike.
0-10 mph--------- 1.4 seconds
0-15 mph--------- 3.2
0-20 mph--------- 5.0
0-30 mph--------- 18.0
0-35 mph--------- 33.0

If anyone is interested the original is here

I think that most cars will out accelerate those figures. That 0-20 time, in one of our cars we're close to 60mph. :shock:

I remember the One Show had a Olympic sprinter (can't remember which one) racing a Formula One. It was very close.

It's just a matter of distance. Sprinter was faster over (very!) short distances.

Can you find quoted/measured 0-10 mph times for a car?

BugBear

 

[mind_the_goat]

I think that most cars will out accelerate those figures. That 0-20 time, in one of our cars we're close to 60mph. :shock:

Hehe, well you had more luck Googling than I did, I'm sure Top Gear would take this on....oh wait.....
I was certainly only thinking of the 0-10, or even 0-5 range and was assuming the motorist wasn't trying to race the bike away at the lights. From being in the position where I'm in front of a car in traffic I'm quite aware it's behind me and would generally try to get moving quickly, it's fair to assume that in most cases the motorist would be aware there is a bike in front and would not put the pedal to the metal. Maybe the motorist does have to pause a little, but not enough to get p**sed off about it
Be interested to see if anyone else come up with some figures.

 

[RogerS]

Car simulator came up with 0.28 secs for an Audi 80.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Hehe, well you had more luck Googling than I did, I'm sure Top Gear would take this on....oh wait...

Oi !

Some of us are still in mourning.

I keep coming across re-runs by mistake whilst ambling around Freeview. It's really depressing if you let yourself get dragged into watching something.

E.

 

[Finial]

Going back to the original question, the assumption seems to be that people hurt by turning lorries bring it on themselves by passing on the left. Others here are quick to condemn cyclists. But cyclists in general are the most law abiding and careful traffic group. Not surprising, as they know they will get hurt if they run into something. Investigations show that most accidents they are involved in are the fault of an incompetent driver or careless pedestrian. Simple observation confirms that all drivers break the law daily, with impunity. Most people killed by turning lorries were being overtaken by the lorry at the time.

As far as cycle training is concerned, I know from experience that if you cycle strictly in accordance with the law and highway code it won't save you from being run down by an incompetent driver. Most people are well aware of the risk, and very few are now prepared to cycle on the roads. Motor vehicles have forced most other traffic off the road and we all pay the price for that, in congestion, ill health, obesity, noise, higher taxation, ugly and unpleasant town centres and poisonous air pollution that kills even more people than drivers do.

This may sound strange to some, but until you ride a bike in traffic, you may not realise how incompetent, distracted, careless and sometimes aggressive too many drivers are. They feel safe in their cars, but put others in danger. Most bike riders are also drivers, but most drivers aren't regular bike riders.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"Most people killed by turning lorries were being overtaken by the lorry at the time."
I don't recall ever overtaking anyone and turning left across them. Where did you get that from?

 

[RogerS]

...... Motor vehicles have forced most other traffic off the road and we all pay the price for that, in congestion, ill health, obesity, noise, higher taxation, ugly and unpleasant town centres and poisonous air pollution that kills even more people than drivers do.

.....

I'll give this one the weekly prize for the Sweeping Generalisation of the Week award.

Also I don't think that anyone in this thread has said anything negative about cyclists. And, as I suggested in my OP, self-presevration must surely feature in the mindset of a cyclist and commonsense not to put themselves at risk such as passing by the lefthand side of a lorry at traffic lights. You even suggest that 'they know they will get hurt' and so you are contradicting yourself.

Where is the evidence that 'cyclists are the most law abiding and careful traffic group'? Compared to pedestrians? Passing red lights? Cycling on the pavement? Cycling the wrong way down a one-way street?

 

[n0legs]

Where is the evidence that 'cyclists are the most law abiding and careful traffic group'? Compared to pedestrians? Passing red lights? Cycling on the pavement? Cycling the wrong way down a one-way street?

I would like to know as well RS.
Round here it's like the bike scenes from ET (obviously except for the alien in a basket :lol: )

 

[Finial]

...... Motor vehicles have forced most other traffic off the road and we all pay the price for that, in congestion, ill health, obesity, noise, higher taxation, ugly and unpleasant town centres and poisonous air pollution that kills even more people than drivers do.

.....

I'll give this one the weekly prize for the Sweeping Generalisation of the Week award.

Also I don't think that anyone in this thread has said anything negative about cyclists. And, as I suggested in my OP, self-presevration must surely feature in the mindset of a cyclist and commonsense not to put themselves at risk such as passing by the lefthand side of a lorry at traffic lights. You even suggest that 'they know they will get hurt' and so you are contradicting yourself.0

Where is the evidence that 'cyclists are the most law abiding and careful traffic group'? Compared to pedestrians? Passing red lights? Cycling on the pavement? Cycling the wrong way down a one-way street?

"Most people killed by turning lorries were being overtaken by the lorry at the time."
I don't recall ever overtaking anyone and turning left in across of them. Where did you get that from?

Drivers overtaking a bike then turning left across them is one of the commonest ways that riders get hurt. (Others are people opening car doors in front of the bike, turning right across the path of the bike, pulling onto a roundabout in front of a bike, or pedestrians stepping off the kerb in front of a bike.) Competent drivers don't do it. There are a lot of cycling deaths in London. Most are people crushed by turning lorries, often tipper lorries. Most London riders are experienced and don't ride up the inside of a lorry, though I'm sure some do. It usually turns out the rider was at the lights before the lorry. One problem is the poor visibility from lorry cabs, but another is that many drivers don't look. In some cases the driver was on the phone.

Why, thank you Roger!

The evidence is the result of police investigations that show drivers are usually the cause of accidents. Not much traffic law applies to pedestrians, but they aren't as careful as people on bikes, as a general thing - they cause more accidents.

Passing red lights - far more drivers do this than bike riders, at least in London. Almost every light change, one, two or sometimes three drivers keep going, sometimes after the opposite light is green. Many bike riders do as well, everyone knows that. But it is very rarely dangerous when they do. They look before they cross, like pedestrians do. Wouldn't you?

A few people ride on the pavement. They are almost always careful and considerate and safe. But people fuss about it in this country, even though driving and parking on the pavement is now completely commonplace, and far more dangerous.

Most people who might like to cycle now don't do so, and the reason they give is fear of traffic. Self preservation does indeed take up the attention of the few who do. That's why bike riders are, on the whole, the safest traffic group.

 

[mind_the_goat]

Found some figures for a Toyota Prius, not sure that that is representative, but from the graph I'd say 0-10 is, well, 1.4s
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...IJSVa23C8m0Uc-2gaAN&tbm=isch&ved=0CCEQMygBMAE

 

[rafezetter]

An article in today's Times got me intrigued. It talked about an App for lorry drivers that would give them a route from A to B avoiding a lot of left-hand turns and so, it was suggested, minimise the risk to cyclists. Sounded like a good idea.

Now I am not a cyclist and so have no idea if this is a sensible idea or not. Nor do I want this thread to degenerate into cyclists vs cars vs motorbikes vs pedestrians.

The thing that intrigues me is this. Surely it is well-known among cyclists that if you are at a set of traffic lights and there is a lorry in your queue of traffic that there is the strong possibility that if you were to cycle up the inside of the lorry while it was stationary at red lights to the front of the queue, that when the lights turned green there was a fair chance that the lorry might turn left across your path? Therefore to wait at the back of the lorry behind it so that if, when the lights go green, it turns left you are well clear? Doesn't self-preservation come into it?

As I say, I'm not a cyclist and so may well be missing something here.

I'm not a driver, so I've cycled on the roads pretty much since I took my proficiency at 13, and there is no excuse for any cyclist to cycle in a dream world expecting everyone around him to take avoiding action. Sadly I see too many cyclists that do exactly this - and doing so with headphones / earbuds on is just suicidal - If I were in charge any cyclist that got hit and was proven to be distracted and impaired by headphones would be considered a self inflicted injury with no penalty to the driver.

Cyclists that go through a red light deserve to die. simple. Even those that go through a red light when there is no left turn, because going through a red becomes an inbuilt habit and one day they will do it without even realising where they are and they will get hit; and I'll back that up and say hand on heart if I ever witness a cyclist get hit by a car as he goes through a red light I will witness and testify for the car driver that the cyclist went through the red and it wasn't the drivers fault.

Going towards a red light - look at the cars - pay attention to their indicators, and if it's a dual lane with a left turn next to it - go to the middle. If it's a single lane then park yourself in front of the car in the box, instead of the side - this will force a driver to take you into account regardless of his direction - so he might curse you, big deal; you're safe and he's not facing manslaughter by dangerous driving, you did him/her a favor. He won't dare hit or even nudge you out of the way - too many witnesses, and lots of cyclists with gopro camera's on their helmets.

You should ALWAYS look behind you when approaching a left turn if you intend to go past it, no excuse not to.

For some junctions I've encountered I won't even chance it - I'll get off and use a crossing.

Passing parked cars I'll look inside each and every one in the distance and if I see a body I'll slow down and go wider.
Pedestrians waiting to cross I'll ALWAYS assume they will step out after the last vehicle passes them because people are stupid, they are only looking for vehicle shaped objects in the centre of the lane not what's to the side, not helped by the fact the human eye only really see's what's in the middle, peripheral vision is pretty poor even in a 20/20 sighted person.

I'll admit to sometimes cycling up the white line, but that's usually because 80% of drivers never give enough space for a cyclist, even when it's available. I used to ride home on a road that was a dual lane but made almost 4 cars wide near enough - did you have oodles of room on the inside for cyclists on an obvious stretch of road with loads of cyclists on it? did you f***. Vehicles 2ft from the curb BOTH sides with 10ft of gap between them. Ridiculous.

Drivers that PASS a cyclist then go back to the curb in stopped traffic... what the hell is that about? Did you think the cyclist you passed stopped behind you? Is your attention span so short you forget about the presence of a cyclist and decided you needed to bring the car 18 inches away from the curb for no logical reason? I have also been known to get very aggressive about this and deliberately knock off wing mirrors with my foot if they pass me then pull back in... sometimes I'll just stop by the window and tap on it and tell them to pull out so I can get by... or I'll break it off.

sorry that got into a bit of a /rant there.... as you can see it boils my blood to be labelled and treated the same as some of those other cycling cretins.

Every cyclist death or serious accident caused by a vehicle turning onto a cyclist while following the CORRECT direction of traffic is the cyclists fault, no exceptions (and yes I'm aware Nick Gibbs got hit by a truck). No cyclist should ever assume the driver is competant or even know where he is going, because otherwise you'll encounter either one or both at once; some old confused biddy who's obviosuly not fit to drive and lost to boot and you'll get hit; yes that's happened. I've had cars accelerate to pass then turn left literally in front of me - the first time it happened I hit the side of the car went flying over the boot and broke my arm as I didn't know any better, now I expect it. (I was going downhill on a racing bike & the b'tard didn't even stop). It's so common almost every cyclist will have had it happen to him, so once bitten and all that. I've had cars pull over to park and hit me because they were watching the parking space, not what was beside them. Same for a reversing car, even though they are looking out of their rear window. I've been knocked off maybe 6 - 7 times, but I daresay I've avoided dozens more.

I could go on but I won't so I'll finish with this: A cyclist should always assume he has to do the thinking for both himself AND the drivers around him, like a game of chess - because that's pretty much the reality, for larger vehicles - doubly so.