Cyclists on A roads

[renault12ts]

10% is one in ten.
20% is one in five.
15% is somewhere in between, one in 6.67.

 

[dtr]

Should you be driving if you're blind?

Well done, you've completely missed the point.

The main point is, these cyclists totally risk their lives. That is one pointless risk. Many get killed daily, many more injured. Is that not a good enough reason to ban them from these roads?

You should pay a visit to South West, where visibility ahead is frequently obstructed by numerous turns and bends, as well as trees. The A roads here are rarely dual carriageways, they are more like a slightly wider version of B road. We have M5 if we want a decent road
Did I travel at the max allowed 50 there? No - more like 30 as I was expecting trouble. Did I put him at risk? I had to break, but there was no immediate risk to him at all (this is going up a hill). Only when the other car zoomed in at 50 things started looking somewhat dangerous. Did the cyclist take any notice of the events? No, he completely ignored it and kept using the whole lane. Well done!

Before you continue to slack me, I may tell you that I used to cycle a lot and plan to do some this year. I do make use of cycle routes, and never try to get in anybodys way like that, jump lights, etc. If there is any danger I just move to the safety out to the side. Why risk it?

The trouble is, there are plenty of cycles routes in the South West, and they would totally ignore them even if they were along the main road. I can't understand that.

 

[dtr]

I am with dieselman on this. Your driving needs some serious revision. You were obviously not prepared correctly. And, before anyone asks, yes - I am a driving instructor. A police one!

Sir, would you like my licence number?

 

[finisterre]

The problem with sloping along in the gutter is that drivers think you are dog poo. You have to assert yourself or they will drive you off the road. Not all of them, nowhere near, just some, but those are the ones you need to dominate. It is a bit like driving a lorry, if necessary you must be positioned to monopolise the road. Cycling is stunningly dangerous and defensive riding makes sense.

 

[CKLclive]

The problem with sloping along in the gutter is that drivers think you are dog poo. You have to assert yourself or they will drive you off the road. Not all of them, nowhere near, just some, but those are the ones you need to dominate. It is a bit like driving a lorry, if necessary you must be positioned to monopolise the road. Cycling is stunningly dangerous and defensive riding makes sense.

think you might be missing the point bikes get taken out by cars and trucks take out cars !

 

[finisterre]

The further out you are from the gutter when travelling round a left hand restricted vision bend the earlier you are seen. The motorist's thinking time will eat thirty feet, if you can stretch that to being seen at sixty feet you are a damn sight safer than cycling up the inside and being one of those 'I didn't have a chance' casualties.

 

[219]

Well done, you've completely missed the point.

The main point is, these cyclists totally risk their lives. That is one pointless risk. Many get killed daily, many more injured. Is that not a good enough reason to ban them from these roads?

You should pay a visit to South West, where visibility ahead is frequently obstructed by numerous turns and bends, as well as trees.

As much as some people dislike it , cyclists , horse riders , pedestrians and even farmers taking their cows or sheep from one field to another have every bit as much of a right to use the roads as any driver or motorcyclist - so NO , they should NOT be banned from 'these roads' .

Cyclists are already banned from motorways so can use fewer roads than motorists - now you want to restrict their movements even further ?

I'm glad to hear that you were driving with some degree of anticipation , but if you had to 'emergency brake' perhaps not enough ?

As a former advanced driving instructor and emergency response driver one of the first things we teach is to formulate your driving plan based on three things :

1) What you can see

2) What you cannot see

3) The circumstances you can reasonably expect to develop

I would hazard that the circumstances you experienced are covered by 2 and 3 above .

I , too , cycle recreationally during the fine weather months and know how it feels from both sides of the windscreen . Whilst I tend to cycle solo , and away from other traffic , I do on occasion find myself on 'A' , 'B' and even unclassified country roads where it is good practise to be listening out for other traffic and to maintain a position as far to the left as reasonably practicable . However , I would not expect to have to dismount to climb a hill ( especially a lengthy one which would take long to walk up ) but would require a metre or so 'from the better part of the nearside' as opposed to half that for normal cycling ; drivers are further required by law to allow 2 metres clearance when overtaking which is effectively the full lane .

Some cyclists do interpret this as meaning they are entitled to use the full width of the lane , and indeed do so because they feel it is safer to force cars to wait for a clear lane to overtake than to 'squeeze by' in close proximity .

One can never legislate for the behaviour of other road users , but we can each do our own bit to make the roads as safe as possible for all users ( even the bad ones ) .

 

[m2287]

if you guys think you have it bad with cyclists, come to Cambridge! its unbelievable that someone who has never SEEN a bike before can go straight onto a road and "cycle" it.

One time, right in the city centre, I was turning left in a very narrow one way system, a cyclist completely ignored my signal to turn, and obviously dreaming, mounted his bike and continued to cycle straight into the side of my car. All infront of a policewoman. She went straight over to the cyclist asking what the hell they thought they were doing, they wernt english, I was told that even though I had done nothing wrong, I was going to have to pay for a new door as there was nothing they could do to follow it up. .


Milton road (one of the main roads out of the city) has a cycle lane on the widened footpath, yet EVERY day that i drive down it, there is some d*** h*** cycling down the road with no helmet on instead of using the lane made for them, clogging the traffic the whole way down the road

 

[CKLclive]

The further out you are from the gutter when travelling round a left hand restricted vision bend the earlier you are seen. The motorists thinking time will eat thirty feet, if you can stretch that to being seen at sixty feet you are a damn sight safer than cycling up the inside and being one of those 'I didn't have a chance' casualties.

I take it you ride a bike then ?

 

[Beetnik]

The main point is, these cyclists totally risk their lives. That is one pointless risk. Many get killed daily, many more injured. Is that not a good enough reason to ban them from these roads?

They risk their lives because they go up against cars.

Most cyclist fatalities (actually around 1 every 3 days and not 'many killed daily') are due to cars.
Most pedestrian fatalities are due to cars.

To quote dtr ' is that not a good reason to ban them (i.e. cars) from these roads'.

I took my test 40 years ago and still remember my instructors words regarding the gear to be in:
'If you can't see..
Number three'

If you have to make an emergency brake due to a cyclist on a hill you'd be well advised to make a visit to specsavers.

 

[steve333]

if you guys think you have it bad with cyclists, come to Cambridge! its unbelievable that someone who has never SEEN a bike before can go straight onto a road and "cycle" it.

One time, right in the city centre, I was turning left in a very narrow one way system, a cyclist completely ignored my signal to turn, and obviously dreaming, mounted his bike and continued to cycle straight into the side of my car. All infront of a policewoman. She went straight over to the cyclist asking what the hell they thought they were doing, they wernt english, I was told that even though I had done nothing wrong, I was going to have to pay for a new door as there was nothing they could do to follow it up. .


Milton road (one of the main roads out of the city) has a cycle lane on the widened footpath, yet EVERY day that i drive down it, there is some d*** h*** cycling down the road with no helmet on instead of using the lane made for them, clogging the traffic the whole way down the road

I have often wondered about what happens when a cyclist is at fault in an accident considering they are not legally obliged to have insurance,so a policewoman witnessed the accident where the cyclist was at fault then told you the replacement door would have to be payed for by you but if the accident was your fault & the bike was trashed would the policewoman have told the cyclist sorry you will have to buy a new bike?

 

[finisterre]

I know I sound paranoid but really I am scared.

I don't cycle much on roads any more, I had a few too many close shaves when I cycled 3 miles every day to and from work in central Leeds.

 

[oldcro]

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

 

[finisterre]

I have often wondered about what happens when a cyclist is at fault in an accident considering they are not legally obliged to have insurance,so a policewoman witnessed the accident where the cyclist was at fault then told you the replacement door would have to be payed for by you?

I did hit a chaps door and rear quarter, my fault entirely, it cost me £660 quid to put right.

I am not sure about the legal position but it felt necessary.

 

[Beetnik]

I have often wondered about what happens when a cyclist is at fault in an accident considering they are not legally obliged to have insurance,so a policewoman witnessed the accident where the cyclist was at fault then told you the replacement door would have to be payed for by you?

Whilst they may not be obliged to have insurance they are still liable in law for the consequence of their actions so you are liberty to sue them. Of course they may not have the resource to compensate you which is why most of us with cars take out comprehensive insurance to cover us in these circumstances.

The policewoman is tasked with enforcing the law, not advising on it (the task of say a lawyer) so I'd take any advice she gave on the subject with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Beetnik]

I did hit a chaps door and rear quarter, my fault entirely, it cost me £660 quid to put right.

Shouldn't have had his @rse hanging out the door!

 

[m2287]

I have often wondered about what happens when a cyclist is at fault in an accident considering they are not legally obliged to have insurance,so a policewoman witnessed the accident where the cyclist was at fault then told you the replacement door would have to be payed for by you?

Basically Cambridge is FILLED with foreign students who are here for no longer than a month. She said that by the time anything could be done, if i wanted to do anything, he would have been out of the country. I wasnt happy! Luckily it was only a little honda civic and I picked up a painted door for £50 from a scrapyard.

I work for a massive "fast food" franchise who have restaurants open late at night, we have something damaged every week by someone, unless its worth over £150 we get nothing. If its worth more then that, then depending on how much the person who damages it makes/if we want to follow it up, they may have to pay a bit towards its replacement.

I remember one incident when an "intelligent" cambridge university student unscrewed one of our tables and decided to take it back to his halls of residence. Cambridge city centre is like a big brother city with CCTV, by the time the manager had noticed it had gone, the police were at the halls retrieving it. Had they not have seen it, it would have been a £600 bill for us, i doubt a "poor" student in debt would have to pay anything towards its replacement even if he had been caught.

I have no idea if the bike and restaurant scenarios are related but the system doesnt seem right.

 

[steve333]

Whilst they may not be obliged to have insurance they are still liable in law for the consequence of their actions so you are liberty to sue them. Of course they may not have the resource to compensate you which is why most of us with cars take out comprehensive insurance to cover us in these circumstances.

The policewoman is tasked with enforcing the law, not advising on it (the task of say a lawyer) so I'd take any advice she gave on the subject with a large pinch of salt.

Appreciate & understand your point but although cyclists maybe liable in law for the consequences of there actions,once they have left the scene of an accident you have no trace on them if they give you false details(i.e. no number plates on bicycles).

 

[219]

Appreciate & understand your point but although cyclists maybe liable in law for the consequences of there actions,once they have left the scene of an accident you have no trace on them if they give you false details(i.e. no number plates on bicycles).

This is why I have advocated registration on many occasions .

 

[Beetnik]

This is why I have advocated registration on many occasions .

Cars, vans, trucks etc - misused kill people on a regular basis

Bikes, pushchairs, mobility scooters, boats misused rarely kill people

So register the former but not the latter.