Reply With QuoteDid they force you off the road? Might have been tight but w/o making contact they wouldn’t make you fall over/off as a cyclist might.Originally Posted by adrianw
I was thinking about this thread today, I was travelling along a Road in my car and three tipper lorries were coming the other way, all way over the white line, it was very very tight, we’re they driving dangerously with Pugh consideration for other road users. I’m pretty sure if I went to the police they would tell me to stop wasting their time.
Did they force you off the road? Might have been tight but w/o making contact they wouldn’t make you fall over/off as a cyclist might.
Try not to think as cycling and driving as the carrying the same risk. The safe distance for cyclists is different to cars, the former don’t have a metal shell, side impact bars, seat belts, and air bags for protection.
On coming car clips you whilst driving and you might damage a wing mirror, clip a cyclist’s handle bar and there’s almost certainly going to be some kind of physical injury.
It was a proper breath in moment, I was driving a very low car so would have come off very badly if one them hit me, they didn’t slow down, but this sort of thing happens every day on single carriageway roads, these lorries were far to big, on the basis of the conviction they must have broken the law.
There are laws in place particular to cyclists which don't apply to cars (or even motorcycles).
Sorry to hear about your distressing incident.
This shows the risk associated with the hierarchy of vulnerability on the roads. That’s why it’s important not to think of cycle bikes as the same as cars and the new hierarchy of risk introduced.
“The new hierarchy puts pedestrians and cyclists at the top, and drivers of cars, vans and heavy goods vehicles at the bottom. This is because pedestrians and cyclists are considered the most “at risk” of being injured in a collision, whereas drivers of vehicles are considered more dangerous to other road user.”
You had a fright which is a good demonstration of this hierarchy so I am pleased the Highway Code was changed. I agree that the police may not follow this up and that’s very familiar to cyclists too.
I’ve been a keen cyclist for over 50 years, both on and off road, it’s funny we have had to cope with cars overtaking too close or cars overtaking and then hitting the brakes for ever, sorry but the current changes are another example of changes that aren’t necessarily for the good, if the are going too prosecute drivers they should prosecute cyclist as well.
The UK law is softer than Mr Blooby, must have really deserved it to have that.
I knew a man who had 17 points on his licence and they still left him on the road because they have no back bone to deal with dangerous drivers.
in the UK, bicycles are considered vehicles and as such it is illegal to ride one on the pavement (unless the pavement is a designated cycle lane).Plenty of room for the cyclists to have popped up onto the pavement and cycled between the car and the wall.
Ha ha ha ha ha, classic.
what classic? it's actually the law (rules 62 to 64):
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82
Lol
Yep, that applies to cyclists too.
Yes, cyclists have the ability to piss off drivers..................................
Yes, Drivers have the ability to piss off cyclists.............................. BUT - THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO KILL OR INJURE THEM.
Which is the reason for the new laws and prosecutions.
It applies to all …
BUT … an inconsiderate or reckless cyclist is unlikely to kill anyone in a car or lorry. But pedestrians would be at risk.
I don’t understand this mentally where people have a bad attitude towards others based purely on their chosen means of transport.
Almost every road decision made by local councils these days is to the detriment of the motorist. We have numerous cycling clubs round where we live and they are endlessly cycling side by side blocking the route for motorists. There are also numerous roads reduced in width due to cycling lanes installed by councils that many cyclists don’t bother using, cycling down busy roads and holding up traffic in the process. Yet the perception is that cyclists, many of whom are no doubt motorists too, are happy to give out at inconsiderate motorists but think nothing of their own actions. Add that to the fact that cyclists don’t need to do a test to use the roads nor pay any road tax for using their bike then it’s easy to understand why motorists can get frustrated.
Unfortunately this is symptomatic of today’s society where people have a habit of thinking of themselves more than showing consideration to others. That applies to both motorists and cyclists.
There's also the possibility that if you stayed nearer the parked car, the opening door would knock you into the path of the speeding car. They were right to give the parked car space to avoid dooring.
On a broader point, there are 2 vehicles causing issues here and neither of them are bikes.
I fully agree with this, we also have many cycling groups in our area, I even use to cycle with them but have now stopped. It does annoy me seeing cyclist being 3 abreast with no care for any cars or other road users, and then when people try pass they give them abuse for being to close! When I cycle I stick very close to the side, I know I can be further out, but would rather avoid cars being to close than being in the middle because I can.
The reason I stopped with the groups is the size, they go out with groups of 20+ and its just dangerous, so hard for cars to pass when the group is so long but also moving at 25+ mph.
Indeed. I don’t understand why people can’t abide by the Road laws regardless of mode of transport. What’s wrong with cyclists stopping at red lights for example? I cycle, drive and have had a motorbike in the past but I walk a lot more than the above methods.
Cyclists flying through a red light at 20mph could quite easily kill my 6 year old as we cross the road…
Classic "whataboutery"..............
We were talking about car/bicycle interaction, I responded about car/bicycle interaction...................... And now you have jumped to "yeah-but bikes and my 6yr old!"
You are displaying all the characteristics of the type of driver that the new laws are designed for.
Last edited by blackal; 4th May 2022 at 11:29.
I have to disagree with this. In my driving life, I VERY often see cyclists do things that are ridiculously unsafe. Let me give you 2 recent, real life incidents that display the hypocrisy that can be seen almost every day :-
1. Main road in Glasgow, busy Saturday afternoon, temporary traffic lights, as they’re digging up half of the road. I’m sitting at the (red) light and what comes past me? A cyclist, totally ignoring the red light and heading straight into the oncoming traffic. As you can imagine this caused utter chaos, as car drivers had nowhere to go.
2. I turn right into a one way street, only to be met by a cycle courier going full pelt towards me, heading in the wrong direction. He’s not even looking up and when he finally does, he panics and I get a tirade of abuse for “nearly killing me”.
I have no issue with cyclists, and do give them the room they need but sometimes I’m just amazed at how they can do these kinds of thing but then appear holier than thou when they’re clearly in the wrong. I know cyclists are vulnerable but sometimes they don’t do themselves any favours when it comes to public opinion.
I’m a pedestrian. And we were talking about all Road users and the hierarchy the new laws set out!
You’re displaying all the characteristics of an entitled cyclist.
Last edited by dougair; 4th May 2022 at 13:04.
Agreed everyone should follow the rules … cyclists should stop at red lights and all the ones I know do so, but some jump reds just as some car drives do … making generalisations about the behaviours of certain types of road users just makes you look like an anti …
There is a small section of society that doesn’t adhere to the rules, some ride bikes, some drive and so on …
Logic has to be applied to more than one case, if not it’s hard to make an argument. Hypocrisy is a sure fire way not to persuade another party in any discussion. The whataboutery response is lazy and counterproductive, and unfortunately widely used to avoid taking the time to address another’s point of view. And, in this case it is leading to the lack of accountability for cyclists which has already directly resulted in the death of pedestrians.
If cyclists (and some do) really believed in the new hierarchy proposed in the Highway Code then healthy discussion on how they are endangering pedestrians would be welcomed. If not, it is hypocrisy and the changes to the Highway Code were just a cynical attempt to increase cyclist influence on the roads
We can all come up with examples of poor driving, cycling etc. however most do follow the rules/laws, no one pays road tax, so everyones entitled to use the roads whether fast or slow.
Surely that is semantics, motorised vehicles pay to use the roads, cyclists don’t
Not all do.
And we have to sit a test to prove our capability of doing so, oh and we have to have insurance in case of accidents.
Maybe I’m generalising but cyclists by their very nature are pretty much untraceable on the road, as they aren’t obliged to be identifiable, so if an incident does happen, or has been caused by them, bingo, they cycle off into the sunset, leaving a trail of carnage (and expense) behind them.
Surely we need more accountability?
As you know, a large number of cyclists drive motorised vehicles as well…and also pay for the roads via their income tax. Vehicle excise duty is based on emissions. Cyclists have zero emissions & pay the same duty as drivers of electric cars.
What about insurance?
True, but most do https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-vehicle-tax
I didn't realise electric vehicles don't pay, and I have two
What about it?
I’m a cyclist! (Although I prefer proper bikes rather than those silly things with comedy narrow tyres, it’s beyond me why more of them don’t just fall over!) I’m not anti anything. And in London I can assure you it’s not a minority. All Road users should respect others recognising the hierarchy.
Don’t get me started on driving in London, it’s like the Wild West! If you adhere to the 20limit on a residential road you’re almost certainly going to get sworn at and overtaken.
Last edited by dougair; 4th May 2022 at 16:33.
Would it not make sense for cyclists to have some? Even it was just for personal injury, assuming that not all claims are settled by claiming against a driver.
Given they’re vulnerabilities, it would seem to make sense to have some form of cover should the worst happen.
While not London centric, the latest data I found doesn’t seem to support that view
https://fullfact.org/news/ignoring-r...s-researchers/
What about it?
Many cyclists are insured ... most pedestrians are not. When I had a drunk step out in front of my motorbike it caused about £4000 of damage and injured me (and him) he was uninsured on the highway ... my hard luck (and his).
All we need here is a bit of mutual respect and for people to not demonise a particular group because they are walking, cycling or driving ... even Audi drivers ;-)
Cyclists seem to come in for a lot of grief mainly caused by a handful of people on bikes who ride like idiots (mainly in London). Down here in Kent the only people on bikes who seem to ride in anything like an obnoxious way are some of the delivery riders I see riding too fast through the pedestrian area in Canterbury.
If I see a cyclist jump a red light when I'm out riding I will have a word; if they are in a club kit I will also email they club sec; most cyclists hate to see others jumping reds as it gives us all a bad name.
That said if anyone wants to get outraged by poor driving/riding there are far more bad drivers and they create far more risk than a few errant cyclists.
Well it’s certainly refreshing to hear that some cyclists do have some form of insurance cover., I wasn’t aware that there were policies available.
I would hate for someone to end up seriously injured to the point where they lost their livelihood and had nothing to fall back on.
In saying that, I’ve just reread your message and you were on a motorbike, so you’re legally obliged to have insurance.
Not where it becomes a bar to accessibility no, I see little need to encumber children and infrequent cyclist, insurance is available to those who want it and I suspect many more commuter cyclists than you might expect have it.
The government figures on cycling deaths / accidents don’t seem un reasonable to me given a estimated 7.5m cyclists in 2021
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...factsheet-2020
Yes I was insured on my motorbike; point was the pedestrian that had me off was not ...
Lots of ways for cyclists to be insured; most through membership of Cycling UK or British Cycling.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/insurance
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/legalandinsurance
Plus a whole range of private providers and I suspect some home policies.
The argument of compulsion for insurance for cycling is another matter but I think it would be much better for all to crack down on the 1 million uninsured cars on UK roads.
As soon as anyone starts moaning about uninsured cyclists that sets off my anti cycling radar as if they really cared for the issue their primary gripe should be the 1 million cars without insurance which represent a far greater risk to everyone; because someone who is willing to drive without insurance is probably likely to take other risks ...
You only need to observe the behaviour in London rather than polling asking cyclists if they do.
Some have insurance, but it's optional.
The anti cycling brigade often bring up things like; cyclists should have a clear registration, cyclists should have insurance, cyclists should pay road tax, cyclists should wear helmets, cyclists should get fines for bad riding and so on.
What's often forgotten is that any measures such as the above will only discourage people from getting on their bikes, and use cars instead. Which is worse for the environment, the state of the roads, and everyone's health.
The behaviour of some people on bikes in London really isn't representative of the rest of the UK; just as the very poor driving isn't ...
Really having a beef with cyclists is missing the point somewhat ... if everyone in London were on bikes like Amsterdam just think how good that would be ...
I think you’ve misread my comments on cyclists being insured, I merely pointed out that should they be unlucky enough to suffer a serious, life changing accident, it would be prudent to have something to claim against.
As to uninsured drivers, I have zero tolerance for that as much as you, I feel.
I have, I don’t agree with your assertion.
To be fair if government took the cycling issue seriously and did more to split cycling and motor vehicles and creating pedestrian centric areas as they have been doing in the Netherlands for years we might be having different conversation but I fear we a quite some years from that.
Agreed; we are far from this opportunity ... at this point maybe we should cross reference the obesity thread ...
I don't think the UK road infrastructure can ever sensibly segregate traffic so better to focus on the requirement to share and be respectful ...
I have a beef with everyone in London! I think it’s time to leave before my sanity leaves me!!
I think we now see the problem ...
I also have insurance for cycling. Lots do.
Posting Permissions
