Cycle Position on Radio 4
- Thread starter Svendo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
It was a balanced piece. Nowt to argue with.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Seemed reasonable enough in the bit I caught
As Easy As Riding A Bike
Well-Known Member
Julian Worricker seemed a bit obsessed with the "red light" issue.
But apart from that it was ok.
But apart from that it was ok.
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
http://www.bbc.co.uk...ours_03_01_2011
About 36mins in...
Duncan Pickering the IAM guy is the man answering the questions at the end. Over all a good peice and only lip service to lights and RLJs (they denote the law and thats it).
About 36mins in...
Duncan Pickering the IAM guy is the man answering the questions at the end. Over all a good peice and only lip service to lights and RLJs (they denote the law and thats it).
Yep, I was happily suprised.
First part at the cycle training covered some of the issues with cycle lanes,
then having the IAM cycling bloke was a good idea as he has a foot on both sides of the fence, as it were.
I did think the emphasis was a bit on the cyclist's responsibnilities side, other than acknowledging drivers are as ignorant of the highway code as anyone, no mention of drivers responsibilities towards cyclists, i.e. not jumping the lights into RSLs, overtaking safely etc.
Overall though, better than I was expecting especially as it was a very short item.
First part at the cycle training covered some of the issues with cycle lanes,
then having the IAM cycling bloke was a good idea as he has a foot on both sides of the fence, as it were.
I did think the emphasis was a bit on the cyclist's responsibnilities side, other than acknowledging drivers are as ignorant of the highway code as anyone, no mention of drivers responsibilities towards cyclists, i.e. not jumping the lights into RSLs, overtaking safely etc.
Overall though, better than I was expecting especially as it was a very short item.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
37.18 it starts
<div><br></div><div>Much shorter than i expected. But a well covered and fair piece. </div>
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
I think the IAM guy got it across that people lapse after taking the test... whether that sinks in is anyone's guess.
Yellow Fang
Legendary Member
- Location
- Reading
I listened to it. There were bits of it I wasn't sure I agreed with. For example, cycling instructors seem to be very keen that you ride in primary position a lot of the time. I just don't like doing it. I agree with not riding in the gutter and keeping out the way of car doors, and that it's better to pull out into the road for certain manouevres. Otherwise, I'd just let traffic pass. To be fair, they did say the position should be a metre out. They were also pretty dogmatic about thou shalt not ride on the pavement, except when it has a white line painted on it marking it out as dual use. As far as I'm concerned, a pavement is still a pavement, even if it does have a white line painted down the middle, so what's the principle behind not cycling on them. Also RLJing, true it pisses off drivers, but so does being stuck behind a lot of cyclists trying to get up to speed after the lights turn green. To be fair, someone did make this point too. I usually do stop at red lights, although, IMO, it's not always that safe for cyclists to stop at some traffic lights, especially if they encourage a driver to overtake and turn left in front of you.
You are right about cycle instructors/primary. The problem is that even seasoned riders find it counter-intuitive and overdo secondary. So instructors have to work hard to force you to overcome your inhibitions and consciously decide when primary is a good option. But it is only that - because primary is an option and there are other considerations which may mean you still choose the secondary option. Its up to you to balance the reduction in close passes with the extra aggravation of drivers.
Never be afraid of asserting your right to primary. But to forgo it sometimes is not always bad.
Never be afraid of asserting your right to primary. But to forgo it sometimes is not always bad.
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
Every junction I've ever looked at where I know cyclists give declaration that its "safer" to jump the lights.. everyone of those I've come to the conclusion that if you plan your journey better you can avoid either said light or just get off and navigate it on foot.
I think most RLJs do it because they're selfish, lazy or a combination of the two.
With primary there are places where I will take primary, and dammit, if a driver doesnt like it then it tough. One of these is a fast downhill stretch where I can do 30 very easily. Yet I have had on occassion drivers blasting past, sometimes with the window down screaming murder. The problem is theirs, not mine, as I do it for my own visibility/safety in 30zones.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Trouble is if you RLJ you loose any moral highground when you are (almost inevitably) the victim of poor or illegal driving yourself. If as a cyclist you choose which road laws to obey then you permit drivers to do the same.
I agree it is politic to avoid RLJing/Pavement cycling to avoid retributive action - I fundamentally disagree with your equivalent of cyclists/motorists duty to obey all motoring laws at all times.
The bottom line is any law is justified on the grounds of nuisance or danger to others. Bikes on the whole are not a great danger to anyone but the rider. The application of law is justified where they are a real nuisance. A Nelsonian eye is not unreasonable when they are not. That is what I would hope for as a cyclist. As a driver I do realise that most moving offences are there to control danger rather than nuisance. Especially for the 80% of us who know we have above average ability!
That application of a moving vehicle law may appear inappropriate but the downside on any misjudgement of that by the driver is still dangerous. Hence I seek to obey the law when driving and I would like to see it rather more strictly enforced on other drivers.
Law is a means to an end (road safety) and not an end in itself. Hence its application to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers should be graduated with that in mind. That is difficulty to enshrine in law but historically applied through the discretion in prosecution. But every council/police station will have their quota of legal jobworths.
pshore
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Last contour N of Cambridge
It skipped over a lot, the glaring omission being on-pavement cycle paths for me, but all pretty reasonable. Very different to the wind-up-listener style of the R2 Jeremy Vine show. Your average rush hour car commuter will not be listening to You and Yours but 3 million listeners ain't too bad.
Two things came across when listening to the people taking the course:
1. How scared they sounded of the road. I wonder how many people would want to ride a bike but are too afraid.
2. How obvious the lessons learned were once they were pointed out from a bicycle. Eg don't cycle through the doorzone. If only all drivers could be made cyclists again. Progress in this area seems way too slow.
Two things came across when listening to the people taking the course:
1. How scared they sounded of the road. I wonder how many people would want to ride a bike but are too afraid.
2. How obvious the lessons learned were once they were pointed out from a bicycle. Eg don't cycle through the doorzone. If only all drivers could be made cyclists again. Progress in this area seems way too slow.
As Easy As Riding A Bike
Well-Known Member
I would add - further to that - how depressing it is that so many cycle lanes place novice cyclists in such a dangerous position.
