John Forester

[mjr]

The minute you stick/place a physical divide in place, on the roads, you reinforce the "them and us" culture. "That's where you're supposed to be!" will be heard even more.

That may be another Foresterian belief that we disagree over. My experience living in different places makes me strongly suspect the "get orf moi roads" view is much more strongly correlated with low numbers of cyclists than high numbers of protected cycleways. I've even been shouted at to get off the road on a carriageway-only bridge!

As an aside, I'm disappointed to read that Leeds's cycleways don't accommodate recumbents. Then again, I doubt even Cambridge's new cycle lanes would be wide enough for a cyclist to pass it in the same lane, but it would be fairly straightforward for the overtaker to change into a carriageway lane if they really want to pass.

 

[raleighnut]

Absolutely right. But my kids need to have somewhere safe to ride: telling them to "act like a car" isn't going to make them safer when they're all of three feet tall on a bike.

Yep that's how things are at the moment due to the way motorists think and behave and the way our laws are set up but to stop protesting at drivers behaviour and just shrug our shoulders is counterproductive. In the UK we had a chance to bring in 'Presumed Liability' but the motoring lobby put a stop to that. There was outrage when a Cyclist hit a pedestrian who subsequently died but there is no outrage against the thousands who kill Pedestrians and Cyclists with their powerful death machines with them claiming "It was an accident" or "I didn't see them" as mitigation.

As I type this one of my best mates (A 'Key Worker') is laying in hospital with a broken Ankle, Leg, 5 Ribs and Spine as well as Thorax all because a Van driver pulled out on Geoff's Scooter when he was travelling home, the drivers excuse to the coppers at the scene was "I didn't see him" now Geoff's little 125 is barely faster that a pushbike but will the driver be punished, I doubt he'll get more than a fine and some points on his 'Licence'

 

[Archie_tect]

When I ride my bike, I assume that everyone else might do something stupid , when I drive my car, I assume everyone else might do something stupid. When they don't, I am pleasantly surprised and I thank them for it- a bit of courtesy frequently works both ways and hopefully modifies the other road users' behaviour to the benefit of everyone. When I see an idiot in a car or on a bike they are fools to themselves and endanger everyone... it comes down to accountability.

I look directly at the faces of people when I'm out on my bike or in a car- if they aren't looking at me and make eye contact I know there's a good chance they haven't registered that I'm there and I slow or hang back until I know that they've seen and if necessary heard me...

 

[mjr]

I look directly at the faces of people when I'm out on my bike or in a car- if they aren't looking at me and make eye contact I know there's a good chance they haven't registered that I'm there and I slow or hang back until I know that they've seen and if necessary heard me...

Whereas if they do make eye contact, there's a good chance they haven't registered that you're there and you should slow or hang back until it's almost impossible for them to hit you before you can react... as I expect you know.

 

[Archie_tect]

I agree, it's possible to get a good idea of their next actions just from their body and arm adjustments [ie how they lean to prepare for the G-forces when setting off or turning and how they alter the position of their hands on the steering wheel, how [or if!!] they slow down as they near the give way lines at junctions and roundabouts ... and how much attention they really put into looking before changing position or setting off- it's all to do with eye contact or lack of it, you can tell how much notice they are giving to what's around them- you can almost always possible to correctly predict what they'll do [almost always!!]

 

[classic33]

That may be another Foresterian belief that we disagree over. My experience living in different places makes me strongly suspect the "get orf moi roads" view is much more strongly correlated with low numbers of cyclists than high numbers of protected cycleways. I've even been shouted at to get off the road on a carriageway-only bridge!

As an aside, I'm disappointed to read that Leeds's cycleways don't accommodate recumbents. Then again, I doubt even Cambridge's new cycle lanes would be wide enough for a cyclist to pass it in the same lane, but it would be fairly straightforward for the overtaker to change into a carriageway lane if they really want to pass.

There's a physical barrier in place, which anyone wanting to pass by getting onto the dual carriageway would have to cross. That or they mount the pavement. I feel much safer actually on the dual carriageway section of York Road. And meeting being told to get of their road with it's not their road, and how much room do I need, with as much "as you need".

I ride a road vehicle, therefore I'll ride on the road. The fact that I don't pay "Road Tax" is a non starter. But the physical separation of "my lane" from the main highway reinforces this view that I shouldn't be on their road.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Yep that's how things are at the moment due to the way motorists think and behave and the way our laws are set up but to stop protesting at drivers behaviour and just shrug our shoulders is counterproductive. In the UK we had a chance to bring in 'Presumed Liability' but the motoring lobby put a stop to that.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[Andy in Germany]

There's a physical barrier in place, which anyone wanting to pass by getting onto the dual carriageway would have to cross. That or they mount the pavement. I feel much safer actually on the dual carriageway section of York Road. And meeting being told to get of their road with it's not their road, and how much room do I need, with as much "as you need".

I ride a road vehicle, therefore I'll ride on the road. The fact that I don't pay "Road Tax" is a non starter. But the physical separation of "my lane" from the main highway reinforces this view that I shouldn't be on their road.

I agree with what you say; I do the same between cycleways. You and I being stroppy types I mean experienced cyclists capable of risk assesment and assertive cycling can do this. Unfortunately my kids can't, nor can my wife.

I also notice that in places where there is a lot of infrastructure (and I mean real infrastructure, not just "paint a line on the road or make a cycleway to get bikes out of the way", infrastructure) then there is a lot of cyclists and drivers are much better behaved, partly because they are used to bikes, but also because they ride a bike or know people who ride bikes, so it's a win-win situation.

The only place I've found where this isn't the case is Japan, but I think that's because cities are generally fairly flat and most roads are so narrow it's hard to drive fast down them so cycling is normal there. Also pavement cycling is accepted, if not always legal.

 

[classic33]

I agree with what you say; I do the same between cycleways. You and I being stroppy types I mean experienced cyclists capable of risk assesment and assertive cycling can do this. Unfortunately my kids can't, nor can my wife.

I also notice that in places where there is a lot of infrastructure (and I mean real infrastructure, not just "paint a line on the road or make a cycleway to get bikes out of the way", infrastructure) then there is a lot of cyclists and drivers are much better behaved, partly because they are used to bikes, but also because they ride a bike or know people who ride bikes, so it's a win-win situation.

The only place I've found where this isn't the case is Japan, but I think that's because cities are generally fairly flat and most roads are so narrow it's hard to drive fast down them so cycling is normal there. Also pavement cycling is accepted, if not always legal.

I'd never expect kids to be learning to cycle on a dual carriageway. Nor do I think would a load of others.

Before this thread started it was how the Dutch managed to seperate cyclists and motor vehicles. The argument stays the same, just the people change.

 

[snorri]

This thread surely proves I was right to describe JF as a "controversial" cycle campaigner in the OP.

 

[MichaelW2]

If you can ride like a grownup then you should ride as a vehicle, not a teenage tearaway. This doesn't mean slavishly legalistic riding, but putting your safety first in a sensible manner and ensuring that those around you know what to expect.
If you are a child, or ride like a child then find a park or sidestreet to learn on.
I have been riding my bike as a vehicle since i was 10.

 

[mjr]

I have been riding my bike as a vehicle since i was 10.

I've been riding my bike as a vehicle since I was much younger than that and that vehicle is called a bike. It ain't a farking "pedal car". If you ride pretending to be a car, that's what you behave like.

 

[classic33]

I've been riding my bike as a vehicle since I was much younger than that and that vehicle is called a bike. It ain't a farking "pedal car". If you ride pretending to be a car, that's what you behave like.
View attachment 518647

A bicycle/tricycle/quadricycle is a legal road vehicle by law though. I don't think a pedal car designed and sold as a toy meets that legal requirement.

 

[mjr]

A bicycle/tricycle/quadricycle is a legal road vehicle by law though. I don't think a pedal car designed and sold as a toy meets that legal requirement.

Me neither. That's why cyclists of any number of wheels shouldn't try to be pedal cars, else we'll be seen as toys and banned from carriageways. Our vehicles are pedal cycles, on the roads by right not licence, and we should be proud of that!

 

[snorri]

We just have to get drivers to drive as if they were cyclists then all will be well.