New offences for cyclists/cycling

[Punkawallah]

Much ado about nothing, really, but the media like to create a drama to get people frothing.

We should remember, they are paid by the ‘story’, not by the ‘fact’.

 

[briantrumpet]

We should remember, they are paid by the ‘story’, not by the ‘fact’.

Actually, these days they are more often paid by the 'click', which is the death of balanced journalism.

 

[presta]

Not using a cycle lane...

That one's already been tried, with Daniel Cadden 18 years ago.

Keeping momentum at a large roundabout by not stopping to a car coming from the right.

A great deal of the cycling behaviour that motorists object to boils down to maintaining momentum. Unfortunately I've had arguments with cyclists even who don't understand that stopping wastes energy, and the need for repeated stopping in urban areas wastes a great deal of it.

It isn't overtaking; it's filtering. This is where lots of people arguing about cyclists "undertaking" go wrong.

This used to link an excellent essay from a lawyer on the legalities of filtering, unfortunately it's been taken down, and I don't have a copy of it: https://www.mackssolicitors.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling
In summary: there's no legal definition of the difference between filtering and undertaking, and if it gets to court, each case will be decided on its own merits. Here's another, but it's aimed at motorcyclists and isn't very comprehensive, with none of the detail and case law that was in the other one.

 

[icowden]

A great deal of the cycling behaviour that motorists object to boils down to maintaining momentum. Unfortunately I've had arguments with cyclists even who don't understand that stopping wastes energy, and the need for repeated stopping in urban areas wastes a great deal of it.

Definitely this. One of the big complaints (from cyclists) about shared cycling infrastructure (pavement widening) from my area to the town centre is that there are a huge number of side roads, so it doesn't make sense for a lot of cyclists to use it, as you constantly have to start and stop. Admittedly the lane is mostly aimed at parents taking their kids to school or to the town centre, but there is still a lot about it - the start stop, and poor sight lines at some junctions that make it problematic.

The original design had raised tables with traffic having to give way to cyclists and pedestrians but after "feedback" it got changed.

 

[mjr]

Definitely this. One of the big complaints (from cyclists) about shared cycling infrastructure (pavement widening) from my area to the town centre is that there are a huge number of side roads, so it doesn't make sense for a lot of cyclists to use it, as you constantly have to start and stop. Admittedly the lane is mostly aimed at parents taking their kids to school or to the town centre, but there is still a lot about it - the start stop, and poor sight lines at some junctions that make it problematic.

The original design had raised tables with traffic having to give way to cyclists and pedestrians but after "feedback" it got changed.

So it's a substandard outdated design. Active Travel England should punish that council for building dangerous shoot (as Commissioner Boardman says they have evidence that building stuff at least as good as the 2020 manual improves safety compared to an unmodified road, while building substandard shoot actually worsens it... but I've not checked to see if that's been published yet) and make the council put it right before they get any more DfT money, but we've still yet to see that happen. I hope at least the local cycling campaign is complaining noisily about the council blowing the budget and not even building it to the basic standard. Hell, even backwards old Norfolk is doing raised tables and carriageway give-ways across side roads off A-roads now, even if it often still doesn't get the sight lines and setback curves correct...

 

[Dadam]

@Jameshow - you're describing my inner city commuting, well, apart from the roundabout bit. I track stand those.

I'll prepare to be chased down . I'm not stopping for someone waving me to: on my south Leeds commute they're more likely to be muggers.

Same as me. Except I can't track stand. If I tried it using my commuting flat pedals I'd just look silly. If I tried it clipped in I'd look silly at the same time as probably injuring myself and damaging the bike.
I also don't filter on the left past lorries or buses

 

[PK99]

Cycled in London a few times. Found that if you follow the Highway Code, there is no problem. Perhaps it’s the ‘shock effect’?
My gripe is the idiots who post videos of their cycling pointedly -not- doing so.

Follow the rules. Be assertive. Be aware and acknowledge good driving.
And avoid the stupidly busy roads - but that applies anywhere.

London cycling is not a problem.

 

[Pashley175]

Near Stratford upon Avon, I was followed for a while by a car with its main beam on. Annoying but the mirrors dim quickly. Oncoming traffic was less happy and flashed lots. One retaliated by putting their main beam on until the following car dipped and then the reason became clear: both dip bulbs had failed and they only had side lights on a quasi motorway. What kind of plonker doesn't immediately head for a service station (we'd not long passed one) and buy two new bulbs in that situation? You wouldn't have much choice of bulb type or price, but you'd be able to see without breaking the law in a pretty dangerous way, dazzling oncoming traffic.

It's because people don't know how to change the bulb

 

[PK99]

I was walking along the pavement just a day or so ago. After dark. Mobility and health issues mean a fall could have very serious consequences.

I had to stop and hold on to the nearest lamp post or whatever it was, because the cyclist wheeling his bike towards me on the pavement had his VERY bright light on full and angled upwards.

 

[presta]

So it's a substandard outdated design.

Redesigning cycle paths doesn't remove the decision cyclists have to make at every side road: am I going to gamble my life on motorists respecting my right of way.

To quote the motorists' argument I've seen more times than I could possibly count:

"You're the ones who stand to get hurt, if you don't get out of our way you're stupid".

It's safer to be in the lane that the motorists are already giving way to for their own self interest.

 

[Punkawallah]

Redesigning cycle paths doesn't remove the decision cyclists have to make at every side road: am I going to gamble my life on motorists respecting my right of way.

To quote the motorists' argument I've seen more times than I could possibly count:

"You're the ones who stand to get hurt, if you don't get out of our way you're stupid".

View attachment 769669

It's safer to be in the lane that the motorists are already giving way to for their own self interest.

It’ all very well being ‘in the right’, but it’s no comfort when you’re ‘in the hospital’.

 

[a.twiddler]

It's because people don't know how to change the bulb

With recent cars I've owned, access to the back of the headlamp on one side or maybe both has been quite restricted, and I can quite see how someone might need to take the car to a garage to get it done. That's no excuse for not getting them fixed. If you have issues with modern LED lights, that's another world of (financial) pain, but it's not an option to not get them fixed.

 

[mjr]

It's safer to be in the lane that the motorists are already giving way to for their own self interest.

It's really not, because the same motorists who would fail to give way to a lane on their left also see nothing wrong with overtaking a cyclist in the same lane and then turning off across them with insufficient clearance. It's called 'left hooking' and it's a far more common crash type than a motorist crossing a cycle lane badly, in part because there's pretty much only one move a rider can do to avoid it and a so-called 'emergency turn' is not most people's instinctive reaction. They might give way to a car in front in the same lane, but not a bike. A friend was run down by a following motorist a couple of years ago, in broad daylight. There's little you can do about it, so a good kerb or barrier between you is often good.

At least in a cycleway, you usually get to see the nobber coming a little more as you've the time it takes them to start the turn extra.

In a proper cycleway rather than a gutter lane, the car will have turned already, scrubbing a lot of their speed and giving you an extra few seconds sight of them.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Redesigning cycle paths doesn't remove the decision cyclists have to make at every side road: am I going to gamble my life on motorists respecting my right of way.

To quote the motorists' argument I've seen more times than I could possibly count:

"You're the ones who stand to get hurt, if you don't get out of our way you're stupid".

View attachment 769669

It's safer to be in the lane that the motorists are already giving way to for their own self interest.

We don't seem to have problems with this here: Cyclists have right of way, and it's rare for a driver to cut across.
I'd suggest that this is because
1: It is drilled into you when you learn to drive, and
2: In the event of a collision the presumed liability is on the driver, not the cyclist.

 

[Punkawallah]

We don't seem to have problems with this here: Cyclists have right of way, and it's rare for a driver to cut across.
I'd suggest that this is because
1: It is drilled into you when you learn to drive, and
2: In the event of a collision the presumed liability is on the driver, not the cyclist.

I understand it’s the same in France - if a motorist hits a cyclist, the assumption is that the fault is with the motorist.