Safe Speed Forums

Telegraph



Sounds like a recipe for disaster - caused by drivers going too fast naturally.

I can understand not wanting to ride all the way around a one way system but what is wrong with just getting off your bike and walking a few yards?


There is also an article on Pistonheads, I find this section particularly interesting



Would be nice if they adopted the same thinking for drivers able to safely exceed the speed limit!


Another article in the Times

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

As a cyclist and a driver I dont have a problem with this. If i was just a driver I would be pissed off though, not because of safety concerns but because the same rules arent applied to us as drivers all being able to drive safely above the limit on many roads, however the rules arent changed for us.

There are already one way roads around London which allow cyclists up the other way on a cycle lane, the only difference here is there wont be cycle lanes. I admit to doing this on the smaller roads already, and I dont get off and walk cos it's slow and it's safe to cycle up the roads I choose to do this on (as it is safe to break the speed limit when we choose to do that on suitable roads). It's unfair on motorists in a way, but look on the bright side, local councils starting to go against central government crap - it's the potentially start of something big very good

Quite!

Other issues concerning pedestrians not realising there could be or hearing cyclists coming the wrong way have also been raised.

As yourself I wear both hats and I like the idea of not making a cycled journey longer than necessary, I have been known to knock half a mile off my route to work by using a footbridge over the rail line myself. The idea of making it legal for cyclists to simply wander into the path of oncoming traffic secure in the knowledge it will not be them found to be at fault does strike me as being a bit daft.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

There was a piece about this on Today Programme this am which really wound me up. I'm not totally against the idea, but their chosen talking heads were a guy from the Cycling Touring Club and Tiff Needell (amusingly referred to as Tiff Needle...), and when TN made a fairly reasoned argument that this was something else where motorists always would be held responsible if there was an accident, the CTC guy said "which just goes to show motoring journalists live on an entirely different planet from the rest of us" and proceeded to treat him with a thoroughly unprofessional level of contempt. This only succeeded in putting me off his point of view, which was broadly as above that 'if everyone does it, then it must be right'.

Pedestrians will not be looking in each direction in case there are cyclists. I gather Bolton's solution was to have buses and cyclists going on one direction and the cars in the other direction. This does not please everyone either per my sisters and brother in that area...

As for the CTC guy.. my reply to him would be that his comment and attitude would appear to show that he and not the motoring journalist lives on a different planet

it would depend on the road concerned. I gather from a Chelsea/Kensington based pal that these one way roadways under trial are NOT overly busy through or trunk roads or dual carriageways.. but rather those one way residentials complete with humps and Mews/cul-de-sacs ..running off them ....


I would have very serious protest issues if this plan was extended to allowing cyclists to go the wrong way around an already confusing Keswick one-way system.. along with everyone else with common sense.


Fine-ish to bend some rules on fairly quiet residentials - but a very different matter if very busy one-way systems in a town/city centre became a "dodge'em" situation more so than present with all the pretzels currently out there.

However, this gives even more urgency to our call to all "seasoned cyclists with an aging old style proficiency test" to go for the Bikeability .. (Stage three akin to IAM for cyclists ) - which goes hand-in-hand with Franklin's "Cycle Craft" which preaches C O A S T in pages 51-59

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Great, just what road safety needed, cyclists being told to contravene road signage with the laws blessing.

I guess not having number plates makes it too much effort to do anything else about it.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Oh I agree that cyclists should have some way to be identified if somnething goes pear shaped for any other road sharer. It's not just the fracas with motorists.. but also that with the the most vulnerable of all.. the pedestrian who has little means of compo if hurt by a rogue cyclist... of whom there are just as many as the rogue drivers out there

As in the cyclist v cyclist cases I occasionally find in the cycling rags and post up for general opinions - it can be very difficult to obtain compo if the person is not insured or worse - cannot be identified and brought to account for damages they caused..



I think some legislation will be passed though some time in the future given the numbers turning to bicycles as fuel and toll taxes begin to bite.

Cash has to come from somewhere after all - and if we all turn to cycling as the main means of transport - the government will still want a huge slice of incomes in indirect taxation all the same to plug the gap made by car users.

I face reality and there are two absolute realities of life


1. We all die eventually

2. Whilst we are alive and even after death - we pay taxes to the state.





But back to the topic ...

As the Mad Doc posted.. I think these roads will be very quiet residentials. I think there will dangers to elderly and small kids who will think traffic will be heading in one direction only and not be aware of a cyclist.. which places the burden of responsibility purely on the lycra clad backside of the rider who chooses to take advantage of this as far as the" most vulnerable road user of all" is concerned


In fairness to other cyclists, bikers and motorists - there should be a clause which makes it plain that the choice to use this "exemption" would be at the rider's own risk and responsibility as there still remains a choice as to whether or not to ride witihin the existing one-way or ride down these streets.

As I quite enjoy "flirting and negotiating" with the traffic and just "blending in normally" - I think I will stick with the normal flow anyways

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm far from pro- increased regulation, although I see it as somewhat inevitable given the way society is headed

My point was more that when I'm in my van, I could safely drive through certain red lights, safely exceed speed limits in certain places, and safely ignore all kinds of traffic regulations, but this counts for nothing- I'd still be breaking the law and answerable for it, so why should cyclists be treated differently? Because motorists are easy to identify/persecute and cyclists aren't, and thats the beginning middle & end of it. And thats a pretty shoddy basis on which to make laws... the police have a pretty lousy conviction rate for rapists, sub 5% I gather, should we legalise rape too?

Perhaps thats a pretty extreme analogy but no different in principle.



Which is exactly what we have now- a cyclist goes down a one way street knowing he's "in the wrong", and even now not all of them respect this. Once you legitimise it it the stupid holier-than-thou minority will cycle down the same one way street secure in the knowledge they have moral supremacy and it's solely a car drivers duty to know they're there and account for them.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Pretty much my view. This sets cyclists apart from other road users on the grounds that some are lawbreakers so their actions should be legalised so as not to upset them. What next, the green light for Muslims to kill homosexuals?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The idea of challenging a rule to see if it should be amended or removed is all to the good in my book. What you suggest does sound sensible, a rule which encourages road users to make their own decisions and accept responsibility for them would be great.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Slippery slope...

1) In the interest of safety and theft, all cycles need to be registered.

2) All cycles have a number plate and registered and pay a nominal fee of just 20 pence a year. (Bargain! ) This, obviously, will increase as years go by but hey - baby steps

3) Pedestrians should be identified with a reg number tattooed on their foreheads just as soon as they can walk.

4) In the interest of safety and theft/abduction, all people need to be registered and pay a nominal fee of just 20 pence a year. (Bargain! )

Balaclavas banned!

Next step - Pedestrians will start buying personalised ones at silly prices.

Maybe I should look into getting BT1 now?

I wonder what that looks like as a bar code?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Mmm, we don't need more ways of being spied on. We need to get rid of the ones we have now. Get rid of vehicle numberplates! They are only used for money-making and tracking us. They aren't required for non-motorised vehicles. The really dangerous people have ones which can't be traced to them anyway.

_________________
Andrew.

I'm sure they will in time, with the help of GPS. A unique identifier built into every car at manufacture will send information back to head office with exactly what car is where and who should be driving it.

I think it could happen in my lifetime. At the rate and increasing production of sophisticated cheap technology, I honestly think it's just a matter of when, not if.

I think the restriction on GPS positioning was removed ages ago, so now you can be located down to less than a meter, as indeed the Sat Navs seem to indicate, so police will easly know where you are, even in a line of traffic.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I'm not convinced it would happen, because of how easy such a system would be to disable or fool.
Does GPS work in every multi-story car park? Or in every garage? If not they can't stop you from operating the car without a satellite signal. Can the receiver tell the difference between no signal and no aerial? Or an aerial which is covered up or replaced with a dummy load?
Then how do the signals get back to head office? Radio again? Can the signals be jammed? I should think so.

_________________
Andrew.

I wish I had your outlook Ziltro. But I have a fear that it has got to get much worse before it gets better.

The 'tools' get better, but history repeats itself. This is my belief and it gets me down

What make anyone think the 21st century is going to be any better than, well, you pick a time...

"There may be trouble ahead
But while there's music and moonlight and love and romance
Let's face the music and dance

Before the fiddlers have fled
Before they ask us to pay the bill and while we still have the chance
Let's face the music and dance

Soon we'll be without the moon, humming a different tune and then
There may be teardrops to shed
So while there's moonlight and music and love and romance
Let's face the music and dance"


That's how I try to live my life these days. "Try" being the operative word, in this country...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The gps-based system being used by several insurance companies seems to work quite well.
The antenna is located on the w/screen.
The info is retrieved by gsm (mobile phone)
But you probably won't have that system.
The national id card (if ever) would fulfill all the requirements. They could have (and probably will have) a built-in rfid. It could be made easier by having the cars control system have to have the id card plugged-in before it would go...it could use the gsm link to confirm that insurance was held before allowing the car to start...
It's all good fun, isn't it !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

It will obviously be illegal to tamper with such a system, we all know that making a law stops people from performing the act which is why every car on the road is correctly registered, taxed, insured and only driven by a licensed driver.

A new law/tax will be passed making blocking of rfid tags illegal so if your ID card accidentally ends up caught between the screen and keyboard of your magnesium cased laptop you will become a 'nice little earner' for the government.

Sorry cynical morning moment there.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

At one point I was going to post wondering if perhaps cyclists would be allowed to ride the wrong way around roundabouts as well.

Take a look at this roundabout, can you see the tongue of tarmac on its southern entrance extending from a flower bed done to a keep left bollard in the hatched area? This road divider has a raised kerb, though obviously you cannot see it.

This lunchtime I was walking towards it on the left hand side from a southerly direction and saw a young/teenage cyclist heading north cross over the road and ride just to the right of that divider, then as he reached the exit of the roundabout he turned right into the cycle lane that rings it. At least two cars passed him travelling in the opposite direction as he did this and another car heading south from the eastern entrance fortunately saw him and slowed as he did his right turn across the cars path.

There was no accident, he did not die so perhaps cyclists should be allowed to ride the wrong way around a roundabout or even on wrong side of the road if they feel like it.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Cyclists have been allowed to cycle down one way streets the wrong way for decades. Also to cycle across the centres of roundabouts and the wrong way around them. Who cares anyway ?
We already pay for their accidents with our vehicle insurance, and they don't pay for emergency treatment either.
It's only one more step to make any cycle/vehicle collision the automatic fault of the motorised vehicle driver.
Having said that, I cycle into town (leave the car at tesco)(free) when I need to. I was walking the bike over a river footbridge when I nearly had a collison with a cyclist riding his bike over the bridge. I pointed out the no cycling, to be told to (go forth and procreate). He then went on his merry way....only to run into the railing at the bottom....my ribs still ache from the laughing....many more go-forths issued from his extremely foul mouth. Day. Made. My.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

This roundabout was installed somewhere around 1986. At the time used to regularly cycle round it - via the roadway except for taking the first exit when I sometimes (when not full of broken glass) took the prescribed cycle route.

At the time it was built I regularly told people it was a triumph of stupidity no doubt built to make some daft cycle lane quota.

Drivers all stopped to give way at the roadway of the roundabout and not at the give way lines so any cyclist attempting to use the prescribed route was in severe danger of getting flattened. It was particularly dangerous because drivers would be looking at the roadway and likely to miss a cyclist who was coming from a spot upto 40 degrees to the right and partially hidden amongst several bollards.

I expected there would be many accidents although I never saw any evidence despite crossing the roundabout hundreds of times a year. Neither did I see a cyclist attempt to use it for the second exit so perhaps that's why there were apparently no accidents. I expected it to be ripped up and redone but it's still there. I have never seen a similar design again so at least they may have abandoned the design which I still believe is severely dangerous.