Safe Speed Forums

I'm not going to bother seeing what that is if you don't mind Weepej but why don't you try debating instead. You want people, not just SS people, but all people to surrender to your viewpoint otherwise you will brand them as anti-cyclist.

Sorry, but that is not how a debate works.

_________________
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.

Ah, Tone. I think we know and understand each other's views on the rest of what you said, but on the following:

Well, HGVs are excluded by law from the third lane of the motorway in the same way that cyclists are excluded by law from all lanes of the motorway. Unlike the roads, the motorways are designed and reserved for fast-moving motor traffic and are regulated with that in mind.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

It may surprise some that it is also possible to be a cyclist and not think that push-bikes are superior to all other road users!

As more vulnerable road users we need to be prepared to do more in order to ensure we are as safe as we can be, not because of our rights, or any sort of fairness, but due to the fact that we have more to lose, and thus can't rely on anyone else to have as much of an interest in doing it for us. If that extra care sometimes inconveniences us then so be it, I for one much prefer the inconvenience to the alternative!

Hang on, why don't I ride in a manner that gives me the same sense of security, but doesn't inconvenience me at all, only other people?!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Oh I know that ta Grumps, I should've use a smilie perhaps, I was exaggerating for the sake of emphasis.

Weep probably came across whatever that is months ago and has been itching for an opportunity to use it ever since. I think he likes me really.

_________________
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.

Push bikes are road users? Funny that, I thought it was the person or people on them!

Once again weepej, your egregious pedantry only serves to strengthen your opposition to all who do not conform to your point of view! Or (b)...

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

No. I am saying that I would prefer not to.


That is quite unfair, Tone. I am perfectly happy for people to disagree with me. That has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-cyclist sentiment.


A campaign to express concern over enforcement of speed limits might well attract motorists who want to drive as quickly as possible. Such motorists will resent having their speed restricted by the presence of cyclists on the road. You don't need a crazy hat to understand that.


And maybe cyclists should be up in arms because they can't use the motorways at all. But I don't think they are

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Well said Tone.
Added to that: isn't "main" usually considered to be the major component of a flow?
Why are there so many cycle lanes? Do pedestrians walk along roads?
It seems to me the ones who jump upon this distinction are those who want to ride as fast as possible.

It is clear there are a few posters who are determined to shy away from questions that prompt sincere debate, choosing instead to make repeatedly unfair generalisations and wanton misrepresentations; this obviously becoming more prevalent, so I'm going to take this chance to sum up.

It is fair to say there is a portion of motorists who 'think less' of cyclists. However, I think it also fair to say the supporters of this campaign are no more represented than the general population in this respect; there is no bias.
Furthermore, it is evident that campaign supporters (especially the main ones, in this thread) are over-represented when it comes to being cyclists.

The issue makes more sense when considering the shoe on other foot. It could be that a few cyclists think less of motorists, and whoever tries to equalise that imbalance is invariably (and wrongly) seen as anti-cyclist. Closer to home: there is an interesting correlation between those who hold a particular viewpoint, to the frequency of their evasion and proven misrepresentation.



If a mere 1 is adamant they should be able to retain their benefit at the detriment to many others, then isn't it obvious where the self-importance really resides?
ALL ROAD USERS have to get along to make the most of the limited road space we have.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It's not something I ever would do but I feel like I should register as a new user to put my side across because I have a demonic anti-cycling SS label tattooed on my head and, as such, anything I say will be discredited. It's just very frustrating for me, made all the worse by Weepej fanning the flames.

I thought we had come down from personal attacks and insults and it saddens me that this thread is heading towards another dip when I thought we'd got back on track.

I think both Mag and Grumps have come on here and argued their side well and I give credit where credit is due. My eyes have been opened to new ideas and terms I haven't heard before and for me they have made thought-provoking opinions.

Again, I think that’s what a debate should be and I'm interesed because: A) I’m a cyclist and love cycling and: B) I want to learn and know more about cycling safely. Why wouldn't I and others here FFS!!! I am not so arrogant as to think I know it all.

Dave, DCB! No offence meant and maybe I need to expand on where I am coming from but it's late and I'm knackered so I'll have to pick it up tomorrow bud. Whenever anyone accuses me of being unfair my ears prick up because I hope that's not something I am and certainly not something I ever want to be...

_________________
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.

Have you considered the possibility that what you view as "anti-cyclist" might actually just be not quite as pro-cyclist as you?



What, other than your own animosity, makes you believe that anyone here actually thinks like that? The fact that I, and others, think it wrong that any road user intentionally obstruct another for their own convenience? Do you need your crazy hat to suppose that militantly pro-cyclist elements might view a campaign to express concern over enforcement of speed limits as comprising mainly motorists who want to drive as quickly as possible, and to confrontationally treat all their members as such, regardless of evidence to the contrary?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I referred to the 'main stream' of traffic because that is where the greatest number of traffic flow occurs. How else am I meant to refer to 'those people who ride a bicycle' if not as cyclists ? How can that possible be 'anti-cyclist'?? I never for one second stated that cyclists are not road users or not part of the road environment. Nor have I ever stated that cyclists, are 'irrelevant' ! I value the safety of all road users, when did you last give up your job for a cause? I am quite happy to debate the point but we can take it to another thread.
It concerns me that you can 'read' so very much into 'this'. A cyclist will ride to the left side of the traffic if you think of that as 'in the gutter' then that is your phrase.
Perhaps we should meet and you can show me exactly what you mean ?
Do you really? What makes you say that being near the kerb is rarely safe and sensible?
No one has ever suggested that cyclists are or are not less or more important. But this is an interesting opinion that you feel that there is a 'level of importance' at all ? Why do you think that any road user has more importance than another. How does your hierarchy look? I do not see one having priority over another, other than as necessarily defined in the HC.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

If I were to try to cycle, 1m to the left of 'traffic flow' those vehicles are all different widths and will also position themselves appropriately according to their individual needs, so it is a 'moving reference'. Even taking it as a 'general average' invisible 'line' your 1m will often have you riding at the roadside anyway on many roads, - so what have you gained and how is this really any better ?
If it is chosen to improve safety - how?
And how is it better than simply recognising the whole road layout and to position yourself according to the very best safety given all the road environment?
What research tells you that? Most drivers passing a Driving Test needs to have some ability at peripheral vision. There has been a such a strong concentration on speed alone (predominately), this has helped to degraded many motorists ability to drive well, little has been encouraged to improve over the last 16yrs. Distraction has become a large factor in this too. Drivers are less confident too and this causes all sorts of problems.
Not at all. I have been cycling on the roads for approx 40yrs, and Ba are moderately recent. I have looked at their w/site and read relevant sections according to the need of this discussion. I made myself more aware. I enjoy greater knowledge, and if I can see that a new idea has real benefit, then after researching it and after a thoroughly analysis of it, it is likely to be adopted and encompassed.
First if you have access to this report can you please supply it to me as it wants me to pay some £41 for it ! Then after analysing it thoroughly, I will be delighted to discuss it with you.
If (as you state the reoprt shows)cyclists are experiencing closer passing as we see from a few of the videos, then why the encouragement to get more people to copy this higher risk strategy ?
No, a reason for an accident is not always down to what the people involved said but what those reporting the accident believe. They can be mistaken, as can road users too. Often too the 'failed to see' is really down to lack of forethought to even consider another road user. Sometimes it is a failure to anticipate or a error of assumption and so on...
Ah but a slow constant improvement that truly addresses the root cause will gradually improve many areas of road safety. Some immediately applied 'solutions' can have negative side effects or even make a situation worse, hence why we need careful thorough and scientific research. trials can often be used to help identify the real world conditions when some feed back is necessary.
That would imply that I cared little for myself whenever I cycle or any of my fellow cyclists. Of course I am not and never have suggested that. There can be some 'immediate action' and some longer term more thorough solutions too. With easy access online video and easy yearly reminders to all motorists (through road fund licences) a click through 'road user guides' could easily be promoted to help with the 'latest road problems'. It will come down to people taking greater care, more consideration, more awareness, and keeping their minds on the task at hand and observe as much as possible allowing good space all about them.
The Essex/Norfolk 'Think' campaign for greater motorbike awareness and 100's if not 1000's of posters, has been extremely successful.
The why not ask him that although he may have felt he was in total control, what would he have done if you had had to pull out, for (and select a past grate or some such), to help him recognise, that you might not have seen said object, might not have been able to stop in time, and so may have needed to swerve out into the road. You may also ask him if he knows about the latest bike advice of riding further out into the road too.
Really ? Are you sure? Do you realise what you are saying?
(Put aside the car for the minute and think about what you are doing.)
We have to all survive on our own responsibility, making sure that our actions do not expose us to danger and try to ensure also that our actions do not put others in danger either. That goes for every single road user from the small child to the old timer and every mode of transport.
The internet can be a rapid teacher, but everyone has to know about new laws, and in the real world many never even keep up to date even with the latest HC. Remember rules and regs should only ever be just enough to achieve desired behaviour. People are usually best motivated by 'self-interest', do that and they learn.
At this point you have NOT said that French Law says cars=full liability. However I did think that you may have meant this. So when the local refers back to the GB labelled cars as being 'their Law' it refers to the UK law - which does NOT have motorists at presumed liability. So that is not written correctly. I think what you meant to say was, that the local told the UK people that the French Laws state that motorists will be totally liable if they have any accident with a bike? yes? Or ...
You seemed to be trying to state that UK drivers in France were worse because in UK law doesn't make it that motorist take default blame. It seemed to say that UK drivers are worse because their rules are different, but of course they are not acting the same as French drivers, because their rules and culture of driving is different. There could be many many reasons if UK drivers are having a greater number of accidents with cyclists. It could be because of predictability or position or that drivers are distracted etc etc. It does not mean that 'just' because we don't have this rule that the accident wouldn't happen.
The UK doesn't fine you if you don't happen to have your lights on in a tunnel but France does. Now whilst that may mean that many French drivers over here will likely turn on lights when they go through a tunnel, it does not mean that they will be aware of all of our road expectations. So when all foreign drivers visit other Countries with other rules of course they will not behave the same! Where are the French road rules when you by a car ferry ticket - do they hand them out as to what is common practice on the Continent?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Does this learning also include a greater appreciate of good points 'well executed' as well as mistakes that you can learn from too? Do you analyse each incident for all the positives and negatives ?
Does this also involve how you too can improve?
I think that can work in both ways, people so react to cameras but not always so I hope you may expect, from rage to passive requests of forgiveness or to ignore you. Since there needs to be an agreement to publish people's data and to retain a database and be registered to publish people's data you might (depending upon what is placed online) be in breech of the data Protection Rules. As people start to learn that cyclists are 'only' or mostly only using cameras to gain evidence there is a growing chance that you maybe placing yourself in grave danger from irate road users.Also many people maybe placed in a very stressful defensive position that have not got the advantage of a camera system in their car to film the 'reason why they had happened to react the way that they had. Then gradually most cars also end up with cameras and before long most will be reporting most. That may result in banning cameras from vehicles due to the upsurge in videos that Courts need to see. Some 'defences' can back fire. I would wear a camera for fun, and for learning for sure.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

No. I hadn't. But it is a fair point. OTOH, when someone wants a cyclist to desist from behaviour that makes him much safer because it inconveniences motorists, it is difficult to interpret it in an way other than anti-cyclist.



I don't believe that of any of the regulars here do think that. But that is because I "Know". To an outsider, a campaign which appears to wish to remove speed limits bis quite likely to be tarred with that brush. I know that from personal experience.


The discussion is about obstructing for their own safety not convenience.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

My dictionary tells me that "Main" implies most important as in main road


Of course cyclists will ride to the left but you specified that half a metre from the kerb was too far. But IMO much less than half a metre is the danger zone (Incidentally where in the HC does it say half a metre0


Oh, Claire. Haven't you been reading the thread? I will briefly reiterate
1. The part of the road nearer the kerb is usually the most potholed and has drains which are often slippery
2. Litter, including broken bottles, tends to end up near the kerb
3. By being near the kerb you limit your options for changing position to avoid problems, such as pedestrians stepping out without looking
4. Your visibility from and vision of vehicles in side roads becomes worse as you move to the left (that is one reason why British cars are RHD)
5. When passing parked vehicles you will be in the dangerous door zone (which is why undertaking stationary traffic is ill advised)
6. You are more likely to be "left hooked" when riding near the kerb
7. You are less visible to following vehicles, being masked by the car alongside you, when near the kerb.
8. Being near the kerb makes you vulnerable to inadvised, too close, overtaking at pinch point.
Need I go on?


The hierarchy of importance is a pragmatic one, determined by the level of damage that one road user is able to inflict on another. That is why a pedestrian will stop at the kerb to allow a vehicle to pass rather than the vehicle stopping to allow him to cross.


I am quite sure that, when you are driving on the open road, you assume that you have priority over pedestrians waiting to cross the road (other than at a pedestrian crossing)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Oh dear. It really is getting tedious spending so much time explaining how silly your arguments are rather than exploring the real issues. I've left the big one for now, because it will just take too long.


Yes. As I said: Learning. I hope you don't expect me to give you a complete damn essay on Piaget's principles of constructivist learning!

I'm pretty sure I already covered that in my first item: Learning. Surely you didn't forget the first item by the time you read and commented on the fourth one! (I apologise in advance if you genuinely do have a short-term memory deficiency problem.)


You are correct; there is a potential risk of someone taking offence. I am hoping that the benefits outweigh that risk, but if someone shows me evidence to the contrary, then I will of course make my camera less conspicuous.


Well, the Information Commissioners for England and Scotland seem to think it is fine.


Where is your evidence for all of this? This is not so much an extrapolation as a complete flight of fancy.


Good for you

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Al;ready covered at great length in this thread and in the references that I have provided. Read around the subject a bit if that still isn't enough.

Bicycle accidents and drivers' visual search at left and right turns. Heikki Summala, Eero Pasanen, Mikko Räsänen and Jukka Sievänen. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Volume 28, Issue 2, March 1996, Pages 147-153 (Elsevier)

Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: an in-depth study. Räsänen M, Summala H. Accid Anal Prev. 1998 Sep;30(5):657-66.

Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 35, Issue 6, November 2003, Pages 885-891 Mai-Britt Herslund and Niels O. Jørgensen

A Comparison of Eye Movement Behavior of Inexperienced and Experienced Drivers in Real Traffic Environments TORBJORN FALKMER, PhD, and NILS PETER GREGERSEN, PhD. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, VOL. 82, NO. 8, PP. 732–739, 2005 American Academy of Optometry

I'll let you continue the literature search if you want more evidence.


Oh? Which part of the driving test looks specifically at peripheral vision? The hazard perception test is probably the most relevant one, and that is just done on a computer screen.
Apart from that, I said attention, not peripheral vision. (Most people are unable to focus attention on their peripheral vision anyway.)


OK, so when you said "I can't say that I have heard much about this", you were temporarily forgetting that you had in fact a vast knowledge of the subject.


OK. I'm not going to supply the article to you because that would be breach of copyright, but I will quote the paragraph that answers your question as that probably consitutes "fair use":

Well, fancy that!


Sorry, "failed to see" = "didn't see". It's either that they didn't see (maybe because they didn't look) or they did see and are lying. End of story.

I couldn't sort out the quoting on the rest, so will give a summary response here.

Regarding the long term culture/behaviour change versus short term survival. I already said that I agree with you on the need for education, etc., so don't keep repeating yourself. I also said that in the meantime we need to survive in today's environment/culture, and that is what the immediate strategies for safe cycling are about.

With regard to the French comparison, I don't give a flying fig for whether you think I said something different to what I meant. I already admitted that I gave you an opening for your obtuseness (by not making the antecedent to the pronoun "this" absolutely unambiguous). For the record AGAIN (I will make it plain for even an idiot to see): in France the cars would all pass leaving about 2 metres clearance; people would give me priority even when it wasn't really mine. I was told by a local that this was due to their rules of presumed liability; if anything happened it was assumed that the motor driver was at fault ... etc.. Focus on the issues rather than trying to win some damn pissing competition!

I think anything I've left out, DCB has already answered very well.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

No one is asking any cyclist to not be safe. It is incorrect to imply that they have.

Potholes, drain grates, and also painted lines & bumpy tarmac road surfaces, all have to be considered of course, but with good risk management the hazard is easy and safely passed without incident. Practising these important skills help cyclists retain and improve good skills and judgement.
Both of these points can easily be managed with good observation and COAST skills. A whistle or bell can help to announce a cyclists approach to a pedestrian.
Yes it can, but your ability to allow for this ensures your safety and is therefore very easily resolved.
Good awareness with what is happening all about you and especially the vehicles approaching from behind, means that you have to be ever vigilant with 'life-saver glances', and be prepared to stop. I agree too that some 'out' positioning will happen to clarify your (a cyclists) route, and decisive actions (when necessary), on the more involved junctions.
Your movement against the backdrop of static vehicles helps to make you visible. To imply that you will 'blend' into the 'background' in this instance is very rarely ever going to be an issue. Since the advice too is to wear HiVis clothing it is even less likely.
I am not sure that I fully understand what you mean by "to inadvised" ? I don't see it as 'being vulnerable' just because you are near the kerb.
No one goes out to hurt another road user. If we all choose to only develop actions and reactions based solely upon 'the treat level', then this can create a great 'fear factor' and instil vulnerability, and loss of confidence (to a degree), something no one will want.
To those that learn to control their surroundings, through good understanding and appreciation of their environment, using risk management and judging well, they will gain confidence and not be afraid to interact with all road users safely and skilfully.
Certainly there are levels of expected behaviour as well as sensible behaviour and the survival instinct. People can and do make mistakes hence why we need to be so careful.
My 'priority' will depend on what they are doing and what hazard they present. I may well slow down to a crawl if that is safest, I would not 'assume' my right. Allowing for courtesy, consideration and HC to help with predictability and good behaviour patterns, enable all road users to 'know what to expect'. We must ensure that all road users sensibly 'give and take'.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I have just been reading some of the comments regarding cyclists some of them with considerable incredulity.

I speak as someone who, for many years, was a road racing cyclist, best time for a 25ml time trial of 57.10

There are many safe and considerate cyclist on the road today, but regretfully there also are many inconsiderate ones as well who ride on pavements ignore road signs and traffic lights.

They also scrape the side of cars and then race off.

These are not always young kids, but have a holier then thou attitude.

One way to combat the irresponsible cyclists is to make any cyclist who wants to use an A road or dual carriageway have a valid third party insurance.

However I agree that motorist show be aware be considerate to responsible cyclists