Safe Speed Forums

Funny enough, I was thinking about this PP riding and the similarity between that and the Daniel Cadden case of a few years back and I stumbled on the thread about it on SS today. Now, I wasn't an active poster on SS when the case was being discussed on here (shame because I know the area extremely well) and it's probaly a bit late in the day to refresh it now...but certainly some of what he was saying on here, is,to the best of my knowledge,.... to be polite ...a distortion of the true facts....makes you wonder about the true case history.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I watched Top Gear tonight which involved a race into London by various methods.

Because of this thread, I paid special attention tonight to Richard Hammond as he cycled through London and I was very focused on his cycling style...

Now I happen to know he likes two wheels, and for the first time I watched what he was doing with respect to PP.

At times he was half a metre from the curb, or more, and at other times he was cycling along a road with two red lines running along the curb no more, and probably less, than twelve inches from the curb, which is what I do.

Watch it and think about it, if you haven’t seen it! He did what I would do, riding close to the curb AND using Primary Position when necessary.

I'm still thinking about it as I go to bed...

_________________
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 notice that this gives a little more insight into this situation : here
That is a mass assumption. We know that most people need to 'see all about them' when learning to drive / ride to be safe and as they gain experience they become better at these skills enough to pass a practical test. We need to be able to learn to see to obtain the earliest knowledge of every potential hazard. As with most things in life it goes from those who have basic, to those with extraordinary ability.

This seems to be at the core of this discussion as it directly relates to the 'root cause' of the claimed 'need' to cam-ride'.
If people observe the road and look properly they think and question the environment and make constant risk management decisions from it. You are implying that people not only barely look, but are so bad you now need to be further into the vehicle traffic flow just to be seen. Whilst I agree that occasional 'control riding' can be of benefit, for a constant or regular position this is simply unsafe.
Some of the aforementioned videos show this too.
I was referring to Bikeability.
I note your opinion with interest, that I come across with 'vast knowledge'.
Thank you for showing their conclusion but I really need to see the whole article and what caused the research etc. to be able to hold a sensible debate on it. Perhaps you might ask them if you might copy it to me, as they may grant the request.

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

When the slowest group of road users, take to the road they experience a host of experiences of being overtaken and closer interactions with other road users especially at junctions. Often the acceleration is slow compared to most motorised vehicles, but the stopping is usually very quick (although some animals (e.g. horses) might 'play up'.).
The 'amassed' knowledge of these overtakes means that they see all types of road users from the highly considerate to the down right dangerous and un-thoughtful.
We know that by choice we instinctively choose the traffic routes that are less dense, as this is safer, so with many cycle lanes often on the main routes, it would be nice to think that the space for bikes can provide a less dense space that is safer.
But some cyclists seem to deliberately wish to discard the lanes in favour of the road, so now we have a fundamental problem, what went wrong with the lanes for this group ?
Is this from 'snobbery' or only those that can't 'cope' with the road use them, fear of puncture making grit in the lanes, simple line preference, or other ?
What caused the original 'need' to feel so unobserved to justify a camera, PP position ?

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

@safespeedV2. That is a very good question, and I have read some of the historical reasons for it. (Can't find them now as I am quickly posting in a break.)

There are two basic models of cycling infrastructure. One is segregation, which is very commonly practised in Holland, for example; the other is sharing of the road between motor vehicles and cycles, which is the model that has historically been used in the UK. The thing is that the segregation approach in Holland goes back over 100 years, to the late 19th century; the history is quite interesting.

The problem with our UK cycle lanes is that they are an attempt to squeeze a segregation-based approach into an infrastructure that was designed for the shared approach, and the result is something that does not work for either. My ideal situation would be one on which there was complete segregation, such that cycles and motor vehicles never ever meet. Unfortunately that is a pipe-dream as the cost would be astronomical; much of our existing road infrastructure would need to be ripped up and redesigned from scratch.

So we end up with the current set of cycle lanes that are always a cheap compromise, which, whilst sometimes being useful, are very often more dangerous than if they hadn't been put in at all. In most cases where cycle lanes have been put in, it would have been better simply to widen the inside lane without painting the cycle lane there. (And it would have been cheaper.)

I'll try to find the reference to the Dutch experience if you are interested.

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

The whole situation is exacerbated because A) This country’s narrow roads were based around the horse and cart or the Mini and B) The cars have grown to such ridiculous sizes that now us cyclists are shoe-horned in between Range Rovers and the like. Just the other day I saw a mint condition Golf from about 20+ years ago and it bears absolutely no resemblance to a modern day bloater.

When I went to Holland I was shocked at just how well cyclists and pedestrians worked together in perfect harmony, which is why I’ve never understood the huge objection to going on a baron pavement when, and only when, it is safe to do so if you feel a potentially dangerous situation arising on the road. The law does not take these changing and dangerous times into consideration.

When I cycle to work I go on something which looks exactly like a pavement complete with pedestrians, including parents with their children, and it’s never once been a problem to anyone. It just so happens to be called a cycle path which, IMO, by any other name is a pavement. I find it strange that just because the surface changes from a more dangerous grit to a safer concrete slab it takes on a completely new meaning.


Before I get shot down in flames, I'm not suggesting for one second it's open season on the pavements. As with anything it's about balance, responsibility and safe practices on all sides.

_________________
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.

That's an interesting train of thought Tone. I wonder what the consensus would be on pedestrian users of shared space walking in such a way as to prevent cyclists from passing them, justified by their fear that a cyclist may knock into them while passing "too close" for their own comfort.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I would encourage predestrians to think of their own safety and adopt the PPP (pedestrian primary position) when walking along a pavement. Try to walk in the centre of the path and, when the way ahead is restricted, ensure that you position yourself to discourage any faster walkers or cyclists from recklessly pushing past you.

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

@RobinXE and malcolmw.

I think you may be getting the message, as you have described exactly the current position!

On shared bicycle/pedestrian facilities, bicycles are expected to show consideration to pedestrians and give them priority. If the bicycles wish to go fast, they are required to use the road, where pedestrians are not supposed to be.

On normal roads, which are shared by bicycles and motor vehicles, the motor vehicles are expected to show consideration to cyclists and give them priority. If the motor vehicles wish to go fast, they are required to use the motorways, where bicycles are not supposed to be.

Well done.

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

I think it would lead to ‘path rage’ with steamers, the equivalent of cars, pushing the pedestrians out of the way Robin.


I confess I do sometimes get quite frustrated when I’m walking along on a mission and there’s some dithering person or family in front and I can’t get past. I feel like doing my Chandler impression, “could you walk any slower”. That won’t mean anything to anyone who doesn’t watch Friends.

_________________
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.

Wow, I'm really not sure if you're being sarcastic, or intentionally obtuse, but you clearly totally missed the point on that one!

On all shared space all users are expected to show consideration to one another, it's not a one way street. The fact that you think bicycles are entitled to priority speaks volumes about your attitudes towards others.

Funny that you've started talking about the relative speeds of the vehicles, when I thought the problem was that you felt cars might possibly pass you too close. That speaks further volumes.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I think you may be ahead of yourself there.

On shared bicycle/pedestrian facilities the bikes can, and do, come within inches of peds but should ding their bell to let them know they’re coming when approaching from behind.

On those same shared paths, if the cyclist wants to go fast there is no speed limit that I’m aware of although common sense should dictate an appropriate speed for the conditions. (Where have I heard that before).

As for if the motor vehicles want to go fast that very much depends on your definition of fast. I’m sure Weepej in the past has referred to 20mph as fast and actually I would agree with him if it is in the wrong place/time/situation.

The nerve, thinking you could get that post past me. (You just pipped me to it there Robin )

Add: To prove this is not just about cycle hating, if I had to do a 100 yard dash to catch a bus I wouldn’t run at speed past other pedestrians, I would give them as much room as I could. Wouldn't we all?

If, however, there were pedestrians restricting my path I would have to run closer to them but in order to safeguard both them and me I would slow down, and maybe miss the bus.

Simples..

_________________
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.

Really?
Aside from the 'de facto' priority for whoever is in a road space first, what is there that actually states cyclists have priority?

The HC does say drivers crossing pavements must "give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement", but I can't find any such equivalence for drivers and cyclists unsegregated roads. Can you show us where the HC states what you have claimed?


I wanted to capture this merely for future reference.

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

By jove, I think he's got it

Although I have a feeling he thinks he's being ironic...

(same goes for malcomw)

Sorry, not getting into another of these complex multi-threaded p1551ng competitions about detailed use of words, etc.

"expected to" != "entitled to [with roles reversed]", so forget it.

On the one occasion when I said "required to", I admit I should have said expected to (so save all the quotes you want).

Yes, there are some rude, badly-behaved cyclists on shared use facilities just as there are rude, badly behaved motor drivers on the roads. They should all be subjected to the full force of the law.

Yes, it was (only) partially tongue-in-cheek.

The HC is not the be-all-and-end-all, but rules 204, 211, 212 and 213 are germane.

My main point was that cyclists are indeed subject to the same expectations in relation to pedestrians that you described in your earlier message and if a pedestrian on a shared-use facility (or even on a cycle-only path) occupies a position that prevents a cyclist passing them too close, the cyclist should damn-well wait!

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

To summarise: your claim was false, therefore your subsequent logic was too.

Do you agree there is no priority, or right of way, beyond who is already at that road space?


Only partly so.
Those are regarding the passing clearance, which I should add has not been discussed.
The rules you highlight are not related to distances from kerbs.

The HC, while not necessarily perfect, is the closest we have to an official guide that encompasses all road users.


Of course, but when does it become unreasonable?

Applying the parallel: would you think it reasonable for a pedestrian to knowingly constantly walk in the middle of a (road or pavement type) cycle lane and expect cyclists to wait without: becoming frustrated, ringing bells, riding out of the cycle lane to bypass, or cutting by really closely?

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

You guys are correct that my previous post was tongue in cheek.

As I live in the real world and not in some sort of ideal fantasy, what I would do as a pedestrian in a restricted space situation, is keep a look out for cyclists (or whatever) coming up behind and get out of their way. I would do this because I agree with your own admission, "there are some rude, badly-behaved cyclists on shared use facilities". Why risk asserting your "right of way" and getting injured by these people?

It is not unreasonable to expect the same level of self-preserving intelligence from cyclists.

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

I used to walk round central London carrying a couple of these...



.. but minus the rose, so just a sharp metal ring facing forward at hip level. I was pretty precise with them - I could operate lift buttons with them - so 'accidentally' jabbing people who randomly stopped in front of me in Oxford St. was a doddle.

I'm surprised you didn't get a "is that a watering can in your hand or are you just pleased to see me" reply. Or maybe you did

That was almost an opportunity for me to use my first 'spike in the middle of the wheel' analogy of 2011.

No matter, the year is young.

_________________
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.

Steve, sorry, still not being drawn into the BS nitpicking. On the substantive issues, however:

Regarding the highway code: yes, that's why I only said they were germane (in that they reflect an expectation that motorist display an attitude of taking care around vulnerable road users). Also, this discussion thread is not related to distance from kerbs either, so I don't see the relevance of that point.

Regarding: would you think it reasonable for a pedestrian to knowingly constantly walk in the middle of a (road or pavement type) cycle lane and expect cyclists to wait without: becoming frustrated, ringing bells, riding out of the cycle lane to bypass, or cutting by really closely? What I "think" about it is not the point. The point is how I should be expected to behave. If I felt they were blocking me unnecessarily, I would probably say "excuse me, please" and they would usually move over. There's no need for any unpleasantness. If they still didn't move over, I might just wait a bit, or find another way, or leave the cycle track if necessary, or even get off and push for a bit. If I'm using a shared pedestrian/cycle facility rather than the road, then I am probably not in any hurry. It may well be that they have some problem of which I am unaware; they might be deaf, for example.

The bell one is interesting: apparently in most European countries, the bicycle bell is taken to mean "bicycle approaching, please do not move to the side", whereas in this country it tends to be taken to mean "bicycle coming through, get out of the f*****g way", so it's use is best avoided in this country. However, it is useful in emergencies, which is why I have a tinkly bell mounted on my bars alongside the 115dB air horn that is to warn oblivious motorists of my presence. (Yes, the motorists do sometimes take offence at the air horn because they take it as some sort of affront rather than its intended "excuse me, I'm here and not sure whether you have noticed me", but at least they know I'm there.)

malcolmw: the discussion was not about what you would to as a pedestrian; it was about how cyclists should be expected to behave when their way is blocked by pedestrians. So your comment is irrelevant to this specific thread of discussion.


Sorry for my use of a mixed metaphor in my previous message, by the way; I'll try to do better.

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