Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: CTCREP on March 07, 2016, 01:32:56 PM
-
It is recognised that a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries of cyclists occur when they are in conflict with long vehicles. The Government tries to deal with this by considering introducing additional mirrors, video cameras and radical cab design. All these rely on making the, probably overstressed, driver more aware of the situation and taking appropriate action. Nothing is done to raise the awareness of cyclists and give them the opportunity to save their own lives.
Because of this I have created a Petition to the Government.
Link the subsidiary lights on the sides of long vehicles to the signal lights.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652
I hope you can sign this and also spread the word.
Even if you disagree with the idea, getting the Government to discuss Cyclists' Safety can't be a bad thing.
-
Wouldn't it be better to train cyclists to stop undertaking lorries. So much cheaper and easier as well.
-
Wouldn't it be better to train cyclists to stop undertaking lorries. So much cheaper and easier as well.
As a cyclist myself, I couldn't agree with this more. There are many areas of cyclist safety (and road safety in general) where money and technology can help, but this isn't one of them.
Education, and then let nature take it's course - #darwinism #survivalofthefittest
-
Often it is the lorries overtaking the cyclists then turning left…..
Part of the problem is training cyclists to ride in the gutter, by putting in “fake” cycle lanes that are just some paint on the road – often making it more dangerous then the road was without them.
-
I was sorely tempted to target a cyclist for a Darwin Award in Bramhall this evening. He was riding no handed, swerving about the road, with a rear light that was barely visible while he was texting! Didn't give a hoot for the dozens of cars who were holding back from overtaking because they couldn't predict where he was going to be next. Fortunately for him my fondness for my paintwork prevented me from doing what nature required....
Cyclists do have a tough PR job but the above burk, and the weekend warriors who ride Lycra clad in large peloton 3 deep, 50 meter's or more long, down busy A roads at < 20 mph don't help. I ride solo, without Lycra, without occupying more than my fair share of road, and at close to 20mph (on the flat at least) and NEVER have annoyed motorists tooting their horn, cutting me up, gesticulating or whatever. Just saying....
RH.
-
Sorry but you won't get any support from me either. I used to be a keen cyclist and occasionally dust off my Carlton Criterium and go for a spin - but now I want nothing to do with the arrogant and dangerous individuals who make up a sizeable proportion of cyclists. I have had many near misses with these types as a pedestrian and as a driver.
Typical scenario from personal experience - A6, busy morning traffic held up by red light. Note to cyclists - the red light is the top one of the traffic light, and it means STOP. Cyclist overtakes stationary traffic on right, then as traffic starts to move, moves left in front of cars, deliberately preventing them from passing. Result - instead of 30 cars getting through green light,
only 15 get through. Thanks a lot.
Until cyclists show more consideration for other road and pavement users they get no sympathy from me.
-
I am a cyclist and I am also a motorist (generally much more the latter than the former).
There are idiot cyclists and there are idiot motorists.
The difference is that an idiot driver has the potential to kill a cyclist / pedestrian / other motorist, an idiot cyclist may well delay a driver by 5-10 seconds or, at worst, put a scratch on a vehicle.
Not quite a balance in cause and effect is it?
Believe me, when I ride a bike, I also go at circa 20mph on the flat and often ride with two or three other cyclists at most. I don't ride in the gutter due to the potholes, grids and general detreitus that make up these relatively 'unused' parts of the road, where most motorists seem to think cyclists should dwell. This is due to the fact that a) it is very uncomfortable to ride in the gutter (the same reason that motorists don't do so) and b) it is not safe, due to the holes / slits / water / leaves / gravel, etc in in this area. As a consequence of this, I would guess I ride about a metre or so out form the edge of the kerb (taking up maybe a third of the available lane) and so almost without fail, every week, I get a blast from an impatient motorist (typically 50+ in age, which I find interesting) who may have to wait 10-20 seconds on windier roads for them to overtake. Would they adopt this behaviour with a tractor, horse rider, pedestrian, etc? No, they do this because in the past they seen a cyclist do something stupid and have now decided that all people on bikes are fair game, conveniently forgetting that motorists themselves are always cutting lanes, running red lights, having near misses, speeding, etc, etc. These peope don't adopt a crusade against all other motorists off the back of this though, do they?
I'm afraid threads like this just reinforces the same old attitudes and gives some people the feeling that they are in the right to treat other road users, no matter what the evidence, with disdain.
Going back to the point of the thread though - I do agree that the education should also be focused on making sure cyclists (typically the less regular variety) don't under cut HGV's or sneak up the inside on the approach to junctions, no matter how tempting. Its stupid and dangerous . Most HGV's now have clear signage on them warning cyclists about this practice and slowly but surely I think the message is getting through.
-
I was sorely tempted to target a cyclist for a Darwin Award in Bramhall this evening. He was riding no handed, swerving about the road, with a rear light that was barely visible while he was texting! Didn't give a hoot for the dozens of cars who were holding back from overtaking because they couldn't predict where he was going to be next. Fortunately for him my fondness for my paintwork prevented me from doing what nature required....
He was making himself SAFER by making car drivers take more care!
-
Hello.
I fully expected to get a raft of comments on this issue., which I will not comment on.
The Petition request form says something like "What do you want the Government to do". I put "Help Save Cyclists Lives"
They rejected this as being too imprecise, so I changed it to "Link the subsidiary lights on the sides of long vehicles to the signal lights", but the argument I gave is still the same.
If you consider it not worth your while to try to help save cyclists lives, then don't sign, but just remember you didn't next time you hear of a cyclist fatality involving a long vehicle. I hope others will spend the 10 seconds or so it takes to sign and leave it to the Politicians to investigate fully, rather than spend 5 minutes trying to find reasons not to.
-
A6, busy morning traffic held up by red light. Note to cyclists - the red light is the top one of the traffic light, and it means STOP. Cyclist overtakes stationary traffic on right, then as traffic starts to move, moves left in front of cars, deliberately preventing them from passing. Result - instead of 30 cars getting through green light, only 15 get through. Thanks a lot.
The interesting thing is that this sort of cycling - in the middle of the carriageway instead of the left hand side - is actively and possibly even 'officially' promoted as being 'correct', even though it can cause major hold ups to other road users. I believe it's sometimes called 'assertive cycling', and it's promoted in books like this one: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/
'Assertive' is one word for it. Another, is 'selfish'.
-
But does it really matter than 15 cars are held up for 2 minutes yes 2 whole minutes, while the lights go through the sequence again. Are these about so crucial to any of us.
-
The interesting thing is that this sort of cycling - in the middle of the carriageway instead of the left hand side - is actively and possibly even 'officially' promoted as being 'correct', even though it can cause major hold ups to other road users. I believe it's sometimes called 'assertive cycling', and it's promoted in books like this one: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/
'Assertive' is one word for it. Another, is 'selfish'.
Self-preservation also springs to mind.
It's actually referred to as "defensive" cycling, or defensive road positioning. The idea is to take up a position in the lane that keeps you, the cyclist, safe by making it very difficult or impossible for a motorist behind you to do something illegal (dangerous driving is illegal), such as passing too close when there is road furniture (or oncoming traffic) which makes making an appropriately wide pass impossible.
Motorists have no more or less right to use the roads (motorways and certain A(M) roads excepted) than any other user, including (shock horror) cyclists.
Of course some people are just complete and utter ******'s and shouldn't be allowed on the roads, but that applies equally to cyclists and motorists (and all other types of road users).
-
I learned how to cycle in a safe way from cyclecraft when I first lived in Cambridge. Being "nice" and keeping out of the way is not a option if you wish to remain alive on a bike.
-
But does it really matter than 15 cars are held up for 2 minutes yes 2 whole minutes, while the lights go through the sequence again. Are these about so crucial to any of us.
I agree there are worse things that could happen, but it does demonstrate the (in my opinion) selfish attitude of many cyclists who seem determined to treat their journey as a time trial with little thought to other drivers and pedestrians. If it's a HGV or bus that's held up, it could be very difficult for that vehicle to safely pass the cyclist, so the delay affects many.
I have some friends and colleagues who hate cyclists with a vengeance because of this attitude (they are otherwise intelligent and sane individuals). There is a lot of give and take needed when driving on the congested roads round here and I think cyclists need to do a bit more giving.
-
If you consider it not worth your while to try to help save cyclists lives, then don't sign, but just remember you didn't next time you hear of a cyclist fatality involving a long vehicle. I hope others will spend the 10 seconds or so it takes to sign and leave it to the Politicians to investigate fully, rather than spend 5 minutes trying to find reasons not to.
I think that your point is well made CT.
-
Motorists have no more or less right to use the roads (motorways and certain A(M) roads excepted) than any other user, including (shock horror) cyclists.
No-one has suggested that cyclists are not entitled to use the road. But what they are not entitled to do is prevent other road users from using it in a normal way. If a long line of vehicles is forced to drive at 15 - 20 mph behind a selfish (aka defensive or assertive) cyclist - and I have seen it happen, on a busy urban road where overtaking was impossible - then those vehicles are not making 'reasonable progress' (to quote from the driving test list of possible faults).
-
I agree there are worse things that could happen, but it does demonstrate the (in my opinion) selfish attitude of many cyclists who seem determined to treat their journey as a time trial with little thought to other drivers and pedestrians. If it's a HGV or bus that's held up, it could be very difficult for that vehicle to safely pass the cyclist, so the delay affects many.
I have some friends and colleagues who hate cyclists with a vengeance because of this attitude (they are otherwise intelligent and sane individuals). There is a lot of give and take needed when driving on the congested roads round here and I think cyclists need to do a bit more giving.
I agree there are worse things that could happen, but it does demonstrate the (in my opinion) selfish attitude of many Motorists who seem determined to treat their journey as a time trial with little thought to other road users and pedestrians. If it's a HGV or bus that's held up, it could be very difficult for that vehicle to safely pass the cyclist, so the delay affects many.
I have some friends and colleagues who hate motorists with a vengeance because of this attitude (they are otherwise intelligent and sane individuals). There is a lot of give and take needed when driving on the congested roads round here and motorists need to do a bit more giving.
-
No-one has suggested that cyclists are not entitled to use the road. But what they are not entitled to do is prevent other road users from using it in a normal way. If a long line of vehicles is forced to drive at 15 - 20 mph behind a selfish (aka defensive or assertive) cyclist - and I have seen it happen, on a busy urban road where overtaking was impossible - then those vehicles are not making 'reasonable progress' (to quote from the driving test list of possible faults).
But you do appear to be saying that motorists have more right to use the roads than cyclists, and that other road users should get out of the way of motorists if there's a chance a motorist's journey might be slowed by their presence.
-
I agree exile. Indeed why is the British attitude so out of step with the rest of the world where we see a road using hierarchy of pedestrian, cyclists, motorcycles and car. Why do the British seem to think the car is the most important road user. If a car has to be delayed by 30 seconds why I cycle assertively (safely ) why do drivers have to act if if in some way this is a massive infringement on their human rights and they are at liberty to use their weapon (car) to do whatever they like.
-
The best thing for road safety in the UK would be to introduce the presumed liability laws that many countries in Europe have. In essence they state that unless there is evidence to the contrary, the liability in an accident is assumed to lay with the driver of the larger vehicle.
-
But you do appear to be saying that motorists have more right to use the roads than cyclists, and that other road users should get out of the way of motorists if there's a chance a motorist's journey might be slowed by their presence.
Where did I say that, or even imply it?
It seems self-evident to me that all road users have an equal right to use the roads, as long as they do so considerately, recognising that other types of road-user will have different needs and will go at different speeds. Motorists should give cyclists and horse-riders a wide berth, and cyclists and horse riders should reciprocate by allowing motorists to proceed at a normal speed.
Horse riders are generally very courteous to motorists - an example that some cyclists would do well to emulate.
-
and cyclists and horse riders should reciprocate by allowing motorists to proceed at a normal speed.
In other words, they should get out of their way!
-
Where did I say that, or even imply it?
..........allowing motorists to proceed at a normal speed.
Ah but Dave by using the term "normal speed" your showing a mindset that says anything other than the speed of the car is abnormal. That the car and the speed it goes is normal and that the rest of us will just have to fit in with it.
-
I can see I need to spell this out in words of one syll-a-ble!
Each type of road user has its own normal speed, and they are different. There is a normal speed for cars. There is a normal speed for buses. There is a normal speed for bicycles. There is a normal speed for lorries. There is a normal speed for horses.
As the Highway Code says, 'It is important that all road users are considerate towards each other.' So as far as possible, each road user should allow others to proceed safely at their own normal speed.
I can't say it much clearer than that!
-
Petition
Can I bring the subject back to its original purpose. I have created a Government Petition that I believe could save cyclists lives.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
The discussion on the behaviour of all road users is not the issue and would be better as another post.
At the moment we have had 593 readers, I don't have that many signatures.
Unless you have an objection to trying to save another human beings life, please sign the petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
-
As the Highway Code says, 'It is important that all road users are considerate towards each other.' So as far as possible, each road user should allow others to proceed safely at their own normal speed.
Nobody is arguing with that.
The question is, what happens in a situation where all the road users can't proceed safely at their own normal speed (such as rush hour traffic or narrow roads, etc, etc)? You appear to be saying (although I could have completely misunderstood what you mean) that in such circumstances, other road users (such as cyclists) should interrupt their own journey to allow motorists to "proceed at their own normal speed".
-
Unless you have an objection to trying to save another human beings life, please sign the petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
I do have an objection to the nanny-fication of society though. Cycling up the blind side of a HGV is just stupid, even more so when approaching a junction. Anyone dumb enough to do it should be aware of what the consequences might be, and should be prepared to accept them.
On a practical point though, should your petition be successful it's likely to cause more problems than it solves as not every larger vehicle will have these lights fitted, but this solution encourages cyclists to go up the blind side unless they see side-lights flashing.
-
The question is, what happens in a situation where all the road users can't proceed safely at their own normal speed (such as rush hour traffic or narrow roads, etc, etc)? You appear to be saying (although I could have completely misunderstood what you mean) that in such circumstances, other road users (such as cyclists) should interrupt their own journey to allow motorists to "proceed at their own normal speed".
It's not complicated! It's simply known as give and take. Vehicles should give cyclists and horses a wide berth. They should not enter the 'bicycle box' at traffic lights. Cars should allow buses to pull out of bus stops. The slower road-users (horses, tractors, bicycles) should pull over and allow faster vehicles to pass if a queue builds up behind them.
It's called courtesy and consideration. It's that simple.
-
It's not complicated! It's simply known as give and take. Vehicles should give cyclists and horses a wide berth. They should not enter the 'bicycle box' at traffic lights. Cars should allow buses to pull out of bus stops. The slower road-users (horses, tractors, bicycles) should pull over and allow faster vehicles to pass if a queue builds up behind them.
Gotcha, other road users give, and motorists take.
-
It's not complicated! It's simply known as give and take. Vehicles should give cyclists and horses a wide berth. They should not enter the 'bicycle box' at traffic lights. Cars should allow buses to pull out of bus stops. The slower road-users (horses, tractors, bicycles) should pull over and allow faster vehicles to pass if a queue builds up behind them.
It's called courtesy and consideration. It's that simple.
All sounds a bit one way Dave. Give and take seems to be all about the motorist taking.
-
Gotcha, other road users give, and motorists take.
No. All road user need to give and take and that includes totally selfish cyclists who deliberately and unnecessarily obstruct motorists as well as selfish motorists who do not give cyclists sufficient room or consideration.
-
Petition
Can I bring the subject back to its original purpose. I have created a Government Petition that I believe could save cyclists lives.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
The discussion on the behaviour of all road users is not the issue and would be better as another post.
At the moment we have had 593 readers, I don't have that many signatures.
Unless you have an objection to trying to save another human beings life, please sign the petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
I will not sign this petition whilst stupid cyclists attempt to kill themselves through no fault of the drivers of vehicles turning left. A few lights are not going to make a damn difference to these idiots who seem to think they own the road.
-
No. All road user need to give and take and that includes totally selfish cyclists who deliberately and unnecessarily obstruct motorists as well as selfish motorists who do not give cyclists sufficient room or consideration.
Indeed. This is what I have repeatedly said, but sadly these people are determined to cast them selves as victims, so they deliberately misinterpret what we say. It's very strange.........
-
No. All road user need to give and take and that includes totally selfish cyclists who deliberately and unnecessarily obstruct motorists as well as selfish motorists who do not give cyclists sufficient room or consideration.
I think you missed my point rather. Everybody agrees that the idiots should stop being idiots, regardless of what type of road user they are.
Indeed. This is what I have repeatedly said, but sadly these people are determined to cast them selves as victims, so they deliberately misinterpret what we say. It's very strange.........
No you haven't Dave. You have specifically stated that in instances where all road users are being adversely affected by the same conditions (be that rush hour traffic or whatever) that motorists should have priority:
The slower road-users (horses, tractors, bicycles) should pull over and allow faster vehicles to pass if a queue builds up behind them
-
I did write that. But I also wrote:
Vehicles should give cyclists and horses a wide berth. They should not enter the 'bicycle box' at traffic lights.
... because I am attempting (obviously unsuccessfully!) to describe examples of the kind of reciprocal courtesy and consideration which road users should show to one another, and indeed do, more often than not. But in the rare cases when cyclists or horse riders deliberately prevent other road users from proceeding at their normal speed, when it is possible for then to avoid causing such an obstruction, that is neither courteous not considerate.
Or, to put it another way: Everybody agrees that the idiots should stop being idiots, regardless of what type of road user they are.
-
We are now approaching 1000 views on this subject, OK some are repeat views but my statistics appear to show that probably less than 0.1% are willing to support a scheme that would probably cost the vehicle owners less than £50, certainly less than a tank of fuel, but could well save a cyclist's life.
You may well ask why haven't more cyclists signed. If you cycled you would know that for at least 50 years those in authority have failed to recognise cyclists needs. Cyclists have had to fend for themselves, so why bother with a petition to Parliament that you know is unlikely to go any further. If we are lucky it will be debated in Parliament, but unfortunately by people who do not understand cycling.
I give one simple example, a question was put to Parliament about how many cycle lanes there are in the country. I think even motorists and pedestrians recognise that few if any are fit for purpose. So what was the purpose of this question? No doubt the politician will be able to say to the constituents that the question has been raised. The Governments answer was that they don't know as it is the responsibility of the Local Authorities, which the politician should have been questioning and with the right question. How many cycle lanes are there that meet the Traffic Regulation Orders standards? I can tell you, very few.
So back to the original subject. Please sign this petition below and probably save a cyclists life.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
If you simply want to discuss road users behaviour then please start another post.
-
Horse riders are generally very courteous to motorists - an example that some cyclists would do well to emulate.
Living on a fairly busy road in the area, horses seem to have become more common lately. It's startling to see motorists slowing to an absolute crawl behind them, waiting until it's absolutely, completely safe to do a full overtake into the opposite side of the road. The horse rider waves gladly. Then a person on a bicycle follows and gets skimmed less than a ruler width at 30mph+ by a motorist on a bend with poor visibility of oncoming traffic. They cling resolutely to the handlebars. If motorists could show the same level of respect to both, they might encounter fewer "defensive / selfish" cyclists, everyone might get along better, and people might just get where they're going in good time and alive.
By the way - I'll remember next time I'm crossing a busy road not to press the button and stop traffic, in case I "selfishly" hold up other people's fantastically important journeys by wanting to get from A to B myself safely! Same thing, isn't it?
Back to the petition - seems to be a great idea to me and ludicrously sad that people will overlook the inherent dangerous and outdated design of these kinds of vehicles for a cheap Daily Wail whinge. Those moaning that "cyclists shouldn't be undertaking them anyway" must be unaware of how often a large vehicle will start to overtake and then turn left across a cyclist, perhaps without even spotting them. When the vehicle is alongside a cyclist they've only a poor chance of seeing if it's indicating or not with the small side indicators at the front. With this idea they might be given valuable seconds to brake in time to let it pass and turn. Seems a minor but commendable improvement to genuinely save some pointless deaths.
-
Living on a fairly busy road in the area, horses seem to have become more common lately. It's startling to see motorists slowing to an absolute crawl behind them, waiting until it's absolutely, completely safe to do a full overtake into the opposite side of the road. The horse rider waves gladly. Then a person on a bicycle follows and gets skimmed less than a ruler width at 30mph+ by a motorist on a bend with poor visibility of oncoming traffic. They cling resolutely to the handlebars. If motorists could show the same level of respect to both, they might encounter fewer "defensive / selfish" cyclists, everyone might get along better, and people might just get where they're going in good time
An interesting and revealing observation. So why is it that motorists seem to be more considerate to horse riders than they are to cyclists?
-
An interesting and revealing observation. So why is it that motorists seem to be more considerate to horse riders than they are to cyclists?
I've ridden horses on the roads for over 60 years until recently when a hip injury finished my riding days and I've driven a car ditto for 50 years and my father who was a keen cycling club member in his youth taught me how to drive when there are cylcists on the road so I know from whence I speak. I endeavour to give the same courtesy to cyclists when I'm driving as I do to horses. No-one knows better than driver/riders that cyclists need the same courteous and sensible precautions as horse-riders do.
However, while there are a few idiot horse-riders who don't think that the requirement for hi-viz clothing and a basic knowledge of the Highway Code applies to them, cyclists are not without blame. I drive along Glossop Road to Charlesworth several times a day, seven days a week and sometimes the behaviour of SOME cyclists is downright scary! (Incidentally, I know how dangerous the road is so I observe speed limits and road markings as a matter of course.)
Hi-viz clothing seems to be unknown among a certain type of cyclist while some others think a tiny reflective patch on the heel of their shoes or on the back of their helmets is sufficient. I've even come across a cyclist at night on an unlit part of the road dressed in dark clothing on a dark-coloured bike with no lights or hi-viz reflective clothing. S/he was lucky that night but I haven't seen him/her since......!
Horse riders are advised by the British Horse Society's "Riding Road Safety" training, to ride two abreast as they can more easily be seen. BUT they are expected to do so sensibly and not to cause an obstruction to other traffic and move to single file to allow vehicles to pass where there are double white lines. There is a group of cyclists (possibly a cycling club) which turns out regularly on Glossop Road. They ride two-abreast - so far so good - but this involves them wavering about all over the road and causing what appears to be a deliberate obstruction.
There is also the cyclist who regularly tries to race my car when I'm trying to overtake him in a safe place!
Interestingly, the safest cyclists that I see on Glossop Road seem to be those using their bikes for transport rather than enjoyment.
-
Incidentally, regarding horses on the road, a former mounted policewoman (who is now a traffic cop) informs me that horses are on the road by ancient right, cars etc are on the road by licence and this still applies so motor vehicles should give way to horses. It's the "steam gives way to sail" principal.
Under common law, pedestrians, horse riders and carriage drivers have public user rights over the whole width of land designated a highway. Usually this is between the hedges and fences on either side of the carriageway and this area may include verges. These rights may, however, be restricted where limitations are imposed such as the provision of a footway, along which only pedestrians have user rights. This and other legal requirements effectively limit the width for vehicular users to the made-up carriageway, what we call the road. Horse riders can lawfully cross a footway, say at a road junction or verge-crossing, and ride along the verge at the back of a footway if it exists. There are exceptions to this, however; for example, if a Traffic Regulation Order or local bylaw exists specifically forbidding horse riders the use of the verge. You would know of such an Order by the display of signs indicating the ban.
However. it doesn't really matter who has precedence, or the right of way. As many road users have found to their cost over the years, it is all very well being right, but if the other person doesn't respect that you could find yourself being dead right.
-
"There is also the cyclist who regularly tries to race my car when I'm trying to overtake him in a safe place!"
Oh, yes, and I'd forgotten the one who pulls out in front of me without warning when I'm trying to overtake him. (Yes, he is a male!)
" It's startling to see motorists slowing to an absolute crawl behind them, waiting until it's absolutely, completely safe to do a full overtake into the opposite side of the road. The horse rider waves gladly. Then a person on a bicycle follows and gets skimmed less than a ruler width at 30mph+ by a motorist on a bend with poor visibility of oncoming traffic." Ah, yes, RSH, but the driver who is courteous to the horse rider isn't usually the same driver who behaves badly to the cyclist.
Interestingly, as a rider I used to find motor-cyclists the most courteous road users to horse riders - I suspect they know who hard the ground is!
-
Good points from Henrietta above.
It's been noticeable in recent years that horse riders have conducted a systematic 'charm offensive' with drivers, waving and calling their thanks when drivers pass them wide and slow. This seems to have worked well, and as rsh points out, relations between horse riders and motorists tend to be relatively polite: Living on a fairly busy road in the area, horses seem to have become more common lately. It's startling to see motorists slowing to an absolute crawl behind them, waiting until it's absolutely, completely safe to do a full overtake into the opposite side of the road. The horse rider waves gladly. Then a person on a bicycle follows and gets skimmed less than a ruler width at 30mph+ by a motorist on a bend with poor visibility of oncoming traffic. They cling resolutely to the handlebars. If motorists could show the same level of respect to both, they might encounter fewer "defensive / selfish" cyclists, everyone might get along better, and people might just get where they're going in good time and alive.
So cyclists might do well to take a leaf out of the horse-riders' book.
-
Hello everyone
We still seem to be discussing the behaviour of various road users. The aim of the petition is to give cyclists the opportunity to save their own lives and not have to rely on over stressed motorists. All official discussions on the problem have centred around increasing driver awareness, and however good the proposals are they still rely on the driver to take action. My proposal to link the lights is by far the cheapest, easiest and quickest to introduce - costing probably less than £100 - and will enable cyclists to take responsibility for their own lives. Whether or not some cyclists, and others, behaviour meets with your approval is another subject. This is about trying to prevent someone getting killed or injured. Please sign the petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
-
As there are only 86 signatures on the petition it appears that very few give a hoots about idiotic cyclists. They are their own worst enemy.
-
Yes Mike
There are only 86 signatures so far. It is sad to realise that probably 999 people out of 1000 are more interested in their prejudices than possibly saving someone's life.
Please sign the petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
-
Ignoring the fact that it is madness to sneak up the inside of a large vehicle whether or not it has lights flashing, I am not signing because I think the task is a lot more complex than you suggest.
It might cost you £100 to do it with a few Scotchloks and some insulating tape, but to do the job properly is a lot more involved. The vehicle has a wiring loom which is protected from the elements - how do you break into that? Do it wrong and you risk putting a fault in the entire circuit, so no lights at all. It could be done at the factory, but is that a special build for the UK? Manufacturers will love that.
Nearly all vehicles already have a repeater indicator on the side which can be seen by cyclists. Sorry I don't think adding more is a sensible idea.
-
Yes Mike
There are only 86 signatures so far. It is sad to realise that probably 999 people out of 1000 are more interested in their prejudices than possibly saving someone's life.
Please sign the petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
You just don't get it do you.
The transport industry pays £billions in fuel duty, £billions in road tax, and many more £billions in insurance to run their vehicles on the roads in the UK. How much do cyclists pay to use the roads £ZERO. Let's assume a very conservative estimate of 1 million HGVs and your infantile idea would cost the hard pressed transport industry £100,000,000. That's if the work could be done for your wildly optimistic amount.
Now stop pedalling (sorry about the pun) this stupid idea and go back to the drawing board.
If you really want to save these morons wouldn't it be better to get them off the road until they learn the highway code and pay for insurance etc.
-
You just don't get it do you.
The transport industry pays £billions in fuel duty, £billions in road tax, and many more £billions in insurance to run their vehicles on the roads in the UK. How much do cyclists pay to use the roads £ZERO. Let's assume a very conservative estimate of 1 million HGVs and your infantile idea would cost the hard pressed transport industry £100,000,000. That's if the work could be done for your wildly optimistic amount.
Hmmmm, I think you may have misunderstood how taxation in this country works.
No one, (or everyone depending on your point of view) "pays to use the road". Roads are paid for out of general taxation - local roads are maintained by Local Authorities and paid for by Council tax/local business rates, and national roads are maintained by the Highways Authority and are paid for by income tax/corporation tax.
Road tax hasn't existed for nearly 100 years in this country. Vehicle owners pay Vehicle Excise Duty (which is a charge based on their toxic emissions) for their vehicles, and the money for that goes into the general taxation pot, it is not ring fenced for spending on roads. In any case, most cyclists also own cars (I do), so pay this anyway.
Not sure what insurance has to do with anything, but I also have insurance cover should I be involved in an accident whilst on my bike (as do many cyclists).
Now stop pedalling (sorry about the pun) this stupid idea and go back to the drawing board.
If you really want to save these morons wouldn't it be better to get them off the road until they learn the highway code and pay for insurance etc.
I agree with you on this though, whilst it's a nice idea, it would be better for society to either educate these idiots, or let them remove themselves from the gene pool.
-
Another person who can't read. I was very careful to use the words "run their vehicles on the roads..." I never said "...pays to use the road.." . The fact is that if you run any vehicle, except a pedal bike, you will pay a lot of money to put your vehicle on the road. Whereas cyclists pay nothing to put their bikes on the road.
If you don't own a car or lorry then you will pay nothing to put a non-existent vehicle on the road. The transport industry pays multiple £billions to run their vehicles to get our goods to us. Why should they be penalised even more?
-
"The transport industry pays £billions in fuel duty, £billions in road tax, and many more £billions in insurance to run their vehicles on the roads in the UK. How much do cyclists pay to use the roads £ZERO."
I can read. The three examples you quote:
Fuel Duty - Pollution related and to try to discourage / manage the level of car use (also, I accept, some is also arguably an easy form of 'general' tax revenue generation and nothing to do with actual road use, but that's something to take up with politicians and nothing to do with the debate as to mode of transport. If you don't want to line the chancellors pockets, then don't choose to make journeys that involve burning lots of fuel!).
Road Tax - Directly pollution related.
Insurance - To cover the potential for the operation of such vehicles to kill / injure people and / or seriously damage property.
Apart from the last of these three (and arguably the potential damage / risk of injury impacts for a cyclist are pretty small, but I'd happily support a small compulsory bike use insurance scheme) why should someone on a bike pay more than any other general tax payer who gains a basic benefit from a road system - lets be honest we all do either directly or indirectly? The costs you highlight are all proportionate to the 'damage' (actual and potential) that the use of an individual's motorised vehicle causes - this is particularly the case for HGV's which are the main source of noise and air pollution and the main underlying ongoing cause of highway carriageway failure.
I'm a car driver (on a daily basis). I accept the costs associated with that choice. It would be nice to be able to cycle to / from work everyday for effectively nothing - it would also be a good thing for everyone else on the roads and who live / work in all the properties that I pass if I did. But I don't. Mainly because there is not a shower at my work which makes it impractical, but that's another story. I'm certainly not going to bleat about how unfair it is that someone can use a cheaper, more environmentally friendly and less road network damaging form of travel than me and not have to pay through the nose for the privilege.
-
Thank you Belly for stopping me from crying with despair with such a well rounded response. :)
Although the petition has some merit this is probably simply the wrong place to be trying to sell it. We're not central London and don't have the same level of danger from HGVs specifically turning left. The biggest danger I feel around here is the narrowness of many roads and poor overtaking. An awareness campaign on how to overtake properly (or how sometimes you should just wait), as well as sensible schemes like adding "climbing" cycle lanes to hills (such as the Dan Bank one) would be my priority.
This is a very well-made video about rule 163 of the Highway Code:
http://youtu.be/o9pmw2ckQSU (http://youtu.be/o9pmw2ckQSU)
-
Thanks for the support for the petition, as to whether or not this is the place for bringing it to peoples attention this is the problem. Obviously I have taken it to various cycling related organisations but regrettably most cyclists are of the opinion that there is little point as society as a whole and officialdom in particular has totally ignored the needs of cyclists for at least the last 50 years. This is one of the reasons some people on bicycles ignore the wishes of society, I don't condone their attitude, but I am not really surprised. Taking the issue to places like newspapers leaves you in the hands of the editors who have to cater for their majority readers which at current rates means mainly non-cyclists.
To put things into perspective, currently there is a petition to stop Donald Trump from entering this country. It has nearly 600,000 signatures, we have less than 100 for a proposal that could save some cyclists lives. That is how important cyclists lives are considered in this country.
Please sign the petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123652)
-
Travelling down Stockport Road the other day I passed a cyclist, safely, and a few hundred yards further on indicated to turn left. Due to the narrow entrance I needed to pull out to the right - still indicating left.
I watched in HORROR as the cyclist came down the inside between my car and the pavement - at full speed
Had I not been watching him and just turned I would have had a badly damaged car which MY insurance would have to pay for, and MY no-claims-discount would be affected.
It's time these lyca covered Kamikazi pests on two wheels learned that they have to obey the rules just like other road users.
-
It's time these lyca covered Kamikazi pests on two wheels learned that they have to obey the rules just like other road users.
Sorry you had such an incident but really, yawn - I lose all sympathy with a final paragraph like this which even the Daily Mail would be bored of publishing.
If I posted every time I saw a motorist in the area doing something stupid my post count would be about ten times what it is. And even then I wouldn't laughably suggest ALL drivers were in the wrong just because of the 1%...
-
Although I had contacted the Minister for Transport a year or more ago about the additional signalling lights, at the time I did not get a satisfactory reply. Since I created the petition I also contacted our MP William Wragg who forwarded my suggestion to the Department for Transport who now say that for several years long vehicles have had the option of fitting additional lights. Now the UK Government is supporting a German proposal to the United Nations to amend the International regulations in order to require vehicles over 6 metres in length to have additional signalling lights, with an amendment to allow the use of the side marker lights to flash in unison with the signalling lights. So it appears it may eventually happen. It is a pity very few vehicle owners took up the earlier option, and that legislation will only apply to new vehicles, so probably another ten years before all long vehicles will comply, and many more cyclists lives will be lost unnecessarily during that time.