Priorities of road users to be changed to place responsibility on those that pose the greatest danger to others.

[Failed Unit]

The problem of grouping could be reduced by promoting the traditional British sport of individual time-trialling.
..
The HC advises cyclists to ride in single file on busy narrow roads, but not on roads that are either narrow or busy.

Self preservation keeps me to single file on narrow roads.

One change that does cause a lot of debate is it seems now we will be encouraged to ride side by side on a wide road rather than single file, to encourage people to overtake us in the same way as a tractor. I am not so sure myself.

 

[edwin_m]

If the road has been fitted with a pedestrian controlled crossing at great expense, that's because it was deemed that pedestrians needed such assistance to avoid them having to make a dash for it with all the risks that entails. It's naïve to think that a road busy enough to have such a crossing would have a permanent stream of vehicles 24/7.

If that was the case then a much cheaper zebra crossing would have been fitted. The reason they often aren't is because a controlled crossing reduces delay to the traffic, by making people cross in bunches rather than in a continuous stream.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I prefer not to use a zebra crossing, trusting drivers to stop and wait does not seem advisable.

Solved the problem for myself by retiring to a small quiet town where one can easily and safely walk across the overdimensioned under-used freeway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I prefer not to use a zebra crossing, trusting drivers to stop and wait does not seem advisable.

They are scary in mainland Europe, but in the UK you just stand by the crossing and the traffic stops, then you cross.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

They are scary in mainland Europe, but in the UK you just stand by the crossing and the traffic stops, then you cross.

I have observed them in the UK. Often traffic does not stop, often drivers move off before the crossing is clear, aiming their vehicles at people crossing, and just missing them. British drivers are as bad as any others.

 

[AM9]

If that was the case then a much cheaper zebra crossing would have been fitted. The reason they often aren't is because a controlled crossing reduces delay to the traffic, by making people cross in bunches rather than in a continuous stream.

Then as I said, if there were gaps in the traffic large enough for pedestrians to cross before the green man shows without affecting the traffic, they would have zero net effect on the overall traffic flow (and possibly a slight benefit) even if the traffic has to watch an unused pedestrian crossing phase.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have observed them in the UK. Often traffic does not stop, often drivers move off before the crossing is clear, aiming their vehicles at people crossing, and just missing them.

That is not my observation of them generally. But if people are going to do that, they can as easily do it at a signalised crossing; they never (that I have seen) have cameras to enforce the lights.

 

[GALLANTON]

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, and it should also be made mandatory that all pushbikes are fitted with DECENT lights and not poundland specials.

 

[AM9]

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, and it should also be made mandatory that all pushbikes are fitted with DECENT lights and not poundland specials.

Helmets don't need to be mandatory, there is some evidence that helmets can increase the risk of neck injuries so until that is resolved I don't think that they can be mandated. I would agree that all public highway going cycles should be fitted with compliant lights, (and a bell), the source and price is irrelevant to anybody other than the cyclist.
I can understand why other road users would want cyclists to have lights for but whether helmets are worn or not doesn't affect others.

 

[GALLANTON]

Helmets don't need to be mandatory, there is some evidence that helmets can increase the risk of neck injuries so until that is resolved I don't think that they can be mandated. I would agree that all public highway going cycles should be fitted with compliant lights, (and a bell), the source and price is irrelevant to anybody other than the cyclist.
I can understand why other road users would want cyclists to have lights for but whether helmets are worn or not doesn't affect others.

Some of the "compliant" lights aren't up to scratch though, they'd be aswell using a candle. Bike lights should be clearly visible from a distance. They also shouldn't flash as the flashing lights are quite distracting.

 

[yorkie]

I often on my drive to/from work encounter a specific and tricky roundabout at the bottom of a hill which I would estimate cyclists can reach 40 mph and have, on more than 1 occasion, very nearly had one crash into the back of my car because they have failed to stop for the roundabout. The priority of cyclists too often is to maintain their speed at all costs no matter what other road users may get in their way. In any case, the maxim that motorised vehicles should be driven with regard to how quickly they can safely stop is one that is too often not applied by cyclists.

On my journeys to/from work, car drivers can reach speeds of several mph above the speed limit. The priority of car drivers is often to maintain their speed at all costs no matter what other road users may get in their way.

Another gripe that I have is the extremely frequent riding of cyclists two abreast on busy roads with no thought to traffic flow.

Another gripe I have is the extremely frequent overtaking of car drivers with no thought to traffic flow, such just before some obstruction that applies to them, such as parked cars.

I am a cyclist myself but often cringe at the sense of entitlement cyclists exhibit and their complete disregard for other road users. Respect goes both ways

And I often cringe at the sense of entitlement car drivers exhibit and their complete disregard for other road users.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2021 ==

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets

Do you have any rationale for this bizarre claim?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2021 ==

I have observed them in the UK. Often traffic does not stop, often drivers move off before the crossing is clear, aiming their vehicles at people crossing, and just missing them.

Where is this? This is not my observation. Car drivers can be bad in many aspects, but zebra crossings is an area where I find they are actually generally very good.

That is not my observation of them generally.

Nor is it mine.

 

[Meerkat]

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, and it should also be made mandatory that all pushbikes are fitted with DECENT lights and not poundland specials.

Helmets shouldn’t even be encouraged so much (scaring people that cycling is dangerous)
Compulsory helmets would cause more deaths by reducing cycling than they save.
The best way of making cycling safer is to have lots more cyclists out there.

They also shouldn't flash as the flashing lights are quite distracting.

I agree the flashing ones shouldn’t be so bright, but they are brilliant for making cyclists stand out, particularly in busy areas and in the rain.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I presume that you are at least an occasional pedestrian so would not really believe that a normal pedestrian would be determined to hang around a roadside waiting for lights to change even if gaps large enough to safely cross the road without even remotely inconveniencing any vehicles. If the road has
been fitted with a pedestrian controlled crossing at great expense, that's because it was deemed that pedestrians needed such assistance to avoid them having to make a dash for it with all the risks that entails. It's naïve to think that a road busy enough to have such a crossing would have a permanent stream of vehicles 24/7.

I try to walk as much as I can. But of course most car drivers do some walking.

The point I am making is that I see pedestrians walk up to a pelican crossing press the button BEFORE looking for a gap, they immediately see there is already a gap and use it. If only they could look first before pressing the button, it might arguably save them a second or two. I must admit I prefer to avoid touching something that others have already touched !. For myself I am patient enough to wait a little while before pressing the button as at the 40mph crossing near my house there is quite often a gap quite soon. I might add that if there are children there then I make a good example by pressing the button and waiting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Helmets shouldn’t even be encouraged so much (scaring people that cycling is dangerous)
Compulsory helmets would cause more deaths by reducing cycling than they save.
The best way of making cycling safer is to have lots more cyclists out there.

That and having as much dedicated infrastructure as possible, Dutch style. Urban cycling there is an extension of pedestrianism done in normal clothes, and that's the best way to get it to become a majority mode of transport. Clearly fast road cyclists on their lightweight £5K machines won't use them, but most people will, and it's the only way you'll get Old Mrs Smith to cycle to the shops instead of taking her Vauxhall Corsa.

 

[AM9]

They are scary in mainland Europe, but in the UK you just stand by the crossing and the traffic stops, then you cross.

Actually, the HC is ambiguous in that respect.

rule 19 says: Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

It starts off by saying "Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross." - implying that pedestrians stand off the crossing but later it says:"Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing." which can (and not infrequently does) create the situation where drivers won't stop until there is a pedestrian actually on the crossing. Generally I will put a foot onto the crossing as traffic approaches to establish the need for them to stop, (but also be prepared to quickly remove it if necessary). If the road is narrow forcing the traffic to come close to the kerb I might not do that but instead star further back and move meaningfully towards the crossing. By timing it right, that usually gives the impression that I am going to step on the crossing without the the risk of being hit. With those tactics, I rarely get the situation that LSWR Cavalier talks of.

 

[Meerkat]

That and having as much dedicated infrastructure as possible, Dutch style. Urban cycling there is an extension of pedestrianism done in normal clothes, and that's the best way to get it to become a majority mode of transport. Clearly fast road cyclists on their lightweight £5K machines won't use them, but most people will, and it's the only way you'll get Old Mrs Smith to cycle to the shops instead of taking her Vauxhall Corsa.

That helps, but they cycle on the roads without helmets too (and the towns are pretty chaotic with bikes flying everywhere!)

 

[Peter Sarf]

On my journeys to/from work, car drivers can reach speeds of several mph above the speed limit. The priority of car drivers is often to maintain their speed at all costs no matter what other road users may get in their way.


Another gripe I have is the extremely frequent overtaking of car drivers with no thought to traffic flow, such just before some obstruction that applies to them, such as parked cars.


And I often cringe at the sense of entitlement car drivers exhibit and their complete disregard for other road users.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2021 ==


Do you have any rationale for this bizarre claim?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2021 ==


Where is this? This is not my observation. Car drivers can be bad in many aspects, but zebra crossings is an area where I find they are actually generally very good.

Nor is it mine.

I think the main problem with car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians is that they are all human !. I mean there are good ones and bad ones. Some are impatient, others are foolish, others are downright arrogant, plenty try to get away with speeding and fortunately most care about others.

Actually, the HC is ambiguous in that respect.

It starts off by saying "Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross." - implying that pedestrians stand off the crossing but later it says:"Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing." which can (and not infrequently does) create the situation where drivers won't stop until there is a pedestrian actually on the crossing. Generally I will put a foot onto the crossing as traffic approaches to establish the need for them to stop, (but also be prepared to quickly remove it if necessary). If the raod is narrow forcing the traffic to come close to the kerb I might not do that but instead star further back and move meaningfully towards the crossing. By timing it right, that usually gives the impression that I am going to step on the crossing without the the risk of being hit. With those tactics, I rarely get the situation that LSWR Cavalier talks of.

I suppose, because I am the sort of driver that aims to let pedestrians cross at crossings, that I then believe I will be let across when I am a pedestrian.

As for the ambiguity I think it is allowing a bit of leeway. A pedestrian should wait until a car allows them to cross - for safety sake. This relies on enough car drivers being considerate of course. Once a pedestrian is on the crossing then the onus is on the car(s) to stop. To me that means a pedestrian must wait until the cars have stopped but a pedestrian should not have to jump back for any car that forces past a pedestrian that has already started crossing. It does not mean the pedestrian can force the car to stop at their will. I think it is so that a pedestrian crossing slowly on a long crossing (wide carriage way) has a chance of completing their crossing if they started crossing when there were no cars approaching or they started crossing when a car travelling in the opposite direction had stopped to let them go.

 

[Meerkat]

Actually, the HC is ambiguous in that respect.

It starts off by saying "Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross." - implying that pedestrians stand off the crossing but later it says:"Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing." which can (and not infrequently does) create the situation where drivers won't stop until there is a pedestrian actually on the crossing. Generally I will put a foot onto the crossing as traffic approaches to establish the need for them to stop, (but also be prepared to quickly remove it if necessary). If the raod is narrow forcing the traffic to come close to the kerb I might not do that but instead star further back and move meaningfully towards the crossing. By timing it right, that usually gives the impression that I am going to step on the crossing without the the risk of being hit. With those tactics, I rarely get the situation that LSWR Cavalier talks of.

Ending that is one of the changes isn’t it? So you will only need to stand at the crossing.
Being a driver as well as a pedestrian I often walk away from the crossing a bit to let cars go by when it makes next to no difference to my crossing time, rather than people slamming their brakes on whilst I wait for them to stop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, the HC is ambiguous in that respect.

It starts off by saying "Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross." - implying that pedestrians stand off the crossing but later it says:"Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing." which can (and not infrequently does) create the situation where drivers won't stop until there is a pedestrian actually on the crossing. Generally I will put a foot onto the crossing as traffic approaches to establish the need for them to stop, (but also be prepared to quickly remove it if necessary). If the raod is narrow forcing the traffic to come close to the kerb I might not do that but instead star further back and move meaningfully towards the crossing. By timing it right, that usually gives the impression that I am going to step on the crossing without the the risk of being hit. With those tactics, I rarely get the situation that LSWR Cavalier talks of.

This is one of those cases where the HC doesn't represent what actually happens. In my use of zebra crossings I have always found in the UK that standing looking like you want to cross causes the traffic to stop - maybe one car will go through, but the second one stops.

In the Netherlands it's quite scary - you actually have to walk out. The traffic does stop, but it doesn't "feel" safe that way.

There are a few such cases. The meaning of flashing your headlamps is another case where the HC does not reflect reality.

 

[GALLANTON]

Do you have any rationale for this bizarre claim?

Explain to me how my claim is "bizarre"?!? Motorcyclists have to wear helmets while on the road, so why shouldn't cyclists? Or are you seriously suggesting that they should abolish mandatory wearing of motorcycle helmets as well?

Helmets shouldn’t even be encouraged so much (scaring people that cycling is dangerous)
Compulsory helmets would cause more deaths by reducing cycling than they save.

How exactly would a piece of protective headgear cause more deaths? It's a piece of saftey equipment designed to protect your head in a fall.

 

[yorkie]

Explain to me how my claim is "bizarre"?!?

It's bizarre because it's disproportionate, illogical and not implemented by any sensible civilised country I know of.

The onus is on you to justify your idea.

Motorcyclists have to wear helmets while on the road, so why shouldn't cyclists? Or are you seriously suggesting that they should abolish mandatory wearing of motorcycle helmets as well?

That's a false equivalence.

How exactly would a piece of protective headgear cause more deaths? It's a piece of saftey equipment designed to protect your head in a fall.

@Meerkat's point is that it would reduce the number of people cycling.

 

[Failed Unit]

Are the helmets not mandatory in Australia?

For me it is a choice, but when I was hit by a car on a roundabout I am glad the helmet broke the window rather than my skull. However to the driver that hit me, that made little difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How exactly would a piece of protective headgear cause more deaths? It's a piece of saftey equipment designed to protect your head in a fall.

It causes more deaths by discouraging cycling, which means more cars on the road.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2021 ==

Are the helmets not mandatory in Australia?

For me it is a choice, but when I was hit by a car on a roundabout I am glad the helmet broke the window rather than my skull. However to the driver that hit me, that made little difference.

They are in a few countries, Oz is one of them. However, Oz is basically a full-on nanny state in terms of this sort of thing. Very few other countries do.

 

[GALLANTON]

Are the helmets not mandatory in Australia?

For me it is a choice, but when I was hit by a car on a roundabout I am glad the helmet broke the window rather than my skull. However to the driver that hit me, that made little difference.

Exactly, anyone who implies a helmet doesn't protect someone is clearly an idiot.

That's a false equivalence.

Is it, care to explain why?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a false equivalence.

Indeed. Motorcycling is much, much more dangerous than cycling. That being the case, mandatory motorcycle helmets are proportionate, but mandatory bicycle helmets, other than possibly for children, are not.

The reason it is more dangerous is the higher speeds involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2021 ==

Exactly, anyone who implies a helmet doesn't protect someone is clearly an idiot.

Nobody said it didn't. The point regarding compulsion is that it discourages cycling. More cycling is better for lots of reasons - most notably it means fewer cars (and it's cars that are dangerous), and also "critical mass" i.e. cyclists are safer when there are a lot of cyclists.

Probably most cyclists do wear them these days. But having to wear one reduces the ability to use things like the London cycle hire scheme spontaneously, as if they were required you'd need to carry it with you just in case, and they are more than a little cumbersome.

Most people who argue for compulsion fall into one of two camps - doctors, who tend towards "nanny stateism" fairly naturally because they see a lot of bad stuff, and in far greater numbers people who are anti-cycling and want to discourage it - it's usually accompanied by "and tax and insurance".

 

[GALLANTON]

Most cycle helmets can fit in a decent-sized rucksack and they weigh literally nothing, so cumbersome they are not.

Cars aren't dangerous, the people who drive them are. The same goes for cyclists, I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had with cyclists on the road who ride about like it's their own personal highway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most cycle helmets can fit in a decent-sized rucksack and they weigh literally nothing, so cumbersome they are not.

Not everyone carries a "decent sized rucksack" when they go to London.

Cars aren't dangerous, the people who drive them are. The same goes for cyclists, I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had with cyclists on the road who ride about like it's their own personal highway.

The fact that a car weighs about 2000kg and a bicycle weighs about 20kg (at most) make a huge difference to how much risk each poses, not to mention the considerable differential in top speed.

 

[Bikeman78]

As for the classic case of a car turning left across the path of a cyclist going straight on. I have seen it happen. If the car has just overtaken the cyclist then the car driver is in the wrong.

See video below showing a Tesco driver hitting a bicycle. Indicator goes on maybe one second before the van starts to turn. If someone did this to a cyclist in the Netherlands they'd be in big trouble. One wonders what would have happened if the cyclist was replaced by a bus in a bus lane. In Cardiff I think the result would have been a very bent van!

Shocking moment Tesco delivery van slams into a cyclist when the driver turns left - YouTube

 

[AM9]

It's bizarre because it's disproportionate, illogical and not implemented by any sensible civilised country I know of.

The onus is on you to justify your idea.

That's a false equivalence.

@Meerkat's point is that it would reduce the number of people cycling.

There is also the result of tests conducted by Dr Ian Walker, a psychologist at the University of Bath. Walker is a man who has researched attitudes and reactions to cyclists with more thoroughness than most. In 2006 he attached a computer and an electronic distance gauge to his bike and recorded data from 2,500 drivers who overtook him on the roads. Half the time he wore a bike helmet and half the time he was bare-headed. The results showed motorists tended to pass him more closely when he had the helmet on, coming an average of 8.5 cm nearer. Walker said he believed this was likely to be connected to cycling being relatively rare in the UK, and drivers thus forming preconceived ideas about cyclists based on what they wore. “This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without,” he wrote.

In effect, if the observations are representative of drivers' reasons for their behviour, then they may also be why so many drivers would feel comfortable with cyclists being forced to wear helmets as it may reduce their assessment of the risks that they present to cyclists. Maybe that is subconciously in some posters here. Another more cynical view is that it might just put additional responsibilities on cyclists as they get off so lightly (e.g. don't pay road tax, they don't have to pass a test, they don't have speed limits and so on), and it might put them off using roads really provided just for motor vehicles.

 

[Bikeman78]

Explain to me how my claim is "bizarre"?!? Motorcyclists have to wear helmets while on the road, so why shouldn't cyclists? Or are you seriously suggesting that they should abolish mandatory wearing of motorcycle helmets as well?




How exactly would a piece of protective headgear cause more deaths? It's a piece of saftey equipment designed to protect your head in a fall.

Statistically walking is less safe than cycling. Around 700 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles every year. No doubt severe head injury is the cause in many cases. Should pedestrians have to wear a helmet too?