Cyclists.....using the tracks as a short cut.

[transmanche]

Don't get me wrong, there are far too many bad drivers around. I find it amazing that some of the people on the roads have managed to obtain a licence in the first place, let alone keep it.

What frightens/amazes me the most is the number of drivers who are totally unaware that they have done anything wrong - or assume that the cyclist is doing something wrong (e.g. when taking the 'primary riding position').

Really, there needs to be more focus on cracking down on both bad drivers and cyclists, rather than just using the bad behaviour of one group to try and justify not doing anything about the other.

Well said.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I wish there was a simple way to do something about drivers who don't use indicators - one of the main problems being distinguishing between someone who has forgotten or made a mistake and the people who just don't bother with them....

Indicating should be second nature to a motorist/cyclist. I'm not sure 'forgetting' is an excuse for not doing it.

....However, the amount of bad drivers around doesn't diminish the fact that there are way too many bad cyclists around too (including the one I had a close call with about three hours ago).....

Oh Absolutely, and indeed some of those motorists will be cyclists, but as I said, the fact that some drivers have taken lessons, passed a test and still can't drive properly suggests that some cyclists, even with training and having passed a test, will be bad cyclists.

....Really, there needs to be more focus on cracking down on both bad drivers and cyclists, rather than just using the bad behaviour of one group to try and justify not doing anything about the other....

Yes indeed, I think, however, that the money and resources needed will never really be available for it and so the problems will continue.

 

[Antman]

Indicating should be second nature to a motorist/cyclist. I'm not sure 'forgetting' is an excuse for not doing it.



Oh Absolutely, and indeed some of those motorists will be cyclists, but as I said, the fact that some drivers have taken lessons, passed a test and still can't drive properly suggests that some cyclists, even with training and having passed a test, will be bad cyclists.



Yes indeed, I think, however, that the money and resources needed will never really be available for it and so the problems will continue.

Forgetting to indicate really is no excuse at all and drivers who can't be bothered to do so should be fined and repeat offenders required to retake their test.

There will never be any sort of test for cyclists, it just isn't practical. Basically you get a bike and off you go using your own common sense about how much experience you need before using busy roads, bearing in mind experience doesn't necassarily make somebody better.

The cycle paths through London's parks are very pleasant to use, roads obviously less so, and we really do need more segrigated cycle routes.

 

[Ironside]

What frightens/amazes me the most is the number of drivers who are totally unaware that they have done anything wrong - or assume that the cyclist is doing something wrong (e.g. when taking the 'primary riding position').

Well said.

I think it would be useful if part of the driving licence covered how to manoeuvre safely around cyclists, and how cyclists are likely to behave in certain conditions. As an example yesterday I was driving my car and there was a road cyclist that I could see 250 metres ahead of me and I could tell I that at my current speed I would catch him up on a tight corner so I eased off the accelerator and over took him on the next straight. As it happens the cyclist to the primary position just before the turn and stayed wide for another 30 metres to dodge some pot wholes, but this was no problem as I had predicted this move. I did not learn this when passing my test ( I was aware that I needed to give cyclists space but no more than that). I think this should be included in the test, and since nearly 85% of adult cyclists drive cars it would have the added benefit of teaching many cyclists the need to behave predictably on the road and how much effort drivers need to put into driving safely around them.

 

[jon0844]

It's supposedly the sign of a good driver when they don't indicate all of the time out of habit. That's why the police often don't indicate, on the basis of their additional training (and guidance from things like Roadcraft or advance motoring organisations).

Personally, I'd say that's b**locks. Yes, I can understand that by checking if you need to indicate, you're more aware of the situation around you. That's the theory, but...

It simply doesn't work because you can't spot everything, and to try and look for every possible reason to indicate probably means risking missing something else that's more important to be checking.

As such, I'll just indicate out of habit and concentrate on more important things.

No doubt some people will say that I am being lazy, but given how many people (including the police) seem to no longer indicate at all, I hope I'm a better class of lazy driver than the others!

 

[RailProfileUK]

I spotted this guy out on track today, the sleepers are obviously getting to them.

 

[swj99]

Just remind us, what was this thread about again ?

Contd on page 94.....

 

[sevenhills]

As such, I'll just indicate out of habit and concentrate on more important things.

I agree totally.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It's supposedly the sign of a good driver when they don't indicate all of the time out of habit. That's why the police often don't indicate, on the basis of their additional training (and guidance from things like Roadcraft or advance motoring organisations).

Personally, I'd say that's b**locks....

It is b**locks, because the indicators are on the outside of the vehicle, so that everyone else can see them and know your intentions. How can you know your surroundings when you don't know what anyone else is doing? (because no-one is indicating).

....As such, I'll just indicate out of habit and concentrate on more important things.....

That is the way I, as a cyclist, would prefer you do it.

 

[jon0844]

I will add that I don't indicate unnecessarily, like the people who indicate right to enter a roundabout and then go straight on!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Another reason for always indicating is that there may be another road user or pedestrian who is not yet visible to you who will benefit from knowing what you plan to do. Just because you can't see anyone else about doesn't mean there isn't anyone else about.

 

[jon0844]

Living near a police station, I have to assume these officers driving have X-ray vision and can be 100% sure that they don't need to indicate. Just as many officers also have no qualms with ignoring a no-right-turn at a set of lights further up the road from the station!

I long gave up moaning about poor police driving standards though. Whenever you saw one parked at Tesco in a disabled space to use the ATM, or using blue lights to fly down the A10 and then be one or two cars ahead of me in the McDonald's drive-thru (both actual incidents witnessed by myself) the standard response was that they were on police business.

In the first instance, the police were apparently at Tesco to secure CCTV footage. A lie, or at least not the police officer that I saw (maybe another one that had parked somewhere else) because he got some money and then left - clearly forgetting to go inside the shop to get that footage.

In the second case, the car had been on an urgent call and then 'stood down' so opted to get something to eat. Plausible, I suppose - but I do still think that 'police business' is a standard excuse and covers many incidents where the police are just taking the ****. Thanks to the likes of Twitter, you can now catch the police illegally parking to get takeaway far too easily and have posted before the officer can even demand (illegally) that you remove the pictures!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Conversation about 5 years ago with a police officer who lived in our road, during which I was moaning about the poor standard of driving locally, particularly at a highly abused mini roundabout where it is possible to witness near misses every time you walk past it:

Me: "...and most of the drivers round here don't bother to indicate either!"

Officer: "Oh, I never use mine!"

:roll:

 

[tony_mac]

Living near a police station, I have to assume these officers driving have X-ray vision and can be 100% sure that they don't need to indicate. Just as many officers also have no qualms with ignoring a no-right-turn at a set of lights further up the road from the station!

I saw a police car flashed by a speed camera on the M62 at night. It obviously wasn't legitimately on police business, as they immediately slowed down to the speed limit afterwards! (Or, as they might claim, they coincidentally were told to stand down at that moment).

How can you know your surroundings when you don't know what anyone else is doing? (because no-one is indicating).

The point is that, if there is anyone to benefit from your signal, then you would indicate. If nobody might need to know, then you don't need to, because it serves no purpose.

If you are just indicating every time, because you can't be bothered to look around to see if anyone needs the signal, then you could actually be paying more attention to what is going on around you.

Looking for people that might benefit from your signal, and looking to be aware of possible hazards, are not completely separate things!


If there is, or might be, somebody to see your signal then you should know where they are (or be aware of where they might be 'hiding' out of view). Hence, it should not be beneficial to just indicate automatically.

 

[Geezertronic]

I will add that I don't indicate unnecessarily, like the people who indicate right to enter a roundabout and then go straight on!

People who turn right at a roundabout and don't indicate right but indicate left to exit the roundabout really annoy me, as do people who don't indicate to change lanes on the motorway.

Having been a cyclist and am still a car driver I can see the best and worst of both. Cyclists (and those on motorbikes) in London get my goat much more than anywhere else as I am fed up of having my wing mirrors clipped whilst cyclists in particular squeeze through small gaps while traffic is stationary.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....The point is that, if there is anyone to benefit from your signal, then you would indicate. If nobody might need to know, then you don't need to, because it serves no purpose....

But if there is someone you haven't seen.........

....If you are just indicating every time, because you can't be bothered to look around to see if anyone needs the signal, then you could actually be paying more attention to what is going on around you....

At no point should indicating replace knowing your surroundings, it should be used in addition to knowing your surroundings. Thinking about doing it could distract you momentarily or cause a delay in indicating and so it should be done as habit imo.

....Looking for people that might benefit from your signal, and looking to be aware of possible hazards, are not completely separate things!....

True, but deciding when to indicate based on what you see, rather than what is there or what might be there, to my mind atleast, is bad practice. An indication in addition to being aware of the surroundings is better than one of the two.

....If there is, or might be, somebody to see your signal then you should know where they are (or be aware of where they might be 'hiding' out of view). Hence, it should not be beneficial to just indicate automatically.

Whilst it may not be beneficial on some quiet low use country lanes at midnight (watch out, there could be someone hiding in the bushes!), it is good practice.

 

[jon0844]

I get the theory. Those people who probably never indicate could and would likely use that not only as an excuse but even to try and claim superiority!

On a motorway, you should indicate to overtake but not to pull back in but here I'll always look to see if indicating might help someone and reduce any risk to me, however slight.

I'd rather be accused of inattention for indicating unnecessarily than not indicate and have, or cause, an accident - or simply p##s off someone who might end up waiting unnecessarily.

I know myself that I am alert and drive defensively, proven by never having an accident since passing my test in 1991. I exclude nudging some posts in car parks before getting a car with parking sensors!

I don't claim to be the best driver in the world but I do everything I can to limit risk. Many motorists clearly don't.

To get back on topic, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the difference between cyclists and motorcyclists. They're also vulnerable but seem to have more common sense (having been trained and licensed probably helps) and don't take the same risks, young kids and pizza delivery drivers excepted.

If we could get ordinary cyclists to think like motorcyclists, that would be a massive step forward. Nobody would then dream of doing the things you see daily, including riding like a ninja at night.

 

[radamfi]

If we have Dutch style segregation, you virtually remove the conflict between motorists and cyclists and this thread would not even exist.

 

[Llanigraham]

Dutch style segregation applies to ROADS and not to naffing idiots who carry their bikes along RAILWAY lines.

 

[Nick W]

Let's have some figures:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041
In 2007, car drivers killed 433 pedestrians while cyclists killed 4.

I'll leave it to the hopefully intelligent reader to discern whether police time is better spent enforcing the laws for car drivers or cyclists and whether it is car drivers or cyclists who are the higher priority for training.

After car drivers are driving sensibly, carefully and considerately, hopefully cyclists will feel they have no need to cycle on the pavement or through red lights (e.g. to get a head start on the car drivers who put no value on their life). The minority who continue to disobey the law can then be targeted.

 

[carriageline]

So jumping a red light gets bikes out of the way of one car, but straight into the path of another one? Best way to try and justify it...

Both can do with better training. The fact someone can pass a driving test by purely flunking it says enough. The testing/learning process needs a massive overhaul.

 

[Nick W]

Yes, those like me who refused to violate a red light even if the road is clear suffer an increased injury/death rate. When I used to jump red lights (5+ years ago), one of my challenges was often to get to the next junction before a car caught up with me. By waiting for the lights to go green, you have a train of cars behind you. Some of them will overtake sensibly, some of them will endanger your life and some of them will deliberately intimidate you.

The two times I've been hit by a car were during the law abiding period. I've never hit a pedestrian---the worst thing I did was brush someone's backpack after they stepped backwards suddenly.

It now gives me great delight holding up impatient car drivers by stopping while the lights have just turned amber and by waiting for a zebra crossing to be totally clear. If a driver tailgates me, I will very gradually slow down and then pull over to let them past (after all, it'd be dangerous to stop suddenly and dangerous to keep going at the same speed as if a pedestrian walks into the road I wouldn't be able to slam on the brakes). This will delay them but they cannot complain since I am getting out of the way for them.

 

[radamfi]

Dutch style segregation applies to ROADS and not to naffing idiots who carry their bikes along RAILWAY lines.

Yes, but this thread has digressed into cycling on roads.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

After car drivers are driving sensibly, carefully and considerately, hopefully cyclists will feel they have no need to cycle on the pavement or through red lights (e.g. to get a head start on the car drivers who put no value on their life). The minority who continue to disobey the law can then be targeted.

That's not realistic. The only option is Dutch style segregation.

 

[Nick W]

Yes, but this thread has digressed into cycling on roads.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That's not realistic. The only option is Dutch style segregation.

I don't think the latter is realistic in Britain, except in new areas or convert some urban dual carriageways into parallel s2 roads and cycleways.

My hope is that after enough cyclists get squished and maimed, people will start driving better. At least one major newspaper is now siding with the cyclists. Sadly I can't even convince family members to drive well.

 

[radamfi]

I don't think the latter is realistic in Britain, except in new areas or convert some urban dual carriageways into parallel s2 roads and cycleways.

Cycles and cars go at different speeds, so inevitably there will always be conflict as long as they share the roads.

Without proper infrastructure, cycling will only be attractive to a tiny minority. It is possible to build proper infrastructure in British towns. The Dutch only really started doing it in the 70s.

See

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

for a debunking of the excuses.

 

[Nick W]

Cycles and cars go at different speeds, so inevitably there will always be conflict as long as they share the roads.

There will always be drivers wanting to overtake. There need not be drivers risking lives!

Without proper infrastructure, cycling will only be attractive to a tiny minority. It is possible to build proper infrastructure in British towns. The Dutch only really started doing it in the 70s.

With respect, take a look at what has been built since the 1970s in UK. Now is too late to retrofit it without demolition.

Some 1930-70s dual-carriageways have since had bus lanes added. Personally I think the same should happen to the rest, but that's just my opinion. 1960s-1970s ring roads should be made much more pedestrian and cycle friendly, at that means converting D2 to S2 for the cars.

Here's an example of a successful conversion. The problem is that drivers still cut across/in front of cyclists due to impatience.

 

[radamfi]

Did you see the list of excuses? The Dutch have managed to put down cycle paths down fairly narrow roads. It just needs a reorganisation of road layout. The Dutch have even been prepared to demolish things to get a cycle path through. For example on the blog I showed you, there is a post about a canal in Assen that was moved to make the cycle route more direct.

By the way, buses and bikes don't mix either. The Dutch don't do shared bus and cycle lanes.

 

[83G/84D]

Back to the original story in this thread, if a cyclist did get hit by a train you can bet Network Rail would come in for criticism for no logical reason & probably by motorists who ignore red lights and lowering barriers at level crossings.............
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can imagine it being very heavy work cycling on the ballast! Would probably be easier to just take the diversion anyway. Idiots.

Agree 100%.