Killer motorists!

brat wrote: »

This is not an issue that cyclists can do anything about, unless they are prepared to further aggravate motorists by taking the primary position.
Motorists should give a cyclist as much space as they would when overtaking a car.

Why is it that most motorists don't do that?

doesnt go to well doing that when they are riding two abreast , & will not single out to let you pass.

JustinR1979 wrote: »

You're comparing 30mph to 0mph, not 30mph to 10/15mph, so not that big a speed differential.

But the biggest effect for a cyclist (apart from blind terror) of being passed too close isn't the speed differential - that only really matters when things go wrong.

What "matters" is the air displaced by the car - the "gust of wind" as they pass, and that's essentially the same regardless of whether you're passing a stationary pedestrian or a 15mph cyclist.

brat wrote: »

I'm speaking here as a road cyclist

Let's start by making ALL cyclists take a road test (used to have the cycling proficiency test). We could include things like, not cycling on pavements clearly marked for pedestrians, not driving the wrong way down a one-way street, obeying traffic light laws like everyone else.


Then they could pay road tax, just like other motorists including motorcyclists have to (they used to have road tax in the Channel islands). The vehicles could be registered in some way, or the rider made to carry some sort of ID/licence. And then they could be made to insure the vehicle so they are covered in the event of an accident or damage.


There could be updates educating them on the etiquette and rules of road usage, like not riding several abreast when they clearly know there is a vehicle trying to overtake the.


Maybe, when all that is done, we can start listening to cyclists concerns.


I always remember a UKIP council leader being interviewed by (I think) BBC local radio and a local cyclist pressure group. The CPG were pushing for all sorts of things, including cycle lanes everywhere and what was he going to do about it. To his amazement the councillor said yes, but then asked how they were going to fund it (they as in the CPG) and pay for it and it could only happen if they raised the funds for it.


The CPG went apocalyptic and started talking about the council would have to pay for it. The councillor just said, why should working families who pay taxes have their money spent on cycle lanes that they'll never use, when the council is cutting budgets in other places. CPG kept say it was their god given right that the council should pay for it and the councillor kept saying, no, you want it, you fund it, we've plenty of other projects that affect everybody and what little money there is, should be spent on everyone, not a minority pressure group.

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Distance and speed are related.
During ADI training it was 30mph - 3 foot, 20mph - 2 foot, 10mph 1 foot whilst passing parked cars.
During LGV training it was 30mph despite being much less than 3 foot - I tried applying my ADI driving to it and was told off.

As you post, the above is for parked vehicles. The issue for a driver, with parked vehicles, primarily is how to deal with the most common problem, that of the opening of a door. [The issue of a hidden, conflicting pedestrian is dealt with using additional skills]...

If an LGV student was to pass parked vehicles at 30 mph, a mere 3 feet off, then that would elicit adverse comments, either noted or verbal [depending whether on test or not]....however, if that course of action had no adverse outcome, then the note [driving fault] would remain as such.

But actual speeds are only a guideline...much will depend on how the driver feels about controlling, accurately, the vehicle they are driving?

This thread is dealing with 'vulnerable road users'....which requires a very differnt solution, because we are also dealing with 'effect of the presence of our vehicle'...on the stability of that vulnerable road user.