Cars parking in the cycle lane on a busy Road.
Options
Comments
-
Marco_Panettone wrote: »The argument that the Dutch did it from scratch is incorrect anyway. The Dutch road system was fundamentally changed from motor-centric to people-centric in the 70's. From then on cycling was prioritised and driving was made difficult. The infrastructure they have in the Netherlands now is not the same as it was at the start of their transport revolution - things get updated and improved as time goes on. New roads and areas have high quality cycle infrastructure build from the start, but it isn't then just forgotten about - it's never 'finished'.
Yes, you're right, this is important. There is cycle-specific infrastructure in the Netherlands built in the 70s/80s which has then been rebuilt to a higher standard/better design more recently, it's a continuous process.
Being positive, a lot of changes don't make driving that more 'difficult' overall. There's probably no intention of making difficult, just like there's no intentionally making it difficult for cyclists in Britain, it's just a consequence of the chosen priorities. Deciding on what roads are actually through roads can make short-distance journeys longer. That makes walking/cycling better in comparison for local journeys, reducing traffic as a result, which can make longer distance journeys easier, too.0 -
Holland is reasonably similar in terms of physical space in town/cities/country, and in terms of wealth. The difference is the different decisions made in terms of how the road space is allocated, and how new roads are built.
I think this obsession with trying to find counter-examples to the 1.5m is a bit silly. Part of the reason of this is for a good allowance is variations in the line the cyclist and driver take, and allowance for judgement mistakes. Clearly, oncoming traffic separated by a white line is a different issue because they're *separated by a line*, so the risk of deviation is far lower.
The idea is we start with the concept that 1.5m is really the minimum sensible overtaking margin allowing for all these risks. If you want to argue for a lower margin, it should *really* be on the basis of safety, not your convenience.
As to law, the highway code says "at least as much room as when overtaking a car". Which doesn't quite match 1.5m, but roughly does - their example shows a cyclist in the secondary position
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
I'm going to deviate a bit from Marco, and acknowledge that <1.5m overtakes do work. But, I think it's because you're thinking about things different way. 1.5m should cover all the risks reasonably, and is the minimum I'd recommend for a 'normal' overtake.
If the overtake is tighter, I would really hope it was cyclist-initiated, or there was a low speed differential, or somesuch.
Well said.
Close overtakes on narrow roads should be by accord.
If I'm cycling on a narrow road with a car behind, I'll usually take control and hold him until there is a convenient place to pass. Doesn't usually take long, at which point I'll make it obvious that he can pass. he then gets a wave of acknowledgement.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Are there any waiting restrictions on the dual-carriageway i.e. single or double yellow line? This might help with enforcement.0
-
I get fed up with the amount of cyclists I see who nearly hit pedestrians when jumping red lights, ignoring zebra crossings etc.
I get fed up with the amount of pedestrians who step out onto the road when I'm either cycling or driving through a green light and the pedestrian crossing is at red!
In fact I get fed up with the amount of pedestrians who just step out onto the road whenever they like!
I also get fed up with the amount of motorists who also ignore zebra crossings!
And I also get fed up with motorists who get out of their car parked on the left when I'm cycling by at the same time as another motorist is overtaking me on the right!0 -
I was pointing out that we still fail when building new roads and housing, when there certainly isn't an issue of lack of space, so clearly there's more to it than the "we have no space" argument. We often fail pedestrians in this respect, too.
Interestingly, there is a road near me thats been redesigned recently.
There was a bridge that had fairly narrow lanes with a second bridge used for the pavement and a wide cycle lane.
this is has been replaced now with a single bridge that has extra wide lanes, a large pavement, but no longer has any cycle lane at all0 -
How long are your arms?!!Marco_Panettone wrote: »If you cannot overtake safely, don't try to overtake. It's that simple. If you're walking on the pavement, how close to you would you like a cyclist to ride? I'd suggest any less than arm's length away would feel too close. Now, apply that to a motor vehicle - how close would you like me to drive to you if you're on the pavement? How close 'feels' safe to the more vulnerable road user?
If you think less than 1.5m is ok you're more than welcome to stand in the road while I drive past you at speed close enough that you could touch the car...
As a daily cycle commuter I like cars to give me space obviously. I'm not so obtuse as to believe they are only safe at 1.5m+ away.0 -
There are crap pedestrians, crap drivers and crap cyclists. What they have in common is not their mode of transport.Isabella_Duke wrote: »I get fed up with the amount of pedestrians who step out onto the road when I'm either cycling or driving through a green light and the pedestrian crossing is at red!
In fact I get fed up with the amount of pedestrians who just step out onto the road whenever they like!
I also get fed up with the amount of motorists who also ignore zebra crossings!
And I also get fed up with motorists who get out of their car parked on the left when I'm cycling by at the same time as another motorist is overtaking me on the right!0 -
How long are your arms?!!
As a daily cycle commuter I like cars to give me space obviously. I'm not so obtuse as to believe they are only safe at 1.5m+ away.
Not quite as long as Mr Tickle.... I want drivers to aim for 1.5m as a 'normal' pass. This means that if they get it wrong by 50cm I'm still safe. Also, if they get it wrong as I swerve to avoid a pothole I'm still safe.
When riding I try to give other riders a similar amount of space when overtaking for the same reasons, even though the danger is significantly lower.It's only numbers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards