BBC video of cyclists with helmet cam

DCodd

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

In the Highway Code it states that cyclists should ride in the centre of the lane. It also states that if that cannot be done then we should ride at least 2-3 feet out from the left of the road. This is to give us room to manoeuvre should we have to avoid other road users.

Really?? Where?

DCodd

custardy wrote: »

what is your basis for that?

I have to say custardy, I agree with Hintza on this. On my commute which includes a major A road, I would say 99% of motorists are very considerate and very aware of me. I have more problems with the speed demons with their carbon racers and their 39/52 and 11/23 gears shouting at me to get out of the way!!

I do disagree with the statement that more cyclists break the law than motorists. There are morons on both forms of transport.

Tilt

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

The speed limit is 70mph. If the vehicle in front of you is travelling at 70mph you shouldn't be trying to overtake anyway. If you do it is breaking the law.

There is also the theory that you should drive on the left unless overtaking. Most middle lane hoggers I see drive at below the speed limit so when a coach comes up behind them (which cannot use the lane 3), then it cannot overtake. This quite often causes a chain reaction with other following vehicle which eventually results in delays.

Just to be clear LANE 1 = normal driving lane. LANE 2 = overtaking lane. LANE 3 = overtaking lane.

thelawnet

NBLondon wrote: »

I drive this junction from time to time. The road going across is the A2 so the majority of traffic will be turning rather than going straight on; so most of the drivers aren't thinking of a bike being there at all

The bike is quite visible at the front of the queue, it's not so much that they are not thinking as they are all selfish.

It's common enough for cars to turn across oncoming traffic in this fashion if they think they can get away with it - nobody wants to wait till all the traffic has gone before they start turning, the problem here is that it's not really a meeting of equals, the cyclists can't do much to stop them doing this.

Enterprise_1701C

DCodd wrote: »

Really?? Where?

Can't quite find it at the mo, but it is recommended and you are supposed to give cyclists as much room as you would a car.

This should make interesting reading for you

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/

Dave_C_2

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Can't quite find it at the mo, but it is recommended and you are supposed to give cyclists as much room as you would a car.

This should make interesting reading for you

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/

The riding in the primary and secondary position, taking the lane and so on are written in the bikeabilty book as mentioned in your link. Remember that this book is not free! This is what is also taught in government sponsored cycle training schemes.

However, in the usual not-joined-up-at-all Government thinking, they have neglected to put this in the highway code.

So on one hand we have the cyclist who has been on a course, possibly bought the book and is riding confidently in the primary/secondary position. Taking the lane, especially near pinch points and passing parked cars to prevent dooring. So he knows he is doing nothing wrong.

On the other hand we have a licensed (non- cycling) car driver, full of the knowledge of the highway code (free on-line). The last thing a non-cycling driver is going to do is buy the Bikeability book, why should he? So he going along the road being held up by an idiot cyclist in the middle of the lane. So he knows he is doing nothing wrong.

Naturally there is conflict! As I have just pointed out, both parties are convinced they are in the right.

The cure to this is obvious. Simply put the bikability lane-taking measures in the highway code and make it part of the test so that non-cycling motorists know what to expect.

The passing too close to cyclists and other vulnerable road users is already in the highway code, see post #16

Dave

Lum

heartbreak_star wrote: »

IMO there should be more cycle lanes, and if there's a cycle lane present a cyclist should be fined if they don't use it.

Non-cyclist here but I have to disagree with this one. There are many many terrible cycle lanes out there that are basically unusable, some of them are only about a foot wide and go over every grid on the road. Many of them are filled with gravel and debris that only a mountain bike could safely traverse, and even they they would still skid under braking. Some of them are just designed by idiots who don't cycle, and pass through bollards, fences, bus shelters etc. Then you have the shared cycle/parking lanes which are utterly worthless to a cyclist.

It's often much more sensible to just cycle in the road.

Ironically the debris issue would be solved by removing the damn cycle lane. Doing this often leaves behind a stretch of road able to accommodate a cyclist being safely overtaken by a car, something which was previously not possible when the lane was present.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It doesn't matter. If there is space and time to safely overtake on the right hand side then that's what should happen. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

There is no law against overtaking on the left in this country. There is a suggestion not to in the highway code, but no actual law.
The situation is the same for middle lane hogging. No law but a suggestion not to use it in the HC.

When these are prosecuted it's under one of the generic offences, e.g. careless driving, driving without due consideration etc. etc.

So, for example if you were in the middle lane having recently overtaken a lorry and someone stormed up behind you, swerved left, cutting up the lorry, overtook then pulled back a few inches off your front bumper in order to avoid rear-ending the next lorry then they would clearly be prosecuted if witnessed by a copper.

But if you were in the middle lane with nothing in the inside lane for two miles in either direction and somebody overtook you on the left because they frankly couldn't be bothered to make 4 lane changes in order to accomodate your selfishness. You would likely be the one prosecuted as you have either failed to realise that the left lane is now empty, or you have realised that but have inconsiderately decided to remain in the middle lane regardless.

"two wrongs" doesn't apply here. By hogging the middle lane you are in the wrong. The person overtaking you on the left is not necessarily in the wrong

custardy

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66067108@N08/8029562372/

heres one
Edinburgh council have saw fit to make it red again
note the taxi rank on the left,and look at the bs at the top with kerb that juts out
perfect point to be killed

Lum

I also like how it's a broken white line meaning it's ok for cars to enter the lane.

In your second photo there is also some muppet walking down it. Which is impressive given this isn't a pavement based cycle lane and he isn't even trying to overtake a slower pedestrian at that point.

The Cycle Facility of the Month is always amusing too.

Norman_Castle

The bike is quite visible at the front of the queue, it's not so much that they are not thinking as they are all selfish.

It's common enough for cars to turn across oncoming traffic in this fashion if they think they can get away with it - nobody wants to wait till all the traffic has gone before they start turning, the problem here is that it's not really a meeting of equals, the cyclists can't do much to stop them doing this.

She did, quite bravely. The junction needs a redesign to show priorities clearly.