should cyclists be treated as road-users, or pedestrians?

Idiophreak

thelawnet wrote: »

He undertook you? Or he passed you when you were waiting at the light?

Doesn't sound like he caused you any inconvenience at all.

I had some utter **** overtake me on the roundabout an hour ago, I'm taking second exit from left lane, he used right lane and was taking the first exit, and cut me up as I was passing the first exit.

How many lanes are there on the first exit?

thelawnet

The roundabout had four exits.

Idiophreak

thelawnet wrote: »

The roundabout had four exits.

And were there nice plants in the middle of the roundabout?

marleyboy

Being a Pedestrian, Cyclist and Driver. I can appreciate the highs and lows of each. I am as courteous as a cyclist to a driver, as I am as a driver to a cyclist, the same applies when I am a pedestrian.

As a cyclist I am a road user and abide by the rules as any other road user would. As a pedestrian I am only vulnerable when crossing a road, I can think as a driver would approaching me, causing me to appreciate my vulnerability when on the road of any vehicle.

I tend to be courteous to everyone else on the pavements or the road, will happily give way or allow extra room for a cyclist as well as give way at crossings to pedestrians.

As a cyclist, I am cautious of being a vulnerable road user, I stop at red lights, indicate when turning and dont jump onto the pavement when I feel like it. I follow the rules of the road as I would driving my car.

thelawnet

Idiophreak wrote: »

And were there nice plants in the middle of the roundabout?

A tree.
.....

snowleopard61

I stepped out in front of a cyclist once. I felt awful about it, in no way his fault. Why should he be legally responsible for my stupidity?

I do take your point, and am aware this would be the downside, but on a pavement cyclists would have to expect to encounter pedestrians and ride accordingly; it isn't comparable to a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the road. Short of actual malice on the part of a pedestrian, it could work very well. As a pedestrian (and would-be cyclist, if I didn't have to ride on the road) I'd be very happy to make this trade-off.

I walk to work now (30 mins each way) , but in a previous workplace I had to travel by bus because the journey would have taken well over an hour each way on foot and the roads were busy and dangerous. I hardly saw a pedestrian on the pavement for most of the journey, through affluent suburban areas where almost everyone travelled by car, but I couldn't have cycled on the pavement because it would have been illegal.

Dekazer

I'm amazed (although not entirely shocked) at how aggressive some people's attitudes are towards other road users.

Sure, there are irresponsible road users in all categories - drivers (amateur and pro, car, lorry, bus and taxi), pedestrians, bikers, cyclists, horse riders... Somehow, though, we all have to co-exist safely.

I would be in favour of improved road design to take account of different road users. However, in London certainly and other places I expect, it's hard to make retrospective improvements.

Bearing this in mind, a little courtesy goes a long way. Those complacent drivers and cyclists aren't likely to amend their behaviour because of people ranting and raving on forums like this, but it can make other people feel attacked and defensive, and entrenches adversarial feelings (and behaviour?).

I cycle, ride a motorbike, drive, walk and take public transport. I am aware that no matter how I'm travelling someone else always seems to be quicker/drier/pushier/more selfish/luckier/richer than I am, but really - life's too short to be aggressive about it. Using phrases like "holier than thou" or "f**king !!!!!! head" just winds everyone up.

I hope this board doesn't degenerate into this sort of argument - I'm here to save money, not change the world.

Stay safe out there

Ms_Speculatrix

If someone is pushing a bike they are a pedestrian, if they are riding it they are a road user.

As someone who comes across a lot of cyclists on the road (as well as horses as mentioned by an earlier post) I think we need to be aware of how vulnerable these groups of road users are and act accordingly. I am pretty apalled at some of the attitudes I have seen towards cyclists in particular on the roads - cars cutting them up, passing at speed within inches of them or even shouting abuse at them on the way past. It seems that when some people get behind the wheel of a car they act in ways they would never even consider doing without the protection the car affords them.

Of course there is another side to this - cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast, or in long convoys, those who weave all over the road, no lights on at night, cycling on pavements (often at speed), cycling across red lights, cycling drunk through a busy high street, undertaking or, recently seen, a group of about 15 sat in a junction waiting for the rest to catch up and thus preventing anyone turning off the main road and causing havoc. These are a minority it's true - but one that is capable of causing accidents nonetheless.

I would personally like to see many more designated cycle lanes and possibly some kind of basic standard test for cyclists before being allowed on the road. Same with horse riders some of whom are only 8 or 9 years old left in charge of a huge animal on a main road.

All road users should have to follow the same rules. I do not think we should go down the route of insisting on insurance for cyclists, but neither do I consider it acceptable that if one causes an accident one should be able to just shrug and walk off, or attempt to sue the other road user. There has to be an element of personal responsibility on both sides.

Idiophreak

Ms_Speculatrix wrote: »

Of course there is another side to this - cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast, or in long convoys, those who weave all over the road,

The highway code mandates that motorists should leave as much space when passing a cyclist as they would when passing a car - so it really doesn't matter if they're 2/3 abreast...it shouldn't make any difference to how they're overtaken.

As to weaving, this used to confuse me a bit until I got a road bike - and really started to appreciate what a shocking state the roads are in...You *have* to weave, to avoid manholes, potholes, puddles, cable trenches, cracks, patches of poor road surface...the list is endless. People don't do it for fun, they're just trying to get along without completely wrecking their wheels.

Also, most (sensible) cyclists ride somewhat defensively - and keep well away from the kerb/door zone. If you cycle too close to the kerb - motorists *will* try and squeeze between you and oncoming traffic. Also, of course, cycling in the middle of the road can greatly increase your visibility going in to tight bends and so on. A lot of people mistake this kind of riding for "weaving all over the road", but it's not exactly the case.

Ms_Speculatrix wrote: »

I would personally like to see many more designated cycle lanes and possibly some kind of basic standard test for cyclists before being allowed on the road

Both nice ideas, both sadly unworkable. There's simply not much space in most built up areas to add further cycle provision...and off-road cycle lanes, which seem ideal at first, just couldn't be maintained to a high enough standard to make them any good to a lot of cyclists.

Where I live (Oxfordshire), there's a "dual cycle network" or something, which basically means that the council accept that the off-road cycle lanes are basically only good for children to get to school on, or for old ladies to get back from the shops. Competent cyclists are supposed to just ride on the road. I'm fairly sure that's the only model that's actually scalable in this country. The only issue is that you need to tell people about that policy...To stop people yelling "why aren't you on the cycle path!?" at cyclists as they pass...

As for the testing...Nobody bothers to enforce existing cycle laws - skipping red lights, riding without lights etc, so there's not much point in creating new laws to not enforce.

Dekazer

I'm with you Idio! The other problem cycling right in the gutter is that's where all the broken glass tends to be Puncture-tastic.

On my commute home we have several dual use footpaths - and thankfully these have massive blue signs which are great to point at if pedestrians comment.

Often I find dual use footpaths slower (as I give pedestrians right of way, which often means cycling at walking pace, yawn). However, I usually choose to use them in order to get out of drivers' way where the road is narrow.

Separate lane cycle paths are also good on very wide roads. However, the ones near me are in a terrible state of disrepair (broken and cracked, potholed and covered in glass) so I only tend to use them if it's 1) quicker for me or 2) stops me presenting an irritating obstacle to cars. If neither of these is true, I don't bother with them. My husband says I should 'use it or lose it', but I'm not that principled