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

mr_fishbulb

I don't see much mention in here about cars stopping in Advanced Stop Zones or passengers opening doors without looking.

Man_Overboard_2

Dekazer wrote: »

I once read some really interesting (yes really!) academic literature about non-compliance with regulations. You can fit the example of cycling through a red light to the theory...

1) Some people, on some occasions, break rules because they perceive that the benefit (to them) outweighs the cost (likelihood of being caught plus worse-case consequence) to them*. They cycle through a red light because their journey will be quicker, they're unlikely to be censured, and the cost if caught will be low.

2) Some people break rules because they aren't aware of the rule, or don't understand the potential consequences of breaking the rule**. They cycle through a red light because they think they're allowed to, because they're not in a car.

3) Some people break rules because they don't think the rule should apply to them, or that the rule is immoral in some way. This group would be the group to campaign for a change in the rules***. They cycle through a red light because they believe that vulnerable cyclists should be allowed to cross an empty pedestrian crossing in order to keep them ahead of traffic, more visible and therefore safer.

I suspect that any one of these could apply to the person you just saw cycle through a red light.

Further, the theory suggests that the most effective rules/regulations will work on all three groups. Clearly the Highway Code ain't cutting it...

*'Amoral calculators' - some large scale corporate pollutors fit this category.
** 'Incompetent' - some industrial accidents through negligence fit this category.
*** 'Objectors' - Rosa Parks fitted this category.
(With thanks to Kagan & Scholtz, 1984 I think)

I think the instinctive tendency of all road or pavement users (especially the inexperienced) is to assess any perceived hazard in terms of 'how much danger does this situation pose to my own well-being'

The safe driver/cyclist/pedestrian is the one who can also take into account the potential risk for others

Nobody can fully process all the information which is available to them at any one time. There just has to be an 'editing' process. A safe driver/cyclist/pedestrian will not 'edit out' the presence of a more vulnerable road or pavement user

Motorcyclists are probably at the greatest risk of being 'edited out' by otherwise competent drivers

GlennTheBaker

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.

He undertook me as I was approaching the junction and then went straight through the red light. No, he didn't inconvenience me but he should have stopped at the red light, just like any other road user and no amount of lycra and high-vis should make any difference.

Naf

Firstly, I'll apologise for not reading the entire thread first, so some of this may have been brought up already.
In response to the OP; cyclists, when cycling, are road users. Period. End of. That's why there is a £500 fine for cycling on the pavement (except where the designated cycle-lane is on the paved area, or a shared-use system is in operation and clearly signposted). Cyclists pushing their bikes are pedestrians, just like people with pushchairs, prams, wheelchairs (except those motorised death-traps, some of which I believe have special laws governing their use?) etc.
I, for one, find it extremely distasteful when the road markings for cyclists recommend that we get off and push our bike somewhere. Wouldn't a motorist find it somewhat awkward having to push their vehicle across a level crossing just because 'that's where trains go'? The thing a lot of motorists need to realise is that cycle lanes are there for cyclists' convenience; and are not obligatory. Just because the suggested cycle route mounts the pavement, doesn't force bikes off the road - they are still full road users (other than 'M' roads) and entitled to continue along the road, or to utilise the cycle-way at their convenience.
Thankfully, here in York, there is an exceptional cycle network both on, off and alongside the roads. A huge number of people cycle and so the majority of motorists are very cycle-aware and considerate. However, in Carlisle where I am originally from the opposite is the case. Take, for example, a junction where two roads meet at opposite sides of a dual carriageway (like this one https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Carlisle,+UK&hl=en&ll=54.89492,-2.945146&spn=0.000802,0.002642&sll=53.977138,-1.083041&sspn=0.013023,0.042272&oq=carlisle&t=k&hnear=Carlisle,+Cumbria,+United+Kingdom&z=19). I was on my bike coming from the south and needing to turn right onto the dual carriageway - so where am I supposed to position my bike before I turn? Technically I need to be on the right-hand-side of the left hand lane to get onto the left of the carriageway (the only place I am legally entitled to be on a dual carriageway) - however this position means I am crossing across the path of the other vehicles also turning right with me. The left-hand-side of the same lane means I cross the people going straight over the carriageway; and the right-hand-lane is out entirely as I have to cross over everybody. Its a nightmare, and because of the ignorance of the motorists it very nearly ended badly.
Yes, there are a number of cyclists who give the majority of us a bad name by jumping up & down kerbs, skipping through red lights, not using lights (whether none at all, or inappropriate types) etc. And you know what, they annoy cyclists as much as they do motorists. I almost hit some woman on her bike just the other day (on my bike) because she suddenly swerved into a side-street with no signal to warn that she was going to.
But lets face it, motorists are not without blame, whether through ignorance, or intentional pig-headedness they totally ignore the very existence of such things as bikes on the road and, like the OP, treat us as if we shouldn't be there. Like driving so far across to the left of the road (especially in slow-moving traffic or jams), despite the road being plenty wide enough, that they block the whole side for a bike to get through - even when there is a designated cycle-lane. Or the ones who don't bother to check their mirrors before turning left just because they know that the next car is right on their bumper - I almost went headlong into someone doing this not so long ago. Parking on double-yellows is another major issue (and something that has frequently made me feel like taking something sharp with me as I went past), and is likely to cause a major problem for cyclists - you might even end up losing your wing mirror if a car comes the other way while we're passing. Similarly on residential streets, with cars parked down either side alternating left & right - just like with another car coming the other way, when the parked car blocks your side, its our right of way; if it blocks our side, we should be giving way to you. Blame on both sides for this one too.

JethroUK

Man_Overboard wrote: »

As a recent recruit to the world of 'non-drivers', I am impressed by the willingness of drivers generally to give way to pedestrians, especially on zebra crossings.

But, as an ex-professional-driver, I know that drivers are under no obligation to give way to cyclists, even when they are about to push or wheel their bike across a zebra crossing.

....

WRONGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!

When cyclists dismounts they become pedestrians

OBVIOUS to anyone over 18 years old

and anyone that needs this pointing out to them should NOT be allowed behind the wheel of a car

EX professional driver?????????? Never in a million years That is a joke

I would like to address your question but its obvious the very concept would be waaaaaaaaay beyond you

JethroUK

benjus wrote: »

I thought that a person wheeling a bike was simply a pedestrian. ...

THEY ARE! - anyone thinks differently shouldn't be allowed to drive

thelawnet

GlennTheBaker wrote: »

He undertook me as I was approaching the junction and then went straight through the red light. No, he didn't inconvenience me but he should have stopped at the red light, just like any other road user and no amount of lycra and high-vis should make any difference.

I had a car overtake me on my bike yesterday and then go up the road at 50mph in a 40mph limit.

He didn't inconvenience me, but he should have stuck the speed limit, just like any other road user and no amount of aluminium and BMW badge should make any difference.

marleyboy

xcarlyx wrote: »

To me they are road users as they have 2 wheels.

I would have thought anyone using the road to get from a to b, would be deemed a road user. Even a Sedgway user on the road would need to abide by the rules.

Naf

marleyboy wrote: »

I would have thought anyone using the road to get from a to b, would be deemed a road user. Even a Sedgway user on the road would need to abide by the rules.

I really wish Segways were legal on the road and/or pavements over here...

GlennTheBaker

thelawnet wrote: »

I had a car overtake me on my bike yesterday and then go up the road at 50mph in a 40mph limit.

He didn't inconvenience me, but he should have stuck the speed limit, just like any other road user and no amount of aluminium and BMW badge should make any difference.

I absolutely agree 100%.