We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Biggest Threats to Cyclists?
Comments
-
I'm one side of the argument, you're the other , in a democracy we have the right to do this, express our opinion, and calling me a c*nt is what I expected , what took you so long? I am fed up of people like you doing the grand dramatic exit with use of abuse rather than backing up a point they've been challenged on. It's infantile.PintAndAPie wrote: »I'm not sure if you're a troll, a fool or a c*nt. I'll sleep on it. Goodnight all.0 -
no I mean I have swerved in the past and/or braked emergency style, because cyclists have given me a zero second warning on their move from being in the left to the middle of the road.
What do you mean by that? If someone swerves out in front of you, then clearly, as a driver you might not be at fault (but, you might have been able to anticipate, as a cyclist and driver I've anticipated stupid behaviour by other cyclists/drivers/pedestrians correctly before).
thankfully I've not hit a cyclist yet, do I have to anticipate your wild behaviour all the time even on a day when I'm tired, or can you take responsibility for your actions ?0 -
andydiysaver wrote: »no I mean I have swerved in the past and/or braked emergency style, because cyclists have given me a zero second warning on their move from being in the left to the middle of the road.
thankfully I've not hit a cyclist yet, do I have to anticipate your wild behaviour all the time even on a day when I'm tired, or can you take responsibility for your actions ?
Or the classic bunny hop off the pavement into the road a few yards in front of you.0 -
andydiysaver wrote: »no, it's stop start, 30 can kill a cyclist. What do you suggest?
Don't kill a cyclist would be the most obvious answer.
To improve the scenario in general - the drivers average out their speeds rather than rush to join the queue at the next set of lights.
Maybe it depends on the general temperament of the people in the area. I've known places where the traffic flows nicely at around 10mph, queuing towards traffic lights, and similar places where people seem to take great pleasure in joining the queue they see in the distance as quickly as possible.0 -
andydiysaver wrote: »no I mean I have swerved in the past and/or braked emergency style, because cyclists have given me a zero second warning on their move from being in the left to the middle of the road.
thankfully I've not hit a cyclist yet, do I have to anticipate your wild behaviour all the time even on a day when I'm tired, or can you take responsibility for your actions ?
What you're describing is bad cycling, I don't condone it. But that's due to a failure on the part of the cyclist to execute the manoeuvre correctly, rather than a weakness of being in primary position.
I'm not saying that it's your responsibility, or you did anything wrong in the scenario you outlined. But, my caveat was that everyone should still try to anticipate stupid behaviour of everyone else. Personally, I can't think of a single time when I've had a near miss, as a cyclist/driver, when I couldn't find a way I could have handled/anticipated the situation better, even if it was entirely the other person's fault.
Edit to add: Also worth noting, realising that the primary position is ok should decrease instances of swerving out into the middle at the last minute to turn right. It splits it into two manoeuvres - adopting the primary position in advance of the junction (when safe to do so), and then turning right. It's generally the people who hug the kerb who swerve out at the last minute.0 -
realising that the primary position is ok .
Just.... no.
Cycling in the middle of the road is NOT acceptable as a default position. It is immensely inconsiderate of other road users, which is in itself an offence punishable by up to a £1000 fine, and leads to frustration which can cause accidents.
It should be reserved for the very few and limited situations where it is absolutely required for safety.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
What you're describing is bad cycling, I don't condone it. But that's due to a failure on the part of the cyclist to execute the manoeuvre correctly, rather than a weakness of being in primary position.
It's funny. As andydiysaver says:andydiysaver wrote: »the argument I'm giving is that [cars are] dangerous machines operated by people of varying ability who cannot at all times be expected to slam on the brakes on roads rated at high speed limits to account for your need to be in the middle of them to prove a point!
The point he's making is that drivers aren't all competent, and cyclists should cycle defensively to protect themselves from incompetent drivers of dangerous machines.
So, it would also seem obvious to assume that not all cyclists are competent and that drivers should drive cautiously around them to protect them from their dangerous machines.
Drivers don't need to drive aggressively round cyclists just to prove a point!
Both sides have a responsibility to use the roads safely. Cyclists shouldn't unnecessarily annoy drivers, and drivers shouldn't drive in a way that would be dangerous to cyclists (or pedestrians or any other road users).
The reason I (very occasionally) cycle in the middle of the road is because I know from experience that many drivers are incapable of judging the safety of overtaking on that stretch of road. Of course I move over as soon as the "black spot" has been passed.
When I was less experienced, I cycled at a fixed 2ft or so away from the kerb at that location. After too many near misses (as the cars either get close to clipping me or go headfirst into oncoming traffic round the blind corner), I leant that it was safer to prevent vehicles from overtaking me at certain points since many drivers lack the competency required to overtake safely.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »The safest and most considerate thing for cyclists to do is to stay well out of the way of other road users trying to pass.
That means well over to the left hand side of the lane, not obstructing traffic, not causing a long line of delayed and frustrated commuters who will get increasingly likely to take risks with overtaking someone they view as an obstructive and selfish lane hog.
You do have a right to cycle safely, you do not have a right to obstruct other traffic for extended periods of time , or otherwise be a selfish and inconsiderate plonker....
It's all a question of balance. The cyclist absolutely has a right to block vehicles from overtaking when it would be dangerous to do so. The rest of the time they should keep left.
None of this would even be a problem or a matter for discussion if drivers learnt to drive properly. If they could ALL overtake safely, every cyclist could stay far to the left at all times.
Sadly, drivers don't make that possible. As andidiysaver says, many are incompetent so cyclists need to cycle defensively.0 -
One problem is, cyclists are not qualified to say when it is or isn't safe to overtake. We cyclists may be capable, but legally, all car drivers must be qualified to make these determinations before driving, while a cyclist may well be someone who's never driven a car or passed their test, hasn't done any Cycling Proficiency, and might also happen to be a complete pillock.
(I can't think of any solution to this problem. I don't think cyclists should be regulated and licensed. A few more bicycle lanes might be nice, though...)
Ooh, I think I can help. A techie thread, yesterday:PintAndAPie wrote: »I'm not sure if you're a troll...
A few hours later...andydiysaver wrote: »does that make you autistic as well as judgemental?
too much hate in this thread, said my piece, now I'm off.andydiysaver wrote: »I am fed up of people like you doing the grand dramatic exit with use of abuse rather than backing up a point they've been challenged on. It's infantile.
Just a troll account, it seems.Q: What kind of discussions aren't allowed?
A: It goes without saying that this site's about MoneySaving.
Q: Why are some Board Guides sometimes unpleasant?
A: We very much hope this isn't the case. But if it is, please make sure you report this, as you would any other forum user's posts, to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Just.... no.
Cycling in the middle of the road is NOT acceptable as a default position. It is immensely inconsiderate of other road users, which is in itself an offence punishable by up to a £1000 fine, and leads to frustration which can cause accidents.
It should be reserved for the very few and limited situations where it is absolutely required for safety.
Primary is not the default position, secondary is. Primary is reserved for the very few and limited situations where it is absolutely required for safety. There's nothing wrong with the system if you take the time to understand it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards