Freedom at last...

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

You just have to wise up to what you can and can't do on a bike.

That's pretty well what I have been trying to say all along, and there are large numbers of cyclists who understand their limitations. But all the noise comes from cyclists who seem to think that because bikes were invented before engines, then bikes should always take priority. There is some kind of consensus (amongst some kinds of cyclist) that a collision between a bike and a motorised vehicle can only be caused by the motorist - if you need an example of ill-considered factually incorrect nonsense, then there it is. And if cycling is twice as safe as it was 20-30 years ago, it's hopefully because cyclists have learned that defensive cycling is much more likely than statistics to save their lives

But don't let that cause you to discourage your grandchildren from taking up one of the most life enhancing sports.

There is a huge difference between cycling as a sport, and cycling as a way to get to school

I learned 'roadcraft' from the crossbar of my dad's bike during the early 1950s, and I taught my children in much the same way. Childrens' bikes today are largely regarded as toys, which is probably why many young (and not-so-young) adults have no idea about how to cycle on the road, whilst seeing no problem at all about riding on the pavement.

modsandmockers

Strider590 wrote: »

I prefer to keep my signals short and close to my body, I wear high vis gloves for this and I take the full lane before a turn or pinch point..

Why? is it because i'm a militant cyclist?
Or is it because I lose count of how many times (years ago when drivers were better) I had my arm driven into by drivers who were determined to overtake regardless of my signals?

There is nothing wrong with occupying the roadspace which you need in order to complete your intended manoeuvre - truck drivers do it all the time, and receive nothing but abuse. But a cyclist’s clear hand signal will help to explain your intentions to the motorist behind you. If a motor vehicle has any kind of defect in its signalling system, then it is likely to be taken off the road.

When your body is unbalanced and you have only one hand in control and then some pr*ck drives into your extended arm, your chances of staying upright are very slim indeed.

That's why cyclists are regarded as vulnerable road users.

Cyclists have far more experience of bad drivers than other drivers do, purely because they see more cars on their journey.
If that's hard to understand, then think about this...... How many cars do you see traveling in your direction with no lights on, compared to those coming the opposite way?

Cars with no lights on are by definition hard to see, and it is much more common to see a cyclist with no lights on. Since most cyclists pay little attention to what is happening behind them, it probably doesn't matter much whether or not a following motorist is carrying lights.

Militant cyclists experience bad drivers in the same way that bad drivers experience militant cyclists - the two are simply incompatible on a single network. It is time for the Highway Code to stop sitting on the fence.

Chrisblue1962

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Okay I'm going to assume you are serious here and I'm going to respond in kind, because this is really important. I've been thinking about your post most of the day and I've decided to give it a go. ....
......
Good luck to you and them whatever you do - like everybody else I'm sure you want the best for them.

An excellent well thought-out post. Thank You.

I have a bike and rarely use it but due to moving from a modestly active outdoor job i.e. walking about four and a half miles each day , to an office job, I have come to the conclusion that I seriously need to "replace" the exercise I used to get when working.

I am therefore looking to use my bike much much more, mainly for local short journeys at first but at least its a start.

modsandmockers

Chrisblue1962 wrote: »

An excellent well thought-out post. Thank You.

I have a bike and rarely use it but due to moving from a modestly active outdoor job i.e. walking about four and a half miles each day , to an office job, I have come to the conclusion that I seriously need to "replace" the exercise I used to get when working.

I am therefore looking to use my bike much much more, mainly for local short journeys at first but at least its a start.

Chris - please don't assume that your life will be extended by ten years by your decision to use a bike for local short journeys.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Chris - please don't assume that your life will be extended by ten years by your decision to use a bike for local short journeys.

But be reassured that if you wish to increase the chances of living 10 years longer, you're doing exactly the right thing by getting on your bike.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

... all the noise comes from cyclists who seem to think that because bikes were invented before engines, then bikes should always take priority.

You've made that up. No cyclist thinks that.

modsandmockers wrote: »

There is some kind of consensus (amongst some kinds of cyclist) that a collision between a bike and a motorised vehicle can only be caused by the motorist

You made that up too. These are strawman arguments with no basis in fact.

modsandmockers wrote: »

- if you need an example of ill-considered factually incorrect nonsense, then there it is.

Then why write it?

modsandmockers wrote: »

And if cycling is twice as safe as it was 20-30 years ago, it's hopefully because cyclists have learned that defensive cycling is much more likely than statistics to save their lives

Only you could draw a correlation between defensive cycling and statistics!! It seems to me that you just use words without giving them any thought. Your arguments are simply all over the place.

I haven't changed my cycling roadcraft in the last 20 years. But there are many reasons why there has been year on year trend reduction in cyclist deaths. There are better roads and off road cycle paths. Bikes are better and brakes are better. Helmets are better. Bike lights are far better. Emergency medical care has improved. I think cyclists' attitude to their own safety probably hasn't changed much. It may surprise you to know that we all desperately want to live to cycle the next day, and that desire will always have been high.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Childrens' bikes today are largely regarded as toys, which is probably why many young (and not-so-young) adults have no idea about how to cycle on the road, whilst seeing no problem at all about riding on the pavement.

Children's bikes are not toys. And that hasn't changed. I don't know what planet you are on, but your reasoning is so inanely flawed that you just have to be trolling.

Nebulous2

modsandmockers wrote: »

Chris - please don't assume that your life will be extended by ten years by your decision to use a bike for local short journeys.

People have a choice to make. Do as little exercise as possible, get fatter and fatter, with furred arteries as your health deteriorates and spend a lot of your remaining time in poor health.

Or- exercise regularly, watch your diet and live several years longer, but more importantly spend less time in poor health.

In practice most people will fit somewhere between the two, and it is much more complicated than that. If you go for the exercise route, rather than staying in bed because the world is too scary, then there is a very small chance of a sudden traumatic death, but that is the cost you pay for a longer, happier, healthier life and not being afraid of shadows and bogeymen.

Strider590

modsandmockers wrote: »

It is time for the Highway Code to stop sitting on the fence.

It doesn't sit on the fence, it's quite clear..... But the passing distance for cars overtaking cyclists for example is almost never adhered to, basically a car must pass a cyclist as if it where another car, by passing in the oncoming lane, thus meaning that 2 cyclists riding abreast should be no more difficult to pass than one. BUT drivers still get aggressive when cyclists do this!!!

The HWC has many faults, but the BIGGEST issue by far is that many drivers make up their own version in their heads and then go out onto the roads expecting everyone else to comply, some even try to enforce their own "my way code" on other road users.

Retrogamer

Strider590 wrote: »

It doesn't sit on the fence, it's quite clear..... But the passing distance for cars overtaking cyclists for example is almost never adhered to, basically a car must pass a cyclist as if it where another car, by passing in the oncoming lane

I don't think that's the correct interpretation

It says

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

I.e If for example you overtake cars leaving a gap between you of X meters, this is the same gap you should leave for cyclists but it doesn't state anything about using the other lane.
Sometimes there are no other lanes.

This is also why on narrower roads the Highway code states cyclists should refrain from cycling 2 abreast.

brat

I don't actually know what the correct interpretation is, but I prefer to think that 1.0m gap at 30mph or less and 1.5m gap at speeds over 30 are minimum passing distances.

I tend to agree with Strider that you should use the opposing lane to pass. As a motorist I like to think that any other vehicle should consider himself liable for any incident caused by his encroachment on any part of the width of the lane that I am established in.