Kamikaze Cyclists!

theEnd

modsandmockers wrote: »

The problem for cyclists is that they are a minority group whose requirements are of no interest at all to the majority of road users.

In London rush hours, bicycles are becoming a significantly large proportion of the traffic > 25%

modsandmockers wrote: »

And yet, for reasons which can only be 'political', truck manufacturers are coming under increasing pressure to modify their vehicles' rear-view systems so that cyclists can be relieved of any responsibility for their own decisions to place themselves in very obvious places of danger.

Whether you're a fan of cyclists or not, I find it ridiculous that HGVs were ever allowed to drive through cities without being able to see all around at all times.

armyknife

There's a error in the thread title, can someone fix it, should read "Kamikaze Cyclists Respond to Web Troll."

puppey

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/teaching-your-child-to-ride-a-bike/ has some good info on bike routes etc

Marco_Panettone

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

You continue to talk about this "preferential treatment" cyclists get, but as yet you haven't actually told anyone what it is, or how it is preferential. Please, exactly what preferential treatment do people on bikes get that those on foot or those in motor vehicles get?

modsandmockers wrote: »

The best example of the preferential treatment which cyclists receive is that they are now officially allowed to ride on the pavement if they find riding on the road a bit too scary.

I asked for an example of preferential treatment. You gave me an example that is on a par with pedestrians.


I'll ask again - what treatment to those on cycles get that those on foot, or in motor vehicles do not?

Cycrow

One thing i've noticed recently is how a cycle lane can change a drivers behaviour.

Theres this road i go down every day to work. I ride in secondary position, and hardly ever have a problem, and most cars tend to drive pretty wide, close to the central line.

recently they have painted a narrow cycle lane on the road. Suddenly, large numbers of motorist are getting angry and beeping at me, for not being in the gutter (they didn't seem to care when there was no cycle lane).
Its not like im holding them up either, as the road is often busy and im cycling at the same speed, or quicker than them

The majority have also moved away from the central line and now drive with their wheels in the cycle lane

Norman_Castle

The best example of the preferential treatment which cyclists receive is that they are now officially allowed to ride on the pavement if they find riding on the road a bit too scary.

Its not preferential treatment. Its intelligent enforcement. The guidance states cyclists should not be penalised if their pavement cycling is causing no harm. Nothing else. This has been explained repeatedly but you are choosing to ignore it so you can continue moaning.

andrewf75

modsandmockers wrote: »

The problem for cyclists is that they are a minority group whose requirements are of no interest at all to the majority of road users.

But encouraging more people to cycle is in EVERYONE's interests.

- reduces congestion
- reduces pollution
- increases health

Those things benefit even the most vehemently anti-cycling motorists like yourself. Its very hard to think of another example of something where the benefits are so clear cut.

Cyclists are a minority group in the UK currently but it is in all our interests to get more people cycling. Those reasons above justify throwing a shedload of money at it, much more than is currently spent.

The results of what Holland did decades ago can be seen today where something like 50% of journeys are made by bike!

Throbbe

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Its not preferential treatment. Its intelligent enforcement. The guidance states cyclists should not be penalised if their pavement cycling is causing no harm. Nothing else. This has been explained repeatedly but you are choosing to ignore it so you can continue moaning.

A similar approach to the ACPO guidance recommending a tolerance on enforcing speed limits.

modsandmockers

theEnd wrote: »

In London rush hours, bicycles are becoming a significantly large proportion of the traffic > 25%



Whether you're a fan of cyclists or not, I find it ridiculous that HGVs were ever allowed to drive through cities without being able to see all around at all times.

Here is a link to the video from which your image was taken. I have posted this link before, possibly on a different thread to this one - http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/transport-for-london-video-highlights-blind-spot-36651

When I first saw the video, I wasn't sure whether it was intended to be a training video for truck-drivers in order to illustrate the importance of correct mirror positioning, or whether it was intended to illustrate to cyclists that HGV blindspots are mostly caused by incorrect mirror positioning. I think it serves both purposes equally well.

If you watch carefully, you will see that both of the nearside mirrors, especially the lower wide angle mirror (which is specifically intended to cover the area which would otherwise be invisible) are to a significant extent filled with an image of a large chunk of the white-painted metalwork of the tractor unit. This is how most truck-drivers set their mirrors.

But if somebody had suggested to the cameraman that he could and should have pushed both mirrors out and down a bit, especially the wide-angle one, and if he had also started by taking a proper downward look through the nearside window, then all of those cyclists would have been visible before he got out of the cab, including the yellow-clad cyclist alongside the door. If the yellow-clad cyclist had been even closer to the truck, then he would have been visible in the downward-facing mirror which all modern HGVs have above the nearside door, and which is visible in your image.

modsandmockers

theEnd wrote: »

You didn't really send this to your MP ??????

O yes I did - and this is his reply -

Many thanks for your email about cycling and as you indicate this is not an easy or straight forward issue. Ideally, we would have nice wide roads as in cities like Munich where there would be plenty of space for the road, the pavement and a separate cycle way. Unfortunately we don’t have roads that wide in very many places at all. Cycling has got increasingly popular in recent years as the proliferation of bike shops around the area testifies locally. There are limits, as you quite rightly say as to what the Government or local councils can do in terms of providing more safer cycling space out of time when we continue to run a budget deficit. Cyclists obviously need to help themselves, more than some of them do by being well lit up with lights and florescent clothing. In some cases there is also blatant illegal behaviour by cyclists which does not help. Motorists also have to realise that they share road space on occasions with both cyclists and pedestrians. I think overall you are right to advise caution as your grandchildren are concerned when cycling on the public highway. When I was younger I was knocked off my bike twice on the way to work which is why I decided to stop cycling to work and take public transport instead.


I have little doubt that all the various contributors (including me!) to this thread will be able to satisfy themselves that my MP's reply is total proof of everything they have been trying to say all along.

I am trying to decide whether to persist with my request for him to comment on the role of a salaried county cycling officer, and for him to comment on the official government advice that cycling on the pavement should no longer be automatically be penalised