Which side of the road?

FOREVER21

Off subject I know but,


I wish cyclists would stick to roads and not footpaths.

esuhl

I wish drivers would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other road users. (Overtaking too close, overtaking on blind bends, tailgating, cutting other people up, etc.)

And, if even a tiny fraction of drivers would be willing to obey speed limits, instead of the majority displaying their inherent criminality and refusal to consider anyone but themselves... then I think the roads would be a lot safer for everyone.

wiogs

esuhl wrote: »

I wish drivers would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other road users. (Overtaking too close, overtaking on blind bends, tailgating, cutting other people up, etc.)

And, if even a tiny fraction of drivers would be willing to obey speed limits, instead of the majority displaying their inherent criminality and refusal to consider anyone but themselves... then I think the roads would be a lot safer for everyone.

You realise that sentence doesn't make sense?

If one accepts, for the sake of argument, that the majority of drivers speed then a minority don't, which is what you seem to wish for.

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why is it officially allowed to use the pavement, even though it is technically illegal?

Cyclists are not legally allowed to use the pavements but guidelines state they should not be issued with a fixed penalty if they are causing no harm.

This has already been explained to you but as you don't like it you insist on repeatedly questioning it.

frisbeej

modsandmockers wrote: »

Why on earth is it legal for unaccompanied children to take to the highway on a bike and compete on equal terms with trucks, buses and rush-hour commuters?

Why on earth is it legal for trucks, buses and rush-hour commuters to drive in a dangerous, aggressive fashion with little regard for other road users, such as unaccompanied children?

PenguinJim

modsandmockers wrote: »

esuhl wrote: »

A cyclist moves much faster, making it much more difficult to safely overtake a cyclist riding against traffic than with it.

Not true - passing any road user will be quicker if the direction of travel is opposite. A cyclist is indeed faster than a pedestrian, and that is why overtaking a cyclist takes longer and is more tricky than passing a cyclist who is travelling in the opposite direction (assuming, of course, that the cyclist will have the same sense of self-preservation as a pedestrian).

/o\

It's not about overtaking as quickly as possible.

It's about overtaking as safely as possible.

esuhl is perfectly correct. When approaching a bicycle from the rear when there is oncoming traffic, you have significantly more time to slow down and wait for the best time to overtake (and it also presents the cyclist more time and opportunity to safely pull over and allow traffic to pass).

When approaching an oncoming cyclist on your left and an oncoming driver on your right, both you and the cyclist may need to make emergency stops, roughly doubling the chance of a collision. (Off-topic, but I wonder which would be less likely to cause a fatality - staying on the left and colliding with the bicycle, or avoiding the cyclist and hitting the oncoming car?)

And let's not forget that, in your absolutely barmy scenario, you may be driving on the left while a cyclist is riding alongside you on the right while a cyclist is cycling towards you from the front while there's an oncoming car as well! Generally speaking, directing four vehicles towards each other in only two lanes is not conducive to a collision-free experience. :rotfl:

It's not the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my life. I imagine in situations with only two vehicles it might actually convenience the car driver to the tune of multiple seconds. But as soon as a third vehicle is introduced, it breaks, and as soon as four vehicles are involved, it's absolutely laughable. (Here, I've prepared a little picture for my presentation at the Annual Cyclist Comedy Awards - it might help you to understand! )

Or maybe you're just not following the maths? 80kph driver approaches 20kph cyclist at 60kph in real life. In your scenario they approach each other at 100kph. Or in town: 40kph driver approaches 15kph cyclist at 25kph in real life. In your scenario they approach each other at 55kph. Use the Google to look up something called a "stopping distance".

All that's before we factor in the additional collisions between cars exiting junctions to turn left onto roads where vehicles will be driving on both the left and right.

So: reduce the number of vehicles on the UK roads at any one time from about 40 million to just 2 (hey, let's live dangerously: 3 or 4!) and it's a great idea. Well done!

Pennywise

esuhl wrote: »

I wish drivers would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other road users.

I wish cyclists would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other footpath and shared pathway users!

Marco_Panettone

Pennywise wrote: »

I wish cyclists would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other footpath and shared pathway users!

"Shared use" only works if it's practically empty. Nobody on a bike actually WANTS to use them through free choice. What is needed is high-quality cycle infrastructure that is designed FOR cycling.


Many pavements are turned into 'shared use' not by people on bikes, but by councils doing things badly and on the cheap. Stop letting them get away with it by joining campaigns for Space for Cycling.

esuhl

Pennywise wrote: »

I wish cyclists would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other footpath and shared pathway users!

That rarely happens compared with bullying car drivers. And the risks of death and injury are a tiny fraction of the damage that cars do when they hit people.

And I do wish pedestrians would stop walking on dedicated cycle lanes. If there's a pavement and a cycle path, why do pedestrians take up the whole width preventing cyclists from using the path?! Why don't they walk on the road in front of cars too? Crazy.

Retrogamer

Pennywise wrote: »

I wish cyclists would stop using their vehicles to bully and intimidate other footpath and shared pathway users!

I wish pedestrians would stop and look in both directions when crossing the road, but often they just walk in front of me, almost cause an accident then say something stupid like i'm the one who should be looking where i'm going.

esuhl wrote: »

And I do wish pedestrians would stop walking on dedicated cycle lanes. If there's a pavement and a cycle path, why do pedestrians take up the whole width preventing cyclists from using the path?! Why don't they walk on the road in front of cars too? Crazy.

There's an area near my work like this. Very very wide path. Half for cyclists, half for pedestrians. More often than not, you'll walk down the path and it's mostly empty with lots of room for pedestrians to walk on the pedestrian section, but for reasons unknown they walk in the cyclist part instead then get annoyed when cyclists ring their bell and they have to move.