If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

And once again, high-quality, integrated, protected cycle infrastructure would prevent the conflict in the first place.

But, while that's a dream for many, many of us live and cycle here and now.

One of my friends was assaulted yesterday, probably as a consequence of him not taking a primary position on a rural road.
This assault could also have been prevented if we had protected cycling infrastructure everywhere, but this was on a minor rural road.

We cannot just ignore learning or stop looking for alternate solutions; especially as the Utopia you seek is limited in its application to many non-city non-commuter cyclists.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

And once again, high-quality, integrated, protected cycle infrastructure would prevent the conflict in the first place.

You are correct, but only if it was compulsory for cyclists to use that infrastructure whenever it is available. I was expecting somebody to point out that the lanes on Waterloo Bridge do not allow enough space for a bus to pass a bike, and therefore the bike has no option but to occupy the whole lane. My answer would have been that the reason the lanes are narrow is because a dedicated cycle lane has been super-imposed onto the original infrastructure. I think the mad-mocs character was speaking for the majority of road-users, including many cyclists.

There is currently a serious intention to provide cross-London cycle routes which will be ‘largely-segregated’ - http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/04/london-cycle-route-network-tfl-boris-johnson - here is a quote from the Guardian article -

“TfL data released on Monday showed that the number of London cyclists rose 10% last year, but riders remain disproportionately young and male, the group viewed as most willing to mix with speeding traffic”

I would guess that a fair proportion of those young male cyclists will continue to prefer mixing with speeding traffic …

In Tobster’s video, he was faced with three choices. Assuming that he was aware of the approaching motor vehicle, he could (1) have moved to the right (primary position) in order to block its path, (2) moved to the left in order to ensure his own safety, or (3) stayed where he was in order to guarantee a promising video opportunity. He chose number 3.

An alternative scenario is that he was taken completely by surprise.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

I was expecting somebody to point out that the lanes on Waterloo Bridge do not allow enough space for a bus to pass a bike, and therefore the bike has no option but to occupy the whole lane. My answer would have been that the reason the lanes are narrow is because a dedicated cycle lane has been super-imposed onto the original infrastructure.

I share your sentiment. Many dedicated cycling lanes of that style are too narrow and utterly useless; having the effect of forcing vehicles and bicycles closer together than if there were simply standard lanes occupying the same road. There aren't any of such lanes on my commute, but I notice them with disgust in other places all the time.

modsandmockers wrote: »

In Tobster’s video, he was faced with three choices. Assuming that he was aware of the approaching motor vehicle, he could (1) have moved to the right (primary position) in order to block its path, (2) moved to the left in order to ensure his own safety, or (3) stayed where he was in order to guarantee a promising video opportunity. He chose number 3.

An alternative scenario is that he was taken completely by surprise.

Watch the video again. You'll notice that at 7sec I chose option (2).

And yes, despite surveying the vehicle in my mirror I was taken by surprise; as the correct action for this motorist would have been to slow down on approaching me to anticipate safely moving into the enormous vehicle-free gap behind the oncoming vehicle.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

You are correct, but only if it was compulsory for cyclists to use that infrastructure whenever it is available.

I could be prevented if motorists did as required of them around cyclists.

modsandmockers wrote: »

I think the mad-mocs character was speaking for the majority of road-users, including many cyclists.

You would however have to accept that this view (in light of all safe road cycling advice) is a poor view, drawing from the less safe 'guarded' model of cycling rather than the 'assertive' model.
When motorists do as the law requires, there is no conflict.

modsandmockers wrote: »

There is currently a serious intention to provide cross-London cycle routes which will be ‘largely-segregated’ - http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/04/london-cycle-route-network-tfl-boris-johnson - here is a quote from the Guardian article -

“TfL data released on Monday showed that the number of London cyclists rose 10% last year, but riders remain disproportionately young and male, the group viewed as most willing to mix with speeding traffic”

I would guess that a fair proportion of those young male cyclists will continue to prefer mixing with speeding traffic …

There's a significant difference between "most willing" and "prefer". Perhaps you didn't realise that. A group might be the most willing demographic to take on a challenge, but that challenge may be very low in the list of preferred options.

I'm not young, but I'm male. If I can find a safe, convenient cycle path I will use it. If not I don't. Most road cyclists I see (young/old male/female) would do that.

modsandmockers wrote: »

In Tobster’s video, he was faced with three choices. Assuming that he was aware of the approaching motor vehicle, he could (1) have moved to the right (primary position) in order to block its path, (2) moved to the left in order to ensure his own safety, or (3) stayed where he was in order to guarantee a promising video opportunity. He chose number 3.

An alternative scenario is that he was taken completely by surprise.

Tobster was in the correct position. He was in an appropriate, highly visible secondary position which he should not have to compromise for anyone. If you think he should have compromised that safe position to allow an impatient motorist to close his lateral space, then you really don't understand anything we've been saying all this time.

Alternatively you're a sad baiting troll.

modsandmockers

The world is partly full of innocent road-users who repeatedly suffer from the stupidity of others. It is also partly full of road-users who rarely experience any kind of problem. During my brief skirmish with the IAM, it was noticeable that the magazine’s letters pages largely consisted of rants from IAM members who had been ‘hit’ by other (less-competent?) road users. And the guy who tried to convince me that it was a good idea to cross to the wrong side of the road before a left-hand bend was definitely an adrenalin junkie. People on cycling forums frequently report that they have been knocked off their bike several times.

Although it is common for courts and/or insurance companies to place all the blame on one party or the other for a collision, I continue to subscribe to the view that ‘it takes two to tangle’. Tobster’s video is a very good example.

frisbeej

By innocent, do you actually mean careless, intentionally dangerous or just plain inept?

modsandmockers

frisbeej wrote: »

By innocent, do you actually mean careless, intentionally dangerous or just plain inept?

Take your pick - most road users will struggle to understand the differences.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Take your pick - most road users will struggle to understand the differences.

Well... maybe they need more training on how to cope with having to share the roads with cyclists?

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

Well... maybe they need more training on how to cope with having to share the roads with cyclists?

One of the reasons I gave up my green ADI certificate was because the driving test does not necessarily indicate an individual's suitability for a no-questions-asked lifetime driving licence. Additionally, driving instruction is a low-status, low-income job which nobody takes very seriously. Cyclists never have to subject themselves to any kind of official scrutiny

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

One of the reasons I gave up my green ADI certificate was because the driving test does not necessarily indicate an individual's suitability for a no-questions-asked lifetime driving licence.

Is that why you stopped being a driving instructor!? Really!!?

Additionally, driving instruction is a low-status, low-income job which nobody takes very seriously.

That sounds more like the true reason.

Cyclists never have to subject themselves to any kind of official scrutiny

:doh:
Which is why it is irequired of motorists to offer a high degree of courtesy consideration and care around them.