Why do some cyclists use the entire lane, use fog horns, and flashing lights?????????

Marco_Panettone

trinidadone wrote: »

Good morning Prola,

i thought this as well at first Promla, so your not alone. You ask the average moterist what the primary or secondary positioning is and i am sure they would not have a clue. flasing lights, legal, ok, but again how much of this has the average driver been told about, so dont worry, i think alot of people may think the only flashing lights were for emergency / Breakdown / Doctor on call etc... vehicles only. On a slight diversion the blue paint on london streets. some are called super highways, some have consistant white lines, some have broken white lines, some have no white wines, once again confusion for the average moterist, which proberly leads to frustration with cyclists

You're 100% correct - confusion leads to conflict which leads to danger for vulnerable road users. Badly-designed infrastructure helps no-one, and isn't what any bike-rider wants.


This is one of the major reasons that we as drivers should have re-tests every 5 years. It ensures people keep up to date with changes to the law and highway code, and would help to limit poor driving.

trinidadone

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

You're 100% correct - confusion leads to conflict which leads to danger for vulnerable road users. Badly-designed infrastructure helps no-one, and isn't what any bike-rider wants.


This is one of the major reasons that we as drivers should have re-tests every 5 years. It ensures people keep up to date with changes to the law and highway code, and would help to limit poor driving.

I dont think drivers will agree to a retesting every five years, I do not have an answer. I feel initiatives are often.

Returning back to the primary and secondary cycle positioning, i will admit, i have not gigested all the links posted on here, far to many to look through, i prefer to read postings. I was in a friends white transit van on a one way street. It allows cyclists to come up the oppersite way. The road has cars on both sides of the road, and is narrow (its impossible for another car to overtake, so effectively a one lane track - you following?). a cycle comes up quite fast in primary position, the van screeches to a halt, the van can not move anyway. Should the cyclist move to the side? is the cyclist in cycling head on with transit? again confusion????? One thing is for sure, I know who will come out worse!!!

Marco_Panettone

trinidadone wrote: »

I dont think drivers will agree to a retesting every five years, I do not have an answer. I feel initiatives are often.

Returning back to the primary and secondary cycle positioning, i will admit, i have not gigested all the links posted on here, far to many to look through, i prefer to read postings. I was in a friends white transit van on a one way street. It allows cyclists to come up the oppersite way. The road has cars on both sides of the road, and is narrow (its impossible for another car to overtake, so effectively a one lane track - you following?). a cycle comes up quite fast in primary position, the van screeches to a halt, the van can not move anyway. Should the cyclist move to the side? is the cyclist in cycling head on with transit? again confusion????? One thing is for sure, I know who will come out worse!!!

People not agreeing to something doesn't mean it's a bad thing. How else do you ensure EVERYONE is up to date with how they should behave, or expect others to behave?


When cars are parked someone on a bike should be in the centre - it keeps them safe if someone opens a car door. You just do the same as you would if it was a car - both should slow down a lot and move over slightly. What do you think should happen?

trinidadone

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

People not agreeing to something doesn't mean it's a bad thing. How else do you ensure EVERYONE is up to date with how they should behave, or expect others to behave?


When cars are parked someone on a bike should be in the centre - it keeps them safe if someone opens a car door. You just do the same as you would if it was a car - both should slow down a lot and move over slightly. What do you think should happen?

I will repeat the same thing, i disagree with retesting, i dont think thats the answer. tests do not make good drivers. so we will leave that one.

Not sure if you read clearly what i wrote regarding the transit, THERE WAS NO WHERE THE TRANSIT COULD GO, CARS ON BOTH SIDES, COULD NOT TURN LEFT OR RIGHT, OR MOVE ANYWHERE, hope this makes sense now. in affect one land traffic, with a cycle coming towards this transit at speed in the centre of the road.

again, incase i have not been clear THE TRANSSIT COULD NOT MAKE ANY LEFT, OR RIGHT OR PULL OVER TURNS, so simply stopped in the middle of the road, which !!!!ed up the moterists behind the transit van, i see the argument about door opening, but then theres also the argument of other road users too

brat

trinidadone wrote: »

Good morning Prola,

i thought this as well at first Promla, so your not alone. You ask the average moterist what the primary or secondary positioning is and i am sure they would not have a clue. flasing lights, legal, ok, but again how much of this has the average driver been told about, so dont worry, i think alot of people may think the only flashing lights were for emergency / Breakdown / Doctor on call etc... vehicles only. On a slight diversion the blue paint on london streets. some are called super highways, some have consistant white lines, some have broken white lines, some have no white wines, once again confusion for the average moterist, which proberly leads to frustration with cyclists

A cyclists good road position will guarantee them a safer ride. It's a unilateral decision by the cyclist to put him or herself in the best road position for the circumstances. Motorists might (through their ignorance) question this position, which might cause them a little confusion. But even if that confusion boiled over into frustration, the cyclist would still be safer in this visible position than being hidden in hedgerow or bouncing over drain covers and pot holes.

Frustration is not a desirable driving attribute. If other road users are doing things you don't understand, it's important that you don't try to punish them for your ignorance.

As Marco says, more education of drivers would help. perhaps a TV campaign, like this recent Chris Boardman video https://vimeo.com/135884468

or more road signage to explain cyclists needs and rights; like this sign

Norman_Castle

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

This is one of the major reasons that we as drivers should have re-tests every 5 years. It ensures people keep up to date with changes to the law and highway code, and would help to limit poor driving.

I'm not sure if retesting every five years would be worthwhile but as photo card licences are renewed every 10 years returning the licence with an up to date highway code and information highlighting recent changes could be cost effective and worthwhile.
Very few people absorb the Highway Code fully as a learner or new driver. Some aspects of driving may only make sense when experienced.
As shown on this forum many drivers rely on information half remembered from decades ago.

Marco_Panettone

trinidadone wrote: »

I will repeat the same thing, i disagree with retesting, i dont think thats the answer. tests do not make good drivers. so we will leave that one.

Not sure if you read clearly what i wrote regarding the transit, THERE WAS NO WHERE THE TRANSIT COULD GO, CARS ON BOTH SIDES, COULD NOT TURN LEFT OR RIGHT, OR MOVE ANYWHERE, hope this makes sense now. in affect one land traffic, with a cycle coming towards this transit at speed in the centre of the road.

again, incase i have not been clear THE TRANSSIT COULD NOT MAKE ANY LEFT, OR RIGHT OR PULL OVER TURNS, so simply stopped in the middle of the road, which !!!!ed up the moterists behind the transit van, i see the argument about door opening, but then theres also the argument of other road users too

I assume the van was not scraping cars on both sides of the road, so there was a small amount of clearance to the left. This means there is a small amount of space for the van to move AT SLOW SPEED (<5mph) to allow oncoming cycles to pass safely.


How long was the delay? 5 seconds? How was the issue resolved?

trinidadone

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I'm not sure if retesting every five years would be worthwhile but as photo card licences are renewed every 10 years returning the licence with an up to date highway code and information highlighting recent changes could be cost effective and worthwhile.
Very few people absorb the Highway Code fully as a learner or new driver. Some aspects of driving may only make sense when experienced.
As shown on this forum many drivers rely on information half remembered from decades ago.

I find that a warmer solution, i also would like to see other road users involved in some form learning also, i mean i assume cyclist simple purchase a bike, get on, and use the road, a motorist would not last five minutes. Theres some form of cycling training out there, wonder if that could be compulsory???? if i remember right, last year there was a bliss on motorists entering cycle advance boxes, and cyclists jumping red lights. i think fines were handed out after last years cycle deaths, which still seem to rise on london streeets.

trinidadone

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I assume the van was not scraping cars on both sides of the road, so there was a small amount of clearance to the left. This means there is a small amount of space for the van to move AT SLOW SPEED (<5mph) to allow oncoming cycles to pass safely.


How long was the delay? 5 seconds? How was the issue resolved?

Dont know what to say without repeating the same thing

wealdroam

trinidadone wrote: »

Dont know what to say without repeating the same thing

So you don't know how long the delay was, and you don't know how the issue was resolved?

If that's the case, it really is ok to say so.