Is it safe to cycle on UK roads? - interested in people's opinions

Martin_the_Unjust

Norman_Castle said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Deleted_User said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Nofinway said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

I wonder when cyclists will start to give other road users at least 5ft clearance as it currently seems to only work one way.

Is it beyond your wit to understand why?

Actually yes it appears it is.

I quite understand why I should give cyclists lots of room, it’s even more important when I’m driving a lorry.

I struggle to understand though why cyclist don’t believe that they should give me the same room (for their own safety) when we are both in slow moving traffic.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Go to a train station which has fast trains going through. When the train is stopped, walk alongside it in touching distance, do you feel in any danger? Now, when the next through train is coming, walk the same route at the same distance as the train goes through. Do you notice the difference?

If traffic is static or slow moving, if I filter, I control my speed, I judge the gaps, I can escape on the pavement if I really must.

If traffic is passing at speed, I cannot control their speed, the gaps the cars leave and have no visibility of what is coming up at what speed, how big they are etc. Even being passed by a bus or lorry 2m away at 50mph gives a huge wobble of wind

It is far safer for everyone if we all, drivers and cyclists use the 5ft rule, but I suspect cyclists won’t because it might delay them a bit (spookily enough that’s the same reason car drivers use)

If cyclists are overtaking vehicles its normally because of the slower speed of the traffic where the risks are lower. I expect you fully understand why there is much lower risk at lower speeds making closer driving acceptable but are trying to make an issue of it as you just resent something you think is unfair.

I accept the risk is lower, not sure I accept it’s low enough though that people should reduce the safety gap to less than 5ft and I sincerely believe that should work both ways.

Not sure why you believe it’s out of resentment or some sort of unfairness.

MacPingu1986

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Norman_Castle said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Deleted_User said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Nofinway said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

I wonder when cyclists will start to give other road users at least 5ft clearance as it currently seems to only work one way.

Is it beyond your wit to understand why?

Actually yes it appears it is.

I quite understand why I should give cyclists lots of room, it’s even more important when I’m driving a lorry.

I struggle to understand though why cyclist don’t believe that they should give me the same room (for their own safety) when we are both in slow moving traffic.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Go to a train station which has fast trains going through. When the train is stopped, walk alongside it in touching distance, do you feel in any danger? Now, when the next through train is coming, walk the same route at the same distance as the train goes through. Do you notice the difference?

If traffic is static or slow moving, if I filter, I control my speed, I judge the gaps, I can escape on the pavement if I really must.

If traffic is passing at speed, I cannot control their speed, the gaps the cars leave and have no visibility of what is coming up at what speed, how big they are etc. Even being passed by a bus or lorry 2m away at 50mph gives a huge wobble of wind

It is far safer for everyone if we all, drivers and cyclists use the 5ft rule, but I suspect cyclists won’t because it might delay them a bit (spookily enough that’s the same reason car drivers use)

If cyclists are overtaking vehicles its normally because of the slower speed of the traffic where the risks are lower. I expect you fully understand why there is much lower risk at lower speeds making closer driving acceptable but are trying to make an issue of it as you just resent something you think is unfair.

I accept the risk is lower, not sure I accept it’s low enough though that people should reduce the safety gap to less than 5ft and I sincerely believe that should work both ways.

Not sure why you believe it’s out of resentment or some sort of unfairness.

Martin - the physics of this were covered in around 3 posts already on this thread.

How we manage safety on the road has never worked on a principle of treating all road users the same, cyclists are subject to different rules to pedestrians, private cars different rules to cyclists and HGVs etc... Different rules to represent the different risks based on the potential of that category of road user to cause harm. 

The reason a 5ft gap is relevant for a motor vehicle passing someone on a bicycle is that (notwithstanding cycling on the roads is generally very safe) close passes by a motor vehicle pose a meaningful risk of killing or seriously injuring the rider (based on decades of research and accident statistics by the Dft + other national european road safety bodies). By contrast a bicycle passing a motor vehicle at a closer distance poses no risk at all of killing or seriously injuring the driver. This is guidance set out and reviewed by road safety professionals that do this stuff for a living based on the latest research and best practice.

Martin_the_Unjust

If one vehicle is moving at 1 mph and is overtaken by another doing 2 mph the physics are the same irrespective of which one is doing the passing.

The risks to a cyclist are reduced if they leave that 5ft gap at all times.

Norman_Castle

Martin_the_Unjust said:

If one vehicle is moving at 1 mph and is overtaken by another doing 2 mph the physics are the same irrespective of which one is doing the passing.

At 2mph there is low risk and more time to react, At 30mph there is far greater momentum. I agree that a cyclist overtaking slow vehicles at high speed would be wise to leave a larger gap but at lower speed the risk is lower so the gap can be reduced.

Norman_Castle

I've just walked to my local shop. Of the first five cars that passed three were using their phones then a large van drove to the right of a keep left bollard to overtake a learner driver, shortly after I had to move across the pavement to avoid being hit by a cyclist.

I'm not sure its safe to go out. Final insult was the loaf of bread was now £1.55. If this continues I'm going back to my own planet.

[Deleted User]

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Deleted_User said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

Nofinway said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

I wonder when cyclists will start to give other road users at least 5ft clearance as it currently seems to only work one way.

Is it beyond your wit to understand why?

Actually yes it appears it is.

I quite understand why I should give cyclists lots of room, it’s even more important when I’m driving a lorry.

I struggle to understand though why cyclist don’t believe that they should give me the same room (for their own safety) when we are both in slow moving traffic.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Go to a train station which has fast trains going through. When the train is stopped, walk alongside it in touching distance, do you feel in any danger? Now, when the next through train is coming, walk the same route at the same distance as the train goes through. Do you notice the difference?

If traffic is static or slow moving, if I filter, I control my speed, I judge the gaps, I can escape on the pavement if I really must.

If traffic is passing at speed, I cannot control their speed, the gaps the cars leave and have no visibility of what is coming up at what speed, how big they are etc. Even being passed by a bus or lorry 2m away at 50mph gives a huge wobble of wind

…….but you are not controlling what the vehicle you are undertaking/overtaking is doing. You are relying on your reaction times when the vehicle driver has a momentary lapse of concentration or reacts to something that you cannot or didn’t see.

It is far safer for everyone if we all, drivers and cyclists use the 5ft rule, but I suspect cyclists won’t because it might delay them a bit (spookily enough that’s the same reason car drivers use)

When filtering it is always done in slow / static traffic so I don't need to control them, if I am passing carefully (under 15mph) then there is virtually no situation of any risk to anyone - I can stop in a couple of metres or easily swerve, the cars cannot go anywhere

Suggesting riders give cars 1.5m of space when filtering is such a ludicrous misinterpretation of the rule I don't know where to begin. Imagine passing a rider who topples over, if you have given 1.5m, you still pass them safely and they are in no danger. If you leave 1m or less, you run them over and kill them. If I am filtering and topple over, I might bump on the car at low speed, the driver is in no danger and it's resolved with an insurance claim. 1.5m also means that the vehicle weight/speed doesn't endanger the rider e.g. from the drag of passing. I challenge you to ever find a scenario where a pushbike somehow endangers the driver by riding past them

[Deleted User]

Martin_the_Unjust said:

If one vehicle is moving at 1 mph and is overtaken by another doing 2 mph the physics are the same irrespective of which one is doing the passing.

The risks to a cyclist are reduced if they leave that 5ft gap at all times.

At this point it might be fair to assume you are trolling. Obviously riders do not go at 2mph, 10-15mph is the norm. The physics of a bike passing a car at 10mph are clearly not the same as the physics of a car passing a bike at 30-70

Wyndham

I'm a cyclist (ebike) in a small city in the north of England. There are several cycle lanes, both on roads and separate. There are also some awful roads that are really busy and narrow.

I use cycle lanes when I can. I ride away from the kerb (mostly to avoid potholes - don't get me started!) And sometimes, and on one road in particular, I have a couple of points where I pull over to let cars past. This particular road is in the country and has lots of twists and turns and little visibility, so I can get a lovely queue behind me quite easily. But that's not pleasant for me, hence why I let them past. For me, it's about balance - being safe, being defensive, but also not being a ***

Also - it's an ebike - it's fast, even uphill. It's time some drivers got used to the idea. The only near misses I've had are when I'm going uphill, towards a junction, and the car that is turning out of the junction assumes they have time to turn.

After saying that, 2500 in around 18 months, and I really, really, really LOVE IT!!!

kinger101

Deleted_User said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

If one vehicle is moving at 1 mph and is overtaken by another doing 2 mph the physics are the same irrespective of which one is doing the passing.

The risks to a cyclist are reduced if they leave that 5ft gap at all times.

At this point it might be fair to assume you are trolling. Obviously riders do not go at 2mph, 10-15mph is the norm. The physics of a bike passing a car at 10mph are clearly not the same as the physics of a car passing a bike at 30-70

I might be wrong, but I think the physics are always the same in that momentum is always equal to mass x velocity.  However, I'd like to encourage Martin to explore this some more by first colliding with a wall at 1 mph, and then hitting the same wall at say 10 mph.  If Martin could then report back the results to everyone on this forum, I think it would be most informative and help clarify any uncertainties.

[Deleted User]

kinger101 said:

Deleted_User said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

If one vehicle is moving at 1 mph and is overtaken by another doing 2 mph the physics are the same irrespective of which one is doing the passing.

The risks to a cyclist are reduced if they leave that 5ft gap at all times.

At this point it might be fair to assume you are trolling. Obviously riders do not go at 2mph, 10-15mph is the norm. The physics of a bike passing a car at 10mph are clearly not the same as the physics of a car passing a bike at 30-70

I might be wrong, but I think the physics are always the same in that momentum is always equal to mass x velocity.  However, I'd like to encourage Martin to explore this some more by first colliding with a wall at 1 mph, and then hitting the same wall at say 10 mph.  If Martin could then report back the results to everyone on this forum, I think it would be most informative and help clarify any uncertainties.

What I mean by physics is that a bike going past a car doesn't affect the car, unlike a car going past a bike. A car creates a vortex of wind around it, that can destabilize a rider depending on speed and passing distance but a bike won't have any noticeable effect on a car. The momentum of the vehicle isn't the issue unless there is a collision where, similarly, if a bike collides with a car there is maybe a scrape or a dent, a car colliding with a bike will be much worse