Ban nearside overtaking (Readers' radical solutions to protect cyclists)

[deptfordmarmoset]

I must admit that I can imagine one circumstance where a no undertaking rule would be acceptable to me...

If the approach to every left turn on a major road were a Bike Safety Zone, where vehicular traffic has to merge behind cyclists already in the BSZ (the beginning of the BSZ for bikes being before the end of the entry point where vehicles have to get in lane) when they want to use the left hand lane. Once in the BSZ nobody is allowed to overtake anybody. Cars and lorries can't overtake bikes, bikes can't overtake other vehicles. It would be a reasonable trade off in my opinion. Traffic sorting before the junction where changes of direction are smaller rather than at the junction where blind spots are at their most pronounced.

 

[Spinney]

Sir, sir ... this has nothing to do with the BBC or nearside overtaking:

It has to do with lack of respect and consideration for other road users, which was one of the points made in the article.

 

[Linford]

Sir, sir ... this has nothing to do with the BBC or nearside overtaking:

If a car did a close pass when you were cycling on the road, then all you'd feel is the draught as they came past to give an indication that they were really that close and no idea if they were or weren't aiming for you....however, the biker chose to cut in front of a cyclist who I was following, and because he was on a motorcycle with a group of mates, it was very obvious from where i were that it was a deliberate and vindictive act, because they were all holding their line which indicated sensible riding, and he was being a tit and showing off to them. As the biker is so much narrower, to swoop in like that takes a much more defined action on their part...it wasn't drifting in the lane.
I have been a biker for 30+ years. I know the difference between deliberate movements and lack of skill.
It was just disrespectful and that is why I called foul on it.

The attitudes shown in the quotes are disrespectful, but I feel that the approach in the way iit is presented by the BBC is far worse because it is more subtle and thus a more acceptable a pill to swallow, and it reaches a lot more people so more powerful a statement to make.

 

[Wobblers]

"It should be law to wear some hi-vis while cycling. You cannot always blame the motorists." TC, Walthamstow, London

I think this might have some merit? Perhaps bring it in with the lights at at night law?

I didnt used to wear it but now I'm in a more rural commute I feel a little better wearing a high vis vest at night.

I know (I read it) there was that study recently arguing that what we wear had little impact on how close people pass but being visible won't change that, just make a better job of being seen?

Tin hat on for those that hate high vis

I'll be fine with this the instant we have all cars in hi-vis.

Oh, and anyone who utters the "I didn't see you" excuse gets a lengthy ban, their licence revoked and 6 months prison.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I'll be fine with this the instant we have all cars in hi-vis.

Oh, and anyone who utters the "I didn't see you" excuse gets a lengthy ban, their licence revoked and 6 months prison.

Thats actually the first thing I used to think, certainly in inner cities I think its debatable how much high vis makes you stand out but out in the sticks on that unlit black road hopefully I'm a little more visible with my vest than without.

Got another one to look at:

"Cyclists often won't use cycle tracks because they are littered with rubbish, making them hazardous. So perhaps the government could think of sweeping them to make them usable." Hilary Tesh, Facebook"

True! How many of us see a cycle facility utterly neglected and useless to all, there a decent enough cycle lane near I use on my commute that at one point only needs a street sweeper to pass by to make it good yet ATM its full of what Hillary mentions.

How can we get councils to start getting this done?

 

[Wobblers]

I can't disagree with anything in this....the 'Us and them thing' needs to be knocked into touch though. It absolutely does nothing to help the issues on either side...it just throws up walls.

Absolutely. The "us and them" mentality merely leads to tribalism. Safer and more pleasant roads requires the cooperation of all road users. Lazy and feckless media portraying this as "a war" does nothing but antagonise (not that I'm thinking of one particular BBC "documentary" in particular... ) - with the inevitable hardening of attitudes as a result.

The problem with the BBC article is that in asking for submissions, it is actively selecting for those who have an axe to grind, as they are the ones that are more motivated to reply. You don't get a representative or meaningful debate that way...

 

[ufkacbln]

Given that cycle lanes run down the left of the traffic, I think it is not something that can really be enforced. Ditch the cycle lanes then we will talk....

This is key to the problem

Drivers do not understand the concept.

If a cycle lane is that then using it should be simple.

Drivers (well most of them) would not turn across the inside lane of a dual carriageway into a junction and expect right of way.

Yet they will happily turn across the cycle track expecting the cyclists to give way

What we need to do is either remove these facilities or give them the same full legal status as any other lane on the road

 

[Linford]

This is key to the problem

Drivers do not understand the concept.

If a cycle lane is that then using it should be simple.

Drivers (well most of them) would not turn across the inside lane of a dual carriageway into a junction and expect right of way.

Yet they will happily turn across the cycle track expecting the cyclists to give way

What we need to do is either remove these facilities or give them the same full legal status as any other lane on the road

We get this already in a bus lane. A cyclist makes a smaller dent in ones wing than a bus though. It is all about risk assessment ultimately

 

[ComedyPilot]

"It should be law to wear some hi-vis while cycling. You cannot always blame the motorists." TC, Walthamstow, London

I think this might have some merit? Perhaps bring it in with the lights at at night law?

I didnt used to wear it but now I'm in a more rural commute I feel a little better wearing a high vis vest at night.

I know (I read it) there was that study recently arguing that what we wear had little impact on how close people pass but being visible won't change that, just make a better job of being seen?

Tin hat on for those that hate high vis

Given the amount of times this gets trawled up, you might be better of with one of these:

and one of these:

 

[ComedyPilot]

[points to the 'Elephant in the Room']

Dear BBC, nevermind Nelson fuggin Mandela's funeral, how about looking at cycle safety in a proper, educated and adult manner? Look at the Netherlands for guidance and actually SEE the solution, rather than stirring shoot about hi-viz, helmets and nearside overtaking, and spending countless THOUSANDS of TAXPAYERS MONEY (IN A RECESSION) mewing on about some dead bloke in Africa?

How about mewing on about the ACTUAL British men, women and CHILDREN being KILLED in this country on the roads?

Oh, and when people bleat on about cyclists not using the cycle path, they should think for a second as to why that may be the case -

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

IDIOTS

 

[ufkacbln]

We get this already in a bus lane. A cyclist makes a smaller dent in ones wing than a bus though. It is all about risk assessment ultimately

... and the risk of being censured for a left hook across a cycle lane is vitutally nil

 

[Wobblers]

Thats actually the first thing I used to think, certainly in inner cities I think its debatable how much high vis makes you stand out but out in the sticks on that unlit black road hopefully I'm a little more visible with my vest than without.

Got another one to look at:

"Cyclists often won't use cycle tracks because they are littered with rubbish, making them hazardous. So perhaps the government could think of sweeping them to make them usable." Hilary Tesh, Facebook"

True! How many of us see a cycle facility utterly neglected and useless to all, there a decent enough cycle lane near I use on my commute that at one point only needs a street sweeper to pass by to make it good yet ATM its full of what Hillary mentions.

How can we get councils to start getting this done?

No one's going to castigate you for wearing hi-vis: there is nothing wrong about thinking about how to make yourself more visible to others. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have to dress up as a radioactive lemon! The key is contrast - on a bright day wearing black may stand out better against a pale road surface than yellow. I tend to wear bright colours - not necessarily hi-vis - to increase contrast. At night, hi-vis really isn't that visible: under streetlights it takes on the same dirty orange hue that everything else does. I usually spot unlit cyclists in those conditions by the dark shadow they cast on the road, not the day glow paraphernalia they're wearing. Good lights are your best bet - you can spot that a over half a mile away.

What I do most definitely object to is the expectation that all cyclists - and indeed vulnerable road users must appear in the radioactive lemon suit. That is a most objectionable form of shifting the blame from the motorist - who, let us be in no doubt - is obliged to look out for others and operate their vehicle in such a way, with adequate observation, to be no danger to anyone else. An observant driver will see you anyway; the careless driver will not, even if you set yourself on fire. Those who suggest hi-vis as the only solution are ignoring the problem: it's not the cyclist.

Cycle lanes are another one. It's not just that they're full of glass, rubbish and, frequently, bollards! They don't get gritted so they become a glassy skating rink in winter. They put you in a dangerous position, where motorists can't see you. They disappear at junctions - just when they could be of some use. They put you into conflict with pedestrians or traffic emerging from side roads. They have raised kerbs, acute corners, street signs and other obstacles. They slow your progress while at the same time making it far more dangerous. In short, they are universally appallingly designed. A good, useful cycle path is a very rare beast indeed.

 

[ComedyPilot]

@McWobble has just posted the post of the year for me.

So much more eloquent than one of my sweary rants.

 

[wiggydiggy]

<SNIP>

Agree with what you say, its a high vis vest none cycling specific I wear at night only. To be honest high reflective might be a better description of it as I like the way reflective strips on it are picked out by headlights.