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

[Linford]

screams the headline in this BBC article from the home page

Are these solutions that radical and more to the point, are they sensible or workable solutions ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25043437

 

[Rob3rt]

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....

 

[MikeW-71]

Undertaking is already illegal.... Filtering isn't though..... Nor is passing on the left if the right lane is moving slower.

 

[wiggydiggy]

"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

 

[MikeW-71]

The motorist might not always be at fault, but their vehicle can do far more damage in a collision, so they are the ones who need to take the most care. Cyclists for their part should ride with consideration to others, obey the road laws and should not put themselves in dangerous positions.

Reflectives do a far better job than hi-viz colours at night, along with a decent set of lights and riding in a visible position. My usual night jersey/jacket is red with reflective bits on it.

 

[glenn forger]

Journalists! Instead of taking the trouble to research and write a sensible article, approach random whackjobs, mouth-breathers and borderline sociopaths in the street and get them to speek there brane.

 

[400bhp]

I had an accident last night. I was on the offside. I should have probably been on the nearside.

The suggestion is utter bollox.

 

[Dave 123]

Just promote better road usage from ALL road users.

It might be favourable to ditch the "f*** you" attitude that many adopt. (Including me on occasion)

Shoddy practice and aggression isn't compatible with well being....

 

[Spinney]

There is some sensible stuff in that article - like 'respect each other'.

And some total guff as well...

 

[sidevalve]

Just promote better road usage from ALL road users.

It might be favourable to ditch the "f*** you" attitude that many adopt. (Including me on occasion)

Shoddy practice and aggression isn't compatible with well being....

Good point and probably [along with the "I assume the road will be clear] the answer to 90% of cycling "accidents". However this is not, as you admit, a driver only condition. There are far too many cyclists who do the same.
The only trouble with left hand filtering is that it puts you in a risky position. A driver may be indicating and be in the correct lane for a left turn so he may just do it. Yes he should look but come on - it only takes a second or two to check/slow up as you reach the head of the queue.
Like most things it all ends up as one thing really - think ahead. I know it sounds dull and boring and preachy but if we want to keep the legislation of our backs [not to mention out of A&E depts] it's the only solution.
Simply ranting on at uninformed journo's is really a waste of time.

 

[glenn forger]

The only trouble with left hand filtering is that it puts you in a risky position..

Only if drivers aren't paying attention, driving carefully and in accordance with Highway code Rule 121. This proposal is motorists saying they want to ignore road traffic rules.

 

[Linford]

"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

People pass close deliberately because they want to.

You know, I hooked up with a german cyclist in Mallorca a few weeks ago and we were cycling on one of the main coastal roads.
A group of motorcyclists came past (looked like all on hire bikes) and one of them deliberately skimmed the bar of the german chap who was in front of me in the strip on the side of a road ABOUT HERE
He swerved into across the solid white line towards the verge, and back out again as his trajectory was from a primary position.

People either don't look at all ....in which case you are in real danger, or do look and deliberately skim because they either feel you don't need any space (don't belong on the road) or do it to try and put the scare into you. They do it in the above situation because they are confident there is little chance of retribution.

I am a biker, and if I saw anyone I was out with in a group pulling a stunt like that, I'd give them both barrels when we stop next...it is just knob end behaviour which in reality deserves a ban.

 

[glenn forger]

The idiot who suggested this went on to ponder:

From what I've read a huge proportion of accidents involve vehicles turning left, which if the cyclist wasn't there would never occur.

Can you seriously see nothing wrong with that level of casual stupidity? That article is simply a list of peoples' prejudices, one cretin reckons the roads would be safer for cyclists if we stopped taxing drivers. It's like walking up to random people in Primark and asking for solutions to the Palestinian problem.

The second headline on that page is:

Bring back cycling proficiency

It never went away, it's just called something else, but way to go about giving the impression that cyclists are untrained, and that risky or dangerous behaviour by cyclists is the cause of accidents. They're not, and it isn't.

 

[Linford]

The idiot who suggested this went on to ponder:



Can you seriously see nothing wrong with that level of casual stupidity? That article is simply a list of peoples' prejudices, one cretin reckons the roads would be safer for cyclists if we stopped taxing drivers. It's like walking up to random people in Primark and asking for solutions to the Palestinian problem.

The second headline on that page is:



It never went away, it's just called something else, but way to go about giving the impression that cyclists are untrained, and that risky or dangerous behaviour by cyclists is the cause of accidents. They're not, and it isn't.

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.

 

[Scoosh]

Moderator advisory: Please keep to the original topic under discussion.
If you consider the thread/topic not worth replying to - then don't.