Something needs to be done about the British mentality towards us cyclists!

[MrHappyCyclist]

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/PICT0234.JPG The guy was in the middle of this 60mph road traffic had to slow down to less than 30 what im saying is why didnt he move across to the white line like i would of done or where i would be on this type of road.

That is not a 60mph road; it is a road with a 60mph maximum speed limit. The speed you actually drive at is dictated by the conditions. The presence of a cyclist makes it inappropriate to be travelling at 60mph unless you can leave at least 2.5m clear space between the tip of your door mirror and the cyclist's elbow. To do that you need to move over to the next lane; if you can't do that, you wait until you can.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

There's no doubting the common sense in whats written above, re laibility...but it's not reality is it, or we wouldnt be here discussing the matter.

Why thank you . I think the point being made in the original post is that it is indeed reality in other countries. In fact it is reality in most European countries; there are just a few backward ones, like the UK, where it isn't reality at the moment.

 

[Nearly there]

That is not a 60mph road; it is a road with a 60mph maximum speed limit. The speed you actually drive at is dictated by the conditions. The presence of a cyclist makes it inappropriate to be travelling at 60mph unless you can leave at least 2.5m clear space between the tip of your door mirror and the cyclist's elbow. To do that you need to move over to the next lane; if you can't do that, you wait until you can.

I didnt know that

 

[Bicycle]

Why is it acceptable for you to have someone sitting alongside you in the car to chat to (or more usually an empty seat) that makes your car so wide its difficult to overtake, but you curse cyclists who ride alongside a friend? Is it because they are impeding your more important progress in your over-wide vehicle?

As a keen cyclist and motorist I find this response perplexing.

I'm not sure what the difference is between progress and 'more important progress' but I think I get the drift.

I am usually alone when I drive and also when I cycle. My bicycle is narrow, my car less so.

When I walk on a pavement with my children and someone wants to pass us, the youngsters tuck into file. It's polite. People can get past without stepping off the kerb.

It makes sense where possible (which is almost everywhere) to do the same thing on a bicycle when traffic wants to pass. I can't make my car passengers tuck in behind me to pass other road users.

I'm not sure my progress in a car is any 'more important' than it is on a bicycle, but outside urban areas it is generally faster. Most cyclists seem to appreciate that, as do other motorists.

I really don't think the 'I'm more important because I have an engine' mentality exists outside a very small number of fairly thoughtless people.

Most road users are lovely. After many decades on two wheels and four I seem not to have attracted any self-important 'Mr Toadery' from motorists. Maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[Bicycle]

The below in response to my: "I observe a greater proportion of cyclists with poor road sense than motorists."

And yet police attribute the vast majority of accidents involving a cyclist to what the motorist did, not what the cyclist did (whereas for pedestrians its close to 50:50). In an Australian study of collisions and near misses, in 87% of cases the driver was at fault and in 83% the driver hadn't even realised what they'd done.

I love data, whatever the flavour, but I was saying what I see. As follows:

"I observe a greater proportion of cyclists with poor road sense than motorists."

The sentence you question was in the middle of a fairly strongly pro-bicycle piece. I am fairly strongly pro-bicycle.

However, I observe the phenomenon I cite above. I observe it broadly and almost daily. I am not saying that all cyclists are poo. On the contrary, I often write on this forum that I find the huge majority of road users to be courteous, skilled and safe.

Nonetheless, I see more lack of road sense from cyclists than I do from motorists. I'm not talking about accident figures, insurance claims or hospital visits. I'm talking about road sense.

Most road users have plenty, but I see a greater proportion of cyclists who lack it than motorists. That saddens me.

Elsewhere in the post you quoted, I offer some vague thoughts on why this might be.

I'm not having a go a cyclists. I wrote what I observe. I observe it almost daily. I dare say many road users do.

 

[400bhp]

TBF, I think this is true, i know i do. Not because i think 'fkit, what's the point, i'm wasting my time', but because my experience is that on narrowish roads with innapropriate cycle lanes either side (such as Oundle Road in P'boro), cars do pass quite close, but the traffic's invariably moving slowly as it passes. I find i can cope well with that and have got used to it. It it right to think that way...no, but i'd be hollering at one in five drivers. There just isn't the room for everyone to have good room.

Maybe it comes down to attitude. I'm not saying my attitude is right for the good of cyclists in general, but i really do enjoy my cycling/commuting and won't let mildly innapropraite driving spoil it. Close passes at any reasonable speed, the drivers get a word from me if i get the chance. That'll usually be a pull up alongside the drivers window and use my thumb and forefinger to indicate 'space please'. I often get a nod or a hand up in apology. Sometimes you get the stony look ahead, i havn't seen you so you're not there kind of thing, but even thats in the minority.

I still feel (IME) that drivers are not 'out to get us', rather just not really aware of how vulnerable we are, or make bad judgements.

I certainly don't know what the answer is ? better driver education re cyclists when learning to drive ? maybe, but i suspect it'd all go out the window anyway once they passed.

That's a good reply and broadly fits in with my voew/experience.

 

[400bhp]

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/PICT0234.JPG The guy was in the middle of this 60mph road traffic had to slow down to less than 30 what im saying is why didnt he move across to the white line like i would of done or where i would be on this type of road.

HAVE

Those type of roads are horrible to cycle on.

TBF (on those roads), if you ride close to the white line you will get passed close - he is forcing people to think by his cycling style.

 

[400bhp]

The presence of a cyclist makes it inappropriate to be travelling at 60mph unless you can leave at least 2.5m clear space between the tip of your door mirror and the cyclist's elbow.
[/quote]

Can you explain that in more detail?

Why 2.5m and why less than 60?

 

[pshore]

TBF, I think this is true, i know i do. Not because i think 'fkit, what's the point, i'm wasting my time', but because my experience is that on narrowish roads with innapropriate cycle lanes either side (such as Oundle Road in P'boro), cars do pass quite close, but the traffic's invariably moving slowly as it passes. I find i can cope well with that and have got used to it. It it right to think that way...no, but i'd be hollering at one in five drivers. There just isn't the room for everyone to have good room.

Maybe it comes down to attitude. I'm not saying my attitude is right for the good of cyclists in general, but i really do enjoy my cycling/commuting and won't let mildly innapropraite driving spoil it. Close passes at any reasonable speed, the drivers get a word from me if i get the chance. That'll usually be a pull up alongside the drivers window and use my thumb and forefinger to indicate 'space please'. I often get a nod or a hand up in apology. Sometimes you get the stony look ahead, i havn't seen you so you're not there kind of thing, but even thats in the minority.

I still feel (IME) that drivers are not 'out to get us', rather just not really aware of how vulnerable we are, or make bad judgements.

I certainly don't know what the answer is ? better driver education re cyclists when learning to drive ? maybe, but i suspect it'd all go out the window anyway once they passed.

Yeah, wise words gbb.

Re your attitude for cyclists in general, it is commendable but is not for all. Most people dont cycle, they dont to want to deal with the British motorist. If you look at the typical commute it is full of male 30-45 yr olds - the strong and the brave.

I also agree with (whoever it was), most people are not out to get us they just have no idea what it is like to be us.

 

[gbb]

Just been thinking...
As this discussion goes on, it's apparent we all want some 'parity' in what we expect from the law, something we feel we don't currently get (cyclists/drivers). I'm stating the obvious of course...

Bicycle highlights a huge problem, and that is that cyclists are often their own worst enemy. The problem is, as 'serious' cyclists we fail (apparently) to realise that the majority of cyclists are not enthusiasts who hone their skills on the road, join forums, join clubs, engage with people at all sorts of levels....the majority of cyclists are just BOBS, who're obliviously ambling along without a care in the world, on the pavement, RLJing, without lights, without brakes etc etc.
Thats the reality, we're ( serious cyclists) in the minority.

A few examples...winters coming. You'll see all the usual culprits on BSOs (and better) without lights.
I saw a young fella today come careering up to some red lights, his foot jammed against his tyre as a brake. Cretinous.
I saw an oldish fella outside the dole office today, RLJ'd at slow speed, to be confronted by a bus who had right of way, the bus blared his horn, the cyclist simply gave him the finger. Basically, fcuk you.
When i'm commuting, i'll overtake a cyclist who's on the path (i'm on the road), i'll stop at red lights, they'll just blunder past, still on the path, or even on the road. That happens ALL the time.

You wont generally see a serious cyclist doing those things.

We're all suffering because the majority of cyclists actually dont give a monkeys. And we wonder why we don't get treated fairly ?
(edited to say, actually, they are the enemy within, not drivers generally, but drivers constantly see that poor behaviour and remember it and tarnish us all with the same brush)

The one thing that really irks me is when you read in the press 'lycra clad lout'...the press are actually attributing poor practice or behaviour to the very group of cyclists that actually DO care, while the offenders are at the lowest end of the cycling spectrum.

 

[Crankarm]

It's nothing to do with conviction. Presumed liability is about civil law, not criminal law. It is about who should be assumed to bear the responsibility when things go wrong, and is based on who is bringing the greatest risk to the public space that is the highway. Civil law is not based on the idea of proving beyond reasonable doubt; it is about allocating liability based on the balance of probabilities.

If the space is empty, there is no risk to anyone. If the space contains only pedestrians, there is still virtually no risk. If you add cyclists, then the risk is increased only slightly (as reflected the STATS19 reports). If you add motorists, then the risk is increased dramatically (as again reflected the STATS19 reports). So, as the person who brings the motor vehicle to the space is bringing nearly all of the risk, then they should be expected to accept virtually all of the responsibility.

That translates into the motorist's being presumed to be liable unless they can prove that the other party was negligent in a way that made the incident unavoidable by the motorist.

This is important because, as things currently stand, the cyclist (or pedestrian) has an awful lot to lose through their own negligence and is therefore likely to be careful, whilst the motorist, in practice, has very little to lose from being careless, which is a very skewed picture.

In theory, presumed liability has the potential to balance things up a little, which may influence the attitudes of the motorists. In particular it may lessen the attitude that many motorists either explicitly or tacitly adopt, that they rule the roads and everyone else is just a guest, to be merely tolerated provided they squeeze into the remaining gaps and don't cause too much inconvenience, and certainly not to be encouraged.

This is a good post explaining the change in law that is needed. Please can you send it to Mike Cavenett of LCC who wrote a total load of crap a couple of months ago in the LCC magazine. He appears not to understand any legal principles or carry out any research as his article was ridden with errors and very muddled. He seems to think that the law should be changed to make drivers strictly liable which is not a legal principle I think he really understands. It is very worrying when some one with such little legal understanding and an aversion to thorough research is given a platform such as the LCC magazine. Strict liability is where merely carrying out the physical act of an offence makes you liable ie there is no neglience or presumption to rebut, or in criminal cases no mens rea or intention, merely actus rea - the physical act. For example not wearing a seat belt or speeding offences.

A change from the current situation where the claimant has to show that the driver was negligent to one of the driver being presumed as being negligent, won't I don't think, disadvantage them any more than they currently are if they have to show that they were NOT negligent. But what the change will do, will make it damn difficult for motorists and their insurers from avoiding liability in instances where they are clearly at fault. By reversing the presumption of liability so that the motorist is negligent rather than the claimant having to prove it makes it a far more even playing field and will perhaps deter motorists and insurers from advancing the SMIDSY defence and getting away with it. If there is genuine evidence that a driver was not negligent then this can still be presented to rebut the presumption that they were negligent. Simples.

Re the criminal law and driving offences. These are based upon the principle of negligence as in civil law but go further whether the driving of the defendant was well below that of a cautious and prudent driver, reckless or even dangerous and of course the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. A driver convicted for a driving offence makes the civil claim of an injured claimant easier as there is no dispute in liability or there shouldn't be as a criminal conviction for a driving offence such as DWDCA, reckless or dangerous driving is prime facea evidence of negligence in a civil action.

HTH.

 

[pshore]

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/PICT0234.JPG The guy was in the middle of this 60mph road traffic had to slow down to less than 30 what im saying is why didnt he move across to the white line like i would of done or where i would be on this type of road.

Great choice of picture Nearly There.

When you look at the blue car in the foreground you can see loads of room for cyclist and car if they cycle in the white line. I can see why some people fume.

However, look up the road at the truck and how much room there is - this is exactly what the cyclist is protecting themselves from. Some trucks will not move over the solid white line and there is potential for impact. Eg James Cracknell.

Personally I would avoid cycling on that road.

 

[gambatte]

Just been thinking...
As this discussion goes ......................

+1 to the entire post

& ignorance of 'correct' cycling means an assertive rider is lumped in with the **** I saw wheelying a BSO down the local high street in rush hour yesterday

 

[400bhp]

Agree

Good post

Nice not to have a "Bicker" thread on here once in a while.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/PICT0234.JPG The guy was in the middle of this 60mph road traffic had to slow down to less than 30 what im saying is why didnt he move across to the white line like i would of done or where i would be on this type of road.

Say I was driving along in my car in the middle of the lane on that road at, say, 40mph because it was raining or misty, and a car travelling much faster at, say, 60mph, came up behind me.

Would you expect me in my car to move across so I was straddling the white line, or pull off or pull over in order to make room for the car behind to pass me? If not why would you expect a cyclist to do it?