take a test??

[Cab]

I don't think it would make a lot of difference myself. Why do you think gridlock would result, Cab?

Because walking around most cities I see cyclists on pavements, on the kerbside, going through red lights... Usually they're the slower and more physically inept ones. Put them on the roads where they're meant to be in traffic and, to me at least, it seems inevitable that they'd slow traffic right down. Gridlock is perhaps too strong a term, but don't tell the motorists that, I like to use the word to scare them.

 

[Cab]

hi mate.
my original question got lost lone ago....
i just think it would be safer if everyone who uses the road
takes a test.. im all for schools teaching kids about road safety.
why stop with the kids..

I now agree with you. Your abysmal lack of knowledge on road safety issues would almost certainly get you off our roads. Suddenly, I'm right in favour...

 

[BentMikey]

Because walking around most cities I see cyclists on pavements, on the kerbside, going through red lights... Usually they're the slower and more physically inept ones. Put them on the roads where they're meant to be in traffic and, to me at least, it seems inevitable that they'd slow traffic right down. Gridlock is perhaps too strong a term, but don't tell the motorists that, I like to use the word to scare them.

I reckon it would irritate car drivers because they'd find themselves waiting behind cyclists more often. I also think it would, surprisingly, improve traffic flow by breaking the accelerate drag race and brake cycle and reduce queues. In other words, lower peak speeds and similar or slightly better average speeds.

Cyclists and motor vehicles are a little like sand and large sized gravel - they fit together well and only take up more room when they're apart.

 

[col]

I'd LOVE that. It would gridlock every town and city in the country with all of us riding as we really should

Sorry,i misunderstood.

 

[Cab]

I ride assertively, and don't hold up traffic. Those that have to wait a few seconds behind me are usually waiting for me at the next lights.

Yes, but I suspect that like me you're moving at a reasonable pace. Imagine what would happen if the pavement dawdlers and the slow sub-secondary riders all decided to be out in primary. I agree, mostly a few assertive cyclists have no meaningful impact on how long it takes people to drive anywhere, but if we were all like that then we'd see a major re-think of traffic management in the UK. No bad thing, IMHO.

 

[Cab]

You know, I think you're right.

I wouldn't gloat over it, but if it resulted in roads being redesigned to be more inclusive, then it would be worth it.

Of course. But thats why those people who bleat on about cyclists not having to pass a test don't really want us to be tested at an appropriate standard. All they're really doing is showing ignorance about what kind of behaviour should be expected of a competent cyclist. And, regrettably, thats also why it'll never happen. To accomodate an increasing number of mid to low competence cyclists predominantly in primary position in towns and cities would require a major rethink of how we manage traffic in the UK. Clearly a good thing, but also something that would terrify everyone from local planners through to central government.

 

[tdr1nka]

To accomodate an increasing number of mid to low competence cyclists predominantly in primary position in towns and cities would require a major rethink of how we manage traffic in the UK.

IMO it would also annoy a lot of supposedly competent cyclists, the kind that tut and grumble when they 'have' to overtake Ms. tdr1nka(6)and I when we are on the tandem, owing to our sedate pace which is for safety considering the fragility of the cargo.

 

[BentMikey]

Riding properly as taught wouldn't mean that all of us would ride in primary nearly all the time would it?

I really don't see why you think it'd hold up traffic and cause queues, though I'd certainly agree it would reduce peak traffic speeds. I don't think it's very productive to claim that it would either, as it makes you look like even more of a militant cyclist.

 

[wafflycat]

Riding properly as taught wouldn't mean that all of us would ride in primary nearly all the time would it?

Of course it wouldn't.

 

[Cab]

IMO it would also annoy a lot of supposedly competent cyclists, the kind that tut and grumble when they 'have' to overtake Ms. tdr1nka(6)and I when we are on the tandem, owing to our sedate pace which is for safety considering the fragility of the cargo.

Yep, I'm sure it would. It saddens me how intolerant of other road users some cyclists are

 

[col]

Yes, but I suspect that like me you're moving at a reasonable pace. Imagine what would happen if the pavement dawdlers and the slow sub-secondary riders all decided to be out in primary. I agree, mostly a few assertive cyclists have no meaningful impact on how long it takes people to drive anywhere, but if we were all like that then we'd see a major re-think of traffic management in the UK. No bad thing, IMHO.

I think it would lead to conflict,look at the reaction to mag,can you imagine what it would be like on the roads if all cyclist decided to be in the middle of the road?For safety reasons i agree,but most of the time, conflict could have been avoided.

 

[Cab]

Riding properly as taught wouldn't mean that all of us would ride in primary nearly all the time would it?

In city traffic yes, it would. Can't speak for you, but I spend most of the time in traffic in primary position.

I really don't see why you think it'd hold up traffic and cause queues, though I'd certainly agree it would reduce peak traffic speeds. I don't think it's very productive to claim that it would either, as it makes you look like even more of a militant cyclist.

Its to do with the speed of slower cyclists and just how many more you'd see claiming primary as opposed to cycling close to or on the pavement. Standing in London recently it occurred to me that the only way that the traffic was working at all was by the slower cyclists being right in the gutter, allowing fast and close (basically illegal) overtaking as the norm rather than the exception. If there is traffic on both sides of the road and not sufficient space to safely pass a cyclist in secondary position without running in to oncoming traffic (normal city street) then it is not possible to overtake safely, and the solution is not to move over to the lefta bit more, it is to claim primary. Get all the slower cyclists out in the middle of the lane and a lot of cities suddenly start moving at 11mph, not as a mean speed but as a peak speed.

But it gets tougher than that... Theres a road I use maybe three days in five, its a 30mph road but usually speeded on as it is long and straight. Parked cars always down one side, no chance whatsoever of safe overtaking if you're in primary and there is traffic on the other side, so if you're on the same side of the parked cars you really, really should stay in primary else sooner or later you'll be doored. On average, over the 1100 yards or so of that road, I'll overtake 6 to 8 other cyclists, I'll average probably 18mph along there if I'm taking it easyish, although I've done 32mph down there. Cars will uniformly do 35mph, if every cyclist was in primary at their standard pace (10 -12 mph for a lot of the slower ones), avoiding the car doors or simply preventing people from overtaking them dangerously with oncoming traffic... Well, the traffic would be far slower, it would back up to the junction at the end (already does sometimes), few cars would get on to the road when the lights changed (theres always a bike or three...), thus the traffic is now static down on to Milton Road, possibly right back to the roundabout.

Its not that every single road would be blocked, its more that there would be multiple significant new bottlenecks in every town and city, which would require very different management. And, frankly, to a typical motorist its easier to just call that gridlock.

 

[Cab]

I think it would lead to conflict,look at the reaction to mag,can you imagine what it would be like on the roads if all cyclist decided to be in the middle of the road?For safety reasons i agree,but most of the time, conflict could have been avoided.

I won't ride in an unsafe road position to avoid this 'conflict' of which you speak. Nor really should anyone ask me to. I'll move over where it is safe to allow faster traffic to overtake, but I'll stick to riding by cyclecraft.

Really, training cyclists all to ride thus wouldn't create conflict, its the ingrained wrong belief in motorists that cyclists should be submissive that would cause conflice. But, of course, thats not how they would see it...

 

[col]

In city traffic yes, it would. Can't speak for you, but I spend most of the time in traffic in primary position.



Its to do with the speed of slower cyclists and just how many more you'd see claiming primary as opposed to cycling close to or on the pavement. Standing in London recently it occurred to me that the only way that the traffic was working at all was by the slower cyclists being right in the gutter, allowing fast and close (basically illegal) overtaking as the norm rather than the exception. If there is traffic on both sides of the road and not sufficient space to safely pass a cyclist in secondary position without running in to oncoming traffic (normal city street) then it is not possible to overtake safely, and the solution is not to move over to the lefta bit more, it is to claim primary. Get all the slower cyclists out in the middle of the lane and a lot of cities suddenly start moving at 11mph, not as a mean speed but as a peak speed.

But it gets tougher than that... Theres a road I use maybe three days in five, its a 30mph road but usually speeded on as it is long and straight. Parked cars always down one side, no chance whatsoever of safe overtaking if you're in primary and there is traffic on the other side, so if you're on the same side of the parked cars you really, really should stay in primary else sooner or later you'll be doored. On average, over the 1100 yards or so of that road, I'll overtake 6 to 8 other cyclists, I'll average probably 18mph along there if I'm taking it easyish, although I've done 32mph down there. Cars will uniformly do 35mph, if every cyclist was in primary at their standard pace (10 -12 mph), avoiding the car doors or simply preventing people from overtaking them dangerously with oncoming traffic... Well, the traffic would be far slower, it would back up to the junction at the end (already does sometimes), few cars would get on to the road when the lights changed (theres always a bike or three...), thus the traffic is now static down on to Milton Road, possibly right back to the roundabout.

Its not that every single road would be blocked, its more that there would be multiple significant new bottlenecks in every town and city, which would require very different management. And, frankly, to a typical motorist its easier to just call that gridlock.

Not everyone who cycles can go the speeds a regularly training cyclist can go,i dont think the councils and governments would hold their hands up and change things very quickly,all that would happen is cyclists would be called even more, and clashes with motorists would increase.

 

[BentMikey]

Well, it's true, I do find myself riding in primary more in central London, but not always. What's more, I find that the traffic still isn't held up by me, and is in fact considerably slower on average.

I think your assertions are wrong, in that peak motor vehicle speeds will be reduced by the cyclists riding properly, and the average speed of the traffic will go up slightly because of the cyclists smoothing everything out. I think most people would welcome this together with the new and better cyclist behaviour.

I still think you're being counter-productive with your clever "sound bite". It's snappy and gets attention, but it's very divisive and is further enhancing the them and us, and that makes life worse for us all. Most of us on here are also drivers, not freaking beardy weirdy car haters.