The Canal. The cycle rage.

[subaqua]

There are places where motorists have priority. Where is there that people on bikes have priority, in your opinion? (Or the opinion of any other people who think cyclists should use the roads almost always.)

and where are the places motorists have priority . OH yes roads that by LAW do not allow cycling , or pedestrians, or motorbikes less than 50cc . yes special roads or Motorways ( you must know what a motorway is they have the M5 in somerset )

The fact that a LOT but NOT ALL road users follow the simple hierarchy does not mean we as Cyclist should have our own special priority. and even if we did there is a great wording in Highway code about yielding that priority if it is going to prevent a collision.

its a simple Hierarchy - MOST VULNERABLE USER has priority. That is ALWAYS going to be pedestrian.

 

[mjr]

So, cycling has and should have priority nowhere ever, no matter how much of an unnecessarily-obstructive nobber the other party is?

I sometimes suspect if someone gets knocked down riding on the carriageway through a green light across a junction that was perfectly clear as far as you could see, I'm sure someone on CC will be along to point out how it was in fact all the rider's fault and the motorist/pedestrian was blameless.

 

[Dan B]

All else being equal, cycling should have priority over motor vehicles; walking over cycling.

 

[MisterStan]

So, cycling has and should have priority nowhere ever, no matter how much of an unnecessarily-obstructive nobber the other party is

That's not what @subaqua said though, is it?

 

[subaqua]

That's not what @subaqua said though, is it?

Thanks for the support. mrjay is rapidly becoming the CC resident cockwomble. GF/ spinners is calming down and posting some sensible stuff so it's a natural progression.

Another simple one to think about is

If the cyclists riding like bobbers didn't ride like that then there wouldn't be an issue on the towpath. Funnily enough I rode the towpath today. Only nobber cyclist was a tragic hipster. Yes it was the regents canal and it was close to broadway market.

All the peds I went past or encountered had a nice smile as I was a considerate rider. Weird that isn't it. Ride sensible get no aggro ride like a nobber get aggro

 

[mjr]

That's not what @subaqua said though, is it?

Naughty to delete the question mark to change the meaning. No, @subaqua completely failed to answer the question asked, so I tried asking the flipside of it. Still avoiding it, with personal abuse this time.

I've ridden the Regents Canal towpath a few times (it's not usually a direct route for my journeys in London) without problems yet, but I do occasionally have problems on other "shared" routes with nobbers who don't want to share, no matter how sensible the rider. Anyone who thinks that sensible riding means no aggro is either very lucky or not riding enough.

 

[MisterStan]

Unintentional edit on iPad, there's no hidden agenda, so calm down dear.

 

[Venod]

I don't get this thread at all!

I am what could easily be labelled an 'enthusiastic' cyclist and I certainly like to 'push on' when riding, even on shared use paths/canal towpaths. However, I have never got riled, or into a confrontation, when riding on such a path as I have a system.
The system goes like this:

1. Remove bells from all bikes upon purchase.
2. Engage brain before riding bike in a public place (I do actually do this before anyone makes a smartarse comment ).
3. Upon approaching any situation where there is a possible danger or conflict, reduce speed to an appropriate level before arrival.
4. If meeting someone head on, assess the likelihood of them moving to one side and if this is unlikely then do not hesitate to stop or move over yourself.
5. If coming up behind someone that is unaware of your approach then slow and get within earshot before verbally making your presence known. I find a simple 'morning', or 'excuse me' is sufficient but by far the best is 'can I pass please?' as this only really gives them one option. The answer is never no!
6. ALWAYS say thank you when someone has moved to let you pass, smile and mean it!
7. Use your awesome power to regain any lost speed.

I find this system works perfectly and allows all involved to continue about their business and have a pleasant day. Any loss in speed/extra time taken is more than compensated for by not wasting time arguing with twots, climbing out of the canal or doing the Tango with indecisive peds. You also arrive at your destination feeling relaxed and that all is good in the world.

Very much my approach but I have been defeated by No 5 on several occasions when the walker/jogger is wearing headphones, and have to wait for a suitable space to pass that usually results in the headpnone wearer jumping out of their skin

 

[subaqua]

Naughty to delete the question mark to change the meaning. No, @subaqua completely failed to answer the question asked, so I tried asking the flipside of it. Still avoiding it, with personal abuse this time.

I've ridden the Regents Canal towpath a few times (it's not usually a direct route for my journeys in London) without problems yet, but I do occasionally have problems on other "shared" routes with nobbers who don't want to share, no matter how sensible the rider. Anyone who thinks that sensible riding means no aggro is either very lucky or not riding enough.

Because there is no question to answer. Look at the hierarchy of vulnerability. We sit in the middle. If you don't get that then I am not sure you should be allowed out on your own never mind on the road.

 

[User16625]

and where are the places motorists have priority . OH yes roads that by LAW do not allow cycling , or pedestrians, or motorbikes less than 50cc . yes special roads or Motorways ( you must know what a motorway is they have the M5 in somerset )

The fact that a LOT but NOT ALL road users follow the simple hierarchy does not mean we as Cyclist should have our own special priority. and even if we did there is a great wording in Highway code about yielding that priority if it is going to prevent a collision.

its a simple Hierarchy - MOST VULNERABLE USER has priority. That is ALWAYS going to be pedestrian.

Upon analyzing that statement, I have found a flaw in it. As a pedestrian trying to attack someone, it is fairly easy for me to acquire a fighting stance/defensive position or just boot someone in the balls. If a cyclist past me and I was pissed off, I would push the bastard off his bike.

On the other hand if Im the bastard on a bike, it is gonna be difficult for me to acquire a position that allows me to kick or punch the crap outta someone. Trying to ride strait into a pedestrian would most likely result in me coming a cropper too. Also a healthy pedestrian can quickly sidestep in a cyclist vs pedestrian fight. For this reason I find cyclist more vulnerable.

 

[Markymark]

Thanks for the support. mrjay is rapidly becoming the CC resident cockwomble

I hear you, brother.

Motorists do not have priority over cyclists anywhere bar motorways and a handful of other roads.

Cyclists are a middle way - slower than cars and faster than pedestrians. Unless we have 3 of everything then cyclists has a MASSIVE advantage of being able to go where some pedestrian can't and at other times places that motorists can't.

To suggest that we throw our teddies out of our pram because we don;t have are own cycle-only routes is pathetic. Given a poster or two on here, I'd hate to be in the same place with them anyway and rather be with cars or pedestrians rather than these big-girls-blouses.