Should all cyclists be forced to drive a car to discover entire bicycles can be obscured by door pillars these days?

Entire cars can be obscured by screen pillars these days. No excuses for not moving the head or upper body so as to clear the blindspot.

No excuses for not moving the head or upper body so as to clear the blindspot.

My disabled mother may disagree with that. Can't be doing with doing the boogie every time she wants to take a left turn. Your attitude is very 'I can do whatever I want and everyone else can go to hell to suit me' and I'm just saying cyclists who don't drive sometimes don't realise how invisible - and terrifyingly unpredictable - they are.

Jamie,

I'm never sure when you're being ironic but this seems clear.

It's not just cyclists that a pillar can conceal but as I observed previously a whole car. Furthermore, approaching a junction, the movement of the pillar tracks that of the car and you still don't see unless you move peer round it. If your mother canot do that she may be becoming unsafe.

As a cyclist and driver I well understand the visibilty point from both perspectives. On two wheels approach from formal training is to IMPROVE your visibility. Counter-intuitively this means riding out from the kerb in urban traffic. Much more likley to be unseen/hit while lurking by the kerb and you've nowhere to go if a vehicle does get too close. Never mind the other dangers that lurk on the carriageway's shoulder including rubbish, surface peturbations and straying pedestrians.

If you find cyclists unpredictable you need to slow down a bit. We sometimes need to weave to avoid potholes. Manhole covers and thermoplastic road paint are lethally slippery when damp. Ill designed storm gutters can swallow a narrow wheel - bike stops dead and rider carries on over bars. Gusts of wind can be an issue too.

And of course like other road users we sometimes foul up and get in the way with late turns or lack of observation.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 30/04/2013 at 16:48

Driver impairment doesn't remove the requirement to have full control of the vehicle - how can that be possible if the driver can't see certain directions ?

Well the GP is fine with it and thankfully his opinion matters whereas yours doesnt.

Would you use a driving examiner to diagnose a medical problem?

I always try to be to the right of the central markings in the road when passing a cyclist. Unfortunately this is not always possible, especially in towns and cities.

There comes a point where it's just not possible to pass with sufficient clearance but too many motorists lack the patience to wait. All too often it only gets them to back of next queue a second or too sooner.

Seem to be driven by a 'must get in front of the cyclist mentality

I'm regularly passed in same 75 yds stretch from speedhump to T-junction only to sail past them again.

the references to ''disabled drivers' hilite prevailing general drivers' attitudes as well.

Drivers of all types need to be reminded, they have a licence to control a mechnaical vehicle.

They are in charge of that vehicle, and entirely responsible for what that vehicle does..including interaction with other road users.

The impression I get from reading some of ther posts above is that the driving licence is considered to be no more than a personal travel pass.

If a driver who, either through physical limitation, or by the nature and characteristics of their vehicle, cannot see clearly all around prior to conducting a change of position or manaoeuver, they are duty-bound by law , to exercise due care throughout the whole process, and extra care if doing something which other road users might find unusual, or might not be prepared for.

No one type of road user has any more right to use the public highway than any other.

Many drivers seem to forget this.

So, the next time a cyclist, or other road user is passed, ask yourselves whether the manner in which that vulnerable road user was dealt with, would have...on a driving test [certainly one assessed to the appropriate level of driver skill expected?], resulted in a serious fault?

And before one shouts that 'one is not on a drivng test'..or one drives 'differently' on a test. remember this...a serious fault when on a test, can translate into a contravention of the Law once a licence is gained.

{drivng without care and consideration, anyone??}

When did this stop being a motoring forum and turn into the Green Party?

I think that happened with the 2nd post.

Today a cyclist came out of a side road, to join the main road, without looking. I know motorists do this too, but it beggars belief that a vulnerable cyclist would be daft enough to do it!

Perhaps, but a 'momentary lapse of concentration' generally doesnt kill me in my car. One small mistake can wipe a cyclist out so it does surprise me when they do stupid things.

I'll give cyclists one thing; they have some bottle. I couldnt sit on some horizontal dildo with buses/cars/lorries all streaming past me.

I just find it depressing. Los Angeles is looking a better option all the time.

Threat or promise?

One other irritating habit. Non use of arm signals. Give us a clue as to what your intentions are cyclists.

As for accountability, I suggest that ALL cyclists, by law, have to wear a hiviz waistcoat with a serial number stamped on back and front that has the details of the cyclist registered on a database. That way they can be caught doing "naughty" things by CCTV like us drivers are on a regular basis. And might deter bad cycling practices.

Give us a clue? This is not just an irritating habit of cyclists, many cars seem to have indicators as optional extras.

Accountability. Good idea Ben 10, couldn't agree more. I do think tracker devices, mass produced could be fitted inside every bike when manufactured.

'naut,

How can you justify jumping red lights? Especially pedestrian ones. The number of times I've seen the older person or young child getting a swipe as the arrogant t*** on the bike sails through. Car drivers have to stop for them so why shouldn't you. You seem to intimate that it doesn't do harm. It does.

One other irritating habit. Non use of arm signals. Give us a clue as to what your intentions are cyclists.

As for accountability, I suggest that ALL cyclists, by law, have to wear a hiviz waistcoat with a serial number stamped on back and front that has the details of the cyclist registered on a database. That way they can be caught doing "naughty" things by CCTV like us drivers are on a regular basis. And might deter bad cycling practices.

Ben,

Of course cyclists should stop at lights, I do. But there are plenty places where kerbside turns or over long ped phases mean jumping lightscarries no danger to anyone. I'm not justifying just explaining why people do it.

Where do drive where you see older people or young children regulalry get swiped? In spite of riding in Central London for thirteen years I've never seen such an incident although some twonks undoubtedly push it and wizz close by.

Trilogy made the same suggestion about hi-viz as a mount for registration plates. It's a motorist dog in the manger's wet dream. It won't work because of cloning, borrowing, legibility and obstruction. Never mind the cost of the CCTV and paying some poor sap to watch it.

naut, You're such a hard head and unbending to the majority who pay to use the roads in all manor of ways. Can't you listen for once. You steam ahead on both sites. Yes I've read your drivel "there" too.

Ben (are you Kevin in t'other place)?

When you say listen for once you mean accept the other point of view and shut up. Whether it's Thatcher or cycling it ann't going to be me who shuts up !!

We all pay for the roads. Tax disc and fuel duty are just part of general taxation.

What I post is what I see. I stopped jumping reds ten years ago (barring one junction, now remodelled where I took bus /bike advance green from wrong lane). I'm not defending it either but it's hardly the crime of the century and TBH the biggest effect is to bring cycling into disrepute.

I honestly cannot recall seeing a 'contact' incident between a jumping cyclist and a ped in 13 years. . Quite a few where cyclists jump red & pass far closer than the 6 feet I'd allow for peds wandering in carraigeway away from crossing but nobody's hurt. If it's one or two regualr nobbers get the cops round.

Registration is complex and costly to administer. It came in for cars along wih insurance and testing because there was a real and present problem with serious injury and death.

Until calls for imposition of similar controls on cylists have a justification beyond 'they're getting away with stuff' and towards quantifiable damage you might as well call for bar coding at birth.

Of course there are carp cyclists just as there are carp drivers. Some ride like idiots but so do motorists. Car + idiot is potentially fatal. Idiot + bike is an inconvenience.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 01/05/2013 at 22:32

it works both ways...motorists are like that too.

There used to be advice in the Highway Code about cyclists not riding two-abreast. That seems to have disappeared?

If drivers behave as you decribe, reluctant to do anything, that isn't the 'fault' of the cyclist. Blame for that must lie squarely with the driver, and their ignorance.

Whilst it is ideal to overtake a cyclist 'leaving as much room as one would a car'.....if one is compelled to be closer, due to road markings, or other valid reasons..then one should pass as slowly as the distance off requires.

If cyclists, or any other road user presents a problem, simply deal with it.

[and I'm willing to bet most cyclists I come across, aren't moving at more than 10 mph!...[prove otherwise, I suggest?]

Of course, if they're doing 20 or 30 mph, they present no more difficult a hold-up than a tractor or JCB.

Like I said earlier, depends on how one views one's driving licence?

If it is simply a glorified travel pass, then bleat and suffer accordngly?

Cyclists riding two abreast on narrow-ish roads with double white lines are also using the road "without due consideration for other road users". If they are doing over 10 mph one is not supposed to overtake them, and many car drivers won't pass them even if they are at 10 mph.

I am convinced these gangs of militant cyclists deliberately cause these obstructions because they are bitter, twisted and hate motorists. I bet many of them work for the local councils drawing up schemes for speed humps, 20 mph zones and other traffic "calming" ideas.

Some ride two abreast because they feel safer. I can understand that.

Lanes giving priority to cyclists are just another way to try to keep the motorists out of city centres as these will slow them down even more - not that I personally have any problem avoiding city centres - but then none of my hard-earned cash supports city based businesses.

British roads were designed for the horse and cart - cars and trucks are their natural successors - not cyclists!

As for hold-ups, it's pretty obvious that major urban delays are caused by queuing vehicles. Getting more people on cycles will probably improve traffic flow. But, if you want to sit around in a jam, it's your choice.

Just how do you take big items of luggage or goods on a cycle - or indeed how do you cover long distances if you only have poor or average health ?

This is the tunnel-vision of the pro-cycling lobby - it's a selective method of transport that only carries people short distances.

Just that encouraging use can reduce congestion.

But that 'encouragement' usually takes the form of making car driving less appealing (exorbitant parking, speed bumps, congestion charges etc etc. This might make cycling relatively more attractive than driving, but it does nothing to make cycling more enjoyable.

Concepts that rely on artifically hobbling alternative options are contemptible.

There are already signs that the number of trips by car is reducing.

You'd be naive to believe that this is because of user choice. High motoring taxation and reduced household income have forced some people to reduce their car use. It's not the result of a road to Damascus conversion to cycling. Notting Hill policy wonks might herald the era of peak car use, but it's not a good thing for those affected.

If bike use is so good, it doesn't need 'encouragement'. I like cycling and I don't look for some stinking government inducement to use it!

Clearly not all car use is essential.

True, but trite.

Most of our activities are not 'essential', and indeed many of them could be considered profligate and pointless, but that doesn't mean that we don't enjoy them!

Encouragement could mean dealing with issues that have reduced bike usage: roads designed for cars only.

In other words, creating cycle specific lanes. Since road space is limited in cities, this comes at the expense of road space for cars. I cycle in city centres without too much of a problem. I observe lane discipline on roundabouts too. Mimsers on Dutch ultility bikes crawling along with their haloes of imperious eco-haughtiness are as much to blame for congestion as SUVs.

No-one suggests bicycles could carry large loads, or supplant transits. Just that encouraging use can reduce congestion. See Stockholm/Amsterdam at rush hour: legions of bike, all of which supplant the use of a car. Most cars in the UK have one occupant in the overwhelming majority of commuter traffic, and most car journeys are quite short. Average length of a commuting trip 8.6 miles in 2009. Dear me - tunnel vision?

I wasn't talking "large" loads or Transit-sized loads, cyclists can't carry very much at all. You can't take many small children to school by bike, you can't do the shopping by bike - there's so many things you can't do by bike.

Perhaps the very purpose of cities needs examining - with so much technology available, just why do so many have to cram into cities, however they travel - let's use the technology we have and decentralise.

You can take children to school, do the shoppong or take enough stock for a market stall (depending on what you sell) in a cycle trailer. I've seen it done. :)

So how are cyclists going to fund all the improvements they want ?

Road fund tax was introduced for motor vehicles back in the '30s to fund road improvements - fuel duty paid by motor vehicle users is available for the Treasury to spend as they see fit.

We all pay Income Tax, based on income but cyclists pay not an extra penny to use road, pavements and footpaths.

There's absolutely no justification in expecting motor vehicle users to fund any facilities for cyclists.

I think what a lot of folk are forgetting is...just what sort of transport was used on a regular basis before the motorcar became generally available, and easily [financially] accessible?

Why..the bycycle, of course.

Upon which one commuted to work, carried the shopping, and generally got around a lot cheaper and quicker than hte bus, or shanks's pony.

Let's face it....we drivers find the cyclists thoroughly inconvenient.

They get in our way, and often actually make us think about what we are doing...when, as drivers, we'd much rather not think at all.

We'd much rather sit there at 50 mph, glued to the rear bumper of the car in front, like a long endless convoy.

We see the public highway as our own personal preserve....after all, the local authorities go to great lengths to lay down billiard-table smooth tarmac so we can look cool in our low-slng plastic covered personal transports, with their [ridiculous] low profile tyres that frankly are totally unsuitable for any normal road [how we hate those potholes that quite naturally appear?}...

Like buying 'sensible' shoes, we object stongly about having to buy 'sensible' cars....and equally, we object strongly to anything that gets in our way..whether its cyclists, or pedestrians, or old drivers,or learners, or white vans, or horses...

Those who struggle to cope with any other type of road user, needs to get themselves on a driving course which will teach them the value of tolerance.

I'm done here. Makes a change from zero.................. to 100.