Motorbike rider hits pensioner, so Twitter blames cyclists; Delivery cyclists jump red lights to avoid losing income, says Deliveroo rider; Jordan Peterson on LTNs; New year, same train bike storage woes; Estonian pro hit by driver + more on the live blog

hirsute wrote:

I not really sure what those videos are supposed to show or demonstrate. In the second, they were not even on the road but to the left of the lane marking.

Your first sentence needs an edit as it doesn't quite make sense with the 'if a car driver error of judgement happens' phrase.

As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less.

The second accident happened around here according to the link in posts: https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B053'02.2%22S+151%C2%B041'49.4%22E/@-32.8839465,151.6948613,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!1m6!3m5!1s0x6b733f392c1de4f9:0x94a9e08789e2f490!2sShortland+Public+School!8m2!3d-32.8817529!4d151.695461!3m5!1s0x0:0xa6bacbb3d06bd4b4!7e2!8m2!3d-32.8839506!4d151.6970497

First of all, I would never try to cycle on this road. It is a dual carriage road with grade separated intersections and crash barriers, all seeming like a motorway, so getting overtaken by cars with 100+km/h speed difference would be expected. If for some reason I got stuck in that road, I would just as close as possible to the gutter where the one row of riders in the accidents ride and not next to the traffic.

Sorry for any stucture mistakes, not a native speaker here, but I guess most undestand what I want to say.

I'd just quote BallardOfTruth to you on this

"Riding two-abreast removes that small gap and forces drivers to wait for a break in oncoming traffic. You're way more likely to get hit doing the former than the latter."

cyclisto wrote:

As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, but only as a function of their "luck-of-the-draw" positioning in 3D space, not specifically because they would be riding single-file on the edge of the road. None of them would have been hurt if they had skipped that extra coffee and left a few minutes earlier, or if they were cycling on totally the wrong side of the road.

And, again – you’re using extremely unlikely freak-scenarios that have nothing to do with cyclist road-positioning to justify doing something that puts you in more danger in “normal”, routine riding. Riding right over to the edge, not only robs you of an escape buffer that you could otherwise have moved into if a car got too close, but it also presents a gap that makes that situation thousands of times more likely to happen in the first place.

cyclisto wrote:

As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry but the experience of many cyclists says you're wrong on this. Choosing to cycle in or near the verge / gutter / edge of the road does not help, it actually makes it more dangerous for the cyclist.

Cycling 2 abreast is legal here and is actually safer than single file. If you think that only MAMILs ride in groups then you are again mistaken (and your comment suggests that you may are prejudiced against people on bikes).

OTOH I'm inclined to agree that a cyclist riding through a red light poses little risk to anyone else. But I would personally not do it until the law changes and other road users are aware of this (except in specific conditions that may make it safe e.g. a junction with good visibility and low traffic volumes where the cyclist's presence does not trigger the lights to change).

Your evidence is staggering: the first video shows a car deliberately swerving to hit a cyclist when overtaking even though the oncoming traffic line is completely free; the second video shows cyclists being hit even though they are completely within the cycle lane; the third shows a driver coming round the bend on the left-hand side of the road in California (i.e., completely on the wrong side of the road) and hitting cyclists on the correct side of the road. It is simply ridiculous to say "if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would've been hurt" – well if the cyclists hadn't gone out at all that day they wouldn't have been hurt either. Absolutely ridiculous level of victim blaming I'm afraid.

@Rendel Harris

As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a matter of possibilities, like when in war people tend to get as close to the ground as possible, unless they want a road named after them.

@BalladOfStruth

Riding abreast does indeed winds drivers up and most likely the first video we see one of the lunatics you say. We have to accept that lunatics exist, and they will run you over before the police or the hospital arrest them.

I rode in primary position for around a week, until a motorcyclist overtook me at high speed between me and the curb so I ditched this system as it was arguably the most frightening riding experience involving other drivers and it happened in such little time since I adopted primary position. I don't like playing with chances.

I do definitely understand this theory, but in real life, regardless of the law drivers will wind up and quite often will give a punishing close pass on the outside rider that could escalate in a runover like in the first video. I have felt that close pass feeling when I tried riding abreast when touring with a friend. Moreover, intuitively drivers have the must "get in front" feeling when seeing a bicycle, so they will rush to do perform a flawed overtake.

cyclisto wrote:

@Rendel Harris

As I said before these are videos with accidents that if all cyclists cycled near the edge of the road no cyclists would have been hurt.

In the second video the cyclists aren't even on the road, they are on the hard shoulder inside the solid white line. That is pretty much near the edge of the road, no? If a pedestrian is hit by a driver who mounts the pavement do you blame them for walking too close to the edge of the road?

@Rendel Harris It is not a road but a motorway, so it is super dangerous to cycle anyway as cyclists aren't supposed to be there, so you have to get as left as possible. If the one (wisest for me) row of cyclists can cycle on the hard shoulder on narrow road bike tires, then it means it is perfectly cyclable. A pedestrian pavement seperated by curb is exactly for this reason separated by curb, it is not supposed to be run over by cars.

@BalladOfStruth

I don't like primary position for the aforementioned scary incident, but also it impedes motor traffic motor, making overtakes more difficult. I just use it in a certain one way road where overtaking is 100% impossible without 10cm close pass, so I ride primary there.

@Everybody loving Abreast

I cannot reply to many other people offended about my dislike to abreast riding (I repeat that I live and ride now in one of many places where it is illegal) this is not the point nor can I spend time answering endless messages. Riding abreast is erroneous for me as it practically means that you have to ride everywhere in primary position, differing that in the safety space that is supposed to exist between the curb, there will be your abreast riding buddy cyclist. Moreover, riding abreast will annoy drivers and make them make errors, sometimes maliciously, will delay cars and only benefit recreational riders who could have just gone running. Many countries have banned it, in others under circumstances it is allowed. We cannot aggree with all and unfortunately I have 3 videos proving that, so please post videos caused by accidents where single file road bike group rides had accidents that might have been prevented by riding abreast and I may reconcider my views.

My main point is that legislation has to be adjusted to facilitate commuting for all and especially cyclists for having the benefit of being environmentally and financially friendly. So cyclists running red lights not the end of the world, nor going contraflow in some roads. Laws must be fluid and adjusted to modern needs and be proportionate to the risks involved.  See this video to help you understand what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBP2LTQxqZ8 .

cyclisto wrote:

@BalladOfStruth

I don't like primary position for the aforementioned scary incident, but also it impedes motor traffic motor, making overtakes more difficult.

Well, yeah - that's literally the point of it. Primary is supposed to prevent overtakes in situations where an overtake would be extremely dangerous for the cyclist, like a pinch-point or when you're negotiating a junction. You use it in those situations to keep yourself safe.

cyclisto wrote:

I just use it in a certain one way road where overtaking is 100% impossible without 10cm close pass, so I ride primary there.

Wait, so you do use/like primary?

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Wait, so you do use/like primary?

I use in this particular road, but don't consider it safe for other roads. I eat hawaiian pizza like once per year when the others have finished but not really like it.

cyclisto wrote:

... I eat hawaiian pizza like once per year when the others have finished but not really like it.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter! Pineapple on pizza - yay or nay?

(I think pineapple and cheese go together well, but I'd skip the ham on a hawaiian, so that wouldn't work out well. I do remember frequenting a Jamaican pizza take-away/restaurant that did a very fine ackee and salt-fish pizza though)

Jamaican pizza?  Is that some kind of jerk?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Jamaican pizza?  Is that some kind of jerk?

They might have had a jerk chicken one, but I don't remember and as I follow a pescetarian diet, I would have ignored it. They did also have a good sardine one and one of my favourites was a florentina with loads of spinach and a baked egg in the middle (i.e. raw egg baked as the pizza cooked).

The door was always open there, but I've heard that it's because they dread locks.

As a pastafarian I've always enjoyed a good Italian-Jamaican crossover.  Even Bob Marley enjoyed the odd (sweet) pizza - wi' jam in, he said.

So you eat left-over pizza and don't really like it?  Maybe the pizza itself is not the issue?  Hmm... sounds like the UK experience of those not in motorised vehicles - we also get the scraps that the motorists didn't use and we don't enjoy that much either.

Sounds like you've abreast fixation there.

I can understand you not feeling confident with riding primary especially after experiencing bad driving.  I don't always sit in primary and sometimes feel pressured by drivers to shift over.  Some drivers you can just see (looking behind) are likely to just keep steaming on and not move out round you properly.  The point about being further out is that gives you, the person most affected, the choice and the space to move.  Rather than relying on a driver to get "squeezing through" right.

cyclisto wrote:

... I have 3 videos proving that...

Or not.  As Fermat might have written (in translation): I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which some minds are this forum is too narrow to contain.

cyclisto wrote:

@Rendel Harris It is not a road but a motorway, so it is super dangerous to cycle anyway as cyclists aren't supposed to be there

New South Wales Roads and Waterways Department: "Cyclists are able to use the 2 to 2.5 metre shoulders on the existing sections of the. Newcastle Inner City Bypass." Which is the road on which the incident occurred.

So now the formerly unappealing gutter magically transformed into road shoulder for cyclists

It seems like a motorway to me, and in many countries (UK included) cycling is prohibited. And for good reason as it is proved by the video.

cyclisto wrote:

So now the formerly unappealing gutter magically transformed into road shoulder for cyclists

It seems like a motorway to me, and in many countries (UK included) cycling is prohibited. And for good reason as it is proved by the video.

What are you talking about? It's not the gutter, it's a 2.5M hard shoulder. It's not a motorway, it's the Australian equivalent of an A road dual carriageway, on which in the UK cycling is permitted.

Rendel Harris wrote:

 

What are you talking about? It's not the gutter, it's a 2.5M hard shoulder. It's not a motorway, it's the Australian equivalent of an A road dual carriageway, on which in the UK cycling is permitted.

https://www.oxondrivingtuitions.com/the-differences-between-motorways-an... If it has 2.5m then it is more similar to a motorway, as in the above link says that only motorways have hard shoulders.

Of course road classification is not really important, in a dual carriageway road with road barriers and grade seperated intersections that is not in dense urban enviroment with footpaths, cars will develop high speeds that are incompatible with cyclists no matter how you name it. If such roads have the added security of wide hard shoulder, cars will develop even higher speeds.

That link appears to be from a UK driving instructor firm.  You're using this in connection with regulations on roads shown in a video (apparently) from Australia?

At this point you seem to be trying to equate so many different rules and situations in different countries that I think I'd better end there or my head will explode.

I can't disagree that wide straight roads encourage drivers to go faster though.  We should be engineering our roads to manage speeds, not just sticking a number up and calling it done.  (Especially when we then ignore it when the majority of drivers are going faster than that anyway).

No, I try to do the exact opposite, implement common sense, no matter what the letter of the law says, or how things are named.

If you think it is safe riding at 20km/h when a car is overtaking you at 120km/h safe, just go and ride at motorways. If cycling is allowed at that part of the road with speed limits of 70mph speed limit, it is an accident waiting to happen.

Nothing to do with 1 abreast or 2 abreast, simply not safe to cycle on.

Why did you include that video in your list ?

I feel I've been confronted by the Chewbacca defense!

You've said that some things are illegal where you are now - like not cycling in single-file e.g. more than one abreast.  You seemed to approve of that.  Now you say common sense is more important than the law *?

EDIT - have seen your summary, thanks.

So disagree with you on (1) and don't think you've "proved" anything there whatsoever. (2) I've no idea why you've now introduced that, given no-one has demanded they should ride on a motorway, nor have you shown any examples.  For what it's worth in general I'd say it's not a good idea either.  Sadly in the UK sometimes you have to ride on roads with very high motor vehicle speed limits because there is no other route between two points - or it would involve going many times the distance). (3) No idea what relevance that has (4) Jumping a red light is a complex issue but again if people feel they need to that says that there are problems with the system.  Red lights are almost entirely not needed where there are no motorists.  So if pedestrians / cyclists are jumping them the problem is the cars (e.g. waits are too long / should have a separate route).  For motorists doing so that means not enough enforcement.

You've then brought up something about vehicles overtaking you at a much higher speed.  I've no idea what relevance that is as it doesn't seem connected with anything else here.  Including the videos - which are also irrelevant to the initial point you were making.  Although I'm no longer sure what your point is...

Leaving the topic of cycling side-by-side for a moment in an effort to follow you... I don't think that cyclists having to share space with much faster vehicles (or those going at upwards of 50 mph) is a good idea.  It isn't an automatic death sentence, albeit it can be unpleasant.  I sometimes ride recreationally in the UK countryside - where the limit is 60mph.  On long, wide and straight roads I haven't had problems as long as the cars are infrequent.  The worst experiences come as the roads get busier.  Then drivers following one behind the other can fail to notice the lead car has moved out to overtake you.  Or motorists fail to leave space to safely complete an overtake.

* Apparently you feel that riding in a position where you have reduced the space you have for manouever, where you're less visible and where it's more likely you'll hit something isn't common sense.

Now I can agree that many new cyclists might feel it was "common sense" that it's safer to be as close to the edge of the road as possible.  Also many people in general don't feel confident riding further out in the road.  And it's true that you will sometimes attract horns or even aggression from the occasional driver.  Unfortunately you will get that from a (tiny) minority of drivers in the UK no matter where / how you are riding.

The reason for cycling in such a position has been spelled out by others but I think you knew that already.

cyclisto wrote:

No, I try to do the exact opposite, implement common sense, no matter what the letter of the law says, or how things are named.

If you think it is safe riding at 20km/h when a car is overtaking you at 120km/h safe, just go and ride at motorways. If cycling is allowed at that part of the road with speed limits of 70mph speed limit, it is an accident waiting to happen.

I often ride on dual carriageways in England and whilst they may appear on first sight to be dangerous, they do have some good characteristics. Firstly, they tend to be straight, so drivers can easily see any cyclists up ahead. Secondly, they have at least two lanes going each way, so drivers are able to overtake safely using the other lane. Now, the roads that I use are generally not that long and between roundabouts, so drivers would be going a lot slower than 70mph - I'd estimate an average of 40mph.

In the UK to a majority of roads have a 60mph speed limit (so 100km/hr), at least in large parts so a potential passing speed of 45mph or more. I can't cycle more than half a mile from my front door without being on such a stretch of road (no cycle lane or pavement options even discounting the fact that pavement cycling is illegal here). Are you saying I should not be cycling full stop?

cyclisto wrote:

https://www.oxondrivingtuitions.com/the-differences-between-motorways-an... If it has 2.5m then it is more similar to a motorway, as in the above link says that only motorways have hard shoulders.

Actually the standard width of the UK motorway hard shoulder is 3.3m but in any case stop throwing out red herrings: the video in question which you say shows cyclists shouldn't have been two abreast is from Australia and they were riding on a road where, contrary to your assertion, cycling is permitted, so I'm not quite sure why you keep banging on about UK regulations.

I will try to make it simple to undestand:

1) Riding abreast seems not safe to me.

2) Riding in something that looks like a motorway also doesn't seem safe to me.

3) Two unsafe things worse than one unsafe thing.

4) Jumping a red light can be a very safe process.

cyclisto wrote:

I will try to make it simple to undestand:

1) Riding abreast seems not safe to me.

Yeah, we all understand what you're saying, it's just that none of us agree that it's in any way true. In situations where an attempted overtake is dangerous for the cyclist, taking the whole lane is objectively safer than presenting a gap that following traffic will be tempted to push through.

cyclisto wrote:

...We cannot aggree with all and unfortunately I have 3 videos proving that

I... don't think you do. You posted three clips where cyclist road-position did not contribute in any way to the incident (other than in a "wrong time, wrong place" sort of sense).

cyclisto wrote:

so please post videos caused by accidents where single file road bike group rides had accidents that might have been prevented by riding abreast and I may reconcider...

Funny you should mention this. Check out today's NMOTD featuring cyclists riding in single-file, as far over as possible being rewarded with cars barging through dangerously and nearly hitting them (which they were only able to do because the cyclists were single-file and riding as far over as possible). Two-abreast and primary keep you safe.