[Secret_squirrel]

Friendly warning.  Ashley Neal’s gone full on troll (if he wasnt already).  If you havent seen his latest piece of them and us trash I’d block him before your blood pressure goes up like mine.

Do a favour and dont link it on here. (though Im sure it will be on the live blog soon).

Topic

[chrisonabike]

Well clearly despair, because

Well clearly despair, because you can see how it’s lead to hell-on-earth for drivers and totally ruined it for the roadies (like this) – what with all those unskilled incompetent people wobbling about slowly on bikes…

Luckily I still prefer hills as there isn’t enough time to replicate that in my remaining likely lifespan.  Even if we got cracking right now.  However the current standard is so low in the UK we can make things *much* better without the same level of effort.  Just as long as we start making some effort – or if we are then quite a bit more than currently!

[chrisonabike]

“BUT I had to drive! (which

“BUT I had to drive! (which is totally legal, nay encouraged, and I have to pass the test, pay road tax, fuel is really expensive now etc.) AND then some idiot threw themselves under my car and (because I’m a decent human being) I’ve got PTSD”.

I’m also not sure this is – on balance – a great one to illustrate his point.

On the general point – do people run red lights?  Yes.  Do drivers (or even cyclists!) hit others when it wasn’t their fault?  Almost certainly.  He said he’s had this happen with both family and pupils.  Powerful anecdata and also will definitely have engaged his emotion on the subject.  That says nothing about the right / wrong of the incidents of course (none of which we have the details of).  However I do think it’s worth considering where some of the force of people’s argument is coming from.  That means that if you disagree – e.g. about how important this is, about what to do about it – you may avoid a shouting match.  With someone who may feel they’re talking on the basis of personal experience while you’re talking out of your hat.

[HoarseMann]

I just think his plea to

I just think his plea to think of the nightmares your mangled cyclist body will give the driver who runs you over is a bit odd. Just the thought of a driver mangling my body is enough for me to cycle carefully.

I don’t think this video is a good example of reckless red light jumping, as I really do think this was a confused cyclist who made an understandable mistake due to appalling junction design.

If anything it should have been a plea for this junction to be improved and a reminder that lower speeds result in less severe collisions. Plus a thought that whenever you get behind the wheel, your choice to drive a dangerous vehicle could end someones life, even if you are driving carefully. It’s rare, but it can happen. It’s a bit like the risk/benefit of flying abroad on holiday.

[chrisonabike]

With the planter and clutter

 

With the planter and clutter in place and ignoring “jumped or didn’t jump” * – is there some lethal combination of “fixed bearing, decreasing range” here where the parties remain hidden from each other?  In practice I think that the curve and turn could have this effect, particularly if a car was approaching faster.

In this particular incident I don’t think that is technically the case.  Most obviously from the video you can see the cyclist’s front light clearly for a second or two at one point.  However you need to be watching for it as Ashley says.  And both parties are likely focussed in a different direction.  I think Ashely’s quite right about the driver’s perspective here.  I also think the cyclist would be: (a) concentrating on crossing the tramlines (b) the right-to-left manoever – since this apparently puts you across the width of a lane I suspect they might be looking behind and to their left in case a car was coming through and going straight on.

Anyway, luckily “red light jumpers” so we can all move on…  If only they’d not had a light or a helmet though.

* Ashley is obviously going for “scofflaw” here – “left it very late”.  However in favour of the “missed” interpretation is that the cyclist appears to be completely surprised to see the car there.  They seem to be pootling along rather than on a mission or looking out for vehicles to ensure they “get away with it”. Of course you could argue that they saw the pedestrians crossing the road as they committed, assumed the coast was clear and thought no further…

[NOtotheEU]

My ego wouldn’t let me add

My ego wouldn’t let me add age to the reasons I now prefer risers.

Those Dutch videos always fill me with equal measures of joy and despair.

[chrisonabike]

That’s some fine MS Paint

That’s some fine MS Paint skills there!  Have a digital crayon!

It’s still an awful mess that way but improving the visibility and having an actual signal would seem to help.  Having said that, is it still “too many things – adding more things won’t make it clearer?”

I can’t remember whether this was in one of Spokes’ (repeated) responses to the Council here.  As before it’s even more difficult dealing with the issues for “tram – we said we’d be back” now because (a) tram is still an arms-length company and (b) minority council

[Awavey]

whats the point ? if he

whats the point ? if he doesnt understand “dropped bar bikes” that much, I really cant be bothered to explain to him in how many ways he is wrong.

[HoarseMann]

Right. I’ve used my

Right. I’ve used my rudimentary GIMP skills to add another set of traffic lamps in place of that massive planter. This is what I would expect it to look like:

[HoarseMann]

yep! Took you a bit longer to

yep! Took you a bit longer to post doing all those fancy graphics 🙂

I think the traffic lights here will not conform to standards. It’s a mess.

[chrisonabike]

As I age “heads-up” (on

As I age “heads-up” (on recumbent or upright) becomes more and more appealing.  Especially in traffic: but looking up and out at the world without flexing your neck is just more cheerful in general.

Seems quite a few millions agree – albeit they’re mostly not “cyclists”…

Sadly I’m back to slightly heads-down through this area currently as I wouldn’t take the recumbent there (it isn’t very happy in heavy traffic nor on obstacle courses) and my nice new flat-bar hybrid was an early Christmas present to some thief last year…

[chrisonabike]

Who is?

Who is?

[chrisonabike]

Snap!

Snap!

[NOtotheEU]

jaysa wrote:

the only thing I disagree with is Ash’s comment that drop handlebars aren’t suitable for city work, because the brakes are hard to reach (of course they’re not).

I laughed out loud when he said that as I imagined the reaction of most Road.cc readers who aren’t too impressed by Ashley at the best of times and feeling a little smug that i ride with riser bars. 

Personally I feel a lot more in control with them in traffic than when I used drops but that is nothing to do with the brakes and more to do with riding position and leverage.

[chrisonabike]

Finally: “Dropped bar bikes

Finally: “Dropped bar bikes not suitable for this kind of road use.”  I think with that one phrase he’ll have the road.cc collective about his ears…

[chrisonabike]

So I think I understand this.

So I think I understand this.  Asheley’s got an emotional connection to an issue here.  So I can even understand the repeated phrase (which sounds really odd to me) “innocently killed”.

For all I know these could all be “tragic accidents” or “someone not paying attention / following the rules made themselves a casualty”.  Probably this is likely to be a feature of your experience as a professional driver (especially a driving instructor) – because you’ll often be meeting the surviving / uninjured party.  Although drivers kill and injure lots of other drivers too…

His business is with the drivers – they’re his paying customers.   So it doesn’t surprise me that he’s then on to “how to claim compensation / defend yourself”.  Plus he doesn’t build the roads.  However I’m not happy that we should be leaving things at this point.

I think there’s a better way of approaching our road infrastructure, rules and systems.  Firstly some of these turn out not to seem like “accidents” once someone does some cursory investigation (hello Roadpeace’s harrowing videos on the subject).  “Police it better” is still not enough – law of diminishing returns there also.  Secondly we know that humans as a group fail in particular ways.  We know that they also break the rules.  We have a reasonable understanding of the conditions which encourage these problems.  If we want fewer deaths and injuries – and more pleasant transport – we should be putting aside designing for motor vehicle throughput.  We should police better, yes, but we must take on a system which prioritises moving people, safely, making allowances for them being human.

[Author]

Replies