[Shades]

Have a mate who is part of our wider cycling gang; he’s taken early retirement and heard he was really frustrated with the Covid restrictions as he has a small holiday flat in Germany and can’t pursue his various plans.  My comment was why hadn’t he gone out on some long rides etc; then I was told he’d stopped, because he was sick of UK roads (safety), and was just going to cycle when he’s out in Germany (which he always raves about).  I was initially bemused but then, having almost being totalled on 2 rides recently (oncoming driver speeding on a lane and another speeding/not paying attention whilst I was trying to turn right off an A road; I’ve really lost my nerve when trying that manoeuvre), I kind of sympathised.  Realised that pre-WFH etc a lot of my miles were commuting on the Bristol/Bath bike path and quiet urban roads, so I was probably slightly cossetted.  I generally steer clear of A roads but, mid-week especially, the roads are like the wild-west post lockdown.  Apart from group rides I’ve now got front/back cameras so I could hardly criticise my mate for just being aware of his own mortality.

Topic

[wycombewheeler]

hirsute wrote:

“might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. “

They are, or rather a potential hazard which gets filtered out rapidly leaving the ones you know by experience are a developing hazard even if you can’t immediately say why.

how would that go down on a hazard identification test? clicking every car. Somehow I don’t think that would be a pass.

[wycombewheeler]

Dave Dave wrote:

That behaviour is against the rules of the road for good reason. The congestion people like you cause is ridiculously unnecessary – priorities are that way for a reason.

no it isn’t, the rules of the road tell us who has priority by default, they do not prohibit yielding priority to others. In your ideal world side streets would be constantly blocked during rush hour as no one would ever let anyone out regardless of traffic conditions.

Pedestrians crossing side roads routinely yield to drivers turning in despite the wording of rule 170 either because they (like most drivers) are unaware or because they do not trust drivers to follow the clearly laid out priority as per the highway code.

[wycombewheeler]

I guess I’m thinking about a

I guess I’m thinking about a driving safety course where a cyclist on the other side of the road was expected to be flagged as a hazard. Why? there is plenty of gap between me and the cyclist going in the other direction, meanwhile it was obviously not expected to identify every other car on the road as a hazard despite the fact they are more likely to turn across your path despite priority and more likely to do you damage in a collision.

just flagging cyclists as different, unpredictable and dangerous in all situations leads drivers to believe they shouldn’t be there.

In your example the parked cars are the hazard as

a) they obscure the view of anyone needing to cross and drivers approaching those people

b) doors may be opened at any time.

The cyclist is not the hazard, they are just another road user. In all my years of driving I think I’ve had one incident with a cyclist doing something alarming (BMX teenager shooting across a roundabout in front of me) and far too many instances to count of another driver doing something fundamentally stupid which neaded me to take evasive action. But yeah those cyclists they are dangerous look out for them.

As a driver I have never felt endangered or had an altercation with a cyclist

As a cylist far too many times to mention with drivers.

I don’t think it’s because I cycle in a less safe manner than I drive, why would I endanger my own life? So therefore it is the actions of drivers being considerably worse than those of cyclists. 

 

 

[kil0ran]

Sorry, that’s bollocks.

Sorry, that’s bollocks. Slowing to let people out of side roads or pedestrians cross does not cause congestion. It keeps everyone moving. Same as letting drivers filter on slip roads. Or, for that matter, letting cyclists and motorcyclists filter through queuing traffic.

[Dave Dave]

That behaviour is against the

That behaviour is against the rules of the road for good reason. The congestion people like you cause is ridiculously unnecessary – priorities are that way for a reason.

[Hirsute]

“might as well flag up every

“might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. “

They are, or rather a potential hazard which gets filtered out rapidly leaving the ones you know by experience are a developing hazard even if you can’t immediately say why.

[jh2727]

wycombewheeler wrote:

I agree with not classifying cyclists as hazards, cyclists do not generally do unpredictable things, they are just road users going about their business, might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. 

They don’t require the same level of attention as children or animals, just a reasonable amount of space and some patience.

‘not generally’ is the key point here. Safe driving isn’t about ‘generally’ safe driving.

If there are parked cars on each side of the road and only a 3 metre gap it is ‘generally’ safe for the cyclist to squeeze as close to the parked vehicles as possible and for an overtaking motorist to sqeeze their car through remaining gap – it’s ‘generally’ safe for an oncoming motorist to continue at 30mph without even thinking about slowing down.  There won’t generally be:

• someone opeing a car door
• a child or dog emerging from between parked vehicles
• a cat or squirrel emerging from under a parked vehicle
• someone stepping out from behind a parked van

Because these things don’t generally happen, too many motorists do not regard the cyclist as a hazard.

This is why positioning is vitally important – it communicates immediately to motorists that you are a hazard and they need to take avoiding action immediately. Thinking time is very limited and often too much of it is wasted by drivers either thinking ‘can I squeeze through’.

[jh2727]

Dave Dave wrote:

Given the prevalence of drivers who think they’re being nice by letting in one car from a side street, without noticing the fifteen cars behind them they’re holding up, it’s clear there are large numbers of drivers who never see anything behind their A-pillar.

If I’m driving and there’s 15 cars behind me and someone is waiting to pull out, or pedestrians waiting to cross the road, then (9 times out of 10) I’m going to slow or stop to let them (after checking my mirrors).  If there’s 3 or 4 cars, then they’ll probably soon get the chance – but when it’s 15 cars, that’s going to be a constant stream and they aren’t going to be able to pull out or cross the road until someone lets them – and I will almost certainly catchup with the traffic in less than 30 seconds.

[bobrayner]

It’s not 100% “safety”, but

It’s not 100% “safety”, but that was a big factor in my gradual switch from road to gravel; I just don’t enjoy the traffic and the occasional near-miss. (A different reason is that gravel riding gets you a bit closer to scenery & wildlife).

My better half worries a lot more about safety, so she quietly encourages the shift. (She rides the safest place of all; indoors, on a Peloton). 

Of course I still do a few miles on a busy A-road to get to an interesting farm-track or bridleway.

It would be a different matter if I ever go back to office-based work – rush hour urban traffic feels much less safe but on the other hand it’s harder to pick a quietly scenic alternative route unless you’re really lucky with your locations.

[EK Spinner]

definety 2 up to keep the

definety 2 up to keep the group length short, not so sure on the splitting up. quite happy for a group to be 10 strong, once it reaches 20 (oh for a club run to be that big) then its probably better to be in 2 groups and by that size there is probably a natural split for a slow and fast group. With 15 riders its kinda in the middle.

I think the worst is a group that is split into lots of 1s 2s and 3s with 4 or 5 bike lengths between them.

the worst I have seen was a an entry level triathlon with staggered starts (for the swim leg in a pool) and the bike leg had about 3 miles where the out and in legs were on the same road, there were riders everywhere at everyspeed (from TT bikes to mountain bikes) all 2-3 lengths apart on both sides of the road. I was in the car and had quick riders wanting past while I didn’t want to overtake with oncoming riders obvs

[PRSboy]

I’m not at a point yet where

I’m not at a point yet where I would abandon road cycling, but road conditions in my part of SE England are certainly detracting more.  As BB King said, “The thrill is gone…”  

However, whilst drivers are often the cause, local authorities have to shoulder a lot of blame also as I spend as much, if not more time worrying about potholes and other dangerous road damage, or ludicrous ‘traffic calming’ measures that deliberately introduce congestion, conflict and danger between road users.  In addition, roads have become significantly busier due to housing development.

In contrast, I am lucky enough to cycle a lot in west Wales, where drivers are generally courteous, cautious and the relatively quiet roads are like billiard tables.

[Dave Dave]

giff77 wrote:

I’m not entirely happy with the thinking that vulnerable road users be treated as ‘hazzards’. 

But they are. That’s the term we use. Your own ideas about what ‘hazard’ should mean don’t come into it when it’s already clearly defined.

[Dave Dave]

Captain Badger wrote:

giff77 wrote:

I’m not entirely happy with the thinking that vulnerable road users be treated as ‘hazzards’. To me it only reinforces the negative point of view that a considerable number of motorists have towards those who opt for active travel. 

You are absolutely correct. The most commonly used definition of hazard in H&S terms is:

‘A Hazard is a potential source of harm or adverse health effect on a person or persons’

This definition clearly cannot apply to vulnerable road users when viewed from the driver’s seat. From a driver’s perspective vulnerable road users are most definitely not hazards, as the driver is not at risk. In fact when we drive we are the hazard, and a serious one at that. It is this form of thinking that needs to be hammered home when training new drivers, retraining existing drivers, and indeed when deciding wider road policy.

Of course it does matter on perspective – from a peds point of view a cyclist may be considered a hazard, albeit a minor one ( the likelihood of harm is small, as is the likely seriousness of that harm), which we must remember when in the saddle, and most of us do, if only for that fact that when things go wrong we get hurt too.

To me all driving matters should fall under Health and safety laws, as they are currently the most appropriate legislation to deal the regulation required re training, licencing, risk assessment etc – most drivers that pose a serious risk aren’t deliberately dangerous, just incompetent, but in H&S terms that would mean that they aren’t allowed to drive.

This doesn’t mean that RTA is redundant, there is no reason that the two acts can’t run in parallel. They most certainly do when applied to commercial activity, and there is little contradiction as the RTA applies to specific behaviour on the road, whereas HASAW applies to planning and control. Without the latter the former is merely a sticking plaster.

Utterly daft, irrelevant semantics. ‘Hazard’ has a specific meaning in this context. A child on the side of the road is a ‘hazard’. It is something that requires special attention from a driver, no more and no less.

https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test

[wtjs]

there’s a really sinister

there’s a really sinister human right/sense of entitlement attitude associated with UK driving these days; almost a bit like gun ownership in the USA

I have just returned from 4 days cycle camping in the Lakes and North Pennines in rather hot weather and barmy Bank Holiday traffic. It is my duty to report what actually happened to me and my trailer: no very close passes and a lot of reasonable driving on sometimes crowded roads. I also witnessed a motorcyclist coming off and just missing me as he slid along the road. He was, surprisingly, unharmed but there was a lot of damage to a shiny new bike- it was still rideable. He was riding perfectly sensibly- what fixed him was a trail of diesel which began only 10 yards before he came off. It will have been an agricultural offender- it always is round here.

[Shades]

I was heading out in the car

I was heading out in the car (+ 2 others & bikes) to a cycling meet-up (on a weekend) and came across a club ride; 15ish riders all strung out so it was v difficult to overtake; hence a significant tailback of cars.  One of our group remarked this was bad club riding (I wasn’t sure what else the riders could do) but they said that they should be in pairs (abreast) leaving gaps to allow the cars to overtake (hop between gaps); must admit I hadn’t heard that one before but they do ride weekly with a large local club so I wasn’t going to disagree.  The cars were being pretty patient (ref overtaking) but I did think that mid-week (cue the commuters) that wouldn’t have been the case!

[Author]

Replies