Is “the principal benefit of cycling achieved only by risking life and limb”? Cyclist gets lambasted for jumping traffic queue; 30km/hr speed limit for bicycles in Flanders; Van Aert trains for cyclocross in snow + more on the live blog

cyclisto wrote:

To the angry cyclist for overtaking cars the red bus, there is a great cycle path next to him.

If you had ever ridden that route, or indeed just looked carefully at the end, you would know that the cycle path is not finished, if you look near the end of the video you can see that it's blocked by signs. The intention ultimately is that one will be able to carry on straight heading west towards Southwark Park and on to Tower Bridge, but at the moment the only way to keep going is to get off the cycle path and go where the camera cyclist is going, round the one-way system.

I saw it had some obstacles that force you to stop, but I would definitely pick this route than share the road with motor traffic. The cycle path on the video is like a motorway compared to the one I use for my commute, and still prefer it than the main road.

@hawkinspeter yes tangling with pedestrians often happens, but in such cases I have to shame to overtake them by their pedestrian side.

Overall cycle paths can be a little slower, but I don't like trading speed for safety.

There was also another cyclist using it fine, go figure.

Adam Sutton wrote:

There was also another cyclist using it fine, go figure.

Please see what I wrote above, the cycle lane stops just after where the bus has stopped and the only way of progressing from there is to cross both the traffic lanes and ride in the carriageway where the rider is. Surely you of all people wouldn't be advocating that the cyclist should carry on on the pavement after the cycle lane has stopped? If you actually watch to the end of the video you will see the other "cyclist using it fine" having to come to a complete stop and wait to cross both the traffic lanes to join the camera cyclist in order to carry on their journey. This camera cyclist, by the way, is a huge advocate of that cycle lane and regularly posts videos of himself using it, if it was usable there he would be on it. 

Please see what I wrote to the point that along that busy section of road it is clearly open and being used, enabling someone cycling with a child to avoid the situation they put themselves in, at least up to that point. It's not rocket surgery.

Edit (hope that is OK) just to add, no where am I advocating cycling on the pavement, so quit strawmanning. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a set of eyes can see at the point the lane closes there is a zebra crossing that would allow them to cross safely and join the carriageway.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Please see what I wrote to the point that along that busy section of road it is clearly open and being used, enabling someone cycling with a child to avoid the situation they put themselves in, at least up to that point. It's not rocket surgery.

So a cyclist knowing that the cycle lane is coming to an end in about 50 yards must ride right up to the point at which the cycle lane ends and then across two lanes of busy traffic in order to progress, rather than perfectly legally switch to the road in advance in a safer place to do so. And if they do decide to use the road then it serves them right if they encounter motorists who are breaking the law, that will be their fault and not the motorists'?

Rendel Harris wrote:

So a cyclist knowing that the cycle lane is coming to an end in about 50 yards must ride right up to the point at which the cycle lane ends and then across two lanes of busy traffic in order to progress, rather than perfectly legally switch to the road in advance in a safer place to do so. And if they do decide to use the road then it serves them right if they encounter motorists who are breaking the law, that will be their fault and not the motorists'?

Maybe the motorists want to punish cyclists that look ahead and anticipate problems? They're probably envious as they can only see up to the car in front and no further.

Please point out where I have said they "must" use the cycle lane?

As the highway code states, and am sure you are aware?

"Rule 61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them."

As noted there is a perfectly usable section of cycle lane that would avoid that section of road and the conflict. This situation ultimately isn't even about them being on a bike, in a car you often face the same impatience. So why as a more vulnerable road user put yourself in that situation in the first place, and then even try and force your way through? 

I also take back what I said about it being someone with a child, on second look it was another adult and the camera cyclists passed them with oncoming traffic like an absolute dick.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Edit (hope that is OK) just to add, no where am I advocating cycling on the pavement, so quit strawmanning. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a set of eyes can see at the point the lane closes there is a zebra crossing that would allow them to cross safely and join the carriageway.

So, to use that zebra crossing cyclists would have to dismount, push twenty yards up the pavement to the zebra crossing, cross over the first zebra to the island, wait for someone to stop for them on the second zebra, cross over again and then push further down the road to find a safe place to rejoin, rather than join the carriageway perfectly legally and safely a little further down. Why exactly should they have to do this, so that motorists can carry on using the oncoming traffic lane to overtake the bus instead of waiting a few seconds themselves? Extraordinary how ingrained it is in the minds of some people that the car is king and that cyclists should be doing everything possible to stay out of their way, to the extent of eschewing perfectly safe (if motorists are prepared to follow the law) legal and sensible riding practices in order to expose themselves to considerable inconvenience just in case they get in the way of any motorists who decide that they would like to break the laws regarding overtaking.

Rendel Harris wrote:

So, to use that zebra crossing cyclists would have to dismount, push twenty yards up the pavement to the zebra crossing, cross over the first zebra to the island, wait for someone to stop for them on the second zebra, cross over again and then push further down the road to find a safe place to rejoin, rather than join the carriageway perfectly legally and safely a little further down. Why exactly should they have to do this, so that motorists can carry on using the oncoming traffic lane to overtake the bus instead of waiting a few seconds themselves? Extraordinary how ingrained it is in the minds of some people that the car is king and that cyclists should be doing everything possible to stay out of their way, to the extent of eschewing perfectly safe (if motorists are prepared to follow the law) legal and sensible riding practices in order to expose themselves to considerable inconvenience just in case they get in the way of any motorists who decide that they would like to break the laws regarding overtaking.

And your point is? Sometimes, it makes sense to do this. Unless you want a bit of fame on X formerly twatter I guess.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Adam Sutton wrote:

There was also another cyclist using it fine, go figure.

Please see what I wrote above, the cycle lane stops just after where the bus has stopped and the only way of progressing from there is to cross both the traffic lanes and ride in the carriageway where the rider is. Surely you of all people wouldn't be advocating that the cyclist should carry on on the pavement after the cycle lane has stopped? If you actually watch to the end of the video you will see the other "cyclist using it fine" having to come to a complete stop and wait to cross both the traffic lanes to join the camera cyclist in order to carry on their journey. This camera cyclist, by the way, is a huge advocate of that cycle lane and regularly posts videos of himself using it, if it was usable there he would be on it. 

Thanks for showing the cyclist using it. 

Adam Sutton wrote:

Thanks for showing the cyclist using it. 

You're welcome, it also shows the cyclist having to come to a complete stop and wait to continue their journey whilst the camera cyclist, even though impeded by the motorists making an illegal overtake on the bus, carries on their journey.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You're welcome, it also shows the cyclist having to come to a complete stop and wait to continue their journey whilst the camera cyclist, even though impeded by the motorists making an illegal overtake on the bus, carries on their journey.

Oh good grief having to stop! Same as you would at junctions, lights and crossings. Sometimes you have to stop. Again, none of this is rocket surgery. It's a little long forgotten thing called common sense.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Oh good grief having to stop! Same as you would at junctions, lights and crossings. Sometimes you have to stop. Again, none of this is rocket surgery. It's a little long forgotten thing called common sense.

You have to stop a lot commuting along that path, so why would you add to the amount of time you have to stop when there is a perfectly legal and (if the drivers were driving legally) safe alternative to use on the road? It's so telling of your attitude towards cyclists and cycling that you have made six posts on this issue castigating the cyclist for their perfectly legal behaviour and you have not mentioned a single time the motorists driving illegally.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You have to stop a lot commuting along that path, so why would you add to the amount of time you have to stop when there is a perfectly legal and (if the drivers were driving legally) safe alternative to use on the road? It's so telling of your attitude towards cyclists and cycling that you have made six posts on this issue castigating the cyclist for their perfectly legal behaviour and you have not mentioned a single time the motorists driving illegally.

Actually all I did at the start was point out that the cycle lane was usable. I have expressed an opinion that it would be preferable in that given situation. The only comment I have made that could be claimed to be "castigation" is their poor pass of the other cyclist.

You have once again come back with straw man arguments, and once again are insistent that I have an attitude against cyclists. 

Yes the drivers are pulling an illegal pass, that much is bleedin' obvious and doesn't actually need to be stated, hence my comment;

"This situation ultimately isn't even about them being on a bike, in a car you often face the same impatience. So why as a more vulnerable road user put yourself in that situation in the first place, and then even try and force your way through? "

It is little more than opinion and is as valid as yours, please take that bug out your arse you seem to have towards me. 

Adam, at some point you realise that all Rendel is here for is to argue, and promote traffic to the site as part of the road.cc staff. 

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Adam, at some point you realise that all Rendel is here for is to argue, and promote traffic to the site as part of the road.cc staff. 

road.cc editors, as I've been a part of your staff for so long can somebody tell me where my paycheque is please?

Get well soon Loser. xxx

Adam Sutton wrote:

please take that bug out your arse you seem to have towards me. 

Charming expression. Perhaps when you take the elephant-sized one you have about cyclists going about their lawful occasions on the road out of yours?

Truth hurts I guess. And apologies for merely mentioning a usable cycle lane, had I known it would trigger you so much I wouldn't have.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Oh good grief having to stop! Same as you would at junctions, lights and crossings. Sometimes you have to stop. Again, none of this is rocket surgery. It's a little long forgotten thing called common sense.

Common sense like not overtaking a bus when there's a cyclist approaching and an overtake would be dangerous or at least force the cyclist to stop to avoid a collision?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Common sense like not overtaking a bus when there's a cyclist approaching and an overtake would be dangerous or at least force the cyclist to stop to avoid a collision?

What's your point? I am not denying that, common sense by and large has gone out the window and is why either cycling or driving I use a camera.

Adam Sutton wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Common sense like not overtaking a bus when there's a cyclist approaching and an overtake would be dangerous or at least force the cyclist to stop to avoid a collision?

What's your point? I am not denying that, common sense by and large has gone out the window and is why either cycling or driving I use a camera.

My point is that you're only calling for "common sense" from the cyclist when the far more appropriate (and useful) response is that the illegal overtaking is the problem. "Common sense" would be the cyclist assuming that the public road was for use by all traffic and not be put in danger by self-entitled motorists who can't even wait for a couple of seconds. On one side you have safe, reasonable behaviour and on the other side you have dangerous selfish behaviour and you seem to think that it's the cyclist that needs to change.

hawkinspeter wrote:

My point is that you're only calling for "common sense" from the cyclist when the far more appropriate (and useful) response is that the illegal overtaking is the problem. "Common sense" would be the cyclist assuming that the public road was for use by all traffic and not be put in danger by self-entitled motorists who can't even wait for a couple of seconds. On one side you have safe, reasonable behaviour and on the other side you have dangerous selfish behaviour and you seem to think that it's the cyclist that needs to change.

I haven't really, but whatever straw man helps you and Rendy out, sure. 

In terms of "common sense" This is nothing more than having the sense to use a route that has the least risk. Same as on my commute I take a route that probably add about 1-2 miles, but both misses a big hill (so timewise not much different) and also a main road that is heavily used by HGV traffic. Sure it is perfectly legal and right that someone could use that route, but common sense would avoid it.

This article is from the cycilsts perspective, is it not? So expect a viewpoint from that perspective. 

Adam Sutton wrote:

I haven't really, but whatever straw man helps you and Rendy out, sure. 

In terms of "common sense" This is nothing more than having the sense to use a route that has the least risk. Same as on my commute I take a route that probably add about 1-2 miles, but both misses a big hill (so timewise not much different) and also a main road that is heavily used by HGV traffic. Sure it is perfectly legal and right that someone could use that route, but common sense would avoid it.

This article is from the cycilsts perspective, is it not? So expect a viewpoint from that perspective. 

Have I misunderstood you? I'm not intending to build a straw man and don't see that I am.

You made a comment about the cyclist using the bike lane and having to stop frequently being "common sense" and I responded that the best use of common sense would be by the motorists - after all it's the motorists that are causing the issue and the danger.

Anyhow, there's often a trade-off between safety and convenience and people will have different appetites for perceived danger. If you prefer to stick to bike lanes, then that's fine and dandy, but it smacks of victim blaming to decry a cyclist using the road as the being dangerous when the danger is entirely manufactured by poor driving. Yes it happens and the cyclist avoided a collision, but not everyone wants to take a different route just because traffic laws are poorly enforced.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Have I misunderstood you? I'm not intending to build a straw man and don't see that I am.

You made a comment about the cyclist using the bike lane and having to stop frequently being "common sense" and I responded that the best use of common sense would be by the motorists - after all it's the motorists that are causing the issue and the danger.

Anyhow, there's often a trade-off between safety and convenience and people will have different appetites for perceived danger. If you prefer to stick to bike lanes, then that's fine and dandy, but it smacks of victim blaming to decry a cyclist using the road as the being dangerous when the danger is entirely manufactured by poor driving. Yes it happens and the cyclist avoided a collision, but not everyone wants to take a different route just because traffic laws are poorly enforced.

I am hardly "decrying" or "victim blaming" jesus wept. 

As you just stated "people will have different appetites for perceived danger." All I have done is point out the cycle lane was clearly usable along that stretch and could avoid the situation.

Adam Sutton wrote:

I am hardly "decrying" or "victim blaming" jesus wept. 

As you just stated "people will have different appetites for perceived danger." All I have done is point out the cycle lane was clearly usable along that stretch and could avoid the situation.

But you did write this:

Adam Sutton wrote:

As noted there is a perfectly usable section of cycle lane that would avoid that section of road and the conflict. This situation ultimately isn't even about them being on a bike, in a car you often face the same impatience. So why as a more vulnerable road user put yourself in that situation in the first place, and then even try and force your way through?

I'm simply pointing out the asymmetry in your treatment of cyclists and motorists. If a motorist had to emergency brake because some idiot was overtaking a bus stupidly, then would you be pointing out that there's other routes that they could have been driving?

You're questioning the judgement of the cyclist for daring to use the road and the only problem with taking that route is the actions of one particular motorist. Do you see why I would interpret your comment as victim blaming?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Do you see why I would interpret your comment as victim blaming?

Yes I do, because like Rendy you cannot simply accept a simple statement or viewpoint that differs from your own hard set viewpoints, and therefore have to create counterpoints to things you want me to have said and blow things out of proportion.

I am going to end this by simply stating in reference to one of the tangents that has been locked on repeatedly. With regards expecting a cyclists to stop, dismount and rejoin the carriageway utilizing the crossing. The very fact that there is a crossing there means there is a degree of probabilty that cycling on the road you would have to stop, so this is hardly the huge incovenience it is being touted as.