Cyclists: Rules of the road apply to you too

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What's damaging young Dutch backs is too much time on computer games, reportedly: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/warning-of-spine-damage-to-young-from-computer-games-1.1491109

There's a simple solution to the problem of heavy schoolbags, imo. Bicycle panniers.

You just wait for 7 years, think you might be in for a shock!

Surveyor11

Those canny Dutch seem to have it well covered in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrQ-d2PBUto

Some common sense like lockers for books that can be left would surely go a long way? I'll see if I can root out a video of Dutch school kids putting their books in them. :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Those canny Dutch seem to have it well covered in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrQ-d2PBUto

Some common sense like lockers for books that can be left would surely go a long way? I'll see if I can root out a video of Dutch school kids putting their books in them. :rolleyes:

Been there, got the T-Shirt, you only need wait for 5-6 years to find out

Surveyor11

Spook_ie wrote: »

Been there, got the T-Shirt, you only need wait for 5-6 years to find out

Find out what? About the volume of books? So surely we can sort this problem out, if it's the reason kids need to be ferried a half mile to school.

If it's a case that it can't be sorted, I would have no issue sending my child the mile or so to school with panniers on his bike to carry these.

KwackerJack

Any cyclist who breaks a red light is a bit on the stupid side me thinks.

Cyclist v car = scratch on car and person wrapped around bicycle....its simple really.

Cycling 2 abreast on a straight road is fine but on twisty roads your asking for trouble.

A car is travelling on an 80kph doing 80kph road and the driver comes around a blind bend to find the Sunday cyclist cruising at a fine speed of 15mph. He/she glances ahead to see a big truck swaying as it tries to brake knowing that the car is in a sticky situation...So while braking hard the car driver has to decide where to go, left into a ditch or wall or right into a 20 ton truck or just go straight through the middle!

Now say he was only doing 70kph or even 60kph, the driver will still have the same issues so if a crash were to occur who is at fault?

Well id say the cyclist's ( if any lived) will tell me I'm wrong

Before we hear this right to cycle blaa blaa it doesn't matter as feck all people obey the politically correct rules. If your walking along a road your not going to walk 4/5 abreast and expect people to drive around you because you know its to dangerous so why do it on a bike travelling at 15 mph when everyone else is doing 50/60 mph

Another thing I never leave home on my bike without leathers and back protector. I would never dream of it, never mind go out on a push bike baked into lycra.

We don't want to ban cyclist we just want you to use common sense and road safety to protect yourself and others!

Oh and what do cyclists think about pedestrians on roads???

Spook_ie

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Find out what? About the volume of books? So surely we can sort this problem out, if it's the reason kids need to be ferried a half mile to school.

If it's a case that it can't be sorted, I would have no issue sending my child the mile of school to school with panniers on his bike to carry these.

Until your child is attending secondary school you have no idea of the logistics involved, when you do then you can validate/invalidate arguments about book volumes etc. When my children were in junior schools the most they carried was a pencil case, a sandwich box, a drink, and 2 or 3 project books, the whole lot would fit into a messenger type bag

RossieMan

KwackerJack wrote: »

Any cyclist who breaks a red light is a bit on the stupid side me thinks.

Cyclist v car = scratch on car and person wrapped around bicycle....its simple really.

Cycling 2 abreast on a straight road is fine but on twisty roads your asking for trouble.

A car is travelling on an 80kph doing 80kph road and the driver comes around a blind bend to find the Sunday cyclist cruising at a fine speed of 15mph. He/she glances ahead to see a big truck swaying as it tries to brake knowing that the car is in a sticky situation...So while braking hard the car driver has to decide where to go, left into a ditch or wall or right into a 20 ton truck or just go straight through the middle!

Now say he was only doing 70kph or even 60kph, the driver will still have the same issues so if a crash were to occur who is at fault?

Well id say the cyclist's ( if any lived) will tell me I'm wrong

Before we hear this right to cycle blaa blaa it doesn't matter as feck all people obey the politically correct rules. If your walking along a road your not going to walk 4/5 abreast and expect people to drive around you because you know its to dangerous so why do it on a bike travelling at 15 mph when everyone else is doing 50/60 mph

Another thing I never leave home on my bike without leathers and back protector. I would never dream of it, never mind go out on a push bike baked into lycra.

We don't want to ban cyclist we just want you to use common sense and road safety to protect yourself and others!

Oh and what do cyclists think about pedestrians on roads???

you're not getting the point. It shouldn't matter if they cycle 2 abreast. The same space should be given to a single cyclist as 2 cyclists.

People pass even when cars are coming the other way, and you get squeezed into a ditch and i myself have nearly fell off a few times due to this. It only takes 10 seconds to slow down, wait, then pass out. Not a whole pile to ask i think.

KwackerJack

KwackerJack wrote: »

Any cyclist who breaks a red light is a bit on the stupid side me thinks.

Cyclist v car = scratch on car and person wrapped around bicycle....its simple really.

Cycling 2 abreast on a straight road is fine but on twisty roads your asking for trouble.

A car is travelling on an 80kph doing 80kph road and the driver comes around a blind bend to find the Sunday cyclist cruising at a fine speed of 15mph. He/she glances ahead to see a big truck swaying as it tries to brake knowing that the car is in a sticky situation...So while braking hard the car driver has to decide where to go, left into a ditch or wall or right into a 20 ton truck or just go straight through the middle!

Now say he was only doing 70kph or even 60kph, the driver will still have the same issues so if a crash were to occur who is at fault?

Well id say the cyclist's ( if any lived) will tell me I'm wrong

Before we hear this right to cycle blaa blaa it doesn't matter as feck all people obey the politically correct rules. If your walking along a road your not going to walk 4/5 abreast and expect people to drive around you because you know its to dangerous so why do it on a bike travelling at 15 mph when everyone else is doing 50/60 mph

Another thing I never leave home on my bike without leathers and back protector. I would never dream of it, never mind go out on a push bike baked into lycra.

We don't want to ban cyclist we just want you to use common sense and road safety to protect yourself and others!

Oh and what do cyclists think about pedestrians on roads???

Go and dig out the rules of the road, look up the "2 second rule", read it and understand it.

If a corner is truly 'blind' then there's no way on earth you should be going around it at 80kph, in that situation you should ALWAYS be slowing well down in the knowledge that you have no idea what is around it.

Learn to drive - you are obviously a danger to yourself and others

Surveyor11

Spook_ie wrote: »

Until your child is attending secondary school you have no idea of the logistics involved, when you do then you can validate/invalidate arguments about book volumes etc. When my children were in junior schools the most they carried was a pencil case, a sandwich box, a drink, and 2 or 3 project books, the whole lot would fit into a messenger type bag

I have thought of this, my child will cycle the mile to school with a back pack and if the volume of books is huge, he will be using panniers.

Surveyor11

KwackerJack wrote: »

Any cyclist who breaks a red light is a bit on the stupid side me thinks.

Cyclist v car = scratch on car and person wrapped around bicycle....its simple really.

Cycling 2 abreast on a straight road is fine but on twisty roads your asking for trouble.

A car is travelling on an 80kph doing 80kph road and the driver comes around a blind bend to find the Sunday cyclist cruising at a fine speed of 15mph. He/she glances ahead to see a big truck swaying as it tries to brake knowing that the car is in a sticky situation...So while braking hard the car driver has to decide where to go, left into a ditch or wall or right into a 20 ton truck or just go straight through the middle!

Now say he was only doing 70kph or even 60kph, the driver will still have the same issues so if a crash were to occur who is at fault?

Well id say the cyclist's ( if any lived) will tell me I'm wrong

Before we hear this right to cycle blaa blaa it doesn't matter as feck all people obey the politically correct rules. If your walking along a road your not going to walk 4/5 abreast and expect people to drive around you because you know its to dangerous so why do it on a bike travelling at 15 mph when everyone else is doing 50/60 mph

Another thing I never leave home on my bike without leathers and back protector. I would never dream of it, never mind go out on a push bike baked into lycra.

We don't want to ban cyclist we just want you to use common sense and road safety to protect yourself and others!

Oh and what do cyclists think about pedestrians on roads???

yeah, had plenty of that back at Kilbride on Sunday coming back from our spin. The sheer stupidity of drivers overtaking was mind blowing - into the path of oncoming cars, almost clipping us (we were in single file BTW) and overtaking on blind corners. Why can't people in this country just chill out behind the wheel? What could be so urgent as to risk the lives of fellow drivers and cyclists? Why so motorists think it is cyclists that are causing the danger - we were in single file, I even had a 1vewry bright flashing light on the back, but that still didn't put off those determined to cause needless danger.

TheChizler

Deleted User wrote: »

Go and dig out the rules of the road, look up the "2 second rule", read it and understand it.

If a corner is truly 'blind' then there's no way on earth you should be going around it at 80kph, in that situation you should ALWAYS be slowing well down in the knowledge that you have no idea what is around it.

Learn to drive - you are obviously a danger to yourself and others

I've said it multiple times, drive as if someone has built a brick wall around the next corner.

jimmycrackcorm

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Jesus, where do you start.....

By asking what he thinks about coming around a country road bend and meeting a slow moving tractor

Spook_ie

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I have thought of this, my child will cycle the mile to school with a back pack and if the volume of books is huge, he will be using panniers.

Then until 2019 or so we probably need not discuss the issue of schoolbooks further.

Just out of interest (edit) and to clarify where you stand on the rules of the road
How far does your child cycle to school at the moment and is he accompanied?
Assuming he's accompanied does the accompanying person cycle or walk if he cycles does he use the footpath, cyclelanes or roadway?

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Until your child is attending secondary school you have no idea of the logistics involved, when you do then you can validate/invalidate arguments about book volumes etc. When my children were in junior schools the most they carried was a pencil case, a sandwich box, a drink, and 2 or 3 project books, the whole lot would fit into a messenger type bag

I'm 29, my sister is 17.

Her bag weighs less than mine ever did, I never had any problem cycling to school with all my books plus sports gear in a separate bag. I never even needed a cargo bike.

She also has no problem walking 3km each way every day.

Schoolbags are too heavy, but to suggest that they are so heavy that all children must be driven to school is a gross exaggeration.

Victor

Spook_ie wrote: »

Then until 2019 or so we need not discuss the issue of schoolbooks further.

Just out of interest.
How far does junior cycle or walk to school at the moment and is he accompanied?
Assuming he's accompanied does the accompanying person cycle or walk?
Assuming that you've started as you mean to continue, if he cycles does he use the footpath, cyclelanes or roadway?
Are you going to allow him to walk/cycle when the nights get longer?

I'd like you to improve your quality of posting and tone.

Moderator

cython

KwackerJack wrote: »

Any cyclist who breaks a red light is a bit on the stupid side me thinks.

Cyclist v car = scratch on car and person wrapped around bicycle....its simple really

No argument here.

KwackerJack wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast on a straight road is fine but on twisty roads your asking for trouble.

A car is travelling on an 80kph doing 80kph road and the driver comes around a blind bend to find the Sunday cyclist cruising at a fine speed of 15mph. He/she glances ahead to see a big truck swaying as it tries to brake knowing that the car is in a sticky situation...So while braking hard the car driver has to decide where to go, left into a ditch or wall or right into a 20 ton truck or just go straight through the middle!

Now say he was only doing 70kph or even 60kph, the driver will still have the same issues so if a crash were to occur who is at fault?

Aw, and you had started out so well! What if said driver came around the corner to find a car that had broken down in the previous 30-60 seconds? I.e. long enough to be stopped and potentially the driver have gotten out, bit nowhere near long enough for even the most responsible driver to erect a warning triangle before the corner. This will have similar results, but the only constants are the following driver and the corner. Now I've yet to hear blame apportioned to an inanimate corner so that leaves us with the driver rounding the corner being at fault.

KwackerJack wrote: »

Well id say the cyclist's ( if any lived) will tell me I'm wrong

They will, because you are

KwackerJack wrote: »

Before we hear this right to cycle blaa blaa it doesn't matter as feck all people obey the politically correct rules. If your walking along a road your not going to walk 4/5 abreast and expect people to drive around you because you know its to dangerous so why do it on a bike travelling at 15 mph when everyone else is doing 50/60 mph

Another thing I never leave home on my bike without leathers and back protector. I would never dream of it, never mind go out on a push bike baked into lycra.

We don't want to ban cyclist we just want you to use common sense and road safety to protect yourself and others!

Oh and what do cyclists think about pedestrians on roads???

As already mentioned countless times you described a scenario where 50/60mph is an inappropriate speed, so if people are going to drive dangerously the only way to really protect ourselves (speaking as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian) is to stay off all the roads, which is hardly viable.

And as far as peds are concerned, I've no issue with the law abiding ones but the blind lemmings that step in front of traffic without looking are as bad as your first example of cyclists

Spook_ie

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm 29, my sister is 17.

Her bag weighs less than mine ever did, I never had any problem cycling to school with all my books plus sports gear in a separate bag. I never even needed a cargo bike.

She also has no problem walking 3km each way every day.

Schoolbags are too heavy, but to suggest that they are so heavy that all children must be driven to school is a gross exaggeration.

Far be it for me to suggest that ALL children be driven to school, my own children have bags with wheels on and will walk to school when weather conditions are suitable, but given the discussion in the cycling forum about wobbly cyclists, mirrors and CoG I wonder if it would affect them more or less. I know in theory that it shouldn't (assuming the bags/books etc. are properly packed etc. ) but is theory correct?

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just out of interest (edit) and to clarify where you stand on the rules of the road
How far does your child cycle to school at the moment and is he accompanied?
Assuming he's accompanied does the accompanying person cycle or walk if he cycles does he use the footpath, cyclelanes or roadway?

I learned to cycle according to the Rules of the Road, and that's what I'm teaching my kids. Of course the RoTR doesn't cover everything, so experience and 'defensive cycling' have to be part of the mix. I recall a cycle instructor telling me that one of the first things to be learned is when it's a good idea to get off your bike and walk. Sound advice, especially when coaching kids.

To answer your questions:

Distance: 3 km.
Accompanied: yes.
Parent cycles or walks: cycles.
Footpath, cycle lane or roadway: all three as necessary/appropriate.

Why do you ask?

By any chance, are you also interested in knowing about other RoTR/infrastructural issues on the school run, such as traffic speed, junction design, continuity of route, road crossings, barriers etc?

KwackerJack

OK so we all practically stop going around a corner just in case??

1 persons judgement about cornering speed is obviously different than another but generally most vehicles will get around at a safe speed but when a bicycle is doing 15 miles and hour no matter how slow the car is going its going to cause serous harm if that driver cannot stop as there are 2 rows of bikes covering the entire road!

Oh so I am a dangerous driver yet you cycle 2 abreast on a main road where vehicles are travelling twice or 3 times your speed?

Say I slow down to 30 mph on a 60 mph road just 'in-case' a group of Sunday cyclist are riding 2 abreast on a bend, the another car travelling at 60 slams into my rear causing me to hit the cyclists.; Well the car behind is at fault yes but I would be partially to blame for going way to slow because a group of ignorant cyclists want to own the whole road even thought the bike's are taking up inches instead of feet!

It makes no odds if I am travelling at 100 mph snorting coke off the dash, what matters is that you all know that cars wont give way so why the bloody hell do you get in the way??

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I recall a cycle instructor telling me that one of the first things to be learned is when it's a good idea to get off your bike and walk. Sound advice

Surely the example I gave would be one such occasion? I suggested the cyclists in my case dismount and cross safely on the footpath. Would this not be better than continuing on a bridge you know you probably won't be able to cross in time, just because you've passed a green light? I think more cyclists should follow the advice of this cycling instructor of yours.

TheChizler

KwackerJack wrote: »

Say I slow down to 30 mph on a 60 mph road just 'in-case' a group of Sunday cyclist are riding 2 abreast on a bend, the another car travelling at 60 slams into my rear causing me to hit the cyclists.; Well the car behind is at fault yes but I would be partially to blame for going way to slow because a group of ignorant cyclists want to own the whole road even thought the bike's are taking up inches instead of feet!

It makes no odds if I am travelling at 100 mph snorting coke off the dash, what matters is that you all know that cars wont give way so why the bloody hell do you get in the way??

Srsly?

KwackerJack

TheChizler wrote: »

Srsly?

What is Srsly??

TheChizler

KwackerJack wrote: »

What is Srsly??

I felt the post didn't merit vowels.

AltAccount

KwackerJack wrote: »

OK so we all practically stop going around a corner just in case??

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

KwackerJack wrote: »

1 persons judgement about cornering speed is obviously different than another but generally most vehicles will get around at a safe speed but when a bicycle is doing 15 miles and hour no matter how slow the car is going its going to cause serous harm if that driver cannot stop as there are 2 rows of bikes covering the entire road!

Why can't the driver stop?

KwackerJack wrote: »

Oh so I am a dangerous driver yet you cycle 2 abreast on a main road where vehicles are travelling twice or 3 times your speed?

Cycling two abreast is legal, and on certain roads on a Sunday morning/afternoon, it should nearly be expected.
Why is it dangerous, because of the variance in speed?

KwackerJack wrote: »

Say I slow down to 30 mph on a 60 mph road just 'in-case' a group of Sunday cyclist are riding 2 abreast on a bend, the another car travelling at 60 slams into my rear causing me to hit the cyclists.; Well the car behind is at fault yes but I would be partially to blame for going way to slow because a group of ignorant cyclists want to own the whole road even thought the bike's are taking up inches instead of feet!

Nope, you wouldn't be at fault.

The situation you describe entails you making an assessment of risk based on the type of road, the time of day/week, knowledge of the typical other users of the road etc. and driving conservatively in that context.
If there was a definition of being a good driver, it would probably sound very similar to your actions in this situation...

KwackerJack wrote: »

It makes no odds if I am travelling at 100 mph snorting coke off the dash, what matters is that you all know that cars wont give way so why the bloody hell do you get in the way??

That's just ridiculous.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Surely the example I gave would be one such occasion? I suggested the cyclists in my case dismount and cross safely on the footpath. Would this not be better than continuing on a bridge you know you probably won't be able to cross in time, just because you've passed a green light? I think more cyclists should follow the advice of this cycling instructor of yours.

Welcome back.

As the thread title shows, you originally framed this as a Rules of the Road issue.

I've been cycling since I was a child, and the number of occasions when I feel that it is necessary or desirable to get off and walk is negligible. Last time I did it was only recently, when I was pulling a loaded trailer up a steep hill and my gear cable jammed.

However, I advise my child to do so quite frequently. The advice is most applicable to novices, under the instruction of a tutor perhaps.

Getting back to the situation as described in your first and subsequent posts, would you care to comment on the following:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

They might if they got angry!

I've noticed some other features of the identified location that might have some relevance:

• The distance between the two sets of traffic lights is approximately 220 metres, according to Google Maps.
• There is a side road, south of the bridge iirc, which is also signalised.
• There is a discontinuous footpath on one side of the bridge only.
• No pedestrian crossings are provided at the traffic signals, despite the presence of residences in the area, as well as sports/leisure facilities apparently.
• There are induction loops at both sets of lights.

The OP says that not even Lance Armstrong could make it over the bridge on a bike before the lights changed, and, despite framing the issue as one of compliance with the Rules of the Road, seems to believe that elderly cyclists should dismount, walk on the discontinuous footpath, and perhaps cross the road where no facilities are provided to do so, in order to facilitate the passage of motorised traffic.


Given the distance involved and the presence of induction loops, my guess is that it is likely that cyclists will pass through a green light, only to face oncoming motorised traffic that has triggered the induction loop on the other side. Plausible?

Are you suggesting that cyclists, elderly or otherwise, should have to dismount and walk along a discontinuous footpath, with no pedestrian crossings at either end, in order to facilitate the quick passage of motorised traffic over the bridge?

How is that an RoTR issue? And why could the road not be modified in favour of cyclists and pedestrians, eg that there would be dedicated green time for cyclists to clear the bridge first, or else a route that would give them priority and a clear run through the bottleneck?

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've been cycling since I was a child, and the number of occasions when I feel that it is necessary or desirable to get off and walk is negligible. Last time I did it was only recently, when I was pulling a loaded trailer up a step hill and my gear cable jammed.


Are you suggesting that cyclists, elderly or otherwise, should have to dismount and walk along a discontinuous footpath, with no pedestrian crossings at either end, in order to facilitate the quick passage of motorised traffic over the bridge?

You were on your bike pulling a loaded trailer up a steep hill?! :eek:

It's not a case of cyclists dismounting to "facilitate the quick passage of motorised traffic over the bridge." It's a case of common sense telling you that you're unlikely to make it across before the lights change, therefore the safest thing to do is to dismount and walk across on the footpath. As regards it being a RoTR issue, I think attempting to cross the bridge knowing that you have a high probability of coming into oncoming traffic is stupid and dangerous. If common sense isn't in the RoTR, it should be!

There's no point complaining to me about the layout of the junction. I don't work for the council.

Incidentally, what would you have done if you were the cyclist in the situation I described? Would you have taken the common sense option and dismounted, crossing on the footpath? Or would you have attempted to cycle over, thinking to yourself that the light was green for you, but that in all probability you were going to meet traffic coming in the opposite direction who probably weren't expecting you?

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I learned to cycle according to the Rules of the Road, and that's what I'm teaching my kids. Of course the RoTR doesn't cover everything, so experience and 'defensive cycling' have to be part of the mix. I recall a cycle instructor telling me that one of the first things to be learned is when it's a good idea to get off your bike and walk. Sound advice, especially when coaching kids.

To answer your questions:

Distance: 3 km.
Accompanied: yes.
Parent cycles or walks: cycles.
Footpath, cycle lane or roadway: all three as necessary/appropriate.

Why do you ask?

By any chance, are you also interested in knowing about other RoTR/infrastructural issues on the school run, such as traffic speed, junction design, continuity of route, road crossings, barriers etc?

Just that given the thread title I just wondered if you followed the road regulations, just some of them or none of them, also as people grow up, as with most things, their parents set the example of what is right or wrong.

If there is a problem with the infrastucture then surely it's better to fix the infrastructure rather than break the law.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Footpath, cycle lane or roadway: all three as necessary/appropriate.

Could you please explain to me when it is "appropriate" to cycle on the footpath, in absolute contempt for the Rules of the Road? You hold motorists to a ridiculously high standard in this regard, like expecting speed limits to be obeyed religiously regardless of how unsuited they are to the conditions, so I am wondering how you can justify disregarding road law when it suits?

Surveyor11

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Welcome back.

As the thread title shows, you originally framed this as a Rules of the Road issue.

I've been cycling since I was a child, and the number of occasions when I feel that it is necessary or desirable to get off and walk is negligible. Last time I did it was only recently, when I was pulling a loaded trailer up a step hill and my gear cable jammed.

However, I advise my child to do so quite frequently. The advise is most applicable to novices, under the instruction of a tutor perhaps.

Getting back to the situation as described in your first and subsequent posts, would you care to comment on the following:



Are you suggesting that cyclists, elderly or otherwise, should have to dismount and walk along a discontinuous footpath, with no pedestrian crossings at either end, in order to facilitate the quick passage of motorised traffic over the bridge?

How is that an RoTR issue? And why could the road not be modified in favour of cyclists and pedestrians, eg that there would be dedicated green time for cyclists to clear the bridge first, or else a route that would give them priority and a clear run through the bottleneck?

In fairness, I know this set of lights pretty well, http://goo.gl/maps/3MzD7 both as a motorist and (more frequently) as a cyclist.

The OP mentions an elderly couple cresting the hill - the lights are probably timed for a car, so they set off with a green light, they change when they're perhaps half way ip the steep incline, then they're faced with a car coming the opposite way. In this case, I would say the safest option for a cyclist that can't make it up and over at the pace of a car is to dismount and walk the bike up the continuous path. It may be the case that they could be timed longer, or perhaps signage improved, but it is very narrow - just wide enough for a car. Can't see this working any other way - ideal option would be a dedicated side bridge, but this bridge is being replaced, so perhaps an opportunity to close it off to traffic and have it for walkers / cyclists.

It's fair enough for a driver to say they don't expect a cyclists when cresting a hill (although, you should drive to expect the unexpected - what about a car stopped the ottehr sdie of the crest with engine trouble?).

Surveyor11

Spook_ie wrote: »

Then until 2019 or so we probably need not discuss the issue of schoolbooks further.

Just out of interest (edit) and to clarify where you stand on the rules of the road
How far does your child cycle to school at the moment and is he accompanied?
Assuming he's accompanied does the accompanying person cycle or walk if he cycles does he use the footpath, cyclelanes or roadway?

Ok, thanks for editing. To answer:

My child cycles approximately 1 mile to school, when cycling accompanied by me. My wife will walk with him, he'll cycle ahead but hold off at junctions, lights etc. As he gets older, he can cycle on his own / with friends (I've tied to set up a cycling bus, not much success).

There's a dedicated cycle track from more or less our house to the school.

dukedalton

Surveyor11 wrote: »

It's fair enough for a driver to say they don't expect a cyclists when cresting a hill (although, you should drive to expect the unexpected - what about a car stopped the ottehr sdie of the crest with engine trouble?).

Release the handbrake and let nature take its course

cython

KwackerJack wrote: »

OK so we all practically stop going around a corner just in case??

1 persons judgement about cornering speed is obviously different than another but generally most vehicles will get around at a safe speed but when a bicycle is doing 15 miles and hour no matter how slow the car is going its going to cause serous harm if that driver cannot stop as there are 2 rows of bikes covering the entire road!

Oh so I am a dangerous driver yet you cycle 2 abreast on a main road where vehicles are travelling twice or 3 times your speed?

Say I slow down to 30 mph on a 60 mph road just 'in-case' a group of Sunday cyclist are riding 2 abreast on a bend, the another car travelling at 60 slams into my rear causing me to hit the cyclists.; Well the car behind is at fault yes but I would be partially to blame for going way to slow because a group of ignorant cyclists want to own the whole road even thought the bike's are taking up inches instead of feet!

It makes no odds if I am travelling at 100 mph snorting coke off the dash, what matters is that you all know that cars wont give way so why the bloody hell do you get in the way??

Since you seem to enjoy ridiculous and facetious reasoning, we're going to get in the way anyway, so why the hell don't you just take a chill pill? See what I did there?

Ultimately your paper thin argument revolves around the idea that cyclists do what they do to be obnoxious and flout the rules of the road, but as has been highlighted a lot of the behaviour you describe is perfectly legal, and is defensive road usage. Then to top this, your attitude towards cyclists is at the very least inflammatory, and most certainly you seem to view cyclists as second class citizens. Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I said I was a driver as well, and to be quite frank even before I really got into cycling (last few years) I never had anywhere near the same level of malice towards cyclists as you seem to bear.

KwackerJack

So vehicle/drivers have an issue with bicyclist's and bicyclist's have a problem with vehicle/drivers

So here below is my solution and I'm serious too by the way!

Registration for push bikes, solve a whole load of traffic issue's!

KwackerJack

cython wrote: »

Since you seem to enjoy ridiculous and facetious reasoning, we're going to get in the way anyway, so why the hell don't you just take a chill pill? See what I did there?

Ultimately your paper thin argument revolves around the idea that cyclists do what they do to be obnoxious and flout the rules of the road, but as has been highlighted a lot of the behaviour you describe is perfectly legal, and is defensive road usage. Then to top this, your attitude towards cyclists is at the very least inflammatory, and most certainly you seem to view cyclists as second class citizens. Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I said I was a driver as well, and to be quite frank even before I really got into cycling (last few years) I never had anywhere near the same level of malice towards cyclists as you seem to bear.

So what do you propose then? You just create a line of traffic and risk the chance of a rear end smash because you all want to cycle along like school kids holding hands??

On a long straight road which I have witnessed many times you all still cycle in the middle of the road and from what I've seen have no intention and do not care less whether you hold up traffic or not. Why is it so hard to move in? its not a race, after all the car will get there before you so why hold everything up?

I have come up behind many cars, vans, trucks who if going slow will pull over and indicate when its safe to pass....but a cyclist god forbid they'd actually signal you when its safe to go. If a foot artic can accommodate other traffic surely a little push bike can manage to follow behind the others and make way for a whole 5 secs or so!

Paper thin?....have you ever thought that maybe a driver who comes up behind you isn't drunk, on drugs or simply so tired that he doesn't noticed you and due to you covering an entire lane he smacks right into you?

My car fits in the lane so I have really know where to go in terms of avoiding a group of cyclist. Its fine to slow down and indicate and a large portion of driving cannot be predicted but to other factors and road users!

Be as careful as you like in a car but you must remember that the other car travelling behind might just take me out while I wait for you lot to coast around the corner 2x2.

AltAccount

KwackerJack wrote: »

So vehicle/drivers have an issue with bicyclist's and bicyclist's have a problem with vehicle/drivers

So here below is my solution and I'm serious too by the way!

Registration for push bikes, solve a whole load of traffic issue's!

How does that help in the context of this thread?

monument

dukedalton wrote: »

There's no point complaining to me about the layout of the junction. I don't work for the council.

You complaining to the council and local politicians might be more productive than coming on here claiming cyclists are breaking the law when no laws are being broken.

dukedalton

monument wrote: »

You complaining to the council and local politicians might be more productive than coming on here claiming cyclists are breaking the law when no laws are being broken.

Permission to rename the thread: The stupid, dangerous thing I saw cyclists do today.

Cookie_Monster

dukedalton wrote: »

Permission to rename the thread: The stupid, dangerous thing I saw cyclists do today.

that's your (mistaken) view of it as already has been explained many many times. Not illegal, not stupid, not dangerous.

All this thread highlights is your lack of road skills and understanding of the law.

monument

KwackerJack wrote: »

because you all want to cycle along like school kids holding hands??

No more of this kind of talk please -- if you can't discuss this like a grown up you will not be discussing it here.

Read the charter.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

You were on your bike pulling a loaded trailer up a steep hill?! :eek:

Is there something eek-worthy about that?

dukedalton wrote: »

There's no point complaining to me about the layout of the junction. I don't work for the council.

You came on here complaining about two elderly cyclists allegedly breaking the law.

Iwannahurl

Surveyor11 wrote: »

The OP mentions an elderly couple cresting the hill - the lights are probably timed for a car, so they set off with a green light, they change when they're perhaps half way ip the steep incline, then they're faced with a car coming the opposite way. In this case, I would say the safest option for a cyclist that can't make it up and over at the pace of a car is to dismount and walk the bike up the continuous path. It may be the case that they could be timed longer, or perhaps signage improved, but it is very narrow - just wide enough for a car. Can't see this working any other way - ideal option would be a dedicated side bridge, but this bridge is being replaced, so perhaps an opportunity to close it off to traffic and have it for walkers / cyclists.

It's fair enough for a driver to say they don't expect a cyclists when cresting a hill (although, you should drive to expect the unexpected - what about a car stopped the ottehr sdie of the crest with engine trouble?).

Why is it fair enough to say that motorists don't expect to see cyclists?

The OP came on here claiming that two elderly cyclists were ignoring the RoTR.

The reality seems to be that the traffic signals in question are configured for motor vehicles only. Note the induction loops at either end.

Look again: the footpath is NOT continuous, and there are no pedestrian crossings facilities on either end.

Depending on direction of travel, a pedestrian or dismounted cyclist has to access the footpath without the aid of a pedestrian crossing or come off the footpath into traffic on the opposite side.

Why can't the traffic signals just be configured to give cyclists enough time to cross legally and safely? Why can pedestrian crossing facilities not be provided at either end?

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Look again: the footpath is NOT continuous

Not sure what your source is showing you, but I can tell you it is continuous.

Iwannahurl

The footpath disappears on either side of the bridge, according to Google Maps.

Are you advocating that cyclists dismount, cross the road where there is no pedestrian crossing provided, walk 220 metres to the end of the footpath and then cross again where no pedestrian crossing is provided?

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The footpath disappears on either side of the bridge, according to Google Maps.

Are you advocating that cyclists dismount, cross the road where there is no pedestrian crossing provided, walk 220 metres to the end of the footpath and then cross again where no pedestrian crossing is provided?

Yes. Looking left and right before you cross the road is fairly straightforward. Cycling against traffic on a one lane bridge is more problematic.

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

Yes. Looking left and right before you cross the road is fairly straightforward. Cycling against traffic on a one lane bridge is more problematic.

Well technically the cars were driving against the traffic already on the bridge...

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Yes. Looking left and right before you cross the road is fairly straightforward. Cycling against traffic on a one lane bridge is more problematic.

In this situation it seems that the traffic signals are configured only for motorised vehicles, with pedestrians and cyclists expected to cope as best they can. Did you notice the induction loops? Apparently motorised vehicles are provided with automated means to trigger the lights whereas cyclists and pedestrians are left with nothing.

You originally claimed the elderly cyclists were going "the wrong way" and breaking road traffic law.

By law cyclists are traffic. If the cyclists had the green light in this situation then they were proceeding legally.

Looking out for (elderly) cyclists is fairly straightforward for motorists who drive with due care and attention.

Providing for (elderly) cyclists and pedestrians is fairly straightforward for any local authority that gives a damn about anything other than facilitating motorised traffic.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Not sure what your source is showing you, but I can tell you it is continuous.

Are you still claiming the footpath is continuous?

dubscottie

Ive had problems on induction loops with a motorbike. People think there is a "pad" when infact only weight on the wire will change the lights. Good example is up the road from my house, where parked cars stop traffic from sitting on the wire and are waiting ages.

Qualitymark

Surely, rather than blaming cyclists for the bad design of the road, it would be more apposite to write to the council's traffic section, warning them that the lights needed to be re-timed, OP? I mean, if Lance Armstrong couldn't make it through the lights, what hope have two old ladies? And it's good for old ladies to cycle, keeps us fit!

TheChizler

dubscottie wrote: »

Ive had problems on induction loops with a motorbike. People think there is a "pad" when infact only weight on the wire will change the lights. Good example is up the road from my house, where parked cars stop traffic from sitting on the wire and are waiting ages.

[pedant]It's actually the loop detecting a disturbance in the magnetic field above the loop[/pedant]