![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Remember Rule 163
I would like to remind everyone of rule 163 [0]. It exists to protect a vulnerable minority who are regularly subjected to abuse and intimidation by a more powerful group. That intimidation and abuse nearly always goes unpunished unless injury results, and if this minority are killed and a prosecution occurs, the penalties are relatively small. I'm talking about cyclists.
Rule 163 states, amongst other things "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car", which is sadly not very clear, but is helpfully illustrated:
It is my experience that many many drivers ignore this rule entirely if obeying it would mean the slightest delay to their journey. When you're in a car, please remember rule 163, and give cyclists plenty of room; if you're not driving, encourage the driver to do so, especially if they are a professional driver.
When commuting, I find I often have an unpleasant choice to make - either I cycle in the primary position, in the center of my lane, and get shouted and honked at and overtaken dangerously by some drivers who want to punish me for holding them up, or I cycle in the secondary position (about 1m from the kerb) and get people squeezing past with inches to spare because they are trying to overtake even though there is oncoming traffic and it's not safe to do so. This is quite frankly unacceptable.
On one evening cycle home, one taxi driver passed me twice (I overtook him while he was queuing in traffic). On both occasions, he sounded his horn repeatedly, revved his engine hard, and overtook dangerously close - if he'd misjudged it, or I'd wobbled, he would surely have hit me. I complained to the council's taxi licensing officer who said he'd do nothing unless there was a prosecution. The police/CPS won't prosecute unless a cyclist is injured, so taxi drivers can (and do) behave dangerously around cyclists they don't like without fear of any comeback.
There are a few further points I'd like to raise:
Cycle facilities are often worse than useless. The recommended width of a cycle lane is 2m; almost none that are not also bus lanes are this wide. That means that motorists overtaking at the white line (which many of them do) are passing at much less than the Rule 163 distance. Furthermore, the surface of these on-road cycle lanes is often poorer than the rest of the road, and they fill with debris from the road. I often cycle just outside these sort of lanes for these reasons. Shared-use paths for pedestrians and cycles are dangerous, for both cyclists and pedestrians; indeed there is research showing they are more dangerous to cycle on than the road proper. If you cycle much faster than walking pace, there is a risk of collision with pedestrians who meander across the shared-use path as if it were a pavement, and for all cyclists, there is a risk of collision wherever the path crosses a side-street - it seems that drivers don't expect to meet cyclists at these points, so fail to spot them. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that many cycle facilities actually make cycling more dangerous, as drivers are more likely to bully cyclists using the road if they see such a facility that the cyclist isn't using.
Accordingly, I'd like to remind drivers that cyclists are not obliged to use these facilities, and you should not shout at those that choose not to. As I say above, often the cyclist is safer on the road. More generally, though don't intimidate cyclists who you feel are delaying you. Cyclists are perfectly entitled to be on the roads, and are a vulnerable group of road users. If you feel a cyclist has made an odd decision about whether to use a cycle facility or not, whether or not to wear a helmet, or whatever, consider that they are entitled to make their own minds up about these things, and have probably given the matter more thought than you have. Shouting "helpful" comments to them is bullying.
Finally, and it shouldn't need saying, driving dangerously to intimidate or punish cyclists is immoral and illegal. Don't do it! I should be able to cycle to and from work free from people threatening to kill or maim me with their vehicles. In an ideal world, there would be effective sanctions against dangerous drivers who collide with cyclists, even if the cyclist is not seriously injured. In practice, this doesn't happen, and even when drivers kill cyclists, they not infrequently escape being charged with any offense.
So yes, remember rule 163, and give cyclists a chance!
ETA This DfT article is quite sensible.
[0] No, this isn't a joke about rules about porn on the internet
Rule 163 states, amongst other things "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car", which is sadly not very clear, but is helpfully illustrated:
It is my experience that many many drivers ignore this rule entirely if obeying it would mean the slightest delay to their journey. When you're in a car, please remember rule 163, and give cyclists plenty of room; if you're not driving, encourage the driver to do so, especially if they are a professional driver.
When commuting, I find I often have an unpleasant choice to make - either I cycle in the primary position, in the center of my lane, and get shouted and honked at and overtaken dangerously by some drivers who want to punish me for holding them up, or I cycle in the secondary position (about 1m from the kerb) and get people squeezing past with inches to spare because they are trying to overtake even though there is oncoming traffic and it's not safe to do so. This is quite frankly unacceptable.
On one evening cycle home, one taxi driver passed me twice (I overtook him while he was queuing in traffic). On both occasions, he sounded his horn repeatedly, revved his engine hard, and overtook dangerously close - if he'd misjudged it, or I'd wobbled, he would surely have hit me. I complained to the council's taxi licensing officer who said he'd do nothing unless there was a prosecution. The police/CPS won't prosecute unless a cyclist is injured, so taxi drivers can (and do) behave dangerously around cyclists they don't like without fear of any comeback.
There are a few further points I'd like to raise:
Cycle facilities are often worse than useless. The recommended width of a cycle lane is 2m; almost none that are not also bus lanes are this wide. That means that motorists overtaking at the white line (which many of them do) are passing at much less than the Rule 163 distance. Furthermore, the surface of these on-road cycle lanes is often poorer than the rest of the road, and they fill with debris from the road. I often cycle just outside these sort of lanes for these reasons. Shared-use paths for pedestrians and cycles are dangerous, for both cyclists and pedestrians; indeed there is research showing they are more dangerous to cycle on than the road proper. If you cycle much faster than walking pace, there is a risk of collision with pedestrians who meander across the shared-use path as if it were a pavement, and for all cyclists, there is a risk of collision wherever the path crosses a side-street - it seems that drivers don't expect to meet cyclists at these points, so fail to spot them. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that many cycle facilities actually make cycling more dangerous, as drivers are more likely to bully cyclists using the road if they see such a facility that the cyclist isn't using.
Accordingly, I'd like to remind drivers that cyclists are not obliged to use these facilities, and you should not shout at those that choose not to. As I say above, often the cyclist is safer on the road. More generally, though don't intimidate cyclists who you feel are delaying you. Cyclists are perfectly entitled to be on the roads, and are a vulnerable group of road users. If you feel a cyclist has made an odd decision about whether to use a cycle facility or not, whether or not to wear a helmet, or whatever, consider that they are entitled to make their own minds up about these things, and have probably given the matter more thought than you have. Shouting "helpful" comments to them is bullying.
Finally, and it shouldn't need saying, driving dangerously to intimidate or punish cyclists is immoral and illegal. Don't do it! I should be able to cycle to and from work free from people threatening to kill or maim me with their vehicles. In an ideal world, there would be effective sanctions against dangerous drivers who collide with cyclists, even if the cyclist is not seriously injured. In practice, this doesn't happen, and even when drivers kill cyclists, they not infrequently escape being charged with any offense.
So yes, remember rule 163, and give cyclists a chance!
ETA This DfT article is quite sensible.
[0] No, this isn't a joke about rules about porn on the internet
no subject
Furthermore, if (a), why are cycle lanes narrower than general-purpose lanes?
My own interpretation is to leave a bike as much clearance as I'd give another vehicle, plus a margin for bike wobble, plus a margin for slipstream, plus a margin for extra vulnerability. So more than (b), but less than (a). It's worth noting that I've passed a driving test without demerit for this interpretation.
It's also worth noting that cyclists routinely give themselves far smaller separations from motor vehicles than they insist motor vehicles ought to give them.
no subject
A small car, I think, generally. The rationale, I suspect, is that that's a reasonably safe margin, and easier to get right than "well, you need to allow a bit of wobble room, and a bit of room for your error, and a bit more room if you're going quickly, and..."
Taxis overtake vehicles with tiny margins; they also do this to cyclists, which is dangerous and frightening for the cyclist.
Cars are generally faster and always harder and heaver than cyclists. If a cyclist overtakes and gets it wrong, they're the one who is going to end up hurt. Furthermore, they have no slipstream impact on the car, nor are they going to intimidate the car by overtaking closely.
no subject
I dispute this.
When sitting in a slow moving queue of traffic a cyclist that appears rapidly (in relation to the rest of the traffic) on ones inside where the wing / door mirror (when fitted) has a poorer field of view can be quite intimidating.
Also I have had my paintwork scratched by a cyclist undertaking me when I was stationary at traffic lights by scraping his peddles along the door of my car. He then jumped the red light and cycled away crossing the road between the vehicles whose right of way it was and cycled off into the distance.
no subject
no subject
I've witnessed much the same when the cyclist was overtaking as well, or to be completely accurate they were cycling down the middle of a two two lane carriage way, between the two lanes of stationary cars.
When one is sitting stationary paying attention to what's going on ahead to have something appear rapidly in ones peripheral vision can be very intimidating regardless of which side it appears on.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-06-23 02:33 pm (UTC)(link)This is a joke, right ? You're sitting in a ton of glass and metal - practically in a tank - and you're "intimidated" by someone who "appears rapidly" ? What are you worried about ? They might collide with you and get blood and guts on your paintwork ?
Also I have had my paintwork scratched ...
If we're doing horror anecdotes:
I have been run into multiple times by drivers deliberately intending to intimidate me and who disregard my clear signals to keep away. I often have to overshoot my destination because the vehicle behind is tailgating me at 20mph and stopping would mean getting rammed.
I have been personally injured and only avoided more serious injuries or death through my own agility. I have had to sue drivers four or five times (I lose count!) to recover a total of thousands of pounds of damage to my vehicles; I've had a cycle completely destroyed by a red light jumping motorist. A driver who rammed me from behind then got out of his car and attacked me in person - in front of an independent witness - grabbing me by the neck hard enough to leave marks visible tens of minutes later. In none of these serious incidents have there been any prosecutions.
In the whole country, drivers kill 3000 people a year.
You're using the comparatively trivial actions of some arsehole as a stick with which to beat the victims of an epidemic of serious violent crime committed with almost complete impunity.
Under the circumstances I don't give a shit about your paintwork.
Ian Jackson
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-06-25 09:27 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-06-23 02:46 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
I have never heard of a driver being killed by a cyclists poor cycling but I am the sister of someone who was maimed and very nearly killed* by some idiot's dangerous driving. The idiot in question didn't even lose his license. His fine came to £5 per break in my brother's bones.
Can you see how responding to someone's complaint that their life is regularly endangered by people's dangerous aggressive behaviour with an anecdote about how your paintwork got scratch makes you you sound like a prick?
*and when I say "nearly killed" I mean that the doctors who operated upon my brother said that the majority of people in that kind of accident die.
no subject
no subject
You say you are sometimes intimidated by a cyclist appearing from an unexpected direction; I can see that might be alarming (although I have never found myself intimidated by a cyclist whilst driving). I suspect your perceived risk of personal harm is pretty small, though[1] - the most likely outcome is that the cyclist gets it wrong and damages your car. If they then cycle off you are lumbered with paying for your own repairs, with little prospect of getting your money back from the errant cyclist; that sucks. Don't for a moment think I don't disapprove of cyclists who behave like this.
The flip side is that when drivers intimidate cyclists, those cyclists are at real danger of physical injury or even death. In almost all car / cyclist collisions, the cyclist will come off much much worse. In the clear majority of intimidation incidents between motorists and cyclists, the motorist will be the aggressor, and the cyclist will be at the much much greater risk of harm. Incidents where the cyclist is the aggressor are a tiny minority, and the risk to the motorist are much smaller. The differential in power and protection in these incidents and collisions is overwhelming.
I think at this point I segue into the point I made to
[1] statistically your risk of personal harm in these situations must be almost zero
no subject
I have suffered from far more intimidation and risk to my life from car drivers, both when cycling and when driving.
This whole thread is stargely reminiscent of the LJ wank when someone says "Isn't it terrible that so many women are raped and sexually assaulted" and is met by a chorus of "Not all men are rapists" and "Some men men are raped too".
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-06-23 12:07 pm (UTC)(link)As for the rationale:
Cyclists need to be able to wobble. Wobbling is an inherent feature of the way that bike stability works. They also need to be able to swerve to avoid uneven road surfaces, objects in the road, and so on. They can be caught by gusts of wind and blown sideways. Emperor has mentioned slipstream too. And of course there needs to be room for error on both sides - it's one thing to take a risk of some scratched paintwork, and quite another to risk a serious injury.
Why are cycle lanes so narrow ? Because they're there to get cyclists out of the way of Important People In Motor Cars, not to serve the needs of cyclists. The recommended width of a cycle lane in official government guidance is 2.0m. There are no lanes in Cambridge of this width. The Traffic Regulation Orders for cycle lanes in Cambridge all specify a maximum width (generally of 1.5m) but no minimum, and there are numerous lanes that are less than 1.0m wide.
I almost never ride in a cycle lane in Cambridge - and despite my very assertive nature, there are routes I no longer take because riding safely (as even the Institute of Advanced Motorists approves of) often results in an assault. In most places outside Cambridge (and apparently Coventry) the situation is very different.
As to why cyclists sometimes give themselves less space: Personally I always try to give myself as much space as I would want to be given in return. But bear in mind that the cyclist is aware of all of the above factors which influence the safe passing distance in a way that the driver isn't, and the cyclist can also plan their manouevre so that their lean is correct for the situation in a way that they can't if they aren't in control. (Remember that to move away from a close passing vehicle, a cyclist needs first to steer towards the hazard.) And of course many cyclists, particularly in Cambridge, are untrained and ignorant - they are making the same mistake as you, in thinking because 1.0-1.5m cycle lanes are common, that must be the safe space.
References:
Warrington Cycle Campaign:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
Roadpeace:
http://www.roadpeace.org/
Parliament Transport Select Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/460/460.pdf
"Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010"
IAM:
http://www.iam.org.uk/Resources/Institute%20Of%20Advanced%20Motorists/Documents/News/Factsheets/fac17001.pdf
http://www.iam.org.uk/pressroom/drivingtips/Sharing+the+road+with+cyclists.htm
http://www.iam.org.uk/pressroom/drivingtips/Motorists+and+cyclists+share+the+road.htm
Ian Jackson
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-06-23 05:42 pm (UTC)(link)Ian
no subject
The risk in car/bike collisions is almost entirely to the cyclist. Unless I'm supposed to view your paintwork with the same respect I'd like you to view my life.
no subject
I've not seen a multi-car pile up result from a cyclist Doing Stupid Things; I don't doubt that it is a theoretically possible outcome. But I do live in Stupid Cyclist Central so I think that the probability of such terrible outcomes is experimentally fairly low.
I have had many cars do things that were directly dangerous to me - like overtaking inches from my elbow (what if I wobbled?) or tail gating.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject