![[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
However, in twenty years of driving (and cycling and walking and running) in a town that's notorious for having an awful lot of cyclists of a less than perfect kind (many thousands of students few of whom think much about personal mortality, many of whom are in a hurry, and many of whom are not particularly concerned with reactionary ruled-based systems), I've yet to see a case where that happened.
So that alone would tend to make me discount the assertion.
But I'd take it further than that - there's an awful lot you can do as a driver to minimise the impact of the unexpected.
Usually if you're forced into a dangerous manoeuvre by someone else's actions, it's because you were driving in a manner that didn't leave sufficient margin for error. Exceptions to this are as far as I can tell rare to the point of practical non-existence.
no subject
I think I also need to point out that my comment isn't restricted to cyclists; thus to reword your statement: . Also I should point out that your paraphrasing of what I wrote doesn't fully reflect my intended meaning.
I think we need to accept that most road users (yourself and myself) included could use the road better and with more consideration for others. (And I think this is the main point that
The point I'm making is that not all car drivers are evil, just as not all cyclists are evil.
We also need to accept that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone at some time fails to see somebody else on (or about to be on) the road. I've done it myself; I've seen lots of other people do it, in all manner of vehicles as well as on foot. And I'm sure that you've done it too.
Something else that needs to be considered when talking about margin for error is the the knock-on effect further back down the road where my extra space and the extra space for the car in front of me and the one in front of that, etc. To give an example of what I'm thinking of, on my way home I travel about a mile from a motorway junction along a two lane dual carriage way to a roundabout. The volume of traffic is such that for a short space of time (1/4 to 1/2 hour) backs up to (but not onto) the motorway slip lanes. I don't know how many vehicles are on that mile of road, but if every one of them took an extra yard it would be quite a few extra yards of traffic queue. On separate occasions I've experienced the problems that happen when the traffic attempting to leave the motorway can't do so because the slip lane is backed up from a blockage. Luckily I haven't seen the accidents that have occurred in those queues, but I know that they have happened. I think that if we can avoid such queues from occurring then it probably increases the overall safety in the area. If that means that the extra yard that everyone would use in an ideal world doesn't get used then regrettably that is probably the optimum in a not ideal situation.
Yes, we as car drivers need to do lots of stuff , but to be successful it depends on other people trying to do the same in the general area. Any road user who believes that they've never made a mistake on the road is seriously deluding themselves to the extent of being dangerous.
no subject
When I'm cycling, drivers' crass stupidity will kill me if I'm not rather defensive in predicting its possibility. The little things like assuming I'm not moving so they can complete their overtaking manoeuvre with a left-turn through me.
The trait of predicting the possibility of other people doing crassly stupid things, is something I see much less often than I'd like in drivers, particularly those who drive faster than their current sight-lines can justify, assuming that the speed limit signs will magically tell them what's safe.
This is probably a consequence of the fact that many drivers don't have a particularly strong sense that their lack of care will kill them.