Remember Rule 163 : comments [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

I was wondering the same thing - I think the photograph implies option (b) - I certainly wouldn't overtake a car with my left-hand wheels in their lane, as depicted in the photo. Option (a) is a safer bet, though: I think it's only sensible to leave a larger gap between a car and a bike when overtaking than you would between two cars.

As a driver (hopefully a careful one), I find the occasional practice of cyclists riding two-abreast annoying for this reason - as I understand it, this is meant to increase the road presence of the cyclists. However, it makes it pretty much impossible to pass leaving enough space - even if the car overtaking is fully on the other side of the road, the outside cyclist is still closer than I feel comfortable with. I generally sit well behind such pairs of cyclists until they move to being in single file, which perhaps is the ideal result from their point of view. I don't think that's the typical driver response, though!

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

I believe a).

[link] [parent] [reply]

If (a), what's the rationale? Why a car? Why not a bus? And are we talking about a Smart or a Hummer?

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Cycle lanes are narrower than general-purpose lanes because they are largely put there to serve the interests of drivers.

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

nor are they [cyclists] going to intimidate the car by overtaking closely.

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

That's undertaking, not overtaking.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Pedant!

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

When sitting in a slow moving queue of traffic a cyclist that appears rapidly ... can be quite intimidating.

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

[link] [parent] [reply]

Up yours.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

ceb.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

sigisgrim.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

lnr

(no subject) — (anonymous)

(no subject) —

ceb.livejournal.com

(no subject) — (anonymous)

(no subject) —

lavendersparkle.livejournal.com

(deleted comment)

(no subject) —

sigisgrim.livejournal.com

This subthread ended badly, but I think I'll approach it again briefly.

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

amalion below - it's often harmful to bring up the (relatively tiny) risks cyclists pose to motorists in a discussion of the (relatively vast) risks motorists post to cyclists because it's dangerously close to victim-blaming.

[1] statistically your risk of personal harm in these situations must be almost zero

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've been scared by cyclists whilst driving, but that's because I'm a nervous driver and when it occurred I was driving a van around central London, which is enough to induce a panic attack on its own, and crazy London cyclists whiz around me. The fear at the time was the fear of hurting them, I would be fine in the cab of the transit. It's not intimidation as there was no threat to myself.

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".

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

lnr

Cycle facilities are put there by idiot traffic planners who've never ridden a bike in their life, and are often downright dangerous to use - not least because they tempt car drivers into thinking that if they're outside the line they must be leaving enough space, right?

[link] [parent] [reply]

gerald_duck: Your interpretation is clearly contradicted by the picture. Have you looked at it ?

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

[link] [parent] [reply]

At least some government guidance (the Traffic Signs Manual) recommends a width of 1.5m–2.0m for cycle lanes, noting that anything wider than that tends to get used by motor vehicles as an extra lane. I'm a little confused by your comment on TROs since the ones I've digitised (http://bjh21.me.uk/traffic/) either specify a fixed width of 1.5m (areas B, C, and D) or specify a range of 1.0 to 1.5m (areas A and Z).

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sorry, I misremembered what you said about TROs. Nevertheless even 1.5m wide lanes are a minority in Cambridge, and even 1.5m is too narrow for safety.

Ian

[link] [parent] [reply]

I reserve the right to take risks, even stupid risks, with my own life. It is very very different to decide to do something risky, in knowledge of the risks, having planned to deal with the risks, than it is to have someone else force you into the same risky situation.

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(deleted comment)

Well, yes, some cyclists are clueless. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist being so stupid as to have *no* road awareness though. Of course some cyclists have a greater degree (than other cyclists) of expectation that car users will take action to avoid hitting them - actions such as *looking for cyclists* before turning out of a side road or drive way.

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(deleted comment)

(no subject) —

naath.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

pseudomonas.livejournal.com

Your last sentence there suggests that "cyclists" are a body corporate with a single coherent set of opinions. We're not, and it would be more accurate to say "some cyclists routinely give themselves far smaller separations from motor vehicles than other cyclists insist motor vehicles ought to give them."

[link] [parent] [reply]

My practice when riding two abreast is for the outer to be in the primary position and the other in the secondary, so very often I am not in fact further out than I would otherwise be. This is certainly the case on the backs in Cambridge where I rode very defensively particularly around the two islands near Johns as a number of drivers attempt to overtake within the islands!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oops that was me, I forgot I wasn't logged in!

Best one I had recently was at the five way set of lights. The lane marking isn't that clear, but you can't turn hairpin left, so the left lane is for the slightly over 90 degree road, and the right hand lane for slightly over 180 and right. I made my way to the cycle box in the right hand lane as I was going straight on. I was aware that the merc behind me was likely to be aggressive and so didn't start as quickly as I often do. I was right and the merc did over take me in the junction. That wasn't great but was copable with, the car in the left hand lane going straight on at the same time was somewhat scary!

Actually my biggest rant these days is the fact that drivers do not seem to know what the lever by the steering wheel that makes a funny clicking noise inside the car and some lights flash on the outside is for. This is particularly the case at roundabouts but is true at many other points too.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Absolutely - if I still indicate even though I have to stick my arm out in the traffic to do it, it wouldn't kill motorists to flick one little switch and return the favour!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Do you get drivers overtaking you when you're signalling right so close they nearly take your arm off?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sometimes - more often (especially if I'm at one of those Cambridge junctions where there's a cycle lane going right but they conveniently forgot to add traffic lights or lanes for cyclists turning into it) there's a stream of traffic going past slowly but close enough that it's dangerous to stick my arm out in the first place until there's a gap where I can do the whole indicate-pull-out-turn before the next thing coming the other way. This is especially the case going into Downing Street, and I would rather go round the other 3 sides of the square and make it a left turn than do that right turn.

[link] [parent] [reply]

July