A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Wolfshade]

A study to analys vehicle behaviour demonstrated a couple of surprising things.

Firstl in general, car drivers make assumptions of the risk of passing a given cyclist based on how they look. So a cyclist in hi-viz with helmet will be passed closer than a cyclist in normal clothes, as the hi-viz helmeted one is seen as being more professional and so more likely to behave in a particular way. Which means that the work they do with the helmet and hi-viz is undone.

Secondly, white van drivers are the worst, passing more closely more frequently than any other group.
Thirdly, red van drivers are universally the best group giving the most time and waiting for the safest time.

This third point was quite a confusion and general outlier in the whole "van" category. Then it was suggested at a conference that the reason for this is that red vans are most commonly Royal Mail vans and most Royal Mail posties have done routes on bikes.

[Wolfshade]

All cyclists run red lights.

This is the assertion that is often labelled at cyclists. From my own experiance I do see some who do, but then I also see many who don't. But it seems to be less of an issue where for instance a motorcycle filtered past traffic into the advanced stop line, then across that and waited. Though woe betide a cyclist who did that.

Anyway, finally I have some figures. Bearing in mind that these are based on London cycling trends and urban areas tend to see more traffic violations than surburban and rural areas.

Anyway, I digress:

From TFL. Average proportion of cylists who run red lights 16%, or 84% don't. Which I think is too high, but falls in line with other research. That study suggested cars were the next most common, but given that cyclists make up less than 20% of the traffic flow it would seem to be in terms of numbers cars are the worst offenders.

Women were less likely to run 13% compared with men 17%.

On average, the majority of both male and female cyclists went straight ahead at the junction following violating a red light. This was also true of male cyclists at individual junctions. However there was a 45:55 split between female cyclists turning and going straight ahead.

[Wolfshade]

Northumbria Police has been forced to apologise to a cyclist after he was wrongly pulled over by an officer for 'undertaking.'

or perhaps "Official: Police do not understand the law"

[url]http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/83213/caught-on-camera-newcastle-cyclist-lays-down-the-law-to-traffic[/url]

For those of you who can't be bothered with the link.

Cyclist approaches trafficlights with Advanced Stop Line, there is a police car parked in that box, cyclist filters down the ASL approach and the lights change "undertaking" (read: filtering) past the cop car. Police man pulls over cyclist and tells him off, cyclist tries to explain what that he was fine to do that and that the police were breaking the law, police man then turns his back and generally dismissive. All this is caught on camera and the cyclist reports this to the police. Northumbria Police have since apologised and accept that their officer was in the wrong. A statement said: "All officers are aware of the laws and rules of the road and we'll ensure they are reminded about this where necessary."

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

[Denzark]

I don't accept cycling is a 'philosophy' - there may be some hippy green types who do it as a means to save the planet, but i expect they are in the minority. It is merely a mode of transport. Now no-one should be allowed to ignore the law of the land. If that was the case, cyclists would be safe - full stop. Because when car/cyclist accidents in which the car is blameworthy, would be against the law. Where the car driver is not blameworthy, it is either a genuine accident - unavoidable - or the fault of the cyclist.

That being the case, there is no need for extra protection for cyclists - the car driver is alreay either driving lawfully - any incident is not their fault - or unlawfully - sanctions apply.

If cyclists want to inhabit a space with vehicles that pay excise license, have a required standard of serviceability (ie MOT) and a required standard of training (ie drivers license) - without doing any of these things themselves - then I feel a certain level of risk can only be expected.

Also, what you have said about Audi drivers is a damned lie - they are the new nobbers of the road. As are all German car drivers. In descending order of nobbishness - Audi-BMW-Mercedes*-VW. *Except for Sprinter White Van drivers - they transcend a new plain of of ****tishness.

[Wolfshade]

Yes I am unsure it is a philosophy is the best term. My approach to it is certainly a philosphy of life, a critical thinking of problems, it is just that these are about the problems associated or that rise from an experiance of cycling. "As Plato said, we never learn anything we do not enjoy and have fun engaging."

It is not just a mode of transport. Indeed it is the reason why we have roads and cars. There is a certain mindset to some who drive who believe that they own the road and it is against this world view (or philosphy) that I am railing against. I am not saying that cars are useless and everyone should go by bike, but a lot of journeys are just as quick by bike or perhaps should be walked.

The trouble is that while cyclists are considered to be second class citizens there will be a conflict between them and car drivers. No one should be allowed to ignore the law of the land and if everyone were to obey it perfectly we would not need police. But we still hear where people are murdered despite that being illegal, kids are touched inappropriately again despite that being inappropriate. Most of these crimes come from an abuse of power and as you point out in a car-cycle collision the cyclist will come off worst. The car has the power and if you are not equal to that you are treated as a lesser. I refute the idea that there are genuine accidents, the closest comes to a mechanical failure, otherwise there is always someone to blame.

The duty pays for your emission rates, if I were to get VED for my bike it would be £0. Just like those vehicles with low emission rates. VED has nothing to do with road maintainence, if you believe that that is the case you are sorely mistaken. The government spends £9bn on road building, it recieves £5.4bn from VED. What happens is that money is allocated from the treasury based on income tax, VAT and any other levy, all this money is put into a pot and divvied out. Another fun fact is that cyclists are more likely to own are car and thus contribute to VED than non-cyclists.
Also, roads were originaly built for bikes not cars but don't let history stand in your way.
Bikes have to have a standard of roadworthiness as required in law, don't forget cars under 3 don't require an MOT, and that the MOT itself just judges that on that day it passed the mandatory tests. Bikes are far simpler, and I would imagine that most cyclists spend more time maintaining their bikes than you your car.
The driving licence is a bit misleading, firstly there is no legal requirement to have one, unlike cars, that you know can kill people, there is nothing wrong with not having one, but I refer you back to the point cyclists are most likely to be car owners anyway so already have that knowledge. I am in favour of bikeability schemes (that is the new cycling proficency). But what the licence would do is to impose a barrier to cycling which is a bad thing. Cycling is good for society and the more that cycle the better it is, anything to restrict that is a retrograde step.
And finally, what risk do they expose themselves to if all car drivers are following the rules? The jag that almost side swiped me today if I had a cycle license, my £0 VED disc and with a serviced bike how would that have not have happened? How would that risk be mitigated or reduced?

But why stop there I hope you would also require pedestrians to pass tests, have insurance, be road worthy before stepping out of the front door, after all they also use the road...

Also bonus points for not calling VED road tax

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I don't accept cycling is a 'philosophy' - there may be some hippy green types who do it as a means to save the planet, but i expect they are in the minority. It is merely a mode of transport. Now no-one should be allowed to ignore the law of the land. If that was the case, cyclists would be safe - full stop. Because when car/cyclist accidents in which the car is blameworthy, would be against the law. Where the car driver is not blameworthy, it is either a genuine accident - unavoidable - or the fault of the cyclist.

While I would not agree with the term Philosophy, they do have a strong community and are as deserving of that label as groups like ours here. There are people for whom it's an A->B thing too of course.
I have always believed that if someone is going to take a vehicle onto the road (motorised or otherwise) they should take a theoretical and practical test AND have a set standard of maintenance. In fact I'd say all of the regulation that applies to the use of a motorcycle should apply to the use of a bicycle. Including the mandatory use of safety gear and a mandatory standard for said safety gear.
[url]http://cyclehelmets.org/1182.html[/url]
For example.

[Wolfshade]

There is a manadory requirement for safety equipment, but that is to survive an impact of up to 12mph, roughly the speed that you would hit falling side ways. It isn't madatory that you use one as the evidence is less than clear that they are beneficial. For every article that says that they are there is another that says that they aren't.

Also, where mandatory helmet laws have been introduce cycling participation has decreased. This is detrimental to governements aims to get more people cycling and would actually make the cyclist a rarer beast and therefore more likely to be involved in collisions. It is a critical mass thing, get enough people cycling so they are common enough and the safety of it increases massively, hence Holland has no helmet laws but the lowest injury/death rate for cyclists in the world.

[Denzark]

Yes I understand 'road tax' is not road tax etc. Good point about emissions which I had totally forgotten though. I guess what I am trying to point out is that a group of totally unregulated persons (cyclists) are wanting to use, for their own benefit, an asset (the road) where the primary users (drivers) are heavily regulated - and expecting the primary users to make concessions just to facilitate the ease of the cyclists.


At the end of the day, regarding your Jag incident, there must have been someone blameworthy. If you, unlucky. If him, then there are sanctions. If both of you were compliant with the law and this was one of the rare, genuinely unavoidable actual bon fide (near) accidents, then there seems to have been nothing that could have been done. I don't see a need to mitigate risk to the detriment of others if there is genuinely no-one at fault. You can't be totally risk free - if you make the call to be a lycra ninja, you wears your helmet and takes your chances.

[Psychosplodge]

Is there a reason the inflating jackets and armour horse riders wear aren't widely used by cyclists Wolfie?

[Wolfshade]

I'm not asking for concessions, I am asking for the same rights and privelliges. I am allowed to cycle down the middle of the road if I want, I should be granted the same space that a car is given while being overtaken. But that isn't the case.
So you are still up for regulating the pedestrians also... but the issue is that you see that the primary users are motorised vehicles, certainly they are numerically superior, but the use of primary makes it bad, it says this is mine though because I am nice I will allow you in your inferior mode to use it. Which is the issue.

"Interestingly", there is a push to have a more dedicated cycle awareness for learner drivers, as most cyclist-car collisions have the car driver at fault. But I do see some riders and think you really need to learn roadcraft, but on the same side we have people who are certified safe drivers who also make similiar errors in judgement.

With the jag incident he was in the wrong yet had I not moved out of the way I would be hit and I would be the worse off and all the paperwork in the world wouldn't have mitigated that. I was then told off for whoooshing up the inside...