The War On Britain's Road - Drivers V Cyclists - BBC 1 9PM

Paul, I would add that you probably don't experience it on a motorbike but you would not believe the abuse, cars up a few feet behind you, revving engines etc when you hold car drivers up using the method you describe on a bicycle. Many drivers think you should be riding in the verges or whatever they call the far edges with the drain covers etc. I have got used to it and as a big lad am not intimidated so much in a physical sense by the drivers themselves but it scares the living daylights out of lots of cyclists and / or stops them cycling at all.

Summary of this the majority of this thread.

Car drivers spawn of the devil.  Cyclists angelic.

Pretty simple then.

Jim

A poor summary. As far as I know no-one on the thread has said that. For my part, I said there were plenty of good drivers around only a couple of posts up.

However, the facts on injuries and deaths caused by car drivers are what they are.

Furthermore, a recent AA poll of motorists shows that 57 per cent of drivers agree that cyclists have good grounds to feel upset at the way motorists treat them.

If you don't like the stuff discussed please offer your opinion.

Marky,

it seems I have touched a raw nerve. I was merely making an observation on my view of the general tone of the thread. Is that not allowed or do I have to enter into a debate on every individual point raised previously for my comment to have any validity?

There are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists. Unfortunately bad drivers hurt more bad cyclists as they ride bigger machines.  Simple laws of physics really 

Jim

One day an apple fell from a tree...

Its all a bit fatalist.

If I drive a monster truck recklessly I will hurt more car drivers.

Conversely, I could choose not to drive it recklessly.

Marky,

Your starting position is that the majority of drivers are reckless. My starting position is the majority of drivers are actually OK. 

Jim

No, it is not.

My starting position is that car drivers cause the majority of injuries and deaths on the roads in the UK. This is based on the facts freely available to everyone.

i think there are a lot of bad drivers around though. Do you agree?

I said just above there are plenty of good drivers around and have said before there are bad drivers and bad cyclists.

Are you trolling? Do you have any facts to share on the outcomes of bad cycling?

If not, then I am sorry but I would prefer to watch the snooker final.

My starting point is that it only takes less than one pro cent of motootrists to be reckless to produce horrendous cyclist and pedestrian mortality and injury.

The reckless cyclist is probably poportionally not unlike the reckless motorist, but the result is that motorists as a a class [including the small proportion of reckless ones] are far more dangerous, because the motor vehicle is a far more dangerous implement than the cycle or the walking stick. Just as a chain saw or shot gun is far more dangerous than a kettle or wheel barrow.

Just as - in an order of something about one hundred times less - the tiny propotion of reckless cyclist are far more dangerous than reckless pedestrians.

Perhaps there is a case for cyclists being compelled to carry third party insurance at about one hundred times less than the cost of motorists to protect the welfare of pedestrians in the event of a crash!

The real issue is not the proportion of reckless motorists, but whether motorists realise quite how dangerous an implement they operate ...

Not less dangerous than walking round with a loaded shot-gun in my view. That part was a personal view rather than one yet backed up with accademic research. Might be a an interesting University thesis though? And the number of deaths from shot guns is tiny compared to the deaths caused by motorists.

Howe many pedestrians, cyclist and motorists are killed by people wandering round with loaded shot guns, compared to how many cyclists and pedestrians are killed or severely injured by motorised vehicles ...

Though the absolute majority of motorists are blameless, never the less, the problem statistically remains the dreadful standard of motor driving that can be seen every single day on the road, and something really ought to be done to change that.

ATB from George 

Marky,

i am not trolling. I just accept that accidents can happen. Some can be avoided, some cannot.  Pretty logical really. 

Thanks for stating the obvious regarding cars causing more accidents than bikes. There are more cars and they have more speed and mass, therefore they hurt more people when they come into contact.

As for reading and comprehension skills being linked...is there a reason that you have decided I am incapable of doing so?  Other than the fact that I take a different position than that which you hold?

Jim

George,

what do you propose is done about the "dreadful" standard of driving of the less than 1% of the driving population?

Jim

I had a proposition that I put to a Policeman after my foot long fracture in my right Tibia, and that was that cyclists might be allowed to carry and use an AK 47 before the questions were asked!

Obviously that was a knee-jerk [left leg obviously as the right one was a bit knackered] reaction to being on two sticks, and the Policeman advised me not to take it too seriously, but the truth must be that motorists must take their responsibility much more seriously than hither to. If that means that dangerous motorists - those successfully convicted of life threatening driving - were banned from driving for the rest of their lives, then we might see some change in attitude on the part of the truly irresponsible and tiny proportion of drivers who are the problem.

For myself I'd bring back the rope for it, but that would never be accepted. A life driving ban seems, however, a reasonable sanction for killing or severely injuring a pedestrian or cyclist in my view. I see no reason why a cyclist might not receive the same sentence for killing or severely injuring a pedestrian to balance the situation out ... The Law could be framed as road and pavement users, without stating what class, so it would apply to cyclists and motorists [and pedestrians] with equal force, which would be fair enough ...

ATB from George

George has said it only takes less than 1% of motorists to be reckless to produce horrendous cyclist and pedestrian mortality and injury. This is not the same as saying they number less than 1%.

Jim, there was a new scheme of fines proposed earlier in the thread. Are you willing to adopt it? No-one else seemed to be keen.

However, as your starting point was to go on about bad cyclists and inaccurately claim people have been saying all drivers are bad, maybe you can furnish us with some facts on the outcomes of bad cycling?

Please exclude grazed knees and unnecessary punctures due to improperly fitted tyres in your breakdown.

According to the facts, 25% of road deaths are attributable to speeding alone.

This is before adding in those attributable to dangerous driving, fatigue, using a mobile whilst driving etc.

Would you agree that all of the above fall into your some that 'can be avoided' category?

If so, I am happy we agree on something.

Then there are the over 200,000 injuries per annum to consider.

Marky, George,

the fact that one of you proposes the death penalty while the other resorts to sarcastic comments about grazed knees shows the breadth of the absurdity of the cycling zealots position throughout this thread. 

Nowhere have I said that there are not careless, dangerous and even reckless drivers out there Nowhere have I claimed that cyclists kill people. There are though, cyclists who put themselves in dangerous positions bthomehub undertaking dangerous manoeuvres just as there are careless drivers. 

Just bring some balance to the dialogue. 

Jim

No idea how the word by became bthomehub in my reply. The wonders of autocorrect on iPad. 

Do you have some facts on the outcomes of bad cycling? YES / NO (delete as appropriate)

Dear Jim,

I am not porposing to do away with the Court system.

If a cyclist effectively commits suicide in front of a motorist, i am sure that the Court [within the limitations of humans to get things right] will see that no life driving ban would be necessary!

It is called a mitigating circumstance.

As I said, users of the road and pavement [highway] should all be subject to the same Law and not clssified according to method of transport - motor, push cycle, or shankses pony!

But the mayhem caused on the modern highway, by the ultra-quick modern motor may well skew the Law in the way that is correct, and against the major cause or the current problem - the inattentive motorist in charge of an ultra dangerous piece of equipment.

Can you justify that the current situation does not need addressing? And if it needs addressing - which I suggest that figures for mortality and injury suggest to me it should be - what is "your" solution?

ATB from George

Marky,

no I don't. It's always the drivers fault.

Jim

I thought it was the 'simple laws of physics' that are killing people?

Sounds like the beginnings of a climbdown.

And still no facts.

George,

my solution is the status quo. I am not the one saying there is a problem that needs addressing to extent of hanging people....

jim

Dear Jim,

From that I understand that you find the status quo to be acceptable.  On this we no doubt disagree ...

If you read my posts you will see that my knee jerk reaction [so described by me, and no back-tracking at all] was to hope for the rope for reckless drivers. The point about the knee-jerk is that one has time to see that is is just that. I am calling for the ultimate sanction to be a life ban from driving, and of course not discounting the other current fines and prison sentences that the Law currently allows. But a life ban from motoring might well be a bigger deterent than six months in chokey, or a large fine  ...

ATB from George

It is probably an emotive issue for George as he has been knocked down twice.

Jim, you have chosen to focus on the devil, the angels, the laws of physics and the hangman's noose rather than supplying any pertinent facts on outcomes.

Your solution may be the status quo but that has already shifted - which is why you are upset about cyclists.

And here it is. Whilst ever drivers feel that killing cyclists is inevitable and due to "laws of physics" (or scofflaw cyclists running lights and riding on footpaths), then they will continue to kill cyclists. I don't think motorists' views on this can ever change. They won't ever take responsibility and alter their behaviour. There is nothing cyclists can do.

Each year, more roads around Minneapolis are being designated as "bicycle friendly", with clearly defined bicycle lanes painted on the asphalt. These started off as bridges between the different bike (only) paths that loop around our lakes or cut through parks, but have now grown into a network of their own that allows bicyclists to get from one end of town to the other.  I have not seen statistics, but logic tells me that traveling by bike is a lot safer using these friendlier routes, and much of it is due to the investment in signage that reminds motorists of their shared use.

By law, bikes are allowed on any roadway, and cyclists certainly don't restrict themselves to bike-friendly roads and dedicated paths...but I do.  Am not comfortable riding on roads where the amount of space I am afforded is left to the driver's discretion.  Haven't met the same unfortunate fate as George, but I've had my close calls!

The taxes in Minneapolis are high, but a good amount of that revenue goes into maintaing parks, and in making the town bicycle-friendly.  I know that a painted line isn't going stop a bad driver from hitting a bicyclist, but I do think that the lines help inattentive drivers to be slightly more aware of their surroundings.

Hook

They do a lot around here for bicycles, too. All of it well-intentioned, some of it good, some not so much. I really don't like the shared-use paths that have become increasingly common. They are really just footpaths that bicycles are allowed to ride on. It leads to all sorts of conflicts and hazards. The problem is, that where one of these shared-use footpaths exists, cyclists like me who choose not to impinge on the space of joggers, dog walkers, off-leash dogs, iPlodders, oblivi-texters, kids on big wheels etc, now just get abused for being on the roadway.

Down-town they have put in segregated lanes for bikes on a few streets. Problem is, these lanes are two-way on what are otherwise one-way streets. This leads to all sorts of confusion, with bikes popping up from where motorists don't expect them - leading to more abuse. Prohibitions on turning across the bike lanes at some intersections to reduce the issue of hitting cyclists coming from a so-called "blind spot" are largely ignored by motorists. Pedestrians also frequently step into the bike lanes without looking each way - they're taking cues from the "one-way" nature of the street, I think, and also don't hear bikes approaching (not helped by talking on phones, iPods, texting whilst crossing streets etc.) I don't purposely avoid these bike lanes (like I do the footpaths that bikes are allowed on), but am super-cautious.

On an associated note.....

I am always bemused by these so-called issues due to cyclists:

a) filtering alongside cars stopped at intersections; and

b) not keeping to the edge of the road so cars' progress isn't impeded

Motorists can hold seemingly contradictory views. That a single lane is wide enough to accommodate both a car and bike when both are moving at speed (i.e. when the car is squeezing past a kerb-hugging cyclist) but at the same time too narrow to accommodate both when the car is stationary and a cyclist is filtering alongside. Here's the deal. I'll stop filtering past stopped traffic when motorists allow me to take a full lane at all times without abusing me or threatening my life with their vehicles.