Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.theonion.com/study...uying-car-1820403123

Don Atkinson posted:

The programme centred on  a study by Hampshire police. They recorded the actions of "motorists" endangering cyclists. The cyclists included plain-clothed police officers with body cameras. The worst offending "motorists" IMHO were lorry drivers and van drivers overtaking with far too little clearance. The recommended minimum clearance was quoted as 1.5m (5 ft).

This suggests to me that virtually all of our cycle lanes are far too narrow and we don't have enough room on most roads to make adequate provision for lanes that are wide enough!

IMHO, it's tempting fate to provide a narrow (and often intermittent) "gutter" lane for commuter cyclists.

It's down to motorists to bide their time and only overtake when it's safe to do so !  

Yikes! I find myself agreeing with Don!

Clive B posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The programme centred on  a study by Hampshire police. They recorded the actions of "motorists" endangering cyclists. The cyclists included plain-clothed police officers with body cameras. The worst offending "motorists" IMHO were lorry drivers and van drivers overtaking with far too little clearance. The recommended minimum clearance was quoted as 1.5m (5 ft).

This suggests to me that virtually all of our cycle lanes are far too narrow and we don't have enough room on most roads to make adequate provision for lanes that are wide enough!

IMHO, it's tempting fate to provide a narrow (and often intermittent) "gutter" lane for commuter cyclists.

It's down to motorists to bide their time and only overtake when it's safe to do so !  

Yikes! I find myself agreeing with Don!

Don’t be too surprised Clive !! Most people really agree with most of what I have said about cyclists. The principal disagreement is usually the idea of paying for access...........

You are not a heritic 

There were meant to be a few and in the above post !!

Don Atkinson posted:

Don’t be too surprised Clive !! Most people really agree with most of what I have said about cyclists. The principal disagreement is usually the idea of paying for access...........

You are not a heritic 

Oh. I thought this nonsense of a thread had died a natural death. Ho hum...

Sorry to disagree yet again Don but that's not the principal disagreement. The principal disagreement that you repeatedly fail to grasp is that the benefits of cycling outweigh any perceived disadvantages by such an enormous amount that any punitive costs that would inevitably reduce cycling and thereby increase motor traffic and all that goes with it, should be opposed at all times, to avoid them becoming accepted by the unthinking who may begin to think it a good thing to drive cyclists off the road.

Some 150.000 scientists and othersuch educated boffins have apparently signed a proof that we / WE all need to put in an extra concerted effort to sort ourselves out.

The hole in the ozone layer has been thwarted. But that's it since 1992. Everything else has got much worse since then..

Cyclists unite. We are saving the world.

Been much talk on other forums about the bright non beamed lights on cycles being too bright and blinding motorists.

Never have I been on an open road at night without adequate lighting provided, has an oncoming motor dimmed down their lights for me as they would another vehicle.

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.theonion.com/study...uying-car-1820403123

It's a topsy-turvey world and a topsey-turvy thread at the moment.

Hope the new bike is continuing to impress and provide enjoyment and that you can do better than 17½ mph in nil-wind conditions

So; this morning, waiting to turn across the road into my son's school, we were third in line.

Car one turns, all fine, well in front of the cyclist coming the other way in the cycle lane.

The car in front of me hesitates, I figure she has seen him coming and waits.

Nope ! She then turns right in front of him, however he's seen her idiocy/blindness coming and has slowed down.

I think 'what a tw@t' of the driver, he is shaking his head and saying loud stuff. Not surprised he's hacked off. But he did see it coming. So did I.

She's then waiting in the traffic that's formed in school drop off area.

He now comes to a complete halt. Parks his bike against the fence, approaches her, shouting and throwing his arms about, getting her attention. I can see she looks panicked. So does the boy in the back. He points at himself, points at her, points at the kid, kicks out at her car door and thumps her mirror. He then leaves and rides off. She picks up her phone and dials.

The world is full of tw@ts.

JamieWednesday posted:

So; this morning, waiting to turn across the road into my son's school, we were third in line.

Car one turns, all fine, well in front of the cyclist coming the other way in the cycle lane.

The car in front of me hesitates, I figure she has seen him coming and waits.

Nope ! She then turns right in front of him, however he's seen her idiocy/blindness coming and has slowed down.

I think 'what a tw@t' of the driver, he is shaking his head and saying loud stuff. Not surprised he's hacked off. But he did see it coming. So did I.

She's then waiting in the traffic that's formed in school drop off area.

He now comes to a complete halt. Parks his bike against the fence, approaches her, shouting and throwing his arms about, getting her attention. I can see she looks panicked. So does the boy in the back. He points at himself, points at her, points at the kid, kicks out at her car door and thumps her mirror. He then leaves and rides off. She picks up her phone and dials.

The world is full of tw@ts.

Yeah, there's little point in escalating. I get the anger, though. It tends to happen when someone's thoughtfulness, impatience or aggression puts your life in danger. Earlier this week I was walking across the pedestrian crossing in front of the office, carrying my bike shoes and helmet (going from the bike storage to my office). A driver with his head down looking at his phone blows through the crossing, nearly striking me. He looked up just enough to see that he wasn't going to be able to stop in time, so kept going and looked straight back down at his phone. I regret to say that I was just not quite quick enough to punch or kick his stupid car, but briefly considered hurling a shoe at it.

TOBYJUG posted:

Been much talk on other forums about the bright non beamed lights on cycles being too bright and blinding motorists.

Never have I been on an open road at night without adequate lighting provided, has an oncoming motor dimmed down their lights for me as they would another vehicle.

The front light on my bike is quite bright and i do worry it maybe dazzling on-comers, but because it's on my bike i can't see myself coming down the road to check how it looks, however it is angled downwards slightly so should be okay (?)

Meanwhile i am getter occasions of getting dazzled by other cyclists myself, the problem [apart from the obvious one of being dazzled] seems to be the lowering of ones ability to estimate how far and at what speed the bright bleeding light is moving. In fact sometimes i'm not sure what it is, a car with one headlamp?, a motorcycle?, a scooter?,  ...i'm just glad it's only dusk overcast gloom i sometimes ride in and i don't have to ride my bike at night in total darkness anymore.

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

TOBYJUG posted:

Been much talk on other forums about the bright non beamed lights on cycles being too bright and blinding motorists.

Never have I been on an open road at night without adequate lighting provided, has an oncoming motor dimmed down their lights for me as they would another vehicle.

The front light on my bike is quite bright and i do worry it maybe dazzling on-comers, but because it's on my bike i can't see myself coming down the road to check how it looks, however it is angled downwards slightly so should be okay (?)

Meanwhile i am getter occasions of getting dazzled by other cyclists myself, the problem [apart from the obvious one of being dazzled] seems to be the lowering of ones ability to estimate how far and at what speed the bright bleeding light is moving. In fact sometimes i'm not sure what it is, a car with one headlamp?, a motorcycle?, a scooter?,  ...i'm just glad it's only dusk overcast gloom i sometimes ride in and i don't have to ride my bike at night in total darkness anymore.

Debs

My front light is bright, and likewise it is angled down (it is also adjustable in spread, so I have it set for Illumination of the road in front of me, but no wider than I need to be able to see the road surface in the dark.

However, one problem with LED bike lights, some more so than others, is that the whilst a reflector, and in better designs a lens, can provide a degree of focus ther is often significant 'stray' light that in a dipped car headlamp is avoided by a shield.  That said, whilst they can be bright and more dazzling than ideal, as long as angled downwards they are not as completely and dangerously dazzling as a car headlamp on full beam.

I've recently noticed quite a few cyclists on the daily commute in central London on the narrow dedicated contra flow cycle lanes with either front or rear lights poorly aligned to the point where they dazzle other cyclists.  Motorists also no doubt!  I'm not sure if this is done out of ignorance or deliberate but I do wish all cyclists would check the alignment of front and rear lights.

Peter

northpole posted:

I've recently noticed quite a few cyclists on the daily commute in central London on the narrow dedicated contra flow cycle lanes with either front or rear lights poorly aligned to the point where they dazzle other cyclists.  Motorists also no doubt!  I'm not sure if this is done out of ignorance or deliberate but I do wish all cyclists would check the alignment of front and rear lights.

Peter

The increasing brightness of bike lights is definitely an issue. I run mine on low power until I get out of the city the switch it up. It's angled down to cover the road I need to see. Sadly, as someone said above, motorists rarely see a need to dip their lights for cyclists, so caution is the key for during those frequent, but brief periods when I am temporarily blinded by oncoming vehicles.

When cyclists do converse on the subject of lighting and not dazzling other road users, they do seem to have the right ideas about it.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum...40012&t=13070924

Personally I use two decent lights angled to create an optimum pool of light ahead of me, with a small single small flashing white in the centre of the bars as that 's become the de facto cyclist's light as long as they're within the legal parameters of 60-240 flashes per minutes (1-4Hz). That still doesn't stop drivers coming towards me with full beam on as if they can't possibly comprehend what the two lights plus a flashing light can possibly be and clearly feel that the most obvious (duhhh!! It's a bike) can't possibly be it, so maintain full beam regardless.

There seems to be a growing number of cyclists around here who don't think they need lights. That's just asking for trouble 

ChrisR_EPL posted:

When cyclists do converse on the subject of lighting and not dazzling other road users, they do seem to have the right ideas about it.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum...40012&t=13070924

Personally I use two decent lights angled to create an optimum pool of light ahead of me, with a small single small flashing white in the centre of the bars as that 's become the de facto cyclist's light as long as they're within the legal parameters of 60-240 flashes per minutes (1-4Hz). That still doesn't stop drivers coming towards me with full beam on as if they can't possibly comprehend what the two lights plus a flashing light can possibly be and clearly feel that the most obvious (duhhh!! It's a bike) can't possibly be it, so maintain full beam regardless.

I also run a flasher alongside my headlight. It's almost like motorists leave high beam on (or even switch it on) out of curiosity. "What is that weird light and flasher? I'd better light it up to get a better look. It's not a motor vehicle so it shouldn't be there."

Schrodinger's Cyclist

An encounter that still has me laughing and shaking my head last weekend. I was riding along what is essentially a dead-end access road between the Hollyburn Sailing Club to Capilano River. It just leads to some small parking areas for the sporting-parks, dog-park, a par-3 golf course and a daycare centre. In parallel to this very quiet road is a busy shared-use pedestrian and bike-path. I ride this route everyday and as usual, was on road, not on the shared-use path as I prefer to not interfere with the pedestrians and dog-walkers etc.

Anyway, when I was about 20m or 30m from her, a woman walking on the road turned and stood facing me in the centre of the road with her arms outstretched. She flagged me down and started to scold me for cycling on the road. Encounter was something like this:

winkyincanada posted:

Schrodinger's Cyclist

An encounter that still has me laughing and shaking my head last weekend. I was riding along what is essentially a dead-end access road between the Hollyburn Sailing Club to Capilano River. It just leads to some small parking areas for the sporting-parks, dog-park, a par-3 golf course and a daycare centre. In parallel to this very quiet road is a busy shared-use pedestrian and bike-path. I ride this route everyday and as usual, was on road, not on the shared-use path as I prefer to not interfere with the pedestrians and dog-walkers etc.

Anyway, when I was about 20m or 30m from her, a woman walking on the road turned and stood facing me in the centre of the road with her arms outstretched. She flagged me down and started to scold me for cycling on the road. Encounter was something like this:

Her: "You should be on the bike-path, not here."
Me: "But it's a road. I'm allowed to ride on the road."
Her: "But you should be on the path, I'm walking here."
Me: "I ride on the road to avoid pedestrians. Why don't you walk on the path?"
Her: "Because of cyclists. You all ride too fast. You want everything to be yours, roads, sidewalks, bike paths. Nothing is ever enough for you. And you all ride too fast. And you should be on the bike path."
Me: "But this is a road. Walk here if you like, but I am allowed to ride here too."
Her: "You should be on the bike path. And you ride too fast."

It went on like this for a minute or two. She was still scolding me as I rode away. I realised that I'd just been chastised for riding simultaneously on the road, and on the shared-use path. Some sort of quantum superposition going on, I suspect. Hence the title of the post.

I wasn't angry and was pretty much laughing through the encounter, but it certainly gave me something to think about.

This incident, bizarre as it was is exactly the reason that shared-use paths should be a last resort. They don't work for either cyclists nor for pedestrians.

For that particular stretch, I'd like to see small re-designs at each end, directing "faster cyclists" onto the road, but still allowing kids and slower "recreational cyclists" to choose the path if they like. It would greatly reduce the number of pedestrian/cyclist interactions on this busy stretch. The road is incredibly quiet with very few cars that are almost always slow (sometimes too slow) and courteous.

Agreed,  more stuff like this - http://road.cc/content/news/234033-chris-boardmans-£15bn-plan-make-greater-manchester-benchmark-cycling

Abstract from the BBC Politics News

The government is considering a "pay-per-mile" scheme for lorries to cover the cost of damage to roads.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling confirmed the current HGV levy, used to pay for wear and tear on the road network, was being consulted on.

Critics say the current scheme means international drivers using the roads do not have to pay towards upkeep.

But the Road Haulage Association (RHA) said it was unfair to target lorries and it needs to see more detail.

Mr Grayling denied any plans for a road toll system for other vehicles for the "foreseeable future".

When a Gov Minister says "at present we have no plans for other vehicles...." you can bet they have !

Won't be long before it an "Utilisation fee" for bikes !!!

Don Atkinson posted:

Abstract from the BBC Politics News

The government is considering a "pay-per-mile" scheme for lorries to cover the cost of damage to roads.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling confirmed the current HGV levy, used to pay for wear and tear on the road network, was being consulted on.

Critics say the current scheme means international drivers using the roads do not have to pay towards upkeep.

But the Road Haulage Association (RHA) said it was unfair to target lorries and it needs to see more detail.

Mr Grayling denied any plans for a road toll system for other vehicles for the "foreseeable future".

 

When a Gov Minister says "at present we have no plans for other vehicles...." you can bet they have !

Won't be long before it an "Utilisation fee" for bikes !!!

Don, I think the White Paper is titled The Spoke and Pedal Tax calculated by dividing the number of pedals into the number of spokes plus VAT and Customs And Excise Duty

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Won't be long before it an "Utilisation fee" for bikes !!!

Well, yes actually will be long. Very long indeed. In fact, it will never happen, because it is an extraordinarily stupid idea. As elaborated previously in this thread.

As for a pay-for-impact charge, fuel taxes actually do a decent (but not perfect) job of this. Large vehicles that cause a lot of impact to roads, health and the environment generally, tend to pay a lot. Medium-sized vehicles pay a medium amount. Very small vehicles that cause no damage, result in positive, rather than negative health impacts and that have negligible environmental impacts pay nothing.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Won't be long before it an "Utilisation fee" for bikes !!!

Well, yes actually will be long. Very long indeed. In fact, it will never happen, because it is an extraordinarily stupid idea. As elaborated previously in this thread.

As for a pay-for-impact charge, fuel taxes actually do a decent (but not perfect) job of this. Large vehicles that cause a lot of impact to roads, health and the environment generally, tend to pay a lot. Medium-sized vehicles pay a medium amount. Very small vehicles that cause no damage, result in positive, rather than negative health impacts and that have negligible environmental impacts pay nothing.

Despite claims on this forum to the contrary, its primarily HGVs that cause real damage and significant wear and tear on our roads. The typical family saloon causes very little. As for the associated health, environment and quality-of-life parameters, the data is too diverse to be meaningful and hence I'm not convinced that the current revenue streams are proportionate.

If e-cars take off as you predict, the Gov will need to seek new revenue streams.

And likewise, if cycling takes off (it won't of course but that's bye-the-bye) a pay-for-impact charge based on occupancy, particularly with regard to urban roads, could well appear on the agenda.

However, it's the e-cars that will probably force a further re-think of revenue streams (in addition to the HGV issue reported by the BBC)

Pcd posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Abstract from the BBC Politics News

The government is considering a "pay-per-mile" scheme for lorries to cover the cost of damage to roads.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling confirmed the current HGV levy, used to pay for wear and tear on the road network, was being consulted on.

Critics say the current scheme means international drivers using the roads do not have to pay towards upkeep.

But the Road Haulage Association (RHA) said it was unfair to target lorries and it needs to see more detail.

Mr Grayling denied any plans for a road toll system for other vehicles for the "foreseeable future".

 

When a Gov Minister says "at present we have no plans for other vehicles...." you can bet they have !

Won't be long before it an "Utilisation fee" for bikes !!!

Don, I think the White Paper is titled The Spoke and Pedal Tax calculated by dividing the number of pedals into the number of spokes plus VAT and Customs And Excise Duty

sounds like a good plan...............

............and multiplied by 2 for bespoke  bikes

Who knows, this government initiative could ultimately act as an incentive to bring forward electric lorries which would be a great thing for town and city centres.

I’m more than a little sceptical about one of the main reasons for it being to level the playing field and make Johnny Foreigner pay for using “our” roads.  Next thing they’ll have to turn up in UK with empty tanks and buy all fuel here - that would really help level the field...

as for bikes, well, really, please....!!

Peter