Cycling

[Paul]

West Midlands police to prosecute drivers for unsafe overtaking of cyclists.

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/uk-police-force-to-start-prosecuting-drivers-for-unsafe-overtaking-of-cyclists/

[wolfie]

West Midlands police to prosecute drivers for unsafe overtaking of cyclists.

http://www.thebikecomesfirst.com/uk-police-force-to-start-prosecuting-drivers-for-unsafe-overtaking-of-cyclists/

Good move. I nearly got wiped out by an articulated lorry coming over the railway bridge at Barton (heading south on the A6, just north of Preston)

The front of the cab was less than a foot away from me when it passed and due the the skew on the bridge the trailer was edging closer to me as it went by.

I was so shaken up I didn't even get the reg of bloody thing. Absolutely terrifying, he must have saved himself all of 5 seconds

[Audax]

Good your okay Wolfie; that's the worse kind of incident, one was doing no wrong.

[Al]

If the cyclists are two abreast as I believe they are entitled to be that means a car has to be 3 metres away from the nearside to pass them. THAT IS DANGEROUS.

[Paul]

Al thats the same distance as for overtaking a car. Is that dangerous?

[wolfie]

If the cyclists are two abreast as I believe they are entitled to be that means a car has to be 3 metres away from the nearside to pass them. THAT IS DANGEROUS.

It's not really a case of entitlement, Al, it's actually safer (generally) for all concerned for cyclists to ride two abreast. say for example 10 cyclists are riding in a line, the line could be 30 yards long. On many roads this could prove difficult for a car to overtake. If the cyclists are riding two abreast the line would be half that, making it much easier for the motorist. Not obvious at first glance but when you think about it, it does make sense.

[ABBEY]

What if it's one of the arrogent pricks who refuse to use a cycle path like on London road ? Are you expected to give them the same width ? That will mean crossing into the other lane and in rush hour big traffic jams because mr B. Ellend is to arrogent to use the path provided.

[Al]

Al thats the same distance as for overtaking a car. Is that dangerous?

The cars are normally moving at the same speed as each other an I rarely find that I need to overtake apart from on a motorway. Cyclists on the other hand necessarily are travelling slower and need to be overtaken. It can cause frustration if there is no opportunity due to traffic coming in the other direction. This is obviated if it is a single cyclist or single file and the overtake can be accomplished without crossing the centre line by much. Nobody wants to get too close to the cyclist so as to frighten him.

[Baz]

What if it's one of the arrogent pricks who refuse to use a cycle path like on London road ? Are you expected to give them the same width ? That will mean crossing into the other lane and in rush hour big traffic jams because mr B. Ellend is to arrogent to use the path provided.

If its a major route, and a good cycle lane is provided, then cyclists shouldn't be allowed to use the main carriageway - for everyone's safety.

On London road, the only change would be to give cyclists going up the hill priority over those joining from the left.

[Paul]

If its a major route, and a good cycle lane is provided, then cyclists shouldn't be allowed to use the main carriageway - for everyone's safety.

On London road, the only change would be to give cyclists going up the hill priority over those joining from the left.

The important word here is good. The cycle "path," a very loose description on London Road is dangerous and covered in potholes, badly repaired tarmac, street furniture and has so many entrances from the left it's very difficult to maintain any sort of rhythm up hill. At one point there is a huge road sign with double legs set into the pavement. The sign is too low to ride under and there is very little room to go round it.

London Road is a typical example of the lip service paid to cycle routes in order to be perceived as a cycle friendly area.

[Paul]

The cars are normally moving at the same speed as each other an I rarely find that I need to overtake apart from on a motorway. Cyclists on the other hand necessarily are travelling slower and need to be overtaken. It can cause frustration if there is no opportunity due to traffic coming in the other direction. This is obviated if it is a single cyclist or single file and the overtake can be accomplished without crossing the centre line by much. Nobody wants to get too close to the cyclist so as to frighten him.

Al I want to quote this because it demonstrates a number of misconceptions regarding cyclists and road position along with how they should be overtaken.

There are two correct cycling positions on the road - primary (also called "taking the lane") which places the cyclist in the centre of the lane which is the safest place to ride. Good cyclists will take this position when road conditions dictate - passing parked cars for example - or they wish to manoeuvre - turn right for example.

The secondary position, which many riders use is a minimum of 1 metre from the kerb which is intended to help traffic flow while protecting the cyclist from the many hazards near the kerb.

We also need to consider cycle lanes; government guidelines indicate a minimum width for a cycle lane of 1.5 metres. At 20 mph the recommended safe overtaking width is 1 metre. At 30mph it is 1.5 metres.

If one takes these factors in to account it is clear for safe overtaking of a cyclist at 20mph the drivers minimum near side distance from the kerb should be 2.5 metres. Add to this car width of 1.8 metres and the offside of a car will be a minimum of 4.3 metres from the kerb. The higher the car speed the greater the width, at 30mph it should be 4.8 metres from the kerb. Buses and HGVs are recommended 5.1 and 5.6 metres at 20 and 30mph.

I thinks it clear overtaking a cyclist correctly positioned on the road and with the minimum width requires drivers to cross the centre of the road in many instances. I can promise any driver leaving less than a metre to overtake a rider threatens injury to the cyclist if the driver fails to overtake correctly.

There are very sound reasons for these recommendations. Primarily at less than 1 metre from the kerb cyclists face many hazards drivers do not see and consequently might have to pull out quickly or unexpectedly which causes a hazard for other road users.

[ABBEY]

The important word here is good. The cycle "path," a very loose description on London Road is dangerous and covered in potholes, badly repaired tarmac, street furniture and has so many entrances from the left it's very difficult to maintain any sort of rhythm up hill. At one point there is a huge road sign with double legs set into the pavement. The sign is too low to ride under and there is very little room to go round it.

London Road is a typical example of the lip service paid to cycle routes in order to be perceived as a cycle friendly area.

Roads are full of potholes ... More typical cyclist arrogance.

London Rd has a cycle path use it and stop ruining cars "rhythm" . I'd fine any cyclist 3000 and confiscate the bike if they are not using the lanes provided and causing jams on a d/c .

[Paul]

Roads are full of potholes ... More typical cyclist arrogance.

London Rd has a cycle path use it and stop ruining cars "rhythm" . I'd fine any cyclist 3000 and confiscate the bike if they are not using the lanes provided and causing jams on a d/c .

There is a considerable difference to hitting a pothole on a bike than in a vehicle. Would you drive under an obstruction that didn't have sufficient clearance for your car? This is what cyclists are expected to do on London Road.

As for fines there is no legal basis for this. There is no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle paths or lanes which is very wise as many are unsafe.

A few seconds behind a bike costs nothing compared to the delay heavy traffic or lights creates on the roads. I rode to the Trafford Centre yesterday faster than it sometimes takes in a car!!!

[Baz]

The important word here is good. The cycle "path," a very loose description on London Road is dangerous and covered in potholes, badly repaired tarmac, street furniture and has so many entrances from the left it's very difficult to maintain any sort of rhythm up hill. At one point there is a huge road sign with double legs set into the pavement. The sign is too low to ride under and there is very little room to go round it.

London Road is a typical example of the lip service paid to cycle routes in order to be perceived as a cycle friendly area.

Agreed, I don't know the state of the cycle path, but if its not in a fit state, then I don't blame people for not using it. The filter roads from the left need to give priority to the cycle lane too, as there's nothing worse than having to stop and restart on a hill of even that gradient.

I'd also guess there needs to be clearer segregation between cycle and pedestrians, so you don't have to stop because someone isn't paying attention.

I think all cyclists would prefer that to riding slowly up that hill in heavy traffic with people trying to squeeze past you.

[ABBEY]

The important word here is good. The cycle "path," a very loose description on London Road is dangerous and covered in potholes, badly repaired tarmac, street furniture and has so many entrances from the left it's very difficult to maintain any sort of rhythm up hill. At one point there is a huge road sign with double legs set into the pavement. The sign is too low to ride under and there is very little room to go round it.

London Road is a typical example of the lip service paid to cycle routes in order to be perceived as a cycle friendly area.

having driven up London rd today I couldn't see any low signs . There was 3 lycra loons on cycle path and one in the middle of the first lane causing traffic to slow down and swerve him. Edited September 20, 2016 by ABBEY

[Paul]

having driven up London rd today I couldn't see any low signs . There was 3 lycra loons on cycle path and one in the middle of the first lane causing traffic to slow down and swerve him.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7540325,-2.6806705,3a,75y,304.06h,47.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz02pNIRJmhtaxCHcPw7A4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The sign is Dance with Passion. It says Welcome to the City of Preston and has a lamp post beside it. The cycle path up London Road has two different levels of tarmac with an old kerb running roughly up the centre. If a cyclists moves left the kerb is enough to throw him/her off the bike, go to the right and one is heading towards the road and a poor surface which could equally create issues. This a shared use path and pedestrians and cyclist could have an issue along its' entirety. I know the dangers of raised kerbs or varying surface heights as I've hit similar and come of my bike at 20mph cracking a £120 helmet in four different places!

Another issue here as well. If traffic had to "swerve him" then those drivers were to close and too fast as they had to take the evasive action you describe.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Paul

[ABBEY]

no they were not ...he cycling on a d/c in the centre of the lane and holding traffic up like an inconsiderate selfish person. The cars had to go into the outside lane to get passed .

[only2garners]

Surely if the cyclist is riding in the correct position on the road a vehicle would have to go into the outside lane on a dual carriageway to get past him anyway?

I am often on that road but I don't usually go up the hill. The cycle path runs from the Capitol Centre to the top of the hill on the pavement as a shared use path with pedestrians. I usually use the cycle path from the Capitol Centre over the bridge and then head down The Boulevard for Avenham Park and home. It's not ideal on that stretch but there are usually very few pedestrians on that bit and the road lanes are particularly narrow there. If I went on up the hill I think I'd be inclined to use the main carriageway.

[ABBEY]

He's not riding in the correct position! He's riding on the fricking road when there's a cycle route for his safety and was actually causing jams

[only2garners]

Yes he is Abbey. I know you don't agree but he's perfectly entitled to ride on the road whether there is a cycle path or not and especially in this case when the "cycle path" is not fit for purpose.

[Paul]

He's not riding in the correct position! He's riding on the fricking road when there's a cycle route for his safety and was actually causing jams

Cyclists can use any road they wish other than motorways. There is no law requiring them to use a cycle path and in this instance the road is a better option than the path. I had a look at street view on google maps and between the Capitol centre and the lights at the top counted 32 potential hazards aside from the surface and pedestrians.

The correct position on the road is at least 0.75 metres from the kerb which means any driver driving correctly should overtake in the outside lane. I would hazard a guess during rush hour a cyclist and driver starting from the bottom would reach the top within 20-30 seconds of each other so it makes no difference to journey time. Personally in heavy traffic I'd expect to be quicker than a car.

As O2G says you may not like it but the cyclist had every right to be on that road.

[ABBEY]

aye and cyclists don't cause a hazard do they .

[Al]

You are wasting your time Abbey. We all know that cyclists are nothing but a bloody nuisance on the road but they are allowed by law to be there and most of them know their rights by heart and never hesitate to quote them to you. It's just something that the motorist has to put up with. Just pay your road fund tax and grin and bear it. There's nothing you can do about it.

[ABBEY]

Indeed

[Mike E]

You are wasting your time Abbey. We all know that cyclists are nothing but a bloody nuisance on the road but they are allowed by law to be there and most of them know their rights by heart and never hesitate to quote them to you. It's just something that the motorist has to put up with. Just pay your road fund tax and grin and bear it. There's nothing you can do about it.

Roads are funded by council tax

I can see how cyclists are a nuisance but I've been in more dangerous from bad driving than bad cycling tbh. Learners and pensioners (meaning older people lacking in the sensory health of their youth, not pensioners as a whole) are more dangerous than cyclists imo.

Add to that, a lorry on a bridge is FAR scarier than a cyclist jumping a red light