40mph plan for country roads (and cycling issues)

[142094]

This year is the first for many where the number of deaths on the UK roads has increased, which is probably why this knee-jerk measure has been created.

 

[jon0844]

There is a street I used to cycle along in London that was like that

A sign warning of oncoming cyclists? The person in the council that thought this a good idea should be held personally liable for every single accident/death caused by not clearly marking a cycle lane in the opposing direction, ideally with a kerb. It looks like it has been designed deliberately to kill cyclists by making cars move over into their path.

That's truly shocking and I'd be well p**sed off if I cycled down a road where I'd unknowingly been going against a one way street for cars, which would quite legally be able to drive on any side of it.

the usual "aren't all cyclists terrible" rubbish that keeps getting banded about by a certain group of people.

The 'people' being pedestrians mostly. Which is pretty much every single one of us. We can't all drive a car, train or fly a plane - but we can all walk and any of can also cycle if we so wish.

Anyway, nobody has said all cyclists are terrible - so I'd drop the quotation as it's misleading and also shows that you must have a weak argument if you have to exaggerate an issue to have it taken seriously. However, in London I'd happily say 'most' with the utmost confidence and out here in Hatfield, I'd say 'quite a lot'. Prove me wrong because I have eyes and have seen things from every angle; on foot, on a bike and in a car.

Assuming you're one of the good cyclists (if you cycle at all), you'd not only have no problem with that opinion but would likely agree with it, just like the people on here who actually cycle.

I don't see any problem with slating the bad cyclists to try and improve the situation, instead of just turning it into an argument whereby you let every bad cyclist off with the flawed comparison that a bad motorist can do more damage.

 

[Ivo]

One day a couple of weeks ago I was almost hit by five cyclists in as many minutes. None of them hit me in the end, but only because I have good hearing (a blessing given my other senses aren't exactly perfect). In each of these cases, I was walking down a street in the centre of Bath with pedestrians aplenty. I would be willing to bet £20 that at least one person was hit (or rather, I would if it could be proven one way or the other!).

Oh, and um, all this cycling stuff doesn't belong in this thread. But you all knew that. So, to change it so that it does belong here, I've changed the title.

 

[Bungle73]

A sign warning of oncoming cyclists? The person in the council that thought this a good idea should be held personally liable for every single accident/death caused by not clearly marking a cycle lane in the opposing direction, ideally with a kerb. It looks like it has been designed deliberately to kill cyclists by making cars move over into their path.

There were signs saying it was two for cyclists. To be honest if a car driver can't even be bothered take notice of signs that are clearly displayed in a quiet road like that they shouldn't even by on the road.

The 'people' being pedestrians mostly. Which is pretty much every single one of us. We can't all drive a car, train or fly a plane - but we can all walk and any of can also cycle if we so wish.

The people being motorists.

Anyway, nobody has said all cyclists are terrible - so I'd drop the quotation as it's misleading and also shows that you must have a weak argument if you have to exaggerate an issue to have it taken seriously. However, in London I'd happily say 'most' with the utmost confidence and out here in Hatfield, I'd say 'quite a lot'. Prove me wrong because I have eyes and have seen things from every angle; on foot, on a bike and in a car.

It's not "misleading". It's the general vibe going on here. I've seen it time and time again when the subject of cyclists comes up on forums and newspaper comment pages: all cyclists are terrible and shouldn't be on the road. Then they usually start with "road tax" (which doesn't exist) argument.

This thread wasn't even about cyclists, but as soon as they are brought up all hell breaks loose.

Assuming you're one of the good cyclists (if you cycle at all), you'd not only have no problem with that opinion but would likely agree with it, just like the people on here who actually cycle.

I don't see any problem with slating the bad cyclists to try and improve the situation, instead of just turning it into an argument whereby you let every bad cyclist off with the flawed comparison that a bad motorist can do more damage.

I do cycle, and I've seen some bad cyclists, but I also see a lot of bad other road users.

 

[jon0844]

It's not "misleading". It's the general vibe going on here. I've seen it time and time again when the subject of cyclists comes up on forums and newspaper comment pages: all cyclists are terrible and shouldn't be on the road. Then they usually start with "road tax" (which doesn't exist) argument.

This thread wasn't even about cyclists, but as soon as they are brought up all hell breaks loose.

I do cycle, and I've seen some bad cyclists, but I also see a lot of bad other road users.

Hang on. It bloody well IS misleading because nobody has said that.. and you can't just say 'vibe' as it's insulting and offensive because you're claiming I (and others) have rounded up every single cyclist as being terrible. I think you ought to retract that comment and stop continuing to repeat it over and over to hope it becomes true.

I totally agree about the road tax bit, but that was quickly dealt with. If only it was easy to get all cyclists to obey the law!

Ever stopped to wonder why so many people who moan about (some) cyclists do so? Could it be because there's actually truth in it?

And how do you define a motorist? Someone who only ever drives a car and doesn't know what it's like to cycle or walk on the street? Isn't that a bit of a generalisation? Chances are anyone who drives can and does do the others too and can see things from multiple views.

Bad cyclists however seem to think that bad drivers cancels out their illegal and wholly dangerous activities. As I've said before, the person most likely to kill me or seriously injure me when I'm out walking is a cyclist NOT a motorist. I can see motorists and they're mostly predictable, which is more than can be said of (some) cyclists.

To me, you're either trolling or have a bee in your bonnet as you've possibly broken one or two laws when cycling and don't see the problem - and so you're on the defensive and wanting to make it clear that cycling offences aren't important because car drivers are worse. Let's include rapists and murderers next, huh?

 

[Bungle73]

Hang on. It bloody well IS misleading because nobody has said that

Did I say anyone here said it? No I don't think I did. Like I said it's the vibe I'm getting.

.. and you can't just say 'vibe' as it's insulting and offensive

Um, no it's not. It's a statement of the feeling I get from the reponses in this thread. Like I said, I've seen it all before.

because you're claiming I (and others) have rounded up every single cyclist as being terrible. I think you ought to retract that comment and stop continuing to repeat it over and over to hope it becomes true.

I'm retracting nothing. This thread was about speed limits in narrow country roads, but then it turned into an anti-cyclist propaganda machine. This is what I object to.

I totally agree about the road tax bit, but that was quickly dealt with. If only it was easy to get all cyclists to obey the law!

Maybe they will when everyone else does.

Ever stopped to wonder why so many people who moan about (some) cyclists do so? Could it be because there's actually truth in it?

Because a lot of motorists have a bee in their bonnet about cyclists.

And how do you define a motorist? Someone who only ever drives a car and doesn't know what it's like to cycle or walk on the street? Isn't that a bit of a generalisation? Chances are anyone who drives can and does do the others too and can see things from multiple views.

The only point of view a lot of motorists consider is thier own. Most have no idea what it's like to cycle with traffic.

Bad cyclists however seem to think that bad drivers cancels out their illegal and wholly dangerous activities. As I've said before, the person most likely to kill me or seriously injure me when I'm out walking is a cyclist NOT a motorist. I can see motorists and they're mostly predictable, which is more than can be said of (some) cyclists.

The number of people killed or injured by cars far outstrips those by cycles.

To me, you're either trolling or have a bee in your bonnet as you've possibly broken one or two laws when cycling and don't see the problem - and so you're on the defensive and wanting to make it clear that cycling offences aren't important because car drivers are worse. Let's include rapists and murderers next, huh?

It's funny how defending one's position is seen by some as "trolling".

And for your information I try to obey all the rules of the road when I cycle.

 

[EM2]

I spend more time as a pedestrian than as a driver or cyclist in London, and I am afraid that the experiences put forward by Jon, West Coast etc. are more along the experiences I have had.
One night, on a nine-mile journey by car, I made a mental count of all the cyclists I saw, and how many were doing *something* wrong, whether that was riding on the pavement, riding with no lights, jumping a red light etc. There were sixty-three cyclists on that journey, and forty-one of them were doing one or more of the above.
I have nearly hit a number of cyclists with no lights, even no reflectors. With no light or high-viz clothing. With sunglasses on in the dark. With headphones on. Who don't signal when turning or changing lanes.
I have had an argument after my wife was almost hit by a cyclist at a pedestrian crossing (when we were crossing on a green man).

Yes, more pedestrians and cyclists are injured by cars than by cyclists, because there are simply more of them. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if a pedestrian on a crossing hit by a car at 20mph, is actually a lot less likely to be badly injured than being hit by a cyslist at the same speed.

 

[90019]

This thread was about speed limits in narrow country roads, but then it turned into an anti-cyclist propaganda machine.

Anti-cyclist propoganda, from members who are cyclists.

Not quite sure I follow you on that one.

Maybe they will when everyone else does.

Ah, so because other people do something, it's ok for others to do it too.
Thanks for that, I'm just off out to go burgle some houses - it's illegal, but other people do it, so it must be fine.

The only point of view a lot of motorists consider is thier own.

Some motorists are like that, yes. But then so are plenty of cyclists, so it's something of a moot point with regards to your argument.

Most have no idea what it's like to cycle with traffic.

I doubt many cyclists have any idea what it's like to drive a large vehicle on the roads with cyclists.

The number of people killed or injured by cars far outstrips those by cycles.

So we should just ignore all the cyclists who break the law because they kill less people?

And for your information I try to obey all the rules of the road when I cycle.

So why are you defending those who don't?

 

[WestCoast]

an anti-cyclist propaganda machine. This is what I object to.

Hardly. Don't confuse this thread with rants in the Evening Standard or whatever. I am an occasional cyclist myself and my perspective is about cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists interact directly with pedestrians if they are on pavements/footpaths and I have all too often seen too little care and discipline on walkways. Sometimes these are places where cyclists shouldn't even be! It's a minority of cyclists in most places, but it can be more than that in other places. A cyclist isn't likely to kill you as a pedestrian (unless you are perhaps frail), but they could well injure you in a collision.

I am certainly pro-cycling, but it has to be disciplined cycling. In Amsterdam, where it seems there are more bikes than cars in the centre, cyclists tend to stick where they should be and obey lights e.t.c, because if they don't, well, they may well crash into another cyclist (there are so many of them) or a tram. Here, I certainly see more bikes jumping the traffic lights than cars or swerving on pavements to avoid them, which endangers pedestrians and cyclists themselves more than other vehicles.

 

[GearJammer]

lol, im loving this.

Nothing like bringing up a topic about roads to start WW3, lol

 

[GB]

The fact of the matter is, there are good and bad amongst all modes that use the roads.

However, the lack of personal responsibility some cyclists show added to the leaner punishments they seem to get doesn't help the car v cyclists animosity.

 

[Yew]

The standard of driving has decreased so much

Thats interesting that the test is so much harder comepared to years ago, maybe all those drivers with an old driving test should have to resit their examinations to ensure their driving is up to par?

 

[SS4]

lol, im loving this.

Nothing like bringing up a topic about roads to start WW3, lol

IMO it's important to remember exactly why so many local authorities (and companies) are supposedly mad on H&S. The reason of course being the ambulance chasers.

 

[jon0844]

Did I say anyone here said it? No I don't think I did. Like I said it's the vibe I'm getting.

Shall we have people say you're a rapist or paedophile? I know you never said it, but we could just say it was a vibe we were getting...

That would be outrageous and I'd expect such a comment to be reported to a moderator immediately, so I'm not best pleased that you can talk of a vibe that says everyone (thus including me) is attacking ALL cyclists. That would mean slagging off myself.

..I try to obey all the rules of the road when I cycle.

Try? Do you have the option to be selective on what laws to obey?

 

[starrymarkb]

IMO it's important to remember exactly why so many local authorities (and companies) are supposedly mad on H&S. The reason of course being the ambulance chasers.

How about riderless electric bikes

 

[Stephen55a1960]

I'm an occasional cyclist myself, but some of the cycling I have seen does concern me. I witnessed my neighbour, who's partially-sighted, nearly get badly hurt on a zebra crossing by a cyclist, who failed to stop.

Near me, there's also a 'blind corner' for pedestrians at the bottom of a busy street (which is also at the bottom of a hill). Basically, it's a narrow footpath with a large wall and bushes so you can't see around the corner. I nearly collided with a cyclist who was flying down the hill on the pavement just as I was turning left up the hill and then he had the arrogance to curse at me!

Of course, I know many (probably the majority in most places) cyclists aren't ignorant/careless, but I do find some cyclists are quite undisciplined on the roads (or pavements!).

"but I do find some cyclists are quite undisciplined on the roads (or pavements!)" That's the point that one particular poster on here misses or chooses to overlook. It is only some cyclists who have a flagrant disregard for other road users and rules.

 

[jon0844]

When I used to see the police out catching cyclists jumping lights (quite often between Farringdon and Old Street), the arguments were much like those of people caught without a ticket arguing against getting a penalty fare.

Obviously never their fault, and clearly the police have nothing better to do than pick on cyclists. At least the Met and City of London police DO occasionally do stings and I'm surprised they don't more often given how many people they catch. The very same that I have said many times about revenue sting operations!

 

[Stephen55a1960]

When I used to see the police out catching cyclists jumping lights (quite often between Farringdon and Old Street), the arguments were much like those of people caught without a ticket arguing against getting a penalty fare.

Obviously never their fault, and clearly the police have nothing better to do than pick on cyclists. At least the Met and City of London police DO occasionally do stings (and I'm surprised they don't more often given how many people they catch).

I remember some years ago (1992) reading, on holiday in Scotland, a newspaper interview with a newly appointed police inspector. When asked what his priorities would be he replied: "dealing with sheep rustlers and cycling on pavements". Such is life. As you may have gathered this was a rural beat

 

[devon_metro]

I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists that jump red lights - where it is safe to do so. I cycle frequently in Southampton and the number of pedestrian crossings is astonishing. Consequently I can sympathise when the crossing is not occupied by pedestrians when cyclsts skip said lights. Frankly they are an unnecessary expense of energy.
On the other hand I see many cyclists who jump junctions, this I find particularly dangerous particularly with the standard of driving of some Southampton residents.

Re: the original topic of this thread, as a car driver, nothing pis ses me off more than drivers on national roads who drive consistantly well below the speed limit, where the conditions clearly allow higher speeds. Many of the A roads in Somerset for example, countless times have I crawled behind some muppet driving at 40. If anything it is inconsitentcy in driving styles that causes many accidents, as it encourages drivers who aren't in a dream world state to perform potentially dangerous overtakes.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... drivers on national roads who drive consistantly well below the speed limit, where the conditions clearly allow higher speeds.....

Who may be out for a pleasant drive to enjoy the view....or may not wish to arrive at their destination too early so as to incur higher parking fees...or may be "nursing" their car to the next repair shop....
IMHO, the kernel of this thread (even the cyclist pages) and just about every other thread dealing with road usage, is that whoever we are - drivers, cyclists, truckers, pedestrians - we all need to be considerate of other road users. We cannot read their minds, we do not know their equipment, we do not know how they or it will react. [In the above scenario the faster driver should not drive aggressively, the slower driver should give the other the opportunity to pass as soon as it is safe].
Peace love and harmony, brothers and sisters.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It strikes me that the most dangerous drivers are those who are either under-confident, or over-confident.

 

[Oswyntail]

It strikes me that the most dangerous drivers are those who are either under-confident, or over-confident.

Which leaves two drivers - i wonder who the other one is.

 

[GB]

I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists that jump red lights - where it is safe to do so. I cycle frequently in Southampton and the number of pedestrian crossings is astonishing. Consequently I can sympathise when the crossing is not occupied by pedestrians when cyclsts skip said lights. Frankly they are an unnecessary expense of energy.
On the other hand I see many cyclists who jump junctions, this I find particularly dangerous particularly with the standard of driving of some Southampton residents.

Re: the original topic of this thread, as a car driver, nothing pis ses me off more than drivers on national roads who drive consistantly well below the speed limit, where the conditions clearly allow higher speeds. Many of the A roads in Somerset for example, countless times have I crawled behind some muppet driving at 40. If anything it is inconsitentcy in driving styles that causes many accidents, as it encourages drivers who aren't in a dream world state to perform potentially dangerous overtakes.

It maybe irritating but red is red and the law is the law. While you might not have seen someone doesn't mean there isn't someone there or that someone isn't going to quickly dart out of no where.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Just come across this thread and haven't read all of it so not sure whether someone has already made a comment about a particular concern of mine - the 'B' road 100yds from my house does not have a footpath, is a link between two cycle paths (old railway lines), attracts a considerable number of runners/joggers/walkers yet the speed limit is 60mph (the 'A' road across the river which runs parallel is already 40mph! (and has a footpath)...but my main concern as a driver is that the majority of runners/joggers/walkers do not face oncoming traffic!!! This was drummed into me when I was a child...do people not consider this important now? (p'raps the younger generation on this forum can comment). I have lost count of the number of occasions that I have had near misses with pedestrians on this road, and I consider myself a careful driver. Facing oncoming traffic gives you a split second to adjust your position if need be, and that is often......and of course, how some people think that they can be seen in the dark with their back to you and wearing dark clothing!!!
Personally, I'm all for the 40mph limit, but pedestrians also have to take responsibility and act appropriately.

 

[Ivo]

The majority of runners/joggers/walkers do not face oncoming traffic!!! This was drummed into me when I was a child...do people not consider this important now?

Not nearly as much as it was in years gone by - when the need for said important advice was lower due to fewer cars on the road. Go figure.

I remember not so long a go I was speaking to one of the bus drivers here on our University route about this very subject. We passed one such person in an awkward stretch and two others in a less awkward stretch. He then told me that he averaged about 25 a week on that bit of road alone.

 

[Bungle73]

I don't remember ever being told which side of the road to walk on (didn't really need to know in London). I only know because I read it somewhere.

The thing is most people aren't used to walking along roads with no pavements.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I don't remember ever being told which side of the road to walk on (didn't really need to know in London). I only know because I read it somewhere.

The thing is most people aren't used to walking along roads with no pavements.

...unless, of course you live in the countryside! ...but I agree that in towns and cities it would be of less value. I wonder where 'face oncoming traffic' exists in any govt guidelines?

 

[90019]

I wonder where 'face oncoming traffic' exists in any govt guidelines?

It's rule two in the 2007 edition of the Highway Code.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

It's rule two in the 2007 edition of the Highway Code.

Thanks, no excuse then! I could make myself unpopular on my local road (or save someone's life!)

 

[Bungle73]

Pedestrians aren't required to read the Highway Code. In fact I bet most people who don't drive have never read it.