To be glad that *some* police forces are going to tackle the dangerous overtaking of cyclists?(119 Posts)
And that I live in one of the areas trying this out?
Whilst I don't think it will tackle every dick who flies past with millimeters to spare or those who deliberately target cyclists with punishment passes, it will hopefully raise enough awareness amongst those who act carelessly rather than meliciously.*
* Yes, I know some cyclists can ride badly, not have lights and have earphones on and run read lights and yes I support efforts to tackle that too. It isn't an either or situation.
I agree OP, far too many people inch their way past cyclists leaving millimetres to spare! It's dangerous for the cyclist and for other motorists as it usually means they've overtaken into oncoming traffic. Drives me mad and I'm not a cyclist!
Although what has always confused me is whether you need to leave as large a gap when overtaking cyclists in a cycle lane?
About 15 years ago I was actually clipped by a wing mirror and sent sprawling by a berk attempting to pass with no space. I went over the bars in quite dramatic fashion and landed flat on my back, luckily I had a helmet on and no real damage was done.
I think cycle lanes may have caused some confusion. Most are in 30mph limits, so I slow down and give as much room as possible. In cities there is no other choice really.
Obviously on NSL you need to give plenty of room due to the higher driving speed. Many drivers have never cycled themselves so don't appreciate the effect their car has. Lorries are the worst though, you feel like you're going to be sucked under.
Lions, yes you need to leave just as much space if there is a cycle lane.
I was turning right into a side road the other day, and the road I was on is pretty narrow. If I go right into the middle of the road it seems to encourage people to try and squeeze past, so I make sure I hold the space (take 'primary position'). This didn't stop the twat in the range rover mounting the pavement to get past me. It must have save him all of 2 seconds.
Oh, this is good. I think a lot of people have absolutely no idea how close they are, which is quite scary. Round here there are lots of cyclists, and someone posted his cycle-cam on a local news site - you could see drivers flicking past with a hair to spare. But what was really worrying was a lot of drivers responded saying they'd no idea that was a problem.
It is something you get taught before you pass your test (you hope!), but I think a lot of people need a refresher.
My force is on the list too! Yay!
I haven't been on my bike since having DS, but the places some people used to choose to pass were terrifying. Blind bends, the brow of hills, squeezing past on single track lanes... it was a rare ride that didn't give me at least one 'oh shit!' moment.
I would like to get a seat for DS this summer but honestly, the thought of some of the drivers I used to meet is making me think twice. It would be all back lanes for us - no big roads - but still... which is a shame because I'd really like DS to grow up thinking that we don't have to drive everywhere! But not at the expense of being squished
I'm really pleased, we had a nasty spate of cyclists being knocked off by dangerous overtakes - three in one week. Two broke bones, the other died, leaving his pregnant wife behind. I was pregnant at the time myself, I asked my husband not to go out road riding (we're both mountain bikers normally, where the only thing to worry about is your own stupidity!)
Cycle lanes are often a bit shit - they're often narrower than recommended, a haven for broken glass, slippery leaves and potholes, randomly stop and start, cars park in them, drivers pass to close to them, and they encourage inexperienced cyclists to stick to the gutter, putting them at risk of dodgy overtakes and left hooks.
I think the Highway Code itself causes confusion.
Saying "you have you give the same clearance as you would give a car" can be taken two ways - ie you give the same distance you'd give a car OR you act as if the bike is a car and then give it some clearance. Drivers should do the latter - which means you have to go on the other side of the road (when nobody is coming the other way!)
I find people get very impatient when I won't overtake with millimetres to spare - and the number of times that I see cars overtake when people are coming the other way, or on blind bends is ridiculous.
All that said, when a cycle lane is good quality and off-road, it should be a legal requirement to use them. It annoys me when I am using a local road with a really decent cycle path (I've both run and cycled along it, so I know it's a decent surface and not strewn with glass) and the macho MAMILs insist on using the road.
In France you often see little flags jutting out from the sides of bikes to keep cars further away.
Hyde park has huge cycle lanes now - and so often the bikes will hurtle along the pavement around a dead corner. It's a bloody nightmare if you are running. And this is a section with a huge labe on one side, and a smaller one on the other. There is no need to cycle there whatsoever.
Yes,if there's a lane, use it!
Would it be totally draconian to insist that anyone physically capable of doing so should have a cycling proficiency test including time on he road before learning to drive? I suppose it would be fairly impractical. But I do think half the trouble is that, as a pp said, many drivers just have no idea that they're being intimidating or unsafe.
By contrast I used to live in a city in Italy where cycling was absolutely the norm - drivers were far better. My theory is that they probably cycled themselves and also that virtually everyone they knew did too. So they were able to empathise, rather than seeing cyclists as an 'other'.
So many cyclists appear to have no bloody road sense. my heart is in my throat in some parts of town as they swarm around your car - under taking, over taking, cutting across your nose at queued traffic. No laws on lights or safety equipment. Fly through red lights, over zebras and pavements...
The cycle lanes at speakers' corner is badly but and there are no zebras for pedestrians to cross the lanes. You have to hope to God that the break in the stream if bikes us actually empty as you cross and that someone without lights isn't sprinting towards you.
I think all bikes should have some form of number plate and be registered to the owner
I hate overtking cycles. there is always some twat up your arse intimidating you to squeeze past. and you have the responsibility of passing anoother road user who does not have a metal skin.
Where would you like them to be Dowser? Up trees?
I treat cyclists like they are taking up as much space as a car, I will only overtake when I would overtake a car, I give them the car width, then overtaking space.
This is both selfless & selfish. I don't want to kill them & I don't want to have to live the rest of my life knowing I've killed someone. If people behind me don't like it, they can fuck off. Plus I end up feeling protective of the cyclist - with my car in between them & knob driver.
Just I don't think that's practical. There's over three and a half million bikes sold in the UK each year. So you'd have to create a database and registration scheme from scratch for tens of millions of bicycles. Then there's the question of enforcement. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Plus as anyone can ride a bike, how would you know the person riding was the owner? Unless you also want to introduce a draconian law that you can only ride your own registered bike?
Unless you also want to introduce a draconian law that you can only ride your own registered bike?
Unless given permission to by the registered owner and keeper.
You have millions of bike users in the uk, but that also means they are road users but currently have very little enforcement of any kind, idiot cyclists are no different to idiot drivers, both put lives at risk
Our city has a lot of 20mph roads now when there are lots of cyclists. It took some getting used to driving that slow but I must admit it helps, there's far less stress holding back behind a cyclist going at 12mph when all the traffic is only going at 20 anyway.
I wish they'd do something about cyclists who speed past you on the pavement - from behind as well so you don't even get the chance to leap out of the way (or stand, arms crossed glaring at them!). I'm not totally against them being on the pavement if the roads are busy, but either get off and push your bike past pedestrians or at least slow right down and avoid them. It is illegal after all.
idiot cyclists are no different to idiot drivers, both put lives at risk
This is very wrong. 'Idiot' cyclists do not generally put lives at risk (other than perhaps their own - but even that is unlikely)
Whereas 'idiot' drivers can easily kill or maim someone. What's more, even a driver who's not an idiot generally but has a moment of inattention can also do the same. And they are more likely to be inattentive, because it's not their life at risk, because they are protected in their metal box by all sorts of modern safety equipment.
This misconception is a very dangerous one
Think about it - would you rather be hit by 80 kg doing 12 mph, or by 500 kg doing 30 mph?
That is why the onus falls on drivers to keep others safe - the potential consequences of their actions are far worse.
* 'Idiot' cyclists do not generally put lives at risk*
Never seen 1 go full speed down a pavement then?
Never seen 1 go through a crossing without slowing?
Never seen 1 go through a red light?
All these put others lives in danger and all I'm saying is they should be registered so people can report
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.