To be glad that *some* police forces are going to tackle the dangerous overtaking of cyclists?

[GilMartin]

And that I live in one of the areas trying this out?

road.cc/content/news/215826-close-pass-policing-could-be-rolled-out-16-forces-yours-one

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 honestly can't believe some of the attitudes to cyclists on here. And I don't even know how to ride a fucking bike!

Do some people really not give a toss if they kill someone, just because the poor sod hadn't paid vehicle tax?

More cyclists are killed because of the actions of car drivers than due to doing something wrong themselves. And how many car drivers have cyclists killed?

Because if they had to conform to the same as drivers then they could be held accountable without the need for courts for damages. Hopping on and off the pavement like they are asking to get hit. (And I licence that could acquire points would probably help stop that).
And as the roads have got busier it's just not really practical to have a cyclist holding up traffic and causing mayhem. I have nothing against cycle lanes. There should be more of them. As it solves the issue

laidbackmummy13
I pay insurance and road tax...
...you quite sure about that? Road Tax? Really?

Till then I get past however possible and they can be grateful I haven't run them down.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're just a keyboard warrior and did not actually mean that, because that would make you a contemptible excuse for a human being.

No broken, because cars own the road. Everyone else should be fucking grateful if they aren't run over for daring to go anywhere near one.

We're so ingrained with it too. Just look at the number of pedestrians who say thankyou for 'letting' them go across a zebra crossing despite it being their priority. Drivers don't feel the need to thank pedestrians for not walking across roads in front of them.

I have had to perform many emergency stops because cyclists have decided to come off the pavement without looking or just randomly stopped and even one was going the wrong way round a roundabout! Or wearing all black with no lights in the dark. So yeah getting rear ended or having a collision with my kids in the back cause of these actions does scare me. I now have a dash cam to be sure.

I'd imagine Laidback is the sort of driver who nearly sent me and the horse I was riding into a ditch last time I went on the roads - far too important to wait for even a second so I could get to a passing place so they just squeezed past. If the horse had kicked out, the child in the passenger seat was at just the right height to get hit in the head...

Let's just hope that self-righteousness keeps you warm at night if you manage to kill or maim someone.

As I said though. More cycle lanes and a way to make them traceable and that would appease my irritation.

No no. I will slow to walking speed and keep engine Revs down for horses. I also move for motorbikes.

It's just cyclists. To many times I've seen accidents caused by them and they haven't been held accountable.

Actually I do thank pedestrians for waiting for me to tur off sometimes. It isn't the pedestrians priority unless they are actually on the crossing, it's polite to thanks cars for stopping if they are waiting.

Well, clearly they deserve to die then. Even if it's a different cyclist.

It's very rare to encounter a considerate cyclist, in my experience anyway. Maybe it's just where I live that they all have this lack of awareness or common sense.

ROSPA

Types of Accident
Human error is the main contributory factor involving cyclist collisions. Driver/rider error was the most frequently reported reason for the incident involving 73% of all reported accidents in 2014.

Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing control. For teenage and adult cyclists, accidents are more likely to involve collisions with motor vehicles, but about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle, but are caused by the rider losing control of their bicycle.

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

Other common contributory factors attributed to drivers are ‘poor turn/manoeuvre’ (in 17% of serious accidents involving a cyclist) and ‘careless, reckless, in a hurry (17%). Cyclists are more likely to suffer serious injuries when a driver is judged to be ‘impaired by alcohol’, exceeding the speed limit’ or ‘travelling too fast for the conditions’.

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was ‘cyclist entering the road from the pavement’ (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists).

The most common vehicle involved in collisions with cyclists is a car or taxi, with the rider usually being hit by the front of the vehicle. In a quarter of fatal cyclist accidents, the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle.

So yes, more accidents are caused by the car driver but it's marginal according to official statistics.

I live on the edge of rural countryside and the national speed limit roads attract the stereotypical Sunday Cyclists and Sunday Drivers, which is a dangerous combination. Then there are the cyclists riding on the dual carriageway, instead of the the separate cycle path.

There are reckless drivers and there are also reckless cyclists. Unfortunately, cars have registration plates and drivers must have a licence (though obviously there are those that drive without one), while anyone can buy a bike and ride it.

And when that accident is caused by the cyclist the cyclist gets hurt. When it's caused by the driver the cyclist gets hurt.

And Ivana, if a car hits a pedestrian on a crossing it is their fault. It doesn't matter if they stepped straight out in front of the car, the pedestrian has priority and they should be driving appropriately to make sure that the car can stop in time. For some reason a lot of drivers seem to interpret it as being that they can ensure pedestrians don't cross if they make it clear they're not going to stop.

Yes Curbside, it's great that we don't put up unjustified barriers to people using a healthier and more enviromentally friendly means of transport.

Why do some cycle in the middle of the blimmin road?! Holding up trains of cars behind them. It's so unsafe and ridiculous.

Why do some cycle in the middle of the blimmin road?! Holding up trains of cars behind them. It's so unsafe and ridiculous.

because cycling close to the cur is dangerous as it a) encourages unsafe overtaking and b) because of the road condition near the chrb eing less than ideal (broken surface, litter, parked cars)

There's some roadworks going on near me at the moment with narrow lanes and blind bends. Despite massive signs saying not to overtake cyclists inevitably some twat gets bored waiting for about the 30 seconds it takes for me to cycle through and tries to overtake (so they can get to the next queue of traffic quicker). So now I cycle in the middle of the lane to try and make sure they're not tempted. I wouldn't be surprised if the head on collision on that stretch earlier this week was because of an ill-advised overtake.

whatsthecomingoverthehill
I am sure, but it's always useful to have actual official figure isn't it? Otherwise it's just irate rantings...

Ok fair enough. But honestly on my route they are so far into the road. It just doesn't seem right.

Just to correct you again there whatsthecomingoverthehill , you are incorrect to say that the pedestrian has priority. There is quite a lack of balance in your 'statements' of fact.

Highway Code

19
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

What exactly about "if a car hits a pedestrian on a crossing it is their fault" do you disagree with?