To think in many cases the problem is that Motorists don't look for cyclists, rather than not seeing them?

[BoysofMelody]

Went out for a bike ride and with crushing predictably, I had a near miss thanks to errant motorists.

First one, reversed from a parking space at high speed onto the road I was traveling along missing me by a fraction. Similarly about 15 miles into the ride another, motorist swung across my path to get into their drive way, without indicating or looking around them.

At the time, conditions were clear and not overly sunny, I was wearing a hi Viz orange jersey and had flashing auxilary lights front and rear.

Given that I was riding at a sensible speed and in a defensive manner and there was little else I could reasonably do to make myself more visible to motorists, that the problem more often than not is that Motorists don't look for, rather than not seeing cyclists? Bike lights after dark are a legal requirement and absolutely essential, but why are cyclists and cyclists alone held expected to dress up in all sorts of garish shades to protect themselves from motorists' inattention? If a cyclist gets runs over, the all too predictable cry of 'why weren't they wearing hi Viz and a helmet goesup'' in a similar case where a HGV totals a car, no one would castigate the driver for having a dark grey car that was difficult to see at dusk would they?

[PenguinOfDoom]

I don't think it's unreasonable for cyclists to have to pass some kind of test and have insurance.

In central London, the increase in cycling is great, but a lot of the people who have taken up cycling don't have driving licences and therefore don't necessarily know/understand the Highway Code or generally safe use of the roads for cycling.

It's not their fault as such - they have been told that they can get around London by bike for next to nothing, so that's what they're doing. But they are sharing the roads with HGVs, taxis, buses, cars, all of whom have had to undertake a test to certify them as fit to drive on roads. And all of whom can be fined or imprisoned as a result of any accident they are involved with on the road.

In London, all boroughs are not the same. There are different regulations for driving across most of them, except there are no signs to indicate this is the case. There are also a multitude of other signs, many of which are misleading. Often this is lack of coherent road strategy, but sometimes it's deliberate and local authorities want motorists to break the rules so they can fine them. And the are pretty sneaky about it. IIRC, Islington, Westminster and Camden have been pulled up for arranging cameras on box junctions in a way that essentially took advantage of poor road layout/signage to penalise motorists.

I think for cyclists the perception is that motorists have carte blanche, but that definitely is not the case.

[QueenofEsgaroth]

I see a lot of fault by drivers and cyclists so would like to see all road users having to sit regular tests and be held responsible for their actions therefore identifiable.

So effectively a road user test not just a driving test, and a license plate for all not just cars. Cyclists and drivers should be prosecuted for mobile phone use, red light jumping, causing danger to other road users and pedestrians.

I think cyclists should have solid on lights colour coded for front and rear like cars and they should have mirrors. The biggest near collision cause I see where I live is cyclists pulling into traffic without looking first. There also seems to be a huge amount of ignorance around blind spots.

Not pedestrians because they use the pavement and should be treated with extreme caution by all road users. As a frequent buggy pusher in a busy city I have my buggy lit up like a christmas tree for visibility and recommend all wheelies do the same

[PenguinOfDoom]

I tend to think it's often six of one and half a dozen of the other. I've been nearly hit while driving in central London in my car because someone just hasn't seen me, so sometimes it's just that people look but don't see.

I do get massively fucked off with cyclists sometimes though. I cannot tell you how many times I've been on the pedestrian crossing by my office and they ride straight through. The other day, one cunt had the temerity to wink at me as he rode about two feet across me as I was crossing on a green light. Then the same day, I nearly got flattened by another one riding fast up the pavement.

The minority of shit cyclists tar the majority, just as the minority of shit drivers do the same.

[IntrusiveBastards]

Oh Sarcomere I am sorry

[IntrusiveBastards]

There are cyclists (I'm not one of them), who have a one metre long thin pole sticking out from their wheel on the right hand side, with a nail on the end of it, so that if a car does try to pass too close, then their paintwork gets scratched shock

Holy shit what twats! What if they get too close to a pedestrian!

[ShotsFired]

What BoysofMelody said to Sarcomere. Awful. Just awful.

Why? Well apart from being dumbfuck rural morons, all those other cyclists that run through red lights, ride in the middle of the road, do stupid stuff that piss off drivers had to have played into that decision. Not only do drivers just not see cyclists, even when they have ample opportunity, their experiences of arrogant cyclists mean they just don't care. Worst case scenario they target the cyclists.

I think you are spot on with this concept of "revenge".

[BoysofMelody]

Sarcomere so sorry to hear about your husband and the paltry fine the person who killed him got.

[Sarcomere]

I can't agree more with PPs and OP. My DP was killed 8 years ago by a motorist when he was out on his Sunday bike ride. Went to the spot where he was killed and it was a long straight stretch - about a mile, calculate average speed and the driver would have had 45 sec at least to see him and move over, AND it was a four lane highway and there were no other cars in the lane next to him (witness statement). DP was wearing a bright orange jersey (I fixated on that for a long time, it was SO visible). Didn't have lights because it was daytime, took it off his bike when he left, I asked why, he said no one would see it because it was daytime (now when I see cyclist using a light in daytime it kills me because it IS visible - so use the light!). Guess what his life was worth to a jury (I'm in the US)? A $500 ticket, not even reckless driving! The fact that it even went to trial was unusual.
Why? Well apart from being dumbfuck rural morons, all those other cyclists that run through red lights, ride in the middle of the road, do stupid stuff that piss off drivers had to have played into that decision. Not only do drivers just not see cyclists, even when they have ample opportunity, their experiences of arrogant cyclists mean they just don't care. Worst case scenario they target the cyclists. Another story; a friend of mine was out on a group ride. A motorist came close to the group and one of the cyclists sent a rude gesture his way. Guy went home, changed vehicle to a, what is called in the US a "truck" (we called it a Ute growing up in home country - basically big-assed vehicle), came back, found the group and ran them off the road. Thank goodness noone was seriously hurt. No matter how much a dumbass driver pisses us off, we're always going to lose in car vs bike. Swallow the rage, ride harder, and make it so that that driver doesn't have a negative experience with a cyclist and takes it out on the rest until the end of time. It's not taking the higher road, it's self-preservation.
That's the sensible part. I also think that everyone should have to commute on a bike for 2 years before being allowed to get a drivers license, which would also go a long way to solving the obesity problem...
I don't ride on the road anymore. Haven't for 8 years.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

People have a go at "cyclists" (collectively) because of the actions of a few, and somehow use it as justification for drivers being dangerous. An analogy might be seeing someone playing russian roulette, and then thinking that because they're OK chancing it, it's OK if you hold the gun to their head and have a go too.

[BoysofMelody]

Interestingly the CTC initially campaigned against it being compulsory for cyclists to have lights at night - because they thought drivers should allow for cyclists not having lights and drive more carefully

Interestingly they were also militantly opposed to cycle paths (because of the fear the cyclists would be forced off the roads) even now they're lukewarm on them.

[ShotsFired]

@ShatnersWig Every morning I drive beside a cycle lane, a good one, a wide one, set back about three feet from a road with a grass verge in between. Just two drives crossing it in a distance of some 1.5 miles. Never see a cyclist on it. They're all on the road. Where there are loads of potholes, sunken patches around drains, bus stops etc.

So clearly there is a reason it is not being used - I doubt it is a collective bout of sheer bloody mindedness Why do you think it is? Would you be willing to share a maps link? If it is only 1.5miles long, that might be the reason itself.

Genuinely keen to understand, as smooth off road tarmac is a joy to ride on!

(And c'mon, some of those cycle paths are just silly/funny, no? )

[ShatnersWig]

Shots We could all produce photos of some silly cycle lanes. But there are many very good cycle lanes that money have been spent on. Every morning I drive beside a cycle lane, a good one, a wide one, set back about three feet from a road with a grass verge in between. Just two drives crossing it in a distance of some 1.5 miles. Never see a cyclist on it. They're all on the road. Where there are loads of potholes, sunken patches around drains, bus stops etc.

[ShatnersWig]

I don't think the insurance comment is an old chestnut at all.

I have a small sailing dinghy I sail on rivers. I don't go out to sea. I have to pay a fee to British Waterways for pooting up and down the river Severn. I have to insure my dinghy. Costs me just over £100 per year.

A cyclist is far more likely to receive a serious or life changing injury or have their bike damaged than I am. I have also known people injured by cyclists knocking them flying when they were cycling where they shouldn't have been.

This isn't to say there are lots of good cyclists (although every day I see a many bad ones) but I don't see why they shouldn't have insurance as I do for my boat. As someone who used to work in insurance, I don't agree with Shots about risk and premiums.

[juneau]

Cyclists (and motor bikes) can be very hard to spot. I went on a speed awareness course a few years ago and the police instructors said it's because motorists aren't actually looking for them - they're looking for larger vehicles like cars, lorries, vans, etc. In other words, their brains aren't attuned to a profile of a smaller vehicle, such as a bike. Since that bit of info was given to me I've been much more aware of 'looking' for bikes/motor bikes.

Plus, there is the unpredictably of speed issue - some cyclists tootle long very slowly, but every now and again you have one bombing along fast and that often catches motorists unawares. I do think though that there should be more awareness of cyclists, more focus on looking for out for cyclists, and maybe a national campaign similar to the 'Think Bike' campaign that tries to alert motorists to bikers on the road.

[supermoon100]

Cyclists are great!
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bikehugger.com/posts/cycling_can_save_world/amp/

[carefreeeee]

I think you are right OP - in street lit areas at night most drivers can see me fine with no lights and a black coat.

The number that drive as if they haven't seen me is no different to if I have bright clothes/lights/it's daylight.

This is of course different if there are no streetlights when I will be dressing up in full reflective gear because without it I will be genuinely difficult to see. Mostly I'm in towns though so this rarely applies.

I agree with others that flashing lights are much less visible than constant lights.

Too few drivers take responsibility for their choice of driving a tonne of metal and blame it on vulnerable road users if they endanger someone.

Interestingly the CTC initially campaigned against it being compulsory for cyclists to have lights at night - because they thought drivers should allow for cyclists not having lights and drive more carefully

[ShotsFired]

runloganrun10 @shotsfired - I've never seen a car skip a red light in Central London, or mount a kerb (and knock into pedestrians) as a short cut

Are you kidding me? You have never seen a car skip a red light in London (maybe traffic cameras makes a truer selective statement in London than other un-camera'd places?) and you don't see drivers doing dangerous things every day? Why are so many hundreds (thousands?) more people killed by vehicles than bikes then?

Whatever the anecdata, it remains a fact that more non-car drivers are killed by car drivers than the other way round - and many of those on the pavements too. Why are people not outraged at that?
(I drive tens of thousands more miles than I cycle each year, so don't think I am particularly militant either.)

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes
www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians
www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/
etc etc

And cyclists aren't actually a low actuarial risk
most cyclists actually don't take out any insurance
I would (genuinely) be interested in the data/stats that backs these two comments up.

[BoysofMelody]

Run if you've never seen bad/inconsiderate/aggresive or downright dangerous driving in central London, you must be wilfully blind to it.

[EmilyBiscuit]

I think some drivers just don't look at all. Cyclists often bear the brunt because they are more vulnerable.

Some cyclists are knobs, but so are many drivers. I can't think of the last time I saw a cyclist on the phone. Cyclists tend to watch the road. They may make stupid decisions and put themselves at risk, but (in my area at least) they don't (generally) endanger others with carelessness. Some drivers on the other hand...

FWIW I'm a driver, never cycled on the road because I'm too scared

[BoysofMelody]

I wondered how long it would be before the insurance/tax/test chestnut came up. Well we got to page three so pretty good going!

[runloganrun101]

@shotsfired - I've never seen a car skip a red light in Central London, or mount a kerb (and knock into pedestrians) as a short cut. Presumably because if they did the cctv would automatically find and make the person responsible pay. And cyclists aren't actually a low actuarial risk - most cyclists actually don't take out any insurance. If insurance became mandatory the actual risk would then come out.

[ShotsFired]

runloganrun10 Also on this point: I think the government should make insurance and cycling tests mandatory for cyclists.

Many of us DO have insurance because both our bikes and bodies are valuable assets; and I wonder why people think otherwise? It seems like one of the holy trinity of fallacies (insurance, registration and road tax) that comes out every time.

But as for making it mandatory,:
(a) the premiums would be so low, given our actuarial risk that it would cost insurers money to administer. When did you last see an insurance company doing something that didn't make them profits?

(b) we [the government] can't manage to test people who drive cars properly - cf the calls for ten-yearly car licence re-tests which would instantly overwhelm test centres. How are you going to test every man, woman and child on a bicycle? How often? For what? When would you start this regime of testing (as toddlers?) How would you police it? Who pays for the shortfall when the income from testing is dwarfed by the cost of running the scheme?

I'm all for a reasonable debate but these kneejerk comments about a minority of a subset of road users don't take reality into account.

[ShotsFired]

runloganrun I am glad to see that the standards of driving are now so impeccable in London that you only ever see bad cycling by a minority of morons who would also be morons in a car, on a horse, in a tractor or on foot

Anyway, also popped in as I just got this link which was nice and timely for everyone asking why people don't use cycle lanes: totalwomenscycling.com/commuting/27-shocking-cycle-lanes-cant-believe-exist

[runloganrun101]

I once saw a cyclist get killed in a crash with a lorry because she thought it'd be a good idea to skip a red light at a roundabout.

One of my colleagues broke his hip because the idiot was texting while cycling and drifted right into the path of a car on a busy dual carriageway.

I'm always seeing cyclists clip motorists and pedestrians alike in London because they seem to not care about the rules of the road or traffic lights.

I think the government should make insurance and cycling tests mandatory for cyclists.

[BoysofMelody]

Abuse aside, I do try and tell myself it is ignorance before malice, and that the majority of drivers just don't know what it is like to ride a bike on the road. Education has to help, surely?

If I had my way I'd make all those who weren't prevented from riding by disability from having to ride the test route on a bike before getting their licence.

Yes, I can count on one hand the number of times someone has deliberately tried to injure me in 20 years plus of riding, there's a few more that I couldn't say if they were malicious or just draw droppingly careless. But on the whole, I would say it was inattention and lack of understanding, but it makes no difference to me whether I end up with broken bones as a result of a cyclist hating nutcase or someone like Nikki's sister who is busy texting whilst driving.