Motorists may face penalty for overtaking cyclists on some c

[dombooth]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... t-proposal

Whatever next...

[jont]

Unworkable, and practically unenforceable. The article does say "advisory 15mph speed limit". Besides, to most commuter cyclists that'll just create a mobile road block of cars.

[michael769]

I cannot see any mention of this in the DfT consultation....

Nor is there any mention in the British Cyclin article they link to.

Had the Guardian even read them?

[true blue]

Cambridge City Council has something of a fetish at the moment for creating 20mph zones everywhere (the plan as announced to residents in my area is that everything bar what for us is the main road in/out of the centre is heading that way).

As a driver I find the limit unnecessarily low. As a cyclist, I find the 20mph limit much more dangerous, as reasonably quick overtakes turn into extended periods of contact time. Even worse, when I'm feeling energetic and cycling at what I can only assume is 20+mph I sometimes find my progress impeded!

Most people seem to ignore the posted limits and drive at 30. Suits me just fine...

[TripleS]

Just when you think things are already barmy enough, some crackpots go and raise the bar another notch!

[Ancient]

Not at all barmy in concept, it's a system that works elsewhere. In Holland I think the threshold has to be >60% (?) of traffic is cycles and a low level of motor traffic. It is essentially for roads on cycle commuting routes where motor traffic routes have separate (usually longer) provision. In such conditions only foolish drivers push past.

Given the habit in the UK of using "cycle facilities" as mobile traffic "calming", I doubt that is how it will be used here. Given also the wandering unlinked scrawl that is the planned 'cycling network' in Greater London, I doubt these 'cycle streets' will constitute direct routes anywhere, let alone making direct routes.

Edit to add: For those who cannot find it in the DfT consultation, it is section 5.13 on page 28.

[trashbat]

I haven't read much but the Graun article I saw the other day - Isn't it basically just another mode between pedestrianised and 20mph? If so, and applied similarly, what's the problem?

[Kimosabe]

Most of Hove has recently been turned into 20mph limits, including otherwise uneventful residential backwaters. I don't think it's about constant enforceability but more about what action might be taken in the event of a collision between a motorist and a cyclist. My road now has four new signs at each end denoting the changes from 20 to 30mph limits, along with parking restriction signs every 30 feet or so.

Of course, nobody mentions testing, licensing and insuring bicycles and riders or making visibility measures mandatory, lest they be accused of doing something useful with our money.

[trashbat]

OK, I'll humour you, but you'll have to work for it.

What burden of responsibility do you think a cyclist should carry, and why?

[sussex2]

Most of Hove has recently been turned into 20mph limits, including otherwise uneventful residential backwaters. I don't think it's about constant enforceability but more about what action might be taken in the event of a collision between a motorist and a cyclist. My road now has four new signs at each end denoting the changes from 20 to 30mph limits, along with parking restriction signs every 30 feet or so.

Of course, nobody mentions testing, licensing and insuring bicycles and riders or making visibility measures mandatory, lest they be accused of doing something useful with our money.

Strange that in Holland where there are millions of bikes many with no brakes at all (almost 90 percent of the population owns a bike and uses it regularly) they have a very low attrition rates.
Few wear helmets or HiViz gear and this extends to motor scooters.You hardly ever see a 'All the gear but no idea cyclist'. To boot very few dented cars; certainly less than in this country.
Holland has one of the lowest injury rates on the roads in the EU and I wonder why? Because they are used to it? Used to the space being shared? It's not a them and us situation? And priorities are rigid.
We suffer in the UK because we, against the trend, insist on separating different classes of road users and have no fixed priorities. In other words we faff about.

[TheInsanity1234]

I personally think that cyclists should carry the burden of making themselves visible, and use their brains to work out the safest routes from A - B. They should also be considerate of cars, and give priority to them (and pedestrians too, imo). The reasoning behind that idea is because cars are big metal boxes weighing more than a ton. If they hit you, on a bicycle, you are coming off worse. In that case, you should be the one taking measures to protect yourself and to help the drivers of cars help make your environment safer.
It's a two way system, one party cannot hold 100% responsibility, they both have to do things to accommodate the other.

[trashbat]

many with no brakes at all

No brakes? AIUI, Dutch bikes have coaster brakes that you engage by pedalling backwards. Even on fixed gear you can slow by winding down.

[trashbat]

I personally think that cyclists should carry the burden of making themselves visible, and use their brains to work out the safest routes from A - B. They should also be considerate of cars, and give priority to them (and pedestrians too, imo). The reasoning behind that idea is because cars are big metal boxes weighing more than a ton. If they hit you, on a bicycle, you are coming off worse. In that case, you should be the one taking measures to protect yourself and to help the drivers of cars help make your environment safer.
It's a two way system, one party cannot hold 100% responsibility, they both have to do things to accommodate the other.

I agree that a sensible person would take those measures to protect themselves. However, English law has little interest in protecting people from themselves, only protecting them from others. It may appear otherwise, but have a think about what you're legally not allowed or legally required to do and what the motivation for that is/was.

So, really, I should have asked 'What legally enshrined burden of responsibility do you think a cyclist should carry, and why?'

Edited to add: just a detail, but I very much disagree with your 'give priority to' point, which needs refinement

[GJD]

I haven't read much but the Graun article I saw the other day - Isn't it basically just another mode between pedestrianised and 20mph? If so, and applied similarly, what's the problem?

A prohibition on overtaking just seems weird. People sharing a piece of road should just be regarded as people sharing a piece of road. Their chosen means of transport should not be of any great significance.

Presumably the thinking behind the idea is that people in cars often overtake people on bikes in a less than considerate manner. But as long as rules are predicated on the assumption that people in cars will tend to behave badly towards more vulnerable road users, then the people who do behave badly will have strong cause for believing that their behaviour, while not acceptable, is regarded as normal and expected. I would rather we did not give them any more cause to believe that than they already have.

It may be that that assumption - people in cars will tend to behave badly towards more vulnerable road users - is true. If we ever want that to change, I really think we need to stop cementing it so fundamentally into the nature of our thinking about sharing the roads. If someone in a car cuts up someone on a bike, I don't want any part of their brain to be able to cling onto the idea that, "oh well, it's ok, everybody does it". I fear that inventing rules like this helps them cling to that.

[Kimosabe]

OK, I'll humour you, but you'll have to work for it.

What burden of responsibility do you think a cyclist should carry, and why?

Humour me? I'd take me very seriously, if I were you.

Just so I understand you correctly, your question is:

'why should a cyclist who wants to be treated as an equal on the road, have to wear a helmet, have working lights front and back, wear high viz AND reflective clothing, be tested, licensed and insured to prove that they are competent enough to ride on a road, just like other road users ?'.

You could ask the family and school friends of the 16 year old boy whose neck, left leg, left arm, several ribs etc were broken, along with multiple abdominal injuries and a fractured skull a few months ago, at the top of my road. He seemed to have inadvertantly done his level best to conceal his presence from other road users.

Roadside tracheal intubation and CPR is never an easy sight to see when done to an unconscious child and the car which I saw him ride out from a side turning and directly infront of, was instantly written off from the impact. I saw him impact the top of the windscreen, travel about 20 feet, his head hit the curb before bouncing off it and the rest of him hit the tree. I called the ambulance. I gave a witness statement and I held his inconsolable mother (they are neighbours and she came out to see what all the noise and sirens were about) at the scene. For the cost of some cycling gear and road training, the trauma of being forced to deal with this is simply not worth arguing against it. The car was travelling within the speed limit and it just so happened that the car infront of it was carrying two off-duty firemen.

So fine, haggle the toss of lights, training etc if you will but I don't find that argument a compelling enough case. It took me about a week before I was ready to get on my bike again and dealing with the recriminations of what I could have done to help avert this, has subsided.

Still, if someone wants to express their freedom to travel and express themself etc through their clothing and while riding a bike, that's upto them. Shame such obvious things aren't 'fashionable'.