York 'bad' cycling video

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
rfryer
Posts: 411
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby rfryer » 13 Apr 2014, 11:11pm

Bicycler wrote:We can't get away from the design flaw here though. There's no way anyone would design a dual carriageway where the correct procedure was to make left turns from the outside lane across the inside one. If that were the case we might find that there was a common expectation that the inside lane traffic would not come up the inside of an indicating and slowing left turning vehicle.

We can analyse the rights and wrongs of each road user's behaviour as much as we like but this kind of confrontation is inevitable as long as it's deemed acceptable to design cycle facilities which route onward travelling cyclists up the inside of left turning vehicles

I couldn't put it better myself.

reohn2
Posts: 22882
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby reohn2 » 13 Apr 2014, 11:40pm

Bicycler wrote:We can't get away from the design flaw here though. There's no way anyone would design a dual carriageway where the correct procedure was to make left turns from the outside lane across the inside one. If that were the case we might find that there was a common expectation that the inside lane traffic would not come up the inside of an indicating and slowing left turning vehicle.

We can analyse the rights and wrongs of each road user's behaviour as much as we like but this kind of confrontation is inevitable as long as it's deemed acceptable to design cycle facilities which route onward travelling cyclists up the inside of left turning vehicles

Spot on!
We have what we have,where cycle lanes are concerned most are utter rubbish.
But we're stuck with them until things change,which IMHO won't be any time soon,so cyclists need to take responsibility for themselves and not hand their lives on a plate to the next passing motor driving goon who in the event of a collision will,at most,feel a little bump as s/he rolls over us.

mark a.
Posts: 1296
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby mark a. » 14 Apr 2014, 10:21am

I'm sure the guy who made the video is intending it to shame cyclists who break the rules of the road. Some of the cycling is stupid (like the guy who got left-hooked even though it was completely obvious what was going to happen). For me, the worst is the RLJs at 0:55 in the video because it makes no sense from either speed or safety - the cyclists end up getting tangled up in turning traffic for the benefit of nobody.

However, videos such as this ultimately show normal people doing normal things. There must be a reason why people decide to RLJ, cycle on pavements and other "illegal" things. Is it human nature, safety reasons, or what?

If it's a real safety issue (endangering both themselves and others) then let's crack down on it properly. Or let society accept that such indiscretions are mostly harmless, and file them alongside other "dangerous" things that are acceptable behaviour, such as pedestrians crossing the road wherever and whenever we see it's safe to do so.

reohn2
Posts: 22882
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby reohn2 » 14 Apr 2014, 10:28am

Just to add,in the land where we live this:- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=85555 and this:- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829 is the norm for people who break laws with serious life threatening consequences,the chances of things changing are slim IMO as law and order is deemed unaffordable by our esteemed politrickians,who fear the motorists backlash at the ballot box more than they do an atomic war it would seem.
And a policeforce more intent on discrediting the Tory party than actually maintaining law and order, if the Nigel Evans,Andrew Mitchell fiascos are anything to go by :?
Given that bleak outlook/backdrop,I see no point in being right and injured or worse.

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Bicycler » 14 Apr 2014, 10:46am

mark a. wrote:If it's a real safety issue (endangering both themselves and others) then let's crack down on it properly. Or let society accept that such indiscretions are mostly harmless, and file them alongside other "dangerous" things that are acceptable behaviour, such as pedestrians crossing the road wherever and whenever we see it's safe to do so.

What's dangerous about safely crossing the road? That's a right and a necessity for the hardy few who venture out on two feet. It's not an indiscretion. Maybe you're one of the many who's under the illusion that we have some horrific US-style "jaywalking" law. We don't. People may cross the street anywhere they like.

The problem with people deciding whether their own behaviour is a problem is that they inevitably rationalise the things that they do. When people who do these things make up a decent proportion of the population this becomes society's view. Thus we end up with things like speeding and pavement parking being accepted norms despite the increase in danger and inconvenience they cause. Many motorists rationalise these things, many cyclists will rationalise their own acts of impatience and inconsideration.

But I do agree that not all of the cyclists pictured were much of a problem. You could go round videoing lots of minor motoring transgressions but I don't think it would make the national press. I was following a van with both wing mirrors still folded in down the motorway the other day... :roll:

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Tonyf33 » 14 Apr 2014, 11:21am

reohn2 wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:To suggest that vehicles can just turn across lanes without taking responsibility is absurd.

Your quite right(BTW,I'm not absurd or skewed, so cut it out please)but who'll feel the most pain when and if the car driver doesn't check his nearside?

Where did I call you absurd :? It's the notion that anyone agress with a left turning vehicle across another lane not having responsibility is absurd, but if you think that's personal just directed at you, whatever...
As for skewed, you're logic is yes, when the documented reasoning behind what is undertaking and what is actually just passing in another lane (which isn't undertaking at all), then that viewpoint and other arguements thereafter are skewed by that one incorrect assumption.

That the Highway code itself repeatedly mentions the onus on the motorist and precedent in court regarding the same seems to be something you choose to ignore to make your point?
So yes, you're viewpoint is skewed, IMO based on facts/law of course, how on earth you think me saying your viewpoint is skewed is a personal jibe I've absolutely no idea..deary me..

Mark1978
Posts: 4885
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Mark1978 » 14 Apr 2014, 11:29am

In the case in point, the cycle lane was marked by dashed lines, so arguably the car should have checked the left was clear - as you would any time you change lanes, entered the cycle lane (which is perfectly legal) and then turned left.

mark a.
Posts: 1296
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby mark a. » 14 Apr 2014, 4:45pm

Bicycler wrote:
mark a. wrote:If it's a real safety issue (endangering both themselves and others) then let's crack down on it properly. Or let society accept that such indiscretions are mostly harmless, and file them alongside other "dangerous" things that are acceptable behaviour, such as pedestrians crossing the road wherever and whenever we see it's safe to do so.

What's dangerous about safely crossing the road? That's a right and a necessity for the hardy few who venture out on two feet. It's not an indiscretion. Maybe you're one of the many who's under the illusion that we have some horrific US-style "jaywalking" law. We don't. People may cross the street anywhere they like.


You've got the exact opposite of my point, which is probably down to my bad writing.

I'm saying that if something is safe, let's allow it. Us pedestrians are perfectly entitled to cross a pedestrian crossing even when the Red Man is showing (and indeed we can cross pretty much wherever we like) and yet crossing a junction on a bike on a Red Light is illegal, despite the fact that the risks are largely similar. Neither a pedestrian nor a cyclists will cross if there's a car coming, and will wait until it's clear.

So if it's risky, stop it. If it's safe, allow it. Judging by the large number of people who RLJ, cycle on the pavement and cycle the wrong way on a 1-way street with minimal impact on anyone's safety, perhaps we should consider making them legal and work from there.

reohn2
Posts: 22882
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby reohn2 » 14 Apr 2014, 6:09pm

Tonyf33 wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:To suggest that vehicles can just turn across lanes without taking responsibility is absurd.

Your quite right(BTW,I'm not absurd or skewed, so cut it out please)but who'll feel the most pain when and if the car driver doesn't check his nearside?

Where did I call you absurd :? It's the notion that anyone agress with a left turning vehicle across another lane not having responsibility is absurd, but if you think that's personal just directed at you, whatever...
As for skewed, you're logic is yes, when the documented reasoning behind what is undertaking and what is actually just passing in another lane (which isn't undertaking at all), then that viewpoint and other arguements thereafter are skewed by that one incorrect assumption.

That the Highway code itself repeatedly mentions the onus on the motorist and precedent in court regarding the same seems to be something you choose to ignore to make your point?
So yes, you're viewpoint is skewed, IMO based on facts/law of course, how on earth you think me saying your viewpoint is skewed is a personal jibe I've absolutely no idea..deary me..

Tony
I'll say it again but that'll be an end to it.Read what I've written up thread as I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.

reohn2
Posts: 22882
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby reohn2 » 14 Apr 2014, 6:11pm

Mark1978 wrote:In the case in point, the cycle lane was marked by dashed lines, so arguably the car should have checked the left was clear - as you would any time you change lanes, entered the cycle lane (which is perfectly legal) and then turned left.

So what about the cyclist in all this then?
With a car indicating left,would you go up the inside?

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Bicycler » 14 Apr 2014, 6:23pm

mark a. wrote:You've got the exact opposite of my point

So if it's risky, stop it. If it's safe, allow it. Judging by the large number of people who RLJ, cycle on the pavement and cycle the wrong way on a 1-way street with minimal impact on anyone's safety, perhaps we should consider making them legal and work from there.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think that was what you were saying but I largely agree with that position. Actually it's increasingly the case that cyclists are exempted from one way streets so at least that's a step in the right direction.
I have two reservations. One is that we cannot really condone illegal behaviour just because we believe the law to be unnecessary (I don't buy into those "I have to run red lights for my own safety" excuses). Also, bear in mind what I said before about motorists rationalising their illegal actions as harmless because they don't affect them but they end up inconveniencing and endangering others. We need to be careful to avoid doing the same.

Postboxer
Posts: 1000
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Postboxer » 14 Apr 2014, 7:58pm

The problem with allowing cyclists to run red lights if there's nothing coming, is that drivers will want the same benefits, which should work in theory, but I have a feeling it wouldn't.

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Bicycler » 14 Apr 2014, 9:16pm

Ah, like all those arguments that the roads would be safer without speed limits as the driver could choose the appropriate speed for the conditions rather than being given a potentially inappropriate speed limit which acts as an informal target. Yeah, I don't think it would work either

kwackers
Posts: 10083
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby kwackers » 15 Apr 2014, 8:31am

Bicycler wrote:Ah, like all those arguments that the roads would be safer without speed limits as the driver could choose the appropriate speed for the conditions rather than being given a potentially inappropriate speed limit which acts as an informal target. Yeah, I don't think it would work either

It's nothing like speed limits. Speed limits are (theoretically) set according to local conditions, conditions a driver may not be aware of not to mention have no real understanding of how the tiny increases in risk pan out on a population basis.

Red lights on the other hand exist to reduce congestion and give everyone a fair bite of the cherry. They're not about safety - more accidents occur at traffic lights than pretty much anywhere else. In fact the general misconception that 'green means go' is easily the biggest risk! In contrast once the lights are removed you're simply back to a junction and the risk reduces.
Traffic lights fundamentally keep traffic flowing at the cost of a slight increase in risk.
So if we allow drivers to choose when to jump a red light (i.e. remove the lights) all we've done is turned them back into junctions. There's a theoretical drop in accidents offset by an increase in congestion.

Against all this bicycles don't cause congestion, but they do suffer from the increase in risk.

Bicycler
Posts: 3397
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Postby Bicycler » 15 Apr 2014, 11:30am

kwackers wrote:Red lights on the other hand exist to reduce congestion and give everyone a fair bite of the cherry. They're not about safety - more accidents occur at traffic lights than pretty much anywhere else. In fact the general misconception that 'green means go' is easily the biggest risk! In contrast once the lights are removed you're simply back to a junction and the risk reduces.

Do you have a source for the introduction of traffic lights to existing junctions increasing accident rates? It seems counter-intuitive, which doesn't make it wrong but I would like to see some evidence. In many cases the original junction would have been a simple crossroads which I had thought were generally associated with high accident rates and basically verboten on new roads.


Return to “On the road”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests