What's the legal position?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 3 Oct 2019, 8:25pm

ossie wrote:I really don't get the argument that not riding is deadlier than riding....complete nonsense and easily said until you've been wiped out.

The argument is far from nonsense and please remember I've been crashed into by motorists a few times over the years. No serious injury yet and I still ride. I'm a statistician and do my best to play the numbers to my advantage. Basically, the probable health benefits of cycling more than outweigh the effects of the probable injuries, even in the UK. This book summarises it well:

Peter Walker: Bike Nation wrote:Don't just take my word for it. Listen to Dr Adrian Davis, who has thirty years' experience advising everyone from the British government to the NHS and the World Health Organization on the links between public health and transport. "When people say cycling is dangerous, they're wrong," he says. "Sitting down — which is what most of the population does far too much of — that's the thing that's going to kill you."

How can that be so? In part it's because cycling in Britain and similarly car-dominated countries, while considerably more dangerous than it should be, is nonetheless safer than many people believe. In contrast, remarkably few people fully comprehend the extent of the health risks brought by an inactive lifestyle.

[...] Seeking to contrast these perils, researchers from Utrecht University's self-explanatory named Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences [...] Even in Britain the life-extending advantages [of cycling] were greater by a factor of seven.


OK, you can argue that once someone stops cycle-commuting, they'll replace that with an hour a day of other exercise, but I think almost no-one does.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10695
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 3 Oct 2019, 9:01pm

Hi,
Undertaking or filtering up the left of traffic in the same lane as you?
I even refrain from overtaking stationary traffic which is legal not to antagonise other road users.

You are lucky and many have died from this manoeuvre, and yes some have been crushed as no fault of there own.

Since a near miss with a car door in my youth I never undertake, just take the space of a car in slow moving traffic, when they speed up keep your ground no closer than a metre from kerb and they have to overtake safely (and give you 1.5 metres), not inside a motor in the same lane.

There are only two instances of undertaking but that's in different lanes that are allowed.
Whilst not illegal off a motorway, if you are not taking a car space in that lane you could well be pushed against kerb or worse as you have found out the hard way.

Get well soon.
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 3 Oct 2019, 10:22pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Since a near miss with a car door in my youth I never undertake, just take the space of a car in slow moving traffic, when they speed up keep your ground no closer than a metre from kerb and they have to overtake safely (and give you 1.5 metres), not inside a motor in the same lane.

No they flipping don't! If they are a crap driver, they'll just try to close pass anyway, fail and knock you off.

Plus, while waiting in line, a crap driver may look past you at the car in front and shunt you, assuming you're not carrying one of those car frames like some campaigners do.

Crap drivers are crap drivers. You can do a little to watch out for them or react to them but you can't avoid them entirely, especially not by pretending that your bike is a car.

Get well soon.

Now that I agree with! Get well soon.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

ossie
Posts: 663
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 7:52pm

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby ossie » 3 Oct 2019, 10:23pm

mjr wrote:
ossie wrote:I really don't get the argument that not riding is deadlier than riding....complete nonsense and easily said until you've been wiped out.

The argument is far from nonsense and please remember I've been crashed into by motorists a few times over the years. No serious injury yet and I still ride. I'm a statistician and do my best to play the numbers to my advantage. Basically, the probable health benefits of cycling more than outweigh the effects of the probable injuries, even in the UK. This book summarises it well:



What exactly do you class as serious Injury and how would I remember you being crashed into by motorists over the years ? I have no idea who you are.

You are trying to persuade some guy who's just been wiped out and who's wife fears for his safety that he might live six months longer doing some crappy commute .

My suggestion is that he joins a gym or sticks a turbo in his garage when he feels up to it and perhaps do the odd weekend ride. Only he can make that decision to return to his commute and if I'm pretty damned sure he will take his families views into it.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1567
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby Pete Owens » 4 Oct 2019, 12:17am

mjr wrote:Not riding is deadlier than riding, even in the UK. Could you vary your route to use any of the infrastructure being created by Boardman?

Or rather, learn to cycle so avoid dangerous manoeuvres such as overtaking turning vehicles.
While not perfect, it should at least both warn drivers to expect cyclists and give you a bit more chance/space to see one about to left hook you

The trouble is it does the exact opposite. By placing cyclists outside the zone of attention of drivers - and often completely hidden behind street furniture or parked cars they make it very much less likely that drivers will see them while simultaneously luring cyclists into danger by channelling them across the path of turning vehicles.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 4 Oct 2019, 12:46pm

Pete Owens wrote:
mjr wrote:Not riding is deadlier than riding, even in the UK. Could you vary your route to use any of the infrastructure being created by Boardman?

Or rather, learn to cycle so avoid dangerous manoeuvres such as overtaking turning vehicles.

As crap drivers don't signal, that might mean never overtaking anyone and condemning all cyclists to wait in queues of over-wide motor vehicles. No thanks.

I do know some avoiding moves, such as emergency turns, but they're easier to use if you've got the extra warning afforded by a cycleway.

While not perfect, it should at least both warn drivers to expect cyclists and give you a bit more chance/space to see one about to left hook you

The trouble is it does the exact opposite. By placing cyclists outside the zone of attention of drivers - and often completely hidden behind street furniture or parked cars they make it very much less likely that drivers will see them while simultaneously luring cyclists into danger by channelling them across the path of turning vehicles.

The trouble for you is that the above doesn't seem to be true: in 2018, just 188 recorded cyclist road casualties were on cycleways, compared to 15543 on carriageways. Only 1 of the 102 fatalities was, at Tithebarn Way in Exeter. So is that wild claim just based on the good old misleading common sense that's often neither common nor sense or do you have some realistic evidence to back up that it's more dangerous?

I suggest that well-designed cycleways like that pictured below give cyclists far more chance to see crap drivers coming and avoid them than if you're overtaking (on either side!) a line of cars. It doesn't matter whether most drivers are paying attention to us or not, which is good - it means our safety is not in their hands. And when they do turn, we're more in their face, not in their blind spot.
Image Attachments
okxing.jpg
A cycleway crosses a side road.
Last edited by mjr on 4 Oct 2019, 1:01pm, edited 2 times in total.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 4 Oct 2019, 12:57pm

ossie wrote:
mjr wrote:
ossie wrote:I really don't get the argument that not riding is deadlier than riding....complete nonsense and easily said until you've been wiped out.

The argument is far from nonsense and please remember I've been crashed into by motorists a few times over the years. No serious injury yet and I still ride. I'm a statistician and do my best to play the numbers to my advantage. Basically, the probable health benefits of cycling more than outweigh the effects of the probable injuries, even in the UK. This book summarises it well:



What exactly do you class as serious Injury and how would I remember you being crashed into by motorists over the years ? I have no idea who you are.

So even though you don't know me, you were happy to call the argument nonsense and imply that I was only suggesting keeping riding because I hadn't been "wiped out"?

I'll use the STATS19 definition of serious as: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an "in-patient", or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe...

You are trying to persuade some guy who's just been wiped out and who's wife fears for his safety that he might live six months longer doing some crappy commute .

Yes, because I care for people's well-being. Not sure where you got six months from and you seem to have missed the suggestion to find ways to make the commute less crap.

Seeing as we seem to be challenging views somewhat robustly, can I ask why you're trying to persuade someone to follow a course of action that expert opinion says is likely to lead to an earlier death?

My suggestion is that he joins a gym or sticks a turbo in his garage when he feels up to it and perhaps do the odd weekend ride. Only he can make that decision to return to his commute and if I'm pretty damned sure he will take his families views into it.

People are very unlikely to spend an hour a day in a gym or garage to replace the lost physical exercise. Suggesting vigorous lunchtime and after-dinner walks would be more likely to work, but as a realist, I think it's still pretty unlikely.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1567
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby Pete Owens » 4 Oct 2019, 1:23pm

mjr wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:
mjr wrote:Not riding is deadlier than riding, even in the UK. Could you vary your route to use any of the infrastructure being created by Boardman?

Or rather, learn to cycle so avoid dangerous manoeuvres such as overtaking turning vehicles.

As crap drivers don't signal, that might mean never overtaking anyone and condemning all cyclists to wait in queues of over-wide motor vehicles. No thanks.


Oh dear - the "Slower vehicle in front - must overtake NOW" syndrome - more commonly associated with a small minority of impatient motorists who will overtake through a pinch point rather than wait a few seconds for an opportunity to overtake safely.

You are correct that in general not riding is certainly deadlier than riding - but perhaps not if you ride without appropriate caution.

ossie
Posts: 663
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 7:52pm

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby ossie » 4 Oct 2019, 2:06pm

mjr wrote:So even though you don't know me, you were happy to call the argument nonsense and imply that I was only suggesting keeping riding because I hadn't been "wiped out"?


Yet you don't know him I presume or his wife. I find it odd that someone can just pop up and tell someone to basically dust themselves down and crack on with their commute, albeit taking a different route. Trying to justify it because you've been involved in numerous crashes doesn't cut the mustard. My guess is that he hasn't made the decision lightly, is still sore from his Injuries but has also taken into account the worry of his loved ones. This is exactly what happened with my two colleagues who decided enough is enough. No one I knew attempted to persuade them otherwise yet they have both taken up others sports that don't Involve jousting with 2 ton vans on a regular basis.

mjr wrote:People are very unlikely to spend an hour a day in a gym or garage to replace the lost physical exercise. Suggesting vigorous lunchtime and after-dinner walks would be more likely to work, but as a realist, I think it's still pretty unlikely.


You don't need to spend an hour a day in a gym or a garage to replace the lost physical exercise of a commute. You could easily surpass that by attending a gym or a swimming pool several times a week. Why the assumption everyone has a turbo in a garage ?

So exactly how much longer do we live by cycling ? I threw in six months as there doesn't appear to be an answer. In other news gym membership, swimming and golf can also make you live longer as does owning a dog.

I no longer commute but when I look back at my commute I often wonder why I ever put myself in that position. The majority of commuting is safe as we know but mine wasn't. I was also deaf to the concerns of my loved ones and work colleagues.

I really get the notion of putting an arm around someones shoulder after a serious accident and empathising. But to imply they won't live as long if they don't commute and nothing can replicate that exercise, or is unlikely too - that you've been involved in crashes,still ride and you play the statistics game - well that's going to be a load of comfort to his wife I guess.


User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3118
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby bigjim » 4 Oct 2019, 2:58pm

Don't the statistics say that pedestrians are more at risk of injury and death than cyclists. 448 peds killed in 2016. Cyclists about 100.
Nothing left to prove.

MOARspeed
Posts: 28
Joined: 5 Jun 2019, 11:09am

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby MOARspeed » 4 Oct 2019, 3:37pm

bigjim wrote:Don't the statistics say that pedestrians are more at risk of injury and death than cyclists. 448 peds killed in 2016. Cyclists about 100.


That may look slightly different if you did it by percentage of pedestrians killed versus percentage of cyclists, as relatively pedestrians out number cyclists by the thousands.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 4 Oct 2019, 4:30pm

Pete Owens wrote:
mjr wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:Or rather, learn to cycle so avoid dangerous manoeuvres such as overtaking turning vehicles.

As crap drivers don't signal, that might mean never overtaking anyone and condemning all cyclists to wait in queues of over-wide motor vehicles. No thanks.


Oh dear - the "Slower vehicle in front - must overtake NOW" syndrome - more commonly associated with a small minority of impatient motorists who will overtake through a pinch point rather than wait a few seconds for an opportunity to overtake safely.

I think you're confusing the well-known Must Get In Front syndrome with a simple desire not to sit in queues of motorists for many minutes unnecessarily when there is clearly space for a cyclist to overtake safely.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 4 Oct 2019, 4:46pm

ossie wrote:
mjr wrote:So even though you don't know me, you were happy to call the argument nonsense and imply that I was only suggesting keeping riding because I hadn't been "wiped out"?


Yet you don't know him I presume or his wife. I find it odd that someone can just pop up and tell someone to basically dust themselves down and crack on with their commute, albeit taking a different route.

I tell no-one to do anything. My comments here are suggestions. I find it even odder that someone pops up on a cycling site to encourage someone to give up cycle-commuting, then gets all aggressive and rude about others encouraging cycling.

Trying to justify it because you've been involved in numerous crashes doesn't cut the mustard.

I only mentioned that to rebut your suggestion that the argument that cyclists live longer was coming from someone who has never crashed. It wasn't posted as justification.

My guess is that he hasn't made the decision lightly, is still sore from his Injuries but has also taken into account the worry of his loved ones. This is exactly what happened with my two colleagues who decided enough is enough. No one I knew attempted to persuade them otherwise yet they have both taken up others sports that don't Involve jousting with 2 ton vans on a regular basis.

Firstly, if they had your same cycling advice as here, that's not surprising.

Secondly, cycle-commuting is transport not a sport.

Thirdly, I did suggest looking for routes that don't Involve jousting with 2 ton vans on a regular basis.

And lastly, the heat of the moment is often a bad time to make such lifestyle change decisions.

mjr wrote:People are very unlikely to spend an hour a day in a gym or garage to replace the lost physical exercise. Suggesting vigorous lunchtime and after-dinner walks would be more likely to work, but as a realist, I think it's still pretty unlikely.


You don't need to spend an hour a day in a gym or a garage to replace the lost physical exercise of a commute. You could easily surpass that by attending a gym or a swimming pool several times a week.

Very few people go to a gym or a swimming pool several times a week. The only person I know for sure who does is actually a keen cyclist and cycles to the pool!

Why the assumption everyone has a turbo in a garage ?

You wrote "sticks a turbo in his garage" not me, so if that's wrong, please go argue with yourself about where turbos are used!

So exactly how much longer do we live by cycling ? I threw in six months as there doesn't appear to be an answer.

There is an estimate but for some reason I'm not motivated to spend any of my extra lifetime looking it up for you(!)

I no longer commute but when I look back at my commute I often wonder why I ever put myself in that position. The majority of commuting is safe as we know but mine wasn't. I was also deaf to the concerns of my loved ones and work colleagues.

Well, maybe it's not a good idea to let one's self-loathing motivate bad advice to other riders.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14050
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: What's the legal position?

Postby mjr » 4 Oct 2019, 4:49pm

MOARspeed wrote:
bigjim wrote:Don't the statistics say that pedestrians are more at risk of injury and death than cyclists. 448 peds killed in 2016. Cyclists about 100.


That may look slightly different if you did it by percentage of pedestrians killed versus percentage of cyclists, as relatively pedestrians out number cyclists by the thousands.

Indeed. From memory, roughly 14% of the population cycle, but 88% walk. In that regard, those two figures are not that far out of a crude expectation, especially when you think that walkers have far more footways and footpaths to choose from than cyclists have cycleways and cycle tracks.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.