Poor cycling practise

[Rcartes]

I'm getting increasingly cross at bad riding by (some) cyclists, and the other day was especially annoyed when riding along a quite narrow one-way street, I was overtaken on the inside with very little room to spare, at some speed and with no warning at all. I shouted after him but he was wearing headphones and (presumably) didn't hear, and although there was a red light not far ahead he rode through it so I couldn't catch up with him. Why do people ride like this: is it stupidity, heedlessness or plain ignorance?.

Nothing to be done about it in this case, but I do worry that some people ride so inconsiderately and often at danger to themselves. A particular concern is poor positioning at traffic lights where I used to commute there's a T-junction where vehicles can only turn left or right but cycles can go straight on. I lost count of the number of times idiots were almost knocked down by left-turning vehicles because they had stopped on the far left-hand side instead of in the centre of the ASL. Are these people non-drivers with little or no road awareness?

[Guy951]

: is it stupidity, heedlessness or plain ignorance?.

Yes

[Tom Richardson]

these people non-drivers with little or no road awareness?

Historically many cyclists have been none drivers and it is possible, even now, for a person who doesn't hold a driving licence to get on a bicycle and use it on a public road with little or no road awareness. Even children are allowed to do it. It used to be expected that motorists would allow for their presence but motoring standards have advance so much that its barely tolerable now. The practice is gradually being eradicated as the perpetrators resort to motor vehicles where expectations are much lower..

[Guy951]

...motoring standards have advance so much...

Interesting way of saying careless, sloppy, inattentive and above all dangerous driving has become the accepted norm.

[Tom Richardson]

...motoring standards have advance so much...

Interesting way of saying careless, sloppy, inattentive and above all dangerous driving has become the accepted norm.

more that expectations have increased beyond what can reasonably be achieved. e.g. in 1957 Lord Denning determined that motorists must 'allow a cyclist their wobble'. Now you have to cycle in an arrow straight line because advancing motorist skills mean they can pass millimetres away with incredible speed difference. People who don't feel capable of travelling in an arrow straight line have given up and got cars.

[Guy951]

...advancing motorist skills mean they can pass millimetres away with incredible speed difference...

Like I said, dangerous driving has become the accepted norm.

People who don't feel capable of travelling in an arrow straight line have given up and got cars.

Translation: People who are frightened by these "advancing motorist skills" (sic) have been intimidated to the extent they no longer feel capable of taking their bicycle and claiming their legal place on the road.

[NUKe]

Where are these advancing motoring skills? taking liberties passing closer are not skills,

[crossroads]

Its interesting that on the forums when a topic is posted regarding poor driving of any sort it provokes many responses often running to many pages. When a post is made regarding poor cycling the responses seem to dry up.....and responses that are posted still seem to turn back to bad driving!!

[kwackers]

Its interesting that on the forums when a topic is posted regarding poor driving of any sort it provokes many responses often running to many pages. When a post is made regarding poor cycling the responses seem to dry up.....and responses that are posted still seem to turn back to bad driving!!

And why not, it's a cycling forum.

Plus, annoying as bad cycling is - it's not going to kill me. Bad driving on the other hand...

My main gripe with cyclists is they don't pay attention, if they can't hear you coming up they don't look before changing road position. As a result I find I need to leave loads more room than is strictly necessary.

[crossroads]

Its interesting that on the forums when a topic is posted regarding poor driving of any sort it provokes many responses often running to many pages. When a post is made regarding poor cycling the responses seem to dry up.....and responses that are posted still seem to turn back to bad driving!!

And why not, it's a cycling forum.

Plus, annoying as bad cycling is - it's not going to kill me. Bad driving on the other hand...

My main gripe with cyclists is they don't pay attention, if they can't hear you coming up they don't look before changing road position. As a result I find I need to leave loads more room than is strictly necessary.

Yes bad cycling prob wont kill you (unless a car swerves to avoid bad cycling and hits you, hopefully not likely) but bad cycling might kill the cyclist and cause pain and distress to many others. So just because we are cyclists on a cycling forum should not mean we ignore the issue.

[kwackers]

Yes bad cycling prob wont kill you (unless a car swerves to avoid bad cycling and hits you, hopefully not likely) but bad cycling might kill the cyclist and cause pain and distress to many others. So just because we are cyclists on a cycling forum should not mean we ignore the issue.

I don't think the issue is being ignored (hence this thread), in fact given the proportion of self fulfilling cyclist deaths due to their own stupidity against the backdrop of those due to others stupidity, I'd go as far as to say that given how often it pops up that it's over represented on these forums.

Taking it further - what do you suggest? Most of the worse examples of cycling I see are from youths, I'm sure when I was a youth I probably paid no attention to any form of road etiquette. All I remember ever doing was making sure I didn't veer off into the path of a car.
How about no cyclists on the road under the age of 14 and compulsory cycling tests for those over?
IMO any attempt at regulation will simply reduce the number of cyclists and do virtually nothing to help, spending money on enforcement may improve the situation but reducing an almost zero number isn't going to be that easy, much bigger gains in lives saved are to be had by targeting the ones killing 3000 a year.

There's also a school of thought that suggests that unpredictable cyclists are safer since car drivers are more likely to give them a wide berth - in fact as a road using group perhaps the real key is to become unfathomable, when a cyclist comes into view car drivers will be pretty much forced to pay attention, slow down and leave space.
Nothing worse than riding in a dead straight line with no weaving and requiring no effort to predict your path when it comes to allowing drivers to simply ignore you.

[Tom Richardson]

Yes bad cycling prob wont kill you (unless a car swerves to avoid bad cycling and hits you, hopefully not likely) but bad cycling might kill the cyclist and cause pain and distress to many others.

exactly: bad cycling is cycling in a way that means a car might hit you. Arrow straight lines everyone!!
(not sure about the second bit; how cycling might kill you without the interaction of a motor vehicle but I've seen the red faced distress and heard the naval elequence that any presence of a cyclist can cause a motorist).

[snibgo]

Bad cyclists are a danger to themselves and others (cyclists and pedestrians), and give ammo to the anti-bike lobby.

For safety and hassle-free traffic, predictability is essential. Part of this is following the rules. I like the thought of traffic freezing when they catch sight of me wobbling along, but I wouldn't trust my life to it.

I don't know how to solve this. Compulsory training? Yikes, but a case could be made.

[kwackers]

I don't know how to solve this. Compulsory training? Yikes, but a case could be made.

I think you need to be clear what it is you're "solving".

To start you need to ask and answer these questions.

How many pedestrians are killed, how many injured by cyclists?
How many cyclists are killed due to "bad cycling"?

Once you know the answers to those then you've more questions to ask.

Is there any benefit to "good cyclists" due to the unpredictable antics of the bad ones?
If so could this be extended by making all cyclists "bad cyclists"?
If not, what is the cost of making "bad cyclists" good? Would this money/effort be better spent elsewhere? Would it for example result in bigger improvements in road safety if applied to drivers rather than cyclists?

etc etc.

[crossroads]

Yes bad cycling prob wont kill you (unless a car swerves to avoid bad cycling and hits you, hopefully not likely) but bad cycling might kill the cyclist and cause pain and distress to many others.

exactly: bad cycling is cycling in a way that means a car might hit you. Arrow straight lines everyone!!
(not sure about the second bit; how cycling might kill you without the interaction of a motor vehicle but I've seen the red faced distress and heard the naval elequence that any presence of a cyclist can cause a motorist).

Or, Bad cycling is cycling in a way that moves you into a position that makes a collosion with a car unavoidable. So who hits who then and who's fault is it?

Well if a car swerves to avoid said bad cyclists and in the course of doing so hits you, so that is the interaction of a motor vehicle and bad cycling. As I said not likely (I hope) to happen. As for your other comment I think you missed my point in your haste to slate motorists