Be safe or risk injury?

[deeferdonk]

I find it weird that "Cyclists dismount" signs are never followed by another sign saying "Cyclists Remount"

For example this one that I go past regularly, there's a cyclist dismount sign but its not really clear where it covers - its bit of single track that goes past some houses which have cars parked outside. Obviously, I politely decline the request from the sign but if i complied, i arguably would be walking for the rest of NCN 54

[Blondie]

Likely because Cyclist Dismount signs are not in the Highway Code or any laws and thus Willy nilly adhoc things that follow no standards, and are dreamed up by a bored official in a basement

[maximus meridius]

So this "vehicular cycling" idea. What's it about? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a movement, campaign or something like that?

[mjr]

Likely because Cyclist Dismount signs are not in the Highway Code or any laws and thus Willy nilly adhoc things that follow no standards, and are dreamed up by a bored official in a basement

They are in the law, Diagram 966, but they are an information sign, like most white/blue rectangular signs, intended for the situation where a cycleway touches a pedestrian-only area. For it to be a compulsory instruction, it would need to be circular.

I think they do not appear in the standards (the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) but they have appeared in the guidelines (Cycle Infrastructure Design, most recently LTN 1/20) as an example of a sign that should not be used for crossings, which does indeed seem to be a use dreamed up by a bored official who maybe wanted to spend money on signs instead of proper junction layouts, and it then spread across the country like a rash.

[mjr]

So this "vehicular cycling" idea. What's it about? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a movement, campaign or something like that?

It's a movement, generally blamed on John Franklin and John Forester, which seeks to divert cycling budgets into making more, larger and faster roads for motorists, with a token amount going on teaching cyclists to ride like drivers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpnZy7RrO3I

[deeferdonk]

I think i must be a vehicular cyclist. I ride my bike like a BMW driver as i often don't indicate.

[maximus meridius]

So this "vehicular cycling" idea. What's it about? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a movement, campaign or something like that?

It's a movement, generally blamed on John Franklin and John Forester, which seeks to divert cycling budgets into making more, larger and faster roads for motorists, with a token amount going on teaching cyclists to ride like drivers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpnZy7RrO3I

Thanks. That video seems reasonable, but is clearly opposed to the notion of vehicular cycling. Though it seems to make sense (the video, that is), is there anything putting the case for vehicular cycling in a positive way? Preferably from somebody who isn't so obviously an irrational nutjob. Or wearing a bow tie.

[Bmblbzzz]

Ironically, the part of the recently introduced regulations that does seem to be generally observed is that about giving priority to pedestrians crossing side roads.

There is nothing new in that - it has always been the case that you should stop for pedestrians crossing side roads. It certainly was the case when I was learning to drive half a century ago. There is not the same problem with stopping for pedestrians since they are already at the junction when a turning vehicle is approaching so in full few of the driver. The problem comes when it is two vehicles are approaching a junction, so both drivers need to aware of vehicles approaching from behind

The new thing, at least round here, is that drivers are stopping to let people cross the side road rather than driving round them. They're even anticipatorily stopping for people who are still on the kerb.

[robing]

If you have ever watched any of Jeremy Vine's videos - you will see that his roadcraft is terrible and even though other drivers may be at fault he unnecessarily puts himself in danger. In his latest video a van reversed over his bike! He could have avoided this.

[awavey]

On a different note I would just add a note of caution on Ashley Neal videos, most of what he says is standard /sensible stuff, but then he comes up with something silly and he can be aggressive (he has been to me when I commented on one of his videos where he said drivers should sound their horn before overtaking cyclists and i said i wouldn't appreciate it). Have also seen him get into some nasty spats with "cycling twitter", including showing the twitter profile of a lady who disagreed with him on one of his videos (doxxing?). He has set up a cycling specific channel alongside his main driving channel - but still seems to do some subtle cyclist bashing. I suppose its good for views and ad revenue.

I think Ashley Neal's youtube output, including his cycling output, is largely positive in effect. His comments in the video at the start of this thread all made perfect sense to me, unlike the idea that we should "stand up for our rights" by adopting cycling habits that might get us killed.

Yes, like any of the "professional" Youtube/Twitter people, he does get into spats that drag on. There was one on his driving channel about somebody who went up a very long single lane road, created because of road works and controlled by temporary traffic lights. That's one of those awkward situations where flexibility and common sense are needed. But Ashley went to great lengths to prove who was "right" and who was "wrong". But at least they were all in cars. Stationary cars, as it happens, because nobody could move. So still alive.

Whereas a cyclist who, coming up on the inside of a vehicle which is indicating to turn left, decides to carry on with their straight ahead course, may well be completely "in the right". But also completely dead.

alot of his output is based on his driving experience not cycling experience, so he tends to set up some situation that a cyclist may face but provide a drivers solution to it.

for sure if im riding up the "inside" of a line of vehicles, and one starts indicating to turn left, no Im not going to ride into the collision zone to prove a point, I dont need Ashley Neal to tell me that, but the reality is in most of those situations actually the vehicle never indicates it just turns across you, or if it does actually indicate it over took you just to then make the turn and then puts you in a collision zone situation

but Ashley rarely covers those aspects, largely because he doesnt have the experience of cycling long enough to have encountered that kind of thing and so its very much a drivers attitude of how dare this cyclist ride up the inside of me, how am I supposed to know they are there, forgetting of course you are supposed to keep a check on mirrors at all times, even when you are in a queue of traffic, and its the first step of any attempt of a manuevre a driver must make, which youd think a driving instructor would be very clued up about

[maximus meridius]

On a different note I would just add a note of caution on Ashley Neal videos, most of what he says is standard /sensible stuff, but then he comes up with something silly and he can be aggressive (he has been to me when I commented on one of his videos where he said drivers should sound their horn before overtaking cyclists and i said i wouldn't appreciate it). Have also seen him get into some nasty spats with "cycling twitter", including showing the twitter profile of a lady who disagreed with him on one of his videos (doxxing?). He has set up a cycling specific channel alongside his main driving channel - but still seems to do some subtle cyclist bashing. I suppose its good for views and ad revenue.

I think Ashley Neal's youtube output, including his cycling output, is largely positive in effect. His comments in the video at the start of this thread all made perfect sense to me, unlike the idea that we should "stand up for our rights" by adopting cycling habits that might get us killed.

Yes, like any of the "professional" Youtube/Twitter people, he does get into spats that drag on. There was one on his driving channel about somebody who went up a very long single lane road, created because of road works and controlled by temporary traffic lights. That's one of those awkward situations where flexibility and common sense are needed. But Ashley went to great lengths to prove who was "right" and who was "wrong". But at least they were all in cars. Stationary cars, as it happens, because nobody could move. So still alive.

Whereas a cyclist who, coming up on the inside of a vehicle which is indicating to turn left, decides to carry on with their straight ahead course, may well be completely "in the right". But also completely dead.

alot of his output is based on his driving experience not cycling experience, so he tends to set up some situation that a cyclist may face but provide a drivers solution to it.

for sure if im riding up the "inside" of a line of vehicles, and one starts indicating to turn left, no Im not going to ride into the collision zone to prove a point, I dont need Ashley Neal to tell me that, but the reality is in most of those situations actually the vehicle never indicates it just turns across you, or if it does actually indicate it over took you just to then make the turn and then puts you in a collision zone situation

Eh? The video which we are discussing is based entirely on situations where the driver IS indicating. That's the "reality" that is being discussed. I think his advice is entirely appropriate. I will follow it, and hopefully live.

but Ashley rarely covers those aspects, largely because he doesnt have the experience of cycling long enough to have encountered that kind of thing and so its very much a drivers attitude of how dare this cyclist ride up the inside of me, how am I supposed to know they are there, forgetting of course you are supposed to keep a check on mirrors at all times, even when you are in a queue of traffic, and its the first step of any attempt of a manuevre a driver must make, which youd think a driving instructor would be very clued up about

You sure are attributing some unlikely attitudes to Ashley Neal. I've never seen anything on any of his videos where he expresses those sorts of opinions.

The thread started with a video about a very specific traffic interaction. You seem to have used this as an opportunity to have a general moan about drivers. Whatever your beef is about motorists, Ashley gives good advice in that video, and in other videos of his I've seen. If there are dangerous drivers on the roads, I don't think he's one of them.

Perhaps the problem is that he doesn't display an "all cyclists are perfect" posture.

[Cowsham]

If you have ever watched any of Jeremy Vine's videos - you will see that his roadcraft is terrible and even though other drivers may be at fault he unnecessarily puts himself in danger. In his latest video a van reversed over his bike! He could have avoided this.

Aye -- this pursuit of confrontation content for his morning show is going to get him killed. He deliberately turned left around the back of the van hoping to confront the driver about his actions. If it were me I'd stopped until the driver had decided what he was for doing or at least seen me and waved me on, after which I would have sped on by the end of the van and on my way.

[maximus meridius]

If you have ever watched any of Jeremy Vine's videos - you will see that his roadcraft is terrible and even though other drivers may be at fault he unnecessarily puts himself in danger. In his latest video a van reversed over his bike! He could have avoided this.

Aye -- this pursuit of confrontation content for his morning show is going to get him killed. He deliberately turned left around the back of the van hoping to confront the driver about his actions. If it were me I'd stopped until the driver had decided what he was for doing or at least seen me and waved me on, after which I would have sped on by the end of the van and on my way.

Yes, it is a silly, but not uncommon attitude:

"This road user did something wrong, they are therefore an evil criminal, so anything I do in consequence is completely justified and if either of us ends up dead it will be entirely their fault".

Sort of thing.

Especially as the person ending up dead in a cycle/van collision is almost certainly going to be the cyclist.

The Highway Code is exactly that. A code, a series of instructions as to how to behave when using the road. Apart from those parts of it that refer to actual laws (and those parts are clear that they refer to laws), it acts as guidance. Guidance which can't possibly account for every single possible interaction. A lot of that guidance could be summed up as - "use a bit of common sense and don't be an aggressive confrontational idiot when you're on the road". Which is pretty much what Ashley Neal advises.

[Pete Owens]

So this "vehicular cycling" idea. What's it about? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a movement, campaign or something like that?

"Vehicular Cycling" just means "cycling" as we all understand it. Just following the normal rules for vehicle traffic, riding on the left, positioning for junctions based of destination, using hand signals, using lights at night and so on. It is just basic roadcraft - as taught to 10 year olds at level 2 bikeability - and those of us over 50 learnt for our cycle proficiency tests.

The term was coined in the US where a lot of official advice was based on treating cyclists as wheeled pedestrians - riding on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic for example. Or riding on sidewalks.

In the UK context the term is mainly used as a term of abuse, stripped from its original meaning, much as "woke" is. The aim of the planners and their apologists is to divide and rule. When faced with opposition from cyclists to auto-supremacist planning to force us off the roads they use a range of adjectives to divide us: "fast", "brave", "aggressive", "old", "young", "male" etc. It is just one example of the "wrong-kind-of-cyclist" trope, The most extreme recent example was from Manchester where their chosen adjective was "existing" - ie the lot of us. Their plans were aimed at what they term "potential cyclists" - or "motorists" as they are more commonly known.

[mjr]

So this "vehicular cycling" idea. What's it about? I'm genuinely curious. Is it a movement, campaign or something like that?

"Vehicular Cycling" just means "cycling" as we all understand it. Just following the normal rules for vehicle traffic, riding on the left, positioning for junctions based of destination, using hand signals, using lights at night and so on. It is just basic roadcraft - as taught to 10 year olds at level 2 bikeability - and those of us over 50 learnt for our cycle proficiency tests.

It differs from cycle proficiency as it was taught in the 1970/80s in that it would correctly have you riding in primary position near lane centre, not on the edge of the gutter.

But it differs from most people's usual cycling in that it refuses to use any of the permissions or abilities for cycling except modal filters and a few others. Vehicular cyclists do not use and argue against provision of things like cycle bypasses, advance stop lines and early start lights (unless the cyclist arrives with no vehicles in front of them, so don't need to overtake the queue), as well as cycleways and all associated things like cycle crossings, contrary to Bikeability which recommends case-by-case evaluation.

One especially naughty vehicular cycling promoter tried to ruin cycleways for everyone by instructing cyclists to ride centrally and hog the whole thing, with no exceptions, not even wide two-way routes. Someone trying that on certain routes in Cambridge would attract several nasty comments a minute!

Another key feature of vehicularists seems to be that every error in a cycleway design or silly comment by highways departments is blamed on cycling advocates, rather than the highways departments. This isn't a necessary feature of vehicular cycling except that some of its proponents want to befriend those highways departments and convince them to stop building rather than fix the errors. It seems they would rather the still-tiny cycling budgets were spent on spaces open to cars, not spaces only for cycling.