Things cyclists should know … POV driver who's incapable of cycling

stolen text.

a) You could be stopped and fined - you are effectively handing the police a 'reason' to stop your vehicle - the car could be impounded if it is considered dangerous to drive and/or could be given a prohobition order until removed!

http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/law-window-tinting-2

Yep, it would be a Construction and Use offence, as using a mobile phone at the wheel is a CU80 offence.

Re the tinted windows- It is safest to assume that every car or van I get stuck behind hasn't seen me, and might do something unpredictable. I always take the lane and hang back.

As far as this goes-

Please don't
madly gesticulate for me to pass you, your arm movements causing you to wiggle all over the road. If my initial assessment was that it's not safe to pass you, what you are doing is making passing you less safe.
pull over to the kerb and get off your bike until I have gone past. I'm not mad about the implication that I'm such a poor driver that I can't maintain a safe following distance behind you.

I have often slowed down and pulled over to let someone past- if it seems likely I will be holding them up for a while, it seems only polite, especially if I am creating a small tailback. It also makes sense to wave someone on as you do this, so they know what's happening. This often depends on how the driver behind is behaving- If they wait patiently, at a safe distance, I am more likely to go out of my way to let them past than if they tailgate and beep. I often let large vehicles past on hills, as they are harder to control at slow speeds, and their close proximity is intimidating.

^ I liked the 'cyclists are arseholes of they let you overtake and arseholes if they don't' part.

It was that point when I realised what we were up against.

The point that I was really hoping that you would take away from the problem of tinted windows on a canopy (i.e. the cover over the load bin area) is ...
It is a reasonable for any road user to assume that a van with no rear window essentially has a redundant rear view mirror and no rear vision. It is not reasonable to assume that a vehicle that has a rear window has no visibility to the rear, yet this is the case with a vehicle with tinted windows on the canopy.

For the record, the front windscreen, and the side windows of the cab are not tinted at all. The vehicle is legal, and there are thousands of others just like it on the streets. Some of the canopies/load bin covers have no windows at all, making the rear of the vehicle much the same as a typical van.

I am not asking anyone to take responsibility for what I can and cannot see as has been suggested. I have a system of knowing what is where in relation to where I am that works very well for me. I did think it was useful for you to know the limitations of this type of vehicle though, particularly as they are so plentiful. Much like cyclists are aware of the problems of HGVs please just be aware of the limitations of the multitude of pickups.

On the subject of replacing it ...
If Earthloop earned an unlimited amount of money, or we won the lottery, it would be done in a day, because I really hate the restricted visibility the comes from the tinted canopy. However, as we are not in a financial position to do so, we do have to make do with what we have. If we were in the financial position to purchase a vehicle from new, we wouldn't be in the position of having the tinted canopy windows either, but sadly, when one purchases a vehicle used, one has to make do with the legal, but not very intelligent choices of the ones wealthy enough to do so.

Fair enough. You sound like you take better care about what's going on around you than many drivers. It would be a pleasure to get stuck behind you. (no euph)

High viz, (much like helmets) is a red herring when it comes to safety and just another stick to beat cyclists with.

If you want to wear either then that's fine but it shouldn't be necessary to of drivers are following the highway code. This is covered in rule 126:

At night, your stopping distance is thus defined by the range of your headlights. i.e if your headlight beam is 50 metres, you shouldn't be travelling over approximately 48mph.

I think that is so true and it does worry me that we might end up with the contributory negligence thing...yes the driver was dangerous/ on the phone/ pissed but you didnt have hi viz on so its sort of your fault.
I was in Belgium the other week and no one was wearing hi viz or helmets and there were lots of bike about.

On a slight tangent, does anyone know the source of
"90% of UK cyclists also **drive" **
statistic that seems to be floating around now?
Nice (convenient) if it's true but it sounds like spun data to me

I'm interested by these points and have been wondering about this for a little while now myself. Why is it so important to 'identify' cyclists (or any other road user for that matter.)

One example that comes to mind: I was driving at night on a dual carriageway with 2 lanes on either side, up way ahead was a single flashing red light on the left, and the cars ahead of me were changing from the left lane to the right. Because the single flashing red light said "probably cyclist" to me I knew why we were all changing lanes. This seemed like win. I'm not saying I would have clattered into him had his light not been flashing, but surely more information about what's happening ahead is a good thing.

For the record, the front windscreen, and the side windows of the cab are not tinted at all. The vehicle is legal

Have you checked? It's not covered by the MOT, it would bump your insurance if you got a conviction, might be worth asking.

Fair enough. You sound like you take better care about what's going on around you than many drivers. It would be a pleasure to get stuck behind you. (no euph)

oi, that's my wife you're not euphing

sozzles.

What the hell? moment after that dreadful tv show aired, everyone's an expert?

On the subject of replacing it ...
If Earthloop earned an unlimited amount of money, or we won the lottery, it would be done in a day, because I really hate the restricted visibility the comes from the tinted canopy. However, as we are not in a financial position to do so, we do have to make do with what we have. If we were in the financial position to purchase a vehicle from new, we wouldn't be in the position of having the tinted canopy windows either, but sadly, when one purchases a vehicle used, one has to make do with the legal, but not very intelligent choices of the ones wealthy enough to do so.

As has been said above, window tint is not part of the MOT so unless you have used a photometer under controlled circumstances and can prove that the window lets in at 70% of the light from the test source then no, your vehicle isn't road legal at all. Just saying.
Have you tried meths? If the tint is film you can dissolve it off. If its black glass then it'd be about £10 from the local glaziers to replace, hell, I could do it for that. Maybe stop buying Mr Earthloop beer and it'd be fixed ages ago.

For the record, I drive a box van with no rear view mirror. As has been stated above(and on the back of many many vans/trucks etc) 'Can't see mirrors? Can't see you'
If people choose to tailgate you til their out of your field of vision then it's their problem, the fact that you've chosen a vehicle with a restricted field of vision places the problem back in your court.
Also, I think it's fair to say that if someone sees a window on the back of a vehicle they will assume(mother of all cock-ups i know) that the driver can see through it, whereas they are more likely to modify their riding/driving/walking/segwaying around a vehicle with no rear window as they know full well the driver cannot see through steel.

I could go on but I'd be repeating what everyone else has said already.

I d add that my cycling skills improved once I learned to drive. This I did when I was 40 having cycled in London for 20 years previously. So I welcome this thread...

BTW, how many of you drive across London on the same route that you cycle? Is there a difference for you?

I d add that my cycling skills improved once I learned to drive. This I did when I was 40 having cycled in London for 20 years previously. So I welcome this thread...

BTW, how many of you drive across London on the same route that you cycle? Is there a difference for you?

Yeah, on a bike I actually get to my destination in a reasonable amount of time instead of sitting glumly in a traffic jam for hours.

On a slight tangent, does anyone know the source of
"90% of UK cyclists also **drive" **
statistic that seems to be floating around now?
Nice (convenient) if it's true but it sounds like spun data to me

It's based on BC membership I think, and obvs they all need cars to drive their carbon confections to sportives and back every weekend. In summer. If it's not raining.

I drive and cycle my commute equally. I have no problem whatsoever spotting cyclists, pedestrians, motorbikes etc while driving, whereas I nearly get merced at least once a week on the bike. To me that says that it's down to due care and attention, regardless of how the cyclist is dressed.
Oh, and it takes fucking ages in the car compared to the bike.

I have often slowed down and pulled over to let someone past- if it seems likely I will be holding them up for a while, it seems only polite, especially if I am creating a small tailback. It also makes sense to wave someone on as you do this, so they know what's happening. This often depends on how the driver behind is behaving- If they wait patiently, at a safe distance, I am more likely to go out of my way to let them past than if they tailgate and beep. I often let large vehicles past on hills, as they are harder to control at slow speeds, and their close proximity is intimidating.

Seems like it would be my pleasure to be stuck behind you too lol

I don't tailgate cyclists, there is never a chance of me touching your wheel. I give cyclists as much room as I can when overtaking them (safely of course) and plenty of room between me and them when behind them.

I would be quite happy with you slowing down to let me pass, and quite happy for you to indicate that this is what you are doing with a wave, as I have now assumed that you are likely to be a cyclist who can do so without starting to wiggle back and forth across the lane. Some cyclists however, make the voices in my head scream "Get your hand back on the handlebars you twit!" These are the cyclists (and if I cycled on a road I would be one of them) that really need to just go about there business and let me do my overtaking of them when it is safe for me to do so.

It is extremely likely that the mad arm waving wibble wobbling cyclist don't read a forum such as this.

What the hell? moment after that dreadful tv show aired, everyone's an expert?

but Ed, you are an expert on everything even without tv shows.

but Ed, you are an expert on everything even without tv shows.

Oh that's obvious enough.

West?

you coming?

cheers tom k&e

Is it ?

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

High contrast clothing is the first action point for cyclists.

That's not what it says

It is, if you scroll up from the journo's tl;dr bit at the bottom to what the pilot actually wrote.

What the hell? moment after that dreadful tv show aired, everyone's an expert?

LFGSS providing cycling experts since 2007

you coming?

aye, need to pick up a watch strap from that unintelligibly bloke.