-
I agree with max. Never leave a green box empty.
In fact, when (like always) a care has overshot into the box I make a point of getting in front of it anyway. Because it is most often the safest place to be, so you can get a good view, and be across the junction before cars start coming around the corners.
-
63 - Cycle Lanes.... **** Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills****,
Your experience will teach you that using bike lanes takes no less skills.
but they can make your journey safer.
WTF, isn't this the Highway Code, not an accident study? Traffic engineering analysis + accident statistics don't support the claim. Wasn't this changed to "but cyclists may feel safer..." a few years back? That may sound like a threat, but at least it doesn't make unsubstantiated allegations of the real world. -
Oh and I wouldn't want to stay behind a motor vehicle as if they need to stop or creep through a junction, they are holding me up.
and that's exactly what a lot of motor vehicle driver think about cyclist which is why each junction and each que of traffic needs to be take on merit as to whether to move to the front of stay a car or two back but still in the centre of the lane.
I've ridden with a friend who is a experienced central London cyclist around Bromley and it was scary to watch him ride in the same way as he did in central London due to the junction design, traffic levels, traffic speed e.t.c
-
I disagree. PO vans are often driven so aggressively I'd rather hang back where this picture was taken from.
For serious? It's your right to be at the front in the funny green box. What's Mr. Postman gonna do, drive straight over you? He can wait as far as I'm concerned... In a few feet he'll be able to overtake you if the road is open...
Look again boys, the PO van is indicating left....
The riders need to be in front of it, or behind it taking the lane.
He won't be overtaking that noddy on the inside, he'll be turning into him and frustratingly trying to complete his maneuver whilst waiting for the scramble of kerb hugging lemmings to realise he's turning left.
-
Not antagonistic but maybe time to take responsibility for your self. Have seen so many people hugging the inside,riding on the inside of left turning vehicles no sense of what going on around them and its not their fault? Lets blame everyone else and not take responsibility.
With education (training) they can see the error of there ways and make the cycling more enjoyable.
i am in agreement with this. as cyclist we can blame tfl (or our local body) for crap cycle lanes, truck drivers for crushing people, car drivers for turning left in front of us etc etc. but while ii accept that there is a lot of poor driving around, there is a huge amount of poor cycling going on, and it would take just a little thought on the part of the cyclist to figure that some of their actions are hazardous/misrepresenting their intentions. loads of cyclists drive so they should have a working knowledge of how these things work, and the rest, well they walk, they can look, they arent devoid of the power of thought. how many times do you curse almost being side swiped by a left turning van as you leave a traffic light before you realise that you can do something about it?? sure there are a lot of things that you may not be able to figure out (cycle training taught me loads) but it shouldnt take many near misses for a person to think "ah ok this has happened before, i'll wait till the van has turned before going by, or maybe i'll pass on the outside, or maybe i'll get in front of him while the light is still red so he knows im here"...
it winds me up that cyclists generally have a holier than though attitude toward other road users and yet so easily give up their responsibility of safety to tfl or drivers or whoever by riding like they are invisible or got a force field around them or something... there are shit cyclist just as there are shit motorists.
my feeling is that cyclists do need educating. and so do drivers of big vehicles with poor visibility, in fact everyone needs educating, but people sure as hell should learn from experience and put themselves in safe places on the road where they can be seen and respected or treated as traffic, cyclist or ped or driver or scooterer...
-
Look again boys, the PO van is indicating left....
Was waiting for someone to point that out. Not that vehicles don't often turn left without indicating (negligence)it winds me up that cyclists generally have a holier than though attitude toward other road users and yet so easily give up their responsibility of safety to tfl or drivers or whoever by riding like they are invisible or got a force field around them or something... there are shit cyclist just as there are shit motorists.
my feeling is that cyclists do need educating. and so do drivers of big vehicles with poor visibility, in fact everyone needs educating, but people sure as hell should learn from experience and put themselves in safe places on the road where they can be seen and respected or treated as traffic, cyclist or ped or driver or scooterer...
++1
-
I witnessed a weird altercation yesterday.
I was on Grosvenor Road waiting to turn left onto Chelsea Bridge. I stayed behind a 4x4 that was indicating left at the light. A couple of cyclists went on the inside of the car - there were other cyclists ahead - and when the light changed I am not sure what happened but the car hooted and one cyclist gave the driver a bad look and probably said something to the driver. The driver then swerved into the cyclist and instead of turning onto Chelsea Bridge went on straight on to pursue the cyclist or have a word. etc. I made a note of the number plate but forgot by the time I got home.
I don't get why cyclists go on the inside of a vehicle that has clearly indicated. It creates chaos at the lights and shows a complete lack of common sense. I can't see any fun in being close to the curb having a moving car/van/lorry brush against me.
-
Look again boys, the PO van is indicating left....
The riders need to be in front of it, or behind it taking the lane.
He won't be overtaking that noddy on the inside, he'll be turning into him and frustratingly trying to complete his maneuver whilst waiting for the scramble of kerb hugging lemmings to realise he's turning left.
Isn't that a brake light?
-
Personally I like to get to the front and have a clear path as 90% of the time I accelerate away from the lights faster than the other cyclists. Oh and I wouldn't want to stay behind a motor vehicle as if they need to stop or creep through a junction, they are holding me up.
Oooh you go fast. Kids today.
hycct?
This^
Look again boys, the PO van is indicating left....
The riders need to be in front of it, or behind it taking the lane.
He won't be overtaking that noddy on the inside, he'll be turning into him and frustratingly trying to complete his maneuver whilst waiting for the scramble of kerb hugging lemmings to realise he's turning left.
Don't call me boy, please.
It was plain that the van is indicating furyther up the thread as I recall, though i may have just imagined that everyone had already worked that out. I certainly had. That's why I said I'd just as likely wait behind the van as go ahead of it into the ASL.
Assuming the rider is going straight on or left, not right, that stopping in this position, that the photographer is in, is OK by me. You need to be aware of whether any vehicle behind the van is turning left, should you be going straight on, and ride accordingly (taking the lane then) when traffic moves off. But I prefer not to get right behind a vehicle, pariculalry a diesel, when they're revving away at the rlights pathetically intimidating everyone with their stupid clutched engine.
-
Cyclists have a right to have a holier than thou attitude - we're not causing congestion or pumping out gases that contribute to asthma and global warming.
i don’t believe this kind of self righteousness is going to win cyclists any support on the roads.
i appoint myself as your life coach and prescribe a reading of atlas shrugged or the fountainhead to help you realign your pathological sense of entitlement.
-
Cyclists have a right to have a holier than thou attitude
no actually we dont. such a blanket statement is a mugs game. with our current transport setup, bikes just arent a suitable method of transport for certain things in this country. how many cargo bikes will it take to stock your local supermarkets and shops? yes yes it would be lovely if we did all just buy local produce, but we dont. so we need delivery vehicles. and we need buses and taxis. we could probaly get away with less private cars on the road, but until the magic happens, people should take responsibility for themselves, wise up and be safe and realise that segregation of road users is not practicable nor does it teach good conduct to anyone.
oh and when i said about holier than thou, i meant the classic cyclist attitude that goes "i am right in my actions because i am on a bike and other, motorised vehicle road users are wrong in their actions". im not talking about the moral choice of riding a bike or driving, merely the conduct of road users.
we're not causing congestion
actually in some ways we do. we cause traffic to slow down and wait behind us when there is not enough room to overtake. so our causing congestion is mostly about our own safety not because there are too many of us on the road (though this can happen too).
get into the green box (or in front of it if a car s already there)
cyclists dont always have to do this, and this is a prime example of where cyclists do actually cause or contribute to congestion. we slow traffic down, period.
Oh yeah, try indicating ALL THE TIME (peds want to know whether it is safe to cross, cars might know what you're gonna do if you indicate). Try letting cars out in front of you or past you occasionally.
road positioning says a lot about intention, indicating alone is not enough.
-
I'm still not convinced. If it's indicating, the indicator on the left side of the vehicle, under the wing mirror should also be illuminated. I'm pretty sure that the brake light is at the top of the rear light stack on a transit.
I'm kinda with Matty here.... just spent far too long on Google and found this.. which seems to be the common patten for Ford rear light clusters on Transits:
http://www.thetoolboxshop.com/0-641-50-durite-commercial-rear-lamp-right-hand-version-1204-p.aspWhich would suggest the top light is the brake light, which would make sense too that the brake light is highest in line of sight to following vehicles. Am going to start tailgating Royal Mail vans as a result to confirm this as an absooooloute.
How about bigger windscreens and door windows that enable the driver to see to the front and left. Like a bus. Or a coach.
Problem here for car designers is the thickness of the A pillar, that's the front sloping pillar that comes up from the engine area to the roof line.... over the years with the increased desire for MPV's, more glass, doors, and the requirement for a decent score in NCAP testing (http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx) .... The A pillar has become thicker and thicker... hence the dangers in particular to motorbikes travelling at speed for them to get 'lost' in the sight line of the A pillars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_visibility#Effects_of_A-pillar_angle_on_visibility).
Sadly until cars start to be made of even stronger stuff than the strong stuff they're already made of, and/or we change the way we want our cars to look... A pillar's will always be a problem. Which is why at advanced driving level one is keenly advised to move ones body as well as one's head around constantly to get round these blind spots.
-
I'm kinda with Matty here.... just spent far too long on Google and found this.. which seems to be the common patten for Ford rear light clusters on Transits:
http://www.thetoolboxshop.com/0-641-50-durite-commercial-rear-lamp-right-hand-version-1204-p.aspWhich would suggest the top light is the brake light, which would make sense too that the brake light is highest in line of sight to following vehicles. Am going to start tailgating Royal Mail vans as a result to confirm this as an absooooloute.
Royal Mail don't use Ford Transits. That's an LDV Maxxus.
Mind you, that's still the brake light. The indicator is the next one down in the clear section in the middle of the cluster.
http://www.ldv.com/img/content/gallery/van/van19B.jpg -
Look again boys, the PO van is indicating left....
The riders need to be in front of it, or behind it taking the lane.
He won't be overtaking that noddy on the inside, he'll be turning into him and frustratingly trying to complete his maneuver whilst waiting for the scramble of kerb hugging lemmings to realise he's turning left.
In thst photo, all the cyclists was there already, i just took this photo the moment the van approach.
-
My random rules of cycling -
RLJ and pavement cycling are 100% fine so long as you're not caught, you do not make pedestrians feel threatened in any way (ie don't cycle on pavements near pedestrians) and you take responsibility for your own safety.
How do you know that you won't get caught? how do you know for sure that there's 100% no people on the pavements (and it is a pavements for peds), what happen if a child darted out of the shop onto a pavements? how are you able to fliter back into the main traffic stream when you decided that pavements is too full? etc.
that's probably the most irresponsible sentence I've heard from you.
Undertaking at lights should not be done unless you are 100% sure that you will be in front of whatever you are undertaking before the lights turn green.
Wouldn't it be easier to just not do it and overtake instead? (or wait behind a vehicle) so you won't need to make sure that you're 100% sure it's okay to go ahead?
Oh yeah, try indicating ALL THE TIME (peds want to know whether it is safe to cross, cars might know what you're gonna do if you indicate). Try letting cars out in front of you or past you occasionally.
There's a risk in indicating all the time, if you do so, you'll get in the habit of doing it every time you need to make a manoverve and quite likely forget to look behind before you signal, and looking behind is vital to know what's going on with the traffic behind you, for example like a cyclist who's going to undertake you and propelled himself toward your overstretched arm instead.
Only indicated if there's vehicles behind you, if there's no vehicles, don't incidate.
beanpie
DFP
chainwhip
TheBrick(Tommy)
rpm
jaygee
whatfriends
Yemble
andy.w
VeeVee
mattty
Skülly
deleted
Bagheera
bq
edscoble
Balki-
Post a reply
About
'Cause it's the cyclists that need educating...
Posted by
@Thistler
They are seen as some visible pro-bike token in a tit-for-tat enforcement war. I think they're fundamentally misconceived not only for the reasons that you mention, but also because I believe that they were essentially introduced in order to improve stop-line discipline among cyclists. Sadly, they have led to much-worsened stop-line discipline among motorists and cyclists' lack of stop-line discipline hasn't really changed as far as I can see. I think they water down the concept of the stop line.