Is There a Method of Teaching Bad Cyclists?

[Fcs]

Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in the
road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.

He then partially rode across my line around a roundabout and then shouted in horror as I overtook
him when the road was clear enough for both of us as we pulled off!!!

The highway code is quite specific concerning poor visibility.

Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?

I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to take to the road on a bicycle,
are there not similar requirements these days?

Why should considerate road users have to put up with people who ride bicycles that are clearly not
fit for use on the road?

It's about time the Government put out warnings to cyclists telling them what is acceptable use of
the road and how they can get help learning to use it properly.

It must have been obvious to even the nutter on a bike I came across today that the way they were
using their bicycle was putting their health at risk.

Why should other road users have to put up with these people?

I guess the police have more important things to do than to arrest the suicidal?

Your insight would be welcomed.

John

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
> the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.

There is no excuse for cycling without lights once visibility gets poor, but there is certainly
no obligation to use cycle lanes. Some cycle lanes are OK, but many are too narrow, and contain
roadside debris and drain grates. They are generally a total waste of time as they offer no
safety advantage, as a bit of white paint will not stop a car crossing it and hitting a cyclist,
so why bother?

 

[W K]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights

Unacceptable, but without police hanging about and stopping people (as they did when I were a lad),
they do what they like.

> He then partially rode across my line around a roundabout

Check your highway code on this one, theres a specific mention. BTW - was he doing a proper
manoever, slightly cutting a corner but keeping in THE lane, or just doing all sorts.

> Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?

Glass, bad surfaces, drains, amongst others. I really really hope the lane/path wasn't ON the
roundabout, these are ridiculous and increase risk.

> Why should considerate road users have to put up with people who ride bicycles that are clearly
> not fit for use on the road?

What - bike MOT? in what way was it unfit, apart from the lights?

> It must have been obvious to even the nutter on a bike I came across today that the way they were
> using their bicycle

I dunno, theres plenty of sensible things that people do on bikes that are sensible that
non-cyclists don't understand, most importantly taking a sensible road position.

>was putting their health at risk.

Tee hee. Not as much as you were by not cycling.

 

[Mike Sales]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
> the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.
>
> He then partially rode across my line around a roundabout and then shouted in horror as I overtook
> him when the road was clear enough for both of us
as
> we pulled off!!!
>
> The highway code is quite specific concerning poor visibility.
>
> Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?
>
> I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to take
to
> the road on a bicycle, are there not similar requirements these days?
>
> Why should considerate road users have to put up with people who ride bicycles that are clearly
> not fit for use on the road?
>
> It's about time the Government put out warnings to cyclists telling them what is acceptable use of
> the road and how they can get help learning to
use
> it properly.
>
> It must have been obvious to even the nutter on a bike I came across today that the way they were
> using their bicycle was putting their health at
risk.
>
> Why should other road users have to put up with these people?
>
> I guess the police have more important things to do than to arrest the suicidal?
>
> Your insight would be welcomed.
>
> John
>
There are certainly many incompetent cyclists who are a danger to themselves. There are books
and training schemes available. However, I am not convinced from your account, which is
necessarily one sided, that this cyclist did anything worse than fail to stay out of your way.
We have a right to use the road, and sometimes drivers have to slow down a little. Cycle lanes
are an especially lethal form of facility for cyclists. It is often best not to use them.
Overtaking on a roundabout is condemned by the Highway Code. Whether the light was too poor is
subjective, and I suspect you are looking for another ground on which to attack this cyclist. If
he yelled in horror, he at least thought you were too close, and, unless he yells at every
overtaking car, closer than usual. Mike Sales.

 

[Peter B]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
> the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.
>
> He then partially rode across my line around a roundabout and then shouted in horror as I overtook
> him when the road was clear enough for both of us
as
> we pulled off!!!
>
> The highway code is quite specific concerning poor visibility.
>
> Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?
>
> I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to take
to
> the road on a bicycle, are there not similar requirements these days?
>
> Why should considerate road users have to put up with people who ride bicycles that are clearly
> not fit for use on the road?
>
> It's about time the Government put out warnings to cyclists telling them what is acceptable use of
> the road and how they can get help learning to
use
> it properly.
>
> It must have been obvious to even the nutter on a bike I came across today that the way they were
> using their bicycle was putting their health at
risk.
>
> Why should other road users have to put up with these people?
>
> I guess the police have more important things to do than to arrest the suicidal?
>
> Your insight would be welcomed.

There has never been a legal requirement to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before being allowed
to use a bicycle on the road, but some kind of training by a responsible person or organisation
would be sensible. My dad taught me and my daughter received training at school and also from her
parents. It is incumbent on parents to ensure their children can use roads safely, of course once
out of sight... Older people lacking training ought to think about their safety but many are equally
oblivious to their own safety when walking and there is no legal requirement to pass a test or have
training to become a pedestrian.

One reason for making it a legal requirement to pass a test before being permitted to take charge of
a motor vehicle is that the motor vehicle has the capacity to inflict enormous damage, injury and
death to third parties, while technically it is possible for a cyclist or pedestrian to cause these
problems for third parties in practice they don't. The fact that motorists are required to take a
test doesn't mean they do nor that their standard is particularly high if they do.

IMHO cyclists riding in poor visibility without lights and/or bright clothing are either suicidal or
barking, however even when wearing bright clothing in good visibility there is no guarantee
motorists will see them, (speaking from experience).

While the road craft and manners of many cyclists leaves a lot to be desired the same can be said of
many motorists. This doesn't excuse the cyclists at all but makes it unfair to single them out.

Regarding cycle lanes: While I can't comment on the one in question in general they are often poorly
designed, built, and maintained and not safe. To put it in perspective imagine if cars were
discouraged, but not legally banned, from motorways because in the event of a collision with a truck
they'd come off worse, and instead were expected to use country lanes to get from A to B. You would
find the routes inconvenient and in fact less safe than sticking to the motorway and taking your
chances with the trucks. Same with many cycle lanes.

Incidentally I have been driving for 33 years and appreciate the convenience of my car and used to
cover a highish mileage for work. In all that time delays by cyclists have been incalculably small
and risks to my life and limb from them zero. Contrast this to delays caused by ignorant parking
alone and quite a few scares from motorists when driving, let alone cycling.

I'm sure that not only the police but many of the rest of us have got worse things to worry about
than the occasional silly cyclist.

Pete

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:25:04 -0000, "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
>the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.

Ah, so he wasn't a completely lost cause, then.

>Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?

Because cycle paths are not provided for the convenience of cyclists, they are primarily for the
convenience of car drivers and are up to three times more dangerous than riding in the main
carriageway, all of which is backed up by the Department for Transport's own manual on cycling.

>I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to take to the road on a bicycle,
>are there not similar requirements these days?

There never were. The restriction was of your parents' or scholl's making.

>It's about time the Government put out warnings to cyclists telling them what is acceptable use of
>the road and how they can get help learning to use it properly.

Absolutely. This should be about as effective as the warnings to road users telling them what is
acceptable use of the road - speed limit signs, which are ignored by the majority of drivers.

>Why should other road users have to put up with these people?

Give up. Because they have a right to be there maybe? Why should cyclists have to put up with
speeding drivers? Why should anyone have to put up with traffic tantrums? Great imponderables all.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
> the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.

> ...........

> Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?

Just noticed it's a "cycle LANE" in the first instance, only to become a "cycle PATH" later, the two
things are of course entirely different kettles of fish!

 

[Tony W]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

AKA Troll

> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
> the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.

Stupid.

> He then partially rode across my line around a roundabout and then shouted in horror as I overtook
> him when the road was clear enough for both of us
as
> we pulled off!!!

Would you have treated a car or motorcyclist in the same way? He was in front of you so
had priority.

> The highway code is quite specific concerning poor visibility.
>
> Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?

Because many are a nightmare. Would you drive from London to Manchester using only B roads? No --
then don't expect cyclists to use **** 'cycle lanes & paths'

> I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to take
to
> the road on a bicycle, are there not similar requirements these days?

You never had to take it before being allowed on the road -- unless it was your parents or school
doing the prohibiting. Anyone can ride their bike on the road -- totally unqualified. Obviously
sensible cyclists try to improve their abilities.

> Why should considerate road users have to put up with people who ride bicycles that are clearly
> not fit for use on the road?

Because it is generally considered inappropriate to just drive through people -- however stupid
they may be.

> It's about time the Government put out warnings to cyclists telling them what is acceptable use of
> the road and how they can get help learning to
use
> it properly.

Maybe

> It must have been obvious to even the nutter on a bike I came across today that the way they were
> using their bicycle was putting their health at
risk.

Maybe

> Why should other road users have to put up with these people?

Because they are part of our society -- like speeding motorists, people who open car doors without
checking for cycliost and idiots who pass a bike then immediately turn left accross them. The world
is full of inconsiderate bastards.

> I guess the police have more important things to do than to arrest the suicidal?

Sady yes.

> Your insight would be welcomed.

I doubt it -- but see above

T

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights
>
> Unacceptable, but without police hanging about and stopping people (as
they
> did when I were a lad), they do what they like.
>
I've known them do it within the last couple of years :£20 fine. I tried to sound politely
unsympathetic when I was being told about it by someone who'd been fined.

A

 

[Pattledom]

W K wrote:
> "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights
>
> Unacceptable, but without police hanging about and stopping people (as they did when I were a
> lad), they do what they like.

Unacceptable... but perfectly legal. AIUI the law requires cyclists to put their lights on in bad
visibility, but only if they have lights - assuming this is daytime we're talking about.

And, poor visibility means that visibility is poor - it doesn't mean it's just raining a bit. Why is
it that most motorist drive round with all lights blazing in a light drizzle when is possible to see
clearly for a mile or more?

--
Andrew Pattle

 

[Fcs]

"Mike Sales" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights in
> > the road with an empty cycle lane about two foot to the left of him.
> >
> > He then partially rode across my line around a roundabout and then
shouted
> > in horror as I overtook him when the road was clear enough for both of
us
> as
> > we pulled off!!!
> >
> > The highway code is quite specific concerning poor visibility.
> >
> > Why obstruct a road when a cycle path has been provided for cyclists convenience?
> >
> > I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to
take
> to
> > the road on a bicycle, are there not similar requirements these days?
> >
> > Why should considerate road users have to put up with people who ride bicycles that are clearly
> > not fit for use on the road?
> >
> > It's about time the Government put out warnings to cyclists telling them what is acceptable use
> > of the road and how they can get help learning to
> use
> > it properly.
> >
> > It must have been obvious to even the nutter on a bike I came across
today
> > that the way they were using their bicycle was putting their health at
> risk.
> >
> > Why should other road users have to put up with these people?
> >
> > I guess the police have more important things to do than to arrest the suicidal?
> >
> > Your insight would be welcomed.
> >
> > John
> >
> There are certainly many incompetent cyclists who are a danger to themselves. There are books
> and training schemes available. However, I am not convinced from your account, which is
> necessarily
one
> sided, that this cyclist did anything worse than fail to stay out of your way.

He flapped his arm when the car in front of me overtook him. This is when he had the luxury of the
cycle lane he was avoiding. That car had to drive partially on the wrong side of the road to
overtake as I did when I overtook him.

We have a right to use the road, and sometimes drivers have to slow
> down a little. Cycle lanes are an especially lethal form of facility for cyclists.

So it would be better to have these removed? If cyclists are going to use that space that is now a
cycle lane, I used to when I cycled that stretch of road, then you have a good argument. If cyclists
are deliberately avoiding that part of the road because it is now marked and creates a safety hazard
for cyclists that wasn't present before then you also have a good argument.

Perhaps it's an age group thing but I am aware of hazards the near side pose to cyclists and do
allow for them when I meet a cyclist.

At present it just looks likes a bloody idiot avoiding those things provided for their own safety
and for the safety of other road users.

It
> is often best not to use them. Overtaking on a roundabout is condemned by the Highway Code.
> Whether the light was too poor is subjective,

Rain has always been poor visibility.

and I
> suspect you are looking for another ground on which to attack this
cyclist.

If you insist. He didn't use hand signals coming off the roundabout. Only when it was clear he was
turning off, by turning into a road off the roundabout, were his intentions clear. By not taking a
good line I allowed for his wish to turn right as you are entitled to do at roundabouts, even on a
bicycle, by driving slow enough for him to take a point in the middle of the roundabout and take a
good line around a roundabout for turning right.

I believed he intended straight on, but even when he made the manouvre his intentions weren't clear
without hand signals.

> If he yelled in horror, he at least thought you were too close, and,
unless
> he yells at every overtaking car, closer than usual. Mike Sales.

He flapped his right arm at me, not even close as if he had connected he would have at least have
broken his arm and probably sent himself flying. After I had passed he then started using other hand
signals not in the highway code.

John

PS In answer to another question, no lights would be a bicycle not fit for purpose.

 

[W K]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:25:04 -0000, "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >I had to take the "Cycling Proficiency" test before I was allowed to take
to
> >the road on a bicycle, are there not similar requirements these days?
>
> There never were. The restriction was of your parents' or scholl's making.

To sell more insoles?

 

[W K]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights
> >
> > Unacceptable, but without police hanging about and stopping people (as
> they
> > did when I were a lad), they do what they like.
> >
> I've known them do it within the last couple of years :£20 fine. I tried
to
> sound politely unsympathetic when I was being told about it by someone
who'd
> been fined.

Well, its the kind of thing that would be rather annoying, and just like victor meldrew I imagine
that in spite of being a good boy 99% of the time I'd be the first to get done in any clampdown.

I've had one parking ticket, "grumble grumble -do them they're worse than me"

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:38:44 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The restriction was of your parents' or scholl's making.

>To sell more insoles?

Heh The left hand is going unusually slowly today - the scar tissue has split again and stings
like crazy.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[W K]

"Pattledom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> W K wrote:
> > "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> Driving along the road today I came across a cyclist riding in poor visibility without lights
> >
> > Unacceptable, but without police hanging about and stopping people (as they did when I were a
> > lad), they do what they like.
>
> Unacceptable... but perfectly legal. AIUI the law requires cyclists to
put
> their lights on in bad visibility, but only if they have lights - assuming this is daytime we're
> talking about.

OK, but I'm assuming everyones got the beautiful crisp and sunny weather like there was oop ere.

OTOH thinking about another point, snow and ice that hasn't been melted by car wheels is a very very
good reason to avoid the patch of **** between the white line and the kerb.

 

[Tony W]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> > Cycle lanes are an especially lethal form of facility for cyclists.
>
> So it would be better to have these removed? If cyclists are going to use that space that is now a
> cycle lane, I used to when I cycled that stretch
of
> road, then you have a good argument. If cyclists are deliberately avoiding that part of the road
> because it is now marked and creates a safety hazard for cyclists that wasn't present before then
> you also have a good
argument.

Are you talking 'lane' i.e. paint in the gutter or 'path' i.e. something seperate from the road?

'Lanes' on roundabouts often skirt round the edge of the roundabout crossing each exit in such a way
as to maximise the danger fron vechiles exiting the roundabout. The wise cyclist does what any other
road user would do, ignores the painted gutter and cycles round the roundabout as recommended in the
Highway Code.

One problem, cyclists tend to be relatively slow -- so motorists try to overtake -- often ignoring
the cyclists signals and desired route in doing so. Roundabouts are not fun.
>
> Perhaps it's an age group thing but I am aware of hazards the near side
pose
> to cyclists and do allow for them when I meet a cyclist.
>
> At present it just looks likes a bloody idiot avoiding those things
provided
> for their own safety and for the safety of other road users.

Sadly many cycling provisions do NOT enhance safety but do enhance the convenience of motorists by
encouraging the less experienced or less confident cyclist to use them.

>
> Rain has always been poor visibility.

But cycle lights are generally not bright enough to punch through poor light. They only become
really effective in the dark.

T

 

[John B]

FCS wrote:

> He flapped his right arm at me,.... After I had passed he then started using other hand signals
> not in the highway code.

All is now clear. You have probably just met Paul Smith. You now have my sympathies.

John Buckley

 

[Pattledom]

FCS wrote:
>
> Rain has always been poor visibility.
>

*Wrong*

Rain is just rain. Poor visibility is when you can't see very well.

The law requires vehicles with lights [1] to have them on in poor visibility but it doesn't say you
have to turn them on when it's raining. Rain can cause poor visibility, as can many other things -
equally it is possible to have good visibility during rain. I don't think the law actually specifies
a definition of poor visibility, though the highway code suggests one - it was being able to see
less that 100 metres in the copy I looked at (though I seem to remember it being 50 metres in an
older edition).

[1] the exemption that you don't have to show lights during poor visibility if you don't have them
is not just for cyclists - it applies to motor vehicles too. These days, nearly all motor
vehicles have lights but there are still quite a few out there that don't.

--
Andrew Pattle

 

[Fcs]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Cycle lanes are an especially lethal form of facility for
cyclists.
> >
> > So it would be better to have these removed? If cyclists are going to
use
> > that space that is now a cycle lane, I used to when I cycled that
stretch
> of
> > road, then you have a good argument. If cyclists are deliberately
avoiding
> > that part of the road because it is now marked and creates a safety
hazard
> > for cyclists that wasn't present before then you also have a good
> argument.
>
> Are you talking 'lane' i.e. paint in the gutter or 'path' i.e.
something
> seperate from the road?
>
> 'Lanes' on roundabouts often skirt round the edge of the roundabout
crossing
> each exit in such a way as to maximise the danger fron vechiles exiting
the
> roundabout. The wise cyclist does what any other road user would do, ignores the painted gutter
> and cycles round the roundabout as recommended
in
> the Highway Code.

A lane that was not around a roundabout but in the road prior to the roundabout.

Sorry about the way I used the word only I know of casualty staff who have referred to cyclists that
come their way as "borderline cyclepaths", you may not appreciate the pun.

> One problem, cyclists tend to be relatively slow -- so motorists try to overtake -- often ignoring
> the cyclists signals and desired route in doing so. Roundabouts are not fun.
> >
> > Perhaps it's an age group thing but I am aware of hazards the near side
> pose
> > to cyclists and do allow for them when I meet a cyclist.
> >
> > At present it just looks likes a bloody idiot avoiding those things
> provided
> > for their own safety and for the safety of other road users.
>
> Sadly many cycling provisions do NOT enhance safety but do enhance the convenience of motorists by
> encouraging the less experienced or less confident cyclist to use them.

There were provisions specifically installed in our area for cyclists that were promplty
removed almost immediately because, to all concerned, they were viewed as bike traps. This
cycle lane was not removed and has remained for some time, this does not necessarily mean it is
safe, safer possibly.

> >
> > Rain has always been poor visibility.
>
> But cycle lights are generally not bright enough to punch through poor light. They only become
> really effective in the dark.

I've noticed many motorcyclists preferring to be visible, even in daylight, this clown had no lights
in poor visibility, rain, at 4pm at this time of year, and was wearing dark clothing. Poor argument
really in conflict to what I was taught and is practised by many motorists, even bus drivers.

Perhaps I'll put this down to another cyclist who uses their bicycle by ignoring "cyclists
prohibited" signs as we get those around here as well!

Anyway judging by some of the insight my post has attracted I think I'll look at it from the
casualty department's perspective from here.

Cheers for those who provided something useful.

John

> T

 

[Fcs]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

(snip)

> And people like you who are sufficiently wound up to post a rant to a cycling group worry me.

Changing times.

When I used a bicycle there were many of us on the roads, mostly under sixteen, and, curiously,
about the same number of adult users.

The cylists I know of near me, three, are recreational users, meaning they put their bicycles on the
back of the car and take it somewhere they are going to gain the most enjoyment.

The under sixteen cyclists have now been replaced by playstation users and 4x4s to take the kids to
school. In my day we took the bus and/or walked to school, as you'd have to be stupid to use the
bike sheds the schools provided.

There are issues on the streets in my area and with cyclists forming a tiny minority of users are
they causing problems by riding in prohibited areas and abusing law abiding motorists or do they
have something useful to contribute?

Usenet is probably not the best place to discuss such issues as it tends to be about the most
aggressive place on the planet anyway.

It wasn't a rant, I required useful contributions as our area is being used as a commuter route and
how to improve the area for the residents is a topic under constant conversation. Louts not welcome.

I found the bit about the cycle lanes suitability interesting. My old safe line may well be what is
now a white line, but I have no intention of fixing up my old bike to find out. If so, then to all
concerned the cycle lane's removal may be most welcome.

You see I don't have a problem with who gets prosecuted, cyclists or motorists, in my area if it
improves things. When I used a bicycle we had community policing, perhaps with more automated
policing, such as speed cameras, we'll get this resource back.

John

> Pete