Know of someone who's packed in UK road cycling due to safety concerns?

there's a really sinister human right/sense of entitlement attitude associated with UK driving these days; almost a bit like gun ownership in the USA

I have just returned from 4 days cycle camping in the Lakes and North Pennines in rather hot weather and barmy Bank Holiday traffic. It is my duty to report what actually happened to me and my trailer: no very close passes and a lot of reasonable driving on sometimes crowded roads. I also witnessed a motorcyclist coming off and just missing me as he slid along the road. He was, surprisingly, unharmed but there was a lot of damage to a shiny new bike- it was still rideable. He was riding perfectly sensibly- what fixed him was a trail of diesel which began only 10 yards before he came off. It will have been an agricultural offender- it always is round here.

I ran a camera for a while and all it taught me was that I was within inches of death several times per ride (this was when I was commuting into Southampton). It was also the time when Hants Police weren't interested in acting on camera footage.

As a car driver I routinely see awful driving pretty much every day and it's just exhausting. Case in point - one lane closure on an oblique junction near home, clearly signposted and fully coned (they're digging a trench for a gas main). Diversion adds two minutes the the journey. Driver decides to risk nipping past the lane closure on the wrong side of the road, having mounted the pavement to make the sharp turn, resulting in stalemate with an oncoming driver (who had nowhere to go because there was a car behind his) and much swearing and honking of horns. I'd imagine if it had been a cyclist oncoming, or a child on scooter on the pavement, he'd have just driven at them. Appropriately enough, a white Audi S3...

"As a car driver I routinely see awful driving pretty much every day"

That definitely has a lot to do with my attitude. I see people who can't manage basics like driving along a straight road, let alone turning right or using roundabouts.

I've been behind someone who was driving a Fiat 500 behind a bus, and the bus went through a gap wide enough there was no need to slow down at all, and the 500 driver slammed on the brakes. FFS, basic common sense, even if you don't know how wide your car is, a bus could fit through that gap - and just did. 

Given the prevalence of drivers who think they're being nice by letting in one car from a side street, without noticing the fifteen cars behind them they're holding up, it's clear there are large numbers of drivers who never see anything behind their A-pillar.

The same effect explains a lot of close passes, etc - drivers see a cyclist, and then forget about them as soon as the cyclist is behind the A-pillar. Having ridden a tandem, which apparently is unusual enough in London that even black cab drivers would stop and let you out so they could have a gawk, it didn't happen with that - clearly drivers actually noticed us for once, instead of being filed under 'obstacle to avoid' by the bit of our brain that automates most parts of driving. (That automation of stuff like steering, changing gear, and so-on frees up the brain to either concentrate on doing those things appropriately, or to text, tell your kids off, etc...)

I think cyclists are taking their lives in their hands whenever they mix with traffic. It is just about possible to be safe, if you really know what you're doing, you're hyper-alert, and conditions are perfect. No pilot would fly if those were the required conditions for safe flight.

I should mention that I think people who ride motorcycles in the UK (on road) are completely insane. That's my standard for acceptable risk. You may accept more risk, but do be aware of how much risk is involved, rather than pooh-poohing it.

Dave Dave wrote:

Given the prevalence of drivers who think they're being nice by letting in one car from a side street, without noticing the fifteen cars behind them they're holding up, it's clear there are large numbers of drivers who never see anything behind their A-pillar.

If I'm driving and there's 15 cars behind me and someone is waiting to pull out, or pedestrians waiting to cross the road, then (9 times out of 10) I'm going to slow or stop to let them (after checking my mirrors).  If there's 3 or 4 cars, then they'll probably soon get the chance - but when it's 15 cars, that's going to be a constant stream and they aren't going to be able to pull out or cross the road until someone lets them - and I will almost certainly catchup with the traffic in less than 30 seconds.

That behaviour is against the rules of the road for good reason. The congestion people like you cause is ridiculously unnecessary - priorities are that way for a reason.

Sorry, that's bollocks. Slowing to let people out of side roads or pedestrians cross does not cause congestion. It keeps everyone moving. Same as letting drivers filter on slip roads. Or, for that matter, letting cyclists and motorcyclists filter through queuing traffic.

Dave Dave wrote:

That behaviour is against the rules of the road for good reason. The congestion people like you cause is ridiculously unnecessary - priorities are that way for a reason.

no it isn't, the rules of the road tell us who has priority by default, they do not prohibit yielding priority to others. In your ideal world side streets would be constantly blocked during rush hour as no one would ever let anyone out regardless of traffic conditions.

Pedestrians crossing side roads routinely yield to drivers turning in despite the wording of rule 170 either because they (like most drivers) are unaware or because they do not trust drivers to follow the clearly laid out priority as per the highway code.

wycombewheeler wrote:

In your ideal world side streets would be constantly blocked during rush hour

Yes, obviously. You say that like it's a bad thing. Give way lines mean that the traffic from the minor roads has to wait for a long time, if there's solid traffic on the major road. Obviously this doesn't have any direct impact on cyclists, but enforcing it effectively would achieve 90% of the LTN thing all by itself. Are you in favour of rat runs? Or of pushing the traffic onto main routes?

As for the effect on congestion, you haven't considered the compression-braking effect causing stoppages behind you. The total time (let alone fuel usage) for all vehicles involved to clear the bit of road in question is much higher if you stop to let people in from side streets than if they wait for a gap. Similarly with bits of road with parking on both sides where traffic coming one way has to stop to let traffic come the other way: it's massively more efficient for all the traffic going one way to go, and then all the traffic waiting to go the other way, than to try and mix the streams. 

I didn't mean to include the bit you said about stopping for pedestrians. I don't have a problem with making cars wait for pedestrians. I have a problem with people who think they're being nice by saving one driver time, when they're costing other drivers far more time in total. 

"The tragic irony is that a proportion of those people are the dangerous drivers that make the roads a dangerous environment for vulnerable road users."

It's not even irony, just tragedy. They haven't been trained to drive as well as is necessary. It's not even that hard. Bikes need to be regarded as hazards, like kids playing ball on the pavement, or passing a school at letting-out time. As soon as it's filed in the part of the brain that says 'this needs attention', rather than the bit that says 'avoid the road furniture', even the terrible drivers will be close to acceptable.

I have seen a lot more people doing so than used to be the case. But if it's not 100%, it isn't good enough.

I'm not entirely happy with the thinking that vulnerable road users be treated as 'hazzards'. To me it only reinforces the negative point of view that a considerable number of motorists have towards those who opt for active travel. The old driving licence in Northern Ireland had the words Care Consideration and Courtesy printed on it. I'm not even sure if instructors today reinforce these values to their students. When I learnt to drive over thirty years ago my instructor as well as my dad went to great pains to drum into me that cyclists had every right to be on the road and that I was to respect that right and to afford them every courtesy to ensure their safety. When we look at nations with a high modal share for cycling/walking we find that motorists will always give them space simply because they've been taught to and the laws protect the vulnerable. The attitudes of motorists towards cyclists in the U.K. are appalling to say the least. I was following a thread on another site where the contributor admitted to knocking a cyclist down and how awful he felt and that it was a result of a moment of inattenttion. The resulting comments basically were congratulating him for hitting another road user. I thought I'd seen it all but this took the biscuit. 

I agree with not classifying cyclists as hazards, cyclists do not generally do unpredictable things, they are just road users going about their business, might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. 

They don't require the same level of attention as children or animals, just a reasonable amount of space and some patience.

If only the driving instruction would highlight that not only do they have a right to be there, they are unlikely to cause any significant change in your arrival time at your destination, as most drivers end up in the same queue they would have been in once they pass the cyclist. In urban areas it's likely they could follow the cyclist to that same queue.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I agree with not classifying cyclists as hazards, cyclists do not generally do unpredictable things, they are just road users going about their business, might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. 

They don't require the same level of attention as children or animals, just a reasonable amount of space and some patience.

'not generally' is the key point here. Safe driving isn't about 'generally' safe driving.

If there are parked cars on each side of the road and only a 3 metre gap it is 'generally' safe for the cyclist to squeeze as close to the parked vehicles as possible and for an overtaking motorist to sqeeze their car through remaining gap - it's 'generally' safe for an oncoming motorist to continue at 30mph without even thinking about slowing down.  There won't generally be:

• someone opeing a car door
• a child or dog emerging from between parked vehicles
• a cat or squirrel emerging from under a parked vehicle
• someone stepping out from behind a parked van

Because these things don't generally happen, too many motorists do not regard the cyclist as a hazard.

This is why positioning is vitally important - it communicates immediately to motorists that you are a hazard and they need to take avoiding action immediately. Thinking time is very limited and often too much of it is wasted by drivers either thinking 'can I squeeze through'.

I guess I'm thinking about a driving safety course where a cyclist on the other side of the road was expected to be flagged as a hazard. Why? there is plenty of gap between me and the cyclist going in the other direction, meanwhile it was obviously not expected to identify every other car on the road as a hazard despite the fact they are more likely to turn across your path despite priority and more likely to do you damage in a collision.

just flagging cyclists as different, unpredictable and dangerous in all situations leads drivers to believe they shouldn't be there.

In your example the parked cars are the hazard as

a) they obscure the view of anyone needing to cross and drivers approaching those people

b) doors may be opened at any time.

The cyclist is not the hazard, they are just another road user. In all my years of driving I think I've had one incident with a cyclist doing something alarming (BMX teenager shooting across a roundabout in front of me) and far too many instances to count of another driver doing something fundamentally stupid which neaded me to take evasive action. But yeah those cyclists they are dangerous look out for them.

As a driver I have never felt endangered or had an altercation with a cyclist

As a cylist far too many times to mention with drivers.

I don't think it's because I cycle in a less safe manner than I drive, why would I endanger my own life? So therefore it is the actions of drivers being considerably worse than those of cyclists. 

"might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. "

They are, or rather a potential hazard which gets filtered out rapidly leaving the ones you know by experience are a developing hazard even if you can't immediately say why.

hirsute wrote:

"might as well flag up every single other car as a hazard. "

They are, or rather a potential hazard which gets filtered out rapidly leaving the ones you know by experience are a developing hazard even if you can't immediately say why.

how would that go down on a hazard identification test? clicking every car. Somehow I don't think that would be a pass.

You'd click when they moved into the 'developing hazard' category.

It's hard to put into words but from earlier today car comes round the bend: potential hazard. Driver takes bend too fast and the off side wheels are just over the middle of the road - now a developing hazard.

Parked cars are a potential hazard and you might pick up something from the wheel angle or off a mirror that a driver is present and it is now a developing hazard.

I did try one of those tests, but I clicked too much but my answers were not given. Mud on the road is an immediate hazard and should also alert you to the possibilty of meeting a farm vehicle or skip. Road narrowing a bit under a bridge is a hazard. None of those featured as answers.

I had similar when testing one off a CD the Mrs got for her tests. I clicked on so many things (child on pavement, car at junction) that I "failed". Yet I see them and others as potential hazzards and will click if I think they are in my mind. 

Pretty much everything presents a hazard to us, slight crack in the road, small animals, little stick at slightly too acute angles.  And absolutely EVERYTHING  bigger than us that moves, and quite a few things just a little bit smaller than us.  I would fail from identifying absolutely everything...

My shockingly low pressure 3inch tyres mean I have to worry less about the tiny stuff these days, but she behave very weirdly on odd slopes in the road, like those dips caused by buses around bus stops.

giff77 wrote:

I'm not entirely happy with the thinking that vulnerable road users be treated as 'hazzards'. To me it only reinforces the negative point of view that a considerable number of motorists have towards those who opt for active travel. 

You are absolutely correct. The most commonly used definition of hazard in H&S terms is:

'A Hazard is a potential source of harm or adverse health effect on a person or persons'

This definition clearly cannot apply to vulnerable road users when viewed from the driver's seat. From a driver's perspective vulnerable road users are most definitely not hazards, as the driver is not at risk. In fact when we drive we are the hazard, and a serious one at that. It is this form of thinking that needs to be hammered home when training new drivers, retraining existing drivers, and indeed when deciding wider road policy.

Of course it does matter on perspective - from a peds point of view a cyclist may be considered a hazard, albeit a minor one ( the likelihood of harm is small, as is the likely seriousness of that harm), which we must remember when in the saddle, and most of us do, if only for that fact that when things go wrong we get hurt too.

To me all driving matters should fall under Health and safety laws, as they are currently the most appropriate legislation to deal the regulation required re training, licencing, risk assessment etc - most drivers that pose a serious risk aren't deliberately dangerous, just incompetent, but in H&S terms that would mean that they aren't allowed to drive.

This doesn't mean that RTA is redundant, there is no reason that the two acts can't run in parallel. They most certainly do when applied to commercial activity, and there is little contradiction as the RTA applies to specific behaviour on the road, whereas HASAW applies to planning and control. Without the latter the former is merely a sticking plaster.

Captain Badger wrote:

giff77 wrote:

I'm not entirely happy with the thinking that vulnerable road users be treated as 'hazzards'. To me it only reinforces the negative point of view that a considerable number of motorists have towards those who opt for active travel. 

You are absolutely correct. The most commonly used definition of hazard in H&S terms is:

'A Hazard is a potential source of harm or adverse health effect on a person or persons'

This definition clearly cannot apply to vulnerable road users when viewed from the driver's seat. From a driver's perspective vulnerable road users are most definitely not hazards, as the driver is not at risk. In fact when we drive we are the hazard, and a serious one at that. It is this form of thinking that needs to be hammered home when training new drivers, retraining existing drivers, and indeed when deciding wider road policy.

Of course it does matter on perspective - from a peds point of view a cyclist may be considered a hazard, albeit a minor one ( the likelihood of harm is small, as is the likely seriousness of that harm), which we must remember when in the saddle, and most of us do, if only for that fact that when things go wrong we get hurt too.

To me all driving matters should fall under Health and safety laws, as they are currently the most appropriate legislation to deal the regulation required re training, licencing, risk assessment etc - most drivers that pose a serious risk aren't deliberately dangerous, just incompetent, but in H&S terms that would mean that they aren't allowed to drive.

This doesn't mean that RTA is redundant, there is no reason that the two acts can't run in parallel. They most certainly do when applied to commercial activity, and there is little contradiction as the RTA applies to specific behaviour on the road, whereas HASAW applies to planning and control. Without the latter the former is merely a sticking plaster.

Utterly daft, irrelevant semantics. 'Hazard' has a specific meaning in this context. A child on the side of the road is a 'hazard'. It is something that requires special attention from a driver, no more and no less.

https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test

Dave Dave wrote:

....

Utterly daft, irrelevant semantics. 'Hazard' has a specific meaning in this context. A child on the side of the road is a 'hazard'. It is something that requires special attention from a driver, no more and no less.

https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test

LOL. Blusters pompously about semantics. Proceeds to argue the toss semantically

Have a great week dude

Captain Badger wrote:

LOL. Blusters pompously about semantics. Proceeds to argue the toss semantically

Have a great week dude

You're quite right, that was hardly a killer put-down. 15-love to you. But I'm still right about the meaning of hazard in this context. You wibbled about alternative meanings which don't apply.

Have a good week too, as much as is left of it.

giff77 wrote:

I'm not entirely happy with the thinking that vulnerable road users be treated as 'hazzards'. 

But they are. That's the term we use. Your own ideas about what 'hazard' should mean don't come into it when it's already clearly defined.

There's a hazard perception test here if you want to have a go - https://toptests.co.uk/practice-hazard-perception-test/

I mostly did OK, but I missed a couple and was a bit slow on some.

"I mostly did OK,....."

See, I didn't. A motorscooter literally undertaking into a thin road is not classed as a Hazard but a person crossing the road in plenty of time is. Seemed all a bit arbituary to me and when they tailgated a cyclist (who had to be marked as a hazard as they turned in the road with plenty of time and space), I did wonder how I could mark myself as the hazzard. 

Generally I fail those because I'm massively more cautious than the standard, and they think I'm clicking on too many things.

I haven't had a collision* in 20 years of driving, though...

[*In fact that's not entirely true. I once let someone hit me in the door and write off my car. But I knew exactly what he was going to do, he was driving so badly it must have been roid rage, and I was happy with the insurance payout for cosmetic damage I never bothered to fix. I could have braked, should have braked, but... He really was a complete gentleman-sausage.]