Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe? Close pass operation met with usual complaints; Ben Healy plays down Amstel drafting controversy; Tour of Britain stage finishes announced + more on the live blog

Criticising your wife's driving can be fraught with danger too. The first time my now ex wife drove to the end of our road on a freezing day I suggested she was going too fast as the hill at the end of the road usually has more ice on it than my road. 

"don't tell me how to drive, you don't even have a driving lic . . . . " was as far as she got before we slid into the opposite kerb on the ice. the rest of the trip was completed in total silence.

Strange how Panorama managed not to report that.

The worst part about that attitude is the "Those people did something annoying so it is ok to kill them" that is implied by their posts. 

"Oh, yeah, the driver deliberately rammed a cyclist in what, in any other circumstances would be attempted murder, but we didn't see the incident before? Perhaps the cyclist was somewhat inconvenient? Did you consider that?"

That and the "it's not my responsibility to look out for them" attitude because they once saw a cyclist wearing black / riding through a red light & you know, they're a bit of an inconvenience to have to look for.

That seems  to change though when they start ranting about hi-viz, helmets & compulsory use of "cycle lanes" - then their concern is all driven from a desire to protect us (from ourselves obviously - cyclists are all unidentifiable maniacs with a death wish that are responsible for an epidemic of damage to cars apparently). 

Off the back wrote:

You get tw@ts in cars and you get tw@ts on bikes.

The other evening, on my way home, I was close passed and then left hooked by an anonymous white van (not Amazon branded, I hasten to say!).

Fifteen minutes later I was left hooked by a bloke who overtook the four of us waiting at a light controlled crossing on a shared path but then turned left across in front of us to join the main road again just as the crossing lights changed.

True: both were being twunts.

However, the danger caused by both was not equal - one could have KSI me, the other could have VSI (very slightly injured) me and was a bit annoying  

Off the back wrote:

 You get tw@ts in cars and you get tw@ts on bikes. It's all about making sure the ones in metal boxes are educated 

I'd go further and say there are people who move around in a reasonable safe considerate manner, and there are people who move around like agressive dangerous knobs.

Isn't it better if the agressive dangerous knobs are on bikes and not in 2 tonne metal boxes?

eburtthebike wrote:

The winner of the Absolute Classic Ironic Anti-Cycling Comment of The Year has to be:

"I've now lost count of how many cyclists I see without lights or even high visibility clothing......."

It's fun to ridicule people who expect cyclists to take some responsibility for their own safety isn't it. Good laughs all round.

Being able to see another road user from a long way away and seeing another road user at a close distance are two very different things but in both cases the road user is still 'seen'.

Hopefully they're not a smear on the highway by the time they're seen.

If this person claims they see the cyclist then why call out the need for lights and high-viz?

I think it may be a bit more nuanced than that - they saw them as they passed in the opposite direction, they didn't see them as soon as they would have normally.
Lights are required at night.

Sorry don;t get me wrong, lights after dark should not be an optional extra.  In terms of the quote I missed the bit about Twilight as I read it in the comments (yes I did read the blog post previously just failed to link the two properly).

FWIW I ride with lights turned on every ride not matter the time of day or lighting conditions.

DoomeFrog wrote:

Sorry don;t get me wrong, lights after dark should not be an optional extra.  In terms of the quote I missed the bit about Twilight as I read it in the comments 

The Highway code states that it IS the law to use lights between dusk and dawn. But again, I also use them during the day as an extra precaution.

DoomeFrog wrote:

If this person claims they see the cyclist then why call out the need for lights and high-viz?

Hirsute nailed it but I'm going to repeat for the hard of thinking. Seeing another road user when they are a long distance away and seeing them when they are close is not the same thing, but the road user is still seen in both cases. Being able to see another road user when they are further away is important as it means that one can take appropriate action before there is a risk to someone's safety.

If we want drivers to be careful around us, the least we can do is to make ourselves sufficiently visible from far enough away that they can take the approriate careful action that we so desperately (being vulnerable road users) need them to take.

While I do use lights after sunset and on nastier roads it should not be necessary to avoid being hit. Drivers should be driving as if there could be an unlit *person/dog/rock/fallen tree/fridge that fell off a lorry/any other hazard* in the road and driving according to how far they can see because there could always be something in the road that doesn't have blinky lights and high vis. If a driver is only able to avoid well lit hazards with plenty of warning they probably shouldn't be driving. Driving to the conditions is a key part of safe driving and one that is routinely ignored by most drivers. 

Every comment of "They were riding side by side round a blind corner!" or "They didn't have lights and high vis" or "the swerve about all over the place" can be read as "I was driving fast enough that I wasn't able to safely stop in the distance I could see or couldn't safely avoid any unexpected event."

Patrick9-32 wrote:

While I do use lights after sunset and on nastier roads it should not be necessary to avoid being hit.

I agree that it should not be necessary to avoid being hit. But people drive too fast for the conditions. They drive faster than they could stop for an unlit object. They just do.

So don't be an object that is difficult to see. Be something that is more likely to be seen from a distance that the driver can react to.

Yes, if you get hit it is not your fault but you are still the stakeholder that is more likely to die.

No point being right if you're dead.

.

'No point being right if you're dead.'

.

Not on here, mate! Bike Fascists abound. They'd rather be dead than wrong.

.

What exactly is a bike fascist ?
Do they hang people upside down for not following 'the rules' ?

But wasn't it anti fascist to hang the original fascist upside down.

But it was in a petrol station, so you might have a point..

Yes we're all dead

Yes... and I'm all for doing "something" where that something isn't particularly costly to me.  However you'll note in the report which generated the comment "what about invisible cyclists?" one of the offences mentioned was mobile phone use.  There are also no shortage of apparent SMIDSYs posted here, during daylight hours, apparently excellent visual conditions.

Reflectives and lights - invisible unless looked at.

Will "educating cyclists" reach those who don't currently bother to dress as lighthouses?  Will it make much difference, given that you'd expect cyclists to be highly motivated to adopt something which we all say is vital to their wellbeing?  Alternatively what's the cost of trying to put the mobile device genie back in the bottle?  That's not legal but the enforcement clearly isn't deterring people.  How to convince people (who mostly don't cycle) to pay a bit more attention when driving?

Or - will we ever reach a point at which the cycling infra is convenient enough so that most drivers also cycle or have friends and relatives who do?

Firstly, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Secondly, if someone hits you while they're on their phone and you are all grey against a grey background, the police are more likely to dismiss it as 'momentary lapse of concentration'.

Thirdly, there are many poor drivers, distracted by their phones etc, on the roads. That is MORE of a reason to take preventative measures for your own safety (not less). It may be the cyclist who is more likely to be in the right, but it is also more likely to be the cyclist to be in a small wooden box at the end of the day.

A distracted driver is going to drive into someone regardless of the measures they've taken. 

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

. If we want drivers to be careful around us, the least we can do is to make ourselves sufficiently visible from far enough away that they can take the approriate careful action that we so desperately (being vulnerable road users) need them to take.

Here we go again. Have a look at this clip I've posted on numerous occasions to the point I'm sounding like a broken record. 

https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng

For the record I'm wearing a very bright yellow rain cape by pactimo. I'm running a See..Sence Icon 2 fully ramped up on flash. Two static CatEye on my rack and a PassPixi logo on my pannier. Good visibility and the clown still tries to push through a traffic calming measure and makes contact. He would have easily seen me from 100m out and definitely seen me at 10m when he commits to his pass. Similar set up when I was t-boned and put in hospital for a week and off work for 4months. 
 

It doesn't matter what we wear. Motorists quite simply do not look for other road users beyond motor vehicles. 

giff77 wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

. If we want drivers to be careful around us, the least we can do is to make ourselves sufficiently visible from far enough away that they can take the approriate careful action that we so desperately (being vulnerable road users) need them to take.

Here we go again. Have a look at this clip I've posted on numerous occasions to the point I'm sounding like a broken record. 

https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng

For the record I'm wearing a very bright yellow rain cape by pactimo. I'm running a See..Sence Icon 2 fully ramped up on flash. Two static CatEye on my rack and a PassPixi logo on my pannier. Good visibility and the clown still tries to push through a traffic calming measure and makes contact. He would have easily seen me from 100m out and definitely seen me at 10m when he commits to his pass. Similar set up when I was t-boned and put in hospital for a week and off work for 4months. 
 

It doesn't matter what we wear. Motorists quite simply do not look for other road users beyond motor vehicles. 

Preventative measures do not work in all cases. That is not a reason to not take them.

For every case where being visible does not prevent a collision there is a certain number (could be a fraction of one, could be hundreds) where it does.

Next.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

giff77 wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

. If we want drivers to be careful around us, the least we can do is to make ourselves sufficiently visible from far enough away that they can take the approriate careful action that we so desperately (being vulnerable road users) need them to take.

Here we go again. Have a look at this clip I've posted on numerous occasions to the point I'm sounding like a broken record. 

https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng

For the record I'm wearing a very bright yellow rain cape by pactimo. I'm running a See..Sence Icon 2 fully ramped up on flash. Two static CatEye on my rack and a PassPixi logo on my pannier. Good visibility and the clown still tries to push through a traffic calming measure and makes contact. He would have easily seen me from 100m out and definitely seen me at 10m when he commits to his pass. Similar set up when I was t-boned and put in hospital for a week and off work for 4months. 
 

It doesn't matter what we wear. Motorists quite simply do not look for other road users beyond motor vehicles. 

Preventative measures do not work in all cases. That is not a reason to not take them. For every case where being visible does not prevent a collision there is a certain number (could be a fraction of one, could be hundreds) where it does. Next.

Not sure I said that we should ditch brights. I was highlighting the fact that motorists out there are pretty weak on how to read the road and struggle with observation skills.