“What the f*** are you doing telling me to slow down?” Road rage driver assaulted cyclist after pensioner waved at him to slow down, handed suspended sentence

bikeman01 wrote:

And had he not shouted 'go back to Africa', the Police would have dismissed this.

That's nonsense. He wasn't charged with anything to do with the original interaction (should have been but difficult without video evidence) but only with the physical assault the next day. 

We didn't use to have our fears reinforced by reading about all the incidents occurring across the country. I'm not convinced drivers have got worse, but cyclists have got more aggressive about their rights and that can raise the temperature.

Cycling will never be safe but you can improve your chances by wearing hi vis and fitting mirrors to spot the approaching loony in advance. If you want to then go ahead and keep your wits about you.

Apps can make it easier to plan a route in advance.

How does that stop the idiots who overtake you on a blind bend where traffic the other way can be 50mph ?

NE2Wheels wrote:

We didn't use to have our fears reinforced by reading about all the incidents occurring across the country. I'm not convinced drivers have got worse, but cyclists have got more aggressive about their rights and that can raise the temperature. Cycling will never be safe but you can improve your chances by wearing hi vis and fitting mirrors to spot the approaching loony in advance. If you want to then go ahead and keep your wits about you. Apps can make it easier to plan a route in advance.

"Dangerising cycling" - check!
"Drivers aren't the issue" - check!
"Aggressive cyclists" - check!
"Use PPE" - check!

House?

Another bonus point for a counsel of despair "Cycling will never be safe".  Well ... actually you can fall off your bike, ride into something ... so yeah?  On the other hand properly designed and built completely separate cycle infra is about as safe as you're going to get on a bike without cycling on a padded surface.  And removing most of the traffic while slowing the remaining vehicles right down (by / and removing motivation to speed / squeeze by cyclists) can make things as safe as walking [1] [2].

"asking for your rights (e.g. not to be blocked, assaulted etc.) from the majority = being aggressive / stirring things up".  Nice.  Of course - this is in fact how many people see a situation where they feel their priveledges - as "the mainstream / majority" (as they see it...) are being questioned.

Nah, failed to get in the compulsory helmet comment or the 'middle of the road' remark.

Yes house, you're full of it.

I've long been jealous of the infrastructure in Holland but they still have cycling accidents. No counsel of despair, I'm just of opinion that while we wait for Utopia it's a good idea to maximise our chances of survival. Of course drivers are the issue, that's why you need to do everything you can to avoid contact with them. Do you use mirrors to foresee who's about to do a close pass or would that shrink your manhood?

I'm all for practical safety measures in a "hostile environment" *. But I don't think stuff we can use like reflectives, mirrors, road positioning, lights, helmets etc. will make it safe. Your example of foreseeing a closer pass illustrates the point. That may give me warning but it's still out of *my* control whether a driver hits me. (Unless I get off the road entirely and run away).

We need to be clear why, if we're happy with the status quo and what to do if not.
It's not just "Holland" BTW or waiting for utopia - change isn't easy but it's possible in a few years as you can see from Seville, Paris, Oulu, Oslo... (and the difference "good enough" makes in eg. Freidenburg, Copenhagen ... even a couple of places in London perhaps!)

(Will the UK as a whole do so in our lifetimes? Guessing no).

The key difference with all the places actually doing something about road danger is that a lot of their "accidents" are more ... accidental **. The UK's ones often seem rather predictable. A combination of hoping that everyone will "do the right thing" and then mixing them together on infra designed for a single mode*** plus an increasing number of motor vehicles in the space. Don't have numbers on this but I think it's more "enough sometimes dozy, distracted or confused humans" rather than a few psycho killers doing the bulk of the damage.

Oh - and the fact that there's a narrative that drivers are picked on where in fact becoming a driver is like joining a club, you get government help paying for your activity. And the club rules are rarely enforced, with minimal punishments. That doesn't help.

* Actually - it's not bad here in Edinburgh. For me as a lifetime cyclist. But most people don't cycle for transport and certainly their kids don't. The roads being unpleasant and inconvenient for cycling is part of why.

** Cyclist cycles into something, or falls over. And in those places there are a greater proportion of journeys cycled and a greater proportion of those are the young and old - who tend to have more crashes and for the latter the consequences can be more severe. Just like them falling over while walking.

*** This goes for car - cyclist AND "shared space" with pedestrians. Actually we do provide "safety" for people outside cars - just in exchange for convenience.

I totally agree there's a limit to how much control we have individually over what happens to us and hoping drivers do the right thing isn't an intelligent strategy. No safety measure is guaranteed to protect you, just as quitting smoking doesn't guarantee you won't get lung cancer. But there are occasions where a mirror can help. If you're 30 metres from a traffic island and there's a car thirty metres behind you hanging over the centre line then you should know what it's going to do and it's a good idea to back off on the pedals and let him get to the pinch point ahead of you. Even if it means touching the brake. I've been told before by cyclists that they prefer looking over their shoulder but the reality is that you can keep yourself better informed with mirrors. They cost next to nothing but the majority of cyclists are averse to using them which makes no sense to me.

I have run mirrors on most of my bikes since I turned to the dark side (recumbents). I still have the flexibility to make do without but why would I, they're great! I've an aerobar and they're positioned stably and indeed are more convenient that car wing - sorry door - mirrors.

For uprights I think it's less of an open goal. More people probably would benefit... But getting a good one with sufficient field of view and fitting it so it's sufficiently convenient AND which then doesn't get banged when parking or shake out of place... that's definitely more work and for many less benefit I guess.

Depending on geometry fitting so it doesn't involve you moving your head almost enough to see behind anyway (i can do "look down and under arm") may vary. Yes "on either side" but then you'll be bashing them on stuff and constantly putting back in place. Still worth it with a good enough mirror - but they're not all good (even ones that aren't super cheap).

(My recumbents live easy lives! My town hacks I try to be careful with but they get battered regardless because used every day).

chrisonabike wrote:

I have run mirrors on most of my bikes since I turned to the dark side (recumbents). I still have the flexibility to make do without but why would I, they're great! I've an aerobar and they're positioned stably and indeed are more convenient that car wing - sorry door - mirrors.

For uprights I think it's less of an open goal. More people probably would benefit... But getting a good one with sufficient field of view and fitting it so it's sufficiently convenient AND which then doesn't get banged when parking or shake out of place... that's definitely more work and for many less benefit I guess.

Depending on geometry fitting so it doesn't involve you moving your head almost enough to see behind anyway (i can do "look down and under arm") may vary. Yes "on either side" but then you'll be bashing them on stuff and constantly putting back in place. Still worth it with a good enough mirror - but they're not all good (even ones that aren't super cheap).

(My recumbents live easy lives! My town hacks I try to be careful with but they get battered regardless because used every day).

You've gone double dark - recumbent AND mirrors! But as you say, why would you do without mirrors once you've got them sorted out? Worth a bit of hassle and a few quid a year on replacement costs.

I don't envy you the recumbent. I think they're a great machine for the bold and if we had cycle paths everywhere then maybe I'd indulge but not for me as we're currently setup.

Well, on one of my uprights I have a mirror mounted but it is really too small / fitting is not secure enough.  I find I just don't use it.  On that bike it's mostly errands around town or the odd potter.  I'm either off roads completely *, on 20mph limit roads and/or where motor traffic has slowed itself down.  Moving my head still feels the easiest option.

If I made the effort I could probably find a good mirror, a good mount, train myself ... My first recumbent didn't have one but people said "you MUST!" (although turns out I could actually look behind) so I made the effort.  The second one had them fitted - it was just "adjust, tighten, job done!"

So if bikes *came* with them AND someone helped set them up perhaps they'd be more common?

Recumbents are great machines ... for those who like them.  Or for some folks who can't get on comfortably with uprights.  They're brilliant for a few uses (sometimes quite literally unbeatable [1] especially when faired [2]).  Mine just has an increasing comfort advantage over my uprights the further I go.  Plus it puts a smile on my face (except uphill).

They're normally less adaptable than the average upright though.  Plus they are usually heavier, longer, don't fit standard cycle facilities/spaces, more expensive etc. Mechanical horses for courses.

Brave doesn't come into it really.  For one I've far less far to fall!  In less manoeverable / lower ones ** I would not seek out rush hour traffic - but I use mine for leisure so don't anyway!  Indeed the only "visibility problems" I've had have been drivers getting distracted by "what is that thing?" and trying to get closer for a look or to video!

* I'm really not keen on shared use, but the local paths are mostly lightly used and so usually convenient.  Plus there is a tiny amount of "starting to look more like Copenhagen if not yet Dutch" infra creeping in.

**  I've got something pretty "middle of the road" ATM - I certainly have done shopping with it but it's not at its best as a town hack. For one - you really don't want to get stuck in a high gear (e.g. if you have had to stop in a hurry)...

As a summary - hopefully we can do both eg. small but more achievable things that are slightly helpful for the cyclists of today.

EDIT and ideally a bit more driver training (periodic retests?) and some more policing - but it seems that getting that to happen is even harder than getting in cycle infra (a few tweaks here, maybe even a mini- network there) or taking away a few parking spaces!

But also stuff for all the *motor vehicle users* of today - to make it easy for them not to drive sometimes. Because without providing really good alternatives to driving all those short journeys (AND also slightly discouraging them) there won't ever be more than a few percent cycling. And we'll forever be begging drivers to bother to drive a bit less carelessly, or hoping our PPE improve our chances.

(There are also details of some infra and rule designs which explicity try to put responsibility for safety back in the hands of those affected, but that's a whole other topic).

NE2Wheels wrote:

but cyclists have got more aggressive about their rights and that can raise the temperature.

I think the word you're looking for is assertive, as advised in the updated highway code. Few drivers have read that though and the police seeem ignore it. May that's part of the problem.

“The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.”

eg

Assertive if you prefer. But nobody likes being criticised, and there's always a risk that if you criticise someone assertively for their driving it might turn out that they're a psychopath. I'm not defending psychos, just saying that being assertive is your right but it does bring risks with it.

Of course psychos also ride bicycles. Someone recently got punched in the face for criticizing a cyclist for not stopping at a pedestrian crossing at a floating bus stop.

NE2Wheels wrote:

Assertive if you prefer. But nobody likes being criticised, and there's always a risk that if you criticise someone assertively for their driving it might turn out that they're a psychopath. I'm not defending psychos, just saying that being assertive is your right but it does bring risks with it. Of course psychos also ride bicycles. Someone recently got punched in the face for criticizing a cyclist for not stopping at a pedestrian crossing at a floating bus stop.

Ah. I thought you were referring to riding style when you used the word aggressive. If you were referring to cyclists communicating with drivers aggressively then I agree. I never shout at drivers and I will only talk to them if they talk to me first. The only example so far was a driver who didn't see me on a mini roundabout. He stopped to apologise blaming the A frame. I suggested he move his head but I reported him anyway and he got a driver awareness course. I think he'll look more carefully next time.

Although cyclists do need to be assertive verbally about their right to use the road, take primary. As you know from the passes you have had, a lot of drivers do not know the HC. It's important to stand your ground on factual situations.

I suggested he move his head but I reported him anyway and he got a driver awareness course
Up here we dream of the police taking even such action as that!

wtjs wrote:

I suggested he move his head but I reported him anyway and he got a driver awareness course

Up here we dream of the police taking even such action as that!

This was a failure to give way at a roundabout so although it was relatively straightforward to anticipate and avoid there is traffic law to support a prosecution. It's just the close passes I have a problem with now as Gloucestershire, wrongly in my opinion and the opinion of CUK, doesn't believe it meets the threshold for prosecution. That means they can't send a warning letter either, hence the adoption of an advisory letter.

Unfortunately close passes are the ones you can't do much about as they are coming from behind you and that's what makes them the most dangerous incidents in my opinion.

NE2Wheels wrote:

We didn't use to have our fears reinforced by reading about all the incidents occurring across the country. I'm not convinced drivers have got worse, but cyclists have got more aggressive about their rights and that can raise the temperature. Cycling will never be safe but you can improve your chances by wearing hi vis and fitting mirrors to spot the approaching loony in advance. If you want to then go ahead and keep your wits about you. Apps can make it easier to plan a route in advance.

Lights, HiViz and route planning did nothing to protect me in this instance.  Please take time to note that he physically struck me as he passed.  Drivers have got worse over the years and increasingly so.  They may still be n the minority.  But they're a very dangerous and vocal minority. 

https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng

That was horrendous 

Wasn't the most pleasant. I use this as my go to when the knuckle draggers bump their gums about HiViz etc. 

I note you reported the driver.  I haven't read all the replies but you seem to imply that it would be words of advice. Is that what happened?

Aye. Reported and words had. Knew that's what I was going to get from good ole Polis Scotland. 

Thanks for the info. At least in Gloucestershire they write the advice down.