Safe Speed Forums

FD -Fine in a single lane road of average width - plenty of room for cyclist and car, BUT-------what about the 2 lane (just wide enough for bus and car side by side ,with railings around the corner ) - get a bus and car side by side
cyclist goes round them on pavement to avoid stopping ( happens regularly) and into gap at rear of next car.
Driver checks mirrors and moves off (AS ALL CLEAR) - second later cyclist arrives .To avoid this driver would have to keep eye on left mirror
I regularly drive vans etc, so i am used to using the exterior mirrors rather than relying on the interior one.
The only way to leave a big enough gap in this situation is to sit in middle of two lane road.
As someone else said in another post - you have your point of view - i have mine based on local conditions. It would appear that we shall always differ on this -
BTW - BLOOD PRESSURE OK - no intention of personal insult - so if i have done so , i apologise.

In context, the cyclist coming up the inside is not only risking clipping the kerb and taking a header through the side of one or other car he is nearsiding, but when he's done this all the way to the front, he'll then set off at his traditional 10 - 15 mph. Unlike him, the more courteous motorist will not force an overtake with such little clearance, and will patiently file in behind the cyclist, often for upwards of half a mile, before being able to safely pass it.


It is not only the immediate danger (and that is real in a number of these cases) but also the frustration the cyclist causes in following traffic by their selfishness.

I've been puzzling about this theory for a week or more. My immediate reaction was that it was wrong, but I didn't really know why. I think I've unravelled it, and here it is:

* It's wrong to make a judgement on behalf of another road user because you can't know his skills or his plans. In fact it's arrogant.

* It's wrong to obstruct another road user, because it damages transport efficiency. Possibly worse than that, obstructions raise stress levels which might lead to dangerous mistakes.

* Good driving involves accomodating the needs and the plans of other road users - even if they are misguided. It's our job to make it safe, whatever they do.

* It's fine to take the space you need - for example, in a larger vehicle I might take both lanes on the entry to a tighter roundabout. But the objective here seems different - any obstruction is very short term. In the 'cyclist blocking' move the obstruction could go on for ages - we just don't know how long it'll be before the traffic gets moving again.

* What if there's an imminent crash risk? Perhaps someone is trying to overtake and we can see an oncoming vehicle that makes it impossible. Should we then obstruct the overtaker to prevent a crash? I might flick on a right indicator as a warning, but I don't believe I'd ever use my vehicle to block the move.

The bottom line is we need to treat other road users as we would wish to be treated, irrespective of skill level or apparent skill level. We can't, we mustn't obstruct their plans.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Keeping hard left only obstructs cyclists who choose to filter down the left. If they filter down the middle of the road, they can still make it to the front. I guess they are more vulnerable there. So - perhaps I should modify my behaviour and keep a couple of feet away from the kerb when queueing for lights, even though to do so may obstruct a filtering emergency vehicle if one appears.


I actually did this once - about a year ago. I remember writing it up on one of the groups we both frequent - I forget which. And you, I think, Paul, quite rightly advised that use of the hooter would have been as effective and a damned sight safer for me. I would only use my vehicle to obstruct an accident if to do so I felt confident that I would be saving life by doing so.

Botach - no worries. In the example you gave, I can see the issue. No excuse for the idiot cyclist going on the pavement. They shouldn't do it. Sadly, in more urban situations, seems to be a problem.

Just seen this thread - wow what length and heat !!

I'm trying to work out how I've managed to miss out on all the fun confrontations through 4 decades of being on 2 and 4 wheels.

I guess I ride and drive with the same thinking - and its not about treating other people as idoits. See if something like this works:
1. Safety is the most important thing.
2. Reducing risk is more important than who is to blame for it.
3. My total situation is my own responsibility.
4. Aggression just increases risk.
5. Road use is a team thing, and cooperation wins for all.
6. Nothing anyone else does influences me to increase risk.
7. If others around me ride/drive with other beliefs, it doesn't matter(!).

So when driving, I let cyclists through, treat them as eggshells, and I'm relaxed if they take advantage. Meeting any one of them is only a very fleeting thing, and in no way personal.

And all this is consistent with a relaxed style in the 85th+ percentile of progress.

On the question of cycle lanes etc - I "hate the paint". Both as a cyclist and driver. I think it confuses and angers the hell out of everyone (eg this thread) and encourages people to look for "dumb-rules" rather than just think about what they are doing.

_________________
www.skilldriver.org
driving skills you can live by

Indeed Steve - pure good old fashioned COAST.

I tend to view and assess each situation in terms of my safety and act accordingly. You could say it's controlling the traffic around me - I prefer to look at as working with the traffic around me.

But it's still using COAST skills....

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Hi Steve, many thanks for your reply. But...



... Assuming that you're intending to communicate an approximate hierachy, your numbers 1, 2 and 3 would support blocking a cyclist from entering a potentially dangerous position. So I reckon we're still in trouble.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Most people would, I am sure, throw out an arm or make some other instinctive reaction to try and prevent a child (or even an adult for that matter) from walking into the road in the path of an oncoming vehicle. The rationale of what you were doing is invariably obvious and is usually reasoned out afterwards.
An equivalent action performed with vehicles seems to communicate completely different messages, i.e. ones of arrogance or aggression rather than concern. Even tooting ones horn can be misinterpreted as a confrontational gesture, as I found out once when tooting at a moped rider passing our queue of stationary traffic and who seemed about to collide with the side of a vehicle turning right that he apparently hadn't noticed.
Such experiences tend to reduce ones level of social responsibility and as I result, I'm afraid I'm of a mind to adopt a 'let them get on with it' mien. Its much less hassle.

I think that the more methods of transport you use the better you can see things from the perspective of others and therefore how you would like to be treated on any particular mode. I have been fortunate enough to be a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver, white van driver and HGV driver. Only PSV driver is missing from the list.
In my view motorists who are also cyclists are most likely to appreciate the risks and problems in cycling. Things like the "engine" being you and the effort in getting back up to speed rather than pressing the right-hand pedal.
Cycle lanes, certainly where I live, are only suitable for keeping toddlers off the road. The cyclist/ bus/ pedestrian area in the middle of town is really a no/no except on Sundays as cyclists and pedestrians don't mix at all, the latter being totally unpredictable. If you cycle at more than 10 mph it is preferable to ride in the traffic, accepting that a cyclist can't accelerate like a motor vehicle which is why I ride between lanes of traffic onto a roundabout. Yes, it's dangerous and alarming to some drivers but less dangerous than attempting to pull away from a stand in front of fast-moving traffic.
As a cyclist, one can't ride close to the gutter all the time as the poor state of the road surfaces means you have to look out for holes which wouldn't bother a motor vehicle. Holes less than 3 inches deep don't necessarily get repaired but are a hazard for bikes, and grids around drains at the roadside often are surrounded by crumbling tarmac.
I think you'll find that most cyclists (and motor-cyclists) are aware of their vulnerability in the event of a collision and the likelihood of being carted off in a body-bag. The alternative is to leave the bike at home - which would no doubt suit a lot of drivers. It wouldn't surpise me if in the interest of reducing casualties the government eventually banned cycling and motor-cycling.
I have found that over recent years that the treatment of myself as a cyclist by other road users has improved considerably. Very few drivers pass too closely but I do wear a hi-vis jacket (some cyclists render themselves almost invisible to me on the bike so they present a bigger hazard to vehicle drivers) and I use a mirror on the bar-end. It is comforting to see a vehicle's indicator come on at their approach from behind. One of the most hazardous situations is where one driver is intent on overtaking another and is following closely - the first vehicle will pull out to pass, the second driver doesn't see you and doesn't pull out. Also vehicles overtaking cyclists or other vehicles coming in the opposite direction are a big hazard as their drivers are concentrating on the overtake not the cyclist approaching.
As with all road users, some cyclists give the rest of us a bad name and may well be problem vehicle drivers as well.

ok, two points:
- COAST is fine but has nothing about core beliefs and how it is applied. You can still apply it selfishly or aggressively and therefore dangerously. All my stuff above is about the core beliefs that drive behaviour - which is a deeper influence that underpins the application of guidance like COAST.
- Paul, each situation is unique and MUST have its own thinking. We're only in trouble if we look for "rules" of behaviour rather than taking each situation as it comes. Your point earlier about not knowing the skills and awareness of the cyclist also comes in. Has the cyclist hasn't seen the danger and planned for it? Is your blocking action going to create a distraction and anger? etc - different for every situation, and you will sense different degrees of answers too.

It would take a VERY extreme situation for me to consider a physical blocking action. Sure, the approach is a balance of risk, but I've never allowed a cyclist to kill himself yet. In safe flow, cooperation has very high value for all - physically and mentally.

The key is that getting the core BELIEFS right means we need less rules - and its a much more powerful influence on the right behaviour too. This is where the bureacrats go wrong - their "rules first" approach gives us all the arguments we have about them.

_________________
www.skilldriver.org
driving skills you can live by

All good stuff Steve, but we still don't seem to have identified the principle that makes the suggested action (blocking a cyclist from entering a potentially dangerous situation) wrong.

My problem is that I substantially agree with your beliefs and their approximate heirarchy. While I completely agree that each situation is unique and requires unique judgement, we both 'know' by some 'method' that the blocking move is wrong. What's the method? This is made more difficult because some of the high value beliefs seem to suggest that it's potentially a good idea.

I'm sorry to press you on this, but I think it's an important point of principle that deserves to be picked to bits and properly explained.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Ohhh... I thought we were getting somewhere.

Perhaps we're trying too hard to define something that needs to be more intuitive.

To me the umbrella "principle" ("method" or whatever) is whether the action is likely to reduce risk or increase it. And in this case, a specific risk is that the reaction of the cyclist is substantially beyond your control.

I don't think we can look for a principle on "whether or not to obstruct cyclists for their own good". The situation is just one of an infinite number on the road. That's why more general "beliefs" are so important.

Sorry, I think I've gone circular...

[/quote]

_________________
www.skilldriver.org
driving skills you can live by

OK. Let's back up a bit and see what's what.

We agree that 'live judgements' have to be made by 'feel'. Yes?

We agree that the first belief / guiding principle is risk reduction. Yes?

I believe that every live judgement should be based on an assessment of guiding principles applied to the immediate circumstances.

I believe that theoretical problems in driving can be solved by reference to 'beliefs' (or whatever we wish to call them).

I believe that in our respective positions as 'best practice advisors' we should be able to answer any question.

The question in this case seems to me to boil down to: "Why is it a bad idea to block the cyclist?"

I think we should be able to find principles or beliefs to fully answer the question. But your answers don't seem to allow for the possibility that on occasion (and especially with the benefit of hindsight) blocking the cyclist may have been the safer option. In fact your first three beliefs appear to support blocking the cyclist. Yet, by some magic, we both know that's wrong.

Have I given you something to work with? I hope so.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Can we not reconcile these as follows.

The first duty of the road user is to ensure, in his reasonably careful and competent judgment, that he does not, by reason of his actions, appreciably increase the risk to others road users that is inherent in his presence on the road.

That does not permit action to prevent or obstruct another road user in a course of action that we consider may represent an increased danger to himself because we cannot KNOW what his intentions are. It MAY permit action to prevent or obstruct another road user who it appears is about to take a course of action which poses a danger to a third road user or where we are reasonably sure that a road user is uneware that he is running into danger. Thus (possibly) obstructing a motorbike who is approaching us fast from behind looking to overtake and we can see a vehicle ahead of us signalling to turn right.

Does this help?

Does this not depend on which exit you intend to take? I would not do this - there are ways of positioning yourself on the left at a roundabout and making clear to the drivers which exit your intend. We've been trained to adopt a more assertive position at rounadabouts - closer to middle of lane to signal intent of straight on or right -hand exit- yet far enough left to allow the traffic within the flow to pass. However, a lot of time was spent on this aspect of our training - and high viz clothing (appropriate to weather conditions) is definitely required.



ooops - that'll upset the C+



Reading riot act must be working then....



Good for you. My cousin (a tame cat ) got into bother on C+ for banging on about the high viz and the helmets.....Mind you - she is a forthright woman....




Hmm! Our tame cat got mauled badly for suggesting this on C+.

But you could be right - if they are unaware of Highway code and roadside manners on their bicycles - they will be just as unaware as pedestrians and car drivers.

Which brings us back to better road awareness education for all... starting in the parental home and reinforced in the schools via teachers and ouir schools liaison officers.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Usually - when on the bike and approaching lights - I look to see if traffic is going to turn left in the flow. If there is a long queue - and it looks like lights will change before I reach them - then adjust the cycling speed approach and make ready to stop at the lights.

The advantage to me of the advance lanes for cyclists is that it places me ahead of the traffic and I do not need to worry about traffic turning left as I cycle straight on - purely because I am ahead of the left turning danger.

That is why you should not block the cyclist and allow him to reach the front of the lights - it assists the cyclist to cycle across junction in safety and allows the driver to turn left without having to mither too much about the cyclist's intention at the junction.l

Perhaps this addresses the question:



Thus by allowing the cyclist to reach the front of the queue and the advance start pad if present - you have considered the safety aspect, reduced the risk and taken the responsibility for ensuring safety. By doing so - driver will have interacted positively and courteously with the other road user and intentions of both at the lights with be clear to each other - we will know from road position which direction cyclist intends to take. Agressive act of blocking the cyclist is also avoided by allowing their appproach here.

But the bottom line is reading the situation and making that all important driving plan by allowing Space and Time...

Depends how you interpret COAST - we do tell them how to when being pedantic plods up here ..

As for COAST - in my version - C = courtesy, consideration as well as concentration and our A = attitude as well as anticipation.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

This pre-supposes we know what that orangey coloured bit near the lights is actually for
As far as many drivers around here are concerned, it may as well be a vase of flowers painted on the road for all the notice they take of it

I think that's delightfully creative and at first sight appears to answer the question.

But it'd still be wrong to block the cyclist when no such conditions exist. So there must be another reason.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I thought I'd given it to you - perhaps not succinctly enough. Try this - "we cannot usurp the right of other road users to make their own decisions concerning their own safety".