Video: York headcam cyclist who posted video of poor riding turns his attention to city's drivers

You make some points I've previously heard from advanced drivers especially the one about passing a lorry or similar but on a closer analysis they are not as valid as they seem.

Passing the lorry at a higher speed to make the manouvre take less time and therefore safer doesn't really stand up. The basics are that you only make a manoeuvre when the conditions allow it and you are able to see clearly that you have enough time and room to safely complete that manouvre - if you need to exceed the speed limit to do it then you don't really have enough time and space and should wait until a more appropriate opportunity. In your example you said there is enough room and time to overtake so the HC says you should so in this case you don't need to break the limit to be safe.

In the case of an ambulance needing to pass at the lights most of us will cross the stop line to let it through but in doing so we know we are actually creating a degree of extra risk but balance that with the needs of the person the ambulance is assisting so we take a small risk, controlled as far as possible by careful observation and positioning, to help.

I'm not saying I never break rules like speed limits but I am saying that you don't need to break them to drive safely. I think we all tend to be a bit too loose with the rules because enforcement is so poor and to be non existent in most circumstances. If I knew that any time I broke a speed limit there was a real chance of being penalised I think I'd suddenly find that driving within the limits was really quite easy.

shay cycles wrote:

You make some points I've previously heard from advanced drivers especially the one about passing a lorry or similar but on a closer analysis they are not as valid as they seem.

Passing the lorry at a higher speed to make the manouvre take less time and therefore safer doesn't really stand up. The basics are that you only make a manoeuvre when the conditions allow it and you are able to see clearly that you have enough time and room to safely complete that manouvre - if you need to exceed the speed limit to do it then you don't really have enough time and space and should wait until a more appropriate opportunity. In your example you said there is enough room and time to overtake so the HC says you should so in this case you don't need to break the limit to be safe.

In the case of an ambulance needing to pass at the lights most of us will cross the stop line to let it through but in doing so we know we are actually creating a degree of extra risk but balance that with the needs of the person the ambulance is assisting so we take a small risk, controlled as far as possible by careful observation and positioning, to help.

I'm not saying I never break rules like speed limits but I am saying that you don't need to break them to drive safely. I think we all tend to be a bit too loose with the rules because enforcement is so poor and to be non existent in most circumstances. If I knew that any time I broke a speed limit there was a real chance of being penalised I think I'd suddenly find that driving within the limits was really quite easy.

Sorry Shay. I don't think we are too far apart it is probabaly a mattter of emphasis and of course a specific example I created to demonstrate a point is open to criticism.

My comment was responding to the question whether it is ever conscionable as a responsible road user to break a rule. I am in favour of rules btw.

I don't particularly want to go on about driving and lorries but I think it wold help if the "safety" calculation (risk assessment) were spelled out.

The question I posed using the lorry is this. There is a general rule about speed that applies for road safety reasons. There is also a proper way to overtake which I described. The proper way to overtake is predicated on the principle that you should spend the least amount of time on the wrong side of the road.

The question posed then is should you spend longer on the wrong side of the road overtaking a lorry in order to comply with the general rule of not speeding?

Remember the general rule on not speeding is for "general" safety purposes.

The advice on overtaking as quickly as possible is based on "specific" safety purposes.

The question is therefore whether specific advice on a manoever should ever outweigh general rules. My argument is that on occasions it should.

To be very specific about this. The distance necessary behind a lorry to be able to see around on both sides is about 30 metres. Maximum length of an HGV (not a road train is 18m and then you need to pull in so, let's say the overtaking distance is therefore around 75m

The lorry is travelling at 45mph = ~20.1 m/s.
To overtake keeping rigidly to the speed limit of 60mph = ~26.8m/s
Therefore your speed differential is 6.7m/s

At 60 mph it will take you 75 / 6.7 = 11.19 seconds to make the manoever
11.19 seconds at 60mph (26.8 m/s) means you will be on the wrong side of the road for 11.19 x 26.8 = 300 metres.

Conduct the same manoever at 70mph and let's see the result?

70mph =~33.5m/s
Differential speed is now 13.4 m/s
Overtake time is now 75/13.4 = 5.59 seconds on the wrong side of the road
Distance travelled on the wrong side of the road is now 33.5 x 5.59 = 187m

I hope that you can now see that infringing a general rule for 5 seconds increases the safety of the manoever considerably. The manoever is over in half the time and you reduce the distance travelled on the wrong side of the road by well over 100m. (113 m)

To reiterate my point. In general stick to the rules. In some circumstances sticking dogmatically to a rule at the expense of safety is not good common sense. ipso facto in some circumstances an inflexible and rigid application of rules is counter to road safety.

ie The guidance of wise men and the blind obedience only of a fool.

Yes Oozaveared I agree that we are not too far apart and you have given a really clear explanation of your point which does make perfect sense. If more people drove cars in a way that make sense rather than the way many seem to do based on habit and not getting caught I think the roads would be a better place.

Of course I also feel that the roads would be a better place with far fewer motor vehicles and more people on bikes (especially if those on bikes also cycles in a way that makes sense).

In fact if everyone was sensible all the time we'd have to think of something else to complain about!

Angelfishsolo wrote:

This is why I don't use cycle lanes!

I will never use a cycle lane.
- full of debris and drain covers
- poorly maintained
- give drivers the impression they can pass you when more often than not they'll still need to go wide to miss you
- Makes you harder to see by tucking you further up against the kerb
etc etc.

I'll only use a properly segregated bike lane and if there is a bike lane on the side of the road I'll ride a good meter into the actual lane so they know I'm not using the cycle lane.

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

gareth2510 wrote:

And the point is?
Looks the norm to me

Isn't that exactly the point though? Why is driving like that seen in this video, and on the roads every single day accepted as being 'the norm'? Much of it was illegal, dangerous, careless or at least inconsiderate. Much of it is bad (but sadly all too common) use of bad infrastructure which creates danger for vulnerable road users. The danger can and should be engineered out of our road network.

gareth2510 wrote:

Question: And the point is?
Answer: Looks the norm to me

All fixed.

I can't believe people can accept this sort of crap without raising objection to it. As if having a self-centred, defeatist whinge about 'putting up with this sort of thing daily' is worth as much as actually trying to sort the bloody thing out.

If suffering this sort of thing regularly is a mark of personal pride, then well done you; you are Lord of Being Bullied -- your Suffer Score must be through the roof -- but some people don't want to play the 'Being Routinely Physically and Psychologically Abused' game quite as much, and would actually like to ride their bikes in a different context.

For their sake, please gain some perspective.

Quince wrote:

I can't believe people can accept this sort of crap without raising objection to it. As if having a self-centred, defeatist whinge about 'putting up with this sort of thing daily' is worth as much as actually trying to sort the bloody thing out.

Take all my likes!

Quince wrote:

gareth2510 wrote:

Question: And the point is?
Answer: Looks the norm to me

All fixed.

I can't believe people can accept this sort of crap without raising objection to it. As if having a self-centred, defeatist whinge about 'putting up with this sort of thing daily' is worth as much as actually trying to sort the bloody thing out.

If suffering this sort of thing regularly is a mark of personal pride, then well done you; you are Lord of Being Bullied -- your Suffer Score must be through the roof -- but some people don't want to play the 'Being Routinely Physically and Psychologically Abused' game quite as much, and would actually like to ride their bikes in a different context.

For their sake, please gain some perspective.

As a regular bike commuter I have a lot of perspective on the situation and believe me there is no pride in saying that I find this the norm. What ever your thoughts, you have no right to judge me or anyone else on here that have said these daily experiences the 'norm' You are bang out of order and I find your comments laughable quite frankly.

Take on the fight rather than ranting on a forum who most of the drivers shown in the video wont even know exist. Who find cyclists annoying and feel shouldnt be on the road and lastly wouldnt remember a single 1 of these incidents or give a shit when shown their driving.

That is your challenge.
I once tried but now due to riding unheard, I find this is the norm and sadly I dont seeing it ever changing

Portex wrote:

All part of the rough and tumble of riding in traffic. Happens all the time.

And if you want people to ride bikes? Do you think making cycling out to be some extreme sport benefits anyone?

Maybe the point is that you get inoculated to crap driving, doesn't make it right, doesn't help those of a nervous nature who want to cycle.