30mph cyclists "more alarming" than 50mph motorists says Dartmoor Speedwatch Group

David9694 wrote:

I’m growing weary of all the “if you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you”  type “warnings”. Actually, who’s problem is that - clearly mine as I’m the one who gets crushed.

if you think those are bad, allow me to introduce you to Suffolk Roadsafes "Yellow Lorry Project", they take a gritter lorry to local primary schools and pass on helpful advice to children who want to cycle like this "If a lorry stops behind you, move forward so that you can see the driver's face. Give them a smile! Make sure that they know you are there."  lorry stops behind you, but you have to move forward so they can see you still...

David9694 wrote:

I’m growing weary of all the “if you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you”  type “warnings”. Actually, who’s problem is that - clearly mine as I’m the one who gets crushed.

They are mainly for other vehicles.

Have you not noticed some drivers tailgating buses?

I'm not sure what they think they are acheiving, but the bus driver can't see them and may stop and random with little warning.

WBoy wrote:

A bit of context. Postbridge is approached by a long straight descent from the East, where it's easy to build up speed. At the foot of the descent the road narrows for the bridge over the Dart, where there are no pavements. Just  beyond the bridge there are frequently pedestrians crossing from the car park to the access path for the nearby ancient clapper bridge, a tourist honeypot. There is no pedestrian crossing.

The potential for conflict is obvious, particularly when there are large coach parties milling about on or near the bridge.

None of which, of course, justifies the quoted response. Usually community speedwatch groups are alive to the risks for all vulnerable road users.

 

Given that context, I would ask:

a) why does the guy think speeding cars are less dangerous to pedestrians than bikes?

b) why don't they make the speed limit 20mph?

kingleo wrote:

It's those cyclists again, they ride dangerously fast through our villages and country roads, also they ride slowly through our villages and on our country roads holding up motorists, they theoretically kill thousands of people.

dont forget our lights are too bright, also they are not bright enough!

Wardy74 wrote:

There really is no helping some people. Unless this on a downhill, or a pro-peloton, I think someone is putting prejudices before logic and facts. The only cyclist some want to see is Miss Marple on her shopper, and then only on telly. Yes, some cyclists want to go fast, but none, ever want to hit a pedestrian. No we don't wear much more than underwear, if we wore leathers we wouldn't be going fast or far and therefore wouldn't need them. How fast can I stop? Very quickly! I can also swerve into small gaps which a car can't if someone walks in front without looking. When you've sorted out the group of people involved in over 1700 deaths EVERY FRICKING YEAR, have a look at "this group of people". Some people go to great lengths (standing at the roadside all day pretending to care about speeding) just to moan about law abiding cyclists.

And due to speeding motorists Miss Marple types simply won't cycle and the majority who do cycle do so despite the threat of harm.

Also can people (not you Wardy) stop using 1% of road deaths being attributed to people on bikes, this is incorrect, four at fault deaths from circa 13,000 over the last seven years is 0.03% of fatalities.

Toffee wrote:

It's time something was done about this group who aren't breaking any laws and are going slower than the cars?

Yes, the roads are dangerous for pedestrians crossing. That's why they're ALWAYS supposed to look both ways before crossing. Electric cars, which are increasingly prevalent, have the same silence/speed thing as cyclists, but to a greater degree.

'when you watch them come through the village and over the narrow crossing point going as fast as they possibly can it is very dangerous if a pedestrian crosses.' - It's a pedestrian crossing Gregg. If there is, as the name suggests, a pedestrian using the crossing, the cyclists will stop, as is the law.

Also, the clothing thing is irrelevant. The cyclist is well aware of the impacts of a crash. We know that tarmac and flesh don't mix. We might wear more armour, like a motorbike rider, if we weren't exerting ourselves and sweating. I don't get what his point is here.

Finally Gregg, the stopping distance of a road bike from 30mph is around half that of a regular car. What's your point?

i'll preface this with saying that the guy is talking twaddle and that it's a good job he doesn't clock me coming down Pork Hill. However, saying pedestrian should look before they cross would be victim blaming if there was an accident. I know the hill well that they are talking about. On the bridge, which is the pinch point, there are always people so it pays to be aware and call a warning if you are coming through. It won't hurt.

thehairs1970 wrote:

Toffee wrote:

It's time something was done about this group who aren't breaking any laws and are going slower than the cars?

Yes, the roads are dangerous for pedestrians crossing. That's why they're ALWAYS supposed to look both ways before crossing. Electric cars, which are increasingly prevalent, have the same silence/speed thing as cyclists, but to a greater degree.

'when you watch them come through the village and over the narrow crossing point going as fast as they possibly can it is very dangerous if a pedestrian crosses.' - It's a pedestrian crossing Gregg. If there is, as the name suggests, a pedestrian using the crossing, the cyclists will stop, as is the law.

Also, the clothing thing is irrelevant. The cyclist is well aware of the impacts of a crash. We know that tarmac and flesh don't mix. We might wear more armour, like a motorbike rider, if we weren't exerting ourselves and sweating. I don't get what his point is here.

Finally Gregg, the stopping distance of a road bike from 30mph is around half that of a regular car. What's your point?

 

i'll preface this with saying that the guy is talking twaddle and that it's a good job he doesn't clock me coming down Pork Hill. However, saying pedestrian should look before they cross would be victim blaming if there was an accident. I know the hill well that they are talking about. On the bridge, which is the pinch point, there are always people so it pays to be aware and call a warning if you are coming through. It won't hurt.

Green cross code? Tufty?
Tell me you would look that traffic could stop before stepping onto a zebra crossing.

hirsute wrote:

thehairs1970 wrote:

Toffee wrote:

It's time something was done about this group who aren't breaking any laws and are going slower than the cars?

Yes, the roads are dangerous for pedestrians crossing. That's why they're ALWAYS supposed to look both ways before crossing. Electric cars, which are increasingly prevalent, have the same silence/speed thing as cyclists, but to a greater degree.

'when you watch them come through the village and over the narrow crossing point going as fast as they possibly can it is very dangerous if a pedestrian crosses.' - It's a pedestrian crossing Gregg. If there is, as the name suggests, a pedestrian using the crossing, the cyclists will stop, as is the law.

Also, the clothing thing is irrelevant. The cyclist is well aware of the impacts of a crash. We know that tarmac and flesh don't mix. We might wear more armour, like a motorbike rider, if we weren't exerting ourselves and sweating. I don't get what his point is here.

Finally Gregg, the stopping distance of a road bike from 30mph is around half that of a regular car. What's your point?

 

i'll preface this with saying that the guy is talking twaddle and that it's a good job he doesn't clock me coming down Pork Hill. However, saying pedestrian should look before they cross would be victim blaming if there was an accident. I know the hill well that they are talking about. On the bridge, which is the pinch point, there are always people so it pays to be aware and call a warning if you are coming through. It won't hurt.

Green cross code? Tufty? Tell me you would look that traffic could stop before stepping onto a zebra crossing.

if you stop, and wait for the traffic to stop, before stepping out onto a zebra crossing, I don't think you'll ever get across the road...

brooksby wrote:

 

Quote:

Green cross code? Tufty? Tell me you would look that traffic could stop before stepping onto a zebra crossing.

if you stop, and wait for the traffic to stop, before stepping out onto a zebra crossing, I don't think you'll ever get across the road...

Not what I said though

brooksby wrote:

 

Quote:

Green cross code? Tufty? Tell me you would look that traffic could stop before stepping onto a zebra crossing.

if you stop, and wait for the traffic to stop, before stepping out onto a zebra crossing, I don't think you'll ever get across the road...

you wait for one lane to be sufficiently clear. Then as soon as you put your foot on the road users in the other lane have to stop. The HC also intimates that a motorist should be prepared to stop if it looks like somebody is about to cross. 

hirsute wrote:

thehairs1970 wrote:

i'll preface this with saying that the guy is talking twaddle and that it's a good job he doesn't clock me coming down Pork Hill. However, saying pedestrian should look before they cross would be victim blaming if there was an accident. I know the hill well that they are talking about. On the bridge, which is the pinch point, there are always people so it pays to be aware and call a warning if you are coming through. It won't hurt.

Green cross code? Tufty? Tell me you would look that traffic could stop before stepping onto a zebra crossing.

Of course I'd look. But , if a cyclist gets knocked off a bike because he didn't look, we would be making some comments about cycle lanes, poor driving etc etc. I think we can take the same approach to pedestrians as we want other road users to take to cyclists. Think about each other and be aware that the road is a shared environment. 

As I said, I live near this place, its a great downhill and I love going fast. But if I see pedestrians on the bridge, I call a warning. If I see kids or dogs I slow down. Being in the right when you're laying on the gravel wondering where you teeth are and why there's ketchup everywhere is a silly place to be.

thehairs1970 wrote:

But , if a cyclist gets knocked off a bike because he didn't look, we would be making some comments about cycle lanes, poor driving etc etc.

I'd hope people would make comments based on the evidence. I've seen plenty of cyclists cycle off the pavementt without looking

thehairs1970 wrote:

However, saying pedestrian should look before they cross would be victim blaming if there was an accident. 

No that is not victim blaming. Anyone who crosses a road without looking is the cause of any directly subsequent incident. If they get hurt then, it is their fault. 
The 'pedstriam is never in the wrong' attitidue is a problem in itself. 

imajez wrote:

thehairs1970 wrote:

However, saying pedestrian should look before they cross would be victim blaming if there was an accident. 

No that is not victim blaming. Anyone who crosses a road without looking is the cause of any directly subsequent incident. If they get hurt then, it is their fault. 
The 'pedstriam is never in the wrong' attitidue is a problem in itself. 

https://road.cc/content/news/262396-cyclist-found-partly-liable-crash-pe...

There y'go.  The pedestrian is apparently 50% at fault.  A judge said so