How can road violence against cyclists be stopped? DCS Andy Cox on episode 7 of the road.cc Podcast

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Yesterday I had an old Dodger, nearly cut me up on a bend. I couldn't tell if it was intentional or incompetent driving. I pulled up alongside at the lights, which were only 30yds ahead already set on red. I shouted at him, but he blanked me(or couldn't turn his head). He drove off when the lights changed, only to sit in a 30 car traffic queue. I passed the old codger and all the others into town.

Typical coward behaviour. Was powering it up a false flat this morning on a main road and some idiot starts beeping at me from behind constantly. Took a gap further up the road to let the moron pass (didn't really want him behind me). Caught up with him a few hundred yards further up the road, pulled by the side of his car at the traffic lights and just stared at the c*nt until the lights changed. Literally nothing! No acknowledgement, nada. It's almost like they don't want to acknowledge the fact that their behaviour is a joke and it achieved the square root of f*ck all.

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's interesting that he's got Lincolnshire to deal with. A large rural county with no motorways but plenty of high-speed mostly single-track A roads, lots of lorries and agricultural vehicles and a "foot to the floor" culture. (Also lots of flat for cycling too!) Here's a coroner's evaluation of why so many people died there on the roads in 2019.

But that's not much different from Suffolk & Norfolk and I've never felt it's the lack of motorways or peoples desire to get from a to b much quicker that's the cause, they speed & drive like idiots which ultimately does lead to crashes that become KSIs because they can, because the police presence on the roads is virtually invisible. And when the police do make the effort, they stop hundreds in a day of action in one spot,imagine how many theyd catch if every day was a day of action. https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/over-300-offences-detecte...

There was also a coroner's case I read recently about a fatal crash on a road in Suffolk, which is one of those feels very dangerous just to cycle on because its busy with lots of mix of types of vehicles who all speed & will overtake unsafely. And this driver who sadly lost their life, had overtaken another car on the blind crest of a hill and it resulted in a 3 car collision.

They found the driver who died was driving at 71mph, in a 60mph limit, the piece of road the overtake happened was a double solid white line.

The coroner advised he would look at what further steps and prevention measures to help prevent a crash like this happen again, and suggested maybe an additional hidden dip sign would help.

Awavey wrote:

they speed & drive like idiots ... because they can, because the police presence on the roads is virtually invisible.

I thnk that's definitely one part of it yes.  If there's no perceived consequence (e.g. very low chance of detection / small punishment if detected) for breaking a rule that lowers the bar.  Rules and negative consequence alone only get you so far as people are still robbing and murdering. I think there's also a social "what is thought of as acceptable behaviour" plus "what are the other drivers doing right now" (e.g. people zooming off in front and people all over your bumper behind). However there is also "what is actually possible / comfortable" and that's where engineering can help.  Good video about that side here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc

CXR94Di2 wrote:

The 1.5m starts in the wrong place.  It should begin at the edge of the of the handlebar.  It really should be drummed to say go completely over the white line. 

To be honest I think this is fine, because it will be more than 1m from the edge of the handlebar, at 1m clear gap I feel relatively safe.

Also if the argument is to give sufficient space in case the cyclist falls, then measuring from the wheel makes sense, as this is the point the fall will rotate around.

wycombewheeler wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

The 1.5m starts in the wrong place.  It should begin at the edge of the of the handlebar.  It really should be drummed to say go completely over the white line. 

To be honest I think this is fine, because it will be more than 1m from the edge of the handlebar, at 1m clear gap I feel relatively safe.

Also if the argument is to give sufficient space in case the cyclist falls, then measuring from the wheel makes sense, as this is the point the fall will rotate around.

Even if you're comfortable at 1m (and not everybody will be), most drivers (who pay attention to it all) will tend to treat whatever you indicate as a target, rather than a minimum. So half of their passes are going to end up being inside 1m. Better to have the line in their minds further out, so that there's some leeway for them misjudging and actually being closer to 1m than 1.5m.

Also, the gap isn't just about what happens if the cyclist falls from where they are - it's about accommodating the possibility that they may need to navigate around holes, obstructions, etc. by leaving space for them to alter their line.

I'd have said make drivers pass a cycling proficiency test every time they renew a drivers licence, or they can't drive. As tempting as escalating hostilities sounds, assimilation might be better 😁

Philh68 wrote:

I'd have said make drivers pass a cycling proficiency test every time they renew a drivers licence, or they can't drive. As tempting as escalating hostilities sounds, assimilation might be better 😁

I'd go for a system where cycling on the road is an integral part of the process for obtaining a drving licence. (exemptions for people with physical reasons why they can't cycle)

1) theory test

2) x miles of cycling on the roads (everyone has a smart phone these days)

3) lessons

4) practical test

Only way to change things is for all drivers to experience what it's like sharing the roads with cars. Might also improve peoples awareness of their surroundings when driving.

I agree with this. Every driver should have to undergo cycle training on the road as part of the driving test. Mandatory retests whould be required at five year intervals for all drivers and should include a cycling portion for existing licence holders. Anyone refusing the cycling portion should lose their driving licence. The only exemptions would be for those with physical disabilities that prevent them even from using a recumbent or hand cycle. Not being able to ride a bicycle would not be a suitable excuse as the answer would be 'learn or give up your driving licence'.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I'd go for a system where cycling on the road is an integral part of the process for obtaining a drving licence. (exemptions for people with physical reasons why they can't cycle)

1) theory test

2) x miles of cycling on the roads (everyone has a smart phone these days)

3) lessons

4) practical test

Only way to change things is for all drivers to experience what it's like sharing the roads with cars. Might also improve peoples awareness of their surroundings when driving.

I'm all for this.  Add meaningful CPC* for cycle awareness (amongst other elements), and we could have a better trained, more aware set of drivers.  As with HGV/PCV drivers, car drivers should be required to demonstrate ongoing training across a range of skills, rules and awareness.  They should be well designed courses, enjoyable, useful, and with a whole-course attitude test.  (I don't go with a pass-a-full-test approach... I think that would make the process onerous and create unnecessary anxiety.)

'x miles on the road' should be conducted as Bikeability Level 3 training.  Strava can be scammed too easily.  We shouldn't exempt people for disability; we should adapt: adapted bikes and, if they genuinely cannot use one of a range of adapted forms, then a passenger cargo bike will give them the experience with a pilot.  If that is not feasible, one genuinely has to ask if an individual can be driving a car safely.

(* HGV drivers BTL seem to hate CPC; but in Greater Manchester, CPC-qualifying cycle awareness is FREE to all drivers, on the basis that anybody with a driving licence may be driving a van.  Who can reasonably argue with road-safety-focused trianing available for free that contributes to you leeping your licence)

I'd go for a system where cycling on the road is an integral part of the process for obtaining a drving licence. (exemptions for people with physical reasons why they can't cycle)

None of this is going to happen! Years of complaining on this site have achieved virtually nothing in the battle against close-passing. The only way is to make life difficult for the major obstacle to improving cycling safety in the UK: the police. You have to keep complaining until they realise that doing nothing leads to more work for them than actually doing the job and acting on the indisputable evidence showered down on them.

wtjs wrote:

Years of complaining on this site have achieved virtually nothing in the battle against close-passing.

I think that's called 'preaching to the choir'...

I think that's called 'preaching to the choir'...

No, because that partial quotation was followed by exhortations to direct action!

wtjs wrote:

I think that's called 'preaching to the choir'...

No, because that partial quotation was followed by exhortations to direct action!

But you justify that being the 'only way' because 'complaining on this site' hasn't worked. But why would you think that that would be an effective strategy in the first place? Wouldn't trying to change the attitudes of those who aren't already on board have been a better starting point?

Wouldn't trying to change the attitudes of those who aren't already on board have been a better starting point?

It appears that a lot of repetition is required! The major obstacle is the attitude of the police which is a combination of 'cyclists should stop whingeing' and 'The Highway Code and associated legislation say what we say they say'. The way to influence the hostility, bone-idleness and corruption of the police is to make the b******s suffer.

You're still talking past my comment though. The point was that

Quote:

Years of complaining on this site have achieved virtually nothing in the battle against close-passing.

was irrelevant - it was never going to achieve anything, because you can't change anything by trying to convince people who already agree that things need to change anyway.

Hopefully, it helps to know that some of us readers do take part in direct, and other forms of, action on this and other road safety concerns too. Reading the concerns on this site definitely helps focus attention, even if sometimes you feel defeated.

Take off and nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

If you hope to solve the problem on the driver side I've always been a fan of levelling down motor vehicles by making them more dangerous to their users - the old "spike in the steering wheel instead of airbag" idea.  For full equivalence you should be sitting on the fuel tank - of plastic construction (ideally all cars will run on pressurised napalm - or one of those "exploding" lithium batteries if it's an electric). No roll cage / door pillars, no seatbelts and a ring of detonators surrounding the outside.  That's my kind of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Probably what'll happen though is we'll try making the safety extend outwards.

How about covering all cars with sulphur to make them like a match and then we could have roughened patches to put on the ends of our handlebars?

Strike one!

Um - wouldn't that just end up flaming us?

mdavidford wrote:

Um - wouldn't that just end up flaming us?

No, we do a subtle little swerve to just catch the handlebar end on their WING mirror and then retreat to a minimum safe distance and watch in horror as the driver's face melts against the window.

Not good for the transition to low sulphur vehicles though? And as a pedestrian you'd probably need to rub your sandpaper clothing against the car which could cause friction.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Not good for the transition to low sulphur vehicles though? And as a pedestrian you'd probably need to rub your sandpaper clothing against the car which could cause friction.

If the idea catches on, I'm thinking of selling umbrellas with abrasive tips.