Hopes for 20 mph assist limit dashed

[john]

I would have supported the 20mph limit were it not for my own experience in riding my electric bike at 20+ mph, and how the reactions of pedestrians and motorists differed from when I have ridden my non-electric bike at the same speed. Simply, when on an electric bike, clearly exerting only moderate effort, and not looking like a fast cyclist, I found that others constantly under-estimated my speed with many walking or pulling out in front of me.

Of course that would likely change if 20mph ebikes were made legal and enough people started using them (instead of those dangerous cars perhaps).

I think that when travelling at 20 mph on a bicycle you have to behave in some ways more like a motorbike, a bright front light helps a lot (even in daylight) and riding more in the centre of the lane.

 

[flecc]

I think that when travelling at 20 mph on a bicycle you have to behave in some ways more like a motorbike, a bright front light helps a lot (even in daylight) and riding more in the centre of the lane.

I'd agree with that. In my hilly downs area I spend lots of time flying down very long slopes in the 20 to 28 mph region and always adopt a more centre lane/road position to make my presence obvious. It's also the best defence against the pedestrians who suddenly step out into the road.
.

 

[frank9755]

I think that when travelling at 20 mph on a bicycle you have to behave in some ways more like a motorbike, a bright front light helps a lot (even in daylight) and riding more in the centre of the lane.

Good point, but strictly speaking, I would say that was behaving like a cyclist!

Too many people don't realise that, by riding in or near the gutter, they are not only endangering themselves, but they are also more likely to endanger pedestrians.

 

[frank9755]

if she wasn't drunk to the point where the cops could nick her then she is still entitled to walk (or stagger) across the highway without risk of being run down by any sort of wheeled vehicle.

I certainly don't think for one moment the guy intended to crash into her (especially not on a custom carbon fibre racer costing nearly £5000) but he even admitted in Court if he had slowed down or jammed on his brakes the collission may have been less severe.

Getting off topic I know, but I think it sounds like the same case - as you say they are not many of them.
I think the press did stir it up with an anti-cyclist agenda, and I found some of the things said about it annoying and ill-thought through.
I'm not sure I can agree that someone can walk or stagger into a road without looking, without risk! Even if you argue they have the right, I think the risk speaks for itself. Always look before crossing the road, especially when drunk!
The other point is a logical certainty - if the cyclist had braked sharply he would have been going slower and hence the collision would have been less severe. I'm not a lawyer but I imagine the material point of law would have been whether it was reasonable to expect him to do so, or if shouting a warning of his approach should have been enough.

 

[torrent99]

Getting off topic I know, but I think it sounds like the same case - as you say they are not many of them.
I think the press did stir it up with an anti-cyclist agenda, and I found some of the things said about it annoying and ill-thought through.
I'm not sure I can agree that someone can walk or stagger into a road without looking, without risk! Even if you argue they have the right, I think the risk speaks for itself. Always look before crossing the road, especially when drunk!
The other point is a logical certainty - if the cyclist had braked sharply he would have been going slower and hence the collision would have been less severe. I'm not a lawyer but I imagine the material point of law would have been whether it was reasonable to expect him to do so, or if shouting a warning of his approach should have been enough.

I think if you can shout a warning, surely you can also slam on the brakes?

 

[JohnInStockie]

I think if you can shout a warning, surely you can also slam on the brakes?

When I hit the deck last year, after 2 young women walked stright into the road whist chatting away in total ignorance, I didnt have time to shout with only "Fu.." exiting my lips before the instinct of hitting the brakes had caused a loss of control of the bike and slam!!!.

On the point of cycling closer to the middle of the road, although I doubt it would have made a difference in my particular case, yes that would be generally safer, but you would have to have low volumes of traffic, you simply cant do that in rush hour traffic and expect to get home yourself in one piece anyway (not with the drivers I contend with).

John

 

[flecc]

On the point of cycling closer to the middle of the road, although I doubt it would have made a difference in my particular case, yes that would be generally safer, but you would have to have low volumes of traffic, you simply cant do that in rush hour traffic and expect to get home yourself in one piece anyway (not with the drivers I contend with).

John

Easier for me in a constantly hilly area John. I'm either going uphill so slower and less risk of collision nearer the side of the road, or downhill at car like speeds so running with them out in the road. And then if it's necessary I make them slow or wait.
.

 

[john]

.. you simply cant do that in rush hour traffic and expect to get home yourself in one piece anyway (not with the drivers I contend with).

Of course it depends on circumstances, but I would say that you were likely safer near the middle of the lane in rush hour Stockport.

 

[frank9755]

Of course it depends on circumstances, but I would say that you were likely safer near the middle of the lane in rush hour Stockport.

It's a different topic but that is the generally accepted view. It is because cyclists, are most frequently hit by drivers who did not see them, in particular when making left turns, and are rarely hit by vehicles from behind. Therefore you are far safer in the part of the road where the cars drive (so they can't fail to see you) rather than lurking outside their field of vision. Obviously, pull in towards the side, when and only when it is safe to do so, to avoid holding up faster moving traffic.
As Flecc says, you will end up holding up the odd driver. Mostly they can see what you are doing and accept it, but occasionally they will blow their horn, but it is too bad. When a car, or lorry, blows its horn at me, I am pleased because I know they have at least seen me so I am safe!

 

[flecc]

As Flecc says, you will end up holding up the odd driver. Mostly they can see what you are doing and accept it, but occasionally they will blow their horn, but it is too bad.

For me this "out in the road" holding up car drivers is mostly because I'm passing cars parked at the edge, as often as not on the bike lane. That's why they don't usually honk of course since it's their fellow motorists causing the problem.

On the rare occasions one does honk, I just slow right down since they must obviously be warning me about a danger I haven't seen.
.

 

[Alex728]

I've had no problem whatsoever "taking the lane" at roundabouts/junctions in Ipswich (compared to Reading, Maidenhead, Slough or West London which was where I mostly used to cycle before moving here). However the narrowness of some roads and appropriate road markings (including actual cycle lanes on roundabouts) do mean 90% of motorists grudgingly accept your actions.

 

[flecc]

(including actual cycle lanes on roundabouts)

Those sound dangerous! If taking the right hand exit from a roundabout with a bike the only safe way is to take command and move into the centre of the roundabout lane until exiting.

Hugging the left in a cycle lane means drivers can turn left across your front at every exit.
.

 

[Alex728]

Those sound dangerous! If taking the right hand exit from a roundabout with a bike the only safe way is to take command and move into the centre of the roundabout lane until exiting.
.

Apologies - didn't make this clear.

it is not the ones on straight roads which are on the left almost in the gutter (we have these these too, unfortunately).

The roundabout lane is definitely directing bikes into the centre part of the roundabout as you suggest. There are at least two of these lanes I notice on my daily commute. I've not seen these outside Ipswich though, and even looking on available aerial photos only shows one of them (not the best one as far as positioning is concerned). you have to look closely but it does look bigger (and makes more sense) from ground level! However these photos are often out of date and I think the position of that lane may even have been shifted even nearer the centre of the roundabout in recent times.

 

[flecc]

Ah that sounds much better Alex, sensible in fact since it makes it clear to drivers that you should be out there.

I've never heard or seen of these, so perhaps it's a local initiative.
.

 

[Alex728]

its an odd thing as its not a whole unbroken lane but just a bit in the middle of the roundabout, and you don't get them on all the exits, but in contrast to even worse attempts I am aware of elsewhere it does seem to have had some thought put into it...

 

[JohnInStockie]

Of course it depends on circumstances, but I would say that you were likely safer near the middle of the lane in rush hour Stockport.

John, no joke, the drivers in the Stockport area are much more anti-cyclist than drivers in Manchester in my overall experience, and I cant for the life of me understand why. I know people who have been actually pysically 'pushed' by passengers as drivers overtake because they felt that they were taking too much of the lane up. Some of my neighbours actually think this is really really funny, and break out in fits of laughter when they hear of these events! They think of cyclists as eccentric's (and therefore me), and have therefore psycologically alienated and marginalised them.

I myself was threatened by 4 grown men in a convertible who threatened to get out and assault me because I stopped traffic at a toucan crossing on the A6 in Hazel Grove in rush hour, and (I assume) they were pis*** at the traffic.

I had every right to do what I was doing.

On another occasion a motorbiker came out from the left literally feet in front of me, I had to brake and swore at him that he should know better, and 2 old blokes on the corner pointed and laughed!

I managed to control my temper.

There is no way I would cycle in the middle of the lane in rush hour traffic, (the primary position I know) around these parts. Even the 'Cycling Officer' at Stockport council doesnt do that whenever I have seen him on his bike (even though he persists thats what we should be doing).

This is why I personally hold planners responsible for any injuries. They say they "dont have a choice, having inherited a flawed system", but they do have a choice IMHO.

John

 

[flecc]

They think of cyclists as eccentric's (and therefore me), and have therefore psychologically alienated and marginalised them.

John

There's very clear evidence of this in many areas John, probably in nearly all.

While the lycra wearing club types are accepted as legitimate, albeit a nuisance, the behaviour of large sectors of the public towards utility riders and especially the older ones proves the point. I'm speaking of verbal mickey taking, abuse and occasional stone throwing, loud horns deliberately blasted when right alongside, sudden loud shouts from car passengers when alongside in order to shock etc.
.

 

[Mussels]

There's very clear evidence of this in many areas John, probably in nearly all.

While the lycra wearing club types are accepted as legitimate, albeit a nuisance, the behaviour of large sectors of the public towards utility riders and especially the older ones proves the point. I'm speaking of verbal mickey taking, abuse and occasional stone throwing, loud horns deliberately blasted when right alongside, sudden loud shouts from car passengers when alongside in order to shock etc.
.

A lot of the time I think the only reason they don't have a go at fast riders is because of the high risk of being caught (round London anyway) and the almost certainty that the bike rider is fitter and stronger than they are.
I've had abuse on very rare occasions and only when there has been more than one of them, anyone having a go at me usually does it quite politely. As with motorbikes I look much more imposing on a bike than on foot.