why is this even up for debate?

[WheezyRider]

I don't have to reconsider anything since we are the same people. Our experience is closely matched in every respect, including NCB, except that I now only have the one car, though at one time for a few years I was able to use any out of a fleet of 140 of them! My whole attitude is one of humility on the road, placing myself second to pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and public transport like buses and taxis. I even give way to those others who unfortunately have to use the roads for a living, knowing the pressures and stresses that they are under.

But I reject the notion that luck plays a big part. Everyone involved in any accident has played a part in it and can therefore have influence on the outcome, or whether there actually was an accident. Even when something isn't apparently my fault, my actions will have played a part in the cause. For decades I've regarded myself as a permanent learner driver, acknowledging that there's always more to learn, so it's best to be cautious anywhere where something can happen that I might not have experienced before.

Wherever possible I've ridden bikes as I ride a motorcycle, way out in the road in the centre line that cars use. There I can be clearly seen and I get more warning of another's silly action. Pavements, the nearside lane, and parked vehicles are the biggest danger areas, so I avoid them like the plague. When stuck in a nearside lane, I ride as if I know that someone is definitely going to step out, and someone else is definitely going to throw open a car door in my face, so I'm ready for it to happen. Over many years I would never ride without a rear view mirror. And most importantly I've cycled at the sensible speeds that most of the world cycle at, not the barmy modern British way of emulating road racing cyclists. If only our cyclists would revert to how we all used to cycle at circa 10 mph prior to some 60 years ago, almost all their cycle accidents would magically disappear.

So as I remarked earlier, we are very much the same person, except in two respects. The credit given to luck and our sense of proportion about road usage priorities and responsibilities.
.

Experience and skill go a long way to reducing risk, putting the odds in our favour, but they cannot completely eliminate it. Travelling along a road surrounded by people of differing abilities, people distracted by phones etc, maybe on drugs or alcohol, or just wanting to show off, or are late and are willing to take risks, mixed in with all vehicle types and pedestrians is an inherently complex and risky business. Hence at the end of the day, there is always a significant element of luck involved in us getting to our destination in one piece.

You are perfectly correct about riding position. However, I frequently have to deal with the anger of motorists who do not understand why I am riding in that position, preventing them from overtaking. How do you deal with it? Maybe you can just ignore it. But imagine you are a woman and not very confident and a motorist comes up behind you shouting "Get out of my f*cking way you ugly fat slag before I f*cking knock you out of the way!" How long would you imagine they would keep riding on the road? I have seen this kind of behaviour and experienced similar towards myself from motorists all too frequently. Only last night I was riding primary as I came to a traffic island. Idiot behind on the horn, followed by the subsequent punishment pass and abuse yelled at me by the front passenger as they passed. 10m after they overtook I could legally get off the road onto the shared path and was out of the way of traffic...they could not wait for just a few seconds. This unnecessary aggression has only got worse in recent years. No wonder people try to cycle as fast as they can, so they can reduce their time exposed to this kind of behaviour. I would like to ride at a relaxed sedate pace, but they way things are on the roads, it isn't going to happen. I need to get out of the danger as quickly as I can.

It is because we have an environment designed for cars that most people do not cycle. The current environment encourages those that are of the "road warrior" DGAF mindset (who often give cyclists a bad name), not those who would like to cycle at modest speeds. Also, if you are a person of a normal disposition and brave the challenges of the road, you will often end up in a state of considerable anxiety and react badly when you encounter a potentially confrontational situation.

We will not increase the numbers of people cycling significantly until we change the way we design our road environment and change attitudes towards people on bikes to make cyclists feel reasonably secure and safe. It is a chicken and egg situation. But when cycle lanes do get put in, or LTNs, motorists will do everything they can to block them or have them taken out, even though their benefits are well known and proven. We are seeing this in some places like London, where segregated routes and LTNs have been put in.

I take it that you do not agree with with the hierarchy of responsibility changes in the Highway Code?

Perhaps it is because you spent a lot of your life working in the motor industry that you have this perspective?

How would you encourage more people to cycle? What do you think needs to be done?

 

[flecc]

You are perfectly correct about riding position. However, I frequently have to deal with the anger of motorists who do not understand why I am riding in that position, preventing them from overtaking. How do you deal with it? Maybe you can just ignore it.

When it used to happen I ignored it, however it's all but disappeared where I do my travelling now, road manners are vastly improved, with pedestrian and cyclists generally treated very well. This has nothing to do with cycle lanes (mostly useless) or LTNs. Two things have brought about the change, saturation traffic, meaning nothing can speed the journey so there's no point in trying, and a borough wide 20 mph speed limit on all but through roads. I also like to think that setting an example makes a big difference too.

We will not increase the numbers of people cycling significantly until we change the way we design our road environment and change attitudes towards people on bikes to make cyclists feel reasonably secure and safe. It is a chicken and egg situation. But when cycle lanes do get put in, or LTNs, motorists will do everything they can to block them or have them taken out, even though their benefits are well known and proven. We are seeing this in some places like London, where segregated routes and LTNs have been put in.

It's far more complex than you think, and something I've explained many times. In short, from being almost universal in the 1940s, cycling all but stopped in this country in the 1960s with LBS's closing everywhere. That was due to our much faster recovery from WW2, enabling the population to motorise by then. On the continent with their WW2 devastation and far less money for recovery, cycling continued far longer, giving governments more chance to react to stop the decline. As an example, the Dutch success. In 1972 when our cycling had largely vanished, over 40% of the Dutch still relied on cycling, and that was the point when their government started their program of cycling facilities and support.

Once a country enables its people to own and drive cars as we have, it's a nightmare trying to reverse it. The car benefits are very real and overwhelming, the cycling disadvantages are many and unappealing, so in a democracy there are limits to what a government can do to force the change.

Cyclists could help considerably by not portraying themselves as rather eccentric, dressing like freaks, riding strenuously as if racing so generally putting off normal people from joining in. Instead, cycling more sensibly, sitting upright, wearing normal street clothes and riding at moderate cycling speeds without helmets. It's much easier to do and how I always cycled.

I take it that you do not agree with with the hierarchy of responsibility changes in the Highway Code?

I don't know what makes you still think that after my previous answers, As stated, I've long practiced them anyway, decades before The Highway Code change. I just very strongly disagree with the arbitrary 1.5 metre rule and the way it's encouraging cyclists to go to video wars with drivers, a disagreement that has prompted you to get incensed and even insult.

How would you encourage more people to cycle? What do you think needs to be done?

See the above answers to create more cycling, since it is more cycling that generates even more, not cycling facilities. Building more cycling facilities first is putting the cart before the horse which makes matters worse. Make cycling look as normal and relaxing as walking, getting away from the silly sporting image. In congested areas bring in road pricing and pollution taxing to generate funds for road improvements.
.

 

[Nealh]

R. 168 & 169 though concerns cyclist depending on the road and whether they are able to apply the rule safely, otherwise the onus is on the passing vehicle and all is covered by 162 - 169.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

E-scooter riders also have problems, I see them more often now on the roads at night. Some even have lights. These are frames from yesterday. I don't think rear view cameras on scooters can be installed, perhaps on the rear of a rider's helmet? He wasn't wearing one. His head is missing in the second frame.

 

[nigelbb]

In the moment, yes, a vehicle driver does have to tolerate whatever behaviour comes their way, and if that behaviour prevents a safe pass, then the driver must wait.

But cyclists have Highway Code responsibilities too: paragraphs 168 and 169 read as though written for drivers being overtaken, but as far as I am aware apply equally to cyclists.

Where cyclists are not playing their part in sharing the road, then reporting them is the answer.

My wife is learning to drive. We were out practising yesterday & on a narrow two lane country road came up behind three lycra louts who started with two abreast at the front with insufficient space between them & the tail ender to overtake hime when the view ahead was clear. Then the front two slowed down until the cyclist at the rear caught up & they proceeded to ride three abreast.

 

[WheezyRider]

My wife is learning to drive. We were out practising yesterday & on a narrow two lane country road came up behind three lycra louts who started with two abreast at the front with insufficient space between them & the tail ender to overtake hime when the view ahead was clear. Then the front two slowed down until the cyclist at the rear caught up & they proceeded to ride three abreast.

Trouble is, the rules are a mess and few are able to get to grips with their purpose and meaning. They have been improved recently, but they are still not really fit for purpose and it's not something that people get training on when they are learning to drive. This often leads to hesitancy and uncertainty, then the risky overtake. Also, cycling clubs could do more to instruct their riders how to ride in groups and be suitably considerate of other road users, while bearing in mind the road conditions so that risky overtakes are avoided.

A big problem is that what one person considers safe, another will not. Also, someone following in a car may not be aware of the road conditions up ahead that the cyclists can see.

The point of riding two abreast is that it means the overtaking driver needs to spend less time in the overtaking lane:



There is quite a good discussion of it here:

Highway Code – Riding two abreast

Changes to the Highway Code have provoked plenty more discussion this week. Here, our Policy Manager Nick Chamberlin reflects on the changes for people on bikes riding ‘two abreast’.

www.britishcycling.org.uk

I would also like to say that just because someone wears Lycra, it does not automatically make them a lout. I don't wear it, but for people who cycle serious distances, it just happens to be the most appropriate form of clothing.

 

[StuartsProjects]

I would also like to say that just because someone wears Lycra, it does not automatically make them a lout. I don't wear it, but for people who cycle serious distances, it just happens to be the most appropriate form of clothing.

Indeed so.

Round by me, I have seen Elinor Barker out cycling with her mum and one Geraint Thomas out on his own.

All were wearing Lycra.

 

[WheezyRider]

Indeed so.

Round by me, I have seen Elinor Barker out cycling with her mum and one Geraint Thomas out on his own.

All were wearing Lycra.

The other thing to bear in mind with road riders in their extra vulnerability. They can zip along at 30 mph on the flat on extremely narrow tyres and easily be sent flying by even a small pot hole. So a lot of care is required to be able to overtake safely. Also, on a road where the speed limit is over 30 mph, and vehicles are travelling at >30 mph at least 2 m clearance is required.

On many of our narrow country lanes, when the rider is positioned 0.6 to 0.75 from the kerb, the bike is about 0.75 m wide and then 2 m clearance is needed and cars have grown to be at least 2 m wide, it simply isn't possible to overtake safely until the cyclist pulls over or stops.

 

[Nealh]

Car/vehicle drivers need to understand and be aware the reason for riding out from the kerb or even cyclists swerving on roads suddenly. In a car/vehicle one can feel tthe pot holes and how terrible they are, all they have to do is re think the logic and how it would feel to a cyclist.

 

[WheezyRider]

When it used to happen I ignored it, however it's all but disappeared where I do my travelling now, road manners are vastly improved, with pedestrian and cyclists generally treated very well. This has nothing to do with cycle lanes (mostly useless) or LTNs. Two things have brought about the change, saturation traffic, meaning nothing can speed the journey so there's no point in trying, and a borough wide 20 mph speed limit on all but through roads. I also like to think that setting an example makes a big difference too.



It's far more complex than you think, and something I've explained many times. In short, from being almost universal in the 1940s, cycling all but stopped in this country in the 1960s with LBS's closing everywhere. That was due to our much faster recovery from WW2, enabling the population to motorise by then. On the continent with their WW2 devastation and far less money for recovery, cycling continued far longer, giving governments more chance to react to stop the decline. As an example, the Dutch success. In 1972 when our cycling had largely vanished, over 40% of the Dutch still relied on cycling, and that was the point when their government started their program of cycling facilities and support.

Once a country enables its people to own and drive cars as we have, it's a nightmare trying to reverse it. The car benefits are very real and overwhelming, the cycling disadvantages are many and unappealing, so in a democracy there are limits to what a government can do to force the change.

Cyclists could help considerably by not portraying themselves as rather eccentric, dressing like freaks, riding strenuously as if racing so generally putting off normal people from joining in. Instead, cycling more sensibly, sitting upright, wearing normal street clothes and riding at moderate cycling speeds without helmets. It's much easier to do and how I always cycled.



I don't know what makes you still think that after my previous answers, As stated, I've long practiced them anyway, decades before The Highway Code change. I just very strongly disagree with the arbitrary 1.5 metre rule and the way it's encouraging cyclists to go to video wars with drivers, a disagreement that has prompted you to get incensed and even insult.



See the above answers to create more cycling, since it is more cycling that generates even more, not cycling facilities. Building more cycling facilities first is putting the cart before the horse which makes matters worse. Make cycling look as normal and relaxing as walking, getting away from the silly sporting image. In congested areas bring in road pricing and pollution taxing to generate funds for road improvements.
.

You are very lucky to be in an area where driver behaviour is of an acceptable standard. I agree, 20 mph speed limits are an important factor in improving safety, however, they do need to be enforced. Where I am, they are not and people will drive along at 30 mph+. 20 mph may seem slow for motorists, but in places like London, the average speed is often not much more than 10 mph, so you are quicker by bike in most cases - plus you don't have the hassle of an expensive parking space.

I disagree about cycle lanes and LTNs. If they are done properly, they do increase the numbers of people cycling. London has seen a huge increase in cycling in recent years as some reasonable infrastructure has been put in in some places. Unfortunately, all too often, they are badly done and can make things worse for cyclists as drivers don't understand why the cyclist is on the road and not on the shared path that goes nowhere, or miles out of their way.

I don't believe that more people would cycle if they saw people cycling with everyday clothes and a suitably relaxed posture. It is hard to maintain a healthy posture when suffering abuse and threats from motorists. Safety is the number one reason people give for not cycling. There is a large body of people who would like to, but are too scared. I know of quite a few people who took up cycling during lock down and really enjoyed it, but once traffic increased again, they sold their bikes and gave up. To improve safety, we need to reduce speed limits (and have them enforced), improve infrastructure and also change car driving culture so that their is more respect for vulnerable road users.

I'm not so convinced about what you say about continental Europe and car/cycle use. There are several countries that recovered even more slowly than NL and Germany/Denmark etc, but they did not have high levels of cycle use. I remember NL in the 70s and most towns were no different to towns in the UK, extensive car usage and space given over to cars. It took a public uprising and protests to stop this.

How the Netherlands became a cycling country | DutchReview

The Dutch love their bicycles and are skilled cyclists. Were they born on a bike? Of course not — but how did they become a cycling nation?

dutchreview.com

I think in the UK we were just more easily fooled by the car industry into thinking owning a car was aspirational and progressive and all had to give way for the car regardless of the consequences. Now we have gone so far down that path, it is hard (but not impossible) to to change. As ever, there is so much institutional inertia in this country to do things that need doing. However, as we can see in London and Paris, things can change.

I am glad that the Highway Code does now refer to a specific minimum distance for safe overtaking. Previously it was vague: "give as much space as you would overtaking a small car". Most people would overtake another car giving about a foot and a half - nowhere near enough when it comes to overtaking a bike. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement. The 1.5 m is not arbitrary, as I have explained several times and I have got annoyed as I have not felt from your previous posts that you have taken it on board that if someone comes off their bike the most likely position their head will end up in the road is about 1.5 m from their upright position. So it makes perfect sense for the minimum distance to be 1.5 m and more than this at higher than 30 mph. If you do not set a minimum, it all becomes too open to interpretation, with the cyclist being the one put in serious danger.

I have suffered many serious deliberate close passes in recent years and the police in most cases are just not interested. It is very upsetting that you can be treated in this way and there is almost nothing you can do about it. The only thing you can do is collect video evidence and hope the police will decide to act on it (which is a post code lottery).

This is very upsetting for me and has at times has led me to cycle mostly off road as you get to a point where you have to have break from it. Going off road is very inconvenient as I then have to go miles out of my way, when I should be able to do and enjoy what is perfectly legal activity that is beneficial for my health, society and the environment. All this makes me very sensitive to comments that appear to support unsafe overtaking.

 

[BazP]

Just to balance things up a little: last week I was on a two week MTB holiday in Dumfries and Galloway. One morning we were taking the bikes by car to our starting point along a winding B road. I came upon a group of 9 road cyclists two in the front riding two abreast and the rest in single file. when I came up behind at 20mph four of the cyclists jumped to two abreast. It was obvious to both me and my partner that this was done on purpose.

After 1.5 miles at 20mph I had four cars behind me. In this time we had passed a few straights but the 9 riders were all grouped together. We had also passed several entrances and wide areas where they could have pulled over a little bit. I had two bikes on the back of the car but no (bikers) courtesy was given.

It did make me wonder if clubs run classes in being disruptive to drivers as this manoeuvre was done in unison.

 

[Nealh]

Lycra's are a law unto themselves and look down on any other types of cyclist , we are treated with the same distain as other vehicles.

 

[Chainmale]

Many years ago I was a member of a local Cyclist's Touring Club group. We could sometimes be quite a large group out on our regular Sunday rides and there was a well rehearsed routine when we encountered other vehicles on the road. If a car was approaching from behind there would be a shout of "car up" from the back and the group would then split and open up gaps to enable passing if possible. When meeting oncoming traffic the group if riding 2 abreast would go into single file.
We had a few members who also belonged to a roads club who rode in their "racing gear" (this predated the full lycra & helmet look) the rest could be almost any style you care to think of, including one gentleman who rode in plus fours, tweed jacket and collar and tie !

 

[guerney]

Lycra's are a law unto themselves and look down on any other types of cyclist , we are treated with the same distain as other vehicles.

It's static electricity from lycra antagonising brain function - unable to earth because of rubber tyres, its got to go somewhere. I overtook one by surpise the other night and lycra static electricity caused him to see red and overtake at something like 30mph. There was no way I could catch up with my legal pedelec folder with 20" wheels. I do miss my old racing bike, but not the ultra narrow tyres.

 

[flecc]

You are very lucky to be in an area where driver behaviour is of an acceptable standard. I agree, 20 mph speed limits are an important factor in improving safety, however, they do need to be enforced. Where I am, they are not and people will drive along at 30 mph+. 20 mph may seem slow for motorists, but in places like London, the average speed is often not much more than 10 mph, so you are quicker by bike in most cases - plus you don't have the hassle of an expensive parking space.

I disagree about cycle lanes and LTNs. If they are done properly, they do increase the numbers of people cycling. London has seen a huge increase in cycling in recent years as some reasonable infrastructure has been put in in some places. Unfortunately, all too often, they are badly done and can make things worse for cyclists as drivers don't understand why the cyclist is on the road and not on the shared path that goes nowhere, or miles out of their way.

I don't believe that more people would cycle if they saw people cycling with everyday clothes and a suitably relaxed posture. It is hard to maintain a healthy posture when suffering abuse and threats from motorists. Safety is the number one reason people give for not cycling. There is a large body of people who would like to, but are too scared. I know of quite a few people who took up cycling during lock down and really enjoyed it, but once traffic increased again, they sold their bikes and gave up. To improve safety, we need to reduce speed limits (and have them enforced), improve infrastructure and also change car driving culture so that their is more respect for vulnerable road users.

I'm not so convinced about what you say about continental Europe and car/cycle use. There are several countries that recovered even more slowly than NL and Germany/Denmark etc, but they did not have high levels of cycle use. I remember NL in the 70s and most towns were no different to towns in the UK, extensive car usage and space given over to cars. It took a public uprising and protests to stop this.

How the Netherlands became a cycling country | DutchReview

The Dutch love their bicycles and are skilled cyclists. Were they born on a bike? Of course not — but how did they become a cycling nation?

dutchreview.com

I think in the UK we were just more easily fooled by the car industry into thinking owning a car was aspirational and progressive and all had to give way for the car regardless of the consequences. Now we have gone so far down that path, it is hard (but not impossible) to to change. As ever, there is so much institutional inertia in this country to do things that need doing. However, as we can see in London and Paris, things can change.

I am glad that the Highway Code does now refer to a specific minimum distance for safe overtaking. Previously it was vague: "give as much space as you would overtaking a small car". Most people would overtake another car giving about a foot and a half - nowhere near enough when it comes to overtaking a bike. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement. The 1.5 m is not arbitrary, as I have explained several times and I have got annoyed as I have not felt from your previous posts that you have taken it on board that if someone comes off their bike the most likely position their head will end up in the road is about 1.5 m from their upright position. So it makes perfect sense for the minimum distance to be 1.5 m and more than this at higher than 30 mph. If you do not set a minimum, it all becomes too open to interpretation, with the cyclist being the one put in serious danger.

I have suffered many serious deliberate close passes in recent years and the police in most cases are just not interested. It is very upsetting that you can be treated in this way and there is almost nothing you can do about it. The only thing you can do is collect video evidence and hope the police will decide to act on it (which is a post code lottery).

This is very upsetting for me and has at times has led me to cycle mostly off road as you get to a point where you have to have break from it. Going off road is very inconvenient as I then have to go miles out of my way, when I should be able to do and enjoy what is perfectly legal activity that is beneficial for my health, society and the environment. All this makes me very sensitive to comments that appear to support unsafe overtaking.

You really are obsessed on this subject to a ridiculous degree and I suspect you are far too easily frightened when cycling,

I retired almost 32 years ago and immediately intensified my cycling to up to 5000 miles a year to keep fit. I'd bought a new car since I'd been in company cars, but that Fiat Tipo was little used. Most years I was only driving about 400 miles, only increasing that for three years while my distant father's age demanded some regular support from me.

When I sold that car at over 10 years old it had just passed 10,000 miles, but I immediately hit a problem with the new car I bought, since unlike the Fiat which could be left for up to four months unused, its battery would flatten in under three weeks.

The foregoing to show how almost all my road use has been cycling for 30 of the 32 years, all in South London and the immediate southern Home Counties which of course have been packed with traffic thoughout.

I can barely recollect ever having drivers give me even a metre, let alone 1.5 metres passing space. They cant since the roads are mostly not wide enough, are often lined with parked cars and road islands are so frequent,. but they still passed just the same usually with a foot or two space. Trucks and buses were often closer due to their width, but none ever touched the mirror that stuck out from my right handlebar by about 5 inches.

That didn't worry me, despite having to deal with some of the worst tooth rattling road conditions in this country and which i'm still putting up with while driving. I do remember just once when a truck driver was so close at speed at a pinch point that it made me jump, but immediately reflecting that he hadn't touched my mirror I realised he'd actually been near a foot away, so he knew what he was doing.

As for potholes and other road imperfections, those are mine to deal with, keeping my eye out for them and doing whatever was necessary, which certainly wasn't suddenly swerving into the path of an overtaking vehicle. I always knew where they were due to my mirror and using it, something far too few cyclists have or do. A little sample of our wonderful road conditions below, Hesiers Hill Road:



So I don't recognise the land of cycling terror you portray. Yes some drivers pass very close, but in 70 years of cycling none have ever hit me, showing they all knew what they were doing well enough. As for what's in my way, potholes and the many sunken drains, they are for me to deal with, which from moderate speeds is easy, since my cycling is my responsibility. I don't expect drivers to do my bike riding as well as their own driving.
.

 

[AndyBike]

Oh Flecc. I've got my head in my hands reading your last post. It summarises everything of where your thinking is misguided. This picture perhaps will help:

View attachment 47820

In terms of luck, it doesn't matter how careful you are, how much skill or experience you have, if you drive for long enough, one day the inevitable will happen. And, it could occur completely from someone else's negligence - but nonetheless, you will be caught up in it and its consequences. I also have many decades of driving experience and have never killed or harmed anyone and I have as much no claims bonus as it's possible to get. I have driven a huge variety of vehicles from mopeds to lorries and in many different counties in all sorts of conditions. I also own several cars and use them regularly. However, I still feel I have more to learn and I am under no illusion that nothing can happen to me because of my skill and experience. One day my luck will run out. It is always important to have that sense of humility on the road.

5 people die every day on our roads in the UK and many more are seriously injured with "life changing" injuries. I have seen this happen to good friends of mine. Hence the hierarchy of responsibility, so that those who are at most risk are protected and deaths and injuries can be reduced. Unfortunately, we have a system in this country that has completely prioritised cars over other means of transport. This is unsustainable for so many reasons and we need to start changing our road system (in particular in cities) to promote active travel, for the environment, our health and well being and our economy. People on bicycles do not own the road, they are part of the hierarchy, but because of their vulnerability, they are close to the top. This vulnerability needs to be respected by those lower in the hierarchy, otherwise deaths and serious injuries will occur far more frequently.

I wish people would share the road. I really do. Unfortunately, there are too many out there who see car use as a fundamental entitlement and are not prepared to tolerate anything that will impede their journey, even if it is for just a few seconds. There are many people out there who think that they own the road because they pay VED on their car and see cyclists as freeloaders. Some will even use their vehicle as a weapon to intimidate or threaten cyclists.

I hate having to video every trip. I hate not being able to relax and enjoy my journey. I hate having to keep the batteries charged in my cameras and ensuring there is memory space on my SD cards. I hate having to review incidents on my PC when I get home. I hate having to go to the police to report incidents. I only report serious incidents, but unless I do, that driver will go on to eventually kill or seriously injure someone. None of this is fun. It is stressful and time consuming. It should not be like this, but unfortunately it is. Things are changing, but attitudes are changing not nearly quickly enough.

Hence I humbly ask to to reconsider the evidence and think again.

View attachment 47822

Perhaps that illustration should have a 3rd arrow. This one showing likelihood of being killed in a collision. Then it would be pointing up from truck to pedestrian.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

Cars are wider, taller and heavier than they used to be

2.5 Average car height, width and weight, 1980-2018 – Mobiliteit in Cijfers Auto 2019

bovagrai.info

 

[sjpt]

Have you got similar statistics for badgers?
What about bike riders? I'm wider, shorter and heavier than I used to be.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

Have you got similar statistics for badgers?

Alas! I have searched in vain!

What about bike riders? I'm wider, shorter and heavier than I used to be.

The structural integrity of cyclist perineums are compromised by bicycle seats after too much weight gain. The wideness of drivers is only limited by their ever widening vehicles, which don't stress perineums nearly as much, while keeping them toasty.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

badgers?

Quite honestly, I think I have PBSD. And an almost supernatural ability to spot them in complete darkness. They can't all be cats, rats, dogs or foxes. One ran over the road about 20 feet in front of me the other night, almost gave me a heart attack... I was going downhill at over 31mph at the time.