Roundabouts and other driving pet peeves

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Bada-Bing!]

And how many are they going to prosecute with that? Because like cyclists kill all the time and it's such a major issue.

While they're at it they should update the law on cycling on pavements as that is older than the "wanton and furious" one and isn't fit for purpose either. But they won't.

Calls for 'irresponsible' UK government to follow Canada's lead on rules for young drivers

As calls for the UK to introduce Graduated Driving Licences (GDLs) grow, Sky News joined Canada's largest road policing unit and driving school to understand exactly how they work.

news.sky.com

Instead of going after cyclists, the Govt. should be concentrating their legislative efforts bringing in graduated driving licenses for young drivers, especially male drivers, who are more likely to be killed or kill after passing their tests. But apparently they have no intention to do so. Shows where their priorities lie - gaining cheap political points.

 

[odw26]

Calls for 'irresponsible' UK government to follow Canada's lead on rules for young drivers

As calls for the UK to introduce Graduated Driving Licences (GDLs) grow, Sky News joined Canada's largest road policing unit and driving school to understand exactly how they work.

news.sky.com

Instead of going after cyclists, the Govt. should be concentrating their legislative efforts bringing in graduated driving licenses for young drivers, especially male drivers, who are more likely to be killed or kill after passing their tests. But apparently they have no intention to do so. Shows where their priorities lie - gaining cheap political points.

Just because there are other issues, does not mean that it's acceptable to ignore smaller issues.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Just because there are other issues, does not mean that it's acceptable to ignore smaller issues.

It's a far bigger issue than cyclists though. And they just won't do anything about it. The reasoning is appalling: GDLs will unfairly penalise young people?

It's not even comparable. Young male drivers and cars don't mix well. Fact!

Sure - set a standard for cyclists and do them for dangerous riding at the minimum. But it'll do FA in reality whereas forcing GDLs will make a far bigger difference . Just that cyclists trigger other people and are an easier political target.

 

[Weldit]

Cyclists are going to grow as they push more and more people off the road anyway. We can see it coming.

Least we'll get plenty of funny videos from them acting stupid.

 

[odw26]

It's a far bigger issue than cyclists though. And they just won't do anything about it. The reasoning is appalling: GDLs will unfairly penalise young people?

It's not even comparable. Young male drivers and cars don't mix well. Fact!

Sure - set a standard for cyclists and do them for dangerous riding at the minimum. But it'll do FA in reality whereas forcing GDLs will make a far bigger difference . Just that cyclists trigger other people and are an easier political target.

If we're serious about wanting to get more people cycling and out of cars (which I would be for), then the time to shore up any legislation, laws, etc., would be sooner, not later after a cycle boom and things become even more logistically difficult/an even bigger nightmare to sort out or hold people accountable for.

It is noticeable that whenever cycling issues are brought up, people, such as you are doing now, are quick to jump in with the "whataboutisms". Absolutely there are larger issues, which obviously need addressing, such as young or elderly drivers. But that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to these issues which have and will continue to result in deaths.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I've noticed when it comes to cycle infrastructure it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy if that's the correct term for this.

1) Cycling infrastructure is terrible
2) Cycling as a means of travel is often not pleasant, especially when on busy roads.
3) Fewer people cycle
4) Proposal for cycle infrastructure gets shot down because there aren't enough cyclists to justify it
5) Return to step 1

Every attempt to improve cycle infrastructure is portrayed as a huge waste of money because it doesn't immediately look like Vietnam during rush hour when built. Also lots of supposed cycle infrastructure is not fit for purpose. This particular stretch of supposed shared footway/cycleway sticks in my mind. Full of obstructions like trees, uneven surfaces and signs. Also narrows down to just 2m (below the minimum spec for a shared footway/cycleway).

 

[BrokenWing]

Yep, painting a bike on a pavement doesn't make it suitable to ride on when the surface isn't great for even walking on. I even run in the road when it's empty round here as the pavements are all terrible.

Shared pathway in a rural area is about 18" wide with thorny branches at eye level.

 

[Weldit]

Yep, painting a bike on a pavement doesn't make it suitable to ride on when the surface isn't great for even walking on. I even run in the road when it's empty round here as the pavements are all terrible.

Shared pathway in a rural area is about 18" wide with thorny branches at eye level.

And dog poo. We must not forget lazy dog owners who hang their dogs mess bag from the branch sticking out at eye level.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

If we're serious about wanting to get more people cycling and out of cars (which I would be for), then the time to shore up any legislation, laws, etc., would be sooner, not later after a cycle boom and things become even more logistically difficult/an even bigger nightmare to sort out or hold people accountable for.

It is noticeable that whenever cycling issues are brought up, people, such as you are doing now, are quick to jump in with the "whataboutisms". Absolutely there are larger issues, which obviously need addressing, such as young or elderly drivers. But that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to these issues which have and will continue to result in deaths.

Of the 1600 annual deaths and serious injuries on our roads, 4 were caused by cyclist. That puts into perspective where our government's priorities lie.

It's not whataboutism to point this out. Chris Greyling back in 2014 promised a holistic review of road safety and penalties. It never happened. Unless you count just inserting the hierarchy of road users in the Highway Code as the result.

Absolutely pathetic and this is from a driver of 29 years opinion.

 

[AlRums]

Of the 1600 annual deaths and serious injuries on our roads, 4 were caused by cyclist. That puts into perspective where our government's priorities lie.

It's not whataboutism to point this out. Chris Greyling back in 2014 promised a holistic review of road safety and penalties. It never happened. Unless you count just inserting the hierarchy of road users in the Highway Code as the result.

Absolutely pathetic and this is from a driver of 29 years opinion.

It is still 4 too many.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Town near us has put intermittent bollards between the cycle lane and the road. Well intentioned but potentially lethal for cyclists. It's downhill, so quite fast and the road surface is poor. Cars turn across the lane and I've even seen them parked in it. I think it's downright dangerous as they cut down our options for manoeuvre if something does go wrong.

So I usually ignore and ride in the road only to be met by the kind of abuse that only the wit of British white van man can summon up, politely telling that I have to ride in the cycle lane.

I'd love to catch up with one of these heroes and explain in my most patronising tone in words of one syllable that I have the same right to be on that bit of road as them as recommendation and obligation don't have the same meaning.

 

[odw26]

Of the 1600 annual deaths and serious injuries on our roads, 4 were caused by cyclist. That puts into perspective where our government's priorities lie.

It's not whataboutism to point this out. Chris Greyling back in 2014 promised a holistic review of road safety and penalties. It never happened. Unless you count just inserting the hierarchy of road users in the Highway Code as the result.

Absolutely pathetic and this is from a driver of 29 years opinion.

Not trying to claim that the government should not also be looking at other ways in which to improve road safety, of course they should. Nor am I claiming that there are no larger issues, of course there are, as the statistics prove.

However, this is the second line from the BBC article about the government's intention to change the law:
"Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages."

Personally, I would argue that changing a law written about 150 years ago with realistically no relevance to modern society is justified, even if there are larger issues which should also be tackled.

And, by the most literal definition, it's "whataboutism". You're literally saying "what about this issue instead". But hey, it's nice that apparently you can quantify the number of deaths required before it becomes appropriate to tackle the cause of said deaths.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Not trying to claim that the government should not also be looking at other ways in which to improve road safety, of course they should. Nor am I claiming that there are no larger issues, of course there are, as the statistics prove.

However, this is the second line from the BBC article about the government's intention to change the law:
"Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages."

Personally, I would argue that changing a law written about 150 years ago with realistically no relevance to modern society is justified, even if there are larger issues which should also be tackled.

And, by the most literal definition, it's "whataboutism". You're literally saying "what about this issue instead". But hey, it's nice that apparently you can quantify the number of deaths required before it becomes appropriate to tackle the cause of said deaths.

The problem is that there is no National road traffic safety strategy. When you accuse me of whataboutism it is exactly the trap you are falling into where Govt's wants you to where people using roads are segregated into groups and playing off against each other in a society of division and the roads are becoming an increasing place of conflict. Cyclists are the easy target when they cause just 1% of road deaths. Of course update the law on it from 1861, but will they also update the laws on use of pavements from 1835? Even though they are already being used for cycling as shared paths. I know it won't impact me as I ride with due consideration and care for others.

Not bringing in GDLs is indicative that the Govt is not really serious at tackling road deaths and serious injuries especially among young drivers, even though they are disproportionately reflected in the deaths and serious injuries stats. If it makes them better drivers, then so be it.

I'll update the stat from above, it's actually c30,000 road traffic accidents of which 1600 are deaths. So you tell me that is really acceptable?

Reported road casualties Great Britain, provisional results: 2023

www.gov.uk

The cycling infrastructure is intermittent and sometimes down right appalling as shown by other cyclists posting on here. There is no coherent plan to connect urban areas and most cyclist deaths are in narrow country lanes than in cities. I've already reported over 100 close passes in two years of wearing a camera from drivers who don't know the close pass rule.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It is still 4 too many.

4 out of 1600 deaths? So the rest are caused by vehicles. Is that a joke to you? You are unlikely ever to get zero causes by cyclists. But it again highlights your complete bias against cyclists, but it nightlights again the massive weight and speed differential between vehicles and cycles.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I've noticed when it comes to cycle infrastructure it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy if that's the correct term for this.

1) Cycling infrastructure is terrible
2) Cycling as a means of travel is often not pleasant, especially when on busy roads.
3) Fewer people cycle
4) Proposal for cycle infrastructure gets shot down because there aren't enough cyclists to justify it
5) Return to step 1

Every attempt to improve cycle infrastructure is portrayed as a huge waste of money because it doesn't immediately look like Vietnam during rush hour when built. Also lots of supposed cycle infrastructure is not fit for purpose. This particular stretch of supposed shared footway/cycleway sticks in my mind. Full of obstructions like trees, uneven surfaces and signs. Also narrows down to just 2m (below the minimum spec for a shared footway/cycleway).

View attachment 23425View attachment 23426

This returns to the whole more LTNs and 20mph zones. The Problem is that then local residents protest and local councils then justify non action because of lack of support. It's like asking turkeys voting whether to end Xmas when asking for these measures and to get people to leave cars at home/ stop rat running.

I personally can't see proper protected cycling infrastructure on main roads where I live because the roads are just too narrow. And as shown in your photos above obstacles are not removed, cycling infrastructure is just feels tacked on. So it's a matter of using what is already there and making the best of it.

I attended my borough council's Local council and walking plan last year and they would only field questions via an app to stop arguments erupting. One did eventually at the end.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Coroner raises concerns over new drivers taking passengers after north Wales crash

Hugo Morris, Harvey Owen, Wilf Fitchett, Jevon Hirst died after car came off rural road on a bend in November 2023

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Drivers urged to pass horses with care on Dartmoor

Police say 144 animals, including ponies, cattle and sheep, were killed on Dartmoor's roads in 2024.

www.bbc.com

 

[Weldit]

This returns to the whole more LTNs and 20mph zones. The Problem is that then local residents protest and local councils then justify non action because of lack of support. It's like asking turkeys voting whether to end Xmas when asking for these measures and to get people to leave cars at home/ stop rat running.

I personally can't see proper protected cycling infrastructure on main roads where I live because the roads are just too narrow. And as shown in your photos above obstacles are not removed, cycling infrastructure is just feels tacked on. So it's a matter of using what is already there and making the best of it.

I attended my borough council's Local council and walking plan last year and they would only field questions via an app to stop arguments erupting. One did eventually at the end.

It is tacked on and that's the problem. They need their own roads away from heavy traffic, but most places don't have the space.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It is tacked on and that's the problem. They need their own roads away from heavy traffic, but most places don't have the space.

Yet if it's for a road, they find ways to make the space.