CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
@Roibeard @Focus, no problem with deliberately making things safer for yourself. But rather taking pleasure in making people angry and annoyed I find odd.
"Like Dave I quite enjoy getting to drive through 20mph zones and actually hope that there will be someone behind me"
"watching the silent ranting and hand signals in the mirror is just devillish fun"
"People" no. The kind of obnoxious scumbag bullies who make the roads such a dangerous and unpleasant place to be, yes.
The forum often features the adventures of cyclists who like to call out others in the street for i.e. light jumping or similar offences, and/or who have been on the receiving end of one of the cycle path light screamers and similar folk.
In contrast, feeling good because you're only doing 20mph in a 20 zone and it's clearly frustrating Mr Toad behind you is a very mild form of titillation.
I drive up the Lanark Road at 30mph and I do enjoy the evident outrage some drivers express that I'm not doing 45-50mph as they were moments before. I am a bad person.
And WC, lets not forget that we are only making them ANGRY by sticking to the speed limit.
I think a distinction needs to be made between:
1- Sticking to the speed limit and finding someone getting angry, coming up close behind, then aggressively overtaking
and
2- Sticking to the speed limit and noticing someone trying to overtake, then taking some action which prevents this or deliberately makes it difficult for them
I don't believe anyone is trying to argue there's a problem in sticking to the limit even if it 'angers' other drivers (EEN nutjobs aside) but I'm broadly in agreement with WC in that it's probably not a good idea to set about antagonising someone who has already marked themselves out as impatient and dangerous. I imagine this is going to be taken as me saying I think we should all roll over and let the angry people have free reign but that's not it. If I'm at the speed limit and someone is getting annoyed at that I'm going to ignore them and let them stew in it. But equally I'm not going to go out my way to make them slow down, or prevent them overtaking, that's too confrontational for me.
I do recall there's some bit of the highway code that deals with this, if I remember right (which I may not) it states if someone is trying for a dangerous overtake you should let them, because the decision is theirs to take the risk and not yours to try and prevent it.
The Beeb have now covered this story.
Good to see Neil Greig commenting in the Beeb story - he has a "reservation about the blanket approach".
He really needs to read the story properly, its not blanket, its most residential, shopping and city centre areas which we all know means there will be enough fudge to fill a medium sized sweetie shop.
Neil Greig of the IAM Motoring Trust told BBC Scotland: "Our main reservation is about the blanket approach but it's also about the fact that we need to do a lot more in Edinburgh.
"We need to have segregated cycling facilities, shared space. That involves a lot more investment in infrastructure.
"This is just really about putting up more signs. We need to do a lot more than that in Edinburgh to actually encourage people out of their cars."
How very bizarre. In the story about having cycle lanes in Edinburgh which might encourage people out of their cars, he was moaning about that too.
I seem to recall that "just putting up signs" caused around 50% of vehicles to slow from 30mph to 25 or under.
Glass half empty says it didn't cause 100% of drivers to go at 20 or less, but glass half full says it took the edge off for virtually zero investment.
If there was a diet that only lost you half your target weight but it was immediate and nearly free it would instantly go viral.
"How very bizarre. In the story about having cycle lanes in Edinburgh which might encourage people out of their cars, he was moaning about that too."
His 'job' seems to be merely to provide a soundbite. The slightly curious thing is that over many years in Scotland he has been seen to be (at least by the media) as 'the voice of the motorist'.
This almost made sense when he worked for the AA as this is (presumably) an organisation with many more members. I thought the point of the IAM was that it represented 'good' drivers and wanted to improve standards/'road safety', so constantly questioning any measure that would affect all drivers - good, bad or worse - doesn't really seem to be in the interest of his employers.
There's a bit about his job/CV here.
Apparently "and an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Strathclyde" so he ought to have a wider understanding of transport in urban areas - and why everyone would be better off with less traffic and a higher standard of driving. Perhaps the only people allowed to drive in Edinburgh should have to pass an IAM course!?
Underneath the BBC article (above) is a link to a previous one -
"
Plan for 20mph zones for cyclists in residential areas
All residential areas should have 20mph zones to make them safer for cyclists, according to plans from the Scottish government.
The measure is among 19 new commitments in the updated Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (Caps).
"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22974692
His 'job' seems to be merely to provide a soundbite. The slightly curious thing is that over many years in Scotland he has been seen to be (at least by the media) as 'the voice of the motorist'.
They don't even need him.
BBC Radio Scotland "Newsdrive" presenter Bill Whiteford is already the state-sponsored 'Voice of the Motorist'.
It's quite interesting if you back off a bit how few following drivers actually do crazy stuff.
^This. I reckon that a lot of drivers are more worried about being seen to be the one holding up the queue, so when they're being held up they feel there's less pressure on them (especially in an urban context).
I reckon that a lot of drivers are more worried about being seen to be the one holding up the queue, so when they're being held up they feel there's less pressure on them
I definitely feel this when driving. I'm always really pleased when a cyclist takes primary and it means I don't have to make the decision as to whether it is safe to overtake.
What's also interesting when overtaking a cyclist is watching how much room the cars behind give the cyclist if you overtake safely. My impression is that if you give the cyclist a very wide berth the following cars all do the same.
"I'm always really pleased when a cyclist takes primary and it means I don't have to make the decision as to whether it is safe to overtake."
That's because you understand what's going on.
Far too many drivers just think 'that bike is in my way' and may or may not try to overtake - safe or not.
I wonder what Neil Greig thinks?
I wonder if Neil Greig thinks?
ftfy
But rather taking pleasure in making people angry and annoyed I find odd.
"Like Dave I quite enjoy getting to drive through 20mph zones and actually hope that there will be someone behind me"
Woah. How do you deduce that I'm getting pleasure in making people angry ( or even making people angry) from that. There are other reasons.
Chdot, I reckon PS has a point though. There are probably a large number of drivers who do dangerous things because they feel pressured to not hold others up. If they know they can't overtake and they're not the ones holding everyone up then they can relax.
"I reckon PS has a point though"
Wasn't questioning the 'cars behind me' point - just suggesting that 'most' drivers don't understand about primary or anything other than 'must get past'.
Maybe I'm wrong and the vast majority are sensibly and considerate.
Shame 'we' have to assume the worst so often.
This is what drivers are doing quite a lot of the time:
"Like Dave I quite enjoy getting to drive through 20mph zones and actually hope that there will be someone behind me"
"Woah. How do you deduce that I'm getting pleasure in making people angry ( or even making people angry) from that. There are other reasons."
Which are?
My impression is that if you give the cyclist a very wide berth the following cars all do the same.
Yep. Ditto. I'll swing right over into the other carriageway when overtaking a cyclist/pedestrian/horse/what-have-you and more often than not will notice that the car behind does much the same thing.
"Which are?"
Getting satisfaction/perverse pleasure from knowing that an additional car will be doing the speed limit. Also helping to highlight what the limit actually is.
Maybe I'm wrong and the vast majority are sensibly and considerate
By my reckoning -- a third are sensible, a third are selfish chancers, and the final third shouldn't be behind the wheel at all.
I don't mind admitting that I enjoy myself more driving at 20mph with a frothing speed merchant behind me than at 20mph with a row of placid grannies behind me.
Is that weird? I think it's just part of animal nature, you're dominating someone else, and it's all the sweeter because it's socially sanctioned.
You could say the same applies to drivers as a group threatening cyclists with casual violence, and I'd say you were right.
My impression is that if you give the cyclist a very wide berth the following cars all do the same.
Yep. Ditto. I'll swing right over into the other carriageway when overtaking a cyclist/pedestrian/horse/what-have-you and more often than not will notice that the car behind does much the same thing.
I don't notice this (which really says more about my perception than anything), but I do notice that with a queue, you'll likely get the first one/two/three drivers making sensible, wide moves and the following drivers either not seeing or understanding the 'obstacle' simply moving their steering wheel a minute way out to get past.
What is interesting is that Mr MeepMeep calls me out for giving cyclists 'too much room'. He reckons I'm excessive in trying to be considerate. I refer him to the HC and tell him that I'm treating others as I want to be treated on the road.
@meepmeep I don't understand how you can give anyone "too much room". Before overtaking, a competent driver will surely have looked ahead to establish that they are able to make the manoeuvre (crossing the centre line in a controlled manner, passing the cyclist and recrossing the centre line in a controlled manner) without endangering other road users. The space in the other carriageway is there to be used.
@meepmeep how odd; my boyfriend also complains that I give cyclists too much room when driving... I assume Mr MeepMeep cycles too? My b/f does, both for sport/leisure and for transport.
"complains that I give cyclists too much room when driving"
I wonder how much this relates to the 'fear' of being on the wrong side of the road if a vehicle comes the other way.
This indicates 'not safe to overtake' if a 'safe' amount of space/time can't be seen.
Though obviously a close(r) pass hardly saves any time.
Bloody hell, back seat drivers, eh? Dontcha just luv 'em?
Is there a notable gender bias behind the amount of space drivers give cyclists, or does it make not a jot of difference? (Gender of cyclist, and gender of driver).
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts