CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years 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.
Just finished watching it.......it's left the spring I had in my step about getting back on the bike tomorrow, after the ice - feeling rather flat.
The programme representation of my daily commute on bike is far removed,although it has caused for pause.
Fear not the must cycle will no doubt be renergised in the morning!
... Having said that. If you look at the clip. When the driver stops, he is only just inside the white line & there clearly isn't room for a bike inside the car. Quite clearly the the driver could not overtake anywhere in that section without crossing the solid line... which is illegal. Given that, I would have said that his positioning is bob on. He is preventing someone doing a dangerous overtake.
.. I also notice the car is held up for all of 15 seconds...no wonder he is so irate
Having said that. If you look at the clip. When the driver stops, he is only just inside the white line & there clearly isn't room for a bike inside the car.
Yes. My 2p on road positioning is that if you annoy a thousand people you'll still get to work safely and on time, but the first person you oblige who crushes you against something, you're dead. Therefore, always annoy people if the alternative is being smeared.
Think about cyclist deaths in Edinburgh... 2x out of the way in a cycle lane, crushed by a turning truck driver (unlikely to have run over the rider from directly behind). 1x hit by the side of a truck when the driver overtook at a pinch point. Again, driver didn't ram them from behind. 1x near the kerb clipped by a car driver. 1x in a bus lane killed by a taxi driver apparently trying to overtake without changing lanes (but there wasn't quite enough room).
On the face of it, five out of five deaths possibly preventable by getting in the way more (I'm aware this has a huge element of speculation, but the point is that people riding assertively *aren't* apparently being killed, although they may be generating youtube footage)
if he was riding further left would a driver have tried to overtake
I think that specific driver would have overtaken no matter what position the bike was in. He didn't appear at all rational.
clearly mkns you think that there was space there for a car to overtake without going over the double white lines
Not at all - my post from earlier said:
Yes, if the letter of the law was being strictly adhered to, then no-one should overtake him
My intended point when I said that was that there was clearly not enough room for a car to overtake a bicycle, irrespective of how far left the bike was. Unfortunately, rather than taking primary by being 3 feet out from the left kerb, he decides to cycle almost on the double white line at one point.
taking the more central position is, surely, the correct decision
I'm not debating whether he was strictly in the wrong here - again, according to the letter of the law, he did nothing wrong. According to common sense, IMHO, he did something that is likely to annoy other road users, because we all know that all car users break the law. I don't know a single car driver who has never broken a 30mph limit, and I'm sure most will edge over a double white line to get past a bicycle when it is safe to do so. Unfortunately, Gareth was making that (technically illegal) manoeuvre almost impossible for other drivers. Why force them to do this? It doesn't seem logical to me.
The Maybury Road going south has a white crossed off area which cars are not allowed to enter (I think - correct me if I'm wrong). When I'm cycling up that road, cars go into it all the time to get past me. Which I think is entirely reasonable. Do you think I should be taking primary and preventing them getting past me without going fully into the white crossed off area? Gareth would, I bet. Instead, they nudge a wheel over into that area to get past me, therefore being well clear of the northbound carriageway. Win all round.
And personal opinions will always be varied
Indeed. It seems to me that he's trying to cause trouble. If he seems that way to a cyclist, then he's going to appear like that to some car drivers who don't cycle. I think that was one of the main (only?) wins from the programme, in that it showed drivers and cyclists alike that they all need to think about being in the other person's shoes. Gareth didn't seem to me to have any empathy at all for car drivers, and that's a bad attitude for a cyclist to have. Some drivers have no empathy for cyclists too, which is also bad. If we can all think about how other people might be feeling or thinking about a situation from their point of view, then things will surely get better.
The point is,mkns, if he left enough space the driver would try a dangerous overtake. There isn't enough room to do the manoevre safely, but there may well be enough for them to attempt it dangerously. That is why he moves to primary... to prevent it happening.
Yep, I understand your point.
I think I'm looking at it differently; I'm trying to avoid confrontation and people jumping out of their car and punching me. Maybe my priorities are wrong.
Yes, but in Gaz's defence isn't this the point he is trying to make. He is just attempting to ride his bike in safety & someone who is held up for a few seconds appears to think this justifies an attack on him. I'm not sure why you seem to be saying he is in the wrong on this one.
"Do you think I should be taking primary and preventing them getting past me without going fully into the white crossed off area?"
I don't know the piece of road so can't comment. I presume there is space for them to do this, as you say, safely.
In Gareth's video I personally feel that being further left (and I'm going to have to watch again to see if he's almost on the centre line, I don't remember that) he's encouraging more people to go past when, clearly especially as the road narrows, that isn't actually safe because there's a blind crest and a barrier to his side. Yes, clearly, riding even more primary there are still some people will overtake; but being further left there will surely be even more?
"I'm trying to avoid confrontation and people jumping out of their car and punching me. Maybe my priorities are wrong."
You're better than a facetious remark like that. I don't think any of us here are advocating riding in a way that actually encourages people to jump out of our cars and punching us. You're making good, constructive, debatable comments here. That's lowering it to levels of sarcasm.
"he decides to cycle almost on the double white line at one point."
Just watched again, repeating. He gets pretty far right at one point as the road curves to the right just before the double whites, but given the lean, and the angle created by the camera on his helmet, he's roughly bang centre in the lane. Certainly not 'almost on the double white'. Unless there's another bit, but that's the only one I can see.
Just watched the show. Lots of examples of people friction caused by bad infrastructure, the viewers asked to blame one group then the other, but never the infrastructure.
I'm going to win the Euromillions (mark my words!) then make a tv show called The Design War Between Britain's Killer Roads and Stockenhagen's Safe Streets of Calm. Because the relevant split should be good/bad design not good/bad transport users.
Same with the debate above re the white lines. It's the infrastructure that is at fault, causing friction. Argy bargy will never end, there will always be more car/bike participants, while the lines are painted in the wrong places.
"
The Highway Code (@HighwayCodeGB)
05/12/2012 22:13
#HighwayCode is essential reading for everyone. Cutting number of deaths/injuries roads is a responsibility we all share #waronbritainsroads
"
"
AA boss: Cyclist-hating drivers ‘are absolute idiots’
- AA president slams hateful drivers after BBC documentary
- He wants more safe cycle paths in London
- Mr King adamant that cycling issues are now being taken more seriously
"
How much has London spent on its bike lanes then?
As gkgk says, the story of infrastructure is getting lost as it's much more entertaining to watch people shouting at each other (apparently).
mkns: Unfortunately, Gareth was making that (technically illegal) manoeuvre almost impossible for other drivers. Why force them to do this? It doesn't seem logical to me.
If we grant that road law is intended to promote safety, it's a necessarily illegal manoeuvre, in my Humbledore.
Is it unavoidably rude to tell someone that you don't trust their ability to overtake with under a metre's margin for error?
To all folk of professional stunt driver skill who have even been held up by me taking primary: sorry mate, I'll buy you a pint. To the rest: sorry.
Remember, you can legally cross an unbroken white centre line to pass a cyclist if they are doing 10mph or less (which means that a cyclist 'controlling' the road should be sure that they are going faster than that).
I take my lane when I have to but previous bad experiences play on my mind as I do so. It would help me if drivers were told about primary position during training so I could feel that my behaviour wasn't just tolerated at best or provocative at worst.
It would also help if drivers (and cyclists, in fact all road users) were legally bound to read all amendments to the Highway Code when they are made. With motorists, that could be easily implemented by enclosing an update with any mandatory documents sent out, such as driving licence and MOT certificate. Since they are government-controlled it could simply be on a computer database and automatically collate when the last update was sent (e.g. driving licence) so that the next update (e.g. with MOT) would only add anything added since then.
Trickier with those of us who don't need licences, I know, but there could be a specific website from which you could receive an email, cycle chops could be expected to have a simple notice board with (supplied) updates.
No, you can't be sure anyone reads the updates but at least they would have no excuse in saying they weren't aware of a new rule.
"you can legally cross an unbroken white centre line to pass a cyclist if they are doing 10mph or less"
Which presupposes the average motorist can judge a bike's speed which in my experience seems very rare!
Except of course that all motorists should be able to judge the speed of a slow moving vehicle in front by looking at the speedometer.
What about the Dutch solution to all this -car hits cycle: car's fault, cycle hits pedestrian:cyclist's fault. simple. respectful. recognises our relative vulnerabilities.
Except of course that all motorists should be able to judge the speed of a slow moving vehicle in front by looking at the speedometer.
Once again, assuming the driver looks at the speedo, something else we all know plenty motorists don't do, or ignore!
It also assumes the motorist bothers to match speed with the cyclist before overtaking rather than just flooring it as they approach.
I'm not sure why you seem to be saying he is in the wrong on this one
Well, I've think explained my position / opinion in the thread in detail. I suspect I've just got a different opinion and/or mindset when it comes to cycling and car drivers. To be honest, upon reflection, I think my opinion of Gareth's cycling is also not helped by his attitude on camera.
You're better than a facetious remark like that
I wasn't being facetious or sarcastic, I was being 100% serious. I try to find a line between being safe and not causing other road users to be inconvenienced. Sorry if it came across otherwise.
he's roughly bang centre in the lane
It's difficult to tell considering how much his helmet is going from side to side. I'm not going to pick nits here - although I think he's close to the centre line, either way, he's far more right than I would be in the same circumstances.
Remember, you can legally cross an unbroken white centre line to pass a cyclist if they are doing 10mph or less
In Gareth's case, I think he was going more than 10mph in his clip - but nevertheless, that's news to me, glad to learn something.
It does seem I'm being too lenient / trusting to car drivers in comparison to other members here, so I shall ponder on this in future while cycling on the roads.
As a crash course in lowering your trust in drivers I suggest Glenlockart Road going east.
It's horribly surfaced, a climb, narrow of lane and blind of both corner and hill, and if you're using it then you have to have climbed a fair bit already so you aren't fresh enough to do the 15-20 mph rate that a substantial percentage of drivers consider fast enough that I don't *have* to overtake.
If I sleep in badly enough I have to take that route, but in any other circumstance I avoid it.
I had some bowel-looseningly bad overtakes on that road until I declared enough to be enough and took a strong primary.
Glenlockart Road - yep, I can fully appreciate taking primary on there. I've never cycled up it, only down, and have run up it on the pavement which was pretty scary in itself! That road is so narrow that I would take primary in terms of being a good 2 feet outside the gutter. I don't think I'd be quite so far over to the right as Gareth was in the clip discussed above, but then again, from what you are saying, it sounds like I might quickly start to do that after a couple of close shaves!
It's a good point you make about speed of bicycle preventing cars overtaking dangerously... I'm no Wiggo, but with reference to my previous statements when I've tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to point out that I try to cycle without being a hindrance to other drivers, I know that I consciously speed up if I find that I'm potentially holding up traffic, so that the cars know I'm trying my best to keep them moving as fast as possible. This seems to work, or at least, I've convinced myself it works, in that they then don't bother overtaking until it really is safe to do so. Most of the time. And then when I don't have a car on my wheel, or I'm on a cycle path, I'll slow back down to a leisurely pace, maybe subconsciously saving energy for later...
I do admit to be ornery enough that if the driver subsequent to me is revvy and impolitely close going through a pinch point, then I won't put any extra effort in.
If he or she just bimbles along, then I declare an impromptu sprint training session and spin like nuts.
@fiets Yes, it's long past time that we had that rule here.
One thing I've noticed which can work surprisingly well when a car passes too close is to vigorously and repeatedly point out to my right to signal that he driver should have left a lot more room. Now, whether the driver bothers to notice that in their rear view mirror is debatable. But what seems to happen more often as not is that any following cars do tend to give more room (with the usual exceptions).
It works often enough that I don't think it's coincidence. Either the following motorists get the point or they are just trying to stay clear of the nutter whose arm keep flying out wildly, but I don't care as long as it has the desired effect!
Yes, the 'more room' gesture does have a great temporary effect.
On the double white line issue in general, if I am driving, and it is safe to do so I will overtake a cyclist and not give it a second thought.
As a cyclist, I will happily stop cars overtaking me by taking primary position, one example of this is where there is a traffic island. I'm going through there right in the middle of the road, once the island , or obstruction is cleared I move left. I have no desire to hold folk up longer than necessary.
One thing that does irk me about cyclists is the 'militant' ones, the ones that decide to cycle straight down the middle of a lane making ot impossible for anyone to pass, where it might otherwise have been safe for a pass.
I think my problem with Gareth, and actually a lot of the helmet cam'ers in general is the apparent need for fame, the ego that goes along with it if you will (I don't get ego). No harm in using a camera to document your journey, or as a tool to provide evidence if necessary, but I just don't get the name and shame nonsense (same for the Einburgh Taxi driver idiot), most of which seems trivial. For some reason helmet cam'ers seem to be involved in more incident that the general cycling populous. Are they just unlucky? Or do they feel a need to feed their audience?
@Baldcyclist, I could not agree more. I use a cam for my daylight commutes but I do think you are right about the type of mindset for many who use them. I personally have recorded and saved clips, not to name and shame, but instead to provide examples for others, not least my 12yo daughter, so they can see the type of driving you need to combat.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts