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.
I won't go into details as I only have second-hand knowlege of what went on, but some friends of mine had occasion to report a driver to the police over the weekend. What has led me to post here was the last thing I saw on Facebook yesterday -
"apparently there have been complaints to the police about groups of cyclists using the roads..."
What?
I do not doubt that there is a small minority of persons who think it is their civic duty to report such blatant criminality as groups of cyclist using the roads to the police. They are probably a close relation of the guy in the pick-up who once cut us up and flagged us down on a quiet Midlothian backroad to suggest we should all wear fluorescent tabards so he could better see us.
I saw huge pelotons of cars go into work today. It was impossible to overtake them all and they were going so slowly. None of the drivers had helmets on despite the evidence in favour of that.
Yeah there should be a tax on groups of more than four cyclists (obviously they damage the road more)
- and on cars with fewer than four occupants.
Which post could relate, possibly, to large groups of cyclists riding 'together' more than two abreast. I mean, we don't like people contravening the Highway Code do we?
Come on guys, I'm sure we've all come across groups that could easily and conveniently and simply applying good manners, single out to let people past. How many people here have been driving and held up by a tractor that they've cursed cos it hasn't gone into a layby?
There are people out there who hate cyclists for ridiculous reasons, but reading between the lines I'm willing to stick my neck out and say that complaints about 'groups of cyclists' is pelotons acting in a critical mass fashion.
"I'm sure we've all come across groups that could easily and conveniently and simply applying good manners, single out to let people past. "
You are correct here. However this idea does get missinterpreted as meaning "always". Plus a group two abreast may be easier to overtake than a group singled out. On the other good thing about group cycling is that drivers simply cannot ignore them - thus making it safer in some ways than singleton riding.
I'm fairly sure that there's a general perception that cyclists are legally required to ride single-file and as far to the left as possible. This is certainly a perception that's reinforced by the typical UK cycle lane design - in the gutter and as narrow as can be got away with.
"You are correct here. However this idea does get missinterpreted as meaning "always". Plus a group two abreast may be easier to overtake than a group singled out. On the other good thing about group cycling is that drivers simply cannot ignore them - thus making it safer in some ways than singleton riding."
Sometimes jumping red lights is safer; sometimes riding on the pavement is safer.
Does this make breaking the rules 'right'? Should the rules be changed?
"Sometimes jumping red lights is safer; sometimes riding on the pavement is safer."
1. almost never (i.e. if a car has lost control and is sliding towards you from behind you may choose to jump the light to get away, but most justifications for RLJ'ing are as convincing as "I had to speed otherwise I'd have been late".
2. Safer for whom? Two wrongs etc.
That aside I agree with your point, courtesy costs nothing and making an effort to allo others past costs little. Some groups treat riding in a bunch/peleton/group as an excuse to be ignorant, equally others do not, without more info it's impossible to judge whether the complaints mentioned were valid or not.
"Does this make breaking the rules 'right'? Should the rules be changed? "
It is not obvious that any rules are being broken here.
I'd just point out that riding two abreast in some cases can be good and safe practice (a la Franklin). For example, if you are riding along a narrow and curvy road.
In fact the worst cases of driving I see around groups happen when the group is fragmenting and singling out and drivers attempt to pass - face an oncoming vehicle and then try to embed themselves in the group.
On the other hand yesterday, generally there was exceptionally good driving around the group, with drivers prepared to sit well back behind the group and only overtake when it was safe to do so.
How many people here have been driving and held up by a tractor that they've cursed cos it hasn't gone into a layby?
And how many have gone to the police about it?
"...without more info it's impossible to judge whether the complaints mentioned were valid or not."
Precisely. Though I do think there are instances when riding on the pavement is safer (alongside, say, a 40mph road which people drive at 60 on and there are never any pedestrians there); same with 'taking an early green' (in front of a truck and you're not sure if they've seen you). I should point out that I never do these things, but I can understand why people do.
"I'd just point out that riding two abreast in some cases can be good and safe practice (a la Franklin). For example, if you are riding along a narrow and curvy road."
I'm not disagreeing that it might be safer, but should we therefore 'break' the 'rules' to do so? (riding along a narrow and curvy road is precisely when the Highway Code says cyclists should single out - so is there a place here to suggest that the HC needs to be amended?).
Rule 66
... never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends (though it's a 'should' rather than a 'must').
Apologies to all for my snarky comments. I just think we (as 'cyclists') have a tendency to wander into victimisation when we might not know all of the circumstances - it's almost as if a 'cyclist couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong' cloud descends. Unfortunately, like with motorists, cyclists are 'people' and therefore a certain element will be prone to selfish acts, so we can't claim to e whiter than white. Yes, we do less harm/cause less damage, but we can't immediately start slating motorists when we don't know the full facts - it simply reinforces 'them versus us' and, in my opinion, makes it seem like we're unwilling to accept a cyclist could ever do wrong, which is a little counter-productive.
"I'm fairly sure that there's a general perception that cyclists are legally required to ride single-file and as far to the left as possible
Nah, not more than two abreast, and no requirement to be as far left as possible.
"And how many have gone to the police about it?"
Not sure whether that changes if a group of cyclists is acting selfishly or not?
Yes, seems an extreme reaction, but in what circumstances were complaints made? Was 999 called? Was it raised at a regular community meeting as an 'any other business' point? Again, we don't know enough to immediately get on the defensive about this...
And we also know how many people are ignorant of the fact that it is not breaking any rules to ride two abreast and how willing they are to use their vehicle as weapons against anyone who is not breaking any rules and also how willing the police are to pull over any cyclist who is not breaking any rules.
Again, does any of that mean that cyclists can't be acting selfishly? And if they are should they not be complained about?
Do you go the police every time you see someone acting selfishly?
"... and also how willing the police are to pull over any cyclist who is not breaking any rules"
I can think of the Daniel Cadden case, but other than that? I've never been pulled over. I know gembo has, but then he was technically doing something he shouldn't have been. I'd be interested to know the stats on cyclists being pulled over randomly - I think again there's a perception of this that doesn't actually stand up.
Willing to be proved wrong by an FOI to L&B's finest on number of cyclists stopped without evidence of infringement compared to motorists.
But by that logic any one going below the speed of the guy behind is being selfish and as for caravans...
Even if they were riding three, four or even in single file to safely over take you should be giving as much room as you would a car, which on anything but wide dual carriageway means crossing the line to the other lane. So if all parties were sticking to the actual HC not the perceived one there really is no problem with groups just people who don't like being held up.
Roibeard.
Anyone on the NEPN who has been deemed by the police to be breaking some made up (by them) "speed limit" that doesn't exist.
The person who posted on here a while back about being pulled over for cycling in the cycle lane in North St Andrew St.
"Do you go the police every time you see someone acting selfishly?2
I refer back to my post. How did they 'go to the police'? Was it mentioned by the by in a community meeting? Was it a formal complaint? Was it 999?
None of which actually changes what I'd said - I've never defended someone 'going to the police' about people acting selfishly ("Yes, seems an extreme reaction"), but merely that cyclists 'can' act selfishly and therefore people have a right to complain if they come across it.
"to safely over take you should be giving as much room as you would a car"
That's where the HC is hazy and needs changed as well in my opinion. Because it says exactly that, as much room as you would give a car, and not "a car's width". The rule people clamour for is a '3 feet' rule - one which I'd back being changed to in the HC!
What this all boils down to is:
Some cyclists were doing something but we don't know what;
Some people complained to the police but we don't know how, or how many, or what action they demanded if any;
The poluice might do something or might not;
It was a post on Facebook so could be completely wrong or misreported or made up.
And we're arguing about every level of that hypothetical situation.
Someone posted the other day on FB that the moon landings were faked.
That's where the HC is hazy and needs changed as well in my opinion
I'm not really sure it does, if people used their "common" sense which is what most of the HC is. Few drivers would skim past another car as close as they do a (group) cyclist. Not none as I've had on more than one occasion a moron go between me and an on coming car in middle of the road...
I'd back my foot per 10 mph idea from a while back. 3 Feet at a delta of 50 mph is not enough of a margin imo.
Someone posted the other day on FB that the moon landings were faked.
They quite clearly were, how else would the flag be fluttering and a Surly get in the background!
On narrower two-lane roads (i.e. those that are not wide enough for bike plus 2 cars to safely pass sidew by side) it is beneficial to everyone for groups to ride 2 abreast. Gives a shorter line for the driver to have to overtake, so they need a shorter stretch of road in which to do it.
I wouldn't say there was a "general perception" that single file in the gutter is the legal requirement but it is a view held by a significant, and assertive, minority of motorists. No doubt there is a large correlation between this group and the group that sees 30-limit signs as a signifying a minimum speed and 20-limits as discretionary.
Some cyclists were doing something but we don't know what;
Some people complained to the police but we don't know how, or how many, or what action they demanded if any;
The poluice might do something or might not;
It was a post on Facebook so could be completely wrong or misreported or made up.
It might but the term used was "cyclists using the road". Not being selfish, not riding 20 abreast but merely "using the road". And that is going to get peoples backs up. It reflects a general attitude towards cycling that some people are trying to get across here.
"It might but the term used was "cyclists using the road". Not being selfish, not riding 20 abreast but merely "using the road". And that is going to get peoples backs up. It reflects a general attitude towards cycling that some people are trying to get across here."
I can see that reading of it. My own reading was that there was a "..." at the end so there's more of the post that might have gone into detail (it might have been 'when they shouldn't be', or it might have been 'by stringing themselves across and deliberately riding at 5mph to block traffic').
I'm doing a certain amount of reading between the lines, so could always be wrong. But I'd be stunned if anyone was complaining to the police about 'cyclists using the road'. I'd be even more stubnned if any action was to come from it. So my reading is that the 'using the road' implies using it in a 'bad' way, and so a complaint is justified, and such a complaint may have made its way to the police indirectly or via a simple community meeting or so on.
What all of that, my own reading, proves is that we don't actually know anything about this at all (including the full text of the original post on FB) which to my mind gives us nothing really to worry about, complain about, or argue about. Instead (and I've seen this on all sorts of cycling forums) we immediately see the worst, get defensive, point out how awful drivers are, and see it as society hating us for riding a bike. From one partially quoted excerpt from an unknown person on Facebook.
Of course I'm perpetuatuing that argument, so I think I'll step back now. If people want to be upset about it then that is entirely their right, and I'm not going to stop anyone doing that. For me, personally, I'm disappointed this can become such a big thing when there are more, very clear, examples of anti-cyclist stuff out there that deserves our attention.
Indeed. I am sure it is not worth getting one's chamois in a bunch and I am sure people will report back here is they find themselves getting stopped for riding with other people.
*group hug*
Police: "Excuse me, this group hug is taking up too much space"
Move along now, nothing to see here!
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts