Jump to content

Who should all those motorcycle safety signs be aimed at ?

Recommended Posts

Yes, the cyclist should be aware that a motorist might do that.

And obviously the motorist being in the wrong won't magically bring the cyclist back to life.

 

But that doesn't alter the fact that the motorist would be in the wrong.

 

So what legislation do you imagine is needed? You said

 

"but you can't legislate for a fast moving crazed biker or push ironist."

 

Implying that they're somehow in the wrong, or are they not, is the motorist who hits them in the wrong?

 

If a motorist indicates and maneuvers in good time, and a collision occurs from an undertaking road user coming too fast or not paying attention, then the motorist is most certainly not in the wrong. Not all cyclists are drivers you know, and a lot of them are pretty dim when it comes to road sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a motorist indicates and maneuvers in good time, and a collision occurs from an undertaking road user coming too fast or not paying attention, then the motorist is most certainly not in the wrong. Not all cyclists are drivers you know, and a lot of them are pretty dim when it comes to road sense.

 

Er no. It is up to the motorist turning left to ensure they do so without the cyclist having to alter their speed. Signalling an intention to turn does not mean other road users should alter their progress to accommodate that. One of the difficulties that motorists who don't cycle have is in judging the speed of cyclists, whether that is approach speed at junctions, or the speed of a cyclist in a dedicated lane in otherwise slow moving traffic where there can be a significant differential in speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a motorist indicates and maneuvers in good time, and a collision occurs from an undertaking road user coming too fast or not paying attention, then the motorist is most certainly not in the wrong. Not all cyclists are drivers you know, and a lot of them are pretty dim when it comes to road sense.

 

Which is why, when you're driving round in a big tin box, it's your legal and moral duty to look out for them and not squash them.

 

I do accept that there are circumstances, particularly with commercials, where once the driver has started to turn into a side road, the cycle lane would then be in their blind spot. I would hope that before commencing the manoeuvre, the driver should be aware of this and observe as far back as possible.

If someone following them, directly behind, in another blind spot, chooses to dive up the inside, then I can understand that the lorry/van driver would not be at fault.

A good friend of mine was killed that way, many years ago.

 

I used to drive a Fiat Doblo at work before I retired; that had a nearside blind spot big enough to lose a small car. I can remember joining a roundabout, from the right hand lane of a 2 lane dual carriageway; I wanted the 3rd or 4th exit, and was in the correct lane. I was also aware of a small black car to my left.

We set off at the same time, but because they were to my left rear quarter, on a right hand bend, they were completely invisible to me, however hard I looked.

I'd no idea if they had taken a prior exit or were still along side me. I indicated left whilst passing the exit before mine and made sure I didn't cut across;

i.e. I went for the right hand lane of the two on my exit. Just as well as the little black car then appeared on my front nearside quarter.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer as they then cut straight across my bows to overtake someone else.

Fortunately I was aware, but imagine if the car had joined from the next entry, rather than mine. I'd have had no idea they were there.

 

I always reckon, that if I can see the driver's face in their mirror, not just their mirror itself, at least I'm giving them a sporting chance of seeing me.

 

is most enlightening.

 

Your avatar speaks volumes by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er no. It is up to the motorist turning left to ensure they do so without the cyclist having to alter their speed. Signalling an intention to turn does not mean other road users should alter their progress to accommodate that. One of the difficulties that motorists who don't cycle have is in judging the speed of cyclists, whether that is approach speed at junctions, or the speed of a cyclist in a dedicated lane in otherwise slow moving traffic where there can be a significant differential in speed.

 

Really. Well god help the filtering cyclist who pops round the left turning car, because he is gonna get squashed. And other road users do have to alter their speed when a vehicle indicates left, or right for that matter. Or they might just end up in the turning vehicles boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I always reckon, that if I can see the driver's face in their mirror, not just their mirror itself, at least I'm giving them a sporting chance of seeing me.

 

is most enlightening.

 

Your avatar speaks volumes by the way.

 

This has reminded me of a sign I saw on the back of a truck the other day that stated 'if you can't see my mirrors, then I can't see you', or words to that effect.

 

I wondered how many people would misinterpret that as 'if you can see my mirrors, then I can see you'. I bet it is a fair few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has reminded me of a sign I saw on the back of a truck the other day that stated 'if you can't see my mirrors, then I can't see you', or words to that effect.

 

I wondered how many people would misinterpret that as 'if you can see my mirrors, then I can see you'. I bet it is a fair few.

 

Ive seen that sign too. Theres also some markings on the back of lorries that lets you know its pretty big, and years ago it said the word long vehicle. Like everything else, a lot of road users dont take their own safety as seriously as they take blaming someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive seen that sign too. Theres also some markings on the back of lorries that lets you know its pretty big, and years ago it said the word long vehicle. Like everything else, a lot of road users dont take their own safety as seriously as they take blaming someone else.

 

'Long vehicle' really should be enough, more than required if anything - common sense really: when driving behind a very large vehicle, or attempting to pass it, realise that it's not as manoeuvrable as you if you are in a car or bike. People just do what they want then sue when it eventually catches up with them.

 

Why the need for more and more signs just baffles me. How stupid are people?

 

These days, it ALL boils down to insurance/lawyers in accident management. The whole blame culture revolves around it. Common sense has been defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really. Well god help the filtering cyclist who pops round the left turning car, because he is gonna get squashed. And other road users do have to alter their speed when a vehicle indicates left, or right for that matter. Or they might just end up in the turning vehicles boot.

 

I was responding specifically to your point about people being in the cycling lane. If you are in a cycle lane you are not filtering. You were saying that people could turn left in front of people in that lane and that people in the cycle lane should slow to allow that. If that's not what you meant then you need to select your words more carefully and not alter your subsequent argument to get out of it.

Edited by stifflersmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any left turning vehicle should only cross the cycle lane when it's safe to do so. As already said, mirror signal manoeuvre, it's basic stuff.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 22:55 ----------

 

Really. Well god help the filtering cyclist who pops round the left turning car, because he is gonna get squashed. And other road users do have to alter their speed when a vehicle indicates left, or right for that matter. Or they might just end up in the turning vehicles boot.

 

Is a cyclist filtering through traffic if they are cycling in the cycle lane ?

Edited by pb1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are in a cycle lane you are not filtering. You were saying that people could turn left in front of people in that lane and that people in the cycle lane should slow to allow that. If that's not what you meant then you need to select your words more carefully and not alter your subsequent argument to get out of it.

 

 

Is a cyclist filtering through traffic if they are cycling in the cycle lane ?

 

Whether you are "filtering", or not is irrelevant. If you are trying to pass another vehicle, then you are overtaking. So, Highway Code rule 167 is all that you need to know.

 

Just don't filter past junctions. If cyclists do that and motorists check their mirrors, far fewer people will die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether you are "filtering", or not is irrelevant. If you are trying to pass another vehicle, then you are overtaking. So, Highway Code rule 167 is all that you need to know.

 

Just don't filter past junctions. If cyclists do that and motorists check their mirrors, far fewer people will die.

 

You can't educate pork.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 23:33 ----------

 

I was responding specifically to your point about people being in the cycling lane. If you are in a cycle lane you are not filtering. You were saying that people could turn left in front of people in that lane and that people in the cycle lane should slow to allow that. If that's not what you meant then you need to select your words more carefully and not alter your subsequent argument to get out of it.

 

I dont give a crap what you think. Are you challenged? I will see if Smiths still have a good selection of crayons for you.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 23:36 ----------

 

'Long vehicle' really should be enough, more than required if anything - common sense really: when driving behind a very large vehicle, or attempting to pass it, realise that it's not as manoeuvrable as you if you are in a car or bike. People just do what they want then sue when it eventually catches up with them.

 

Why the need for more and more signs just baffles me. How stupid are people?

 

These days, it ALL boils down to insurance/lawyers in accident management. The whole blame culture revolves around it. Common sense has been defeated.

 

It's a pain but a necessary one. Too much blame and claim culture. Added to the fact that a huge number of road users are no brighter than a ten watt bulb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't educate pork.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 23:33 ----------

 

 

I dont give a crap what you think. Are you challenged? I will see if Smiths still have a good selection of crayons for you.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 23:36 ----------

 

 

It's a pain but a necessary one. Too much blame and claim culture. Added to the fact that a huge number of road users are no brighter than a ten watt bulb.

 

No matter how much you decide to make an abusive argument and ad hominen attacks; the simple fact that they are right and you are wrong remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X