Driving standards

[Michael Hodgson]

The sign is a hazard because some motorists are stupid enough to drive into it.

[Grovenor]

And ignoring it leading to excess speed is a hazard, given, I assume, this is just a PC test and not a driving simulator the software has no other way of checking that you will obey the sign.

[JDW]

20 hours ago, adb968008 said:

What is an appropriate speed, and what is Sheer luck ?

 

 

One at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Yes, there will always be unexpected events. That doesn't excuse not being prepared for the predictable ones though.

 

Regarding the follow-up points, the fact that the sign was close to the van is irrelevant. If there had been no sign, it would be equally irrelevant. Yes, it's nice to have a sign so you can plan ahead, and it would have been more useful by the sounds of it to have placed it with more thought - I can certainly see why a badly-placed sign would be frustrating -  but the absence of any prior warning does not mean the absence of danger. The fact that it was a badly placed warning sign is ironic, but doesn't change the fact that it was an obstruction. 

 

If you replaced all of the word 'cycle' with 'car' or 'driver', there's be uproar at a car driver having to swerve because he couldn't stop in time. As much as I agree with the need to respect the more vulnerable road users, I do think they also need to be held to account for their actions more frequently, especially cyclists. I've ridden a bike, I know what it's like. I know it can be scary. But at the same time, people need to take some personal responsibilty for their own actions, and we need to crack down on things like doding through traffic, sneaking up the inside of large vehicles when they're signalling to turn, etc. As an experienced driver of large vehicles, I can't believe how often a cyclist would try and pass while I was signalling to turn - and I think the London idea that large vehicles need illuminated warning signs to warn cyclists not to pass is utterly crazy. They already have them. Indicators. If a cyclist can't see them, doesn't understand them or chooses not to act on them - and every bus has at least two visible from the rear - then what's the point adding in more?

[caradoc]

On 19/01/2022 at 13:14, Reorte said:

I'm afraid I'm definitely on the other side of this, a stationary object should not be regarded as an unnecessary risk (unless made very hard to see), it's only a risk if you put yourself in a position to make it one

 

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't quoted my personal example ! It was just a reply to the perfectly reasonable question, 'why do cyclists not use cycle lanes', but I still consider a van parked blocking the lane without adequate warning, in conjunction with the closely spaced bollards, presented a wholly unnecessary risk, due to lack of consideration for others. 

 

On 19/01/2022 at 13:27, Nick C said:

So what if it had been, instead of a road sign, a small child just round that corner, who'd just fallen off their bike? 

 

Do exactly what I did, swerve to avoid him/her. 

[leopardml2341]

23 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The sign is a hazard because some motorists are stupid enough to drive into it.

Initially replied with text meant for another quote. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by leopardml2341

[leopardml2341]

23 hours ago, Grovenor said:

And ignoring it leading to excess speed is a hazard, given, I assume, this is just a PC test and not a driving simulator the software has no other way of checking that you will obey the sign.

But then surely, and unknown to the assessment criteria, the driver is the hazard?

 

Nothing has changed in respect of the sign, its position, form or function so the PC still thinks the sign is the hazard.

 

The 'driver's' actions and reactions to the sign within a static scene cannot be assessed by the software in a way that would influence the outcome of the hazard perception assessment of the candidate. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by leopardml2341

[caradoc]

20 hours ago, JDW said:

But at the same time, people need to take some personal responsibilty for their own actions, and we need to crack down on things like doding through traffic, sneaking up the inside of large vehicles when they're signalling to turn, etc.

 

I agree, and I don't do either on those things on my bike. However, on the very same ride on which I encountered the van blocking the cycle lane, I also had the following experiences;

 

Stopped (yes, stopped !) at traffic lights, behind a couple of cars, only for another car to stop, not behind but closely alongside me, leaving very little room for me to move off safely when the lights changed, and;

 

After turning left at those lights a car was coming down my side of the road - towards me ! Someone who just had to park on that side of the road, instead of on their own side, just to save an extra 5 yard walk. Luckily they did not hit me. 

 

 

[big jim]

Just riding to the station on my bike and I could see in my mirror there was a Range Rover behind me, doing nothing unusual, nothing untoward, a bit close and revving but nothing of concern, anyway I got to a line of about 100m of parked cars on my side of the road, haft dozen or so cars coming the other way, plenty of room for me to get though, the Range Rover tried his luck and I suddenly heard a sickening ‘Crunch’ behind me, thought he must have hit the car coming the other way (which was already 3/4 of the way along line of parked cars) 

 

looked back and the near side front wheel of the range rover was hanging off, it pulled in at the end of the cars and the wheel was at 90 degrees to the arch! must have somehow hit one of the parked cars and ripped the hub off! 

[rockershovel]

... if you think a Range Rover, too close and revving it's engine, isn't a source of concern then I can only admire your sang-froid. 

 

Range Rovers give me the heebie-jeebies. They are a 2-tonne version of those small hatchbacks with 4" exhausts and tinted windows; an economy-size version of those lunatics in 3 Series BMW coupes. 

 

 

[big jim]

1 minute ago, rockershovel said:

... if you think a Range Rover, too close and revving it's engine, isn't a source of concern then I can only admire your sang-froid. 

 

Range Rovers give me the heebie-jeebies. They are a 2-tonne version of those small hatchbacks with 4" exhausts and tinted windows; an economy-size version of those lunatics in 3 Series BMW coupes. 

 

 

i did think he was being a bit of a dick but   I’ve dealt with worse, I ride through small heath and sparkbrook, that’s an eye opener! 
 

end of the day karmas a bitch as they say 
 

 

[boxbrownie]

Presumably the RR was stationary?

[SamThomas]

On 15/01/2022 at 20:16, Reorte said:

Mind you they're not as annoying as very bight strobing bike lights. Flashing lights on bikes seemed reasonable when they weren't very bright, now they can be as bright as headlights I find them a real menace if they're flashing away.

The flashing ones*** are a menace - try driving an HGV when you have a gaggle of them alongside & behind you - it makes it very diffecult to judge who far they are actually away from you, so cyclists believe they are safer when they are actually putting themselves in danger.

 

*** Those that flash to some sort of pattern are even worse than those that simply go on & off.

[big jim]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

Presumably the RR was stationary?

No the Range Rover was following me and hit a stationary car somehow ripping its wheel backwards, I can only assume it turned in toward the parked car when the car that had right off way coming the other way got close and it clipped it at an angle, whatever happened there was no way he was getting posts the parked cars until the cars heading towards had cleared them anyway so what he was thinking I don’t know! 

 

one of those, how the hell did that just happen moments, typically my go pro ran out of battery 45 seconds before or you could have seen the line of cars and heard the crunch!  

Edited January 21, 2022 by big jim

[SamThomas]

On 15/01/2022 at 23:54, PhilJ W said:

Most of the street lights locally have been replaced with LED lights. Despite all their advantages one drawback is that they seem to create dark shadows that can hide a pedestrian or cyclist, especially if they are wearing dark clothing. Not a problem but one peculiar effect is beyond a certain distance in front they become invisible whereas more conventional lighting would be clearly seen. Revival of the 'Wear something light at night' campaign would  help. 

To me it appears to be an issue where the old lighting heads have been replace with LED ones.

Does not seem to be an issue where the lamp standards & heads are new as they seem to be a little closer together.

[SamThomas]

On 18/01/2022 at 22:01, Michael Hodgson said:

If you fail a re-test and you drive for a living, that's you out of work ... can't see that being too popular with the electorate.

 If you have a "vocational licience" (that is LGV/PCV) you can be out of work effectivly is you fail an employers internal assemenet, ot a Traffic Commissioner can pull that part of your licence without a court hearing.

 

Re-testing would not be a problem if it was based on a MOT - take your refresher before your licence runs out to give you time to retrain.

 

The only members of the electorate that would not like it will be those who know they are likely to fail.

 

 

[SamThomas]

On 19/01/2022 at 09:26, 30801 said:

 

It's infuriating.

If you need your license don't drive like a tit then.

 

Or a Thunderbolt - careful, careful, careful.

[SamThomas]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Range Rovers give me the heebie-jeebies. They are a 2-tonne version of those small hatchbacks with 4" exhausts and tinted windows; an economy-size version of those lunatics in 3 Series BMW coupes.

You are wrong about the weight - "proper" RR's are over 2.5T.

 

Not everyone who drivers a RR is a homicidal maniac, same as the drivers of Audi's, BMW's or small hatchbacks with Carlos Fandago wheels &/or drainpipe exhausts.

 

Not every cyclist is terminally stupid either.

[leopardml2341]

Trouble is that it always seems to be the stupid ones who 'get away with their actions' whilst others suffer them.

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, big jim said:

No the Range Rover was following me and hit a stationary car somehow ripping its wheel backwards, I can only assume it turned in toward the parked car when the car that had right off way coming the other way got close and it clipped it at an angle, whatever happened there was no way he was getting posts the parked cars until the cars heading towards had cleared them anyway so what he was thinking I don’t know! 

 

one of those, how the hell did that just happen moments, typically my go pro ran out of battery 45 seconds before or you could have seen the line of cars and heard the crunch!  

No, sorry I meant when he was revving his engine.

 

If he’d revv’ed the engine in drive it would have been a different outcome 

 

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, leopardml2341 said:

Trouble is that it always seems to be the stupid ones who 'get away with their actions' whilst others suffer them.

Isn’t this true for just about everything* in life? 
 

*sky diving and sword swallowing excepted 

Edited January 21, 2022 by boxbrownie

[big jim]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

No, sorry I meant when he was revving his engine.

 

If he’d revv’ed the engine in drive it would have been a different outcome 

 

he was revving up and closing the gap behind me then braking and dropping back, like he was about to overtake me then changing his mind, did it a few times 

[boxbrownie]

3 minutes ago, big jim said:

he was revving up and closing the gap behind me then braking and dropping back, like he was about to overtake me then changing his mind, did it a few times 

then 

 

Edit : I typed D1ckh3ad…..but for some odd reason it deleted the word 

Edited January 21, 2022 by boxbrownie

[Titan]

4 hours ago, SamThomas said:

You are wrong about the weight - "proper" RR's are over 2.5T.

 

Not everyone who drivers a RR is a homicidal maniac, same as the drivers of Audi's, BMW's or small hatchbacks with Carlos Fandago wheels &/or drainpipe exhausts.

 

Not every cyclist is terminally stupid either.

 

Nah, the "Proper" RR had a kerb weight of 1750kg and a payload of 750kg taking it up to 2.5T GVW.  And a twin carb Rover V8.  And legally permitted to haul a 4T trailer if fitted with coupled brakes - usually vacuum operated, giving a GTW of 6.5 tonnes! 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Titan

[big jim]

45 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

then 

 

Edit : I typed D1ckh3ad…..but for some odd reason it deleted the word 

 
d1ckhead with a broken car now! 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

Nah, the "Proper" RR had a kerb weight of 1750kg and a payload of 750kg taking it up to 2.5T GVW.  And a twin carb Rover V8.  And legally permitted to haul a 4T trailer if fitted with coupled brakes - usually vacuum operated, giving a GTW of 6.5 tonnes! 

I'd tend to regard such distinctions as essentially "beside the point"....