CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 55 min ago

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 9:49pm
I think it is inevitable taht at some point people are going to have to reverse out. To do so quickly is clearly wrong, but if you are doing so carefully I wouldn't describe that as being negligent. As with all shared, public spaces you need to take responsibility for your own safety. Cars are allowed to cross pavements at dropped kerbs , if you are using the pavement you need to take account of that. Obviously the driver needs to take the necessary precautions too, inching out slowly is what is required here I suspect.

Re: Speed awareness courses (instructors' knowledge)

24 July 2015 - 9:10pm
My eldest passed her test a few years ago. Given that both her parents cycle to work I was interested to know what her instructor (who came highly recommended ) would say about how to drive carefully around cyclists.

Absolutely nothing. She said in all her lessons cyclists were never mentioned.

Jan

Re: very very clever?!? Glasgow bus stop built in cycle lane

24 July 2015 - 9:07pm
But here in Glasgow the cycle lane has now been re routed around the back of the bus shelter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33655667

BUT by taking away nearly all of the pedestrian space! If I were a pedestrian there I would now be complaining.
So much for Commonwealth Games regeneration money being wisely spent!

Re: Car Width over the ages

24 July 2015 - 8:43pm
Here's an example: Mk1 next to latest version (mk 6?) VW Golf - newer one is significantly bigger.
http://www.newspress.co.uk/downloads/me ... 207_01.JPG

Re: Speed awareness courses (instructors' knowledge)

24 July 2015 - 8:39pm
Si wrote:Do you, though, think that that is what the instructor actually said, or what your neighbour believes the instructor said?My thoughts too!

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 8:18pm
Lance Dopestrong wrote:If her skills are such that you're incapable of reversing a car into a driveway then she shouldn't be in charge of a car in the first place. If I'd driven a vehicle nose first into a bay when I was in the army or the feds I'd have been given a right bollocking.
Well, armed weapons are parked towards vehicles, unarmed vehicles are parked pointing away from buildings....

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 7:49pm
Tonyf33 wrote:reversing blindly out of a driveway is anti social behaviour at best, dangerous driving at worst.
About time it was reported in the media as such and the police took a stance and prosecuted people with FPN.
Excuses like parking nose in due to an incident with another car in another country with regard to fingers that happened years ago is no excuse all...the potential to cause greater injury from any action has to mean you have to take greater responsibility... a bit like the muppet in the wagon turning blindly into the path of that motorcycle

Glad you know our situation so well.

I posted to point out that, as with all H&S decisions, there is a balance to be made. In our case we have made a reasoned decision to park nose first, based on a number of factors - including one fairly serious incident. It is the correct decision in our case - a decision the HC supports being made locally.

In the case in the OP there is a significant issue with visibility, and probably would be similar if driving out forwards TBH - as has already been pointed out the driver would need to nose out by a metre or more to be able to see down the pavement.

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 6:59pm
If her skills are such that you're incapable of reversing a car into a driveway then she shouldn't be in charge of a car in the first place. If I'd driven a vehicle nose first into a bay when I was in the army or the feds I'd have been given a right bollocking.

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 6:43pm
reversing blindly out of a driveway is anti social behaviour at best, dangerous driving at worst.
About time it was reported in the media as such and the police took a stance and prosecuted people with FPN.
Excuses like parking nose in due to an incident with another car in another country with regard to fingers that happened years ago is no excuse all...the potential to cause greater injury from any action has to mean you have to take greater responsibility... a bit like the muppet in the wagon turning blindly into the path of that motorcycle

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 5:13pm
scrumpydave wrote:It seems to me the problem started here when she drove forwards into her driveway the night before meaning she had to reverse out with limited visibility. This was the moment of negligence.

Welcome to the forum. I'm glad that both you and your son are OK.

Highway Code.
201

Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

It's an advisory bit. Reversing out could be a factor in establishing liability in the event of an incident but it would be one of many factors.

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 4:14pm
ferdinand wrote:People coming past have to take some responsibility too. It is a pavement not a playground.
It's a pavement, not a road.

You should expect small, slow, deaf, vulnerable people.

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 4:08pm
The woman could have mitigated that by coming out forward, and that is often now a planning condition on newbuilds to be able to leave in a forward gear. However even then she still has to nudge out 1-1.5m before she can see if the visibility is tight.

Sometimes there's little that can be done, unless you hoot each time before you come out.

In our case we have tight walls both sides of the drive with preservation orders on them at the very edge of the lane, which is only 5m only. Fortunately as it is a back lane in town I have just put a pair of blind spot mirrors on the telegraph pole opposite without asking anyone.

It still isn't ideal though.

People coming past have to take some responsibility too. It is a pavement not a playground.

Ferdinand

Re: Is the entire field of view blocked for an HGV?

24 July 2015 - 3:48pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:So elderly deaf people are still legitimate targets.

Surely cameras would be a better technical solution. The problem is that you can't see, how does shouting resolve that problem?

Because then it doesn't become 'their' problem. They've given us sufficient warning and so they are not accountable to any dangerous behaviour.

Re: how do u tell a mad cyclist from a sane one?

24 July 2015 - 3:43pm
GrumpyCyclist wrote:Was there more to the film than Jenny Agutter? I don't remember for some reasonThat's exactly the same remark as I make, when talking about An American Werewolf in London. Why is that, I wonder? Probably something to do with the time the films were made (1970s/80s ). And perhaps something to do with the inestimable Ms A.

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 3:32pm
There should be a simple rule: if you cannot see where you are reversing, you either shouldn't be reversing in the first place, or you should have a 'banksman' to guide you.

Regarding parking on a slope: I recall an incident from way back when I was a kid. We had the opposite situation: the driveway had a steep slope up to the house. Well, we were getting ready to set off on a camping holiday, the car was at the top of the drive, and my father was busy loading up stuff on the roof rack, when all of a sudden the car began to roll backwards down the slope. It shot out and across the road. My father, who was nearest, sprinted alongside, wrestled with the driver's door and finally managed to wrench it open and seize the handbrake, and the car stopped short just before smashing into a brick wall opposite. Furthermore, there was a motorcyclist coming along the road: he had to react in a split second and mount the pavement (luckily there was a dropped kerb in his path) to avoid a collision. Although badly shaken, the motorcyclist was unhurt, and my father was profusely apologetic. I think my father was very lucky that the motorcyclist didn't choose to call the police. And even luckier that there wasn't a pedestrian or cyclist approaching...

Re: Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 2:46pm
We park nose to the house - for safety reasons.

The drive is on a slope, and we don't want the doors to slam shut onto little fingers (several years back, whilst we were touring the south-western US a car door, falling under gravity, broke MrsBob's fingers (major pain) by slamming on them - and the door latched, MrsBob couldn't open the door, just because of the angles of everything...

So we park nose down.

We do have reasonably good visibility when reversing though - no walls or hedges right next to the car (another advantage of only having one car, it doesn't need to be pegged against one side or the other) - but still do so very carefully.

how do u tell a mad cyclist from a sane one?

24 July 2015 - 2:40pm
brooksby wrote:Having flashbacks to Logan's Run, here. Hmm, Jenny Agutter...

Was there more to the film than Jenny Agutter? I don't remember for some reason

Motorists' visibility mark II

24 July 2015 - 2:16pm
Hi all

New to this board but I've been active on other cycling websites over the years.

I've been thinking about all the attention the lorry driver blindly running into a motorbike has been getting, in particular the claim on the BBC article that the driver wasn't acting negligently. It reminded me of an incident I had with my son a couple of weeks ago.

We were on our way to nursery as normal that morning, and he was a little ahead of me on the pavement on his balance bike. The street is lined both sides with semis with driveways in front separated from the pavement by walls and often hedges too. My son suddenly stopped which drew my attention and immediately a car reversed hurriedly out one of the driveways and when the driver saw my son through her side window she looked at me apologetically suggesting to me that she knew she should have been more careful. Needless to say I'm very glad my son is so cautious around traffic.

She couldn't see him in her mirrors on his bike behind the wall and hedge of her house, and for whatever reason decided that she didn't have time to reverse cautiously. But even if she had reversed cautiously her view was blocked so she would have been reliant on people realising she was coming out and stopping. Quite frankly I don't think it should be my responsibility to do her seeing for her.

It seems to me the problem started here when she drove forwards into her driveway the night before meaning she had to reverse out with limited visibility. This was the moment of negligence.

Google Streetview shows most cars on the street parked facing towards the house, yet this is a clear source of additional danger. So my question is - am I overthinking this? Are these things just clearer to me than they are to other people? Or am I a bigoted anti-car zealot who should keep to my own kind on internet forums?

Because my patience is wearing a bit thin with motorists not taking proper responsibility around people.

Re: Pedestrians' view of bells ?

24 July 2015 - 1:53pm
pwa wrote:I know there are valid concerns about the width of shared use paths / tracks, but I don't think that you need to be on a narrow tack to find a bell useful. I use a bell on country lanes when approaching pedestrians from behind, and it is a great way of getting them to move to one side or the other without stress to either of us.
Oh, yes they are useful and I always have one fitted to my own bikes. My point wasn't just about widths actually, though narrow widths make the situation worse. I don't think shared use is appropriate where there are high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists. Such paths should be segregated. Your narrow country lane is a good analogy. Such roads are fine where pedestrians and vehicles are few. It is no great inconvenience to negotiate one's way through. On roads which see any significant traffic though we segregate the pedestrian traffic from the vehicular traffic and we would think it ridiculous for it to be any other way. It is a nuisance for a cyclist to be slowing and ringing a bell all the time. Likewise it is tiresome whilst walking to be constantly looking round, having one's peace disturbed by bells and having to move to the side.

Or it would be if people had and used bells! Last night I took a walk on a well used local shared use path. Mindful of this thread I counted 36 cyclists who passed me from behind. The number of bells sounded: 0

Re: Pedestrians' view of bells ?

24 July 2015 - 1:46pm
mjr wrote:MikeF wrote:NEVER ring a bell near horses. You could cause a serious accident. Approach horses with caution and cycle appropriately!!!!!
Well, ring it well before you get near. If a horse is spooked by a noise from the sort of distance I ring from, then they're probably not here and definitely not on the roads.+1

Nice and early is the way to do it.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions