Almost knocked Off. Why Cycle Lanes are Bad.

Coming home from work. Road has parked cars on nearside with cycle lane
within door range of parked cars. So shoulder check then out into main
lane of the road. Its a wide road So cars can still pass me with 2 or 3
feet clearance despite oncoming traffic.
Then a car almost hit me going by. It's The closest I've had to
being clipped by an overtaking car. Ever. I caught up with it parked at
shops half a mile up the road. I stopped beside it and the driver -
male boy racer type - put his window down.
I said " would you mind giving me more clearance next time you only
missed me by about 3 inches".
He replied "what are you talking about".
I said " back there you almost hit me when you overtook me"
He said " you should have been in the cycle lane"
I pointed out to him I had moved out passing parked cars that wherever
I was on the road he should still give enough clearance. I had to leave
then. I was starting to lose my temper.
I was wearing a bright red jacket so he couldn't have missed seeing
me. I think he decided to get as close to me as possible because I was
in "the wrong place" on the road.
And for what its worth a driver did come out of one of the parked
cars as I passed it. A likely dooring if I hadn't moved out.
Iain

" wrote:

Coming home from work. Road has parked cars on nearside with cycle
lane within door range of parked cars. So shoulder check then out
into main lane of the road. Its a wide road So cars can still pass me
with 2 or 3 feet clearance despite oncoming traffic......

The "shoulder check" is a useful thing when you are looking to switch
traffic lanes (or as a final check for overtaking traffic before turning
right), but if you are not making a lane change then you are not
"negotiating" from a non-priority position, and you should be making a
smooth transition rather than "moving out" to pass parked cars. Also if
something is parked in front of me that is likely to be opening doors then
that is *not* the time to be looking *behind*!

Adrian Boliston wrote:
" wrote:


Coming home from work. Road has parked cars on nearside with cycle
lane within door range of parked cars. So shoulder check then out
into main lane of the road. Its a wide road So cars can still pass me
with 2 or 3 feet clearance despite oncoming traffic......


The "shoulder check" is a useful thing when you are looking to switch
traffic lanes (or as a final check for overtaking traffic before turning
right), but if you are not making a lane change then you are not
"negotiating" from a non-priority position, and you should be making a
smooth transition rather than "moving out" to pass parked cars. Also if
something is parked in front of me that is likely to be opening doors then
that is *not* the time to be looking *behind*!



The "shoulder check" otherwise known as "The Life Saver" is to be used
whenever a road user changes direction. The original post is quite
correct and the sequence states he checked to the rear before moving out
to pass parked vehicles not that he was looking behind as he passed the
parked vehicles.

MSPSL, or for bikes without mirrors, LSPSL.

Enough said

Sniper8052

wrote:
Coming home from work. Road has parked cars on nearside with cycle lane
within door range of parked cars. So shoulder check then out into main
lane of the road. Its a wide road So cars can still pass me with 2 or 3
feet clearance despite oncoming traffic.
Then a car almost hit me going by. It's The closest I've had to
being clipped by an overtaking car. Ever. I caught up with it parked at
shops half a mile up the road. I stopped beside it and the driver -
male boy racer type - put his window down.
I said " would you mind giving me more clearance next time you only
missed me by about 3 inches".
He replied "what are you talking about".
I said " back there you almost hit me when you overtook me"
He said " you should have been in the cycle lane"
I pointed out to him I had moved out passing parked cars that wherever
I was on the road he should still give enough clearance. I had to leave
then. I was starting to lose my temper.
I was wearing a bright red jacket so he couldn't have missed seeing
me. I think he decided to get as close to me as possible because I was
in "the wrong place" on the road.
And for what its worth a driver did come out of one of the parked
cars as I passed it. A likely dooring if I hadn't moved out.
Iain


Should have told him the road markings were to there to warn cyclists of
the keep clear of opening car door zone. ;-)

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

I had exactly the same experience recently, and posted here. I didn't
get to talk to the driver, but I'm also convinced it was the same as in
your case, ie driver doing it on purpose because they want you out of
"their" bit of the road. It's hard to believe that anyone is so stupid
not to realise the consequences if the draught from the car had made
you wobble that three inches and the mirror had clipped your
handlebars, but they must be that stupid.

Something posted here in the last few weeks had stats from London
showing that riding in the door zone is the single greatest cause of
cyclists killed.

I had a few emails back and forth with the local cycling officer, which
ended with her stating that (a) there wasn't room on the road to put
the cycle lane anywhere other than in the door zone for the designated
on-street parking, and (b) she thought it better to have designated
cycle lanes covering the door zone as this encouraged cyclists to use
the road, rather than not have cycle lanes.

On 7 Jun 2005 02:03:14 -0700, "iakobski" wrote:

Something posted here in the last few weeks had stats from London
showing that riding in the door zone is the single greatest cause of
cyclists killed.

I had a few emails back and forth with the local cycling officer, which
ended with her stating that (a) there wasn't room on the road to put
the cycle lane anywhere other than in the door zone for the designated
on-street parking, and (b) she thought it better to have designated
cycle lanes covering the door zone as this encouraged cyclists to use
the road, rather than not have cycle lanes.

If a cyclist is killed or injured whilst cycling in a cycle lane that runs to
the right of designated parking spaces, would it not be possible to sue the
appropriate authority, since it should have been clear to them that channeling
cyclists into an area where they are at greatest danger of being in a serious
accident as a result of motorist's carelessness is negligent in the extreme?

I suggest that you write back to the cycling officer (on paper), copy to the
council chief executive, telling her that you have explained the danger into
which they are leading cyclists, and assuring them that if a cyclist IS killed
of injured as a result of this stupid practice, you will be available at any
subsequent proceedings to ensure that the court is made aware that the council
had prior knowledge of the danger.

I think that might make them have a bit of a rethink. It might even save
someone's life.

That's a very good idea. I feel strongly enough about this to actually
do that.

On 7 Jun 2005 02:03:14 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
wrote this:-

(b) she thought it better to have designated
cycle lanes covering the door zone as this encouraged cyclists to use
the road,

A most tortured piece of "logic". You should indeed send the second
letter, perhaps backing this up with a letter to the local paper.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

iakobski wrote:
(b) she thought it better to have designated
cycle lanes covering the door zone as this encouraged cyclists to use
the road, rather than not have cycle lanes.

Is there any evidence that a lack of cycle lanes discourages cyclists?
(I'm only considering non-segregated lanes here - there do seem to
be a number of cyclists who will only use offroad cycle lanes)

Pete.

David Hansen wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 02:03:14 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
wrote this:-

(b) she thought it better to have designated
cycle lanes covering the door zone as this encouraged cyclists to use
the road,

A most tortured piece of "logic". You should indeed send the second
letter, perhaps backing this up with a letter to the local paper.

Completely Monty Python, but I've heard precisely this argument before
from the official who was drawing up plans for a door zone cycling lane
in Brentford.

--
Dave...