300h from IS250 owners - opinions please!

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

I regularly meet the local cycling club on country lanes when they are riding 4-5 deep and taking up slightly more than half the road. Very dangerous. They hold their formation and the outer riders furiously wave their arm and force cars over to the edge and to a virtual stop. The Police have been informed. Reckless idiots in my book I’m afraid.

I really like the double standards as well... - enthusiastically driving the car on country lane - "maniac", racing bicycles or preparing for tournament when blocking all the traffic ... "well that is completely fine". If you overtake - "you have done it too close and to fast and you are killer", don't overtake when there was "plenty of space'"- it is apparently "frustrating when they feel you behind them, " - damn if you do damn if you don't.

[paulrnx]

Just now, Linas.P said:

I really like the double standards as well... - enthusiastically driving the car on country lane - "maniac", racing bicycles or preparing for tournament when blocking all the traffic ... "well that is completely fine". If you overtake - "you have done it too close and to fast and you are killer", don't overtake when there was "plenty of space'"- it is apparently "frustrating when they feel you behind them, " - damn if you do damn if you don't.

Got to the point where I now know when and where they are and I avoid them like the plague

[MartinH]

17 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

Got to the point where I now know when and where they are and I avoid them like the plague

That would seem to be a win-win then

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, MartinH said:

That would seem to be a win-win then

Unless somebody maybe needs to get to work, or go to buy some food, or reach customer at set-time on the set day. For pleasure sure if one can avoid each other is nicer for both cyclists and motorists, but I am not sure why cyclist feel entitled to deny public road to the public and even be smug about it? 

Somebody sent me this meme and I think it illustrates the situation quite well (who have not seen the movie Captain Phillips may not understand):

[royoftherovers]

5 minutes ago, MartinH said:

That would seem to be a win-win then

History reveals.....

[doog442]

42 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Unless somebody maybe needs to get to work, or go to buy some food, or reach customer at set-time on the set day. For pleasure sure if one can avoid each other is nicer for both cyclists and motorists, but I am not sure why cyclist feel entitled to deny public road to the public and even be smug about it? 

Somebody sent me this meme and I think it illustrates the situation quite well (who have not seen the movie Captain Phillips may not understand):

Many motorists been wiped out by cyclists lately ? The last thing a cyclist feels is 'smug', more than anything they just want to avoid impatient angry motorists. A road is designed for many road users not just you. 

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, doog442 said:

A road is designed for many road users not just you. 

Exactly. 

[doog442]

46 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

History reveals.....

Hilarious

[Linas.P]

Cars and bicycles simply could not safely share the same road, that is why there are pavements for pedestrians, that is why cars don't share train tracks, that is why trains don't drive on the airstrips, that is why you don't see pedal boats in busy ports leisurely paddling in between massive cruise and container ships. There is time and space for everything, but not necessary everything could happen at the same time in the same space. 

The idea that slow and light bicycle propelled by human own muscle strength could safely share the same space with car which is more than 10s times heavier, 100s of times more powerful and much faster is just fundamentally flawed. Result of this flawed idea is cyclist causalities... and they are not caused by drivers, they caused by flawed concept, flawed idea and as result flawed infrastructure. 

When was the last time cyclist was killed by the car when riding on the pavement? or cycling path in forest? or by the beach? Never... because cars don't drive there.

The issue is not "bad and angry drivers", the whole idea that somehow drivers should be responsible for the safety of cyclists is just stupid. It just shows that the way the roads are designed is not safe... so why do we design and build unsafe roads in the first place, maybe that is where we should start looking first!? This whole blaming each other thing is merely looking into symptom of the problem, but not the underlying cause.

So it is not the drivers who needs to change, it is the roads which needs to change - the only solution is separating these 2 incompatible vehicles - like cars don't drive on pavements, cyclist should not drive on the roads. And suddenly there are no issue - car simply can't kill the cyclist if cyclist is not in the way. And what if there are no pavements, or no dedicated cycling lanes... well then there should be!

 

[dutchie01]

I have posted this before but it really is tailor made to this thread.

Youtube and look for      How the Dutch got their cycle paths

6 minute clip so not too long

 

[doog442]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Result of this flawed idea is cyclist causalities... and they are not cause by drivers, they caused by flawed concept, flawed idea and as result flawed infrastructure. 

 

If you are incapable of driving a car without reasonable consideration for other road users you really shouldn't be driving. 

That is the law, no ifs, no buts and is totally down to you as the driver of a 1 or 2 ton vehicle capable of causing massive harm .Your manner of driving and acceptance of the road conditions and the hazards you may encounter are absolutely essential.

I've never seen 'flawed concept or flawed idea' put down as the cause of death of a cyclist / Horse rider or pedestrian. 

You should treat every corner as if there's an obstruction on the other side, hence the poster above referring to Police driver training and 'limit point's' . If a road is deemed unsafe for cyclists then they are banned, if not then expect a cyclist to possibly be there or anything else like a broken down vehicle, a tractor or any myriad of things. 

 

[Linas.P]

28 minutes ago, doog442 said:

 reasonable consideration

Causing 20 vehicle tailback, because there is simply no way to overtake "safely" doesn't sound like very "reasonable consideration" from cyclist side either.

I am looking at it from the point of good and fail safe design - if design is good, if it is inherently safe, then nobody needs to take any extra steps.

This is the reason why motorways have (had...) hard shoulders for example - because it was deemed necessary to enable cars to travel at the speed for which the road was designed. That is why there are no intersection on motorways, that's is why there are no surface level crossings of any type. Cyclist are banned on motorways for same reason, but this ban does not go far enough.

If anything it would be far safer to cycle on the hard shoulder on 70MPH motorway, than it is on 40, 50 or 60MPH A or B road without any space for safe overtake at all. So these roads are simply poorly designed, because to enable cars to travel at those speeds and for the roads to remain safe they need to be improved further. Why do we only design motorways properly and why don't we apply same principles on other roads (I think know the answer). As soon as speed goes past 10... 12, maybe 15MPH cyclist simply becomes obstacle on the road... and where there are obstacles, the collisions tends to happen.

It has nothing to do with driver "reasonable consideration" - what you saying is basically "we have designed minefield with various obstacles and you should be considerate of them". I am sorry, but I didn't know roads suppose to be some sort of challenge?! That just makes no sense! To ensure efficient and safe travel the goal is to remove as many obstacles and safety risks. And I am not saying all the roads should be 50MPH+, what I am saying even on normal 30MPH city road... it is already unsafe if both car and bicycle shares the same lane, there is already risk for collision and that is what we see every day.

 

[doog442]

8 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It has nothing to do with driver "reasonable consideration" - 

It has everything to do with it and the law recognises it. You really should try studying the Road Traffic Act and the Highway code Linas. I actually forget how many times I've reminded you of this. As a motorist you should drive to the conditions, not what you 'think' the conditions should be Instead of going off on a tangent and blaming everyone because you were slowed by 45 seconds when getting to work for example. 

I would give the same advice to every road user including cyclists, tractor drivers, horse riders, BMW , Audi and last of all Lexus drivers 😉..who are course the decent type.

Someone mentioned group rides, agree they can be a pain but lets be honest it's probably once a week and I would expect them to afford the same courtesy as I do to motorists. However in the big scheme of things 99% of the population would never even come across them. 

Toodlepip..clearly its gone off topic..

[MartinH]

59 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Someone mentioned group rides, agree they can be a pain but lets be honest it's probably once a week and I would expect them to afford the same courtesy as I do to motorists.

It was I who mentioned this. And the reason club rides generally go out early on a Sunday is that we avoid the traffic, and the traffic avoids us. Our aim is to get out in to the lanes, where we hope to avoid vehicle traffic, as soon as we can. And we appreciate the drivers who slow or even pause to let us come on through safely, rather than barrelling through. Why are you in such a hurry? Dwelling for another 30 seconds in your Lexus — a good place to be! — is surely not such an affront, especially when by doing so you afford a civil gesture towards a group of your fellow citizens.

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, doog442 said:

Toodlepip..clearly its gone off topic..

You really should try studying the Road Traffic Act and the Highway code

I certainly can't take blame for that...

What you expect me to find there? It is simple the document written to legitimise poor design, to create the rules which instead of fixing the problem instructs the users on how to work around them. And obviously, it puts all responsibility on the drivers simply because planners failed at the planning stage.

Now I tried to allude to that in my previous post - "we apply same principles on other roads (I think know the answer)"... and the answer is, for government it is easier and cheaper to put the responsibility onto motorists, to create the rules makes it so that issues with road design becomes driver problem... and I would even argue that they do it with full knowledge that it will result is some deaths. Few deaths are just statistics and probably are fully acceptable in grand scheme of things... especially if they can be framed in a way which is convenient. "I am sorry nothing personal - it is just politics!"

Now fair enough, you can say - "sorry mate, you have no power to change the rules" and that is true, but you can't say "you can't criticise the bad rules, which only exists because design sucks in the first place".

And sure, my view is idealistic, but at the same time your view is simplistic if not a little bit ignorant. You look at the rules and you are blindly following them, without ever questioning them or trying to understand if they even make sense, I look at the rules, analyse them, understand them and when they are wrong I criticise them.

[MartinH]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

sure, my view is idealistic

I see no idealism in your views

[Linas.P]

7 minutes ago, MartinH said:

I see no idealism in your views

Oh so you think it is fine to obstruct traffic and irritate the drivers for no good reason apart of your own leisure? Because let's face it - you exercise on your bicycle on Sunday morning isn't for some sort of public benefit... it is purely for you enjoying your free time...

But you don't think that better infrastructure, physically separating cyclist from the cars and thus making roads safer for everyone and ride more pleasant for cyclists is a good idea?

Well ok then... I am sure you have better ideas... like maybe banning all the cars on Sunday, so you lot could have all the country side to yourselves?

[MartinH]

I really have no dispute with you Linas. I don't come here to have ill-tempered rows. Let us agree to differ on this point.

[Sundance]

Uh-oh!  Yet another thread I see where our dear overbearing wealth-managing non-Lexus-driving overseas Forum dweller is making an issue that is well beyond the boundaries of not only sensible and/or reasonable logic but in this instance well outside the realms of due consideration to other road users. 😯

Linas, you have accepted on other threads that you are an impatient and intolerant road user whose driving speeds are often in excess of safety so your views on here are no surprise.  It has even been suggested that your general intemperate temperament might be a contributory factor. 🤔

What you often appear to ignore is the fact that there are others on this planet who have an equal right to express themselves without your constant outspoken criticism and often tyrannical opinion. 🤨

Actually what continues to amaze me is that you have so much time to dedicate to Forum posts when you presume to be in a challenging and burdensome occupation but clearly it is not that demanding or fulfilling.  That said I'm sure that many would prefer for you not to take your frustrations and vexations out on us apparently wretched Lexus owners. 😌

Due diligence when posting can do you no harm and possibly earn you more credibility.  Good luck with that ... 😉

[Linas.P]

I know my ranting may be tiresome for you, but where exactly do you disagree with me? Any particular point? Our you just generally don't like my personality and that is the reason why no argument I have made will ever satisfy you?

[scudney]

Sadly it just goes to show how easy it is for a post that was meant to offer advice/opinion can quickly degenerate into something else especially once speed and power are mentioned 😳

[ganzoom]

I believe the whole cycling bit started about 'enjoying' British roads, personally for me there is no better way to enjoy the British back roads, its an fantastic feeling cresting a hill under your own power with nothing but the sound of birds, and a back drop of sunlight filtering through the morning mist!!

I also love commuting to work on my pedal bike, but due to needing to do the school run/shopping its only a 50:50 split between bike/car.

I don't get why some drivers seem to not understand why people like cycling, or why some cyclists hate cars. For me I use both forms of transport, but for pure 'passion' and 'enjoyment' 2 wheels are simply so much better!!

Anyone whos actually serious about enjoying our roads needs give cycling a go, our IS is a very reliable form of transportation but its about as exciting as watching paint dry when out on a nice bit of road compared to been on my road bike. That's not the fault of the IS, no car can come close the adrenaline buzz you get on a road bike......after all it doesn't take alot to get it wrong and end up flat on your arse. 23mm tyres don't give you much grip in the wet 🙂

Luckily my wife has nearly given me the OK to buy my next n+1 bike despite my 'off' last year........Give me the choice between spending ££££ on a new car versus pedal bike for fun and its a no brainer decision for me.

If allowed this would my next purchase for personal transportation, but at a smidgen under £10k even I admit its rather quite alot to spend on a pedal bike, still I would like to have one :).

[Moleman]

But you don't think that better infrastructure, physically separating cyclist from the cars and thus making roads safer for everyone and ride more pleasant for cyclists is a good idea?

If only they would use such infrastructure, near me a wide road was narrowed by 14ft to produce a physically separate double cycle lane, most normal cyclists use it very safely, guess which ones do not? They wear tight clothing. Sorry their behaviour and reaction to other road users is not reasonable or seeking to get along with other road users, they seek to abuse.

In any situation you can have and see fault on both sides, but when you have been provided with purpose built facilities for your safety why would you choose to create an issue by not using them? 🤔

[ganzoom]

12 minutes ago, Moleman said:

In any situation you can have and see fault on both sides, but when you have been provided with purpose built facilities for your safety why would you choose to create an issue by not using them? 🤔

I've road cycling in the UK for 20 years, I can count on 2 fingers the number of times I had an safety issue involving a car!!

Personally I find very little issue with cyclists or drivers on our roads. The biggest danger when am on my pedal bike is My Self.

23mm wide tyres that spin up with the slightest drop in grip, brakes that really don't work that well at speed more than 20 mph, need to avoid pot holes, and been potentially to be blown across the road (any one whos been out on a road bike in a cross wind will know the feeling), all means the potential for a 'off' on the pedal bike is so much more than been in a car. Seriously try taking a blind corner on a road bike at 20mph, lean in, feel the rear wheels slide, feel the front end than slide....than come out wondering how you stayed up right, it really makes you feel alive.

But that is part of the Fun and what gets the adrenaline going, a very real risk of injury, I love it, and its why I don't own a motorbike, I would be an organ donor very quickly on one of those 😀.

 

 

[MartinH]

3 minutes ago, ganzoom said:

the potential for a 'off' on the pedal bike is so much more than been in a car

Goodness, you evidently need that new bike m8! Go on, treat yourself! 

PS: 28mm tyres!