Forum menu
Does it piss off cyclists when motorists pull up at traffic lights really close to the kerb?
Does it piss off cyclists when motorists pull up at traffic lights really close to the kerb?
Depends. If they have no choice, i.e the road splits in two, no, its not their fault it shit road/traffic engineering.
You defend their picking on a little old woman in her micra too? Because their your lycra brothers you'd be lining up to give her a dig eh?
The little old woman is driving a car which if she's not careful could kill a cyclist very easily indeed. Just sayin...
Does it piss off cyclists when motorists pull up at traffic lights really close to the kerb?
not as much as it does them when you then go round the outside and pull in front of them......
Ever crossed a pedestrian crossing when its a red man?
Jay walking is not an offence in the UK.
gwj72
No - you are missing the point. If the road is not wide enough / clear enough to pass two cyclists safely then it is not wide / clear enough to pass one cyclists safely ( in the vast majority of cases) - thats if you drive according to the highway code.
You want the cyclists to squeeze into the edge so that the cars can push past - thats putting the cyclists in danger.
I have quoted you the various bits of the highway code including a picture.
dear god I hate it when I find myself agreeing with TJ....
Can you tell furnish me with following details please;
How wide was the road?
How far into the road were the cyclists?
How far apart were the two cyclists?
What speed were the cyclists travelling at?
What speed was the car travelling at?
What were the other road conditions like?
How wide was the cycle path?
How far wide did the driver overtake?
How far did the cyclist swerve?
If you know all that then you've got something to argue about. But as it happens your working blind and just repeating dogma which is completely unrelated to the incident.
Your belief is that the cyclist is somehow always right regardless of the circumstances. Which is clearly bollocks now isn't it?
gwj72
The thrust of your argument seems to be that the cyclists were creating an obstruction through riding two abreast, and not using the cycle path. Hopefully you've now had enough replies to disabuse you of this incorrect notion.
Therefore the list of questions you present are largely immaterial.
ransos - the cyclists were causing an obstruction, for all of the reasons gwj72 has highlighted.
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
[img]
[/img]Pics from rules 162-169 overtaking
In essence she should have anticipated that he may swerve due to a variety of reasons and given even more room - I assume he stayed on his side of the road - she should have been on the other side of the road
GG using he road [b]legally[/b] at a speed slower than a car is not an obstruction in any way shape or form it is just going slower than you wish to go. Is a funeral procession an obstruction?
GlitterGary - Memberransos - the cyclists were causing an obstruction, for all of the reasons gwj72 has highlighted.
No they were not - for all the reasons the rest of us have highlighted. They were legitimately using the road.
ransos - the cyclists were causing an obstruction, for all of the reasons gwj72 has highlighted.
Is there a legal requirement to use a cycle path?
Is there a legal requirement to cycle in single file?
Is there a legal requirement to cycle at a minimum speed?
Answer to all three questions is no, and hence they were not causing an obstruction. They may have been acting discourteously, but that isn't an offence.
"They may have been acting discourteously, but that isn't an offence."
Which is offensive.
They had loads of space in which to ride (not squeezed to the side of the road) without obstructing other road users but chose not to. They were not looking what was going on around them. One wasn't even in proper control of his bike. Both, although one more than the other, thought being violent to a pensioner was reasonable.
If you want to throw you hat in with them, that's your choice. I just remember the look of shock and their quick retreat when challenged about their actions. I.E he shit himself when I started shouting. Like a man who knew he was clearly in the wrong.
Is there a legal requirement not to;
go round the outside and pull in front of them......
?Does that make it acceptable?
Answer to all three questions is no, and hence they were not causing an obstruction. They may have been acting discourteously, but that isn't an offence.
You didn't read section 3 of the road traffic act did you? Being discourteous (inconsiderate) to other road users is an offence. No he didn't need to do those individual things by law, but by choosing not to, with no good reason he was acting inconsiderately. Which is an offence.
You don't have to like it. But it is true.
Unless they were cycling taking up both lanes, and he swerved all the way into the other lane, then maybe she didn't give them enough room? They do sound a bit discourteous but it sounds like they were totally in their rights to do it...
They may have been acting discourteously
Is there much more to the argument than this? Courtesy goes both ways of course. The "I can, so I will" cycle militants really get my goat.
They had loads of space in which to ride (not squeezed to the side of the road) without obstructing other road users but chose not to. They were not looking what was going on around them. One wasn't even in proper control of his bike. Both, although one more than the other, thought being violent to a pensioner was reasonable.
You based your opinion on the basis that not using the cycle path, and cycling two abreast, is creating an obstruction. You are clearly incorrect, so now you're trying to dig up all sorts of other stuff to justify your position. It's not very edifying.
You didn't read section 3 of the road traffic act did you? Being discourteous (inconsiderate) to other road users is an offence. No he didn't need to do those individual things by law, but by choosing not to, with no good reason he was acting inconsiderately. Which is an offence.
Funnily enough, the police said the same thing about Daniel Caddon. The judge said otherwise.
Next!
TJ Quote from earlier in the thread
I find the lycra clad are equally bad - rubbish road positioning, poor rearward observation, aggressive riding.
Perhaps they were doing the above
Is there much more to the argument than this? Courtesy goes both ways of course. The "I can, so I will" cycle militants really get my goat.
I used the word "may" because we don't know.
I live in Bristol which has quite a high 'commute by bike' rate per head. The issue of cyclists running red lights, undercutting etc comes up maybe every other day in the local paper, and is raised every day on the papers web site - irate car drivers pissed off with the increased number of cyclists running red lights or riding on the pavement etc. However the general term 'cyclist' applys to all bikes in the eyes of the non cycling public.
I personally commute 3-4 days a week by bike, only 7 miles each way (with 3 of those on separated cycle routes) - i see maybe 1 or 2 potential accidents of people running red lights, or pulling 'stupid moves'. So i can sympathise with the car drivers.
May be 50% of the cyclists out on Bristol's roads (by my reckoning) are completely ignorant of road laws - which are there to protect them, as well as drivers.
As the UK's amount of cyclist increase the amount running red lights etc will surely increase - accidents will rise. Any cyclist who runs a red light (imo) should be prosecuted (£30 fixed penalty). Any one who says its safer to do so is asking for trouble - i'll feel more sorry for the driver (who will be prosecuted) who hits him/her than the cyclist.
As for accidents - so far this year I've seen 4 (3 were women) - 3 of them were undertaking lorrys or busses and one was runninga red light through a pestrian crossing.
There are some great sections in 'The Bicycle Book' by Bella Bathurst on cycle commuting including interveiws with taxi drivers, stats on deaths in London etc.
"Courtesy goes both ways of course. The "I can, so I will" cycle militants really get my goat."
This ^^^
@ransos I'm afraid I can't be bothered to read much of what you have been woffling on about - far too much of it for a simple issue - so I didn't bother reading the context of the quote I snipped from you.
My issue is that folks (like you?) who like to bang on about this sort of stuff quoting highway codes and like have rather lost perspective. If we all (yes we are all in it together irrespective of our choice of mode of transport) just focussed on being courteous and thinking about how our actions effect the needs and desires of others we could focus on more positive issues.
next...
Repeating stuff doesn't make it any less untrue than the last time you posted it. And telling me what I posted doesn't make that true either.
Your just trolling now.
Bloody hell.
I kept reading this because I've contributed. I possibly stirred a bit as well, but that's because I wanted to make a point, but the discussion's got so poisonous and polarising it's actually moving people away from common sense.
- Shades of grey - some thngs are fine, some things aren't most people probably agree on what these are.
- Most people are sensible.
- Most people are sensible and considerate, and those that aren't will need more than a polite word to change their ways.
Be considerate. Don't be a ****er. Don't wind people up for the sake of making a point. Live and let live. put yourself honestly in the other's shoes. Be the bigger person. Stop this bloody snipy thread.
double post
@ransosRepeating stuff doesn't make it any less untrue than the last time you posted it. And telling me what I posted doesn't make that true either.
Your just trolling now.
Happily for everyone else, your posts haven't disappeared, so they can make their own judgements on the merits of your arguments. Assuming that they can find any.
@ransos I'm afraid I can't be bothered to read much of what you have been woffling on about - far too much of it for a simple issue - so I didn't bother reading the context of the quote I snipped from you.My issue is that folks (like you?) who like to bang on about this sort of stuff quoting highway codes and like have rather lost perspective. If we all (yes we are all in it together irrespective of our choice of mode of transport) just focussed on being courteous and thinking about how our action effect the needs and desires of others we could focus on more positive issues.
next...
So you can't be bothered to read what I said, yet presume to know what I think.
You're a real genius.
Ransos - "Happily for everyone else, your posts haven't disappeared, so they can make their own judgements on the merits of your arguments. Assuming that they can find any."
Nice. 🙄
Any cyclist who runs a red light (imo) should be prosecuted (£30 fixed penalty).
To enforce such a policy would mean having the police permanently manning every single set of lights in the country. Do you think that's an appropriate use of finite resources?
As I said earlier, I don't condone cyclists RLJing, but in the big scheme of things, is it really that serious?
Happily for everyone else, your posts haven't disappeared, so they can make their own judgements on the merits of your arguments. Assuming that they can find any.
Yup and all your blatant and unpopular trolling is still writhing around google for anyone else to see...
Exibit A
http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/19096-pavement-cyclingrlj/
I know what you think because I have met your type many times before - you're a dribbler who just like the sound of their own voice (or type) and thinks that repeating the same tired old points made ad nauseum by you and many before you makes your points more valid.
And with that I'll take my own advice!
Go talk about tyres or something, I'm off to fix my forks!
Yup and all your blatant and unpopular trolling is still writhing around google for anyone else to see...Exibit A
http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/19096-pavement-cyclingrlj/
br />
Dear oh dear. Searching for me on the internet? You must be desperate...
@ ransos - i was mearly pointing out my views in 'an ideal world' clearly it would currently be far to impractical to enforce.
is it really that serious? - as serious a car jumping the red light imo.
however you carry on - just expect a 3-5 years life expectancy
I know what you think
Who do you think you are, Mystic Meg?
@ ransos - i was mearly pointing out my views in 'an ideal world' clearly it would currently be far to impractical to enforce.is it really that serious? - as serious a car jumping the red light imo.
I wasn't picking on you! But surely there's a difference (to pick two examples) between 1.5 tonnes of metal hurtling through the lights at 40mph, and a cyclist creeping through at 5mph, having given way?
not if theres a car coming the other way (through the green) hitting you the cyclist - sure you wont do any damage to him, but def will to you.
traffic lights are there for the safty of all users, ok they slow us up - but i'd rather be alive at the end of my 30 min commute.
running red lights really really really really annoys me - it's so unnecessary - and the amount of times I've talked to drivers who just tar all cyclists with the same brush because of the RLJs annoys me - it really does make drivers more aggressive to you and less likely to give you space.
I haven't come across any situation where it is safer to jump UNLESS there is a bus doing the fairly regular tailgating a cyclist trick - in which case, run away!
The point about the fixed penalty is interesting - I inadvertently ran through on amber once and was stopped by a motorcycle cop (see a thread back years ago on here) - waste of time = YES, did he fine me = NO - why not!!! I should have been fined (if he thinks it was red)...if more people were fined it would reduce the occurrence...and talk to most motorcycle police and they will tell you of how many cyclists are injured running lights.
still...there you go - people are quite set in their ways.
(experience = 5 years of London commuting for what it's worth)
Being discourteous (inconsiderate) to other road users is an offence. No he didn't need to do those individual things by law, but by choosing not to, with no good reason he was acting inconsiderately.
You are barrel scrapping now IMHO. Claiming the cyclists are somehow breaking the law is tenuous in the extreme but i suppose it is all you have left
At least now you are accepting they could be there legally just that this legal right was now discourteous as you had to go a it slower than you wanted.
I was thinking more about the effect on other people...I really don't think that RLJing on a bike is as serious as doing so in a car.
I used to be of the view that we should stop because it sets a good example, but have come to the conclusion that there's a sizeable minority of motorists who hate us regardless of how we behave!
In the cyclying communty i've known over the last 20-25 yrs i know of only one case where some one got a Fixed penalty - for riding on the pavement with no lights (2x £30 fines) at night. However if he'd been on the road (with no lights) it would have been a single fixed penalty, but go figure - but thats a whole other thread topic.
Junkyard - Did you also read this?
"Courtesy goes both ways of course. The "I can, so I will" cycle militants really get my goat."