Anti-cyclist comments

[ewenm]

Silver993tt said:

ewenm said:

Silver993tt said:

they are on an ifrastructure largely paid by other road users.

At the end of the day, you can as much as you like but cyclists will always come off worse for their actions on the road.

I ride a bike but never take any liberties like the majority that I see.

Amazingly, I was able to trim your quote just to the bit I was laughing at. The rest of it I left out because it's not funny. You're right, bad cyclists give all cyclists a bad reputation. Of course, bad drivers do the same for all drivers.

[okgo]

ewenm said:

One for the "Stupid things petrolheads say" thread.

Edited by ewenm on Monday 16th May 12:10

At the minute its a one horse race for winner of that thread, 993tt talks an imeasurable amount of toss.

[will_]

oyster said:

will_ said:

Without question, if you'd stop in a car, stop on a bike. Please. There are a number of reasons, but the top of the list is that, for cyclists to claim their place on the road legitmately, there has to be obedience of the laws of the road. if you don't want to obey the laws, don't chose to go on the road (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't mean a few MPH on the speedo).

So what you're saying is that drivers can make a judgement on whether driving at 35 in a 30 is safe or not, but a cyclist can't make the same judgement about going across an empty pedestrian crossing whilst the light is red?

Until you accept that either all rules apply to both or no rules apply, your position in this debate is simple untenable.

Except in a purely legal sense, speeding and jumping red lights are not comparable.

The reasons are obvious. Traffic lights are "absolute" rather than speeding, which is not (and is not enforced as being absolute). They are also not an arbitrary figure which has little meaning of itself - the limits set include an element of practicality - again, why there is discretion (and why there are different speed limits in different countries in the same circumstances). The way the law is enforced also reflect this, as I'm sure you are aware.

Cars do not need to be seen to be obeying the rules of the road before their users can argue to be legitimately able to claim their space. Cyclists do. It is far less about the law, and far more about being able to make legitimate arguments for better facilities for cyclists, without a braying mob of "they all run red lights" idiots. I put that in my post (in bold, above).

My position is perfectly tenable, particularly with regards to the impact that cyclists running red lights has on the abuse which all cyclists receive.

Is your position that cyclists should also be allowed to jump red lights? And cars presumably too, on the same arguments?

Edited by will_ on Monday 16th May 12:22

[Silver993tt]

okgo said:

At the minute its a one horse race for winner of that thread, 993tt talks an imeasurable amount of toss.

Fine, keep breaking the law and get squashed.

I did a Bikesafe course a few weeks ago and every one of the traffic police who were present had nothing good to say whatsoever with rehards cyclists. Still, what do they know, eh?

[Garlick]

Silver993tt said:

I did a Bikesafe course a few weeks ago and every one of the traffic police who were present had nothing good to say whatsoever with rehards cyclists. Still, what do they know, eh?

Police said that ALL cyclists were idiots did they? How very odd.

[okgo]

Silver993tt said:

Fine, keep breaking the law and get squashed.

I did a Bikesafe course a few weeks ago and every one of the traffic police who were present had nothing good to say whatsoever with rehards cyclists. Still, what do they know, eh?

They know little more than most car drivers I would imagine, untill you've ridden a bike in rush hour in a city, you can't really comment on how often car drivers take the piss. It really boils down to the fact that even if a biker does do something wrong the outcome usually is going to be fairly small, whereas if a car does something wrong involving a cyclist, it will usually be more serious.

Its a two way thing obviously, I jump the odd red light, I've said it before, and I'll say it again,I'm not slowing from 20mph to a standstill when there is nobody at a crossing, but for all other things I'll stop and let people cross, or wait my turn.

[Silver993tt]

Garlick said:

Silver993tt said:

I did a Bikesafe course a few weeks ago and every one of the traffic police who were present had nothing good to say whatsoever with rehards cyclists. Still, what do they know, eh?

Police said that ALL cyclists were idiots did they? How very odd.

MOST cyclists. This from those who understand roadcraft far better than anyone else.

[Silver993tt]

okgo said:

I don't break the law you berk..

okgo said:

obviously, I jump the odd red light

okgo said:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again,I'm not slowing from 20mph to a standstill when there is nobody at a crossing

Now who's a berk?

Sorry but your attitude exactly proves my point. Why don't you simply stop when a light is red? What is so difficult about doing that? Your bike has brakes doesn't it? When the light goes gree, you have pedals to get you going again. It's the most simple of concepts and yet most cyclists seem to have an IQ so low that even this is impossible for them to assimilate.

[ewenm]

I was driving home yesterday along a fairly twisty b-road and caught up to a group of 10 or so cyclists. They were riding in a group, 2-abreast, and so presented roughly the same size of obstacle as a HGV or perhaps a tractor and trailer.

At the time there were 2 cars ahead of me behind the cyclists. The lead car waited for a gap and overtook comfortably, the second car blindly followed and forced a car on the other side to brake. I waited another minute or two and overtook later, partially helped by a signal that the road was clear from the tail-end rider. I caught up to the other two cars at a traffic light in the nexst village. So the second car's dangerous overtake gained him/her nothing.

What I'd like to know is what the anti-cyclist PHers would have liked those cyclists to do? If they go single file they present an obstacle at least twice as long and still unsafe to overtake if there is traffic coming the other way on the relatively narrow road - so actually makes it harder to overtake safely if they were single file. I suspect the drivers who say "cyclists should ride single file" would have squeezed past against oncoming traffic and still cursed the "dangerous" cyclists.

Edited by ewenm on Monday 16th May 12:41

[will_]

ewenm said:

What I'd like to know is what the anti-cyclist PHers would have liked those cyclists to do? If they go single file they present an obstacle at least twice as long and still unsafe to overtake if there is traffic coming the other way on the rleatively narrow road - so actually make it harder to overtake safely if they were single file. I suspect the drivers who say "cyclists should ride single file" would have squeezed past against oncoming traffic and still cursed the "dangerous" cyclists.

The only reason drivers want cyclists in single file is so that they can squeeze past them. It then doesn't matter that they're strung out. Of course, if you're any good at driving you'd leave as much space when overtaking a single cyclists as two riding abreast.....

[okgo]

Silver993tt said:

Now who's a berk?

Sorry but your attitude exactly proves my point. Why don't you simply stop when a light is red? What is so difficult about doing that? Your bike has brakes doesn't it? When the light goes gree, you have pedals to get you going again. It's the most simple of concepts and yet most cyclists seem to have an IQ so low that even this is impossible for them to assimilate.

It was in there to wind you up, I then thought better of it and edited out

Because there is no point, I'm not harming anyone, never have done, and would only do it if its perfectly safe.

[Silver993tt]

okgo said:

Because there is no point, I'm not harming anyone, never have done, and would only do it if its perfectly safe.

That really is

So you're the judge at a junction when you go through a red light classifying at safe? So why don't all road users do the same, motorcyclists, cars and vans? Surely they can also judge when "it's safe" or do you posess some king of special telepathic talent that differentiates you from everyone else?

Sums up my 1st post in this thread perfectly.

[okgo]

Not junctions, only ever ped crossings, I stop at all junctions.

[anonymous-user]

Only once in years of cycling has a motorist deliberately targeted me (car full of yobs spat at me while passing, but were cringingly apolegetic when I caught them at the lights!). But then again the same type have thrown 'fast food' at me when I have been out running so just generally no hopers.
Most close shaves I have are from people who are just bad drivers. Like the 60+ driver the other day who insisted on passing me about 10cm from my elbow & the same distance from the car coming the other way! I try to be courteous, eg when cycling down a country lane I will wave a car past when I see the road ahead is clear before they can, the driver often gives a thumbs up etc.

[anonymous-user]

Silver993tt said:

No sympathies from here until the majority learn that they are on an ifrastructure largely paid by other road users. Until they start to seriously contribute and obey regulations they deserve all that they seem to get.

There's always one.

[Silver993tt]

okgo said:

Not junctions, only ever ped crossings, I stop at all junctions.

Really? How convenient.

So once more, why don't all road users including motorcyclists, cars, vans make the same judgements at pedestrain crossings? Surely they can also see when it's "safe" to go through a red at these locations?

[okgo]

Because they've got numberplates

Zebra crossings are an example of when its up to the car whether they want to stop, often they do, sometimes they don't.

[Raoul Duke]

I dont normally advocate running red lights nor pedestrian crossings, but if i'm turning left at a junction and there are no oncoming cars, then i will hold my hands up and admit to having done it. If that makes me a bad person then so be it!
This juntion etiquette works well enough in the states for all road users, and i happen to feel that if it was implemented here it would aid traffic flow for all not just cyclists.
Just to add i dont really fall into either camp in this argument, i commute accross the city in a car everyday and also cover a lot of miles on business. However like many others on this forum i also enjoy recreational cycling so i get to observe both sides of the coin and the unpleasantness that follows.

Edited by Raoul Duke on Monday 16th May 12:57

[Garlick]

If a car has to tuck in behind me on London roads (width restriction/ narrow road etc) I always raise my right hand as they go for the overtake after the obstacle, as a gesture of thanks or an apology for the delay. I also do my best to 'get on it' too so I pass the obstacle at a reasonable pace. I don't do this every time, only when the car has no other option but to wait for me to get through first.

This seems to stop any aggression, and sometimes I even get a hand up from them once they have passed.

[Silver993tt]

Raoul Duke said:

I dont normally advocate running red lights nor pedestrian crossings, but if i'm turning left at a junction and there are no oncoming cars, then i will hold my hands up and admit to having done it. If that makes me a bad person then so be it!
This juntion etiquette works well enough in the states for all road users, and i happen to feel that if it was implemented here it would aid traffic flow for all not just cyclists.

Would you do the same if you were in your car? If not why not?