Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road?

[Gixer]

MiseryStreak said:

I just wanted you to know, Mark, that I'm having a new bike built in Austria right now that I will pay zero VAT on, it will offset my income tax through a salary sacrifice scheme called Cycle to Work, so it's actually reducing my tax bill and I'm never, ever going to ride it to work (I use my road bike that I got on the same scheme 12 months ago).

So you're actually paying for my bike. Thanks.

Oh, I don't pay car tax for my car either, and it does around 18mpg. So fk you.

Class

[Gixer]

Of course you have..........


Lets not forget its Easter School holidays

[73mark]

Mr Will said:

73mark said:

I wouldn't put what I really drive on here,it's just a site I like to read.
Oh and troll

:cough:

Got me I am bored though day off

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

exactly. 5% that could be avoided if they obeyed the law.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

OpulentBob said:

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

I know that not many riders do this but it fks me off when cyclists run red lights, yet complain when they get hit off?

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

Thanks to the quick reaction and chilled-out attitudes of car drivers, no thanks to the angry lycramen.

Of course it is.

If they were better drivers, maybe it would be 0%?

Massive, unsupported presumption on your part.

Read what you just said. You're compaining for equality yet you've just said that it's car drivers fault for cyclists hitting them when THEY run red lights?

I think you need to stop drinking that much absinthe.

[will_]

73mark said:

will_ said:

73mark said:

I think a small amount but pay something.
Then you can have a say.

Other than Income tax, council tax, NI, VED and VAT you mean?

So if I pay more tax than you, do I have a bigger "say"?

In which case, how much in overall taxes did you pay last year for example?

I am a lotto winner do you want to continue.

Sure - so you don't work and you didn't pay tax on your winnings.....?

[73mark]

will_ said:

73mark said:

will_ said:

73mark said:

I think a small amount but pay something.
Then you can have a say.

Other than Income tax, council tax, NI, VED and VAT you mean?

So if I pay more tax than you, do I have a bigger "say"?

In which case, how much in overall taxes did you pay last year for example?

I am a lotto winner do you want to continue.

Sure - so you don't work and you didn't pay tax on your winnings.....?

Do work plasterer.Not won a fking thing on the lotto play every week

[will_]

Marvib said:

This picture you mean?

Where the car ISN'T in the opposing lane, only partially?
Look I'm not disagreeing with you, if you can't overtake safely slow down and wait, my point is some argue you should only overtake a bike if there is enough room to overtake a car, this to me is nonsensical.

Yes.

I think it's fair to say that the car could not perform that overtake if there were on-coming traffic . That's the point - he is well into the oposing lane.

Frankly it would be wonderful if that's what happened - but in the real world it's not always possible. Nonetheless, that is the space that the HC recommends for a proper overtake - in which case the rider can be well out from the kerb and not "holding up" anybody who wishes to overtake properly.

[ambuletz]

will_ said:

Cycle paths are a tick box exercise for counsels. They're rarely done with proper consultation. It is indeed a waste of our money.

Even if done properly, they aren't going to be suitable for all riders.

There's a little hill I have to go up/down whenever I cycle to the gym. Single lane in both directions. Solid white line so nobody is allowed to do overtakes. On the way there they've put a drop curb at the bottom of the hill and painted on a 'cycle lane' on the pavement. Completely unsuitable as the pavement isn't kept well. Tons of stealthy dips in the pavement on the other side of the hill so you're more likely to fall off your bike. I used it once when there was traffic and never again. I much prefer to cycle on the road, which is smooth and without pot holes. It's good enough that I can ride close to the curb and some vehicles and squeeze past without having to cross the line.

[will_]

OpulentBob said:

You're SO desperate to be offended/insulted, aren't you?

I'm usually found defending cyclists. But not the angry militant types (which you, I'm afraid to say, appear to be).

Anyway, I'm 3 minutes from walking out the office, unlocking my bike, and riding several miles, away from roads, buses, and the nasty nasty drivers out to kill me at any opportunity.

Not remotely - it's just ironic that you think I'm angry but you're the one swearing! Surely even you can see what adaft thing that is to say?

What you said was just stupid though - I didn't realise it was a joke.....

Sorry that I didn't find your "humour" funny. Hope you're not offended/insulted.

FWIW I'm not angry not "militant" (whatever you mean by that).

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

Not remotely - it's just ironic that you think I'm angry but you're the one swearing! Surely even you can see what adaft thing that is to say?

What you said was just stupid though - I didn't realise it was a joke.....

Sorry that I didn't find your "humour" funny. Hope you're not offended/insulted.

FWIW I'm not angry not "militant" (whatever you mean by that).

You defy belief..

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

exactly. 5% that could be avoided if they obeyed the law.

Read what you said, and then read what I said.

What % of the DEAD cyclists do you think ran a red light and then complained when they got KILLED?

Has anyone said that cyclists are never responsible for accidents?

[Snowboy]

will_ said:

Marvib said:

This picture you mean?

Where the car ISN'T in the opposing lane, only partially?
Look I'm not disagreeing with you, if you can't overtake safely slow down and wait, my point is some argue you should only overtake a bike if there is enough room to overtake a car, this to me is nonsensical.

Yes.

I think it's fair to say that the car could not perform that overtake if there were on-coming traffic . That's the point - he is well into the oposing lane.

Frankly it would be wonderful if that's what happened - but in the real world it's not always possible. Nonetheless, that is the space that the HC recommends for a proper overtake - in which case the rider can be well out from the kerb and not "holding up" anybody who wishes to overtake properly.

The quote about 'room to overtake a car' is deceptive as to get past a car you need width and distance.
A bike is generally travelling slower than a car would be, and is shorter.
So you don't need as much overall room to overtake.

There are plenty of places I would overtake a bike but not a car.

However, I do agree with the intended sentiment of the campaign which was to ask drivers to give bikes plenty of space when they pass.

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

OpulentBob said:

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

I know that not many riders do this but it fks me off when cyclists run red lights, yet complain when they get hit off?

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

Thanks to the quick reaction and chilled-out attitudes of car drivers, no thanks to the angry lycramen.

Of course it is.

If they were better drivers, maybe it would be 0%?

Massive, unsupported presumption on your part.

Read what you just said. You're compaining for equality yet you've just said that it's car drivers fault for cyclists hitting them when THEY run red lights?

I think you need to stop drinking that much absinthe.

I'm not blaming the drivers - I'm questioning whether Opulent Bob could support his suggestion that more cyclists would be killed when running red lights but for the brilliance of the drivers. Reading that back, I can see much better that he could only have been joking.

In any event, a green light is not a "go ahead" signal - it is "proceed if safe to do so". Clearly if there is a cyclists coming through, it is not safe to do so. The driver wouldn't necessarily be liable but might have been able to avoid such an accident. That's not to say the cyclist isn't substantially at fault - that much is obvious.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that cyclists complain when they get hit having run a red light.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

exactly. 5% that could be avoided if they obeyed the law.

Read what you said, and then read what I said.

What % of the DEAD cyclists do you think ran a red light and then complained when they got KILLED?

Has anyone said that cyclists are never responsible for accidents?

It was a survey, it goes on more than just complaints; like police incident reports?

Think of it this way. A cyclist runs a red light and gets hit (like the 5% the study revealed) and gets hit by a car moving in the opposite direction because his light was green. Are you saying that the car driver is at fault because he didn't stop in time? Or the cyclist ran the red light and broke the law doing so?

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

I'm not blaming the drivers - I'm questioning whether Opulent Bob could support his suggestion that more cyclists would be killed when running red lights but for the brilliance of the drivers. Reading that back, I can see much better that he could only have been joking.

In any event, a green light is not a "go ahead" signal - it is "proceed if safe to do so". Clearly if there is a cyclists coming through, it is not safe to do so. The driver wouldn't necessarily be liable but might have been able to avoid such an accident. That's not to say the cyclist isn't substantially at fault - that much is obvious.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that cyclists complain when they get hit having run a red light.

Proceeding is safe to do so providing self centred cyclists who think it's okay to run red lights as "it tires them out getting back up to speed" is what makes it dangerous, not car drivers driving in the same direction as the other cars around him.


Well if they admitted liability why do so many still do it?

Whether they complain or not, they still ran a red light and broke the law. And; frankly if they hit a car after doing so I have no sympathy for them at all as it was entirely their fault. I'd have more sympathy for the car driver having to deal with any trauma/damages.

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

Are you saying that the car driver is at fault because he didn't stop in time? Or the cyclist ran the red light and broke the law doing so?

They both "broke the law".

The cyclist by running the red.

The driver by proceeding where it wasn't safe to do so.

In terms of liability, that will depend on the circumstances but I struggle to envisage a position where the cyclist would not be held substantially to blame.

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear."

https://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg...

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

Proceeding is safe to do so providing self centred cyclists who think it's okay to run red lights as "it tires them out getting back up to speed" is what makes it dangerous, not car drivers driving in the same direction as the other cars around him.

No, it's avoiding giving road users (not just drivers) the excuse for hitting things on the basis that they had a "green light".

Mr SFJ said:

Well if they admitted liability why do so many still do it?

How do I know? I stop for every red.

Mr SFJ said:

Whether they complain or not, they still ran a red light and broke the law. And; frankly if they hit a car after doing so I have no sympathy for them at all as it was entirely their fault. I'd have more sympathy for the car driver having to deal with any trauma/damages.

Ah, so finally you accept that you don't know if they complain or not.

I too would have sympathy for drivers in those circumstances, except where they could also have avoided the collision had they been paying proper attention.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

They both "broke the law".

The cyclist by running the red.

The driver by proceeding where it wasn't safe to do so.

In terms of liability, that will depend on the circumstances but I struggle to envisage a position where the cyclist would not be held substantially to blame.

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear."

https://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg...

fking hell... Anything to defend the lycra brigade. In an insurance matter, who will win?

The Cyclist because he ran a red light?
or the driver who was proceeding but hadn't accounted for the moron breaking the law running the red light?

[KarlMac]

TooMany2cvs said:

KarlMac said:

Whats the excuse for riding 4 abreast like my local club has taken to?

Shorter "pack", so easier to overtake. After all, even if there was just one, you'd be giving them as much width as possible, right?

I'm assuming its the same local club, they always used to ride in single/double file, which whilst a minor irritant, in the grand scheme of things registered quite low on the boiled-piss-o-meter.

Now the suns back out they all seem to think they're all on tour de france. Again, if its a couple I can get round them, if its downhill I'll tuck in behind (as they're cracking on at a fair whack) but it always seems to be the uphill bits. 2or 3 sets of 4, doing four miles an hour, arse weaving in the air wobbling like they're on the way back from dog and duck.

When I do go to overtake my car will kick down and then I get a gobful as I pass on the opposite side of the road. This is most nights.

In my experience - commuters are a bit more understanding and don't want to arrive at work dead, hobbyists are fking mental.