Do you 'engage' with cyclists?
Discussion
Hol said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Leptons said:
I engaged with a cyclist last year when he crashed into the back of my parked car. Does that count?
One of the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain how it was your fault.Of course it must be his fault.
Who else is there left to blame??
Johnnytheboy said:
Hol said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Leptons said:
I engaged with a cyclist last year when he crashed into the back of my parked car. Does that count?
One of the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain how it was your fault.Of course it must be his fault.
Who else is there left to blame??
Everything that happened before hand, will be censored.
9mm said:
UIt would have to be easy as well. Sod turning around, parking up and trying to have a conversation. So if I could shout "put some feckin; lights on, dips
t" through an open window, yes, otherwise no.
I did this to teenage lads who came flying off the pavement into a road I was about to turn into. Pitch dark, dressed in dark colours, no lights, no reflectors even. Got told to ft" through an open window, yes, otherwise no.k off to the far side of fk and what a I was. I have stopped doing that now, they will have to make their own arrangements.I moved over to let a cyclist pass between me and the kurb easier last night
I suppose that is engaging with a cyclist. I did it because I find it really kind of others when they move a little when I'm filtering on my motorcycle. It's....it's like holding a door open for someone, or even better, moving aside to let someone through when you're standing having a conversation with someone else in the middle of a corridor
I suppose that is engaging with a cyclist. I did it because I find it really kind of others when they move a little when I'm filtering on my motorcycle. It's....it's like holding a door open for someone, or even better, moving aside to let someone through when you're standing having a conversation with someone else in the middle of a corridor
I've only ever 'engaged' with one cyclist.
Morning rush hour, Sheffield city centre. I'm slowly approaching a sweeping (blind) right bend. To my left there is a cycle lane and a visible t-junction bang on the apex. It's a wide enough road.
For clarity, this is the road: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.379928,-1.488182...
I'm first with no cars in front, 4 cyclists in the cycle lane all in a row and a lorry coming down the junction to my left. I see what's coming and I slow down to match the cyclists pace, all 4 cyclists are in front of me (the rear cyclist is just in front of me, albeit to the left with plenty of space). The lorry comes to a stop and his nose sticks out onto the road, the cyclists overtake the lorry one by one but for some reason the last cyclist decides this is the perfect place to overtake the rest of the cyclists where he just swings out with no warning. He was literally inches from my bumper and giving himself the pit maneuver.
Blatantly he had no idea I was there, so a little friendly toot of the horn as a warning to say: "I'm here". His response? The finger (without turning his head), positioning himself in the middle of the road and slowing right down to a crawling pace. I bit, I shouldn't have but he riled me up; I instantly overtook and slammed the brakes on. Last thing I saw was him skidding into the curb, and clumsily coming off his bike with both feet on the ground (the type when you come off the bike but keep on running afterwards). Whoops.
Morning rush hour, Sheffield city centre. I'm slowly approaching a sweeping (blind) right bend. To my left there is a cycle lane and a visible t-junction bang on the apex. It's a wide enough road.
For clarity, this is the road: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.379928,-1.488182...
I'm first with no cars in front, 4 cyclists in the cycle lane all in a row and a lorry coming down the junction to my left. I see what's coming and I slow down to match the cyclists pace, all 4 cyclists are in front of me (the rear cyclist is just in front of me, albeit to the left with plenty of space). The lorry comes to a stop and his nose sticks out onto the road, the cyclists overtake the lorry one by one but for some reason the last cyclist decides this is the perfect place to overtake the rest of the cyclists where he just swings out with no warning. He was literally inches from my bumper and giving himself the pit maneuver.
Blatantly he had no idea I was there, so a little friendly toot of the horn as a warning to say: "I'm here". His response? The finger (without turning his head), positioning himself in the middle of the road and slowing right down to a crawling pace. I bit, I shouldn't have but he riled me up; I instantly overtook and slammed the brakes on. Last thing I saw was him skidding into the curb, and clumsily coming off his bike with both feet on the ground (the type when you come off the bike but keep on running afterwards). Whoops.
n3il123 said:
This, however if you drive around Cambridge then you realise that it simply isn't the case and there is a fair proportion of people on cycles that seem to want to end up under a significant amount of metal.
Indeed - here is Exhibit A: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Shocking-moment-cy...Exhibit B would be the total knobjockey the other night who insisted on riding up my inside as I approached a 90 degree left turn, despite the fact I was indicating to take that turn and was only a car length away at the time.
lol SHOCKING MOMENT - or not.
I saw three joggers do the same the other day as they didn't want to wait for the train, those joggers, they're ALLs.
Why is it that one person is then representative of ALL people? If that were the case one episode of Police Camera Action would paint ALL drivers as total aholes.
I saw three joggers do the same the other day as they didn't want to wait for the train, those joggers, they're ALL
s.Why is it that one person is then representative of ALL people? If that were the case one episode of Police Camera Action would paint ALL drivers as total a
holes.To my mind it should be the law if there is a cycle path it must be used. Cyclists by choosing not to use what is provided do wind up others who are held up.
I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
okgo said:
I don't use all cycle paths, some of them are covered in crap from the road, covered in junctions that are inviting a t bone accident and some require you to come back on to the road anyway.
I dunno why you lycralists are so fussy. If the council create a cycle lane you should use them and stop whingeing.
spaximus said:
To my mind it should be the law if there is a cycle path it must be used. Cyclists by choosing not to use what is provided do wind up others who are held up.
I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
Take a look at Priory Lane, Roehampton on streetmap, this is a stretch I often get shouted at because I'm not using the bike path (despite the fact I am usually riding at 20mph or more), strangely this has only ever been when heading towards Richmond Park. In order for me to use that bike path, I'd need to cross the road for a start, get onto the bike path, you'll then notice its littered with junctions where cars just come straight out without looking,then about 500m down the road it just stops and I'd have to cross back over the road (or ride on the pavement) to continue another 500m down to Richmond Park. All the while the whole stretch of road takes about 1 or so minutes to ride from end to end anyway. I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
spaximus said:
To my mind it should be the law if there is a cycle path it must be used. Cyclists by choosing not to use what is provided do wind up others who are held up.
I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
Well it's not law, so live with it. Also, lanes are not for riders exceeding 18mph, that's official.I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
Sustrans have no responsibility for lanes alongside roads, that's for the local council.
It should be law for everyone other than cyclist to keep out of cycle lanes, ie. Parked cars, peds, mums with push chairs, pikies dumped trash. AND, keep them fit for use, instead of strewn with puncture-fodder and pot-holes.
Incidentally, Horses, Pedestrians and Cyclists have right to use the roads [for free] enshrined in law. Tintops have to pay - License, MoT, Insurance, VED, for what is, in fact, a privilege.
spaximus said:
To my mind it should be the law if there is a cycle path it must be used. Cyclists by choosing not to use what is provided do wind up others who are held up.
I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
To my mind it should be the law that if you're physically fit you should not be allowed to use a car for journeys under three miles...I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
Would you drive a road car across a field? So why would you expect me to ride on unsuitable paths?
The problem is *you're* the traffic you're stuck in, not those of us who choose to cycle...
WinstonWolf said:
To my mind it should be the law that if you're physically fit you should not be allowed to use a car for journeys under three miles...
Would you drive a road car across a field? So why would you expect me to ride on unsuitable paths?
The problem is *you're* the traffic you're stuck in, not those of us who choose to cycle...
Wot 'e said...........Would you drive a road car across a field? So why would you expect me to ride on unsuitable paths?
The problem is *you're* the traffic you're stuck in, not those of us who choose to cycle...
WinstonWolf said:
To my mind it should be the law that if you're physically fit you should not be allowed to use a car for journeys under three miles...
For second, I thought you were serious! I'm going to have a lot of fun getting all my cans of oil and various car parts back from the motor factors on my bike, let alone all my groceries.
WinstonWolf said:
Would you drive a road car across a field?
Yes, quite often do it at car boot sales, overspill National Trust car parks etcWinstonWolf said:
So why would you expect me to ride on unsuitable paths?
A lot depends on who is defining unsuitable - if you say that holding me up is insignificant and irrelevant, then using a cycle path that takes a few extra seconds won't kill you.WinstonWolf said:
The problem is *you're* the traffic you're stuck in, not those of us who choose to cycle...
No, we're all part of it, including those who choose to cycle.Saddle bum said:
spaximus said:
To my mind it should be the law if there is a cycle path it must be used. Cyclists by choosing not to use what is provided do wind up others who are held up.
I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
Well it's not law, so live with it. Also, lanes are not for riders exceeding 18mph, that's official.I am not anti cyclist but where facilities are demanded and then not used, it is unsurprising when others feel that is wrong.
Whilst taking the point of the condition of some, yes some are not as smooth as the road however, cyclists should get them made better, lobby Sustran, who have had millions of aid to develop traffic free routes, they are effective at getting the aims of cyclists to the front.
I have a friend whose son is a rabid cyclist. He wants paths that he can do flat out everywhere without walkers or any interruption to his progress and takes great pride in riding on the road like a dick as it is his right.
Sustrans have no responsibility for lanes alongside roads, that's for the local council.
It should be law for everyone other than cyclist to keep out of cycle lanes, ie. Parked cars, peds, mums with push chairs, pikies dumped trash. AND, keep them fit for use, instead of strewn with puncture-fodder and pot-holes.
Incidentally, Horses, Pedestrians and Cyclists have right to use the roads [for free] enshrined in law. Tintops have to pay - License, MoT, Insurance, VED, for what is, in fact, a privilege.
Sustran, have had millions from all of us to develop cycle routes. They have officers who deal with the councils to encourage "integrated" solutions, which they are very good at doing.
Totally agree with the keeping clear of cycle lanes.
Your final point, many cyclists love to say we do not pay road tax as motorists so we have no more rights than cyclists, so regardless of who pays what, roads are shared space, where facilities are provided for one gropu or another to use exclusively they should be used by that group.
I do not see the roads as a battlefield that cyclists do, commonsense form both sides is all it takes to rub along but people from both sides of the fence seem to be determined to slug it out rather that rationally discuss things.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff