Witnessed a Road Rage incident - argument was interesting...
Discussion
xRIEx said:
405dogvan said:
I thought he had a point - cyclists don't like cars getting close (for good reason) but will happily weave/undertake cars taking exactly the same risk, in most cases just making the driver have to pass them AGAIN (and in most cases, breaking the law of course)
Two reasons, as I see it:1. a car moving at 20mph has massive amounts more kinetic energy than a cycle and cyclist moving at 20mph and therefore has the potential to do massive amounts more damage.
2. Control: a cyclist moving through stationary traffic is in control of the separation (and as above, at massively reduced risk); a cyclist being passed by a car has much less control over the separation (and is at greater risk).
Yes, it's a control thing - did they actually even SEE me is the thought you have (I've spent enough time on cycles and bikes to know that feeling) but there IS a point to be made here
The fact you're taking the bigger risk doesn't make it fairer to the driver who's got to have eyes in the back of his head to see you/know where you are
The fact might hurt you more if a car knocks you over doesn't mean the driver isn't going to feel REALLY bad for something which maybe wasn't even their fault - and there's the chance in avoiding you they'll hit someone else too.
Example: I once passed through a narrow gap in town centre traffic only to see a pedestrian step-out RIGHT in-front on me/ Before I could react I heard an awful noise - a crunching bang - in my mind I'd just run someone down!!
By the time I'd stopped, gotten out, gone back to see I'd pictured someone with their leg hanging-off or even dying - when I arrived, the sound transpired to be a shopping bag full of tins dragging along the side of the car - no-one otherwise injured.
Absolutely not my fault - I still hear that noise sometimes, god knows what it's like to have actually harmed someone!!
Superhoop said:
Wasn't there a video doing the rounds a little while ago where the car driver reversed when a cyclist used his car a leaning post causing the cyclist to fall over - Cyclist went mental at driver, but was just being a cheeky b
d in the first place...
I cycle, but would never use somebody else's car/lorry for a leaning post...
Exactly what I would do ... I pay a lot of attention to my paintwork and don't want some sweaty greasy gritty hands all over it. Cheeky bd in the first place...I cycle, but would never use somebody else's car/lorry for a leaning post...
ds!Just wish large groups of cyclist would leave gaps to allow cars to overtake and not ride two abreast when it causes an obstruction.
Also, wish cars would not respond by telling me they are going to run me over if I ever change lane into the two car length gap ahead of them again.
Once passed to close to a bike (he was going faster than i anticipated and accelerated down the hill as I overtook, then I think I pulled in too close), then to be subjected to crazy riding, passing on my right as I am making a right turn and putting himself in much more danger, dhead.
Yes Wayne, you know who you are.
Also, wish cars would not respond by telling me they are going to run me over if I ever change lane into the two car length gap ahead of them again.
Once passed to close to a bike (he was going faster than i anticipated and accelerated down the hill as I overtook, then I think I pulled in too close), then to be subjected to crazy riding, passing on my right as I am making a right turn and putting himself in much more danger, d
head.Yes Wayne, you know who you are.
dvb70 said:
It seems in regard to the original argument that a cyclist maneuvering very closely to a stopped car does not involve the same level of risk to them as a moving car maneuvering very close to a cyclist. The second scenario is far more likely to result in serious injury to the cyclist. So they really are not quite the same thing.
Given that said cyclists weave through static traffic to get to the front, only to be overtaken by all the cars again 50 yards down the road, surely it would be safer if they just stayed where they were at the back then wouldnt risk all those cars getting too close?I had the opposite recently.. no one got annoyed but I followed 3 cyclists down a narrow single track lane.
The first one waved me past but he was 2ft from the edge of an 8ft lane - fine if he wants my 6ft car to brush past him but I waited, he moved over in a passing place so I overtook.
The second moved to the side and stopped - so I overtook.
The third cycled furiously, seemingly amazed that he could be holding up a car, clearly tiring and now miles ahead of his mates eventually the lane widened and I passed him.
It seems that the two who actively tried to aid an overtake were inconvenienced for a couple of seconds whilst the superior cyclist inconvenienced us both for several minutes - there's a lesson in there somewhere
The first one waved me past but he was 2ft from the edge of an 8ft lane - fine if he wants my 6ft car to brush past him but I waited, he moved over in a passing place so I overtook.
The second moved to the side and stopped - so I overtook.
The third cycled furiously, seemingly amazed that he could be holding up a car, clearly tiring and now miles ahead of his mates eventually the lane widened and I passed him.
It seems that the two who actively tried to aid an overtake were inconvenienced for a couple of seconds whilst the superior cyclist inconvenienced us both for several minutes - there's a lesson in there somewhere
AyBee said:
The difference is the size of the vehicle passing. If a bike gets it wrong going up the inside of a car, you might end up with some scratches in the worst case;
Not convinced at all, surely it's that an overtaking car will be going quicker than an undertaking bike 99.9% of the time?AyBee said:
The difference is the size of the vehicle passing. If a bike gets it wrong going up the inside of a car, you might end up with some scratches in the worst case; if a car gets it wrong overtaking a bike, you might end up with the death of a cyclist in the worst case - I think it's a fairly simple argument.
Sorry, but I don't!I have been a pedestrian for over 50 years, a cyclist for over 45 years, a motorcyclist and car driver for 40 + years, and this is the sort of comment that makes me lose my rag!
Is it OK if I just scratch your bike then? Maybe some effort to treat others as you would like to be treated would be a good starting place!
This is PH FFS not MAMIL weekly, so why is it OK to scratch someone elses P & J? And as we keep seeing in the news cement mixers and skip trucks result in cyclist deaths even when the truck driver isn't necessarily in the wrong!
I always allow plenty of room for cyclists when I pass them and move over for motorbikes filtering when I am in traffic, but I expect a certain degree of courtesy from other road users whatever mode I or they are using.
I stop at red lights, whether I am walking, riding a bike, on a motorbike or driving a car - they surely aren't optional according to your chosen method of transportation? Why am I regularly seeing a green traffic light and unable to proceed because pedestrians think the red light at the pedestrian crossing doesn't apply to them? Get off the road - after all they wouldn't be too happy if I drove on the pavement!
The 2 biggest almost accidents I have ever had were in Tooting when I was commuting on my motorbike and a cyclist jumped a red light when I was about to go on a green light, the second was when I was walking along the pavement in Victoria and a lycra courier decided the pavement would give him immunity from traffic lights!
Mind you the craziest where I was just a spectator was the push-biker I watched at Vauxhall Bridge who ignored a red light and crossed at least 8 lanes of oncoming traffic because he couldn't be bothered to wait (or IMHO thought he was more precious than all that nonsense). I was just sat there on the motorbike waiting for him to "scratch someones paint/die painfully" - even odds! (If you are wondering he made it, somehow!).
Surely the two situations are entirely different? If a car cuts a cyclist close and forces the cyclist through a pot hole that would cause them to crash, or clips them etc, the cyclist could be seriously injured or killed. If, on the other hand, a car is stationary or crawling and a cyclist gets a bit close filtering, the outcome isn't reversed - ie there's no way the car driver can get injured, in fact it'd again by the cyclist who gets injured. I'm not justifying cyclists riding like tits (or car drivers, or any road user), but the argument of 'one rule for you, one rule for me' is completely invalid because of the gross imbalance of risk.
RobM77 said:
Surely the two situations are entirely different? If a car cuts a cyclist close and forces the cyclist through a pot hole that would cause them to crash, or clips them etc, the cyclist could be seriously injured or killed. If, on the other hand, a car is stationary or crawling and a cyclist gets a bit close filtering, the outcome isn't reversed - ie there's no way the car driver can get injured, in fact it'd again by the cyclist who gets injured. I'm not justifying cyclists riding like tits (or car drivers, or any road user), but the argument of 'one rule for you, one rule for me' is completely invalid because of the gross imbalance of risk.
Maybe I didn't phrase what I posted totally clearly, but what I meant was that any road user should treat all other road users with suitable respect!I'm certainly not advocating any "one rule for you, one rule for me" but as a pedestrian I am especially vulnerable so exercise the utmost care! As a cyclist I am almost as vulnerable so exercise extreme care, as a motorcyclist I am a sitting duck so also exercise extreme care and as a car driver I am potentially more aware because of the vulnerability of the other groups of road users mentioned!
But from what you say I may not be wrong if I guessed you were a pedal-cyclist?!? As a non-licensed, un-regulated and generally uninsured group please don't lean on my car at traffic lights!
RobM77 said:
Surely the two situations are entirely different? If a car cuts a cyclist close and forces the cyclist through a pot hole that would cause them to crash, or clips them etc, the cyclist could be seriously injured or killed. If, on the other hand, a car is stationary or crawling and a cyclist gets a bit close filtering, the outcome isn't reversed - ie there's no way the car driver can get injured, in fact it'd again by the cyclist who gets injured. I'm not justifying cyclists riding like tits (or car drivers, or any road user), but the argument of 'one rule for you, one rule for me' is completely invalid because of the gross imbalance of risk.
The problem is that some cyclist will put themselves in very dangerous situations but then expect other road users to somehow accomadate their bizarre behaviour and take full responsibility for the cyclists safety. And you're wrong on the speed issue, how often do we see the cyclist getting horrific injuries undertaking the left turning vehicle which is always at slow / filtering speed. I really can't imagine being involved in an accident that killed someone, yes not being at fault would make it less bad but to be involved in such an accident is unimaginable.Having said all that, I always allow cyclists plenty of space as I'm very aware of their vulnerability, and I drive, cycle, motorcycle, run and walk on the roads so have all perspectives in mind. But it's very regular to not see that care reciprocated to vehicles and pedestrians they are filtering past or shooting red lights around. It's certainly not all cyclists and I'm not tarnishing all with the same brush, but I can picture the situation in the OP.
All this needs is all groups to be considerate of the others and nobody to behave like they have special status and deserve special treatment.
All I would add is that if the stretch of the road allows a cyclist to overtaken and then get back to the front again at the next stoppage then that is a conjested/slow part of road full stop and they will be causing you very little delay.
I was quite a keen cyclist a few years back and the only real thing that annoys me these days are the large groups which even single file stretch a long way. It just seems ignorant to me, in the same way when I was filtering on my bike once a car squeezed the gap to thwart me. We should all do what we can to facilitate the safe and efficient progress of us AND others, but we all have our off days!
I was quite a keen cyclist a few years back and the only real thing that annoys me these days are the large groups which even single file stretch a long way. It just seems ignorant to me, in the same way when I was filtering on my bike once a car squeezed the gap to thwart me. We should all do what we can to facilitate the safe and efficient progress of us AND others, but we all have our off days!
If we're discussing odd cyclist behaviour...
Can anyone explain why I sometimes encounter cyclist on Milton Keynes grid roads? Putting themselves the mix with NSL traffic when there is a separate cycle path about 10m away? Most usually use the paths but there's always the odd one on the road!
Can anyone explain why I sometimes encounter cyclist on Milton Keynes grid roads? Putting themselves the mix with NSL traffic when there is a separate cycle path about 10m away? Most usually use the paths but there's always the odd one on the road!
Hungrymc said:
The problem is that some cyclist will put themselves in very dangerous situations but then expect other road users to somehow accomadate their bizarre behaviour and take full responsibility for the cyclists safety.
I see this quite a bit on my commute to/from work though not in a built up area, just through a normal town and some link roads to/from the local A roads.Yesterday it was some sweaty lump who was riding about 3 feet out from the kerb on a perfectly smooth recently resurfaced road, and even then keeping in a straight line seemed like way too much effort and he was drifting out almost to the middle of the road.
It's bizarre as if I was pissed and walking in the road and weaving all over the place I'm sure it wouldn't be acceptable, yet put me in a helmet on a bike and it's absolutely fine.
Many years ago when I used to cycle to work I didn't really mind how close they got, as long as I had a bit of room. Unless they hit me it didn't bother me at all, why should it?
If you can't cycle in a straight line or keep controls hen a car passes then probably not best to be on the road.
If you can't cycle in a straight line or keep controls hen a car passes then probably not best to be on the road.
Mr Tidy said:
AyBee said:
The difference is the size of the vehicle passing. If a bike gets it wrong going up the inside of a car, you might end up with some scratches in the worst case; if a car gets it wrong overtaking a bike, you might end up with the death of a cyclist in the worst case - I think it's a fairly simple argument.
Sorry, but I don't!I have been a pedestrian for over 50 years, a cyclist for over 45 years, a motorcyclist and car driver for 40 + years, and this is the sort of comment that makes me lose my rag!
Is it OK if I just scratch your bike then? Maybe some effort to treat others as you would like to be treated would be a good starting place!
This is PH FFS not MAMIL weekly, so why is it OK to scratch someone elses P & J? And as we keep seeing in the news cement mixers and skip trucks result in cyclist deaths even when the truck driver isn't necessarily in the wrong!
I always allow plenty of room for cyclists when I pass them and move over for motorbikes filtering when I am in traffic, but I expect a certain degree of courtesy from other road users whatever mode I or they are using.
I stop at red lights, whether I am walking, riding a bike, on a motorbike or driving a car - they surely aren't optional according to your chosen method of transportation? Why am I regularly seeing a green traffic light and unable to proceed because pedestrians think the red light at the pedestrian crossing doesn't apply to them? Get off the road - after all they wouldn't be too happy if I drove on the pavement!
The 2 biggest almost accidents I have ever had were in Tooting when I was commuting on my motorbike and a cyclist jumped a red light when I was about to go on a green light, the second was when I was walking along the pavement in Victoria and a lycra courier decided the pavement would give him immunity from traffic lights!
Mind you the craziest where I was just a spectator was the push-biker I watched at Vauxhall Bridge who ignored a red light and crossed at least 8 lanes of oncoming traffic because he couldn't be bothered to wait (or IMHO thought he was more precious than all that nonsense). I was just sat there on the motorbike waiting for him to "scratch someones paint/die painfully" - even odds! (If you are wondering he made it, somehow!).
Roger Irrelevant said:
I know what you mean, but sometimes you have to weigh up whether passing a few cars and saving a few seconds is worth then having those cars stuck up your jacksie for the next mile, with their drivers getting increasingly irate. On my commute there is a rail crossing on an otherwise free-flowing road, and although I could easily get to the front whenever the barriers are down I just take my place in the queue. If I went to the front all that happens is that there will be a long line of traffic stuck behind me that won't be able to get past because of the line of traffic that's built up coming the other way. For the sake of my commute taking one minute longer I'd rather not have that, thanks. Quite often though someone else on a bike will go to the front and then have numerous people do dodgy overtakes on them; it seems a bit pointless really.
This is good to hear as it's one of my bug bears too but I'd like to think you do it to be a bit considerate also?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff