Witnessed a Road Rage incident - argument was interesting...
Discussion
Wacky Racer said:
I can never understand why cyclists think they can ignore red traffic lights at will.
Of course if a car it them going through the other way at 90 degrees it would be the driver's fault for not seeing him....
As a (part time) cyclist I would never dream of running a red light....nuts!
+1Of course if a car it them going through the other way at 90 degrees it would be the driver's fault for not seeing him....
As a (part time) cyclist I would never dream of running a red light....nuts!
If you want to be treated as a road user, then you need to obey the same rules everyone else does.
Riding on the footpath - when it suits - is another one that bugs me, and then invariably glaring at pedestrians when they havent heard you coming.
V8RX7 said:
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
^^^This is what I tend to see with the majority of city (commuting / courier etc) cyclistsxRIEx said:
esuuv said:
Why does everyone expect the cycles to remain in their place in the queue when its OK for the cars to overtake when moving? Cars take their opportunity to pass the slower vehicle when they can - bikes filtering through stationary / very slow traffic are surely just doing the same thing?
With that, an overtaking car you would expect (not always, granted; there are plenty of numpties about) to continue at a greater pace than the overtakee and so they do not inconvenience them in any way; a cyclist on the other hand goes to the front of the stationary traffic and proceeds to inconvenience everyone they've passed.Debaser said:
Fonzey said:
on a few occasions needing to stick a hand out for support on a stationary car.
That would piss me off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSCFYF5aPM
still I'd be happy oto do the same
Edited by irocfan on Saturday 28th May 12:16
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.
Not entirely that simple, is it.Cyclists on an open road know that the driver only has them to worry about
Cyclists in traffic need to remember that every driver is looking for roadsigns, lane markings, traffic lights, upto 8 vehicles around them and MAYBE that cyclist who's weaving through that lot.
I've lost count of the times in traffic I've noticed a cyclist and then lost them and thought "where's the fker gone?". Could be in a blind spot, could be they're in another lane, could have baled to the pavement or COULD have their head under my rear wheel - hmmmmmm
Someone mentioned courtesy and that's the key here - everyone should use their brain a bit. Don't overtake someone who'll just have to overtake you back 10 seconds later (imagine if cars did that) - give people space and expect space to be given.
Oh - and if you NEED to use a car to stay upright, you've put your bike somewhere there wasn't enough space for it and you're a berk.
405dogvan said:
Someone mentioned courtesy and that's the key here - everyone should use their brain a bit. Don't overtake someone who'll just have to overtake you back 10 seconds later (imagine if cars did that)
I agree with the sentiment about courtesy, but not the implication that it's only cyclists that lack it.Imagine cars overtaking only to be overtaken 10 seconds later? It happens every day! If the average speed of the traffic is less than 15 mph then it's the cars holding up the bikes, not the other way round. You don't have to overtake someone just because you can, especially if there's a red traffic light or queue ahead, or if you're about to turn left...
There is st cyclists and st drivers. The only difference seems to be that people lump all cyclists as the same. Strangely people make comments about "cyclists do x y and z!" But never "car drivers all do a, b and c! They should stop". Treat them as individuals.
Both sides need education.
Both sides need education.
SteveSteveson said:
There is st cyclists and st drivers. The only difference seems to be that people lump all cyclists as the same. Strangely people make comments about "cyclists do x y and z!" But never "car drivers all do a, b and c! They should stop". Treat them as individuals.
Both sides need education.
Do you genuinely believe that bit about people not generalising about cars and drivers?Both sides need education.
SteveSteveson said:
There is st cyclists and st drivers. The only difference seems to be that people lump all cyclists as the same. Strangely people make comments about "cyclists do x y and z!" But never "car drivers all do a, b and c! They should stop". Treat them as individuals.
Both sides need education.
This ^^^^^^^^^Both sides need education.
I drove around 8,500 miles last year and cycled 7,000. Does that make me a driver or a cyclist?
Mr Tidy said:
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!
Because the system is biased.As a driver of a vehicle, fingers are automatically pointed at you. Doesn't matter what the pedestrian/cyclist did, usually the blame gets pointed at the person who actually paid the money to be trained.
While I agree that someone with a vehicle licence SHOULD be the better user of the road, I disagree that this absolves a pedestrian/cyclist of any wrong doing when they have just as much responsibility to look out for themselves.
As an example, If I stepped out onto a straight main road with good visibility but just didn't bother to turn my head for a moment and a car was doing 10mph over the speed limit, you can argue the driver was speeding so therefore they were at fault. But from a logical point of view, wouldn't I be the idiot for not checking my path was clear before proceeding?
The thing is, people know the driver is usually held at fault, so why should they bothered? They just see "a fat compo claim" and just don't care.
If the system didn't allow it, people would start thinking a bit more. Or they'd just succumb to nature taking its course.
405dogvan said:
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.
Not entirely that simple, is it.Cyclists on an open road know that the driver only has them to worry about
Cyclists in traffic need to remember that every driver is looking for roadsigns, lane markings, traffic lights, upto 8 vehicles around them and MAYBE that cyclist who's weaving through that lot.
I've lost count of the times in traffic I've noticed a cyclist and then lost them and thought "where's the fker gone?". Could be in a blind spot, could be they're in another lane, could have baled to the pavement or COULD have their head under my rear wheel - hmmmmmm
Someone mentioned courtesy and that's the key here - everyone should use their brain a bit. Don't overtake someone who'll just have to overtake you back 10 seconds later (imagine if cars did that) - give people space and expect space to be given.
Oh - and if you NEED to use a car to stay upright, you've put your bike somewhere there wasn't enough space for it and you're a berk.
popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
You don't have to overtake someone just because you can, especially if there's a red traffic light or queue ahead, or if you're about to turn left...
Presumably this applies to pushbikes as well.Mave said:
popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
You don't have to overtake someone just because you can, especially if there's a red traffic light or queue ahead, or if you're about to turn left...
Presumably this applies to pushbikes as well.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff