Lemming cyclist faceplants into hedge...
Discussion
yellowjack said:
Hey you, worthless first year worm, give me your tuck shop money or I'll turn you upside down and shake it out of you!
Yes Mr Bully-boy sixth former. Here, take it all, my bus fare too. After all, it's only courteous. Anything else I can do? Clean your shoes? Press your shirt? Bare my arse to indulge your spanking fetish?
thats what people think when courtesy is expectedYes Mr Bully-boy sixth former. Here, take it all, my bus fare too. After all, it's only courteous. Anything else I can do? Clean your shoes? Press your shirt? Bare my arse to indulge your spanking fetish?
courtesy should be given freely and shouldnt be expected otherwise above thoughts arise
ETA as Ive outlined before
Pedestrians walking along a lane no pavements when an oncoming truck approaches
In theory the pedestrians have higher rights (theyre more vulnerable) and the truck should stop until they're past
In practice the pedestrians step onto the verge until the truck is past i.e. they show courtesy
It shouldnt be confused with the truck bullying the pedestrians onto the verge
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 1st May 17:10
Randy Winkman said:
Exactly. Some road systems simply haven't been designed to take into account of cyclists so the wise thing is to use your own judgement. Same thing with "Road Closed" signs. In all my tens of thousands of miles of cycling I've never had to take a diversion at a "Road Closed" sign.
Yep, never had to turn around for road closed signs, did come close though. Bristol-Cambridge on an audax, then on to St Ives. The cycleway was flooded, the organisers provided a back road alternative. Highways England had recently completed the new A14. Which I knew was effectively a smart motorway and banned virtually all non-motorway traffic.No, my plan was to follow the A1307, the local access road alongside. It then took the old A14 dual carriageway, which I figured would be very smooth and quiet. A couple of others tagged along with me.
Only, we reach Bar Hill and there are "road closed" signs. The official diversion is down the new A14 - the restrictions weren't yet in force! I'd maybe have contemplated it alone, but I was leading a group. We ignored the closure. It was less "road closed", and more "we haven't finished building the sodding road". And we still got through! Did have to ride the wrong way up a live slip road for about 50m to get between two lines of cones, though.
Still preferable than the alternative...
And then more recently on a night ride down the A30, I hit roadworks, and ended up off route. And then saw this diversion sign...
saaby93 said:
yes and as you say, same with some cyclists
and pedestrians?
why not cover it all with 'some road users'
You see it in the dash cam vids too.
How many times do I have to say to everyone - even if you have the right show some courtesy, wait - it goes a long way
You continue to justify car drivers. I don’t think you understand at all tbh. How many hours a week do you ride a bicycle? and pedestrians?
why not cover it all with 'some road users'
You see it in the dash cam vids too.
How many times do I have to say to everyone - even if you have the right show some courtesy, wait - it goes a long way
ddom said:
saaby93 said:
yes and as you say, same with some cyclists
and pedestrians?
why not cover it all with 'some road users'
You see it in the dash cam vids too.
How many times do I have to say to everyone - even if you have the right show some courtesy, wait - it goes a long way
You continue to justify car drivers. I don’t think you understand at all tbh. How many hours a week do you ride a bicycle? and pedestrians?
why not cover it all with 'some road users'
You see it in the dash cam vids too.
How many times do I have to say to everyone - even if you have the right show some courtesy, wait - it goes a long way
See the bit up there that says 'dash cam vids too' how is that 'justify car drivers'
or how is adding cyclists and pedestrians 'justify car drivers'
Try to look from further away and find some perspective
saaby93 said:
hats what people think when courtesy is expected
courtesy should be given freely and shouldnt be expected otherwise above thoughts arise
ETA as Ive outlined before
Pedestrians walking along a lane no pavements when an oncoming truck approaches
In theory the pedestrians have higher rights (theyre more vulnerable) and the truck should stop until they're past
In practice the pedestrians step onto the verge until the truck is past i.e. they show courtesy
It shouldnt be confused with the truck bullying the pedestrians onto the verge
So, your courtesy means: those who are sat down, protected from the elements, being powered by machine, should expect priority over those outside, in the elements, propelling or transporting themselves.courtesy should be given freely and shouldnt be expected otherwise above thoughts arise
ETA as Ive outlined before
Pedestrians walking along a lane no pavements when an oncoming truck approaches
In theory the pedestrians have higher rights (theyre more vulnerable) and the truck should stop until they're past
In practice the pedestrians step onto the verge until the truck is past i.e. they show courtesy
It shouldnt be confused with the truck bullying the pedestrians onto the verge
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 1st May 17:10
heebeegeetee said:
saaby93 said:
Thats what people think when courtesy is expected
courtesy should be given freely and shouldn't be expected otherwise above thoughts arise
ETA as I've outlined before
Pedestrians walking along a lane no pavements when an oncoming truck approaches
In theory the pedestrians have higher rights (theyre more vulnerable) and the truck should stop until they're past
In practice the pedestrians step onto the verge until the truck is past i.e. they show courtesy
It shouldnt be confused with the truck bullying the pedestrians onto the verge
So, your courtesy means: those who are sat down, protected from the elements, being powered by machine, should expect priority over those outside, in the elements, propelling or transporting themselves.courtesy should be given freely and shouldn't be expected otherwise above thoughts arise
ETA as I've outlined before
Pedestrians walking along a lane no pavements when an oncoming truck approaches
In theory the pedestrians have higher rights (theyre more vulnerable) and the truck should stop until they're past
In practice the pedestrians step onto the verge until the truck is past i.e. they show courtesy
It shouldnt be confused with the truck bullying the pedestrians onto the verge
Maybe that's where it's going wrong. or is it a perverse way of creating argument where none is needed?
Anything else you'd like to 'say I mean', where I've said the opposite
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 1st May 23:50
saaby93 said:
Not at all - I wrote 'shouldnt be expected', why convert that into 'should expect' ?
Maybe that's where it's going wrong. or is it a perverse way of creating argument where none is needed?
Anything else you'd like to 'say I mean', where I've said the opposite
I think you're confusing expectations with courtesy. It is the expectation that people will get out of the way for a vehicle (indeed multiple people for a single vehicle occupant) and if they don't it's seen as discourteous.Maybe that's where it's going wrong. or is it a perverse way of creating argument where none is needed?
Anything else you'd like to 'say I mean', where I've said the opposite
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 1st May 23:50
I was recently on a very narrow lane, barely wider than my car. I came across a young woman walking her dog. She immediately felt she had to squeeze against the side of the road and get out of my way, but I'm sat down comfortably, the machine doing all my work, I wanted her to continue her walk and I can wait till she finds a safe space to stand to one side, but of course I couldn't convey this to her.
I lowered my window to apologise for spoiling her walk but she got her apology in first for being in the way. This is how we are conditioned in Britain, where the car is king, but we have a new road hierarchy now where she has priority over me.
Courtesy works both ways and it shouldn't be the immediate expectation that drivers have priority simply because they're in a vehicle.
heebeegeetee said:
saaby93 said:
Not at all - I wrote 'shouldnt be expected', why convert that into 'should expect' ?
Maybe that's where it's going wrong. or is it a perverse way of creating argument where none is needed?
Anything else you'd like to 'say I mean', where I've said the opposite
I think you're confusing expectations with courtesy. It is the expectation that people will get out of the way for a vehicle (indeed multiple people for a single vehicle occupant) and if they don't it's seen as discourteous.Maybe that's where it's going wrong. or is it a perverse way of creating argument where none is needed?
Anything else you'd like to 'say I mean', where I've said the opposite
I was recently on a very narrow lane, barely wider than my car. I came across a young woman walking her dog. She immediately felt she had to squeeze against the side of the road and get out of my way, but I'm sat down comfortably, the machine doing all my work, I wanted her to continue her walk and I can wait till she finds a safe space to stand to one side, but of course I couldn't convey this to her.
I lowered my window to apologise for spoiling her walk but she got her apology in first for being in the way. This is how we are conditioned in Britain, where the car is king, but we have a new road hierarchy now where she has priority over me.
The road hierarchy has always been where pedestrians have highest priority, The new rules are there to emphasise it.
However courtesy still existed too say when there was horses and horse and cart. A horse is pretty tricky to steer, a pedestrian can acknowledge it and step aside to allow the horse past.
This balancing occurs throughout the highway code and is written so that if one user makes a mistake the other can make allowances for it without turning it into a bigger incident ( a duty to avoid).
Courtesy can go along way to preventing in the first place - as they used to say 'After you Claude' 'no after you'
I don't "get" the ph hive mind sometimes.
For 8 or so pages, and at least 7 pages too many, you've all been trying to debate with a poster that has clearly demonstrated no logical flow whatsoever, hasn't made any decent stance or point consistently, but has repeatedly shown the desire to simply have an argument.
You're never going to "win" a debate with a poster that only wants an argument, in fact you win by simply moving on with life.
For 8 or so pages, and at least 7 pages too many, you've all been trying to debate with a poster that has clearly demonstrated no logical flow whatsoever, hasn't made any decent stance or point consistently, but has repeatedly shown the desire to simply have an argument.
You're never going to "win" a debate with a poster that only wants an argument, in fact you win by simply moving on with life.
saaby93 said:
ope you're still turning it upside down
The road hierarchy has always been where pedestrians have highest priority, The new rules are there to emphasise it.
However courtesy still existed too say when there was horses and horse and cart. A horse is pretty tricky to steer, a pedestrian can acknowledge it and step aside to allow the horse past.
This balancing occurs throughout the highway code and is written so that if one user makes a mistake the other can make allowances for it without turning it into a bigger incident ( a duty to avoid).
Courtesy can go along way to preventing in the first place - as they used to say 'After you Claude' 'no after you'
Interesting. Your first reply to me back on page 31 was "Why not bring in something else that didnt happen" and now all this time later you're bringing horses and carts into it.The road hierarchy has always been where pedestrians have highest priority, The new rules are there to emphasise it.
However courtesy still existed too say when there was horses and horse and cart. A horse is pretty tricky to steer, a pedestrian can acknowledge it and step aside to allow the horse past.
This balancing occurs throughout the highway code and is written so that if one user makes a mistake the other can make allowances for it without turning it into a bigger incident ( a duty to avoid).
Courtesy can go along way to preventing in the first place - as they used to say 'After you Claude' 'no after you'
You've had it upside down throughout the thread. The LR driver failed to extend courtesy and failed to drive properly and he's paid the price.
These are the facts, you've been arguing black is white ever since, and you're totally wrong about the hierarchy and highway code too.
I'm not sure this worth the effort when people are entrenched but the Highway Code isnt about confrontation, it's about how everyone can get on using the road.
If you look at that first video again and how it could have played out better.
First of all the bikes could have been 'owning' the road so that when the landrover approached, they all had to stop and work out how to pass each other. It might have involved either using the verge or backing up to a suitable place.
Instead the bikes showed courtesy by keeping reasonably to the left and the landrover moves left just touching the verge.
The space is more than many bikes would normally accept for oncoming traffic and closing speeds lower too, it can be preferable to get the pass done so everyone has the whole road again.
For whatever reason Bike2 falls off while the other 2 stay upright, the Landrover almost stops but Bike3 is more interested in gesticulating than checking Bike2.
If we play that bit again, the Landrover stops and backs up to see if Bike 2 is ok
Bike 3 is checking Bike 2, Bike 1 has turned around too
Landrover says - not sure what happened there - is Bike 2 ok - anything I can do?
Bike 1 and 3 say yep all ok not sure what happened either but Bike2 back on pedals now
Everyone carries on, Courtesy goes a long way.
If you look at that first video again and how it could have played out better.
First of all the bikes could have been 'owning' the road so that when the landrover approached, they all had to stop and work out how to pass each other. It might have involved either using the verge or backing up to a suitable place.
Instead the bikes showed courtesy by keeping reasonably to the left and the landrover moves left just touching the verge.
The space is more than many bikes would normally accept for oncoming traffic and closing speeds lower too, it can be preferable to get the pass done so everyone has the whole road again.
For whatever reason Bike2 falls off while the other 2 stay upright, the Landrover almost stops but Bike3 is more interested in gesticulating than checking Bike2.
If we play that bit again, the Landrover stops and backs up to see if Bike 2 is ok
Bike 3 is checking Bike 2, Bike 1 has turned around too
Landrover says - not sure what happened there - is Bike 2 ok - anything I can do?
Bike 1 and 3 say yep all ok not sure what happened either but Bike2 back on pedals now
Everyone carries on, Courtesy goes a long way.
Some Gump said:
I don't "get" the ph hive mind sometimes.
For 8 or so pages, and at least 7 pages too many, you've all been trying to debate with a poster that has clearly demonstrated no logical flow whatsoever, hasn't made any decent stance or point consistently, but has repeatedly shown the desire to simply have an argument.
You're never going to "win" a debate with a poster that only wants an argument, in fact you win by simply moving on with life.
Indeed. A triumph of quantity over quality without a modicum of critical thinking or self awareness. 247+ posts... and counting. For 8 or so pages, and at least 7 pages too many, you've all been trying to debate with a poster that has clearly demonstrated no logical flow whatsoever, hasn't made any decent stance or point consistently, but has repeatedly shown the desire to simply have an argument.
You're never going to "win" a debate with a poster that only wants an argument, in fact you win by simply moving on with life.
yellowjack said:
Question for all the pious "cyclist shouldn't run a red light. Ever." types.
Do you really believe this guff?
Consider this. I was cycling along quite happily, and came to a traffic light controlled single lane section. There were cars going through from "my end" on green, and as i got to the stop line the light was STILL GREEN. As I passed the traffic light pole itself, though, I was aware of the lights then changing to amber. But "It's OK" I thought. "It was green when I passed the signal". Fast forward a few seconds and now I'm approaching the far end of the single lane section. I can see cars waiting at the red light. All is OK. I'm within sight of them, after all, and it should be clear to all but the most stupid, most ignorant drivers that I proceeded on a green signal. Even if they get a green light before I reach the end.
But no. In entirely predictable fashion the lead car gets a green light (green = proceed IF SAFE remember) and accelerates like a scalded cat while holding down the horn, before stopping to give me a wagon-load of bilious abuse. I pull my bike as close to the kerb as possible, and try to extract myself from a situation ENTIRELY OF HIS MAKING. But no. He opens his door enough to block me, and wants to rant and yell some more. He gives in and drives on only when tooted at by drivers behind him. Drivers clearly more intelligent than he is because they haven't yet moved into the signal controlled section. Probably because they've worked out what is going to happen next. Yup, you guessed it, folks! He's off at pace through the controlled section, only to meet drivers part way through from the other end who have now got a green light. And they won't be reversing because there's a large wagon among those vehicles. How do I know this, given I can't see the far signal from this side? Because, rather f
king hilariously, the twunt who wanted to have me crucified for "obviously jumping a red light" has found himself in the same situation, and has now had to reverse all the way back to this end. Not only delaying those drivers behind him AND those ahead of him, but causing a knock-on effect delaying even more drivers as they arrive to join the queues for the traffic lights.
Bear in mind that this was a permanent set of lights. It's worse at many temporary lights. And cyclists can't really win. If they go through first they hold traffic behind them, all of which may reach the far end after that light changes to green. If, as I've done in the past, they "wave traffic through" ahead of them and go through last, they risk looking like the stereotypical "red light jumping cyclist" because timings on temporary lights don't always allow time for a cyclist to get through the controlled section. The safest option, if it's available, is to have at least some vehicles "trapped" behind you as you cycle through the roadworks. Because at least that way, if you get caught out be a changing light, you won't get driven AT because drivers are far more reluctant to level inaccurate accusation of "red light jumping" at other drivers. and even if they know/strongly suspect other drivers of jumping a red at the other end, their behaviour toward them is often far less confrontational.
It's sometimes suggested that cyclists should ride "on the pavement" through temporary lights at roadworks. Or even "through the coned area". But cycling on a footway is illegal, and the HSE don't like it when unauthorised persons enter work sites. And the true hypocrisy is that drivers STILL insist you obey the lights, and only proceed, even off the carriageway, when the light goes green. Why? Because they don't want cyclists getting ahead of them, "forcing" them to overtake again. It's almost like there's a huge element of drivers who want to "have their cake AND eat it" when it comes to sharing the roads with bicycles. On this subject, it wasn't that long ago that a cyclist who decided to ride through temporary lights on the footway because it was "safer and more considerate toward drivers" got caught on camera being ticketed by police for "riding on the footway". So if you're expecting me to ride on a footway, or through a work site, in order that a driver may be less likely to be held up behind me, you're going to find yourself expecting in vain. Because "roolz iz roolz", as they say...
You didn't run a red light...so what's that got to do with people who think cyclists shouldn't run red lights?Do you really believe this guff?
Consider this. I was cycling along quite happily, and came to a traffic light controlled single lane section. There were cars going through from "my end" on green, and as i got to the stop line the light was STILL GREEN. As I passed the traffic light pole itself, though, I was aware of the lights then changing to amber. But "It's OK" I thought. "It was green when I passed the signal". Fast forward a few seconds and now I'm approaching the far end of the single lane section. I can see cars waiting at the red light. All is OK. I'm within sight of them, after all, and it should be clear to all but the most stupid, most ignorant drivers that I proceeded on a green signal. Even if they get a green light before I reach the end.
But no. In entirely predictable fashion the lead car gets a green light (green = proceed IF SAFE remember) and accelerates like a scalded cat while holding down the horn, before stopping to give me a wagon-load of bilious abuse. I pull my bike as close to the kerb as possible, and try to extract myself from a situation ENTIRELY OF HIS MAKING. But no. He opens his door enough to block me, and wants to rant and yell some more. He gives in and drives on only when tooted at by drivers behind him. Drivers clearly more intelligent than he is because they haven't yet moved into the signal controlled section. Probably because they've worked out what is going to happen next. Yup, you guessed it, folks! He's off at pace through the controlled section, only to meet drivers part way through from the other end who have now got a green light. And they won't be reversing because there's a large wagon among those vehicles. How do I know this, given I can't see the far signal from this side? Because, rather f
king hilariously, the twunt who wanted to have me crucified for "obviously jumping a red light" has found himself in the same situation, and has now had to reverse all the way back to this end. Not only delaying those drivers behind him AND those ahead of him, but causing a knock-on effect delaying even more drivers as they arrive to join the queues for the traffic lights. Bear in mind that this was a permanent set of lights. It's worse at many temporary lights. And cyclists can't really win. If they go through first they hold traffic behind them, all of which may reach the far end after that light changes to green. If, as I've done in the past, they "wave traffic through" ahead of them and go through last, they risk looking like the stereotypical "red light jumping cyclist" because timings on temporary lights don't always allow time for a cyclist to get through the controlled section. The safest option, if it's available, is to have at least some vehicles "trapped" behind you as you cycle through the roadworks. Because at least that way, if you get caught out be a changing light, you won't get driven AT because drivers are far more reluctant to level inaccurate accusation of "red light jumping" at other drivers. and even if they know/strongly suspect other drivers of jumping a red at the other end, their behaviour toward them is often far less confrontational.
It's sometimes suggested that cyclists should ride "on the pavement" through temporary lights at roadworks. Or even "through the coned area". But cycling on a footway is illegal, and the HSE don't like it when unauthorised persons enter work sites. And the true hypocrisy is that drivers STILL insist you obey the lights, and only proceed, even off the carriageway, when the light goes green. Why? Because they don't want cyclists getting ahead of them, "forcing" them to overtake again. It's almost like there's a huge element of drivers who want to "have their cake AND eat it" when it comes to sharing the roads with bicycles. On this subject, it wasn't that long ago that a cyclist who decided to ride through temporary lights on the footway because it was "safer and more considerate toward drivers" got caught on camera being ticketed by police for "riding on the footway". So if you're expecting me to ride on a footway, or through a work site, in order that a driver may be less likely to be held up behind me, you're going to find yourself expecting in vain. Because "roolz iz roolz", as they say...
mike9009 said:
If the falling cyclist in the OP, had stopped courteously and put down their right foot on to the tarmac, how close would the land rover be from them?
Who can say, without a tape measure, but from the image shots doesnt it look further than many bikes would expect to be from an oncoming car. It looks like there's enough tarmac they could put their left foot down too.However remember there seemed to be some issue detaching feet from pedals until they were topsy turvy in the shrubbery so maybe putting a foot on the tarmac isnt feasible.
How does it affect things?
monthou said:
saaby93 said:
However remember there seemed to be some issue detaching feet from pedals until they were topsy turvy in the shrubbery
You're making that up.Similar was already said on page 1 but does the police pic show enough space to put one foot on the ground like Bikes1 and 3 when they stopped?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff