Careless drivers overtaking cyclists in Cambridge face fines

[feef]

funkyrobot said:

feef said:

The other thing to consider is the visibility of knobbishness.

A knob on a bicycle will filter through traffic and be seen by dozens of drivers.

A knob in a car will be seen by the drivers in his immediate vicinity and the degree of his knobbishness will be limited by the traffic situations.

He can't run a red light because he's not at one, and can't get to one.
A similarly minded cyclist can easily filter through traffic, being a knob in the process, reach a red light, and carry on regardless, being seen by many in the process.

I agree that cyclists appear to run more red lights than car drivers, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point about visiblity of knobbish behaviour

I also think that there are two groups of two-wheeled users : cyclists and pedestrians on bicycles. I find the former have better road manners than the latter who do what they would do when they are walking, but on a bicycle

What's wrong with filtering through traffic on a bicycle?

Nothing.

I'm referring to a knob filtering who does knobbish things and so it seen by far more drivers than a knobbish driver who's stuck in traffic, can't do anything so isn't seen.
Filtering itself is not a knobbish thing

[yellowjack]

The thing about this thread is that it mentioned "cyclists" in the thread title...

this thread title said:

Careless drivers overtaking cyclists in Cambridge face fines

...which set the "I hate cyclists" mob off in short order.

A simple edit of the thread title, to...

this thread title might have said:

Careless drivers in Cambridge face fines

or even

this thread title might have said:

Careless drivers and cyclists in Cambridge face fines

... and everyone on here thinks "Well I'm not a careless driver, and careless drivers piss me off. Hooray!"

Seriously, people? This isn't "persecution" of anyone. It's something that has become necessary because a few rotten apples refuse to learn how to get on with their fellow man nicely, and to use the roads properly. If you are not a "careless driver" (or even a careless cyclist) then I forecast that you have nothing to fear from such a police operation, because the standard of your driving will not attract the attention of the police. If you genuinely think that you are likely to get a tug from plod for this sort of thing, then "I put it to you that you are fully aware that you are a poor driver. Furthermore, if you knew the standard of your driving was poor, then you ought to have taken steps to improve the standard of your driving BEFORE it became an issue that attracted the attention of police officers engaged in a road safety campaign. The prosecution rests..."

[MC Bodge]

Well put, Yellowjack.

"cyclists" appears to have negative connotations with some people. As often happens with minorities, they are seen by some in the majority as different/strange and the root of "a problem"
In this case people on bikes are a visible minority who require different thought processes from drivers and are blamed by some when considering the frustrations of travelling by road.

Some drivers get agitated when they feel they are being held up by somebody on a bike. The fact that most drivers are slowed more by queues of other vehicles seems to bother them less as the other drivers are "like them", whereas people on bikes are visibly different (-whilst riding a bike).

[TWR]

It's surprises me how the truth offends some that answer with a Negative answer, In my years of driving I have never seen such antic's like the Sun Glasses when It's pissing down brigade, but hay ho, It takes all sorts.

[funkyrobot]

TWR said:

It's surprises me how the truth offends some that answer with a Negative answer, In my years of driving I have never seen such antic's like the Sun Glasses when It's pissing down brigade, but hay ho, It takes all sorts.

[gazza285]

funkyrobot said:

TWR said:

It's surprises me how the truth offends some that answer with a Negative answer, In my years of driving I have never seen such antic's like the Sun Glasses when It's pissing down brigade, but hay ho, It takes all sorts.

The bar to entry here is set very low.

[Buff Mchugelarge]

gazza285 said:

funkyrobot said:

TWR said:

It's surprises me how the truth offends some that answer with a Negative answer, In my years of driving I have never seen such antic's like the Sun Glasses when It's pissing down brigade, but hay ho, It takes all sorts.

The bar to entry here is set very low.

There's a bar?

[feef]

Buff Mchugelarge said:

gazza285 said:

funkyrobot said:

TWR said:

It's surprises me how the truth offends some that answer with a Negative answer, In my years of driving I have never seen such antic's like the Sun Glasses when It's pissing down brigade, but hay ho, It takes all sorts.

The bar to entry here is set very low.

There's a bar?

Where? Mine's a pint

[frisbee]

TWR said:

It's surprises me how the truth offends some that answer with a Negative answer, In my years of driving I have never seen such antic's like the Sun Glasses when It's pissing down brigade, but hay ho, It takes all sorts.

You do know it is illegal to drive under the influence of drugs?

[Vipers]

G321 said:

So drivers are to be fined for poor driving? Can't really see the problem with that

As a motorist and cyclist, agree providing they target the idiots on bikes who ignore traffic lights and generally don't give a toss about the HC, including those who insist on riding without lights.

[Vipers]

Pistonheader101 said:

im almost certain bike lanes aren't 1.5m wide

Strangely enough if you google it does say 1.5 is the minimum, but I agree with you. Also this was interesting from one link-

If the painted white line is solid, it means that the lane is ‘mandatory’ and drivers have to stay out of it during its time of operation, i.e. they can't park or drive in it. Cyclists, however, don’t have to stay within it.

Research suggests that the presence of cycle lanes may encourage drivers to overtake cyclists more closely than they would if the lane wasn’t there.

[yellowjack]

Vipers said:

As a motorist and cyclist, agree providing they target the idiots on bikes who ignore traffic lights and generally don't give a toss about the HC, including those who insist on riding without lights.

As a very keen cyclist, I totally agree. They can have as much of a crackdown on errant cyclists as they want. I'm confident that I won't draw the attention of the police either as a driver, or a cyclist. The idiots on bicycles who hop onto crowded footpaths, blatantly run red lights (especially at crossings where pedestrians are still using them, FFS!) and happily ignore Road vehicle Lighting Regulations deserve to have a short, sharp zero tolerance crackdown on them. Lights are cheap, and riding in accordance with a simple set of rules costs nothing. No excuse for behaving like an arse either in a car or on a bike.

[Vipers]

TWR said:

This is another way to persecute the Motorists,

I, like many notice the amount of Cycle lanes around the Cities / Towns,

I notice like a few on here the amount spent on Cycle Lanes but nothing regards Pot Holes,

I have not noticed any signs that the Cyclist are to start getting Insurance or a Road Fund tax, I wonder why they use the Road / Pavements, there are Cycle Lanes Signs put up, who pays for these do the Cyclists? although it is powered by the rider they should pay towards the usage of the roads they use, they cause damage to your cars, but do the pay.

Road tax as you put it is a non starter. Many cars have low emission and zero road tax, or what ever you call it.

[cylinderfin]

JordanM200 said:

Well the article is suggesting people are currently not giving enough room, correct? Not enough room = dangerously passing?

As others have said, it is OK for cyclists to run red lights, but if motorists would do this, it would be done with a bat of an eyelid? I think not. They don't pay roadtax, think they own the roads.

I would guess that the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists, do you really think they don't pay road tax?

[cylinderfin]

funkyrobot said:

I do wish they would do something like this in Lincolnshire. I bike every day to work and a lot of drivers pass me far too closely. Multiple times in one day last week I had a vehicle brush past my right arm. Seems to be done by people who simply cannot wait around 10 seconds to pass me.

I also enrage a Golf R driver the other day. Passed him at some traffic lights as he was in a queue on a red light. As we rounded a corner further up the road he came up behind me at some temporary traffic lights. He then proceeded to rev his engine while we waited for the green light and when it appeared, he floored it and brushed past me as we set off.

He was probably angry because his lease is up soon and he can't afford another R.

I sympathize with that feeling mate, all I would say is that if you get the chance to catch them up at the next junction, get your own back. Hatchbacks have rear wipers, remove them!

[DonkeyApple]

cylinderfin said:

I would guess that the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists, do you really think they don't pay road tax?

No one pays road tax. There is no such thing as road tax.

The roads in the U.K. are paid for out of income tax, council tax and consumer taxes like VAT. So even people who don’t own a car, a bike or use any road transport are paying for the roads.

Now, given that the average cyclist tends to be an above average income earner it stands to reason that the cyclist may well be paying more for the roads than the motorist who claims he pays a totally fictitious road tax.

It really is important that people stop banging on about a tax that doesn’t exist and ended before the Second World War!!!!!!!!!!

If you pay tax or buy taxed goods in the U.K. then you are paying for the roads and like all of their costs in the U.K. the higher your income and/or spending habits the more you are contributing.

[funkyrobot]

Vipers said:

TWR said:

This is another way to persecute the Motorists,

I, like many notice the amount of Cycle lanes around the Cities / Towns,

I notice like a few on here the amount spent on Cycle Lanes but nothing regards Pot Holes,

I have not noticed any signs that the Cyclist are to start getting Insurance or a Road Fund tax, I wonder why they use the Road / Pavements, there are Cycle Lanes Signs put up, who pays for these do the Cyclists? although it is powered by the rider they should pay towards the usage of the roads they use, they cause damage to your cars, but do the pay.

Road tax as you put it is a non starter. Many cars have low emission and zero road tax, or what ever you call it.

Do you think his head will explode when I mention the fact that all of my bicycles are insured?

Also, as someone who works, I pay for the roads through general taxation.

I don't pay VED because I don't have to. Think of it like a zero VED vehicle.

[Mr2Mike]

Ed/L152 said:

??? Buses dramatically reduce traffic (unless that was your point?)

They do reduce the numbers of cars, but they certainly don't reduce congestion everywhere they are used, quite the opposite in some cases.

[feef]

Mr2Mike said:

Ed/L152 said:

??? Buses dramatically reduce traffic (unless that was your point?)

They do reduce the numbers of cars, but they certainly don't reduce congestion everywhere they are used, quite the opposite in some cases.

Dunno. 20 people on a bus is up to 20 fewer cars in that queue. 20 cars can be quite a lengthy wait at traffic lights