Cyclists apopletic about law being applied to them

Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
10,594
Every time I'm in my car at least 2 cars will go through red lights and if they are doing it my side they are doing it the other side and over a 90 minute period that's a lot of cars. However cars are allowed to do it because....

Are you talking about amber gamblers cutting it a bit too fine, or car drivers deliberately driving through a light that was already red before they reached it?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
10 Mar 2012
Posts
3,580
Location
unstated.assortment.union
Every time I'm in my car at least 2 cars will go through red lights and if they are doing it my side they are doing it the other side and over a 90 minute period that's a lot of cars. However cars are allowed to do it because....

So you claim at least four cars go through a solid red light EVERYTIME you're at a controlled junction.

There are enough facepalm memes in the world for this ridiculous fantasy.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,824
Location
Stoke on Trent
So you claim at least four cars go through a solid red light EVERYTIME you're at a controlled junction.

There are enough facepalm memes in the world for this ridiculous fantasy.

I said two my side but if they're coming through from the other side it could be likely or staggered lights. But yes, everytime I'm driving a couple of cars in front of me will go through on red and sometimes I'll have a driver behind me honking at me to go through.
I'd just like to add they are always car drivers and not lorry or white van drivers.
The most I've seen go through on red is 5 at lights in Stoke.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
Some of the comments here. Jesus! I’m surprised you guys make it out of your road without stopping to calm down. Can’t say I’ve got a problem with any road user. Just be nice and careful around slower and more vulnerable road users. Takes little effort.

Everyone has the same right to be on the road so you can’t tell people what to do. We all break the law, be it speeding, parking somewhere we shouldn’t, doing an illegal turn etc. Jumping reds is at their own discretion imo. If anything happens they’ll be worse off most of the time. Pedestrian crossings are different but I rarely saw people jump those when people were crossing.

Then again, I’ve cycled in London for years on my daily commute and saw all kinds in every form of transport.

my view is just to chill out and take care around cyclists and other road users. I’d rather slow down for 15 seconds than risk hitting someone. A cyclist just got killed close to me on the 9th by a car driving around blind bend at 50. Driver is fine, cyclist is dead. Driver will probably get time and have to live the rest of their life replaying that one memory.

Just chill out. It’s not worth it.

Could I have a toke on your bong?
 
Associate
Joined
31 May 2007
Posts
1,087
If cyclists want to ride in the middle of the road then they should be treated exactly like car drivers, speeding, running red lights etc then fine the lot of them. If they want to use the main road then they should have something the equivalent to a license plate and main road riding license, and even have the 12 point totting system as well and ban them from the roads if they hit that. If they want to use the main road then they have to be treated 100% equally to other road users, no exceptions.

I'm fed up of cyclists thinking they can own the road with no consequences.

:D Typical angry motorist

Cyclist here who also owns and taxes two vehicles. Happily obey road rules too and it’s generally the people in vehicles who are ass hats in my experience
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,039
Location
Panting like a fiend
Focusing on cyclist going through red lights with the excuse of safety is like the police targeting grenade crime in London instead of knife crime - pointless when one is causing deaths all the time and the other isn't.
Actually it isn't.

Going through a red light on a bike is quite a risky thing in a busy area, and likely to lead to near misses. Do it enough and you end up with it no longer a near miss, but a hit, and if you're unlucky your family get a visit from a family support officer.

IIRC about 3 or 4 years ago when there was a spate of cyclists killed in London the bike groups pushed for police action on people breaking the law at junctions and putting cyclists at risk, and the got very upset when the police did couple of weeks of zero tolerance at several higher risk junctions, mainly because the police ended up stopping more cyclists than drivers as cyclists were doing things like ignoring the lights and doing risky manoeuvres whilst the drivers on the whole weren't (IIRC of the deaths that led to it, I think only was was purely the fault of the driver, the others were things like jumping lights by the bikes or passing inside whilst a lorry was already turning).

All road users should be following the law.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,262
Location
7th Level of Hell...
Actually it isn't.

Going through a red light on a bike is quite a risky thing in a busy area, and likely to lead to near misses. Do it enough and you end up with it no longer a near miss, but a hit, and if you're unlucky your family get a visit from a family support officer.

IIRC about 3 or 4 years ago when there was a spate of cyclists killed in London the bike groups pushed for police action on people breaking the law at junctions and putting cyclists at risk, and the got very upset when the police did couple of weeks of zero tolerance at several higher risk junctions, mainly because the police ended up stopping more cyclists than drivers as cyclists were doing things like ignoring the lights and doing risky manoeuvres whilst the drivers on the whole weren't (IIRC of the deaths that led to it, I think only was was purely the fault of the driver, the others were things like jumping lights by the bikes or passing inside whilst a lorry was already turning).

All road users should be following the law.

This is the point I was making as well... The cyclist see it as an inconvenience to stop and why can't they just go through the red light but it's the driver of the vehicle that hits them from the other side of the junction that has to live with the cyclists decision.

If the cyclist decision meant no one else could have consequences then no issue here, but that's not always the case and, therefore, removing the human element via the use of computer controlled lights, minimises this.

Unfortunately this side of the discussion is drowned out by the motorist v cyclist arguments and point scoring.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
Actually it isn't.

Going through a red light on a bike is quite a risky thing in a busy area, and likely to lead to near misses. Do it enough and you end up with it no longer a near miss, but a hit, and if you're unlucky your family get a visit from a family support officer.

IIRC about 3 or 4 years ago when there was a spate of cyclists killed in London the bike groups pushed for police action on people breaking the law at junctions and putting cyclists at risk, and the got very upset when the police did couple of weeks of zero tolerance at several higher risk junctions, mainly because the police ended up stopping more cyclists than drivers as cyclists were doing things like ignoring the lights and doing risky manoeuvres whilst the drivers on the whole weren't (IIRC of the deaths that led to it, I think only was was purely the fault of the driver, the others were things like jumping lights by the bikes or passing inside whilst a lorry was already turning).

All road users should be following the law.

Trying to pass trucks on the inside when they’re indicating to turn left is one of the dumbest things that anyone can do, no matter what they’re driving or riding, I’ve even seen cars try it when an articulated truck has to take the corner wide but has been indicating left for enough time for the car driver to see.
Driving down Fleet Street one day, toward Ludgate Circus, I was following a mobile cement mixer truck who 50 or 60 metres before the lights, indicated a left into Farringdon Street.
As the truck slowed, a cyclist passed me on the inside, (perfectly legally), and proceeded to try and do the same with the cement truck, which by now was making the left turn.
I was mildly bemused to watch the cyclist, banging his fist on the revolving cement drum and shouting ineffectually, being forced to turn into Farringdon Street with the truck.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
22,037
and even have the 12 point totting system as well and ban them from the roads if they hit that.

Police can impose a points deduction for cyclists with licenses - not sure why they didn't do so in this example, threat of a car insurance hike would modify their behaviour.

in this case not sure if we know whether they went through as it went red , or blatantly on red,
equally do we know how many cyclists did stop eg.the ones arriving on solid red.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2004
Posts
17,022
Location
Shepley
Anyone telling cyclists to use cycle lanes should spend an hour on a bike in an urban setting and realise how **** travel provision is for everyone other than motorists. Bike lanes often have more risk points by forcing you to cross minor roads etc where roads enable you to proceed straight on. They’re badly kept and full of rubbish and glass. Pedestrians will often step into them without warning. They usually only exist where there is space for them and disappear where there isn’t. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that separate infrastructure is most needed where roads are narrower, rather than wider.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if people had an ounce of patience and consideration for their fellow humans. And it all rather overlooks the elephant in the room that the biggest source of delay for motorists is other motorists.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Dec 2011
Posts
5,481
Location
Belfast
I know some cyclists who say that the reason they go side by side on country roads is for safety reasons. So many motorists think, "plenty of room for me to get past there", even on blind corners. So I do try to be patient with cyclists in these scenarios. It is the urban cyclist I have less sympathy for, especially the red light breakers or the ones who drive on pavements.

I was coming up to a set of lights at a crossroad juntion that went green as I approached. I slowed down without stopping completely and checked it was clear to proceed and it was because the traffic on both sides had stopped at the white line. Suddenly a cyclist shot out from behind the stopped traffic on my left, right hrough the red light and narrowly missed my bonnet. He lost control and hit the front wing of a car that was coming out of the junction opposite me. He was a bit bruised but his bike was in very poor shape, as was the side if the car he had hit. I got out of the car to see if he was OK and to be honest to give him a piece of my mind for being so stupid. He picked himself up and was cleary in a bit of pain but still had the strength to give me abuse for "running him off the road" and that I was going to get sued etc. I said I had dashcam footage of him breaking the red light and amazingly he lost interest in suing me all of a sudden.

The woman who owned the car he hit was not in the least bit pleased and was threating to phone the police. I said I would give her my number and would go as witness and provide the dashcam footage of the incident. At this point the cyclist realised he was not in a good position legally and agreed to exhange contact details and pay for the repairs to the car.

Don't get me wrong, I get that motorists can be stupid as well but running a red light in a bicycle just stupid.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,504
Location
West Coast of Scotland
I'm an avid cyclist and a motorist of many years. I've seen some hair raising close calls on my bike, and a few in the car too. I believe we all should be more tolerant of each other. There are lots of pros and cons to each argument, but the bottom line is, cyclists are legally entitled to use the road, and the cycle path. Using the cycle path is my preference but it is quite often not possible, due to dog walkers (with dogs off leads), and groups of pensioners who think they are more entitled than I. But that said, where I can, I use the cycle path.

I would never dream of riding two abreast, especially on narrow roads. It's just plain rude, even if it is legal. I think a lot of people need to use their common sense, and many motorists (and cyclists for that matter) are in too much of a rush to use their brain accordingly.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Aug 2021
Posts
2,687
Location
Suffolk
I know some cyclists who say that the reason they go side by side on country roads is for safety reasons.
This is kinda my problem with those that do that, although when myself and mates go out on our motorbikes on country lanes and come up against 3 riding abreast, it's rather dangerous for all.
One mate often slaps the outer rider round the helmet as he passes, then stops until they catch up, then rides a little bit further etc etc
It's a bit childish, but super super funny seeing some fat 50 year old going mental :D
 
Back
Top Bottom