Associate
That's a good example of the kind of hyperbole that gets thrown around in highly polarised debates
Cyclists apopletic about law being applied to them
- Thread starter Resident
- Start date
That's a good example of the kind of hyperbole that gets thrown around in highly polarised debates
pretty obvious mansplaining stuff ashley neal V
- dashcam quality looks good (what is it?) - #1 fail no hi-viz on cyclist enabling easier triangulation.
Should you overtake the Cyclist? | Safe, Legal, Worth it?
- dashcam quality looks good (what is it?) - #1 fail no hi-viz on cyclist enabling easier triangulation.
Should you overtake the Cyclist? | Safe, Legal, Worth it?
A few times I've had bikes flying towards me while on a crossing and I've made sure to shout what I think in very close Proximity to them, not gone as far as actually blocking them like that bloke though (didn't fancy getting crashed into)
And yet many cyclists choose to ignore the highway code/cycling infrastructure put in place to make them safer. A driver isn't making that decision, the cyclist is, therefore it's the cyclist making themselves feel like they might die on every journey.
Running a red light into oncoming traffic is a sure-fire way of raising the odds of death occuring very quickly.
Associate
As others have said, this isn't unusual in London. I walk to and from the train station where I can; probably see 3 or 4 cyclists go through ped crossings / red lights every morning. To be fair though, the great majority are probably quite safe (although not legal). I've only been hit on a crossing once - excuse from cyclist was 'brakes don't work well'. Apparently the large red light wasn't a warning enough.
Cyclists in London are no different from others on the road in my experience - great majority are fine, there's definitely the odd idiot out there giving the others a bad name. My main annoyance is that rule 170 (give way to pedestrians crossing when turning into a minor road) has always applied to cyclists as well as cars etc, even before the recent change. Cyclists are much less likely to do this.
Caporegime
Thats just a silly argument. The vast majority of cyclists don't increase their chances of being killed on the roads at all. I went on a 10 mile ride the other day on quiet country roads and obeyed every road rule. I still got passed about 20 times dangerously and overtaken within a foot and a half by a god knows how many tonne skip lorry. There was no need. The road was not busy, completely clear and he could have just waited 10s.
The only people who think that cyclists "bring it on themselves" are people that don't cycle.
Oh and your "cycling infrastructure" in most places is awful and makes it impossible to actually get anywhere and you are constantly dipping on and off the main road and trying to avoid pedestrians on the cycle paths.
I'm still looking for up to date data, but I did find this:
"Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping, only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist..."
The point is, saying many cyclists is just wrong and if the police are going to spend time and money on a specific operation to bring about awareness and prosecutions, then it would be better spent on tackling the appalling drivers out there!
The fact is, cyclists, even those breaking the law, are still significantly less of a risk to other road users than motorists. The cyclists that do break the law, jump red lights in this case, will not have the same risk appreciation as the vast majority of normal, law abiding cyclists and they will not feel like they're placing their lives at risk every time they use the roads; unlike the rest of us.
Justifying the shocking statistics of motorists injuring and killing other road users and pedestrians by saying I saw a cyclist jump a red light is ridiculous. And those motorists pay VED, insurance, are registered and have passed tests!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,961
To be fair by the far the most likely to run red lights are cyclists probably because they know theres no repercussions and no camera is going to click them if they do, car drivers have their own issues though and lord knows they're bad enough
Soldato
See that’s simply not true, I’ve ridden a bike on the roads 1000’s of times and have felt at risk of death once or twice and I drive most days are very rarely feel inconvenienced by cyclists. Like most of this thread your response is polarised hyperbole.
Depends on location, on slip roads with traffic light controlled roundabouts there will always be someone (car, lorry, van) who runs the red.
Coach driver needs banning that was some really bad driving in general given the nature of the road, no way going to the speed limit - shame the illuminated sign didn't show their speed - and right up the car infront's behind never mind the narrow pass on a crossing no less of the cyclist.
That's a dumb cyclist who should have seen what was happening behind and located himself correctly on the road ... and let the coach past when possible,
he's ***** around with his head cam - when he's stupid.
e: didn't glance or know what was happening - comedy
he's ***** around with his head cam - when he's stupid.
e: didn't glance or know what was happening - comedy
Last edited:
The interactions with cyclists while driving I've had over the years have been fine, though I've seen a few times other cars do some stupid **** to them. Terrible driving standards in this country I will say.
On foot though I nearly got hit while at a crossing as the cars had fully stopped but the bike decided not as I went to step into the road and he shouted something at me and I was like wtf. Though I've lost count the amount of times cars dont either stop at a crossing or run the red light.
On foot though I nearly got hit while at a crossing as the cars had fully stopped but the bike decided not as I went to step into the road and he shouted something at me and I was like wtf. Though I've lost count the amount of times cars dont either stop at a crossing or run the red light.
Last edited:
I've said it before and will say it again I'm not a fan of a single red flashing light on bikes, especially without high vis, in that video the only other feature which stands out, and only slightly, is the bag or pannier or whatever it is and only slightly - while a flashing red gets the attention more it is harder to understand the cyclists heading and speed, etc. than a constant light especially in mixed lighting conditions when you might be contending with other car's headlights, etc.
The vast majority of drivers don't know anything about the car they drive, so thats a complete nonsense for a start.
In summary what you are saying is in traffic you want the vehicle in front of you, to yield to the vehicle behind, because if they don't you'll get angry and kill them, because you're too impatient to wait until a safe overtaking opportunity arise, probably a min later or less down the road.
Your other argument is the vehicle in front can't dictate the behaviour of the vehicle behind. But if they are preventing you from overtaking, then they are doing exactly that.
If you see it daily, with 99% of cyclists, how come they are all near misses and no actual accidents.
When I commute to and from work it's always busy and a few cyclists. I have to position my motorcycle to the extreme right of my lane near the center of the old any time a cyclist comes towards me. As I can guarantee if I don't the car behind them will dangerously try to fit between us to over take the cyclist.
Usualy only accelerating once they're 1 foot of the cyclists rear wheel so giving no warning and no room for any of us
Soldato
Are you blind? The coach is CLEARLY speeding, so had no reason to pass. The cyclist isn't exactly going slow either.