Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    This is a tricky one, the OP has said some stuff which appears bonkers but is pretty unavoidable on certain roads. I doubt he is following a car that closely for any reasonable distance as he has implied.

    My ride home for instance includes a nice slightly downhill long but busy road where I can sustain 25-27mph, the same speed as the rest of the traffic at rush hour. I get constantly overtaken so long as there is a gap in front which a driver thinks they can get into. If I leave a gap that might give me enough time to contemplate what I am about to hit when someone slams the brakes on it is suddenly filled by a car who overtakes then slots in four inches in front of my front wheel. Where the traffic speeds up for a short spell enough space appears for another car and the safe distance that has then appeared is filled with another car.

    On this road my options are ride at the speed of the traffic and hope that I can stop on the left running past whoever suddenly stops, or slow down to about 15 mph, hold everyone up, but be able to keep suitable room to stop ahead.
    Tbh I'd still stick with my initial (heavily negged) opinion. If it's really that bad, then use another form of transport. Push for more dedicated cycleways or something, but if as a cyclist you're having to choose between your safety and consideration for drivers, only trouble can come of it. Cars are here to stay for reasons such as convenience and capacity, and whilst it's a good aim to get everyone cycling as much as possible (and using public transport as much as possible where cycling isn't an option), we will still need cars for the forseeable future. Easy example would be a pensioner doing their shopping - walking and cycling would be unfeasible for pretty much all, and bussing would still be far more difficult than by car.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stacywill)
    This is the thread I need today:



    Moral of the story is that there are good and bad cyclists and good and bad motorists...
    Yes but when a motorist meets a bad cyclist, they might get held up for a few seconds. If a cyclist meets a bad motorist, we die. There's a bit of a difference...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    I have, they lock the wheels just as well as any of my other systems. The limiting factor with well set up bicycle brakes on the road (unless you are attempting to commute on tacky downhill tyres) is the interface between rubber and road.
    So essentially you're saying the tyres you use have insufficient grip, but suitable tyres do exist!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with what you said OP, but not all motorists are like this. There are also cyclists that behave dangerously too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Santorum)
    You don't pay road tax so stop complaining.
    Road tax does not exist. Troll.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    So essentially you're saying the tyres you use have insufficient grip, but suitable tyres do exist!
    Suitable tyres for stopping exist, but not suitable for any serious road riding and stopping.

    EDIT road riding, the tyres on my cross country bike stop rather well on tarmac if run at cross country pressures, but I'd never commute on them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Tbh I'd still stick with my initial (heavily negged) opinion. If it's really that bad, then use another form of transport. Push for more dedicated cycleways or something, but if as a cyclist you're having to choose between your safety and consideration for drivers, only trouble can come of it. Cars are here to stay for reasons such as convenience and capacity, and whilst it's a good aim to get everyone cycling as much as possible (and using public transport as much as possible where cycling isn't an option), we will still need cars for the forseeable future. Easy example would be a pensioner doing their shopping - walking and cycling would be unfeasible for pretty much all, and bussing would still be far more difficult than by car.
    True, but at the same time if everyone stops cycling it stops being a problem, so why fix it.

    I cycle as the cost savings and other benefits of doing so outweigh the risks. It is frustrating at times how the risks are inflated by inconsiderate driving which can only be countered by inconsiderately defensive riding.

    Spectacularly poorly designed cycle infrastructure hardly helps, some wonderful guidance from a few years back hit the nail on the head saying that if you intend to do 20mph you should be on the road. Essentially then anyone who cycles a reasonable amount is not to use the cycle paths. The village my parents live in has a cycle lane down each side of the road now, each lane finishing before a reasonable distance from the curb to ride. Putting the lanes in place now seems to have made cardrivers feel that so long as they don't drive over the cycle lane whilst overtaking they can pass as close as they like.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    True, but at the same time if everyone stops cycling it stops being a problem, so why fix it.

    I cycle as the cost savings and other benefits of doing so outweigh the risks. It is frustrating at times how the risks are inflated by inconsiderate driving which can only be countered by inconsiderately defensive riding.

    Spectacularly poorly designed cycle infrastructure hardly helps, some wonderful guidance from a few years back hit the nail on the head saying that if you intend to do 20mph you should be on the road. Essentially then anyone who cycles a reasonable amount is not to use the cycle paths. The village my parents live in has a cycle lane down each side of the road now, each lane finishing before a reasonable distance from the curb to ride. Putting the lanes in place now seems to have made cardrivers feel that so long as they don't drive over the cycle lane whilst overtaking they can pass as close as they like.
    Disabled people have managed to get ramps in loads of places despite there being very few of them.

    But really, if bikes were just invented today, they wouldn't be allowed on the roads (like segways). Perhaps if there was some mandatory education for cyclists on the rules of the road, and it wasn't apparent that a significant number of cyclists are willing to ignore even the most basic of traffic laws like a red light meaning stop, then sharing roads might be possible. But even then, cyclists are a danger to themselves due to their lack of protection, instability, inability to accelerate/brake well enough to get out of/avoid trouble, seeming ignorance or deliberate dismissiveness of the law and so on, leaving decent drivers guilt-tripped into looking out for cyclists as if they're kids in an adult football team. Plus you're got them slowing down considerably any car that comes up behind them, and that driver (and those behind too) will have somewhere to be and things to do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Disabled people have managed to get ramps in loads of places despite there being very few of them.

    But really, if bikes were just invented today, they wouldn't be allowed on the roads (like segways). Perhaps if there was some mandatory education for cyclists on the rules of the road, and it wasn't apparent that a significant number of cyclists are willing to ignore even the most basic of traffic laws like a red light meaning stop, then sharing roads might be possible. But even then, cyclists are a danger to themselves due to their lack of protection, instability, inability to accelerate/brake well enough to get out of/avoid trouble, seeming ignorance or deliberate dismissiveness of the law and so on, leaving decent drivers guilt-tripped into looking out for cyclists as if they're kids in an adult football team. Plus you're got them slowing down considerably any car that comes up behind them, and that driver (and those behind too) will have somewhere to be and things to do.
    Mandatory education would only be of use if there was some means to enforce playing by the rules, which I guess would have to mean licensing. If we take the assumption that cyclists don't know the rules. That then, assuming it comes with the potential for a ban, removes the ability to move around any semi-reasonable distance without parting with cash, which I am uneasy with as a concept.

    There is a lovely figure here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...for-each-other

    suggesting that 80% of cyclists hold car licences (which is less than I expected).

    I'm not entirely convinced that lack of awareness of the rules is the issue, I suspect far more of the trouble comes from wanton disregard for them, or certain junctions etc where breaking them seems significantly safer than playing by them. The trial in cambridge of headstarts for cyclists should be very interesting in that regard, the junctions where I go through on reds for instance are to escape a few seconds ahead of the traffic starting and in locations where I know the light sequences well.

    There was an interesting article on the BBC a while back about the gender imbalance in cycling fatalities in london which seemed to suggest that male cyclists tended to have greater disregard for the rules of the road and a lower casualty rate resulting from much more defensive riding.

    I think mandatory third party insurance would be very wise, but the social cost of discouraging cycling is probably too high to justify it, as with making helmets mandatory. The whole encouraging exercise element throws a significant spanner in the works with anything cycling and roads related.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Disabled people have managed to get ramps in loads of places despite there being very few of them.

    But really, if bikes were just invented today, they wouldn't be allowed on the roads (like segways). Perhaps if there was some mandatory education for cyclists on the rules of the road, and it wasn't apparent that a significant number of cyclists are willing to ignore even the most basic of traffic laws like a red light meaning stop, then sharing roads might be possible. But even then, cyclists are a danger to themselves due to their lack of protection, instability, inability to accelerate/brake well enough to get out of/avoid trouble, seeming ignorance or deliberate dismissiveness of the law and so on, leaving decent drivers guilt-tripped into looking out for cyclists as if they're kids in an adult football team. Plus you're got them slowing down considerably any car that comes up behind them, and that driver (and those behind too) will have somewhere to be and things to do.
    What about badly parked cars, they're 3x as wide and twice as long as a cyclist. Don't move, and can't accelerate out of trouble. Lets run into them because they're slowing us down!

    Or what about pedestrians, lets run into them too - they're in our way and have no protection. I see them regularly walking on the 60mph single carriage way to the nearest town. Or even horse riders... You look out for these hazards, the same as cyclists. Perspective to these, how bad are law-abiding cyclists? You can't seriously expect driving to be hazard free?

    Most cyclists (myself included) follow the highway code as closely as is appropriate. I drive as well so I'm well aware how to behave. I would agree with harsher penalties for law breaking cyclists - they discredit the majority. A £30 FPN once every blue moon isn't enough to discourage them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is a whole extra avenue for debate around autocycles, powered bicycles exempt from heaps of the legislative stuff on the continent (legally mopeds here).

    Take a velosolex for instance, top speed 18mph, stops like a bicycle with next to no brakes, accelerates slower than a bicycle, here you need CBT, insurance, MOT/Tax if its young enough. Large parts of the continent for local use they are to all intents and purposes bicycles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Saw 3 more badly behaved cyclists again today whilst sitting outside a pub (which I walked to). Seriously which cyclist in their right mind would cycle along a very busy road which is narrow and bendy with 3 carrier bags full of shopping on each handle bar whilst wobbling all over their side of the road? The idiot almost rode into a car overtaking safely.

    Then whilst in the car, 3rd back in the queue at a red light pedestrian crossing, cyclist comes behind us at around 15 mph and decides it would be a genius idea to NOT STOP at the red light and narrowly misses the pushchair of the pedestrian who is crossing the road at that time.

    Whilst out with the dog just now (9.30pm and dark) someone dressed in dark colours with no lights is on his bike and on the road. You can not tell me these lunatics are safe on the roads.

    And whilst on a roll...any idea why when there is a cycle path, that cyclists STILL ride alongside it on the road? Any ideas that when a bike pulls into a busy road, they do it right in front of you in your car - even another car wouldn't have pulled out at that point and they get moving faster? And it's about time the law should state that helmets are compulsory as I'd estimate that only around 40-45% of cyclists I see actually wear them.


    As I say, I do cycle and I do drive and I like to believe I do each safely, but half these cyclists actually seem to enjoy putting their life in danger to get some quick thrill at p**sing off motorists or through generally being thick.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 345rty)
    Mandatory education would only be of use if there was some means to enforce playing by the rules, which I guess would have to mean licensing. If we take the assumption that cyclists don't know the rules. That then, assuming it comes with the potential for a ban, removes the ability to move around any semi-reasonable distance without parting with cash, which I am uneasy with as a concept.
    Implying bikes are free? You can always walk, too.

    There is a lovely figure here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...for-each-other

    suggesting that 80% of cyclists hold car licences (which is less than I expected).

    I'm not entirely convinced that lack of awareness of the rules is the issue, I suspect far more of the trouble comes from wanton disregard for them, or certain junctions etc where breaking them seems significantly safer than playing by them. The trial in cambridge of headstarts for cyclists should be very interesting in that regard, the junctions where I go through on reds for instance are to escape a few seconds ahead of the traffic starting and in locations where I know the light sequences well.
    Yeah, it probably is more from willful disregard than ignorance, but either way it's bad.

    There was an interesting article on the BBC a while back about the gender imbalance in cycling fatalities in london which seemed to suggest that male cyclists tended to have greater disregard for the rules of the road and a lower casualty rate resulting from much more defensive riding.
    I remember a study (well, one professor did it for a few days I think) where drivers left more space if he didn't wear a helmet, and also if he wore a long haired wig (so was assumed to be a woman).

    This 'defensive riding' thing, you can say it's justified for your safety but it is slowing drivers down which is going to cause resentment by people who have a journey to complete. If you have to do that, then it's clear the roads can't handle both cars and bikes together. Also the disregard for rules forces drivers to be more careful

    I think mandatory third party insurance would be very wise, but the social cost of discouraging cycling is probably too high to justify it, as with making helmets mandatory. The whole encouraging exercise element throws a significant spanner in the works with anything cycling and roads related.
    I think it was pushed too early. We simply don't have the infrastructure for cyclists as well as cars (and we need cars more than bikes), and putting them on the same tarmac as boxes of metal that move faster than them and wobble them out of air pressure and fear will throw up accidents.


    (Original post by JumpingFrog)
    What about badly parked cars, they're 3x as wide and twice as long as a cyclist. Don't move, and can't accelerate out of trouble. Lets run into them because they're slowing us down!

    Or what about pedestrians, lets run into them too - they're in our way and have no protection. I see them regularly walking on the 60mph single carriage way to the nearest town. Or even horse riders... You look out for these hazards, the same as cyclists. Perspective to these, how bad are law-abiding cyclists? You can't seriously expect driving to be hazard free?
    I don't think you understood my point. Decent drivers do have to keep an extra look out for cyclists because of the physical nature of bikes as well as the seeming inability to follow the rules of the road. The parked car is stationary, so no problem. The pedestrian can look around (including behind them), stop and change direction quickly without falling over, and due to lower speed it's easier to work out where the 'danger region' is so again, no problem. The difference is that cyclists can and do veer into your path quickly and without warning, putting extra demand on drivers who are then also stuck behind it for even longer due to not being able to overtake for whatever reason. In contrast to cars, where everyone is in the same situation with regards to protection and insurance, cyclists are brave (or stupid) for being on a bike in the road, and motorists end up having to look after them, and not see them as equal road users. Since you didn't like my football team analogy, it's like when that little girl started crying on BGT a while back (might have happened since then but I stopped watching) and got another go - that's clearly not competing on equal footing, but the elder competitors had to cater for her because choking on stage hurt her more than it would hurt them.

    Most cyclists (myself included) follow the highway code as closely as is appropriate. I drive as well so I'm well aware how to behave. I would agree with harsher penalties for law breaking cyclists - they discredit the majority. A £30 FPN once every blue moon isn't enough to discourage them.
    Bikes are intrinsically vulnerable to cars though, no matter how you look at it. There needs to be separation, and whilst it's one or the other, cars are more necessary. Cyclists have told me not to worry because if a cyclist does something stupid it won't be my fault, but I don't want to be involved in someone's death, even if I'm not going to be punished for it.

    You're right about the penalties not doing anything, drivers tend to prefer fines to points too because they can just pay up and hope they don't get caught next time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stacywill)
    ...
    And whilst on a roll...any idea why when there is a cycle path, that cyclists STILL ride alongside it on the road?
    Yes, I do. Because cycle paths are poorly designed in most cases. Where I live there are only a few which I do use. But when I'm at university in York, I usually avoid them. The biggest problem is that they're shared cycle paths with pedestrians which take sharp, corners and weave around street furniture. Making them unsuitable for all but the slowest of cyclists.

    (Original post by Hopple)
    I don't think you understood my point. Decent drivers do have to keep an extra look out for cyclists because of the physical nature of bikes...
    Decent cyclists have to look out for bad drivers too hence arises the occasional need for defensive riding. My point was that it's not like cyclists are the only ones you need to look out for. Driving is full of hazards which are all also of a similar "physical nature". By which I mean anything that's slower than a car.

    I don't know why you think bicycles are unstable and wobble all over the road. They don't - you get gyroscopic effects which keeps you upright - the same principles as a motorbike. Wobbling could be dodging pot holes which bikes are susceptible to. However these are often quite small and a good rider can weave between them with little road usage.


    (Original post by Hopple)
    The parked car is stationary, so no problem.
    Which means you may need to come to a complete stop/slow down and give way to traffic and anticipate. All I meant was you often lose more time from passing a badly parked car than you can from overtaking a cyclist. Surely you have to agree here?

    (Original post by Hopple)
    The pedestrian can look around (including behind them), stop and change direction quickly without falling over, and due to lower speed it's easier to work out where the 'danger region' is so again, no problem.
    In an ideal world, yes. I don't want to generalise, but it isn't always like that and I bet nearly all drivers will have seen a pedestrian putting themselves in danger. However, If your driving causes anyone to need to take evasive action then you're in the wrong and haven't correctly handled the situation. Motor vehicles have responsibility with their power - hence why you rightly need a test and training.

    (Original post by Hopple)
    The difference is that cyclists can and do veer into your path quickly and without warning, putting extra demand on drivers who are then also stuck behind it for even longer due to not being able to overtake for whatever reason.
    I'd avoid saying it, these are people remember. Just the same as you.

    I'm sure you've been taught to keep a safe distance. If the cyclist looks to be unstable [very uncommon by my experience] then exercise caution overtaking and take a wide line. It's hardly as dangerous as you make out with a little common sense and precaution.

    If they start veering suddenly for no reason then drop back and sound your horn. I would agree that they're at fault for not letting you pass safely. If another car did that to me on a dual carriageway that's how I'd react. This is nothing to do with bicycles being unstable, just a poor rider/road awareness.

    (Original post by Hopple)
    In contrast to cars, where everyone is in the same situation with regards to protection and insurance, cyclists are brave (or stupid) for being on a bike in the road, and motorists end up having to look after them, and not see them as equal road users.
    Well by law cyclists are equal road users. Motorists have a responsibility as I mentioned earlier - cars are the most dangerous thing on the road even if they are the most common. Cyclists only request you don't put them in danger. The same as you'd expect when driving your car. As I've repeatedly said; driving is all about anticipating hazards. Some road users (cyclists included) are more vulnerable than others, I'm not disagreeing with you. I accept it.

    Hence it's often said that when driving "you're in control of a killing machine" - while this is an exaggeration, it's not far from the truth. That is why motorists need to (and usually do) look out for vulnerable road users.

    While this is getting from the point, cars aren't all equal in protection. I drive a 1970's car with next to nothing for crash protection. Hence you can have a car on car collision where the innocent party lives and the guilty party dies. As gruesome as it is, it's also statistically unlikely to ever happen.

    (Original post by Hopple)
    Bikes are intrinsically vulnerable to cars though, no matter how you look at it. There needs to be separation, and whilst it's one or the other, cars are more necessary. Cyclists have told me not to worry because if a cyclist does something stupid it won't be my fault, but I don't want to be involved in someone's death, even if I'm not going to be punished for it.
    See above. I can understand your point well enough. It's the same with car on car collisions though (which are much more likely than car on bicycle collisions). On the balance of probability it's very unlikely given the small number of cyclists on the road.

    There are no problems with cars and bikes on the same road if motorists drive safely and cyclists ride safely. Saying cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they inconvenience you is a bit selfish, don't you think?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JumpingFrog)
    Decent cyclists have to look out for bad drivers too hence arises the occasional need for defensive riding. My point was that it's not like cyclists are the only ones you need to look out for. Driving is full of hazards which are all also of a similar "physical nature". By which I mean anything that's slower than a car.

    I don't know why you think bicycles are unstable and wobble all over the road. They don't - you get gyroscopic effects which keeps you upright - the same principles as a motorbike. Wobbling could be dodging pot holes which bikes are susceptible to. However these are often quite small and a good rider can weave between them with little road usage.
    Do you really drive and cycle? Perhaps the cyclists I speak to are liars, but they complain about the 'wake' from big vehicles wobbling them. Also you get cyclists taking a hand off to scratch their nose/wipe their face/whatever, or even wobbling because they've presumably got something heavy in their backpack. The fancy dress cyclists tend to stay straight and not have baggage, but mostly I see casual cyclists who have far less control of their bike and awareness of other road users. I have also seen on many occasions cyclists not check behind them before weaving across to overtake a stopped bus, for example.
    Which means you may need to come to a complete stop/slow down and give way to traffic and anticipate. All I meant was you often lose more time from passing a badly parked car than you can from overtaking a cyclist. Surely you have to agree here?
    Sure, it's possible a car has parked perpendicular to the road. But I get past pretty much all parked cars with no problem whereas with cyclists I have to wait behind them until there aren't any oncoming cars and then hope they don't wobble to the right. The point is, there's no danger because you know where everything is and will be, like I said before.
    In an ideal world, yes. I don't want to generalise, but it isn't always like that and I bet nearly all drivers will have seen a pedestrian putting themselves in danger. However, If your driving causes anyone to need to take evasive action then you're in the wrong and haven't correctly handled the situation. Motor vehicles have responsibility with their power - hence why you rightly need a test and training.
    No, it's a fact that generally a pedestrian will be moving far more slowly than a cyclist hence have a smaller area where they might surprise you and cause a collision, and also that they'll look around for danger more, even if only because they're capable of looking backwards without falling over.
    I'd avoid saying it, these are people remember. Just the same as you.
    Oh yes, I don't see them as people so that's why I said I don't want to be involved in their death :rolleyes: 'It' is their bike, which should have been a far more reasonable deduction for you to make rather than the one you did.
    I'm sure you've been taught to keep a safe distance. If the cyclist looks to be unstable [very uncommon by my experience] then exercise caution overtaking and take a wide line. It's hardly as dangerous as you make out with a little common sense and precaution.

    If they start veering suddenly for no reason then drop back and sound your horn. I would agree that they're at fault for not letting you pass safely. If another car did that to me on a dual carriageway that's how I'd react. This is nothing to do with bicycles being unstable, just a poor rider/road awareness.
    Whatever the reason for it, it happens.



    Well by law cyclists are equal road users. Motorists have a responsibility as I mentioned earlier - cars are the most dangerous thing on the road even if they are the most common. Cyclists only request you don't put them in danger. The same as you'd expect when driving your car. As I've repeatedly said; driving is all about anticipating hazards. Some road users (cyclists included) are more vulnerable than others, I'm not disagreeing with you. I accept it.

    Hence it's often said that when driving "you're in control of a killing machine" - while this is an exaggeration, it's not far from the truth. That is why motorists need to (and usually do) look out for vulnerable road users.
    Cyclists put themselves in danger. If it were possible to cycle in a way that was safe and didn't slow down other people, then of course I'd be fine with it. But our roads can't handle that, with bottlenecks or narrowings of the road meaning considerable periods when the cyclist either slows everyone else down or is squeezed when passed. If it's dangerous, don't do it, and don't guilt trip everyone else into losing time from their day because they don't want a dead cyclist on their conscience.
    See above. I can understand your point well enough. It's the same with car on car collisions though (which are much more likely than car on bicycle collisions). On the balance of probability it's very unlikely given the small number of cyclists on the road.
    Are you saying it's safe for cyclists on the roads? Perhaps where you live, but in London I'd say the only safe places are where there are traffic jams (dedicated cycle routes aside).

    There are no problems with cars and bikes on the same road if motorists drive safely and cyclists ride safely. Saying cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they inconvenience you is a bit selfish, don't you think?
    They more than inconvenience, they put themselves in jeopardy and expect drivers to look after them. I'd be pissed if pedestrians started walking in the street too.

    In short, cycling where there are cars is dangerous, everyone knows this. The solution is to make cycle routes, not to throw them onto the roads and tell drivers "A lot of them don't seem to know what they're doing, but make sure you don't hit them!"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peter12345)
    Random rant about things that motorists do that piss me off

    1) I'm in a lane and a car decides to change lanes right into my path in effect ramming me out of the lane. This is so dangerous it's unbelievable. For starters if I didn't see you then you will crash into me and even if I do see you I have to swerve out of the lane possibly into an obstacle

    2) I'm coming up to a junction and the car behind me wants to turn left. Rather than wait for me to clear the junction the decide to overtake me and do a powerslide around me. It's simple physics, you have to slow down to take the curve whereas I'm moving at a constant speed meaning I'm going to crash into your door.

    3) I'm passing a crossroads and a car coming the other way wants to turn left. This car aggressively revs it's engine and drives itself right up to my leg as I cycle past in some attempt to scare me out of the way. You're going to scare me alright but it's shooting yourself in the foot because I will instinctively stop completely in the middle of the junction as a result and waste your time.

    4) Passing too closely. I've given up on stopping drivers to tell them they passed me too close because they always deny it. Again it's simple physics, you don't actually have to make contact with me to throw me off the bike. I am balancing on the bike and if you drive your car too close to me my body will automatically readjust it's mass away from the danger regardless of already being in a finely tuned balance causing me to wobble off the bike. Not to mention the obvious danger of if you do actually make contact with me.

    5) Trying to jump ahead at the first sign that a cyclist is about to take the lane. I appreciate that you don't want to be stuck behind a cyclist but surging ahead as I try to merge with the traffic is not cool.

    6) *****ing about a cyclist being too far away from the kerb. FYI there is no law against a cyclist taking the entire lane. if you don't like it wait to overtake. I don't tend to take the entire lane unless I have to because I appreciate that I'm much slower than traffic but again there is no law against me doing so.

    7) Trying to squeeze past a cyclist on a very narrow section of road. Use your brain, if you can't fit through just wait. Because of this I now have to always deliberately block off motorists on very narrow sections of road.

    Rant over.
    i dont drive a car but i hate cyclists! They think they ownthe road and down here in london they are a law unto themselves. They jump reds (seen this a lot!), they mysteriously become a pedestrian at red lights, they are just douchebags! Use public transport you annoying ****s!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    i dont drive a car but i hate cyclists! They think they ownthe road and down here in london they are a law unto themselves. They jump reds (seen this a lot!), they mysteriously become a pedestrian at red lights, they are just douchebags! Use public transport you annoying ****s!
    You know what? I'm a cyclist and I hate some cyclists too. They do everything you said and it gives law abiding cyclists like me a bad name.

    However this is irrelevant to this discussion. Bringing up bad cycling in response to bad driving is a strawman argument
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Do you really drive and cycle? Perhaps the cyclists I speak to are liars, but they complain about the 'wake' from big vehicles wobbling them...

    Sure, it's possible a car has parked perpendicular to the road. But I get past pretty much all parked cars with no problem whereas with cyclists I have to wait behind them until there aren't any oncoming cars and then hope they don't wobble to the right....

    No, it's a fact that generally a pedestrian will be moving far more slowly than a cyclist hence have a smaller area where they might surprise you and cause a collision, and also that they'll look around for danger more, even if only because they're capable of looking backwards without falling over....

    Cyclists put themselves in danger...

    If it's dangerous, don't do it, and don't guilt trip everyone else into losing time from their day because they don't want a dead cyclist on their conscience.
    Are you saying it's safe for cyclists on the roads? Perhaps where you live, but in London I'd say the only safe places are where there are traffic jams (dedicated cycle routes aside).

    In short, cycling where there are cars is dangerous, everyone knows this. The solution is to make cycle routes, not to throw them onto the roads and tell drivers "A lot of them don't seem to know what they're doing, but make sure you don't hit them!"
    The way I see it, you have two main arguments from this:

    1. My time is too precious, I can't afford to lose an extra minute in the day! (Cyclists take too long to overtake)

    Only a fool would say that without cyclists driving would be quick and straight forward. Again hazards slow you down. Day to day life is full of waiting, queuing in a shop etc. You need to think in perspective to real life.

    Overtaking a cyclist is usually quick anyway. I don't often get cars behind me for more than half a minute unless it's a 20 zone with pinch points.

    2. Cyclists are dangerous.

    Your argument for this basically comes down to us being slower than you and in your path (see 1.). Protection doesn't come into it. Being protected from what's behind you doesn't mean you can crash into a slow moving car. If you really feel you can't press the brake pedal, then please give up driving and save yourself the stress.

    I'm not saying unpredictable riders aren't dangerous. Just like I'm sure you'd admit unpredictable drivers are dangerous. Either you drive somewhere where everyone cycles drunk or you're exaggerating. But both are a minority.

    Other minor points:

    • Please remember that London is only a small part of the UK, you can't apply your experiences to every road. If you've ever driven in a rural area you'd know you get a lot of cyclists on nice days. The vast majority of these ride considerately.
    • Wake from large vehicles? Maybe if you're being overtaken by a lorry doing 50mph. Not exactly common where most people cycle. I very heavily recommend against cycling on A roads.
    • We can look backwards without falling over. It's called a shoulder check and a good cyclist will be doing it regularly. Just as a good driver will check their mirrors regularly.

    As we agreed previously. Stricter penalties for dangerous cyclists are something we need desperately. Cycling and texting/on the phone is a particular gripe of mine. Fines aren't enough. Perhaps mandatory training (like a speed awareness course) if you commit an offence would be a good idea.

    May I suggest you give cycling a try and see if it's really all doom and gloom like you think it is? Don't knock it till you've tried it. If you want to enjoy it, don't do it in an urban area though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cars that overtake then can't fit though a gap (I that I could have) forcing me to stop. Do you know how much energy it takes to get going again! You just press your foot down!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The other day i was on a bus that did a painstakingly long overtake of a cyclist going quite fast (probably at about the 20mph speed limit tbh), just to swerve left and slam on the brakes directly in front of him to come into a stop. What the **** man, what the ****.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.