Leslie

I think it all boils down to the fact that there are ********* on bicycles and in cars and there will always be problems caused by any of them!

Les

trails

iTrader: (41)

The crux of your objection it seems, is actually your perceived opinion of your average motorist (ignoring pedestrians because they don’t have to sit in traffic jams...but happy to address that later if you so desire), when he see a cyclist going through a red light. Not sure what kind of interactions you have had with wrathful motorists, but I’d like to suggest to you that they are probably just wrathful individuals who will react in a similar way to anything that winds them up.
I don’t consider myself thick or a **** and try to treat people as I expect to be treated; I would rather avoid inconveniencing people in general and try to behave accordingly. Angry motorists stuck in traffic jams will always find something to bitch about, I know I do...
Not sure how to respond to your final paragraph rant...I wasn’t aware lines had been drawn and there was some sort of active conflict between cyclists and motorists; I just let people get on with their own business unless they are a danger to me or mines’ safety...and then I’ll just avoid them

Leslie

I am sure you are right, and it does work both ways.

There will be selfish and impatient prats in cars and indisciplined cyclists who ignore the law. Only the courts could sort it all out, if they had a mind to that is.

Les

trails

iTrader: (41)

You also need to consider the consequence of the individuals action when being impatient or breaking the law; they are gong to be far greater in a one tonne plus car vs a fifteen kilo push-bike...probably the reason push-bikes are not required to display registrations marks.

trails

iTrader: (41)

Totally agree Dave, which is why-same as when you cross the road on foot when a red signal ids displayed-you look both ways and only commit yourself if the road is clear... a Darwin candidate would cross regardless of the visible\audible approach of traffic

Ian

Leslie

You are probably right, but bike riders should be subject to the law when they do flout it because although they are putting themselves at risk they could also cause others to get hurt.

In earlier times they used to be comparatively hot on cyclists and if you were seen riding on the pavement or without lights you were likely to wind up in court.

If there is no chance of a penalty then there will be cyclists who will take advantage of the situation.

Les

davyboy

...on the same token, all cars that did not give cyclist ample room should also get in trouble. This would be every car driven by a non cyclist!

trails

iTrader: (41)

Totally agree Les, I distinctly remember being collared for riding down a newly pedestrianised high street when I was a student (twenty years ago now ), and being presented a £30 fine...the only time I've had any interaction with the cops since was when a group of us deserved it...late one night on the return ride from a pub.

Running no lights can only be considered as a serious entry in the Darwin awards, whatever the circumstance.

Leslie

It should cut both ways of course.

But what if the car was being driven by a cyclist?

Les

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I dont jump red lights, though I can see why it can be compelling, momentum on a bike is hard won and it is possible to just jib across pavements and things, I do it at one junction, a offset crossroads over an A road with no lights, its death on a stick turning right, bad enough in a car so I push my biek up the pavement and turn further up.

It isnt worth the agro jumping reds, motorists see it and use it as ammo, it can be done safely, say turning left on an empty road, the Americans allow right turns in a car on red and it seems to work, over here sometimes people object just because they can, not because it makes a blind bit of difference.

SiPie

Then the driving cyclist would hopefully be more sympathetic to the cycling cyclist and give him plenty room

davyboy

Exactly.

The problems occur less in France for example as more people cycle and therefore more motorists are cyclists.

ukjesters

iTrader: (3)

Brings us back full circle. Quite easy to sort it out really. Mutual respect for the different road users, specifically in this case car & cycle. You ride single file and i'll be more than happy to give you ample room. Ride two abreast or more and not move to single file to help me continue on my way then i shall return the favour and be inconsiderate to you by means of narrowing the gap and giving you a taste of washer fluid as i go by.

So there you go, help each other out and there's no problems. Be inconsiderate to me then i shall match and then raise your level of "don't give a tossness!!!!

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Yes - I cycle in rush hour

If traffic is going slow enough, I will even use the outside lane to overtake. In my mind, it's far safer being out there than on the inside where I'm not expected.

I also stop for all red lights, tut if I see other cyclists then catch them up and overtake them when light goes green

I probably do annoy car drivers sometimes by being in the road in front of them but its only momentary before I leave them behind in traffic

Interestingly, I often keep up (overall) with motorbikes along my 7.5 mile commute into/out Central London. It takes me just under 1/2 hour but I imagine they might only gain 5 mins max for the same journey. Now, if I had a road bike....

trails

iTrader: (41)

cyclists should oil up and those that don't are extremely inconsiderate but you have to remember you are sitting safely in your death dealing metal box whilst they are far more exposed to serious or perhaps fatal injury. Especially if some **** in a car passes too close...perhaps you should just take the moral high ground and go about your business without risking their safety and your liberty

ukjesters

iTrader: (3)

Agree with the majority of this, which is why i can never understand why a cyclist would want to be even closer to the death dealing metal box when they clearly have the option of riding in a safer manner closer to the curb. After all, that's why they put the cycle lane next to the curb and not next to the centre line...LOL

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

But then, have you seen the state of the nations roads these days? Pot-holes, drains, bad roadworks repairs all add to the dangers being faced by your commuting cyclist. Plus, you are more likely to be seen if you aren't cycling between the double yellow lines! Therefore, it is safer on an urban two lane road to ride roughly in the middle of the inner lane. Cars have the option to move to the outer lane to overtake after all. The cyclist is also less likely to have to weave in and out of parked cars unexpectedly if they keep a straight course and finally are more visible to those pulling out of junctions. Make your prescence known through road positioning - safer.

The one thing I don't agree with is that I think TfL are intending to make it legal for cyclists to go the wrong way down one way streets - that is just not a logical expectation for car drivers...

trails

iTrader: (41)

on the money Puff...there are a couple of sections on my commute that are only safe when you can ride down the middle of the road when the traffic is gridlocked. Curbside is a maze of pot holes, sunken tarmac and very poor patchwork repairs from multiple utility companies.

SiPie

Spot on PTMW

ukjesters

iTrader: (3)

Working shifts and living quite close to work i never encounter the "commuter cyclist", hence my only gripe being the countryside cyclist on a weekend tootling along bumping his gums with his marra and not giving a toss about anybody else. This is what gets me going and so i adjust my driving style to suit. But yes, inner city commuting with the current state of the roads is a PITA for all road users alike.

davyboy

I was riding my time trial bike the other day and didn't spot a pot hole. When I hit it the front part of my handle bars dropped an inch, as a good bit of my weight was on them. Saying that I think it made me more aero....if thats possible for a 96kg rider!

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

couple of things you need to know about riding close to the kerb:

it's in fact inherently more dangerous (ctc and Police recommendations are to cycle further out and also adopt the primary position when matching traffic speeds)
there is too much detritus close to the kerb and it causes you to swerve, dodge weave to avoid it.

Also - cycle lanes are NOT compulsory. In fact they are a nightmare for many cyclists as they incorrectly enforce the incorrect assumption that bikes are not traffic and should be kept separate.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Yes, course it is, Im about that, maybe a bit more, I tend to think I am more Bentley Continental than Exige, well upholstered but still pretty fast !

thesyn

Main problem is that you're on P2 on the grid, I mean the inside lane at the lights.

You're about to totally spank the 90 year old in a micra on P1 then lycra man pulls in front of you before the lights change and it's game over.

Ban the *******

ukjesters

iTrader: (3)

Well seeing how i don't have a bike, so i won't be riding close to the curb, that would therefore mean that i don't need to know anything about riding close to the curb. But thats good advice for cyclists and i'm sure they'll appreciate it more than i will.

Leslie

Do you know, I was saying exactly that at the beginning of this discussion. It really is just a matter of each person thinking about the other and acting accordingly. Deliberately screwing each other up is the worst thing they can do! Totally childish, dangerous, and non productive.

Les

Leslie

You remind me of my old French master who always used to follow the Tour de France in class every year. He always used to define racing cyclists as those with their ***** higher than their heads.

Not quite in those terms though!

Les