This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.marktwight.com/discourse.php?id=45
Just noticed this while buzzing around the internet after reading up on the Eiger. Haven't seen it before.
NB I'm not posting this because I agree with everything Mark T says. I'm posting it because Mark is funny and passionate and articulate and rude, and I haven't read any of his writing for a while. It made me chuckle, and it made me think.
Just noticed this while buzzing around the internet after reading up on the Eiger. Haven't seen it before.
NB I'm not posting this because I agree with everything Mark T says. I'm posting it because Mark is funny and passionate and articulate and rude, and I haven't read any of his writing for a while. It made me chuckle, and it made me think.
In reply to Sophie G.:
Lost interest when he starts going on about what laws he will and won't obey. The sooner the Police stop running scared of this tiny militant cycle lobby and operate a zero tolerance to cyclist RLJ'ing riding on pavements etc etc the safer everyone will be.
I do a 15 mile city centre cycle commute most days and to be honest the way I see some people cycling I'm astonished that there aren't more fatalities.
Lost interest when he starts going on about what laws he will and won't obey. The sooner the Police stop running scared of this tiny militant cycle lobby and operate a zero tolerance to cyclist RLJ'ing riding on pavements etc etc the safer everyone will be.
I do a 15 mile city centre cycle commute most days and to be honest the way I see some people cycling I'm astonished that there aren't more fatalities.
2
In reply to Morty:
You think? I thought that bit was typical Mark--kind of plausible, but also kind of crazy
It had better not be war, because if it is, then like he says, the cyclists are not the ones with the armour and the deadly weapons.
You think? I thought that bit was typical Mark--kind of plausible, but also kind of crazy
It had better not be war, because if it is, then like he says, the cyclists are not the ones with the armour and the deadly weapons.
In reply to Sophie G.:
I think he means that to a cyclist it is. You make a mistake or they make a mistake and you could be gone.
Indy needs to get a sense of perspective, who suffers from a cyclist using the pavement or skipping a redlight? Where is the victim? When I stop at a red light and nothing is coming, I can pick the bike up and walk across. How is that safer than cycling?
I think he means that to a cyclist it is. You make a mistake or they make a mistake and you could be gone.
Indy needs to get a sense of perspective, who suffers from a cyclist using the pavement or skipping a redlight? Where is the victim? When I stop at a red light and nothing is coming, I can pick the bike up and walk across. How is that safer than cycling?
Post edited at 19:20
In reply to jonnie3430:
Ask your elderly grandparents if they like cyclist zooming around on the pavements or parents with young children. Come to think of it how would you deal with being hit from behind by a cyclist after side stepping some dog mess? Seems to me that pavement cycling cyclist don't want to take the 'risk' of cycling where they should be i.e on the road but are quite happy to transfer that risk of injury to pedestrians who despite being protected by law from selfish cyclist get no choice in the matter. Most cyclist I see on pavements have a "get the f*ck out of my way" attitude. The police should be issuing more fines that'll stop 'em. Along with the idiots who cycle at night with no lights.
If you feel that traffic lights should only be an advisory's for cyclists why not everyone? If nothing is coming then why can't a 44 tonne truck turn or carry on on red???
> Indy needs to get a sense of perspective, who suffers from a cyclist using the pavement or skipping a redlight? Where is the victim? When I stop at a red light and nothing is coming, I can pick the bike up and walk across. How is that safer than cycling?
Ask your elderly grandparents if they like cyclist zooming around on the pavements or parents with young children. Come to think of it how would you deal with being hit from behind by a cyclist after side stepping some dog mess? Seems to me that pavement cycling cyclist don't want to take the 'risk' of cycling where they should be i.e on the road but are quite happy to transfer that risk of injury to pedestrians who despite being protected by law from selfish cyclist get no choice in the matter. Most cyclist I see on pavements have a "get the f*ck out of my way" attitude. The police should be issuing more fines that'll stop 'em. Along with the idiots who cycle at night with no lights.
If you feel that traffic lights should only be an advisory's for cyclists why not everyone? If nothing is coming then why can't a 44 tonne truck turn or carry on on red???
Post edited at 20:40
3
In reply to Indy:
You are absolutely right, every cyclist using the pavement is doing it so they can knock pedestrians over, I've just had bull bars fitted to my bike to try to bounce them to the side, hopefully into other people. There is no middle ground, pedestrians should be driving, or not out at rush hour, or whenever I am using my bike.
I can't pick up a 44 tonne truck, if you can, I'd feel the same way.
Seriously though, you sound like the kind of person who obeys rules because they are the rules. Is this true? Have you ever made your own rules? How do you feel when rules change, or you visit a different country with different rules?
> Ask your elderly grandparents if they like cyclist zooming around on the pavements or parents with young children. Come to think of it how would you deal with being hit from behind by a cyclist after side stepping some dog mess? Seems to me that pavement cycling cyclist don't want to take the 'risk' of cycling where they should be i.e on the road but are quite happy to transfer that risk of injury to pedestrians who despite being protected by law from selfish cyclist get no choice in the matter. Most cyclist I see on pavements have a "get the f*ck out of my way" attitude. The police should be issuing more fines that'll stop 'em. Along with the idiots who cycle at night with no lights.
You are absolutely right, every cyclist using the pavement is doing it so they can knock pedestrians over, I've just had bull bars fitted to my bike to try to bounce them to the side, hopefully into other people. There is no middle ground, pedestrians should be driving, or not out at rush hour, or whenever I am using my bike.
> If you feel that traffic lights should only be an advisory's for cyclists why not everyone? If nothing is coming then why can't a 44 tonne truck turn or carry on on red???
I can't pick up a 44 tonne truck, if you can, I'd feel the same way.
Seriously though, you sound like the kind of person who obeys rules because they are the rules. Is this true? Have you ever made your own rules? How do you feel when rules change, or you visit a different country with different rules?
1
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
Do you think it's cool to break rules? I admit that some rules are stupid, but red lights are there to stop people hitting each other. Maybe it is perfectly harmless to skip the odd one but the problem as I see it is that skipping a red light is to do something unexpected, and doing unexpected things on busy roads can lead to unexpected accidents. This is why i will always wait at one, sure i sometimes feel like a numpty sitting there waiting on my own but I don't want to get into the habit of jumping them.
Edited for the grammar police
Do you think it's cool to break rules? I admit that some rules are stupid, but red lights are there to stop people hitting each other. Maybe it is perfectly harmless to skip the odd one but the problem as I see it is that skipping a red light is to do something unexpected, and doing unexpected things on busy roads can lead to unexpected accidents. This is why i will always wait at one, sure i sometimes feel like a numpty sitting there waiting on my own but I don't want to get into the habit of jumping them.
Edited for the grammar police
Post edited at 22:07
1
In reply to Sophie G.:
Oh no... what have I done here... I've re-spawned the UKC Monster Thread From Hell.
Get out while you can. Get out before it's too late. Sorry everyone [hangs head in shame]
Oh no... what have I done here... I've re-spawned the UKC Monster Thread From Hell.
Get out while you can. Get out before it's too late. Sorry everyone [hangs head in shame]
1
In reply to Sophie G.:
Indy is right, zero tolerance is the way forward... For all road users, it would make zero difference to the number of people killed by cyclists but would save hundreds of people killed by motor vehicles each year.
At least you identify the daily mail readers when threads like this pop up so you can ignore them in future 😊
Cheers
Toby
Indy is right, zero tolerance is the way forward... For all road users, it would make zero difference to the number of people killed by cyclists but would save hundreds of people killed by motor vehicles each year.
At least you identify the daily mail readers when threads like this pop up so you can ignore them in future 😊
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Jimbo C:
I feel sad breaking rules; that society has come up with rules that I think are wrong and remove the chance for me to use my own judgement. And society is rather judgemental when you ask if the rules can be changed.
My daily commute is very hairy, using busy roads at rush hour. There are mega dangers all the way along it that change constantly depending on drivers actions, my attitude towards red lights isn't: run it, they won't catch you. But more "that lunatic behind me will cut me up on this junction, so if I can get further away we'll be on straight roads and I can hog a lane."
Incidentally, red light jumping is very safe compared to roundabouts, where people don't look properly before piling in, twice in the last few months I've nearly been hit on one. Both times I could see it coming and stopped, it's silly to stick to the rules and carry on if it'll put you in a hospital bed or garden.
Agreed, tw*ttish cyclists give themselves a bad name, but I am not one, I have a bell and use it early, I ride at walking pace around pedestrians. It is amusing to see peoples prejudices come out and judge everyone as a tw*t. You can usually tell tw*ttish cyclists by their fixie, beard and poorly fitting clothing. They aren't really cyclists, just impressionable and the bike is part of the image they are trying to live up to, which explains their poor behaviour. You see it in later life when they buy an Audi.
I feel sad breaking rules; that society has come up with rules that I think are wrong and remove the chance for me to use my own judgement. And society is rather judgemental when you ask if the rules can be changed.
My daily commute is very hairy, using busy roads at rush hour. There are mega dangers all the way along it that change constantly depending on drivers actions, my attitude towards red lights isn't: run it, they won't catch you. But more "that lunatic behind me will cut me up on this junction, so if I can get further away we'll be on straight roads and I can hog a lane."
Incidentally, red light jumping is very safe compared to roundabouts, where people don't look properly before piling in, twice in the last few months I've nearly been hit on one. Both times I could see it coming and stopped, it's silly to stick to the rules and carry on if it'll put you in a hospital bed or garden.
Agreed, tw*ttish cyclists give themselves a bad name, but I am not one, I have a bell and use it early, I ride at walking pace around pedestrians. It is amusing to see peoples prejudices come out and judge everyone as a tw*t. You can usually tell tw*ttish cyclists by their fixie, beard and poorly fitting clothing. They aren't really cyclists, just impressionable and the bike is part of the image they are trying to live up to, which explains their poor behaviour. You see it in later life when they buy an Audi.
Post edited at 08:36
In reply to Sophie G.:
No Sophie! This will be a delight full of intelligent debate and perspectives not previously considered on both sides, with occasionally spurts of wit. And won't rely on toilet humour.
> Oh no... what have I done here... I've re-spawned the UKC Monster Thread From Hell.
No Sophie! This will be a delight full of intelligent debate and perspectives not previously considered on both sides, with occasionally spurts of wit. And won't rely on toilet humour.
In reply to jonnie3430:
One victim right here. I got hit by a cyclist who ran a red light while I was crossing at a pedestrian crossing (on the green man).
> Indy needs to get a sense of perspective, who suffers from a cyclist using the pavement or skipping a redlight? Where is the victim?
One victim right here. I got hit by a cyclist who ran a red light while I was crossing at a pedestrian crossing (on the green man).
In reply to JoshOvki:
Sorry Josh, there is quite clearly a victim if someone is hit. That wasn't the point, but I can understand how you were confused.
Sorry Josh, there is quite clearly a victim if someone is hit. That wasn't the point, but I can understand how you were confused.
Post edited at 08:44
In reply to Sophie G.:
It's already too late - we're all locked in now! Only one can survive...
Mick ('Now you see me; now you don't see me' - as Bruce Lee might well have said.)
PS Agree, bad behaviour by motorists (lots?) and cyclists (some).
PPS. Good to see ole' Dr Death still in full-on rant mode. That boy sure has attitude. Sounds like he needs a good (bad?) woman to beat it out of him.
> Oh no... what have I done here... I've re-spawned the UKC Monster Thread From Hell.
> Get out while you can. Get out before it's too late. Sorry everyone [hangs head in shame]
It's already too late - we're all locked in now! Only one can survive...
Mick ('Now you see me; now you don't see me' - as Bruce Lee might well have said.)
PS Agree, bad behaviour by motorists (lots?) and cyclists (some).
PPS. Good to see ole' Dr Death still in full-on rant mode. That boy sure has attitude. Sounds like he needs a good (bad?) woman to beat it out of him.
In reply to jonnie3430:
I have no problem with you deciding what laws you will and won't obey on the basis that you ONLY break laws that effect solely you. When you decide to ride on the pavement you force people to accept the risk that they might be hit by a cyclist whist walking on the pavement. I believe that you don't have the right to force that risk onto people.
If as you say you ride on the pavement around pedestrians at "walking pace" then you won't mind complying with the law and getting off and pushing your bike at "walking pace"? or better still ride on the road where you should be.
If you feel that personally your commuting route is "hairy" then I suggest you plan a route using less busy side roads. Using a busy road doesn't give you the right to break the law and in such an environment is more likely to make you a victim. Has it occurred to you that the "lunatic behind" has similar thoughts about the lunatic on the bike that rides straight through red lights, jumps from the road to the pavement and back again, appears out of nowhere at night with no lights in dark clothing etc. I'm sorry but you ARE the "tw*ttish cyclist" if you cycle on the pavement, RLJ etc regardless of your facial hair choices.
With your somewhat cavalier attitude to RLJ'ing and it's obvious "safety" might I suggest you Google "Venera Minakhmetova" + "HGV" + "Death"
I have no problem with you deciding what laws you will and won't obey on the basis that you ONLY break laws that effect solely you. When you decide to ride on the pavement you force people to accept the risk that they might be hit by a cyclist whist walking on the pavement. I believe that you don't have the right to force that risk onto people.
If as you say you ride on the pavement around pedestrians at "walking pace" then you won't mind complying with the law and getting off and pushing your bike at "walking pace"? or better still ride on the road where you should be.
If you feel that personally your commuting route is "hairy" then I suggest you plan a route using less busy side roads. Using a busy road doesn't give you the right to break the law and in such an environment is more likely to make you a victim. Has it occurred to you that the "lunatic behind" has similar thoughts about the lunatic on the bike that rides straight through red lights, jumps from the road to the pavement and back again, appears out of nowhere at night with no lights in dark clothing etc. I'm sorry but you ARE the "tw*ttish cyclist" if you cycle on the pavement, RLJ etc regardless of your facial hair choices.
With your somewhat cavalier attitude to RLJ'ing and it's obvious "safety" might I suggest you Google "Venera Minakhmetova" + "HGV" + "Death"
In reply to Indy:
Well that solves it! Thanks for your input. You have been incredibly useful. Any other pearls of wisdom you can share with us? Maybe make a snap judgement about what my nephews future profession will be? I mean you don't know him, he is only 2, but I'm sure you can read enough into that to come out with exactly the right answer.
Out of curiosity, how long have you been riding into work? And how many times a year? You don't sound like you've done much city cycling at all.
Your understanding of the law is also at fault here. There is a grey area. The highway code recognises that cyclists can use the pavement if it is safer to do so, the police don't dish out tickets for cyclists on the pavement when it is safer for them than the road and 4 year old kids are not ticketed for learning to ride on the pavement, nor are their parents who are escorting them.
Thanks also for the reference. It seems an open and shut case. She died because she rode through a red light, therefore all cyclists should die if they ride through a red light, I am starting to understand how your mind works now! Not the slightest suggestion that she may not have, or that the junction had cycle lights to let the cyclist off before the vehicles, causing confusion or that the junction was badly designed and had caused several other fatalities already.
Anyway, you are a fascinating character, a bit more info on what you do/ have done in the past would help my mental picture of you. It's a cross between a victorian nanny riding a pashley type and an insurance underwriter on some practical hybrid with all the "sensible," kit including safety glasses and one of those arms that sticks out from your pannier rack to keep drivers away at the moment. You probably don't have much fun.
Well that solves it! Thanks for your input. You have been incredibly useful. Any other pearls of wisdom you can share with us? Maybe make a snap judgement about what my nephews future profession will be? I mean you don't know him, he is only 2, but I'm sure you can read enough into that to come out with exactly the right answer.
Out of curiosity, how long have you been riding into work? And how many times a year? You don't sound like you've done much city cycling at all.
Your understanding of the law is also at fault here. There is a grey area. The highway code recognises that cyclists can use the pavement if it is safer to do so, the police don't dish out tickets for cyclists on the pavement when it is safer for them than the road and 4 year old kids are not ticketed for learning to ride on the pavement, nor are their parents who are escorting them.
Thanks also for the reference. It seems an open and shut case. She died because she rode through a red light, therefore all cyclists should die if they ride through a red light, I am starting to understand how your mind works now! Not the slightest suggestion that she may not have, or that the junction had cycle lights to let the cyclist off before the vehicles, causing confusion or that the junction was badly designed and had caused several other fatalities already.
Anyway, you are a fascinating character, a bit more info on what you do/ have done in the past would help my mental picture of you. It's a cross between a victorian nanny riding a pashley type and an insurance underwriter on some practical hybrid with all the "sensible," kit including safety glasses and one of those arms that sticks out from your pannier rack to keep drivers away at the moment. You probably don't have much fun.
1
In reply to Sophie G.:
So here's how it works for me...
I don't jump red lights. Period. Even at pedestrian crossings I'll wait, and yes, even going up silly steep hills. I don't see any situation where jumping a red light is a smart plan.
I take a more nuanced view to cycling on pavements. I take the view that I'm just as nimble on my bike than off, and I'll ride at walking pace or slower on any sections with a hazard (anything other than a flat, straight, empty section of Tarmac with excellent visibility).
I also don't buy the "My opinion is more valid than yours because I cycle further/faster/for longer than you..." Bull. If you have ridden your bike recklessly; openly flouted rules that everyone else has to obey; or used some trumped up "safety" excuse to justify your impatience when there is probably another option that just involves waiting half a minute, planning ahead a bit more, or taking a diversion, you deserve no-ones respect.
We have enough of an issue with public image that openly flouting rules is just asking for it.
So here's how it works for me...
I don't jump red lights. Period. Even at pedestrian crossings I'll wait, and yes, even going up silly steep hills. I don't see any situation where jumping a red light is a smart plan.
I take a more nuanced view to cycling on pavements. I take the view that I'm just as nimble on my bike than off, and I'll ride at walking pace or slower on any sections with a hazard (anything other than a flat, straight, empty section of Tarmac with excellent visibility).
I also don't buy the "My opinion is more valid than yours because I cycle further/faster/for longer than you..." Bull. If you have ridden your bike recklessly; openly flouted rules that everyone else has to obey; or used some trumped up "safety" excuse to justify your impatience when there is probably another option that just involves waiting half a minute, planning ahead a bit more, or taking a diversion, you deserve no-ones respect.
We have enough of an issue with public image that openly flouting rules is just asking for it.
Post edited at 19:24
3
In reply to Indy:
I am sure you know better than the home office.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let...
I suggest you do the same. Since if you did you would know it is unclear whether it was someone red light jumping, in the normal sense of the phrase, as opposed to not understanding the insane separate lights. That it got redesigned not long afterwards since it had so many complaints and issues would give a hint which.
> If as you say you ride on the pavement around pedestrians at "walking pace" then you won't mind complying with the law and getting off and pushing your bike at "walking pace"? or better still ride on the road where you should be.
I am sure you know better than the home office.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let...
> With your somewhat cavalier attitude to RLJ'ing and it's obvious "safety" might I suggest you Google "Venera Minakhmetova" + "HGV" + "Death"
I suggest you do the same. Since if you did you would know it is unclear whether it was someone red light jumping, in the normal sense of the phrase, as opposed to not understanding the insane separate lights. That it got redesigned not long afterwards since it had so many complaints and issues would give a hint which.
Post edited at 19:50
In reply to dissonance:
Not quite sure what your trying to prove with The Telegraph article as it reiterates that cycling on the pavement is illegal even going so far as to say that the Govt. had increased the fine for doing so.
“Enforcement is a matter for the Police but we endorse their approach of showing discretion in instances where a cyclist is using the pavement ALONG A DANGEROUS SECTION of road out of fear of the traffic, but is being mindful to not put pedestrians at risk.” My highlighting. I disagree, the cyclist should dismount and walk the section but notice its not a blanket right to cycle on the pavement whenever and wherever you please.
As for the reference to RLJ'ing and the death of Venera Minakhmetova.... am I to assume your using "stupid foreigner" theory? if so what on what basis? she was Russian??
Not quite sure what your trying to prove with The Telegraph article as it reiterates that cycling on the pavement is illegal even going so far as to say that the Govt. had increased the fine for doing so.
“Enforcement is a matter for the Police but we endorse their approach of showing discretion in instances where a cyclist is using the pavement ALONG A DANGEROUS SECTION of road out of fear of the traffic, but is being mindful to not put pedestrians at risk.” My highlighting. I disagree, the cyclist should dismount and walk the section but notice its not a blanket right to cycle on the pavement whenever and wherever you please.
As for the reference to RLJ'ing and the death of Venera Minakhmetova.... am I to assume your using "stupid foreigner" theory? if so what on what basis? she was Russian??
In reply to jonnie3430:
Well, if he inherits your cavalier attitude to the law then maybe I should buy some shares in some providers of private prisons :|
What I ride, how far, how fast and how many times has no bearing on this topic whatsoever. I will though confirm I don't RLJ, ride at night without lights, on the pavement, the wrong way up 1 way streets etc etc
My understanding of the law is not at fault. If a policeman/woman chooses not to fine a person riding on the pavement it doesn't make it legal to cycle on the pavement. Cycling on the pavement is illegal.... PERIOD.
The light was red, Venera Minakhmetova should have stopped... had she done so then she wouldn't have come into contact with the HGV that killed her. Her death has nothing to do with the phasing of the lights. Red = STOP
"and had caused several other fatalities already...."
Yes, another fatality was Svitlana Tereschenko. A quick google shows from the inquest.... "The police investigation concluded that Ms Tereschenko had placed her bike in the lorry's blindspot and that as the lorry turned she moved further in to the blindspot."
Also....
"CCTV footage viewed at the inquest showed Ms Tereschenko positioning her bike in front of the lorry seemingly unaware of the danger of the situation; witnesses to the incident, passengers in a car behind the lorry, also said that they could see the danger that Ms Tereschenko had placed herself in and that it had seemed to them clear that the driver of the tipper lorry intended to turn left."
Wonder what I'll find if I google the other fatality?
Well, if he inherits your cavalier attitude to the law then maybe I should buy some shares in some providers of private prisons :|
What I ride, how far, how fast and how many times has no bearing on this topic whatsoever. I will though confirm I don't RLJ, ride at night without lights, on the pavement, the wrong way up 1 way streets etc etc
My understanding of the law is not at fault. If a policeman/woman chooses not to fine a person riding on the pavement it doesn't make it legal to cycle on the pavement. Cycling on the pavement is illegal.... PERIOD.
The light was red, Venera Minakhmetova should have stopped... had she done so then she wouldn't have come into contact with the HGV that killed her. Her death has nothing to do with the phasing of the lights. Red = STOP
"and had caused several other fatalities already...."
Yes, another fatality was Svitlana Tereschenko. A quick google shows from the inquest.... "The police investigation concluded that Ms Tereschenko had placed her bike in the lorry's blindspot and that as the lorry turned she moved further in to the blindspot."
Also....
"CCTV footage viewed at the inquest showed Ms Tereschenko positioning her bike in front of the lorry seemingly unaware of the danger of the situation; witnesses to the incident, passengers in a car behind the lorry, also said that they could see the danger that Ms Tereschenko had placed herself in and that it had seemed to them clear that the driver of the tipper lorry intended to turn left."
Wonder what I'll find if I google the other fatality?
In reply to Indy:
Now where did i say that? This would work a lot better if you were capable of engaging sensibly.
I was just pointing out the home office, eg the people who write the laws, state discretion should be used. As opposed to the very clear cut position which seems to exist in your mind.
No you shouldnt. Are you trolling or are you incapable of reading?
> I disagree, the cyclist should dismount and walk the section but notice its not a blanket right to cycle on the pavement whenever and wherever you please.
Now where did i say that? This would work a lot better if you were capable of engaging sensibly.
I was just pointing out the home office, eg the people who write the laws, state discretion should be used. As opposed to the very clear cut position which seems to exist in your mind.
> As for the reference to RLJ'ing and the death of Venera Minakhmetova.... am I to assume your using "stupid foreigner" theory?
No you shouldnt. Are you trolling or are you incapable of reading?
In reply to dissonance:
To clarify.... I disagree with the Govt. or MP's or both and everyone else that says that the Police should use their discretion.
You said ".....as opposed to not understanding the insane separate lights" how hard is it to figure out a RED light and what to do????
To clarify.... I disagree with the Govt. or MP's or both and everyone else that says that the Police should use their discretion.
You said ".....as opposed to not understanding the insane separate lights" how hard is it to figure out a RED light and what to do????
In reply to Indy:
It's no different to the percentage of road rage/poor drivers, or the commuters who will barge & charge their way through public transport. Perhaps it's a proportional number of users, but they should be dealt with just as firmly. I agree just because somebody is wearing some 'eco' badge of honour for biking to work etc. doesn't excuse them from the various laws and if time is that critical, then they should simply get up earlier!
> > to be honest the way I see some people cycling I'm astonished that there aren't more fatalities.
It's no different to the percentage of road rage/poor drivers, or the commuters who will barge & charge their way through public transport. Perhaps it's a proportional number of users, but they should be dealt with just as firmly. I agree just because somebody is wearing some 'eco' badge of honour for biking to work etc. doesn't excuse them from the various laws and if time is that critical, then they should simply get up earlier!
In reply to Indy:
Hmmm.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=608085&v=1#x7978178
> I do a 15 mile city centre cycle commute most days and to be honest the way I see some people cycling I'm astonished that there aren't more fatalities.
Hmmm.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=608085&v=1#x7978178
In reply to summo:
You forgot to mention the pedestrians that start to cross the road just as the lights turn green, when their man on the signals is red.
I hit a pedestrian last year that stepped straight out into the bus lane I was riding down - he was just past the safety railings of a proper pedestrian crossing with traffic lights, where a number of other people were waiting to cross. At the time, I was on the motorbike, with noisy exhaust, headlights and hi-viz jacket, so NO excuse for not seeing me. Fortunately, I was in the middle of the lane and just clipped him with mirror and elbow and we were both ok - he was lucky I wasn't a bus or taxi and we were both lucky I wasn't on the push bike, or I would have been closer to the kerb and hit him head on.
My rambling point is that EVERYONE needs to be careful.
I cycle to work because I enjoy cycling and, with a young family, it's about the only exercise/chance to ride I get at the moment. I don't jump red lights, although I might go forward of the line so I'm visible when the lights do change and I can make a safe getaway. The ONLY exception to this is where I know that the lights won't change for cyclists, because we're not heavy enough to trip the sensor, in which case proceed with caution - there's a set of lights I know where even the motorbike won't trip them, so it's a case of avoid or wait for a car to come along.
What are you going to do about the driver that undertook me (on pushbike) in a left hand turn lane to (just) beat me to a roundabout where he went straight on, when he would have had plenty of opportunity to overtake me safely the other side of the roundabout? Perhaps HE should have got up earlier, too?
There's bad examples on all sides and everyone needs a little more patience/respect/awareness of other road users.
> It's no different to the percentage of road rage/poor drivers, or the commuters who will barge & charge their way through public transport. Perhaps it's a proportional number of users, but they should be dealt with just as firmly.
You forgot to mention the pedestrians that start to cross the road just as the lights turn green, when their man on the signals is red.
I hit a pedestrian last year that stepped straight out into the bus lane I was riding down - he was just past the safety railings of a proper pedestrian crossing with traffic lights, where a number of other people were waiting to cross. At the time, I was on the motorbike, with noisy exhaust, headlights and hi-viz jacket, so NO excuse for not seeing me. Fortunately, I was in the middle of the lane and just clipped him with mirror and elbow and we were both ok - he was lucky I wasn't a bus or taxi and we were both lucky I wasn't on the push bike, or I would have been closer to the kerb and hit him head on.
My rambling point is that EVERYONE needs to be careful.
> I agree just because somebody is wearing some 'eco' badge of honour for biking to work etc. doesn't excuse them from the various laws and if time is that critical, then they should simply get up earlier!
I cycle to work because I enjoy cycling and, with a young family, it's about the only exercise/chance to ride I get at the moment. I don't jump red lights, although I might go forward of the line so I'm visible when the lights do change and I can make a safe getaway. The ONLY exception to this is where I know that the lights won't change for cyclists, because we're not heavy enough to trip the sensor, in which case proceed with caution - there's a set of lights I know where even the motorbike won't trip them, so it's a case of avoid or wait for a car to come along.
What are you going to do about the driver that undertook me (on pushbike) in a left hand turn lane to (just) beat me to a roundabout where he went straight on, when he would have had plenty of opportunity to overtake me safely the other side of the roundabout? Perhaps HE should have got up earlier, too?
There's bad examples on all sides and everyone needs a little more patience/respect/awareness of other road users.
2
In reply to LastBoyScout:
The solution is to improve the road signalling, have push buttons for bikes at junctions etc. plenty of other countries do, it's the UK that wants to go green, but isn't prepared to make it happen properly.
The UK roads, path and transport network simply needs improving in all respects.
> My rambling point is that EVERYONE needs to be careful.
I agree> The ONLY exception to this is where I know that the lights won't change for cyclists, because we're not heavy enough to trip the sensor,
The solution is to improve the road signalling, have push buttons for bikes at junctions etc. plenty of other countries do, it's the UK that wants to go green, but isn't prepared to make it happen properly.
> Perhaps HE should have got up earlier, too?
yes, but better still stiffer penalties. The UK driving points system is too lenient, some offences which are just blatant flouts of a known law should result in instant bans, zero excuses about needing a licence for work etc. too. If you drift over the speed limit then a margin of say 10% is fine and you get a heavy fine and 6points, same again or proper speeding instant ban again. > There's bad examples on all sides and everyone needs a little more patience/respect/awareness of other road users.
The UK roads, path and transport network simply needs improving in all respects.
Post edited at 09:04
In reply to Indy:
why do you parade your ignorance? I also said how the junction got redesigned due to how dangerous it was(although according to those who use it it is arguable how much better it was made).
Anyone with a ounce of common sense or without a rabid hatred of cyclists would then be able to figure out it was a bit more complicated than just a red light.
It was a horrendous setup of different lights for cycle lane vs main traffic flow but not in the normal sightlines. I did have a look for one of the videos which showed it but couldnt find one but it was a stupid design.
I could also mention that not everyone was exactly happy with the verdict since no cctv and reliant on some police interpretation of a tachograph, not the most subtle technology, and the drivers testimony. Fun fact. There is a curious bias in the statistics of who is to blame in accidents between adult cyclists and drivers where if the cyclist dies they are more likely to be found at fault.
Strange that isnt it?
> You said ".....as opposed to not understanding the insane separate lights" how hard is it to figure out a RED light and what to do????
why do you parade your ignorance? I also said how the junction got redesigned due to how dangerous it was(although according to those who use it it is arguable how much better it was made).
Anyone with a ounce of common sense or without a rabid hatred of cyclists would then be able to figure out it was a bit more complicated than just a red light.
It was a horrendous setup of different lights for cycle lane vs main traffic flow but not in the normal sightlines. I did have a look for one of the videos which showed it but couldnt find one but it was a stupid design.
I could also mention that not everyone was exactly happy with the verdict since no cctv and reliant on some police interpretation of a tachograph, not the most subtle technology, and the drivers testimony. Fun fact. There is a curious bias in the statistics of who is to blame in accidents between adult cyclists and drivers where if the cyclist dies they are more likely to be found at fault.
Strange that isnt it?
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Pedestrians are my biggest gripe on my bike commute too. There's one section outside central station where I've now had a pedestrian running out from behind a car straight into me and one right in front of me that knocked me off. I have had a couple of incidents with cars there too, but more with pedestrians! I now reach the lights at the end of that stretch and I am actually shaking, whether there has been an incident or not, I really hate it!
Pedestrians are my biggest gripe on my bike commute too. There's one section outside central station where I've now had a pedestrian running out from behind a car straight into me and one right in front of me that knocked me off. I have had a couple of incidents with cars there too, but more with pedestrians! I now reach the lights at the end of that stretch and I am actually shaking, whether there has been an incident or not, I really hate it!
In reply to jonnie3430:
Pedestrians are the victims much of the time. They should not need to look for cyclists when crossing on a green pedestrian light. In some cases they do need to.
As for his advocacy of violence against errant drivers, I hope it is tongue in cheek. If it is not, I hope any driver so affected presses charges for assault. Completely unnecessary.
A fair chunk of the rest of it makes sense, particularly the bit about mirrors which were the cause of me being hit by a car ages ago (my fault) - the visibility back just isn't good enough, and the vibrations from the road make it even worse - I will never use them on a bike again. Always turn your head and look back, every time.
Neil
Pedestrians are the victims much of the time. They should not need to look for cyclists when crossing on a green pedestrian light. In some cases they do need to.
As for his advocacy of violence against errant drivers, I hope it is tongue in cheek. If it is not, I hope any driver so affected presses charges for assault. Completely unnecessary.
A fair chunk of the rest of it makes sense, particularly the bit about mirrors which were the cause of me being hit by a car ages ago (my fault) - the visibility back just isn't good enough, and the vibrations from the road make it even worse - I will never use them on a bike again. Always turn your head and look back, every time.
Neil
Post edited at 10:01
In reply to Neil Williams:
But they do need to look if they do not have a green light!!! My helmet is bright yellow, I have lights on the bike and on my helmet, I have a red and white jacket with reflective bits on it, I have orange slap bands round my ankles - there's no excuse for them to not see me!! They treat the bike lane as part of their pavement, and ignore the red man at lights if they don't hear an engine. I'm still recovering from a shoulder injury by being knocked off by a pedestrian, they are my biggest bug bear!! (and I am one of the cyclists that is anal about waiting for red lights, not going against 1 way systems etc)
> Pedestrians are the victims much of the time. They should not need to look for cyclists when crossing on a green pedestrian light. In some cases they do need to.
But they do need to look if they do not have a green light!!! My helmet is bright yellow, I have lights on the bike and on my helmet, I have a red and white jacket with reflective bits on it, I have orange slap bands round my ankles - there's no excuse for them to not see me!! They treat the bike lane as part of their pavement, and ignore the red man at lights if they don't hear an engine. I'm still recovering from a shoulder injury by being knocked off by a pedestrian, they are my biggest bug bear!! (and I am one of the cyclists that is anal about waiting for red lights, not going against 1 way systems etc)
In reply to LastBoyScout:
This would be great, but a bit pricey! Fortunately, there are only a few weeks left of uni, so I will no longer be a regular Glasgow cyclist (Stirling is fine).
This would be great, but a bit pricey! Fortunately, there are only a few weeks left of uni, so I will no longer be a regular Glasgow cyclist (Stirling is fine).
In reply to Neil Williams:
I fitted a mirror on my bike (after I got hit from behind by another cyclist who had decided to draft me) and eventually gave up and returned it. I tried several positions and couldn't get any sort of decent view behind me that wasn't obscured by part of my leg. I also found that it wasn't close enough to my normal line of sight anyway, so by the time I'd looked down, focussed and worked out what might be behind me, I'd completely lost track of what was going on in front of me.
That was on a road bike with narrow drop handlebars, though - might work better on a more upright bike with flat bars.
> A fair chunk of the rest of it makes sense, particularly the bit about mirrors which were the cause of me being hit by a car ages ago (my fault) - the visibility back just isn't good enough, and the vibrations from the road make it even worse - I will never use them on a bike again. Always turn your head and look back, every time.
I fitted a mirror on my bike (after I got hit from behind by another cyclist who had decided to draft me) and eventually gave up and returned it. I tried several positions and couldn't get any sort of decent view behind me that wasn't obscured by part of my leg. I also found that it wasn't close enough to my normal line of sight anyway, so by the time I'd looked down, focussed and worked out what might be behind me, I'd completely lost track of what was going on in front of me.
That was on a road bike with narrow drop handlebars, though - might work better on a more upright bike with flat bars.
In reply to girlymonkey:
Indeed, it does irritate when people step out into the road without looking.
Neil
Indeed, it does irritate when people step out into the road without looking.
Neil
In reply to Ian_Cognito:
Yes, this was on a road-ised mountain bike so was on the end of straight bars. But the view back was still inadequate, and this was only proven to me when I didn't see a car that I then turned right in front of and it hit me.
Neil
Yes, this was on a road-ised mountain bike so was on the end of straight bars. But the view back was still inadequate, and this was only proven to me when I didn't see a car that I then turned right in front of and it hit me.
Neil
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...