
Some People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Drive.
#31
Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:36 AM
#32
Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:50 AM
Yes, I reported it to the police and they said if there's any visible injury to the hand then to take photos, there was mild swelling, but it didn't show up in the photo. I've got myself a reference number, and will follow it up if need be.
#33
Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:53 AM
my view is I have no issue with push bikers if they stay in the edge, use cycle lanes where possible and obey the rules of the road. But when you see them two abreast, deliberately riding in the middle of the road, swerving in front of you/wobbling about, Weaving through traffic, undertaking cars at lights etc (its illegal for anyone else to do this so why can push bikers get away with it), and not using the cycle lanes where provided, or acting like they have more right to be there than you (the road tax and insurance payer), then I start to be a little less likely to show them too much patience, if they are curtius to me, I will be to them, if they are acting like an idiot, they shouldn't complain when other road users get a little annoyed. Sorry bit of a rant there, nothing much to do with this incident XD a bit of a general one.
They can cycle two abreast. Cars avoid obstacles, so cyclists have the right to as well. If the driver is a decent one, he will give the cyclist space. They will also see the same obstacles that the cyclist see and so should anticipate them. If you don't see them, don't blame the cyclist. Everyone has a responsibility.
Its not illegal to undertake in moving traffic. Road tax was abolished years ago and you are now paying for the emissions of your vehicle. Cyclists don't contribute to this so pay nothing.
Cars do not have any more entitlement to the roads than anyone else and this frankly pig headed approach is half the problem cyclists face.
I actually think cyclists, and horse riders should have insurance!
My sister (carrying my 3 year old niece) was hit by a cyclist at a crossing.
The lights weren't working, however cars stopped to allow her to cross and the cyclist didn't!
My sister was quite badly injured and both ended up in A&E
I actually agree they should as well. Cyclists are just as able to cause an accident as a driver and with no registration plates on display, its impossible to find out who someone is unless you happen to see them everyday on a commute or something. And getting hit by a cyclist can bloody hurt!
A cyclist yesterday just pulled right in front of me causing me to slam my brakes on. No warning via hand signals, it was out the blue. Then looked at me like I'd done the wrong thing. Sorry but on that occasion it was not my fault.
There are many cyclists who are idiots, no one will ever argue against that. But there are many car drivers who are idiots as well and turn without indicate, pulling out at short notice and the like. Its not a one way street.
my view is I have no issue with push bikers if they stay in the edge, use cycle lanes where possible and obey the rules of the road. But when you see them two abreast, deliberately riding in the middle of the road, swerving in front of you/wobbling about, Weaving through traffic, undertaking cars at lights etc (its illegal for anyone else to do this so why can push bikers get away with it), and not using the cycle lanes where provided, or acting like they have more right to be there than you (the road tax and insurance payer), then I start to be a little less likely to show them too much patience, if they are curtius to me, I will be to them, if they are acting like an idiot, they shouldn't complain when other road users get a little annoyed. Sorry bit of a rant there, nothing much to do with this incident XD a bit of a general one.
Ah yes. The Daily Mail style rant.
There is nothing illegal about cyclists riding two abreast. Official guidance for safety recommends taking a primary (centre lane) position in many cases. Weaving through traffic is not illegal and helps to reduce traffic queues. Undertaking at lights is not illegal and is actually required to approach advanced stop line boxes. Use of cycle lanes is not mandatory and not recommended for speeds above 18 mph. Everyone has an equal right to use roads. Up to 1937 drivers of motor vehicles had to pay a road tax just to have the same right as any other user. Winston Churchill had this abolished as he feared it would give a sense of entitlement to drivers. Sadly this did not work and too many people now think paying VED, which is now more to with environmental pollution, gives this sense of ownership although roads are paid for from general taxation.
I agree about obeying the rules of the road but it should apply to drivers as well - speed limits for example.
Too many drivers see cyclists as a different breed but about 90% own a car. It is believed about 60% have two cars. I have three.
When driving I have less issue with cyclists than with the way some drivers react to cyclists.
Mini Dizzy I agree with you. I cycle and own two cars (now!). Because I also do both, I tend to give cyclists a very wide berth when going past them. They rarely annoy me but Bournemouth is a lot smaller than London so there aren't hundreds of them around and it's not a real problem.
But cyclists should stop at red lights, and many don't!
Yes they should. I saw some rubbish program saying that many apparently do it to avoid getting hit by large vehicle that don't see them when they pull off etc...I disagree with this, but at the same time a lorry turning left is a huge danger to a cyclist as there is no way to know if the driver has seen you, and given the dimensions and angles involved, 9 times out of 10 they won't have seen them, Which is partly why they have the big area at the front by lights, so cyclists can be seen. Its not to piss off drivers. Also, again there are enough car drivers who don't follow the rules, and who skip red lights.
I hate cyclists, I failed my test due to one, not just that but I think some of them ride totally disrespectivly, you look at the videos of those ones in London with there cameras, knocking of people's mirrors hitting there cars when they per sieve the car has got to close to them, when in fact they came up the inside of the car, jumping red lights, breaking the speed limit etc, these cyclist are only a minority but the minority can make people judge the majority. I am a keen cyclist, I don't ride that much road but use them to get to tacks, but I must admit I have nearly been knocked quite a few times, last time a car pulled out in front of me at the bottom of a 40mph road on a hill, not sure how fast I was going but it certainly was not 40, so I nearly ran into the side of him had I not hoped up the curb to avoid him.
If you failed your driving test, it was because of a mistake you made, not the cyclist! There are rules to follow and if you didn't follow them, that's why you failed. Don't blame other people for your mistakes. As a MTBer and sometime road user, you should know better as well. Yes some are disrespectful, and some deliberately look for trouble etc (there was a video a month or so ago on FB that went viral of some guy nearly getting a kicking for bobbing off) but again this doesn't mean they are all the same!
No group is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Some people aren't polite and do cause trouble on the roads but its a minority, for both cyclists and drivers.
If you look at the continent, drivers and cyclist live together much more harmoniously than in England. There is a real problem and it needs to be addressed. There are some seriously terrible angry drivers that have no care for anyone as much as there are enough cyclists that do nothing to help the cause at all. Its the same as anything else in life.
#34
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:11 AM
Horses do not pay RFL and they leave their emmissions all over the road!!!!
I find that it is cyclists that have the chip on their shoulder, 2, 3 ,4 a breast on country lanes , around blind bends etc. All road users need to use the roads with due care and attention as stated in the highway code.
You need to adopt a defensive approach as their is no way of proving that you were in the right from six feet under.
You should see that reactions of cyclists when you pull up behind then in an electric car- no rear view mirrors and no sound and no over the shoulder checks means the you get pulled out on when they are getting into a gaggle to have a chat!!
#35
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:23 AM
I agree there is no way to prove you were right from 6 feet under. But it doesn't mean that car drivers should have a cavalier attitude because they are pretty safe.
Its an issue no one will ever win. There will be more dead cyclists and the arguments will continue. There is no end in sight as far as I can see.
#36
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:34 AM
#37
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:36 AM
The answer is easy - cyclists do a test before they are allowed to ride on the road and they are required to have their bike identifiable and roadworthy.
Two abreast cycling is for when you are passing another cyclist - that would be overtaking then. Simply riding two abreast down the road is just pig-ignorant and gets you a bad name. If I was travelling with another car I would expect them to be in front or behind and not next to me - having a passenger in the seat next to me is a different matter entirely.
Trucks turning left are a risk for a cyclist - so it's a hazard the cyclist should see, anticipate and avoid. Ditto undertaking a line of stationary traffic - it's not sensible or safe so don't do it.
Yes I do ride as well as drive.
Iain
Edited by ibrooks, 05 March 2014 - 11:38 AM.
#38
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:39 AM
Two abreast cycling is for when you are passing another cyclist - that would be overtaking then. Simply riding two abreast down the road is just pig-ignorant and gets you a bad name.
don't think it is pig-ignorant its drivers like you that put cyclists a risk you are pig-ignorant ones not us cycling two abreast is allowed in the highway code do some reading up first http://ukcyclelaws.b...y-code.html?m=1
#39
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:41 AM
Clearly some people shouldn't be allowed to ride either. I'm perfectly aware that a cyclist has every right to use the road but they also have a duty to do it in a safe and responsible manner and that's what's seriously lacking with some of them (and obviously some of them have posted here).
Iain
#40
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:44 AM
Two abreast cycling is for when you are passing another cyclist - that would be overtaking then. Simply riding two abreast down the road is just pig-ignorant and gets you a bad name.
don't think it is pig-ignorant its drivers like you that put cyclists a risk you are pig-ignorant ones not us cycling two abreast is allowed in the highway code do some reading up first http://ukcyclelaws.b...y-code.html?m=1
Rule 66 states you should never cycle more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads.
I view a windy contry lane as just that
#41
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:44 AM
#42
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:46 AM
so a car driver overtakes a single cyclist down a windy lane round a corner and there is a car coming the other way they have an accident or the cyclists stop them preventing a dangerous over take and possibly prevent and accident this has happened to me before ehere we ended up almost in a ditch due to lack of driving skillsRule 66 states you should never cycle more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads.don't think it is pig-ignorant its drivers like you that put cyclists a risk you are pig-ignorant ones not us cycling two abreast is allowed in the highway code do some reading up first http://ukcyclelaws.b...y-code.html?m=1Two abreast cycling is for when you are passing another cyclist - that would be overtaking then. Simply riding two abreast down the road is just pig-ignorant and gets you a bad name.
I view a windy contry lane as just that
Edited by creakyjaws5533, 05 March 2014 - 11:47 AM.
#43
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:58 AM
In regards to your other reply(to long to quote) I was being sarcastic about failing due the cyclist, he didn't directly cause it, but swerving in and out going slowly on a blind bend and me not overtaking was the reason I failed, and I didn't say they are all the same , I'm terribly sorry if you read my comment to be different than the way that expected it to be read.I agree there is no way to prove you were right from 6 feet under. But it doesn't mean that car drivers should have a cavalier attitude because they are pretty safe.
Its an issue no one will ever win. There will be more dead cyclists and the arguments will continue. There is no end in sight as far as I can see.
Also I have just got back from a ride round the cotswold water park and I got stuck behind two roadies cycling two abreast, didn't want to over take incase they didn't like a dirt mtber riding past them, as has happens befor they take it as an insult and try to over take you back so it turns into a race
#44
Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:58 AM
so a car driver overtakes a single cyclist down a windy lane round a corner and there is a car coming the other way they have an accident or the cyclists stop them preventing a dangerous over take and possibly prevent and accident this has happened to me before ehere we ended up almost in a ditch due to lack of driving skills
Rule 66 states you should never cycle more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads.
don't think it is pig-ignorant its drivers like you that put cyclists a risk you are pig-ignorant ones not us cycling two abreast is allowed in the highway code do some reading up first http://ukcyclelaws.b...y-code.html?m=1Two abreast cycling is for when you are passing another cyclist - that would be overtaking then. Simply riding two abreast down the road is just pig-ignorant and gets you a bad name.
I view a windy contry lane as just that
I am on about two a breast.
Ultimatley the outside rider is putting thmselves in a vulverable position - rightly or wrongly
#45
Posted 05 March 2014 - 12:04 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users