A cyclist's rant to incompetent road users...

sequence

mikey72 wrote: »

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Violent-cyclist-freed-jail-8211-long-does-ride-city/article-1365045-detail/article.html

Maybe Pew Pew will shut up now.
If I'm still on ignore, someone copy it for him will they.

He's not really banned from cycling though, from the article "While he can still ride elsewhere, the order means he can still be arrested if he threatens or assaults anyone"

mikey72

sequence wrote: »

He's not really banned from cycling though, from the article "While he can still ride elsewhere, the order means he can still be arrested if he threatens or assaults anyone"

Under the order, Dogra cannot ride or push his bike in Victoria Park and the following streets: Welford Road, Avenue Road, Avenue Road Extension, London Road, Granby Street, Belvoir Street, Welford Place, Newarke Street, Vaughan Way, the Newarke, Western Boulevard, Upperton Road, Jarrom Street

Sounds like a ban to me.

sequence

Quinny wrote: »

Like the one in Hull 5 years ago, who decided to sneak up my nearside at a crossroads with traffic lights on it, but was totally oblivious to the fact I was turning left as she failed to observe the 3 indicators on my combination (Trailer rear, n/s/r on unit, and step indicator.) up until the point she was in my blind spot.

When I turned left, she got flattened under the mid axle on the tractor unit. It's a good job for her that I was virtually unladen, and that the mid axle was in the up position otherwise she would have been killed. Silly cow.

So to the original poster of this thread.

Get your own house in order you muppet, before you crticise others.

Why do you think that because one person 5 years ago did something stupid, it has anything to do with the op, or any other cylists? It's this kind of bizzare thinking that leads to these incessant hate threads.

I don't think you should get you house in order because of the crazy lorry driver who forced me into a ditch not so long ago, because you probably have nothing to with that, and I'm not going to blame all lorry drivers because one of them did something stupid (the majority are very good drivers, as are motorists)

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

sequence wrote: »

He's not really banned from cycling though, from the article "While he can still ride elsewhere, the order means he can still be arrested if he threatens or assaults anyone"

He isn't banned from cycling on the roads. He's been excluded from a geographical area.

thelawnet

irenee wrote: »

I would just be happy if cyclists would USE the dedicated cycle lanes, especially the very wide one on the Pyestock road (near Farnborough)

Some idiot honked his horn at me today for not being in the cycle lane. I pulled out of it into the road because I needed to turn right, and the idiot in his 4x4 coming up behind blasted his horn at me.

This was in a built-up area, and I was doing 15-20mph and I was only in front of him for about 75 yards before I turned right. And no, I didn't cut him up, he was just an impatient idiot, who thinks that a two-tonne 4x4 tank is a more appropriate vehicle for a town centre than a bicycle.

If I'm not using a cycle lane it's because:

• it's completely useless, e.g., 200 yards long before heading straight into the back of a line of parked cars, at which point you're supposed to merge back into the traffic. Or the ones on the pavement - what use is 30 yards of pavement when I'm going 15 miles?
• it's too narrow. Lots of cycle lanes are simply not wide enough to fit a bicycle, or if they are, the road lane is too narrow for the traffic
• there is a hazard up ahead, and I anticipate that the impatient driver behind me is going to try a life-threatening overtaking maneuver if I give him enough room
• there is a pedestrian island in the middle of the road, which means that there's usually not enough room for a car/truck, me, and the island
• I'm turning right
• the cycle lane is full of fallen wood, or overhung with trees, both very common
• there is a big pothole in the cycle lane, or a slippery surface
• I'm going 30mph downhill, round a bend, and the cycle lane simply isn't wide enough to be safe.
• there are cars parked in the cycle lane
• there are cars parked next to the cycle lane, which means someone's likely to open the door of their car into my face, knocking me off and doing me a serious injury
• road maintenace workers have decided to use the cycle lane for placing signs informing car drivers
• the cycle lane has been closed off, and they probably haven't bothered to signpost it

A lot of money was spent to ensure that they had a safe pathway to use, completely separated from a very busy 60mph road - alas large numbers of them insist on cycling all over the road - expecting motorised vehicles to be able to avoid their erratic course

One even went round the roundabout the wrong way rather than use the designated cycle lane and cycle crossing place - I was turning left and the idiot cut right straight across in front of me!!!

Desginated cycle lane?
Maybe you mean here?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pyestock+Road,+Blackwater+and+Hawley&sll=51.288258,-0.803796&sspn=0.000745,0.001635&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pyestock+Rd,+Blackwater+and+Hawley+GU14+0,+United+Kingdom&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.291807,-0.798708&panoid=HrSOamw7sjL1JGQRhf5ZDA&cbp=12,227.9,,0,2.86&ll=51.291729,-0.798876&spn=0.000741,0.001635&z=20

What a fantastic facility. Simply leave the road, ride on the pavement, avoid the vans, trailer and car parked there, and then rejoin the 'very busy 60mph road' 200 metres further along.

Nope, not for me thanks.

Same goes for here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pyestock+Road,+Blackwater+and+Hawley&sll=51.288258,-0.803796&sspn=0.000745,0.001635&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pyestock+Rd,+Blackwater+and+Hawley+GU14+0,+United+Kingdom&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.291596,-0.801497&panoid=0sQKLmf8rZJ33XiYJpjNdA&cbp=12,255.47,,0,4.11&ll=51.29156,-0.801659&spn=0.002979,0.006539&z=18

There's a blue sign pointing across the road, requiring you to cross two directions of traffic to do so.

Or if you want to go straight ahead, according to you the cyclist should continue on the pavement, which is signed for cyclists, and about 200 yards the other side of the roundabout it turns into this: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pyestock+Road,+Blackwater+and+Hawley&sll=51.288258,-0.803796&sspn=0.000745,0.001635&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pyestock+Rd,+Blackwater+and+Hawley+GU14+0,+United+Kingdom&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.290677,-0.803661&panoid=xApgr_vV0uuOch4MEj029w&cbp=12,183.6,,0,3.97&ll=51.290795,-0.803601&spn=0.005958,0.013078&z=17

Why would anyone bother? It's useless. It's like saying to car drivers 'we've built you half-a-mile of road next to a train line, use that and then merge back into the traffic 30 seconds later'. Nobody would use that.

mikey72

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

He isn't banned from cycling on the roads. He's been excluded from a geographical area.

Yes, on a bike. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Bit like letting a motorist use the road then, but not in a car.

Gloomendoom

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

He isn't banned from cycling on the roads. He's been excluded from a geographical area.

A geographical area that just happens to be entirely made up of roads.

He should appeal. After all, he has an 'inalienable' right to use those roads.
.
.
.
.

thelawnet

vikingaero wrote: »

Yes. The vast majority of motorists obey the law. The vast majority of cyclists do not.

Ahem:

"A survey conducted by road safety charity Brake and Direct Line found that 36 per cent break the 30mph at least once a week and 72 per cent have broken it in the last year.

When it comes to breaking the 60mph speed limit on rural roads, 51 per cent said they had done so in the last year, with 20 per cent doing so at least once a week."

So there are some facts. The vast majority of motorists do NOT obey the law. As for cyclists, well studies have been done, and in fact the vast majority of cyclists DO obey the law.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf

86% of male and 90% of female cyclists did not go through red lights.

And whereas motorists breaking the speed limit kill hundreds each year, law-breaking cyclists kill one or two at most.

Speeding is illegal, it's dangerous, the vast majority of motorists do it, so don't get all pious about 'dangerous' cyclists, when the fact is that there are 3000 road deaths per year, and tens of thousands injured, all down to motor vehicles. It's only too clear what's dangerous, and it's certainly not the cyclist illegally on the pavement, with no lights - it's far, far more likely to be the untaxed, uninsured, drunk driver driving on the road.

thelawnet

muckybutt wrote: »

ASL's shame the stupid cyclist didnt know how to use them in York last week when I knocked her off !

Two lanes - ASL for both, im turning left, bike comes along the right side of me and stops in the middle of both lanes, light changes to green and I proceed to set off, bike goes straight on then decides no shes going left too.....bike meet my bumper.
She gave no signals that she was turning, im glad I have cctv in the van as a third witness.

Police agreed with me bikers fault, its about time bikers were made to pay insurance and competancy before being allowed on the road.

The bike was in front of you, which means she had right of way.

And you hit her from behind? Doesn't sound good to me.

I had a van reverse into me in traffic the other day. He'd overshot the stop line at traffic lights and was reversing. No rear view mirror, he just assumed it was ok, was reversing into his blind spot. Driver next to him beeped at him before he crushed me to death, fortunately.

thelawnet

WhiteHorse wrote: »

But the admission is here ...

... I do jump red lights ...

... to a criminal offence. As can be seen, the rest of the post may be left out without harm.

Do you know why the traffic lights are there? I can tell you that they don't have any on shared pedestrian-bike paths, or on roads without motor vehicles. Could it be, just perhaps, that they only exist to curtail some of the carnage caused by motor vehicles drivers?

Take a look at this traffic light here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=woking&sll=51.325878,-0.558492&sspn=0.011853,0.026157&g=gu21+4bp&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Woking,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.323676,-0.541549&spn=0.002977,0.006539&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.323564,-0.541501&panoid=FKyzbWiYFTjlKSUlxWVEnA&cbp=12,352.73,,0,4.11

A pedestrian presses the button, but then crosses before the light changes, and so when the cyclist gets there, he goes straight through the light.

That is not dangerous, that's just common sense.

Yes it's breaking the law, so is speeding, and speeding is far more dangerous and prevalent. When they fit black box speed recorders in cars, perhaps then they can do something about law-breaking cyclists.