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

harveybobbles

I have no respect for cyclists. They are up there at the top of my Pet Hate List with HGV drivers.

Gloomendoom

THAT is a waste of space. Cyclists don't need an Advance Stop Line because they ignore the rules of the road and don't stop.

This



is an advisory cycle lane as it is bordered by a broken white line. Non bicycles should not enter this UNLESS absolutely necessary.

Ha ha! Unless it happens to be a Sinclair C5, the only way a non bicycle can not enter is by driving on the wrong side of the road.

Cyclists, clean up your own act and then maybe the rest of us will take you seriously.

custardy

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Ha ha! Unless it happens to be a Sinclair C5, the only way a non bicycle can not enter is by driving on the wrong side of the road.

Cyclists, clean up your own act and then maybe the rest of us will take you seriously.

so all cyclists are at fault?
using your logic,all car drivers are at fault too

custardy

• car driver
• cyclist
• bus user
• train user
• pedestrian

irenee

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

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!!!

mikey72

JQ. wrote: »

That's because in a 15mph crash between a car and a cycle, the cyclist is likely to end up with a few broken bones and could very possibly die. The car driver is likely to have a bit of scratched paint and possibly a dented panel. So when cars pull out from side roads almost sending a cyclist over the bonnet, they tend to get a significantly more animated response than if they'd pulled out on a car.

Bit of a wierd analogy, and I'm not sure if it works, but it's like the difference between two people playing Russian Roulette one with a child's Spud Gun and the other with a loaded Magnum 45. They are both playing the same game, but for one party the potential outcome is far more serious.

Don't think you stand a chance with this one, I think "speed kills" was done to death in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2818244

so the best you'll get is it would be same at 30mph as 15mph

Strider590

I firmly believe that the drivers attitude toward cyclist's is THE very cause of cyclists using footpaths and jumping red lights (to avoid being left hooked?)
In essence it's a vicious circle!

rev_henry

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)

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!!!

Yes, that should also be on my list.

The only time I don't use separate cycle tracks is one on my way home after dark, as it goes through a park that can be rather dodgy at night. Even the police advise people not to go there at night. And the road adjacent is just an inner city 30mph road, not an NSL, with bus lanes I can use instead.

Gloomendoom, I seem to be the only person round here that knows how to use an ASL properly. Other cyclists seem to either go through the red light, or go past the ASL and stop a bit further up before the junction, which does indeed make the ASL pointless. They are useful however when turning right at a busy junction.

JQ.

mikey72 wrote: »

Don't think you stand a chance with this one, I think "speed kills" was done to death in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2818244

so the best you'll get is it would be same at 30mph as 15mph

Sorry, mine was not a Speed Kills comment - it was a "the damage created by a cycle / car crash is disproportionate between the two parties involved". Quite frankly it doesn't matter what speed you hit a cyclist, it's always going to hurt the cyclist, alot.

Don't worry I knew exactly where this thread was going from the very first post. Bit of a pointless argument really, it'll just end up in a slanging match. The two sides will never see eye to eye. I just wanted to get my Russian Roulette analogy in, which I thought quite good, it obviously wasn't !

rev_henry

mikey72 wrote: »

Don't think you stand a chance with this one, I think "speed kills" was done to death in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2818244

so the best you'll get is it would be same at 30mph as 15mph

The speeds involved are besides the point. Car drivers have a large, superstructure with crumple zones around them, cyclists have virtually nothing.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Oh look, another cyclists vs motorists thread.

Here are the facts - there are retards who drive cars, and there are retards who ride bicycles. Funnily enough there are also retards who walk around on the pavement, and there are retards who use buses.

Lets have a bit of consideration, eh? Oh and for the benefit of doubt, and to pre-empt any retards who start moaning about road tax, cyclists have a right in law to be on the road. Motorists do not. Roads are paid for from council tax. Nobody in this country pays road tax, we pay VED, and VED is banded according to co2 output. Bicycles emit no co2, so do not pay VED.