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

rev_henry

Strider590 wrote: »

thelawnet.....

I am/was the driver of that car and I can tell you now that cyclist was either unaware of my presence or thought he could fly out in front of me, but he had NO intention of stopping at the give way line. Playing chicken with 1.3 tons of metal is in direct violation of our natural human survival instinct.

Im very much pro-cycling, but when I see cyclists riding about with an apparent death wish, it concerns me greatly.....

thelawnet - fair enough he looked several times but that doesn't give him right of way. Strider had to yield to him as he pulled out which is not what the road markings say is supposed to happen.

rev_henry

ventureuk wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjfSyO9ncM

:rotfl:
But I want to continue arguing!

thelawnet

Strider590 wrote: »

thelawnet.....

I am/was the driver of that car and I can tell you now that cyclist was either unaware of my presence or thought he could fly out in front of me, but he had NO intention of stopping at the give way line. Playing chicken with 1.3 tons of metal is in direct violation of our natural human survival instinct.

To be accurate, you can see he is going at full pelt as he comes round the parallel road, and he slows down considerably before he joins the road and then before he moves out to pass the parked car.

Bicyles aren't as wide as other vehicles, and when he joins the road he is entering on the left of the carriageway behind a parked car. Clearly oncoming traffic is not going to go into the back of the parked car, so he actually has a lot of space as he goes past the give way line.

As I said he looks right four times, you can see his head moving, and I assume he sees that you are giving him way, which is why he goes past.

Obviously there's an issue with pulling out into the road behind the parked car in that even though he's safe at that point, he causes you in the oncoming vehicle to be unsure whether he's then going to pull out into your path, which prompts you, out of an abundance of caution, to give way to him when you did have right of way.

So it's a little presumptuous of him, but I don't see evidence that he was suicidal or that had you kept going at 40mph, he wouldn't have stopped. Car drivers are also presumptuous and impatient on a regular basis, for instance not giving way when there are cars parked on their side of the road and they need to pass on the wrong side of the road, they often cause oncoming traffic to have to wait.

He obviously would have been more polite to have simply given way at the give way line, in which case you, with priority, would not have needed to slow down; the only thing I would say is that a cyclist has rather more work to do get going again than a car driver, and while this isn't a defence as such, I would again point out that impatient car drivers constantly fail to stop/give way where they should, and all they need to do to get going is move their foot a few milimetres, so a little extra sympathy for the knackered cyclist is perhaps in order.:)

Strider590

thelawnet wrote: »

the only thing I would say is that a cyclist has rather more work to do get going again than a car driver, and while this isn't a defence as such, I would again point out that impatient car drivers constantly fail to stop/give way where they should, and all they need to do to get going is move their foot a few milimetres, so a little extra sympathy for the knackered cyclist is perhaps in order.:)

If he'd been a middle class wankstain in a 6 litre V8, it would have cost him a lot more petrol (and carbon emissions, if you believe all that crap) to stop, wait and then move on.... Does that mean I should stop on a main road to allow him to do so?

Conversely if it had been a knackered old 2CV that takes over 60s to reach 60mph, would you stop and encourage it to drive out in front of you? I've got work to get to, so I sure as hell wouldn't.....

We all have to drive by a set standard, a code of driving practice... When you get on a bicycle you must still go by this code of practice, something both drivers and cyclists seem all too keen to forget.

Imp

Strider590 wrote: »

Conversely if it had been a knackered old 2CV that takes over 60s to reach 60mph, would you stop and encourage it to drive out in front of you? I've got work to get to, so I sure as hell wouldn't.....

More importantly, they take 60s to stop, so if they don't look like they are going to stop for you, they probably aren't.

esuhl

TVR2 wrote: »

I was driving behind a queue of traffic on a small A/B road at around 45mph whilst ascending a bendy hill. Fortunately we'd all kept a reasonable distance because the lead car had to perform an emergency stop, as did the rest of the tail.

Why? Well because some cyclist with no sense of self preservation other than a helmet and some skin tight shorts was wobbling around in the middle of the road at about 57mph below the speed limit.

There's no other word for it than dangerous...

Quite right - it's very dangerous. You should always be prepared to stop in case the road is obstructed. If you're driving round a corner so quickly that you are liable to hit any stationary object, you are driving recklessly.

rev_henry wrote: »

I seem to remember that the law states that only children under 5 are permitted to cycle on pavements.

Cycling on the pavement is illegal for anyone, no matter how old they are. More info here: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

Gloomendoom

esuhl wrote: »

Cycling on the pavement is illegal for anyone, no matter how old they are. More info here: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

Yes, but the age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

More info here: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

esuhl

esuhl wrote: »

It may be safest for children under 13 to use the footpath. As they are below the age of legal responsibility, they cannot be penalised for it.

rev_henry wrote: »

I seem to remember that the law states that only children under 5 are permitted to cycle on pavements.

esuhl wrote: »

Cycling on the pavement is illegal for anyone, no matter how old they are.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Yes, but the age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

Ah... so I was close, but it's 10 not 13! Thanks for the correction.

nearlyrich

Dressing all in black at night with no working lights and no helmet ( except the one that is strapped to the pannier for some reason (?) is this some kind of extreme suicide cycling? I have seen these "brave" guys risking their lives in the capital and further north recently. I drove through London at rush hour recently and I don't know who is more crazy the cyclists or the pedestrians, both seemed keen to get an early appointment with an undertaker to me. It's not a thing I plan to do often as once is quite enough but darting between crawling vehicles is not a good thing to do especially on a dark November night.

Gloomendoom

Strider590 wrote: »

If he'd been a middle class wankstain in a 6 litre V8,

That would have been me... if Mrs. Gloom hadn't insisted on the diesel.