Cyclists - what annoys you most about motorists?

Crabman

custardy wrote: »

I know I shouldnt,and there are tons to choose from on either side...
but....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMphhd8QCwA&feature=related

There's an example of a passive aggressive cyclist. He had the option to use the empty left hand lane but instead hogged the right hand lane.

If he was going to turn right at the lights (as he appears to intimate, despite the fact he actually carried straight on which is where he spoke to the police officer), there was plenty of room for him to look over his right shoulder, give a hand signal if needed and move over. He didn't have issues moving into the right hand lane when overtaking the bus earlier in the clip.

Personally it seems he has issues with authority but that's another matter...

custardy

Crabman wrote: »

There's an example of a passive aggressive cyclist. He had the option to use the empty left hand lane but instead hogged the right hand lane.

If he was going to turn right at the lights (as he appears to intimate, despite the fact he actually carried straight on which is where he spoke to the police officer), there was plenty of room for him to look over his right shoulder, give a hand signal if needed and move over. He didn't have issues moving into the right hand lane when overtaking the bus earlier in the clip.

Personally it seems he has issues with authority but that's another matter...

well as you know,its one of things you cant always tell from films,however the Police officers 'punishment' pass is clear
he could have pulled left and stayed left if he decided that was the move he chose to make
he didnt.IMO he specifically pulled right early to make a point.

thelawnet

Crabman wrote: »

There's an example of a passive aggressive cyclist. He had the option to use the empty left hand lane but instead hogged the right hand lane.

It's not a left-hand lane, it's a bus lane.

If he was going to turn right at the lights (as he appears to intimate, despite the fact he actually carried straight on which is where he spoke to the police officer), there was plenty of room for him to look over his right shoulder, give a hand signal if needed and move over. He didn't have issues moving into the right hand lane when overtaking the bus earlier in the clip.

I don't quite follow.

Firstly a basic knowledge of London geography/cycle routes would tell you that he's unlikely to go straight on here.

Secondly, nobody, cyclists, buses or anyone else, is required to use a bus lane. There's one lane here open to everyone, and he's using it - this is single-lane road with bus lane, not a two-lane road.

Thirdly, he has moved into the general traffic lane to avoid a bus/van pulling out, which is correct, and he's going to need to be in that same lane when he turns right, as the road is quite dangerous here because you can see that people use the wrong lane (as the policeman does here) and go through the junction very fast, so it's pretty important for him to be in that lane when he gets to the lights, otherwise he is likely to find it impossible to get across.

So he has two choices - move into the bus lane (which he needn't use anyway), having signalled, checked, and moved, and then move back into the same lane just a few seconds later, OR just stay where he is.

Clearly staying where he is safest, and he does nothing wrong in doing so, especially as there is a general presumption against unnecessary lane changes in the Highway Code/common sense.

Personally it seems he has issues with authority but that's another matter...

He seems to know how to deal with authority pretty well to me.

Crabman

thelawnet wrote: »

Secondly, nobody, cyclists, buses or anyone else, is required to use a bus lane.

If those who are permitted to use the bus/cycle lane choose not to do so then they can hardly blame the consequences on other road users. The lane was empty. He was permitted to use it. He should have used it.

I'm wondering whether the police vehicle may have been carrying out protection duties (notice the other 4x4 in front of it) which may explain their haste. Anyway, I don't consider that the police vehicle was being driven dangerously.

If this cyclist hadn't had a video camera attached, I do wonder whether he'd have taken time out of his busy day to detour and chase down the police car and then taken further time to edit the video and post it on YouTube. He already had the registration number of the police vehicle if he was genuinely interested in making a complaint to the force.

There seems to be a developing trend for those with cameras (applies to both motorists and cyclists) to antagonise other road users so they have something interesting to upload.

olly300

Both the policeman and the cyclist in their video need their heads knocked together.

thelawnet

Crabman wrote: »

If those who are permitted to use the bus/cycle lane choose not to do so then they can hardly blame the consequences on other road users.

I don't see that there are any real 'consequences' for a cyclist being in front of you for 15 seconds.

Your decision to drive like a c*** is just that - yours.

The lane was empty. He was permitted to use it. He should have used it.

Could, yes. Should, no.

The cyclist passes the encroaching van at 0:20, and at this point the road to his left his then clear. He would need to look over his shoulder to check for police officers driving like c***s, signal, and then move over.

At 0:33 the bus lane ends and all road users need to get into the correct lane - the cyclist in the right lane (which he is in), the policeman in the left lane (which he doesn't use, because he's too busy road raging).

So the cyclist is looking, signalling, and then changing lane from 0:20 (at the very earliest) to 0:25, then he is going to need to start looking over his shoulder again at around 0:29, signalling to move right, and then moving out into the path of motorists likely to be doing in excess of 30mph given the width of the road, the impending green light, and the way it suddenly opens up into a race track when the bus lane ends.

So he is 4, 5 seconds tops in the bus lane?

And all this for what?

Trouble is some people have no empathy for others. The cyclist is there because, frankly, he doesn't want to die.

The policeman undertakes because he wants to get where he's going, ok fair enough, but then he deliberately gets closer than he needs to in order to 'teach him a lesson'. What is the point of that? I mean I understand that cyclists can be annoying, but they are just going about their business, same as you, and just a smidgeon of consideration for their vulnerability would be very welcome.

If this cyclist hadn't had a video camera attached, I do wonder whether he'd have taken time out of his busy day to detour and chase down the police car and then taken further time to edit the video and post it on YouTube. He already had the registration number of the police vehicle if he was genuinely interested in making a complaint to the force.

Have you ridden a bike? It's hard work, physically, at least if you are trying it is - psychologically speaking battling through London traffic and drivers is not really comparable to listening to Classic FM on a country lane in your Rover 75, you're hot, you're sweaty, and someone has just aimed their 4x4 at you. Of course you are going to want to give them a piece of your mind.

There seems to be a developing trend for those with cameras (applies to both motorists and cyclists) to antagonise other road users so they have something interesting to upload.

The cyclist's cycling here is not obviously antagonistic. I don't have a camera but when cycling in London I would cycle in much the same way in terms of getting into position early - there is a misconception by motorists that bicycles are slow, and in their way, which is totally incorrect in London - in central London, bicycles are MUCH faster from A to B than motor vehicles, so the assumption on which your statements are predicated, that bicycles are slowing down motorists, is simply incorrect.

My experience is that professional drivers in London, such as taxi drivers, understand that cyclists are likely be in the third lane of a three lane road, for example, and so they anticipate that. The driving here might be more explicable in Chipping Norton, but not from a London police officer.

real1314

thelawnet wrote: »

Your decision to drive like a c*** is just that - yours.

You're a total one eyed jack, and a bit of fool to boot.



Could, yes. Should, no.

Keep left except when overtaking! Simple really. You admit he could, therefore he should. :cool:

thelawnet

real1314 wrote: »

Keep left except when overtaking! Simple really. You admit he could, therefore he should. :cool:

The car driver could wait behind him, therefore he should. :cool:

See, two can play at faulty logic games.

(This is not an overtaking situation, by the way, it's a single lane road, so the concept of overtake and move back is irrelevant. And besides which, the lane he is in is signed to turn right, which is what he's doing, so again it's irrelevant.)

Crabman

thelawnet wrote: »

Your decision to drive like a c*** is just that - yours.

I have no idea why that comment was necessary.

I thought we were having a perfectly civil discussion but I'm not prepared to engage with anyone who resorts to that sort of conduct when they realise they've lost a debate.

thelawnet

Crabman wrote: »

I have no idea why that comment was necessary.

I thought we were having a perfectly civil discussion but I'm not prepared to engage with anyone who resorts to that sort of conduct when they realise they've lost a debate.

What conduct is that?

The policeman cuts into the cyclist to teach him a lesson, this is driving like a c***, I don't see how that can be disputed.

As I said, he took the decision to undertake, which was one thing, but then to try and prove a point with a 3-tonne lump of metal when your adversary is flesh and blood is always wrong, and entirely befitting the description I gave.

If you don't agree with that description, well that's up to you, and if you want to feel that you have 'won a debate', well take three house points with my compliments. But I will stand by my description of the driving 100%.