Cyclists - what annoys you most about motorists?

stevemcol

The whole thing was a non event. Not worth bickering about.

custardy

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. 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.

So if the cyclist hit a pothole,got hit by a strong gust of wind etc
it would be their own fault they ended up under the wheels of a Range Rover being driver purposely close to them?
Does someone elses protection override another's right to life?

Dont_be_Furious

I and many other cyclists can cycle comfortably at 27-30mph. If this cyclist was travelling at speed, and intended to turn right, then staying in the right only lane for 100 yards may not be unreasonable.

Now. Have you seen this clip? This is how cyclists get killed. The cyclist did very well to be staying alert and to “see” the hazard unfold, and just slow down enough. See first 26 seconds only.

www. youtube.com/watch?v=alXWH_bHWzM
(removes space if you can cut/paste)

Or search Google for key words “This ignorant driver pulled out” for the clip “Dangerous Driver - YouTube”.

DBF

thelawnet

I think as a cyclist you have to assume that drivers will drive like c***s. In that clip the car is visible pulling out, and you have to assume that they will and be prepared to take evasive action.

Obviously the driver shouldn't do that, but unfortunately dead cyclists tell no tales.....

Buellguy

thelawnet wrote: »

I think as a cyclist you have to assume that drivers will drive like c***s. In that clip the car is visible pulling out, and you have to assume that they will and be prepared to take evasive action.

Obviously the driver shouldn't do that, but unfortunately dead cyclists tell no tales.....

Yes, because you are vulnerable (speaks as a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver). I assume that EVERYONE is out to get me (and I'm still here despite a SMIDSY), that includes cars, buses, cyclists, pedestrians, HGVs.
I have hit a cyclist when I was on the motorbike and I would just like to thank the 60 people who were my witnesses that I did no wrong.
I will reiterate EVERYONE who is on the road has a responsibility for EVERYONE else. Deliberately running a red light/ignoring road signs etc. is wrong, it doesn't matter what form of transport you are using, car/bike/motorbike/pedestrian even.

johnjp

skivenov wrote: »

Highway Code Rule 167

It's probably irritating for you to hear that the Highway Code is not, strictly speaking, a code of road LAWS but road RULES.
The difference being that if a police officer were to see a cyclist 'undertaking' they would probably warn them, emphasising the risk they are under - as it is not a danger to other road users.
However, a motor vehicle driver 'undertaking' on a trunk road will be making a manoeuvre which could present a danger to other road users.
In essence the Highway Code is not a manual of Highway 'Law'!

Idiophreak

thelawnet wrote: »

I think as a cyclist you have to assume that drivers will drive like c***s. In that clip the car is visible pulling out, and you have to assume that they will and be prepared to take evasive action.

Obviously the driver shouldn't do that, but unfortunately dead cyclists tell no tales.....

Agree with this 100%...I've seen quite a few of these clips on youtube now and the vast majority of them I think "yeah, saw that coming"...like you said, you just have to assume that all motorists *will* be *that* stupid and position yourself accordingly.

I also see a fair few clips of cyclists, basically, going too fast. If I'm driving, I drive at a speed where I can comfortably stop in the space I can see - and I do the same thing on my bike. I've seen a few clips of bikes hitting cars pulling out which aren't necessarily the cyclist's fault, but could certainly have been avoided with a little more common sense.

Personally, I'd prefer to be on my bike and "wrong" than "right" and under the wheels of a car...

Johnmcl7

olly300 wrote: »

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

Agreed, nothing in the posts above is at all convincing that the cyclist couldn't have swung over to the side as he wasn't that close to the junction neither was the police vehicle which didn't need to aggressively cut back like that.

Somehow I don't think knowing I was in the right would be much consolation when I'm in a hospital bed because I've been hit by a vehicle. I prefer not to hold up cars if I don't need to as that's when drivers make impatient overtakes and can come too close to the bike.

John

henrylarry6

Honestly my answer is Horn, I hate it when motorist use horn without any purpose. It annoys me a lot.

rainbowfairydust

wrong thread