Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

NBLondon

derrick wrote: »

Example here, cyclist goes through 2 red lights after they have been at red for over 30 seconds.

Notice folks, that's not a junction, it's a pelican. So the cyclist has presumably decided that because they can't see any pedestrians they can ignore the red light and preserve their precious momentum.

This is what motorists object too when it comes to redlight jumping. Not the starting off a little early to get up to speed but the flying through at full speed because they decide the way is clear enough and pedestrians can be considered as moving bollards to weave through.

Cue the kneejerk response that cars jump red lights too - not like that they don't. They do carry through on amber and just-turned-red (to preserve their momentum doncha know) - they don't regularly charge through at 30mph when the lights have been red for 30 seconds.

But what annoys me most about some cyclists is the loss of the archaic skills called "looking over shoulder" and "signalling". I drive mostly in London and I'm quite used to cyclists taking a wide line to avoid potholes - but I'm sadly also used to a significant minority who swing across between cars to turn right without looking or signalling. (And if you can't ride one-handed for long enough to signal - the look back over right shoulder is a clue to alert motorists). Ditto those who overtake a slow-moving queue of cars by hurtling down the centre line (or the "wrong" side) at full tilt then swing into a gap.

tracey3596

On a lighter note ..... :cool:

what annoys ME most about cyclists?
My neighbour!
50-ish male (and hardly a "looker"!) on his bike, in pink leather-look mini-skirt and matching high heels! :eek:

When my friend saw, she very VERY nearly swerved into the ditch! :rotfl:

derrick

NBLondon wrote: »

Notice folks, that's not a junction, it's a pelican. So the cyclist has presumably decided that because they can't see any pedestrians they can ignore the red light and preserve their precious momentum.

It isn't a pelican, it is a junction with a pedestrian cycle, (no pun intended),the first light has a road from the right which when the light with the stationary vehicle is red has green for them, which if you notice at 10 seconds a motorbike comes from that direction.
The second red light has a junction from the left and a filter for the oncoming traffic to turn right before the left goes green then to red.

Bottom line, what does a red light mean? STOP, be that a road junction, pelican, road work temp lights etc, those lights where on red for 30 seconds before the cyclist appeared and sailed through, you can't just "ignore the red light", a motorist or motor cycle, had they been seen or camera lights would have been prosecuted.


.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

Notice folks, that's not a junction, it's a pelican. So the cyclist has presumably decided that because they can't see any pedestrians they can ignore the red light and preserve their precious momentum.

This is what motorists object too when it comes to redlight jumping. Not the starting off a little early to get up to speed but the flying through at full speed because they decide the way is clear enough and pedestrians can be considered as moving bollards to weave through.

This cyclist inconvenienced nobody. Can you explain why you get annoyed enough to object to this? Bear in mind that cycling through red lights is a lesser offence (in terms of punishment) than speeding, which every motorist does.

NBLondon wrote: »

But what annoys me most about some cyclists is the loss of the archaic skills called "looking over shoulder" and "signalling".

The consequences to you of any significant lapse on their part would be minimal, a need to brake or manoeuvre, at worst some minor damage.
Regular cyclists regularly expect just such failures from car drivers, and must accommodate them in their cycling plan - it goes with the territory. If they don't, they're dead!

Given the dramatic difference in potential outcomes for similar failures in each camp, I think most cyclist's attitudes to this imbalance is remarkably restrained!

Dave_C_2

Crabman wrote: »

That post makes no sense since you've copied mine word for word and substituted the word "pedestrians" for "cyclists"

This is called satire, perhaps in retrospect I should have added a smiley.

I was trying to make the point that some of the silly suggestions for licensing cyclists etc. also apply equally well to pedestrians - not forgetting children riding bikes.

Related and moving on:

From the introduction to the highway code (my emphasis)

This Highway Code applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone.
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of The Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders.

Something sadly lacking in the general attitude of car drivers towards cyclists in this country. - And the responses from some cyclists!

Dave

Heliflyguy

brat wrote: »

This cyclist inconvenienced nobody. Can you explain why you get annoyed enough to object to this? Bear in mind that cycling through red lights is a lesser offence (in terms of punishment) than speeding, which every motorist does.

So I can do that in a car or motorcycle as long as I dont inconvenience anybody then?
Anyway back to the original question and apologies if this has been said before...

Cyclists who refuse to use cycle lanes put there for a reason because it doesnt suit their style of cycling.
Queue cycle lanes not fit for purpose retorts.

custardy

Heliflyguy wrote: »

So I can do that in a car or motorcycle as long as I dont inconvenience anybody then?
Anyway back to the original question and apologies if this has been said before...

Cyclists who refuse to use cycle lanes put there for a reason because it doesnt suit their style of cycling.
Queue cycle lanes not fit for purpose retorts.

what reason?

custardy

SLITHER99 wrote: »

I already said... The licensing and registration schemes already in places, just adapted to include cycles!

I've no intention to tax cycling, more keep check on it.

If the police were to discover your £2000 racing bike, wouldn't it be nice to get it back to you somehow?

just adapted doesn't cover it
so you can cycle anywhere until 17? or not use a bike?
So you would be bringing in registration on new bikes? what about existing bikes?
what would the registration mark on the bike be?
I could go on. you have a pipe dream and no real idea what you propose.
All my bikes are already on a database with the police.
how does registering a bike "keep a check on it"?
did it "keep a check" on the taxi driver in my previous post?

custardy

NBLondon wrote: »

Notice folks, that's not a junction, it's a pelican. So the cyclist has presumably decided that because they can't see any pedestrians they can ignore the red light and preserve their precious momentum.

This is what motorists object too when it comes to redlight jumping. Not the starting off a little early to get up to speed but the flying through at full speed because they decide the way is clear enough and pedestrians can be considered as moving bollards to weave through.

Cue the kneejerk response that cars jump red lights too - not like that they don't. They do carry through on amber and just-turned-red (to preserve their momentum doncha know) - they don't regularly charge through at 30mph when the lights have been red for 30 seconds.

But what annoys me most about some cyclists is the loss of the archaic skills called "looking over shoulder" and "signalling". I drive mostly in London and I'm quite used to cyclists taking a wide line to avoid potholes - but I'm sadly also used to a significant minority who swing across between cars to turn right without looking or signalling. (And if you can't ride one-handed for long enough to signal - the look back over right shoulder is a clue to alert motorists). Ditto those who overtake a slow-moving queue of cars by hurtling down the centre line (or the "wrong" side) at full tilt then swing into a gap.

So no car goes through red lights like 'that'?
better tell that to the pug 406 driver this am (around 2am) who did just that.
or maybe I was seeing things?

wba31

thing i cant stand about cyclists is that they are fitter and healthier than me... scumbags...
they pay less for fuel if we did the same mileage... tax dodgers...
they do more for the environment... hippies...



to be honest there are far too many !!!! drivers on Britain's roads for me to be annoyed at cyclists. I've nearly been taken out twice in 2 weeks by people entering a roundabout in the left lane (for left or straight on only) and cutting round the front of me to turn right. lost track of how many morons dont have correct lights on, or any lights at all. see too many people driving with a phone pressed to their ear, or worse, eyes down texting. before motorists criticise cyclists i think we need to look at our own driving standards before we kill someone on a bike...