Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

brat

Jo_F wrote: »

The 'miss' created a hell of a squeal of brakes from the car that just missed him, if the car driver hadn't have been on the ball, it would have been a very squashed cyclist, and to be honest, I would have felt very sorry for the driver, although I do congratulate him for his perfect emergency stop, the cyclist didn't even acknowledge him.

Incredible isn't it! Everyone has these stories, yet no heaps of bones and metal. If I didn't implicitly believe everyone on here it would almost make you doubt the truth of the story.

I've had similar reactions from motorists who have overreacted to my presence on my bike simply because they haven't anticipated me. There should have been no drama, yet my presence on the road in front of them must have awoken them from their slumber enough to apply brakes and horn.

Jo_F

Well maybe I dreamt it all then, and maybe if the car driver hadn't 'over-reacted', then there sure would be a pile of bones and metal at that junction, but hey ho, doesn't matter because the ninja cyclist (dark clothing, no lights, running a red, no helmet) wasn't actually doing anything wrong!

SLITHER99

brat wrote: »

Incredible isn't it! Everyone has these stories, yet no heaps of bones and metal. If I didn't implicitly believe everyone on here it would almost make you doubt the truth of the story.

I've had similar reactions from motorists who have overreacted to my presence on my bike simply because they haven't anticipated me. There should have been no drama, yet my presence on the road in front of them must have awoken them from their slumber enough to apply brakes and horn.

I don't think you'll be happy until all car drives are forced to stop driving in the event of there being a cyclist within a mile of a moving car.

I wouldn't worry. It's the same attitude of many cyclists. Even riding home this evening, I saw yet another unlit cyclist not only jump a red light but travel the opposite way around a roundabout! Instead of going round it, he simply switch straight over to the right lane where oncoming traffic would be and straight round the corner going the wrong way on the road. If a car had arrived at that spot, there is no way they would have no collided.

IMO, it's not the fact that they are on a bike. It's more, i feel that there is no place for that attitude or flippancy on that roads! At all. And there is damn well no excuse for it!

Strider590

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20246940

It was only a matter of time before an Olympic cyclist became a victim.

evilcartman

Dave_C wrote: »

How many times do we have to say this? Road tax was abolished in 1936 and now car owners have to pay VED - a tax on the vehicle. The roads are paid for out of general taxation and council tax, which we all pay. Many cycle riders are also car drivers and so we pay VED.

Ah, the good old "VED and fuel taxes aren't hypothecated" argument. *yawn*

Yes, taxes in the UK are mostly not hypothecated, i.e. very few taxes are ring-fenced so that the money raised can only be spent on the specific areas of expenditure that they are being levied on. More's the pity, in my view, as it would force governments to be far more accountable to the public as everyone could see exactly what was being spent on what. It would give them less room to manoeuvre to cross-subsidise illegal wars etc too.

So yes, the Treasury collects the nation's taxes and then spends them how the government sees fit. Motorways and trunk roads are paid for via the Highways Agency (in England anyway, the arrangements are slightly different in Scotland and Wales of course). But no matter how you try to spin it, revenues collected from motorists (VED, fuel duty, VAT on fuel duty (yes, a tax on tax!), insurance premium tax etc) exceed money spent on the roads by a factor of about 6 to 1. I've done the breakdown for this figure from official sources in the past on other forums, can't be arsed to do it all again right now but that ratio has been fairly constant for a couple of decades.

Local authorities are responsible for local (i.e. non-trunk) roads BUT they get a grant for this from the Treasury, so technically council tax isn't paying for roads at all, so you're putting out disinformation on that issue. The way local government financing works is that Whitehall works out what it thinks each local authority's spending needs are and pays it a Revenue Support Grant from central funds. The shortfall is made up by the council tax and business rates. However, not many councils spend more than their allocated grants on roads, so the argument that council tax pays for local roads is disingenuous to say the least.

Moving back on topic, as a motorist, cyclist, pedestrian and public transport user, I see morons in each of these categories every day. As it happens, I'm driving for a living at the moment and the number of idiotic young (and some not so young) cyclists riding around without lights in the dark, not even wearing light clothing, is a real concern. There is a real epidemic of it in my neck of the woods at the moment.

Tilt

Yeah Evilcartman, but as long as they don't inconvenience anyone else, apparently it's perfectly fine for cyclists to flout the law (according to a certain traffic cop).

kalaika

evilcartman wrote: »

...But no matter how you try to spin it, revenues collected from motorists (VED, fuel duty, VAT on fuel duty (yes, a tax on tax!), insurance premium tax etc) exceed money spent on the roads by a factor of about 6 to 1....

So, what........? That's the nature of taxation. Some sources provide net surplus, some provide net deficits. Hypothecation clearly wouldn't work.

brat

SLITHER99 wrote: »

I don't think you'll be happy until all car drives are forced to stop driving in the event of there being a cyclist within a mile of a moving car.

You couldn't be further from the truth. I drive professionally for a living, and enjoy it, so I've no idea where you dreamed that idea from.

We all get irritated by the antics of some cyclists. I would be delighted if all cyclists exercised their road traffic responsibilities fully.

Like some motorists' attitudes to speed, I accept there is not necessarily a direct correlation between blunt law and safety, so I tend to incorporate that into my attitude to each group, as long as they take their activity responsibly. So I have a discretionary philosophical attitude to motorists speeding, and a discretionary philosophical attitude to such things as cyclists using red lights as give way lines, or cycling carefully on a quiet pavement. That's not to say that I employ that philosophy practically, because I am paid to enforce the law to guidelines, and I know that the practice of red light jumping winds motorists up, which is not good.

One primary point I have tried to make is that cyclists are not their brothers keepers, and should not have to be made to pay for other cyclist's lawbreaking by being considered as second class road users. That attitude has an impact on cyclists' safety.
As a cyclist I have no more ability to influence or change the attitude of pavement ninjas or those who ride without lights than a motorist has to stop a drink driver, boy racer or disqual driver.

Our force has had a bad recent record with cycle fatalities. Of the eight fatalities we have had over the last two years, two are still sub judice. Of the other six, one was a lone cyclist. In the remaining five where there was a collision with another vehicle, the cyclist was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Only one of those drivers was punished with a prison sentence, because the type of driving that kills cyclists is often deemed only to be 'inattention' by an otherwise careful driver.

I would therefore like car drivers to understand and practice proper road etiquette around bikes, firstly to notice them, give them space and time, to be patient and to understand that they may have to wait behind a cyclist in a narrow lane. They shouldn't feel under pressure to get past. They should, if necessary, factor slower moving vehicles into their driving plan, and if necessary set off a minute or so earlier.

Responsible cyclists, for their part, should acknowledge road users who take care, and try not to hold them up more than absolutely necessary, and should help them if they are struggling to pass when they should be passing. They shouldn't devolve their safety to motorists by filtering at speed. They should heed the law, which at the moment doesn't allow them to use red lights as a give way, unlike many European countries.

Irresponsible cyclists, like irresponsible motorists, shouldn't be on the road. But if we find ourselves in their road space we need to adopt exactly the same attitudes to them, perhaps with a little more care and attention to the possibility that they don't know what they're doing.

The road is not a battleground. It's not a place to take bad attitudes or to take out frustration, because bad attitude and frustration are a significant cause of serious accidents. It's not a place to use your vehicle to rebuke or carry out summary justice. That shouldn't need clarifying, but a couple of posts in this thread have made me wonder.
I tend to argue from the perspective of a cyclist, because when a serious accident involves a cyclist, the cyclist will always come off worse.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Yeah Evilcartman, but as long as they don't inconvenience anyone else, apparently it's perfectly fine for cyclists to flout the law (according to a certain traffic cop).

Please quote your reference for that comment, because I don't like being misrepresented. You can misunderstand me as much as you like - I can't help your powers of comprehension, but please don't misrepresent me.


Do you think that it's perfectly fine for motorists to flout the law?

Strider590

evilcartman wrote: »

so the argument that council tax pays for local roads is disingenuous to say the least.
.

You entirely miss the point, the point being that drivers get all angry at cyclists for not paying "road tax", to the point of (on occasion) actively trying to kill them (often whilst shouting "get some f*cking road tax!!!!!!!!").

This idea of "road tax" gives drivers a false sense of ownership over the roads and the motoring public need to be educated before more deaths occur. Precisely the reason why it was abolished........