Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

Tilt

brat wrote: »

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.

You have suggested quite a few times in this thread that when cyclists break the laws, it isn't as bad as when a motorist does. That 'comprehends' to me (and a few others it seems) that you say it's ok for them to jump red lights etc etc as long as they don't inconvenience anyone else or cause an accident. You even state that the cyclist in the clip provided by Derrick, was perfectly 'safe' in riding off the pavement in the path of Derrick's vehicle suggesting that it wasn't an issue!

I actually do believe that you are a police officer because that's the typical attitude 'it's not important enough to follow it up' you get from them (in my experience anyway). You only seem interested when an accident actually occurs and it's always the motorist that you go for first rather than a cyclist.

Where I live, I use to often called the police when i've seen youth's on unlit bikes riding 'chicken' with the traffic at night (which they do from time to time) outside my house and they have never been interested or I get 'we will send someone out to take a look' but they never seem to arrive. Now I don't bother but sooner or later, at least one of these youth's will come a cropper and no doubt it will the motorist's fault. Bet your bottom dollar though they would soon be there if I was reporting a suspected drink driver!! (NOT that i'm condoning that before you jump down my throat).

brat wrote: »

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

Don't seem to recall saying that I do. And I have already admitted that I do exceed the speed limit from time to time but only on motorways (where I shouldn't come across any cyclists). Don't suppose that police officers ever flout the laws either then?

derrick

brat wrote: »

So yes, I am a traffic police officer, have been for 16 years of 22 years service so far.

Let us be correct here and stop elevating your status, you are a police constable working in the traffic division, you are not an officer! Even if you are a sergeant that still does not make you an officer.

You do not achieve officer status until above the rank of sergeant in the police [STRIKE]force[/STRIKE], service



.

Tilt

Strider590 wrote: »

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........

To me, the idea of cyclists paying 'road tax' is ridiculous so i'm not one of those drivers. But they should have some kind of insurance. But then, how would you enforce it if we can't even enforce basic stuff like not having lights on at night?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

You have suggested quite a few times in this thread that when cyclists break the laws, it isn't as bad as when a motorist does. That 'comprehends' to me (and a few others it seems) that you say it's ok for them to jump red lights etc etc as long as they don't inconvenience anyone else or cause an accident. You even state that the cyclist in the clip provided by Derrick, was perfectly 'safe' in riding off the pavement in the path of Derrick's vehicle suggesting that it wasn't an issue!

I actually do believe that you are a police officer because that's the typical attitude 'it's not important enough to follow it up' you get from them (in my experience anyway). You only seem interested when an accident actually occurs and it's always the motorist that you go for first rather than a cyclist.

Where I live, I use to often called the police when i've seen youth's on unlit bikes riding 'chicken' with the traffic at night (which they do from time to time) outside my house and they have never been interested or I get 'we will send someone out to take a look' but they never seem to arrive. Now I don't bother but sooner or later, at least one of these youth's will come a cropper and no doubt it will the motorist's fault. Bet your bottom dollar though they would soon be there if I was reporting a suspected drink driver!! (NOT that i'm condoning that before you jump down my throat).

Ah, as I thought, you completely misunderstand.
There is a difference between lawbreaking and safety, as you yourself recognise. If I say that something is safe, it doesn't mean it's legal.
HTH

And you still haven't quoted where I say "It's perfectly fine for cyclists to flout the law". Please don't put words into my mouth to misrepresent me when the misunderstanding is yours.
If you don't understand, ask.

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

My quote is taken out of context, because I was asking NB to try to explain his annoyance in the context of the general motorists tolerance to the offence of speeding.

Which is not really a relevant context... Which is why I referred to your previous posts which claim (correctly) that if an inattentive or just plain arrogant motorist causes another road user to brake or change direction unexpectedly that could/should be considered driving without due care and attention. You seemed to be suggesting (up until this morning) that if an inattentive or just plain arrogant cyclist causes another road user to brake or change direction unexpectedly it could not possibly be the fault of the cyclist. When derrick's second video was posted showing exactly that - you declared (using your psychic powers perhaps?) that the cyclist was perfectly safe because in your world it appears that cyclists have superior judgement merely by virtue of being cyclists.

I'll explain to you again why I am annoyed by cyclists who run red lights at speed. I remember a debate here with a cyclist (it may have been Norman Castle actually) who explained that he only did it at a junction where there was no pedestrian access and could see clearly so that the only person he put at risk was himself. Similarly, in derrick's first video link, you suggest that the cyclist is putting no-one at risk because the junction was perfectly clear and no pedestrians in sight. You may be right in that case or as averagemummy has just pointed out, a child may have been out of the cyclist's sight line.

I believe that some cyclists (believing themselves to be superior beings) progress from this to deciding it is safe to do so when there is traffic or pedestrians in the junction. They are then putting someone else at risk. I think that is unacceptable. I don't think there is anyone here who would consider it acceptable for me to decide to do this just because I believe there is room for me to get between other road users. There is no actual offence of Cycling without Due Care and Attention - but the activity happens every day.

I have seen many cases where cyclists have chosen to run a red light at speed when there are pedestrians actually crossing and have been hit (glancingly) by one myself. You simply decided not to believe this... Or is it just because no-one was actually killed and appears in statistics, you think it negligible?

Since I am (or try to be) a reasonable motorist - I watch out for these idiots (in the same way all the cyclists here are watching out for idiot motorists). 'Cause I don't actually want one flying over my bonnet .

So when I see a white-painted bike and a lot of dead flowers tied to railings, I don't automatically think "Some !!!!!!! motorist has killed a cyclist", I wonder if "Some cyclist has done something stupid". Especially when it's at a junction where I regularly see cyclists being reckless. It may well be only 1 case in 10 or 15 (figure made up on the spot) where the cyclist was at fault but it exists.

I don't know whether I see more because I mostly drive in London or whether other cities have the same issue - custardy, are there stupid cyclists in Edinburgh as well as stupid drivers?

brat

derrick wrote: »

Let us be correct here and stop elevating your status, you are a police constable working in the traffic division, you are not an officer! Even if you are a sergeant that still does not make you an officer.

You do not achieve officer status until above the rank of sergeant in the police force, service .

Wow! You really don't know what you're talking about!! :rotfl::rotfl:

Her's a job description for you!

HTH!! :rotfl::rotfl:

derrick

brat wrote: »

Wow! You really don't know what you're talking about!! :rotfl::rotfl:

Her's a job description for you!

HTH!! :rotfl::rotfl:

I am not concerned what is on a non descriptive website, the lowest rank in the police service is constable,(disregarding cadets), and on the assumption you are, your shoulder number will have PC on it, now what does PC stand for in the police service? Oh that's right Police Constable, so unless you are above sergeant then you are a constable not an officer, a sergeant will have 3 stripes, then the officers start with their pips and crowns etc.
It's a bit like a lawyer saying they are a judge!

Wonder how you contract of employment states your job title? If it does say officer then it is wrong and I suggest you have words with your HR department.

HTH

.

qetu1357

brat wrote: »

Wow! You really don't know what you're talking about!! :rotfl::rotfl:

Her's a job description for you!

HTH!! :rotfl::rotfl:

Very interesting.

Wonder why a constable gets paid more in Scotland that say they would in Hertfordshire........

Norman_Castle

I'll explain to you again why I am annoyed by cyclists who run red lights at speed. I remember a debate here with a cyclist (it may have been Norman Castle actually) who explained that he only did it at a junction where there was no pedestrian access and could see clearly so that the only person he put at risk was himself.

Nothing to do with me. I have never gone through a red light and don't support those that do.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

brat wrote:

My quote is taken out of context, because I was asking NB to try to explain his annoyance in the context of the general motorists tolerance to the offence of speeding.

Which is not really a relevant context...

I tried to get you to consider it within that context, but I don't think you did - I think it was my bad sentence structure, which I had considered editing.

Which is why I referred to your previous posts which claim (correctly) that if an inattentive or just plain arrogant motorist causes another road user to brake or change direction unexpectedly that could/should be considered driving without due care and attention. You seemed to be suggesting (up until this morning) that if an inattentive or just plain arrogant cyclist causes another road user to brake or change direction unexpectedly it could not possibly be the fault of the cyclist.

No, the degree of carelessness applies equally, a cyclist can cycle carelessly and a motorist can drive carelessly. If a cyclist is coming slowly and cautiously along the nearside of a queue he should see a car in the queue indicate his desire to turn left. He should stop, a) because it would be careless not to, and b) he should be able to stop if filtering. Not to be able to do so is careless. However, if the car driver fails to see a slow moving cyclist (who he has probably just passed) on his nearside and turns left into him, that's careless too.
If the cyclist is filtering on the nearside of a queue at speed, and can't stop when an indicating motorist who clearly hasn't seen him turns into his path, then the cyclist is clearly cycling carelessly (as the motorbike in the other filtering thread) If the motorist had a decent opportunity to see him and didn't then that is also careless. If he saw him and it was clear that the cyclist hadn't seen his indication, but decided to turn left anyway, colliding with the cyclist, then that's assault.

NBLondon wrote: »

When derrick's second video was posted showing exactly that - you declared (using your psychic powers perhaps?) that the cyclist was perfectly safe because in your world it appears that cyclists have superior judgement merely by virtue of being cyclists.

I'll explain to you again why I am annoyed by cyclists who run red lights at speed. I remember a debate here with a cyclist (it may have been Norman Castle actually) who explained that he only did it at a junction where there was no pedestrian access and could see clearly so that the only person he put at risk was himself. Similarly, in derrick's first video link, you suggest that the cyclist is putting no-one at risk because the junction was perfectly clear and no pedestrians in sight. You may be right in that case or as averagemummy has just pointed out, a child may have been out of the cyclist's sight line.

We don't know what the cyclist has already sussed. The cyclist will have been approaching this set of lights for all of the 20 seconds that the driver has been waiting. He will very likely have sussed through time of approach and view over and through cars that there was no-one there. I think he was doing about 18 mph, so could stop in less than 5 metres (think and stop in about 8 or 9 metres).
So it's wrong to assume that this cyclist would have done exactly the same had a child been present. I could certainly report him for going through red lights, but not careless cycling.

NBLondon wrote: »

I believe that some cyclists (believing themselves to be superior beings) progress from this to deciding it is safe to do so when there is traffic or pedestrians in the junction. They are then putting someone else at risk. I think that is unacceptable.

I don't think there is anyone here who would consider it acceptable for me to decide to do this just because I believe there is room for me to get between other road users.

Perhaps. But the point I make is that I cycle through about 500 metres of pedestrians crossing twice daily when I cycle through a pedestrian zone. One or two pedestrians are surprised by my presence, but they are predictable and avoidable.

Please note, I am not condoning riding through red lights, either slowly or at speed, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a careless unsafe thing to do.

NBLondon wrote: »

There is no actual offence of Cycling without Due Care and Attention - but the activity happens every day.

The offence is careless cycling, and it's much the same as careless driving.
Sec29 RTA1988 Careless Cycling
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
You might be getting mixed up with speeding. There's no specific offence of speeding on a bicycle.

I have seen many cases where cyclists have chosen to run a red light at speed when there are pedestrians actually crossing and have been hit (glancingly) by one myself. You simply decided not to believe this... Or is it just because no-one was actually killed and appears in statistics, you think it negligible?

No, it will happen from time to time, and that's clearly careless, no question. In my own mind I question people's convenient anecdote from the night before which they then embellish to counter a comment, especially when the anecdote implies that the cyclist is clearly intent on suicide.

Since I am (or try to be) a reasonable motorist - I watch out for these idiots (in the same way all the cyclists here are watching out for idiot motorists). 'Cause I don't actually want one flying over my bonnet .

Thanks, that's what you are required to do. But please only think of cyclists as idiots in the context of the saying (which I don't like) that you should 'treat all road users as idiots'. You are responsible for theirs and your safety - not totally responsible, but responsible nonetheless.

So when I see a white-painted bike and a lot of dead flowers tied to railings, I don't automatically think "Some !!!!!!! motorist has killed a cyclist", I wonder if "Some cyclist has done something stupid". Especially when it's at a junction where I regularly see cyclists being reckless. It may well be only 1 case in 10 or 15 (figure made up on the spot) where the cyclist was at fault but it exists.

Perhaps you should be asking, how would I have prevented that cyclist's death? Even if it was primarily the cyclists fault, there is a lot you can do (in terms of road etiquette) and a lot you must do (in terms of legislation) to keep that cyclist alive.
My own force's stats (as I have already said) show that motorists are more responsible for cyclists' deaths than the cyclist. Even within that stat we could and do ask, what could the cyclist have done to help themselves? Perhaps more lights and hi-vis, perhaps recognise dangerous bits of road and not get blase about their safety, perhaps better cycle paths like much of the continent.

But 8 cyclists have died in the last two years. Five cars and a bus have bent bumpers. Seems wrong doesn't it?:(