Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

brat

derrick wrote: »

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

.

I don't want to argue with you on this point, you're just wrong, sorry.


http://policerecruitment.homeoffice.gov.uk/police-officer/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/18/woman-police-officer-killed-manchester

custardy

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 [STRIKE]force[/STRIKE], service



.

We had this in another thread
Was it you before?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?:(

This is where you fall down badly. How can you possibly say that cycling through a red light "is not necessarily a careless unsafe thing to do"? So if you were driving a car through a red light, that wouldn't be 'necessarily a careless unsafe thing to do' either then?

Sorry, but you are AGAIN trivialising the actions of irresponsible cyclists!! (And there is no miss-comprehension there!)

derrick

brat wrote: »

I don't want to argue with you on this point, you're just wrong, sorry.


http://policerecruitment.homeoffice.gov.uk/police-officer/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/18/woman-police-officer-killed-manchester

You are making a point of doing so

Yes we can all Google, here are the ranks, notice they start with constable, then rise up;-
http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm


You, or others, can call themselves whatever they want, it does not make it fact, you are employed as a constable as proof by your shoulder number that begins with PC = Police Constable. All police are constables, then they get promoted, if they want to and have the ability, to become officers

I can call my self the prime minister, but I am not.

Your "officer status" is akin to window cleaners calling themselves window technicians, or whatever they want to call themselves, doormen/caretakers as a Concierge, just tying to big up themselves. you are a constable live with it, if you want to be an officer, take the exams and go for the promotion, otherwise stop elevating yourself to something you are not.


.

evilcartman

kalaika wrote: »

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

It wouldn't "work" for politicians who want to siphon money from general taxation into their pet projects, I'll grant you that, but I think it would work just fine for the rest of us.

I'm all in favour of a system of full transparency where parties have to set out their stall at election time and state what they propose to spend on transport, health, defence, education, law and order etc and then separate taxes are levied for each of these sectors. There would still need to be a general fund for contingencies - but extraordinary spending should merit extraordinary scrutiny. Just where did the billions found for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars come from, eh?

Personally I think that revenues raised on transport should be spent exclusively on transport. If that means spending most of it on improving public transport infrastructure (but not on bloated executive salaries and bonuses!) or improving facilities for cyclists, fair enough. Just as long as motorists aren't being milked as a cash cow to pay for other areas of spending.

Limey

I had a corker last night coming home from work. I watched a cyclist on the pavement (no lights etc so probably the safest place for HIM) going one way at a fair lick and a jogger coming the other. I had the vantage point as I could see past a kink in the pavement that neither the 2 on the path could. The two met at the kink just as I was driving past, cyclist swerves off the pavement and nearly into the side of my car, if I hadn't moved over to the middle of the road as I could see it coming I'd now have a nice big dent in the car and Mr Cyclist would have at the least some lacerations.

Could have been nasty for the jogger too.

Tilt

Limey wrote: »

I had a corker last night coming home from work. I watched a cyclist on the pavement (no lights etc so probably the safest place for HIM) going one way at a fair lick and a jogger coming the other. I had the vantage point as I could see past a kink in the pavement that neither the 2 on the path could. The two met at the kink just as I was driving past, cyclist swerves off the pavement and nearly into the side of my car, if I hadn't moved over to the middle of the road as I could see it coming I'd now have a nice big dent in the car and Mr Cyclist would have at the least some lacerations.

Could have been nasty for the jogger too.

I bet you just made that up! :T

brat

Tilt wrote: »

This is where you fall down badly. How can you possibly say that cycling through a red light "is not necessarily a careless unsafe thing to do"? So if you were driving a car through a red light, that wouldn't be 'necessarily a careless unsafe thing to do' either then?

I have done this hundreds of time, carefully and safely.

Tilt wrote: »

Sorry, but you are AGAIN trivialising the actions of irresponsible cyclists!! (And there is no miss-comprehension there!)

I have said I'm not condoning it. I cannot describe it as careless, because if it done with care, it is not. I cannot describe it as unsafe if it is not.

If I walk along a railway platform on the right side of the yellow safety line that's not careless, although I am close to danger. If I walk within six inches of the platform edge that could well be careless because I could potentially trip, or be knocked. If I was to fall onto the line there's no doubt of the carelessness of that. Distance, and awareness makes a huge difference to potential risk.

evilcartman

derrick wrote: »

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

.

Source for this assertion?

Every contemporary source I have found on google so far states that the lowest rank of police officer is constable. The police ranks have traditionally been analogous to military ones, so that presumably is where you're getting the idea that only ranks with pips and crowns can be considered officers. But in modern usage, police constables are officers, like it or not.

Limey

Tilt wrote: »

I bet you just made that up! :T

Nope. Saw it coming a mile away.

Go onto Google maps (if you can be bothered) and look for the junction of Norfolk Rd & Brockhurst Rd in Gosport. Opposite the junction and north a bit there's a parking bay. Cyclist was south bound jogger north bound.