Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

Tilt

brat wrote: »

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

Regular law breaker then. Bit strange for a police officer isn't it? And rather disturbing that a police officer is claiming it not to be either careless or unsafe. If that were the case, then red lights would surely be just advisory.

brat wrote: »

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.

Even more disturbing coming from a police officer. One wonders if your are in the right job then.

brat wrote: »

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.

A ridiculous compassion. We are not talking about walking, we are talking about cyclists. AND walking along a platform edge isnt an RTA offence. Riding through a red traffic light is and you have just admitted in an open forum that you have done this hundreds of times as a serving police officer! You really speak volumes about our policing when it comes to traffic violations. It's ok if your a policeman is it?

Tilt

Limey wrote: »

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.

I was being a tad sarcastic about another poster who seems to think incidents like the one you describe have been 'made up'.

The location you have given btw isn't a million miles away from me.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Regular law breaker then. Bit strange for a police officer isn't it? And rather disturbing that a police officer is claiming it not to be either careless or unsafe. If that were the case, then red lights would surely be just advisory.





Even more disturbing coming from a police officer. One wonders if your are in the right job then.




A ridiculous compassion. We are not talking about walking, we are talking about cyclists. AND walking along a platform edge isnt an RTA offence. Riding through a red traffic light is and you have just admitted in an open forum that you have done this hundreds of times as a serving police officer! You really speak volumes about our policing when it comes to traffic violations. It's ok if your a policeman is it?

never seen an emergency vehicle go through a red light?

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

never seen an emergency vehicle go through a red light?

God we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now!

Loads of times but with it's blues and two's on. Not seen many cycles fitted with those or with a battenberg paint job.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

God we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now!

Loads of times but with it's blues and two's on. Not seen many cycles fitted with those or with a battenberg paint job.

your question related to cars

Tilt

Tilt wrote: »

God we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now!

Loads of times but with it's blues and two's on. Not seen many cycles fitted with those or with a battenberg paint job.

And Brat never mentioned anything about driving an emergency vehicle.

Limey

Tilt wrote: »

I was being a tad sarcastic about another poster who seems to think incidents like the one you describe have been 'made up'.

The location you have given btw isn't a million miles away from me.

:cool: Fairy nuff. 'Tis the problem with 'tinternet posts.

I live and work down in this lovely town, it's full of suicidal cyclists. However I've yet to see or hear of one being hit which never ceases to amaze me, it's probably because the traffic's so slow.:rotfl:

kalaika

evilcartman wrote: »

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.

So as to not get this thread too far off track on hypothecation, I have started a new thread about it:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/57091567#Comment_57091567

Maestro.

The two things that annoy me about cyclists are "filtering" (my gut instinct is to say wait your bloody turn) and the worst of all, running red lights. Otherwise I'm pretty tolerant of them.

custardy

Maestro. wrote: »

The two things that annoy me about cyclists are "filtering" (my gut instinct is to say wait your bloody turn) and the worst of all, running red lights. Otherwise I'm pretty tolerant of them.

would you rather be sitting behind their car?