Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

Paradigm

brat wrote: »

And they have the potential to hurt cyclists much more than cyclists ever hurt them.

That just about sums up my only criticism of cyclists... some don't realise how vulnerable they are.

44 tonnes of truck v a guy on a Raleigh = no contest so why ride like a superhero?

brat

Paradigm wrote: »

That just about sums up my only criticism of cyclists... some don't realise how vulnerable they are.

44 tonnes of truck v a guy on a Raleigh = no contest so why ride like a superhero?

Why cycle at all? It would appear we are little protected in law.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-crash-bus-driver-cleared-of-charges-1.967743

Whether the cyclist is at fault or the HGV/bus driver, there is only ever one outcome. If the momentum is great enough, the cyclist loses badly.

moses06

I drive but sometimes I cycle! I have things that annoy me in both camps.
Cyclists have every right to use the road, although the common sense department is lacking in some individuals! The main thing that annoys me about cyclists is the suicidal ones who insist on riding on unlit roads at night in dark clothing with no lights....enough said :mad:

brat

Tilt wrote: »

if we were to make a comparison of how many cyclists (of all ages) break the law against an equal number of motorists, I reckon it would be the cyclists which would be the highest offenders.

That is your opinion. I don't agree, but it's hardly the point. Each party should take significant responsibility for their own and other's safety, and this must take account of the momentum they are responsible for.
A cyclist may bring 1000 kgm/s of momentum into a potential collision while a motorist is likely to bring 20,000 kgm/s of momentum. A bus or coach might bring 100,000 to 200,000 kgm/s to bear.
Cyclists are responsible for killing about 1 third party every three years while motorists are responsible for the death of about 500 third party lives per year.

There is no comparison.

Motorists need to sort out their own dangerous behaviours rather than constantly berating and scapegoating cyclists.

Paradigm

brat wrote: »

Whether the cyclist is at fault or the HGV/bus driver, there is only ever one outcome. If the momentum is great enough, the cyclist loses badly.

Absolutely, so why do some not acknowledge this & prefer to put themselves in a no win situation?

Cycling up the left of a bus or truck is asking for trouble yet I see it every day.

Tilt

The fact of the matter is that a lot of cyclists put themselves in danger by riding at night without lights, run red lights, riding down one way streets etc. Now I assume said cyclists realise that a car is heavier and bigger than they are so would possibly be aware of the consequences of one hitting them because the driver can't see them. So all the momentum and kgm's are pretty meaningless when these idiots put themselves in these situations. Maybe you should be teaching them about the laws of physics and pointing out that Halfords sells lights.

brat

Paradigm wrote: »

Absolutely, so why do some not acknowledge this & prefer to put themselves in a no win situation?

Cycling up the left of a bus or truck is asking for trouble yet I see it every day.

There are a number of cyclists who each year fall foul of the left turning hgv - it's one of the more common causes of fatacs involving cyclists in the urban environment.
Paradoxically the type of cyclist to fall foul of this is not the red light jumper, who usually evades the problem by clearing the junction. It's usually the more 'guarded' cyclist, those whose caution and submissiveness makes them more vulnerable. Women cyclists are much more vulnerable to the left hand turning HGV, usually because they are more law abiding.

Tilt

I would think that most left turning vehicles would be indicating their intention. In which case a cyclist should not be positioning themselves on the n/s of said vehicle. But, alas, they still do.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that a lot of cyclists put themselves in danger by riding at night without lights, run red lights, riding down one way streets etc. Now I assume said cyclists realise that a car is heavier and bigger than they are so would possibly be aware of the consequences of one hitting them because the driver can't see them. So all the momentum and kgm's are pretty meaningless when these idiots put themselves in these situations. Maybe you should be teaching them about the laws of physics and pointing out that Halfords sells lights.

...and led lights are cheap as chips these days! I agree that it's not clever or legal to cycle without lights. I've yet to deal with an injury RTC involving a cyclist who was hit because he didn't have lights, but I take your point. I often wonder how many fixed penalty tickets some people need to make them realise that a set of led lights would be the cheaper option.

My position is clear. I don't commit any cycling offences, I don't condone any cycling offences, and prosecute many. I understand why some cyclists use pavements and jump red lights, but don't do it myself. Most cyclists I know try to cycle completely legally, mostly because they want to try to keep the peace with motorists.

Conversely, I don't think I know a single motorist who doesn't occasionally or regularly and knowingly break road traffic laws

Dave_C_2

MrsE wrote: »

1. They don't pay road tax - Not only do they get to use car lanes but they also get special extra lanes

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.

These would be the roads that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for cyclists

2. Often on narrow roads they don't use their special lanes & use the car lane & hold car drivers up to 10 mph.

It's not a car lane. May I suggest reading the highway code rules 61 to 63 which says that the use of cycle lanes is not mandatory. I assume that you are talking about lanes such as these high quality cycling facilities

3. They don't think traffic lights or rules apply to them.

As a cyclist I cannot condone red light jumping and it does give the rest of us a bad name, but the motoring fraternity are not that innocent either. Then there is the rule about not parking in cycle lanes.

4. The weekend ones who think they are training for the Olympics & cycle 2 abreast (I hate these the most).

Again the Highway Code rule 66 says never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends. On some roads you do have a point but hate is a bit strong!

5. Some of them don't bother with lights after dark - more noticeable now with the dark evenings.

Agreed, these suicidal ninja cyclists give the rest of us a bad name

Dave