Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

brat

MrsE wrote: »

I will always indicate.

If I'm trying to turn left & a bike is snaking up my inside (because I will be slowing down) he's blocking me.

I end up having to break to a halt & stop the traffic.

If you can see him coming up your nearside then you alert him to your intention by indicating and moving slightly to your nearside in plenty of time.

if you are going to turn left in 100 metres or so and are about to overtake a cyclist who you know will become a problem for you when you intend to turn left, then you should reconsider your overtake.

If the cyclist is too close to your rear for you to turn without causing him problems then you must let him pass. It's not a question of right of way, it's just a duty of care you must exercise to all other road users.

If you did see him and turned left and collided with him, then that's not an accident, that's assault.

If you didn't see him and hit him, then it's over to the insurers to battle over liabilities, and that would depend on many factors.

warwick_hunt_2

brat wrote: »

This is one of the biggest problems faced by cyclists; they can die by doing nothing wrong through a simple lapse of concentration from an otherwise attentive driver. The justice system may or may not punish the driver, but while motorists usually require serious driver neglect to cause the death of another motorist, vulnerable road users, particularly cyclists are very vulnerable to minor errors or omissions by any of us.

The sliproad I refered to is here http://goo.gl/maps/wHxGQ and the main road here: http://goo.gl/maps/4ZVpC

The limited visability upon joining the carriageway makes a cyclist almost invisible until the last minute, plus most motorists would be checking mirrors/looking over the shoulder to merge into the carriageway at anything up to 50mph. It just seems an accident waiting to happen.

brat

warwick_hunt wrote: »

The sliproad I refered to is here http://goo.gl/maps/wHxGQ and the main road here: http://goo.gl/maps/4ZVpC

The limited visability upon joining the carriageway makes a cyclist almost invisible until the last minute, plus most motorists would be checking mirrors/looking over the shoulder to merge into the carriageway at anything up to 50mph. It just seems an accident waiting to happen.

I agree, and cyclists need to be more aware of their vulnerability in these locations. The cyclist in my previous post who died was an acquaintance who commuted 17 miles to work each morning. He had almost no alternative route choice. Perhaps a degree of overfamiliarity with the slip road in question may have caused him to take his eye off the ball on this occasion.

brat

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I think you are either misunderstanding or twisting what I said to suit a cyclists point of view. I am not talking pulling out in front of cyclists causing them to chance cousre of take emergency action, I am talking carefully inching out which is often necessary in city driving and a cyclist coming up on me whilst I'm already out, it it not dangerous driving or careless driving it is unfortunaty reality when it comes to city driving at rush hour or busy periods. We have such a juction outside our shop, if you don't push your way out, you will be never get out, it's something even the Police do, it's no good quoting Highway code, they are guidlines and advice, unfortunately the real world isn't one size fits all, common sense has to apply in some situations.

It's not highway code, it's LAW - S16 of TSRGD 2002 empowered by S36 RTA.

If you choose to use the law as advice rather than a requirement, then you should be prepared to accept the potential consequence.

Paradigm

brat wrote: »

If you can see him coming up your nearside then you alert him to your intention by indicating and moving slightly to your nearside in plenty of time.

if you are going to turn left in 100 metres or so and are about to overtake a cyclist who you know will become a problem for you when you intend to turn left, then you should reconsider your overtake.

If the cyclist is too close to your rear for you to turn without causing him problems then you must let him pass. It's not a question of right of way, it's just a duty of care you must exercise to all other road users.

If you did see him and turned left and collided with him, then that's not an accident, that's assault.

If you didn't see him and hit him, then it's over to the insurers to battle over liabilities, and that would depend on many factors.

I agree with most but the bit in bold puzzles me.

If a driver is indicating in good time but the cyclist closes to the point that he prevents the driver making the turn to avoid a collision then surely that's the cyclists fault?

It seems to me that most of the responsibilty for cyclists safety is being placed on drivers with very little asked of cyclists. Kinda odd really when it's always the cyclist coming off worse.

Self preservation springs to mind

custardy

Hasbeen wrote: »

WOW!! as per opening op's post what annoys you about cyclists?

That would be that they are cyclists!!

Kept it simple so that cyclists could understand!

I drive in Edinburgh every day/night and these people are mentally challenged at the best.

Sorry to the cyclist that has lights/reflective clothing and common sense!! and does not!! ploughs through red lights/pedestrian crossings/rides on pavements/shouts abuse at pedestrians to get out of his way/and has no knowledge of highway code.
These people have never driven/own cars as they live in major cities with good public transport and they use they use their bikes the rest of the time.
So they have no idea how dangerous they are let out on the streets/ pavements etc

not a taxi driver are you?
because I drive & cycle in Edinburgh



I got this because a taxi driver couldnt wait a few seconds




for me to pass here

do you think the driver had any idea of the danger they are?

brat

Paradigm wrote: »

brat wrote: »

If you can see him coming up your nearside then you alert him to your intention by indicating and moving slightly to your nearside in plenty of time.

if you are going to turn left in 100 metres or so and are about to overtake a cyclist who you know will become a problem for you when you intend to turn left, then you should reconsider your overtake.

If the cyclist is too close to your rear for you to turn without causing him problems then you must let him pass. It's not a question of right of way, it's just a duty of care you must exercise to all other road users.

If you did see him and turned left and collided with him, then that's not an accident, that's assault.

If you didn't see him and hit him, then it's over to the insurers to battle over liabilities, and that would depend on many factors.

I agree with most but the bit in bold puzzles me.

If a driver is indicating in good time but the cyclist closes to the point that he prevents the driver making the turn to avoid a collision then surely that's the cyclists fault?

It seems to me that most of the responsibilty for cyclists safety is being placed on drivers with very little asked of cyclists. Kinda odd really when it's always the cyclist coming off worse.

Self preservation springs to mind

Perhaps I didn't word it carefully enough. If the driver is unsure whether the cyclist has seen her, she needs to assume that he hasn't until he somehow acknowledges her intent. She mustn't turn left if that forces him to brake harshly or collide, despite the fact that she feels he shouldn't be there.

Tilt

warwick_hunt wrote: »

Not annoying, more worrying.

I've seen a couple of times lately (especially at the weekend) cyclists on 70mph dual carriageways. Riding in lane 1, surely this is suicidal.

Another instance I've seen was on a 50mph elevated dual carriageway, with short, busy, uphill slip roads to join, with poor visability, a group of 10 or so cyclists, trundling across the sliproad on the main carriageway, riding at no more than 15mph.

I'm not saying cyclists shouldn't have the right to ride wherever they want, but surely it can't be much fun having cars passing you at 40-60 mph on roads where drivers aren't expecting to come across such slow moving traffic.

There was a case recently (which was debated on here but I can't find the thread atm) on an unlit max speed limit dual carriageway section of the A10 (I think) at night where a young woman driving a Mini hit what she thought was an animal on a l/h curve (hence her head lights did not illuminate the 'object').

It turned out to be a guy on a bike with no lights and wearing dark clothing and who happened to be twice over the drink drive limit. The young lady was initially arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and failing to stop but after an investigation by the police, no charges were bought against the lady and quite rightly so. BUT the poor lass will have to live with this for a very long time so the motorist can suffer from such mindless actions of a cyclist as well. Unfortunately the cyclist paid for his stupidity with his life. My hope is that the incident would be a lesson to other suicide cyclists as well but judging what I see nearly every nigh where I live, they either havn't seen or heard about this incident or they think it can't happen to them.

How much does a set of lights for a bike cost these days... more than the value of a life?

derrick

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.

Doesn't matter what it is called, it was originally brought in to finance/upkeep the roads, and was paid by the motorist, and still is.

Whilst all taxes go into one pot, with very little ring fenced, the motorist pays in excess of 40 BILLION pounds per year in various taxes, (the cyclists next to nothing), and only around 10 billion is spent on roads, so yes the motorist more than pays for the road network, as you say, we all pay taxes, just that the motorist pays 40 billion pounds more!

brat wrote: »

I'd much prefer to see dedicated usable cycle lanes at the side of such roads, but that will take a generation or more to finance.

Then the cyclists should damn well pay for them with some form of tax, at the very least they should have some form of compulsory insurance and have to pass a test resulting in a licence that could then be endorsed as with motorists, at the moment they have very little respect or consequence of the tarffic laws!

.

Strider590

derrick wrote: »

Doesn't matter what it is called, it was originally brought in to finance/upkeep the roads, and was paid by the motorist, and still is.

Whilst all taxes go into one pot, with very little ring fenced, the motorist pays in excess of 40 BILLION pounds per year in various taxes, (the cyclists next to nothing), and only around 10 billion is spent on roads, so yes the motorist more than pays for the road network, as you say, we all pay taxes, just that the motorist pays 40 billion pounds more!


Then the cyclists should damn well pay for them with some form of tax, at the very least they should have some form of compulsory insurance and have to pass a test resulting in a licence that could then be endorsed as with motorists, at the moment they have very little respect or consequence of the tarffic laws!

.

Your arrogantly assuming that cyclists are all poor people who can't afford cars, when most cyclists (except children) have cars and pay the same taxes as you!!