Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

PintAndAPie

andydiysaver wrote: »

again pint and pie, it's not my fault nor my arrogance that you and your flimsy legs cannot go as fast as a car made 30 years ago! Mine can't either, tour de france champ to be can't either, it's not personal, and you cannot blame me for that, you cannot call me arrogant for that because I am just stating fact , or did I miss something there?


The petrol engine generates power at a rate we humans cannot - it's that simple, these are high energy hydrocarbons we do not stand a chance trying to reproduce that explosive cycle via means of biological muscle reaction - it's a fact of life, so try and be an adult about it, grow up, and don't start calling me arrogant when all I've done is point out the truth!

But what is your point? Bicycles aren't as fast as cars, got that, so what? Can car drivers really not be expected to overtake safely, is that your point?

Enterprise_1701C

I try to ride reasonably well to the left, whilst still giving myself an escape route.

I have had one HGV nearly take me out a few years ago. I sensed what he was doing as I was about 2-3 feet out from the kerb, I could hear and feel what was happening. I looked behind me and there was a large artic bearing down on me at speed, and he was talking on his phone, there was no way he was going to see me. I will never work out how it happened but somehow the next instant I was on my feet on the path with my bike beside me and he was thundering by. He would not have had time or space to overtake me (the other lane was full and slow moving), and would not have had time to stop. It scared me so badly that it took me 10 minutes to get back on my bike, and even then I wobbled like a newbie. Then I noticed something, cars were giving me a wider berth because I was wobbling. Ever since then I wobble when I am on a road that does not give as much space as I would like. Unfortunately I was too shocked to make proper note of his details to deal with it, and it was a foreign lorry anyway.

I do find a complaint to the company they are driving for helps though. I was driving on a local bus/hgv/taxi/bike lane. I could hear this tooting behind me, too far behind me for me to look back and see what was going on. It continued, then became rather loud, I looked back and there was this bus bearing down on me, there was no way he was going to pull over, I had to pull over and stop to let him past.

Anyway, complaint letter went off to the bus company and I got a reply. He was a foreign driver who thought I should not have been on the bus lane so decided to intimidate me into getting off. Not sure what he would have done if I had not moved but I suspect he would have continued on. He apparently thought it was more important to stay within the solid white line bordering the bus/cycle lane than it was to avoid a cyclist who he felt had no right to be there. This is a bus lane within certain times, this was outside those times so technically it was not a bus lane. It is also denoted on the signs as a cycle lane. There are big blue signs at spaces along the side of the lane.

To be honest if foreign drivers do not understand our roads then what are they doing driving on them?

Fortunately I have not had to deal with this problem since.

Marco_Panettone

I'm starting to find this quite entertaining. "All cyclists should have compulsory, government-backed training" followed by "don't do what the government-backed training teaches you".


HAHAHA!!!

brat

andydiysaver wrote: »

I'm one side of the argument, you're the other , in a democracy we have the right to do this, express our opinion, and calling me a c*nt is what I expected , what took you so long? I am fed up of people like you doing the grand dramatic exit with use of abuse rather than backing up a point they've been challenged on. It's infantile.

There are not two sides. There is one overarching responsibility that all road users must accept, and that is third party safety.

It has already been said, but is worth repeating. The only vehicles that have a conditional right to be on the road are motorised vehicles. You have to acquire a licence to drive a motor vehicle. One of the conditions of that licence is that you accept the legal right of all other road users to be on the road, and to accommodate them without directing any frustration towards them while driving.
If you can't do that, you shouldn't be driving a motor car.

Cycrow

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Just.... no.

Cycling in the middle of the road is NOT acceptable as a default position. It is immensely inconsiderate of other road users, which is in itself an offence punishable by up to a £1000 fine, and leads to frustration which can cause accidents.

It should be reserved for the very few and limited situations where it is absolutely required for safety.

I get blocked by cars all the time, none of them move for me and impede my progress. So if cyclists should be punished for blocking cars, then shouldn't it also work the other way around ?

ShAnE

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wow...

So in your mind it's appropriate to impede the progress of other traffic through lane blocking because you think a driver might not give you enough room one day?

Holy arrogance on a stick, Batman.....

I think it is appropriate to impede the progress of other traffic through lane blocking if you feel it mitigates against a risk.

And i'm talking about driving a car on a nice wide road where I am doing the speed limit but the car behind me wants to do an extra 10mph, despite not being able to see what is round the corner.

Should I drive my car with two tyres in the gravel so that I don't impede other motorists?

Same goes for cyclists, if a car tries to overtake you on a narrow bend, and suddenly see's someone else coming in the other direction he is going to swerve back into the cyclist rather than get hit head on by another car. So the safest thing a cyclist can do is move to the centre of the lane to ensure the car driver doesn't try the stupid overtake and instead waits 5 seconds until they are around the corner.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

There are not two sides. There is one overarching responsibility that all road users must accept, and that is third party safety.

That's strange because I feel my overarching responsibility when I am on the road is self-preservation of myself and my passengers. Having it written on my gravestone that I was in the right and it was the other fellows fault doesn't cut it for me.

brat wrote: »

It has already been said, but is worth repeating. The only vehicles that have a conditional right to be on the road are motorised vehicles. You have to acquire a licence to drive a motor vehicle. One of the conditions of that licence is that you accept the legal right of all other road users to be on the road, and to accommodate them without directing any frustration towards them while driving.
If you can't do that, you shouldn't be driving a motor car.

That sounds suspiciously like, I don't need a licence to ride my bike so !!!!!! you cagers I can do what the hell I like and don't you dare get angry or frustrated. All the rights and no responsibilities.

Bradfield

Johno100 wrote: »

That's strange because I feel my overarching responsibility when I am on the road is self-preservation of myself and my passengers. Having it written on my gravestone that I was in the right and it was the other fellows fault doesn't cut it for me.

Reminds me of the epitaph on a tombstone in the USA.

Here lies Bill Long
Died defending his right of way
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong

brightonman123

as both a (former) driver, and byclist, I feel the main problem is lack of notice, when changing lanes / direction..


PLEASE signal clearly, and also give people TIME & SPACE!

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

That's strange because I feel my overarching responsibility when I am on the road is self-preservation of myself and my passengers. Having it written on my gravestone that I was in the right and it was the other fellows fault doesn't cut it for me.

No, your responsibility (for licence retention) is to the third party. Self preservation is a given.
Passengers are third parties.

Johno100 wrote: »

That sounds suspiciously like, I don't need a licence to ride my bike so !!!!!! you cagers I can do what the hell I like and don't you dare get angry or frustrated. All the rights and no responsibilities.

Only to your blinkered eyes and ears John. But as has been said many times already, those creating the greatest momentum have a requirement to shoulder the responsibility for that momentum. That's why the law is as it is. The law allows cyclists on the road with no training. You have a responsibility to look out for them and look after them.
I do 30,000 miles a year in a car. Many of them at very high speeds. Yet I have never yet felt frustrated by the behaviour of a cyclist. I also don't understand why you feel that cyclists (who are also motorists) should be derogatory against motorists by describing them as cagers.

The only reason for frustration with cyclists is because they slow you down a bit, or they steal a march at traffic lights or pavements. These are not genuine reasons for frustration. Some cyclists break these laws for no more complex reason than to get to their destination a little more quickly.

Every motorist I know exceeds the speed limits at times. I expect you do too, yet you don't see the hypocrisy in your argument.