Kamikaze Cyclists!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

This is all very well and interesting Brat BUT you still bang on about the likes of me being an "anti cycling vitriolists" which I am not.

Like those posters who start their posts by saying

"I'm not racist, but..."

Most of the posters here have you sussed, even if you don't properly understand yourself.

RichardD1970

Tilt wrote: »

Ooo, someone's being doing their home work. I am honoured that someone is taking so much effort over lil 'ol me.

Hardly effort, 4 mouse clicks and a quick cut and pace, total, about 30 seconds. :rotfl:

hugheskevi

My observations of the behaviour of MOST of the cyclists I saw during Fridays' rush hour in central London should surely be worrying to the emergency services?

Although I'm sure you will say you saw a gaggle of cyclists all taking their lives into their own hands, recklessly risking life and limb and there but for the grace of God, I wonder how well placed many drivers are to assess what is risky and what is not.

Not using lights in central London is pretty low risk. Almost everywhere is well-lit and cyclists will probably be seen.

Going through red lights is very low risk, and may even be safer in some cases than obeying the signal.

Using pavements, with due attention to pedestrians, is very low risk to all parties - hence why there are shared cycle areas on pavements.

Filtering can be difficult to assess the risk involved. In two identical situations of filtering past a large vehicle, one can be reckless and the other perfectly safe - the only difference being where in the traffic-light rotation the overtake occurs...if it is just as lights are changing it is reckless, if there will be a long red signal it is safe. Personally I know all the traffic signal rotations and observe them as soon as the lights come into sight so I can assess how much effort to use on the approach - and so I can smile at some drivers who insist on accelerating hard to the inevitable red light.

True dangers are often unappreciated. I think one of the most reckless things I see cyclists do regularly is to cycle straight through the door zone of tightly parked traffic. That is asking for a bad incident sooner or later, but a huge proportion of drivers expect cyclists to do it anyway, and some even act in an aggressive manner to cyclists taking the correct road position.

In about 15,000 miles of London cycling I've been endangered by one reckless cyclist (going wrong way down busy bus lane) but many times by careless and impatient drivers. My experience is very much not of all these reckless cyclists you seem to see about. Some are reckless, many display poor judgement every now and again, but that is the same of all road users. One thing unique to cyclists though is that kids can do it - many of the no lights, dress in black cyclists I see are teenagers.

Tilt

So as long as it's "low risk" it's perfectly ok and legal to ride that way is it?

Ahh right, sorry my mistake :cool:

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Like those posters who start their posts by saying

"I'm not racist, but..."

Most of the posters here have you sussed, even if you don't properly understand yourself.

For a police officer, you have sure got a poor perception of people. What I have posted here was an observation of how a particular group of people were recklessly putting their own lives in danger which obviously happens on a regular basis in London. And all you (and quite a few other posters as well) have done is criticised me for doing so. Obviously you must condone this style of cycling then? Surely as a police officer, your take should be on accident prevention and NOT having a go at someone making an observation about what could be a potential accident?

And to suggest I am trying to provoke hostilities between certain road users is quite frankly too laughable for words. Clearly that opinion is from someone who rides a bike and either does so irresponsibly themselves or condones it and God forbid anyone expressing a frowned opinion about it!

Happy and safe cycling to all responsible cyclists.

vqmismatch

I'm not in the best position to comment on London having done very little cycling there (though that was undoubtedly the best of anywhere in the country, clearly drivers are well used to being surrounded by cyclists and consequently keep an excellent look out and are very courteous).

Cycling without lights and then filtering in heavy traffic I would argue is asking for trouble, red lights for the most part I'm not however convinced are best obeyed on the bike. If you have a good view and can clearly get away safely why reduce substantially the number of other road users who can get away when they will be stuck at your speed getting away when the lights do change.

One other point we should perhaps consider though that often gets missed why people cycle. I do it because for me its generally quicker or comparable with driving at much lower cost. Remove filtering and jumping lights and I'll drive which adds to congestion and slows everyone down more.

I am often puzzled how when you filter on a push bike people look at you like a criminal, do it on the motorbike and traffic parts for you…

Tilt

vqmismatch wrote: »

I'm not in the best position to comment on London having done very little cycling there (though that was undoubtedly the best of anywhere in the country, clearly drivers are well used to being surrounded by cyclists and consequently keep an excellent look out and are very courteous).

Cycling without lights and then filtering in heavy traffic I would argue is asking for trouble, red lights for the most part I'm not however convinced are best obeyed on the bike. If you have a good view and can clearly get away safely why reduce substantially the number of other road users who can get away when they will be stuck at your speed getting away when the lights do change.

One other point we should perhaps consider though that often gets missed why people cycle. I do it because for me its generally quicker or comparable with driving at much lower cost. Remove filtering and jumping lights and I'll drive which adds to congestion and slows everyone down more.

I am often puzzled how when you filter on a push bike people look at you like a criminal, do it on the motorbike and traffic parts for you…

Maybe because a motorbike has lights on and other drivers can see you more easily?

But that aside, what a good post compared to most others on here who seem to believe the reckless cyclists I saw on Friday night should be allowed to get on with it and God forbid anyone passing a negative opinion about it.

SW17

hugheskevi wrote: »

Going through red lights is very low risk, and may even be safer in some cases than obeying the signal.

vqmismatch wrote: »

Cycling without lights and then filtering in heavy traffic I would argue is asking for trouble, red lights for the most part I'm not however convinced are best obeyed on the bike. If you have a good view and can clearly get away safely why reduce substantially the number of other road users who can get away when they will be stuck at your speed getting away when the lights do change.

One other point we should perhaps consider though that often gets missed why people cycle. I do it because for me its generally quicker or comparable with driving at much lower cost. Remove filtering and jumping lights and I'll drive which adds to congestion and slows everyone down more.

Jumping red lights is not legal though, is it? Not all laws are perfect of course, but IMO neither can we all just choose which parts of the law we think we should obey, whether cyclist or motorist (or on any other subject for that matter). It's just too subjective.

FWIW, there was a lot I agreed with in both your posts (edited down above for brevity), and I'm not looking to get into this debate about reckless cyclists/drivers because most of both are not reckless. I see both sides of the argument. I've seen pedestrians hit by cyclists jumping lights and I've seen cyclists seriously injured/killed by vehicles (there are way too many white bikes at London's junctions). I just can't agree with saying "it's ok if I break the law, but not if you do".

Retrogamer

I see quite a lot of motorists drive like idiots by breaking the speed limits, going through amber / red lights, driving at night with no lights on, wrong lanes on motorways, reversing when not looking behind them etc.

But it would be wrong to assume just because i see lots of motorists driving like idiots, that all motorists are idiots.

If only people could understand this, and understand that just because some cyclists cycle like nobs, it doesn't mean we all or even most do.

hugheskevi

So as long as it's "low risk" it's perfectly ok and legal to ride that way is it?

Jumping red lights is not legal though, is it?

Of course it is not legal, that is not the point.

The point being responded to was about cyclists taking risks, not cyclists breaking the law - the two are separate issues, as although maneuvers will sometimes be both risky and against the rules, there will also be many times when a maneuver is either risky but not against the rules (eg filtering in door zone) or not risky but against the rules (eg carefully proceeding through red lights).

Personally I choose to obey all road rules and agree that that rules cannot be picked and chosen from (although I would break rules if I consider that the situation is sufficiently dangerous, but that would in many cases fall under taking action to avoid an accident which is the overriding priority of any road user - as an example, I recently read about a court case where a cyclist was ticketed for proceeding beyond the Advanced Stop Zone due to not wanting place themselves directly in front of a HGV and hence the cyclist would not have been visible to the driver, the cyclist won the case.).

However, when a road user is observed breaking rules, angst can come from either being irritated they are risking their own or other's safety, or being irritated that they are not following rules despite there being no risk. The two are completely different responses, but they are usually incorrectly conflated.