Sabotage and hatred: what have people got against cyclists?

Retrogamer

katejo wrote: »

That may be but there are far more cyclists who choose to ignore pedestrian crossings and red lights. I go past such a crossing (with a 2 way cycle path every day on the way to work and there is usually one cyclist who ignores the queue of other cyclists at the lights and shoots right through.

That might be true in your area but it's certainly not true in mines.
Every now and then i see a cyclist go through a red light. Maybe 1, 2 a week max. On any given day on my commute to work i usually see far more motorists floor it trying to beat the lights and end up going through them on red instead.

If the unmarked police drove my car and were able to see the driving i do, they'd have a field day.

katejo

My comparison was with pedestrians rather than with car drivers. I agree that car drivers also cross the red light and end up blocking the yellow box or ignoring the pedestrians on the crossings. I hate it when a large vehicle like a coach does this and completely blocks the crossing so I can't see the green man.

NBLondon

I'm very much starting to think there's a big difference between London (or large city) cycling and rural or small town. I dunno where retrogamer is but on my walk across Central London most working days I see one or two cyclist ignoring red lights/zebras per trip - that's around 10x as many.


And to make it clear - I think there are 3 different flavours of going through a red light to be considered. I'm going to call them running, jumping and shooting.


Jumping - when the lights are red/amber and about to go green. Getting a jump on the rest of the traffic. Cyclists say they do this so they get up to speed and aren't wavering when the first car tries to come past them. As long as they give way to pedestrians still crossing (and consider those about to sprint into the crossing) I don't have a huge problem with this. Cars do this as well - and we could all air our prejudices about the customers of certain manufacturers here :-)


Running - what retrogamer just described, when the lights have gone amber, about to go red and speeding up rather than stopping. A few cyclists do it, but probably more cars and the biggest danger is when they meet a jumper coming the other way.


Shooting - when the lights are already red, vehicles are stopped and the miscreant decides to pass them at speed and through the lights. I have never seen a car do this (apart from emergency vehicles with lights and sirens) but like katejo said - some cyclists do this on a regular basis. They do it at a junction as long as they see no vehicles in their path which could pose a danger to them and they do it at pedestrian crossings.

JP08

Strangely, as a "man on the Clapham omnibus" - or at least the 45 from King's Cross to South of the river (when the 63 is hiding anyhow) - I'm amazed at the perception gap I see on here, and what I see from the top deck front of the bus. Certainly at 7:30am most cyclists are very law abiding.

It helps to have an autistic side and count BOTH sides of the debate. Most cyclists stop at red lights (95%+) and those that don't cross at caution.

It should be borne in mind that it is very much in the cyclists self interest in avoiding injury to avoid collisions with either car or pedestrian, whilst the driver will be unhurt, and the pedestrian injury normally limited to bruising, the head first nature of any "coming off" of a cyclist tends to result in facial / head injuries and broken wrists / collarbones - whether the impact is full or glancing

Indeed the majority stop for pedestrian crossings - though the % of pedestrians who will start crossing (dash) on the green man flashing / countdown finished is very high compared to those who would stop and wait under those circumstances.

Bus drivers are nowadays very aware of cyclists and seem to have got in the habit of not overtaking and cutting in sharply. Wish I could say the same about some of the other vehicles on the road - the impression (there is a limit to the number of notional counts a guy can carry out at once !) is that commercial vehicles are worse offenders than cars / taxis.

Retrogamer

I'm from Scotland and most of my days are in and around Glasgow town centre where i work.

NB London is your issue with people running red lights, flat or is it only when the light has been red for quite some time?
If the latter then it would appear you're only concerned with that being red for some time and cyclists jumping it due to safety concerns but on that way of rationalising things if the road is clear than that negates the concern.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm very much starting to think there's a big difference between London (or large city) cycling and rural or small town. I dunno where retrogamer is but on my walk across Central London most working days I see one or two cyclist ignoring red lights/zebras per trip - that's around 10x as many.


And to make it clear - I think there are 3 different flavours of going through a red light to be considered. I'm going to call them running, jumping and shooting.


Jumping - when the lights are red/amber and about to go green. Getting a jump on the rest of the traffic. Cyclists say they do this so they get up to speed and aren't wavering when the first car tries to come past them. As long as they give way to pedestrians still crossing (and consider those about to sprint into the crossing) I don't have a huge problem with this. Cars do this as well - and we could all air our prejudices about the customers of certain manufacturers here :-)


Running - what retrogamer just described, when the lights have gone amber, about to go red and speeding up rather than stopping. A few cyclists do it, but probably more cars and the biggest danger is when they meet a jumper coming the other way.


Shooting - when the lights are already red, vehicles are stopped and the miscreant decides to pass them at speed and through the lights. I have never seen a car do this (apart from emergency vehicles with lights and sirens) but like katejo said - some cyclists do this on a regular basis. They do it at a junction as long as they see no vehicles in their path which could pose a danger to them and they do it at pedestrian crossings.

Some go through carefully on red, others might do a left turn on red. Arguably both of these may be safer for the cyclist than waiting for the traffic to build up behind while waiting at the red. These don't seem to be on your list, yet they're the most common red light jumpers I see.

About three times a week I negotiate a set of traffic lights on our main road. I want to turn left at the lights, then turn right after 30 metres, because it leads to a quieter road for cycling. The right turn so soon after the lights is catered for by 'Keep Clear' signage on the road, which is never kept clear, possibly because it's only used by cyclists and about half a dozen residents. Because I'm a law abiding soul, I wait at the red lights until they turn green. By now I have a pack of cars behind me all wanting to turn left. When I set off I have to slow down almost immediately to turn right. If the traffic is blocking my access to the road I want to turn into, I have to stop in the middle of the road. This causes cars behind to slow down and move left to pass me. Some stop completely, causing others behind to try to sneak past between the stopped car and the cars parked on the roadside.

Alternatively, if I were to turn left on the red light, I would have a completely empty lane to cycle into, and every opportunity to find an easy right hand turn with no conflict from the traffic behind.

Much safer, but illegal.

Johno100

Allow left turns on red, totally agree, "turn right on red" is common in the US in many States. But why just for cyclists, it should be for all traffic as it would be a very cheap method of reducing congestion.

TomJ

katejo wrote: »

That may be but there are far more cyclists who choose to ignore pedestrian crossings and red lights. I go past such a crossing (with a 2 way cycle path every day on the way to work and there is usually one cyclist who ignores the queue of other cyclists at the lights and shoots right through.

Which just goes to show it's a minority of cyclists who ignore the rules...

TomJ

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm very much starting to think there's a big difference between London (or large city) cycling and rural or small town. I dunno where retrogamer is but on my walk across Central London most working days I see one or two cyclist ignoring red lights/zebras per trip - that's around 10x as many.


And to make it clear - I think there are 3 different flavours of going through a red light to be considered. I'm going to call them running, jumping and shooting.

I broadly agree with your categorisation, and have been guilty of being in the first 2 categories on 2 and 4 wheels. Until this year I'd also have agrees about the breakdown of which roadusers fall into which category, but this year have seen an alarming number of 4-wheeled shooters...

Altarf

brat wrote: »

You are properly confused. Undertaking is a term no longer used in law

Undertaking is undertaking, no matter how you dress it up.

brat wrote: »

There is a duty for filtering cyclists and motorcyclists (as with all motorists) to be fully aware of their surroundings and pay particular attention to the possibility of pedestrians doing daft things, but if a pedestrian walks into the road in front of a moving vehicle, that is a particularly daft thing to do.

And if the undertaking cyclists were aware of their circumstances, and cycling at a speed appropriate to the dangerous manoeuvre they are undertaking, then there would be no risk to pedestrians, as they would simply stop.

brat wrote: »

I forgot just how jaundiced you were...

I hadn't forgotten your rose tinted "cyclists can do no wrong" view...