So much safer for cyclists to be allowed to go through red!

esuhl

Altarf wrote: »

So how old does the child have to be for you to determine that they are an acceptable target when cycling through red lights, and that any injuries or death that result from your stupidity are their fault?

What determines an acceptable target for you drivers, then? Is 120mph in a city centre at school-closing time a laudable achievement? Do you aim to actually hit the kids, or just cause them to scatter?

Is it because you hate humanity that you drive so recklessly? Or is there some kind of perverse sexual thrill involved when you wrap yourself in a metal box and risk the lives of others?

And what are the rules for jumping red lights in a car? Clearly the first ten seconds of red don't count. And judging from the driver behind me who nearly knocked me off my bike because and sent a pedestrian running, the lights only apply for one minute. After that, traffic lights can be ignored, the speed limit doesn't apply, and you get double points for killing other road users; quadruple points if you are wheel-spinning or drifting sideways at the time. Is that how it works?

What about the rules on using a hand-held phone, and drink-driving? Drivers round here seem to think that drink-driving is okay so long as it's dark outside. And using a phone is fine despite being illegal (more indication of the criminal class that drivers belong to).

Anyway, why do drivers always do their best to endanger everyone else? What gives them that chip on their shoulder? Why are their egos so damaged that they need to "show off" and break laws in order to find a corrupt sense of "self-worth"?

And, how much more screwed-up must these drivers be that they need to post on cycling forums in their spare time?!

Tilt wrote: »

Not just children...

https://youtu.be/L95IR9ZvPDA

Since we're posting videos again, here's one for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PFRdEUN240

I'm guessing that the criminal driving the car with reg. M478 GFJ is Altarf. It definitely sounds like him! There's no sign of tasteful lycra; instead this fat, unwashed slob dresses in standard drivers' uniform of tramp's clothes, intended to make every cyclists' stomach turn.

This dirty old man has a toddler-like temper tantrum when he misses a cyclist due to his own ineptitude. He's so upset that he gets out and throws a few punches: more typical driver behaviour.

But the last few seconds are worth waiting for. Like a deranged dog bolting after a car, he gets more exercise than he's had in a decade, and hilariously demonstrates what is aptly described in the video description as a "pratfall".

And here's a video all you red-light-jumping motorists need to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzlEQvRkhHc

And a video that patiently explains how drivers can overtake safely:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/aug/11/how-to-overtake-cyclists-the-video-all-drivers-should-watch

You'd think motorists would have understood all this by now, so maybe they have an attitude problem, rather than simply being incompetent. Perhaps we should introduce psychological profiling to the driving test to ensure that the majority of reckless idiots aren't let loose on public roads...?

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

Not just children...

https://youtu.be/L95IR9ZvPDA

No one has suggested running children over*. That was a wilful misinterpretation.

*No children were injured in the making of this thread.

Tilt

WOW!

Just gone through the thread (not word for word 'cos I can't be arsed) and i'm amazed (but not surprised) how it's escalated from a simple straight forward debate about a potential change in rules regarding red lights and cyclists here to (what seems to be) the inevitable slanging match between the holier than thou bunch of cyclists which make up the majority of this area of the forum and a few unfortunate motorists who dare venture into this neck of the woods.

The fact that there are both irresponsible cyclists AND drivers out there seems to go out of the window in every thread in the cycling department because according to most of the members here (cyclists) seem to dismiss at effort even the slightest criticism of their fellow cyclists who flout all the rules on a daily basis mainly because (in my opinion anyway) they are more unlikely to get stopped than someone driving a motor vehicle.

It was interesting to note that despite me posting a clip of a cyclist not only riding the wrong way through a no entry junction, but also while the lights were on red for traffic and green for pedestrians, not one person from the cycling club has criticised the irresponsible and reckless cyclist (so far anyway). Instead we see a broadside of negativity towards drivers from one particular poster (Esuhl) who throws everything he's (or she's) got in his (or hers) arsenal of hatred towards the poor old motorist. Not one sign in his (or her) both-barrel post that it was acknowledged that the cyclist in the clip was at fault.

Quite frankly I think it's a total waste of time and energy for anyone other than a cyclist to even bother contributing on this floor of the forum because this thread is typical of how it pans out. That's one of the reasons you havn't seen lil 'ol me visiting for a while but I could resist putting my 2penny worth in on this one.

Oh, and before I go, i'll give you my take shall I? I think there are certain junctions where it would be appropriate to introduce a change in the law for cyclists to enable them to cross on red (although a lot of cyclists seem to think the law has already changed in my area!) but then again, so could cars (as they do in the States). But the question begs... is it really a wise use of the government's time to implement such changes when it's highly likely that nothing will change in reality? There will always be cyclists who will ride through red lights regardless just as they ride the wrong way through one way streets (there's an elderly "gentleman" who regularly does just that in the street where I live which is one way in certain sections and dosn't give a damn that he is breaking the law... he's actually stated that to me on the few occasions we have crossed swords).

So in my opinion I really think it's a waste of time changing anything because nothing will change in the real world. The reality is cyclists will still get killed (especially in London) by undertaking large vehicles turning left, pedestrians will still get clipped by cyclists running red lights and drivers will still use mobile phones while driving. All these issues will only be addressed by enforcement which, in the cycling world at least, dosn't seem to be as high on the police agenda as it is for the motorist. The other way of course is education from experience. BUT unfortunately, some cyclists don't survive the experience.

Now I know my post is going to attract a pincher movement of 'attack' from the usual members of the cycling fraternity on here but frankly dear, I don't give a damn. I know what I see out on the roads on a daily basis and there are BOTH irresponsible cyclists and motorists out there. But the latter aren't so prone to injury to themselves and tend to attract the attention of the boys in blue more.

I'll bid you good day and enjoy 'repelling boarders'!

Retrogamer

Perhaps you can pop in from time to time Tilt and remind the people that only drive and never cycle that occasionally motorists aren't perfect either.

Most of the cyclists that post in this part of the forum are also regular drivers IIRC.

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

WOW!

Just gone through the thread (not word for word 'cos I can't be arsed) and i'm amazed (but not surprised) how it's escalated from a simple straight forward debate about a potential change in rules regarding red lights and cyclists here to (what seems to be) the inevitable slanging match between the holier than thou bunch of cyclists which make up the majority of this area of the forum and a few unfortunate motorists who dare venture into this neck of the woods.

It was a sensible discussion before Altarf chose to use it as a soapbox for his prejudice. His viewpoint is as a pedestrian rather than a motorist.
He's always keen to promote arguments against cyclists. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.php?searchid=163432944
Don't blame cyclists for responding. Its unlikely to continue as its boring.

The fact that there are both irresponsible cyclists AND drivers out there seems to go out of the window in every thread in the cycling department because according to most of the members here (cyclists) seem to dismiss at effort even the slightest criticism of their fellow cyclists who flout all the rules on a daily basis mainly because (in my opinion anyway) they are more unlikely to get stopped than someone driving a motor vehicle.
The fact that most cyclists on here are also motorists also appears to have gone out of the window. Cyclists on here don't support poor cycling. Most disputes on here between motorists and cyclists stem from claims such as yours " their fellow cyclists who flout all the rules on a daily basis". What about all the motorists that...............

It was interesting to note that despite me posting a clip of a cyclist not only riding the wrong way through a no entry junction, but also while the lights were on red for traffic and green for pedestrians, not one person from the cycling club has criticised the irresponsible and reckless cyclist (so far anyway). Instead we see a broadside of negativity towards drivers from one particular poster (Esuhl) who throws everything he's (or she's) got in his (or hers) arsenal of hatred towards the poor old motorist. Not one sign in his (or her) both-barrel post that it was acknowledged that the cyclist in the clip was at fault.
The cyclist was a !!!!!. Does it need to be said?. Did you invite comments?.

Quite frankly I think it's a total waste of time and energy for anyone other than a cyclist to even bother contributing on this floor of the forum because this thread is typical of how it pans out. That's one of the reasons you havn't seen lil 'ol me visiting for a while but I could resist putting my 2penny worth in on this one.


Oh, and before I go, i'll give you my take shall I? I think there are certain junctions where it would be appropriate to introduce a change in the law for cyclists to enable them to cross on red (although a lot of cyclists seem to think the law has already changed in my area!) but then again, so could cars (as they do in the States). But the question begs... is it really a wise use of the government's time to implement such changes when it's highly likely that nothing will change in reality? There will always be cyclists who will ride through red lights regardless just as they ride the wrong way through one way streets (there's an elderly "gentleman" who regularly does just that in the street where I live which is one way in certain sections and dosn't give a damn that he is breaking the law... he's actually stated that to me on the few occasions we have crossed swords).
Unfortunately your view on changing the red light rules seem focussed on criticizing cyclists.

So in my opinion I really think it's a waste of time changing anything because nothing will change in the real world. The reality is cyclists will still get killed (especially in London) by undertaking large vehicles turning left, pedestrians will still get clipped by cyclists running red lights and drivers will still use mobile phones while driving. All these issues will only be addressed by enforcement which, in the cycling world at least, dosn't seem to be as high on the police agenda as it is for the motorist. The other way of course is education from experience. BUT unfortunately, some cyclists don't survive the experience.
If the rules were changed I think current red light runners would carry on regardless. Current red light observers would follow the give way to pedestrian rules. It would benefit following motorists as they are less likely to have a cyclist directly ahead of them. It may also make pedestrians more aware of the possibility of cyclists crossing their path.

Now I know my post is going to attract a pincher movement of 'attack' from the usual members of the cycling fraternity on here but frankly dear, I don't give a damn. I know what I see out on the roads on a daily basis and there are BOTH irresponsible cyclists and motorists out there. But the latter aren't so prone to injury to themselves and tend to attract the attention of the boys in blue more.
Attack is often used as a form of defence. No one disputes there are problem road users but if you take a side then expect opposition.
I'll bid you good day and enjoy 'repelling boarders'!

And a good day to you.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

WOW!

Just gone through the thread (not word for word 'cos I can't be arsed) and i'm amazed (but not surprised) how it's escalated from a simple straight forward debate about a potential change in rules regarding red lights and cyclists here to (what seems to be) the inevitable slanging match between the holier than thou bunch of cyclists which make up the majority of this area of the forum and a few unfortunate motorists who dare venture into this neck of the woods.!

And here endeth the lesson on failing to be the voice of reason.

Altarf

Norman_Castle wrote: »

No one has suggested running children over*. That was a wilful misinterpretation.

Your fellow cyclist blamed the child if they were hit when a cyclist ploughed through a red light, even if if they crossed the road with a green man showing.

They may not have advocated actively targeting children, but they did not suggest that the lawbreaking colour blind cyclists should modify their anti-social behaviour.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Your fellow cyclist

and once again.

Norman_Castle

brat wrote: »

Road safety is shared by all, and must always be the primary consideration. If I walked out onto a road and got hit by a cyclist, I would consider myself to be a fool for walking into the path of a cyclist, no matter who has the right of way. Similarly if I drove my car through a green light and was clattered by another car coming through on red, I'd curse myself for failing to take sufficient care. Liability is a secondary issue.

If a cyclist has a right to treat a red light as if it were a give way line then liability is likely to mirror the liabilities of a give way line.

Altarf wrote: »

Your fellow cyclist blamed the child if they were hit when a cyclist ploughed through a red light, even if if they crossed the road with a green man showing.

They may not have advocated actively targeting children, but they did not suggest that the lawbreaking colour blind cyclists should modify their anti-social behaviour.

Nobody blamed the child. brats post advised looking after yourself when using the roads. I think his post was poorly worded. It was in response to questions but wasn't an answer to them. It certainly didn't blame the child or suggest that behaviour from a cyclist is acceptable. Your continual insistence that it did is self serving nonsense.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Nobody blamed the child. brats post advised looking after yourself when using the roads. I think his post was poorly worded.

In my defence I was 12,000 ft up on top of the Jungfraujoch when I quickly wrote the post. Perhaps I should have posted when my brain was more oxygenated.