Best way to identify a cyclist

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

It's heartening to see this anti cyclist thread is now well into its 2nd month all because someone suffered a bit of minor cosmetic damage to their car.
Today I was cycling back from the local shop, a man was attempting to cross at the zebra crossing. I stopped for him to cross, the 2 cars behind me just sailed on through (overtaking me on the zigzags too). Unbelievable and could have ended in utter carnage for both me and the pedestrian.

The same crossing a few years ago I was trying to cross with my kids, the car approaching slowed to stop, I was just about to cross when I noticed a van following that proceeded to ram into the back of the stopped car, shunting him right across the crossing where (had I not been ultra aware) we would have been mown down.

Yes, cyclists are definitely the major problem on our roads. /s

I've seen this happen and it's often because the cyclist is blocking the clear view of the crossing. Drivers should slow down if they can't see clearly, but many don't.

That's why I say it would be better for cyclists to use the middle of the lane. Then if they stop to let someone cross it's clear they are dismounting or whatever, they are part of the flow of traffic.

It's not just about who is right and who is wrong, it's about making everyone safer.

A cyclist blocking the view of a crossing? Seriously?


Those zebra crossing things you know, they have 2 massive flashing orange beacons and white stripes painted on the road. Yet many drivers either don't notice them or don't care.
And I'm sure cyclists permanently riding in the middle of the lane would go down really well with drivers.

People would still find a way to blame cyclists, "that cyclist made me perform a dangerous overtake, Officer".

Maybe drivers could start by setting a good example and not overtaking on zigzags, and actually look where they are going?

You misunderstood. You only have to stop at those crossings if someone is using it. That's why they try to position them where drivers can easily see people walking up to them.

I'm struggling to keep up here. What's that got to do with a bike stopping for a pedestrian but cars not?

It sounds like you're refuting your own argument by pointing out that the visibility will be good enough to see a pedestrian waiting even with a bicyle in front.

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

It's heartening to see this anti cyclist thread is now well into its 2nd month all because someone suffered a bit of minor cosmetic damage to their car.
Today I was cycling back from the local shop, a man was attempting to cross at the zebra crossing. I stopped for him to cross, the 2 cars behind me just sailed on through (overtaking me on the zigzags too). Unbelievable and could have ended in utter carnage for both me and the pedestrian.

The same crossing a few years ago I was trying to cross with my kids, the car approaching slowed to stop, I was just about to cross when I noticed a van following that proceeded to ram into the back of the stopped car, shunting him right across the crossing where (had I not been ultra aware) we would have been mown down.

Yes, cyclists are definitely the major problem on our roads. /s

I've seen this happen and it's often because the cyclist is blocking the clear view of the crossing. Drivers should slow down if they can't see clearly, but many don't.

That's why I say it would be better for cyclists to use the middle of the lane. Then if they stop to let someone cross it's clear they are dismounting or whatever, they are part of the flow of traffic.

It's not just about who is right and who is wrong, it's about making everyone safer.

A cyclist blocking the view of a crossing? Seriously?


Those zebra crossing things you know, they have 2 massive flashing orange beacons and white stripes painted on the road. Yet many drivers either don't notice them or don't care.
And I'm sure cyclists permanently riding in the middle of the lane would go down really well with drivers.

People would still find a way to blame cyclists, "that cyclist made me perform a dangerous overtake, Officer".

Maybe drivers could start by setting a good example and not overtaking on zigzags, and actually look where they are going?

You misunderstood. You only have to stop at those crossings if someone is using it. That's why they try to position them where drivers can easily see people walking up to them.

I'm struggling to keep up here. What's that got to do with a bike stopping for a pedestrian but cars not?

It sounds like you're refuting your own argument by pointing out that the visibility will be good enough to see a pedestrian waiting even with a bicyle in front.

The point is that it's but defensive, it's not avoiding creating a potentially dangerous situation when they easily could.

It's not that important anyway, the issue is the poor quality of cycling and the fact that I was very lucky to get my losses back out of this guy.

Herzlos

The point is that it's but defensive, it's not avoiding creating a potentially dangerous situation when they easily could.

I don't follow this at all.


I'm glad you got your losses covered from the accident, but it feels like you're just trying to use it as a platform to attack all cyclists whilst somehow ignoring drivers.

ThorOdinson

It's funny you would say that.

Veteransaver

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

ThorOdinson said:

Veteransaver said:

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

It's heartening to see this anti cyclist thread is now well into its 2nd month all because someone suffered a bit of minor cosmetic damage to their car.
Today I was cycling back from the local shop, a man was attempting to cross at the zebra crossing. I stopped for him to cross, the 2 cars behind me just sailed on through (overtaking me on the zigzags too). Unbelievable and could have ended in utter carnage for both me and the pedestrian.

The same crossing a few years ago I was trying to cross with my kids, the car approaching slowed to stop, I was just about to cross when I noticed a van following that proceeded to ram into the back of the stopped car, shunting him right across the crossing where (had I not been ultra aware) we would have been mown down.

Yes, cyclists are definitely the major problem on our roads. /s

I've seen this happen and it's often because the cyclist is blocking the clear view of the crossing. Drivers should slow down if they can't see clearly, but many don't.

That's why I say it would be better for cyclists to use the middle of the lane. Then if they stop to let someone cross it's clear they are dismounting or whatever, they are part of the flow of traffic.

It's not just about who is right and who is wrong, it's about making everyone safer.

A cyclist blocking the view of a crossing? Seriously?


Those zebra crossing things you know, they have 2 massive flashing orange beacons and white stripes painted on the road. Yet many drivers either don't notice them or don't care.
And I'm sure cyclists permanently riding in the middle of the lane would go down really well with drivers.

People would still find a way to blame cyclists, "that cyclist made me perform a dangerous overtake, Officer".

Maybe drivers could start by setting a good example and not overtaking on zigzags, and actually look where they are going?

You misunderstood. You only have to stop at those crossings if someone is using it. That's why they try to position them where drivers can easily see people walking up to them.

I'm struggling to keep up here. What's that got to do with a bike stopping for a pedestrian but cars not?

It sounds like you're refuting your own argument by pointing out that the visibility will be good enough to see a pedestrian waiting even with a bicyle in front.

The point is that it's but defensive, it's not avoiding creating a potentially dangerous situation when they easily could.

It's not that important anyway, the issue is the poor quality of cycling and the fact that I was very lucky to get my losses back out of this guy.

So it's up to the cyclist to somehow compensate their riding in order for a driver, who isn't looking where they are going or doesn't have a clear unrestricted view of a crossing, to not do something incredibly dangerous?

It's very easy for a cyclist to avoid a pedestrian anyway, a cyclist not stopping whilst someone was actually crossing wouldn't even normally be intrinsically dangerous. 
A car on the other hand has very limited ability to avoid them if they can't brake in time.

ThorOdinson

No, it's up to everyone to try to make things safer.

Unfortunately too many cyclists seem to have this attitude that as long as there is no legal liability for them, they have no responsibility and no consideration for others either.

bouicca21

ThorOdinson said:

No, it's up to everyone to try to make things safer.

Unfortunately too many Motorists seem to have this attitude that as long as they are unlikely to be caught, they have no responsibility and no consideration for others either.

There, corrected that for you.  There is a reason why I feel the need to have a camera on my bike …

MacPingu1986

ThorOdinson said:

No, it's up to everyone to try to make things safer.

Unfortunately too many cyclists seem to have this attitude that as long as there is no legal liability for them, they have no responsibility and no consideration for others either.

It is up to everyone and we place different expectations on different forms of transport based on the risks posed. We regulate bicycles differently to motor vehicles for exactly the same reasons we regulate walking differently to civil aviation. Different risks, different regulation.

If a driver can't see clearly forward because a person on a bicycle is somehow blocking their view, then they need to *slow down* until they *can* view and observe clear road space in front of them.

ThorOdinson

bouicca21 said:

ThorOdinson said:

No, it's up to everyone to try to make things safer.

Unfortunately too many Motorists seem to have this attitude that as long as they are unlikely to be caught, they have no responsibility and no consideration for others either.

There, corrected that for you.  There is a reason why I feel the need to have a camera on my bike …

I'm glad I had a camera too, or this guy would have got away with running off.

It's just mind boggling that some people think this isn't a problem. Are they worried they will be held to account in the same way?

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

I'm glad I had a camera too, or this guy would have got away with running off.

It's just mind boggling that some people think this isn't a problem. Are they worried they will be held to account in the same way?

Literally no-one has said that. We've just said that any measure to introduce accountability is grossly unnecessary given how rare an incident it is.

ThorOdinson said:

No, it's up to everyone to try to make things safer.

Unfortunately too many cyclists seem to have this attitude that as long as there is no legal liability for them, they have no responsibility and no consideration for others either.

Again ignoring that too car drivers, whilst having legal liability, still have no consideration for others either.

There are some bad cyclists, there are some bad motorists, both problems that need to be addressed. But given that license places, mandatory insurance and competency tests don't prevent bad motorists, why wouldn't the same apply to cyclists? Why would it be worth it given how little damage cyclists cause in general. Yours seems to be an unusually high damage cost.