Best way to identify a cyclist

BikingBud

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.

@ThorOdinson

Time for drivers to hand in their licences?

I have held off asking this as I have gone through this thread but what did you do immediately before you slowed down in front of the cyclist, some have said you were already stopped but I couldn't find that.

I ask because the number of time drivers have overtaken me with a must get in front attitude, the very same attitude that you observed where drivers overtake cyclists without knowing what is in front, endangering all road users (pedestrians are included within that set) is too numerous to remember.

The one bit I very clearly remember is the fact that often the drivers then brake suddenly because they meet an obstacle that they had not observed despite clear visibility and no driving plan in how to deal with it. I had very few options due to the drivers aggressive and impatient attitude and frequently came close to rear ending them.

When you subsequently tap on their window as you stop at the same traffic light, not 10 seconds later they reman oblivious. 

Were you oblivious to your actions immediately before the incident? 

Perhaps you can share your driving expertise and sage assessment of the occurrence so we can all learn and avoid, to improve road safety for all of course!

BikingBud

Herzlos said:

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 poor drivers.

Corrected that for you.

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

rollingmoon said:

ThorOdinson said:

rollingmoon said:

How does he know that "she wants money and is threatening to sue" when he did a runner from the incident?

I gave her his details and she sent him a text.

He's gone quiet but she asked me if I'd be a witness if it got that far.

Good work! I am surprised he hasn't blocked you from his Facebook by now, but then he clearly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...

I know, I'm surprised. He's one of those people who posts everything that happens to him on Facebook for everyone to read, and gets very upset when people are less than sympathetic.

Apparently the poor woman has some nerve damage in one hand, and the NHS waiting list is pretty long.

So according to your long and personal gripe the rider is a danger to other road users but we have your story and some hearsay:

He bought a new bike.

He crashed it.

Into a woman.

At a pedestrian crossing.

Says she "came out of nowhere"
Ran off again.

Out of nowhere?

On the road?

Crossing the crossing?

In the same manner that pedestrians often step into the road whilst on their phones?

But you fail to realise that as much as this individual might be a significant hazard there are many more road users that behave with the same wanton disregard whilst driving large vehicles that regularly kill other road users.

Proportionality seems an alien concept to you. 

Herzlos

BikingBud said:

saajan_12 said:

I predict licencing or something equivalent will come as cycling gets more prevalent. So far the priority is encouraging cycling as an environmentally friendly transport. However 10 years ago seeing the odd 1 cyclist is now 100s on busy city centre routes, with the minority stopping for traffic lights for example from what I've seen. Drivers and pedestrians could dodge 1 cyclist breaking rules, but its harder to dodge so many to ride erratically. The risk of so the risk of accidents including those causing damage, increases, and I think once it gets to a critical mass, then the need to ID and ensure compliance increases. 
-- a fellow cyclist. 

Just imagine if those literally hundreds were in cars!

Thos busy city centre routes would be impassable!

That's the bit that always completely baffles me with the anti-cyclist rhetoric. Like, do they expect the cyclists to just vanish? If it's a commuter then if you take them off a bike you probably put them into a car and then there's one more car in front of them and one less parking space available at the other end. 

The only reason I can park at work (when I don't cycle) is because a huge chunk of my co-workers cycle. We've got 10 spaces for cars at the office and there's always at least 20 bikes. It'd be carnage if those were reversed. 

It's almost always the same people complaining about how bad traffic is, despite them *being* traffic. 

Emmia

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

MusicLover1357 said:

Contacting the police is the first thing I'd do too. But there's a real chance you won't see a dime of compensation. 
 I want to know what happened in the end!

I will update if the police do anything.

Herzlos said:

Cyclists should have some basic training - do they still do that in school? - but they don't cause anything like the damage that cars do and aren't as difficult to operate.

That said I don't think there's any mechanism to ban someone from cycling but I also don't think there's ever actually been any need.

The solution to your "cyclist problem" is probably just better cycling infrastructure - giving them clean and safe paths away from cars. It'll be safer and more efficient for them, and means you won't have to see them.

I don't know if they do cycle training in school, but if they do it doesn't seem to be very effective.

I don't think bans are needed. Fines and some way to make claims for damage would be useful. Better infrastructure would be welcome but unfortunately the way a lot of UK towns are there just isn't room to do a decent job of it. The roads and pavements are already narrow, and narrow/short cycle lanes don't get used because they are dangerous anyway.

Riding down the middle of the lane is actually a reasonable way to do it, as long as a decent pace is maintained and the cyclist pays attention. Integrate properly into traffic instead of weaving in and out, undertaking, and the like. That would also prevent a lot of common accidents where cyclists are in blind spots. Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

A small ID plate would help too. The number only needs to be 3-4 digits, enough to identify the cyclist from an image.

@thorodinoson  But if those are against the law they are not fine, you saying riding on the pavement at low speed is ok, the next person says it ok to go through an amber light and the next ok for red light jumping. Crazy

Can you not see how these are immutable? 

But riding on the footway (pavement) is illegal. Cycles are vehicles and so should be on the carriageway (road) with other vehicles like cars and motorcycles. Cyclists also need to obey traffic lights, but many don't.

I've lost count of the times I've been crossing the road using a pedestrian crossing having waited for the lights only to be nearly mown over by a cyclist who thinks the basic rules of using the road don't apply to them when they're on a bike in comparison to when they are driving a car.

As a pedestrian I don't wander around like a zombie looking at my phone (its dangerous especially with phone snatchers around).

BikingBud

Emmia said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

MusicLover1357 said:

Contacting the police is the first thing I'd do too. But there's a real chance you won't see a dime of compensation. 
 I want to know what happened in the end!

I will update if the police do anything.

Herzlos said:

Cyclists should have some basic training - do they still do that in school? - but they don't cause anything like the damage that cars do and aren't as difficult to operate.

That said I don't think there's any mechanism to ban someone from cycling but I also don't think there's ever actually been any need.

The solution to your "cyclist problem" is probably just better cycling infrastructure - giving them clean and safe paths away from cars. It'll be safer and more efficient for them, and means you won't have to see them.

I don't know if they do cycle training in school, but if they do it doesn't seem to be very effective.

I don't think bans are needed. Fines and some way to make claims for damage would be useful. Better infrastructure would be welcome but unfortunately the way a lot of UK towns are there just isn't room to do a decent job of it. The roads and pavements are already narrow, and narrow/short cycle lanes don't get used because they are dangerous anyway.

Riding down the middle of the lane is actually a reasonable way to do it, as long as a decent pace is maintained and the cyclist pays attention. Integrate properly into traffic instead of weaving in and out, undertaking, and the like. That would also prevent a lot of common accidents where cyclists are in blind spots. Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

A small ID plate would help too. The number only needs to be 3-4 digits, enough to identify the cyclist from an image.

@thorodinoson  But if those are against the law they are not fine, you saying riding on the pavement at low speed is ok, the next person says it ok to go through an amber light and the next ok for red light jumping. Crazy

Can you not see how these are immutable? 

But riding on the footway (pavement) is illegal. Cycles are vehicles and so should be on the carriageway (road) with other vehicles like cars and motorcycles. Cyclists also need to obey traffic lights, but many don't.

I've lost count of the times I've been crossing the road using a pedestrian crossing having waited for the lights only to be nearly mown over by a cyclist who thinks the basic rules of using the road don't apply to them when they're on a bike in comparison to when they are driving a car.

As a pedestrian I don't wander around like a zombie looking at my phone (its dangerous especially with phone snatchers around).

I do not disagree.

I've lost count of the number of times I have challenged drivers at traffic lights that are on their phone. The most frequent response is along the lines of "what's it got to do with you - go &*() yourself". When you then enquire if they would express the same sentiment to a police officer as they get handed a FPN for 6 points and £200 you get another tirade. Bless them and their silver tongues.

But we do little to progress safety when the discussions generally degenerate into whataboutery. We can all complain about the "others" but how self critical are we about our own behaviours hence my query about the OP's actions before the cyclist ran into the back of their vehicle. They may come back and sustain they are whiter than white yet the OP was suggesting something that was illegal was OK, you cannot unilaterally decide that which is illegal is ok, it's the thin end of the wedge.

ETA - Well no actually due to the growing ignorance of and ignoring the law, the wedge is fairly fat now.

And this is the most telling indicator these behaviours are often stimulated by a potential loss of a few seconds or a few places in a queue to nowhere specific.