Best way to identify a cyclist

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud 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.

@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!

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

I stopped about 20 seconds before he hit me. Plenty of space for him to see me. He was looking at his phone. He was oblivious to his surroundings, as is sadly all too common for cyclists. 

They seem to have get-ahead-itis too. Weaving in and out of traffic, into the pavement. 

I've got a better dashcam now so I can record them more easily, but it's always the identification that is the problem. There is now a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out who they are in my city, so they can be reported to the police/insurance.

So he caught up to you within 20 secs, why did you feel it necessary to pass him for 20 seconds of road that was already occupied by the other car that had overtaken? Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Why did you go in front of him if you knew he was on the phone and would be inattentive?

You are putting yourself into the collision zone. You did not take appropriate action to avoid the collision, it seems by overtaking unecessarily you increased the likelihood of an incident.

Any further thoughts on why you said riding on the pavement was ok!

Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

You cannot pick and choose the laws and make up your own interpretation any more than speeders can say it's not important it was only 75/85/105 mph.

Record them because it is always them? Yet when the longer section of dash cam footage is observed the innocent drivers are often seen to be the instigators. In the same manner that anti-speed campaigns that are set up to address villagers' concerns seem to pick up habitually speeding villagers. Bizarre really.

Your language remains very blamey of the cyclist and you are quite clearly not whiter than white, I would suggest reality is somewhere different.

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

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. 

I'd expect them to learn how to cycle safely. Not sure why that baffled you. Are you easily baffled?

I feel you are missing the point. Cyclists that are not on cycles travel to work via other means, most likley cars. All this extra cars with single occupancy will only add to jams and delays.

Give thanks, space and time to the cyclists for reducing the number of cars blocking the roads. Tolerate all road users as the Highway Code instructs you:

It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others. 

Sit back and chill. 

ThorOdinson

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud 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.

@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!

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

I stopped about 20 seconds before he hit me. Plenty of space for him to see me. He was looking at his phone. He was oblivious to his surroundings, as is sadly all too common for cyclists. 

They seem to have get-ahead-itis too. Weaving in and out of traffic, into the pavement. 

I've got a better dashcam now so I can record them more easily, but it's always the identification that is the problem. There is now a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out who they are in my city, so they can be reported to the police/insurance.

So he caught up to you within 20 secs, why did you feel it necessary to pass him for 20 seconds of road that was already occupied by the other car that had overtaken? Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Why did you go in front of him if you knew he was on the phone and would be inattentive?

You are putting yourself into the collision zone. You did not take appropriate action to avoid the collision, it seems by overtaking unecessarily you increased the likelihood of an incident.

Any further thoughts on why you said riding on the pavement was ok!

Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

You cannot pick and choose the laws and make up your own interpretation any more than speeders can say it's not important it was only 75/85/105 mph.

Record them because it is always them? Yet when the longer section of dash cam footage is observed the innocent drivers are often seen to be the instigators. In the same manner that anti-speed campaigns that are set up to address villagers' concerns seem to pick up habitually speeding villagers. Bizarre really.

Your language remains very blamey of the cyclist and you are quite clearly not whiter than white, I would suggest reality is somewhere different.

You are hopelessly confused now. Do you understand how traffic lights work? How reacting to what other drivers do works? Do you have any idea how far a vehicle travels at 30 MPH in 20n seconds?

I don't need your opinion. He was too blame. Now he has seriously injured a woman too. The man is a menace, and your attitude suggests that you probably are as well.

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

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. 

I'd expect them to learn how to cycle safely. Not sure why that baffled you. Are you easily baffled?

Learning how to cycle or drive safely is a given, but that's not what we're talking about here. 

I'm responding to the idea that hundreds of bicycles in a city is somehow a problem whilst hundreds of cars isn't. Despite the cars doing more damage, taking up significantly more space, producing more pollution, causing more congestion. 

Ideally there would be separate pathways for bicycles, with physical barriers preventing cars crossing the lines into bicycle spaces but that's not practical. It shouldn't be neccessary either but it's not as if car drivers are famous for adhering to the rules, just look at how many cars are parked in any cycle lane that doesn't physically prevent them. 

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud 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.

@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!

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

I stopped about 20 seconds before he hit me. Plenty of space for him to see me. He was looking at his phone. He was oblivious to his surroundings, as is sadly all too common for cyclists. 

They seem to have get-ahead-itis too. Weaving in and out of traffic, into the pavement. 

I've got a better dashcam now so I can record them more easily, but it's always the identification that is the problem. There is now a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out who they are in my city, so they can be reported to the police/insurance.

So he caught up to you within 20 secs, why did you feel it necessary to pass him for 20 seconds of road that was already occupied by the other car that had overtaken? Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Why did you go in front of him if you knew he was on the phone and would be inattentive?

You are putting yourself into the collision zone. You did not take appropriate action to avoid the collision, it seems by overtaking unecessarily you increased the likelihood of an incident.

Any further thoughts on why you said riding on the pavement was ok!

Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

You cannot pick and choose the laws and make up your own interpretation any more than speeders can say it's not important it was only 75/85/105 mph.

Record them because it is always them? Yet when the longer section of dash cam footage is observed the innocent drivers are often seen to be the instigators. In the same manner that anti-speed campaigns that are set up to address villagers' concerns seem to pick up habitually speeding villagers. Bizarre really.

Your language remains very blamey of the cyclist and you are quite clearly not whiter than white, I would suggest reality is somewhere different.

You are hopelessly confused now. Do you understand how traffic lights work? How reacting to what other drivers do works? Do you have any idea how far a vehicle travels at 30 MPH in 20n seconds?

I don't need your opinion. He was too blame. Now he has seriously injured a woman too. The man is a menace, and your attitude suggests that you probably are as well.

I think he's talking about a pretty common phenomenon in stop-start traffic where cars absolutely must overtake the cyclist to "make progress", even if it's dangerous and then slow down to the point where the cyclist passes them, enraging the driver more because they feel the cyclist is suffering from "get-ahead-itis". 

I've seen it plenty of times, I think my record is passing (and being passed) by the same car 6 times whilst I'm cycling at a constant speed on a cycle lane (or as constant as I can get with the gradients and parked cars). 

In stop-start traffic in city centres I'm almost certainly faster and less disruptive on a bike than in a car.

The cyclist in this case was absolutely negligent, but we've moved on from that discussion somewhat. 

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud 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.

@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!

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

I stopped about 20 seconds before he hit me. Plenty of space for him to see me. He was looking at his phone. He was oblivious to his surroundings, as is sadly all too common for cyclists. 

They seem to have get-ahead-itis too. Weaving in and out of traffic, into the pavement. 

I've got a better dashcam now so I can record them more easily, but it's always the identification that is the problem. There is now a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out who they are in my city, so they can be reported to the police/insurance.

So he caught up to you within 20 secs, why did you feel it necessary to pass him for 20 seconds of road that was already occupied by the other car that had overtaken? Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Why did you go in front of him if you knew he was on the phone and would be inattentive?

You are putting yourself into the collision zone. You did not take appropriate action to avoid the collision, it seems by overtaking unecessarily you increased the likelihood of an incident.

Any further thoughts on why you said riding on the pavement was ok!

Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

You cannot pick and choose the laws and make up your own interpretation any more than speeders can say it's not important it was only 75/85/105 mph.

Record them because it is always them? Yet when the longer section of dash cam footage is observed the innocent drivers are often seen to be the instigators. In the same manner that anti-speed campaigns that are set up to address villagers' concerns seem to pick up habitually speeding villagers. Bizarre really.

Your language remains very blamey of the cyclist and you are quite clearly not whiter than white, I would suggest reality is somewhere different.

You are hopelessly confused now. Do you understand how traffic lights work? How reacting to what other drivers do works? Do you have any idea how far a vehicle travels at 30 MPH in 20n seconds?

I don't need your opinion. He was too blame. Now he has seriously injured a woman too. The man is a menace, and your attitude suggests that you probably are as well.

I am only confused because you are backtracking so much.

So you were doing the speed limit on the road - 30 mph or were you on a road with a higher speed limit and were only able to get to 30 mph because it was busy?

If you overtook him to gain 20s whether that equates to approximately 290 yards @30 mph, which it does, or approximately 685 yards @70mph, again it does, the fact remains that you over took somebody on a bike to get there 20 seconds earlier than them - Really!

But lets look at it realistically and in a busy area where you had to assess, decide, indicate, over take and pull in your average speed might have been closer to 15-18 mph and the distance until you stopped might be closer to 150 yards - well worth the overtake?

The difficulty you also have is that you are measuring distance rather than time, 20s is 20s whatever speed you are travelling. The distance between two cars occupying 2 adjacent lanes on the motorway may be 75 yard but the time gap is infinite as they are travelling at the same speed. In the same vein it takes 5 miles for one lorry to pass another when they are both sat on the speed limiters.

Anyway, you need time to observe, plan and execute manoeuvres safely on the road

During that observation period, before the very important 20s that you gained by overtaking started, because you were such an excellent, observant, forward thinking and considerate driver, you would have seen the traffic lights in the distance, let's say 200 yards. - Fair?

And let's also make an assessment that you know the area because you call it "my city", that you knew there was likely to be a queue at the lights ahead that required you to stop - Fair?

Yet you still overtook knowing full well:

• that there were hazards (traffic lights) ahead
• and that there was likely a need to stop at that hazard
• and during that stop the cyclist that you have just overtaken, because he was a hazard, will now be behind you and he is still a hazard
• and as he is now behind you and inattentive as he is using his phone you have placed yourself at increased risk
• and that risk came to fruition
• and he collided with your car
• something that was foreseeable
• and something that was extremely unlikely if you had remained behind him?

Is that less confusing for you?

As I said in an earlier post 25 August at 9:11PM drivers overtake because they must get in front. You appear to be a prime candidate for all those traits, although I concede I did suggest 10s and you appear to have achieved double that but with a great deal of avoidable stress and aggravation.  

Seems well worth gaining 20 seconds for? - Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Because of one rider you appear to be agitated about all cyclists but have little capacity to consider what you might have done differently to prevent the situation - perhaps you should be more honest with yourself. Perhaps consider some training, IAM or ROSPA, to increase your observation, awareness, hazard assessment and planning.

Sit back and chill. 

BTW Traffic lIght sequence:

• Red
• Red/Amber
• Green
• Amber
• Red

All bar Green mean stop and Green means proceed if clear.

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

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. 

I'd expect them to learn how to cycle safely. Not sure why that baffled you. Are you easily baffled?

Learning how to cycle or drive safely is a given, but that's not what we're talking about here. 

I'm responding to the idea that hundreds of bicycles in a city is somehow a problem whilst hundreds of cars isn't. Despite the cars doing more damage, taking up significantly more space, producing more pollution, causing more congestion. 

Ideally there would be separate pathways for bicycles, with physical barriers preventing cars crossing the lines into bicycle spaces but that's not practical. It shouldn't be neccessary either but it's not as if car drivers are famous for adhering to the rules, just look at how many cars are parked in any cycle lane that doesn't physically prevent them. 

In other words you are having a conversation with yourself, the only person who implied that.

ThorOdinson

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud said:

ThorOdinson said:

BikingBud 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.

@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!

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

I stopped about 20 seconds before he hit me. Plenty of space for him to see me. He was looking at his phone. He was oblivious to his surroundings, as is sadly all too common for cyclists. 

They seem to have get-ahead-itis too. Weaving in and out of traffic, into the pavement. 

I've got a better dashcam now so I can record them more easily, but it's always the identification that is the problem. There is now a Facebook group dedicated to figuring out who they are in my city, so they can be reported to the police/insurance.

So he caught up to you within 20 secs, why did you feel it necessary to pass him for 20 seconds of road that was already occupied by the other car that had overtaken? Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Why did you go in front of him if you knew he was on the phone and would be inattentive?

You are putting yourself into the collision zone. You did not take appropriate action to avoid the collision, it seems by overtaking unecessarily you increased the likelihood of an incident.

Any further thoughts on why you said riding on the pavement was ok!

Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

You cannot pick and choose the laws and make up your own interpretation any more than speeders can say it's not important it was only 75/85/105 mph.

Record them because it is always them? Yet when the longer section of dash cam footage is observed the innocent drivers are often seen to be the instigators. In the same manner that anti-speed campaigns that are set up to address villagers' concerns seem to pick up habitually speeding villagers. Bizarre really.

Your language remains very blamey of the cyclist and you are quite clearly not whiter than white, I would suggest reality is somewhere different.

You are hopelessly confused now. Do you understand how traffic lights work? How reacting to what other drivers do works? Do you have any idea how far a vehicle travels at 30 MPH in 20n seconds?

I don't need your opinion. He was too blame. Now he has seriously injured a woman too. The man is a menace, and your attitude suggests that you probably are as well.

I am only confused because you are backtracking so much.

So you were doing the speed limit on the road - 30 mph or were you on a road with a higher speed limit and were only able to get to 30 mph because it was busy?

If you overtook him to gain 20s whether that equates to approximately 290 yards @30 mph, which it does, or approximately 685 yards @70mph, again it does, the fact remains that you over took somebody on a bike to get there 20 seconds earlier than them - Really!

But lets look at it realistically and in a busy area where you had to assess, decide, indicate, over take and pull in your average speed might have been closer to 15-18 mph and the distance until you stopped might be closer to 150 yards - well worth the overtake?

The difficulty you also have is that you are measuring distance rather than time, 20s is 20s whatever speed you are travelling. The distance between two cars occupying 2 adjacent lanes on the motorway may be 75 yard but the time gap is infinite as they are travelling at the same speed. In the same vein it takes 5 miles for one lorry to pass another when they are both sat on the speed limiters.

Anyway, you need time to observe, plan and execute manoeuvres safely on the road

During that observation period, before the very important 20s that you gained by overtaking started, because you were such an excellent, observant, forward thinking and considerate driver, you would have seen the traffic lights in the distance, let's say 200 yards. - Fair?

And let's also make an assessment that you know the area because you call it "my city", that you knew there was likely to be a queue at the lights ahead that required you to stop - Fair?

Yet you still overtook knowing full well:

• that there were hazards (traffic lights) ahead
• and that there was likely a need to stop at that hazard
• and during that stop the cyclist that you have just overtaken, because he was a hazard, will now be behind you and he is still a hazard
• and as he is now behind you and inattentive as he is using his phone you have placed yourself at increased risk
• and that risk came to fruition
• and he collided with your car
• something that was foreseeable
• and something that was extremely unlikely if you had remained behind him?

Is that less confusing for you?

As I said in an earlier post 25 August at 9:11PM drivers overtake because they must get in front. You appear to be a prime candidate for all those traits, although I concede I did suggest 10s and you appear to have achieved double that but with a great deal of avoidable stress and aggravation.  

Seems well worth gaining 20 seconds for? - Sadly it's all too common for drivers!

Because of one rider you appear to be agitated about all cyclists but have little capacity to consider what you might have done differently to prevent the situation - perhaps you should be more honest with yourself. Perhaps consider some training, IAM or ROSPA, to increase your observation, awareness, hazard assessment and planning.

Sit back and chill. 

BTW Traffic lIght sequence:

• Red
• Red/Amber
• Green
• Amber
• Red

All bar Green mean stop and Green means proceed if clear.

You are confused because you haven't understood what you are being told. You are making wild assumptions that have no basis in anything anyone said.

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

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. 

I'd expect them to learn how to cycle safely. Not sure why that baffled you. Are you easily baffled?

Learning how to cycle or drive safely is a given, but that's not what we're talking about here. 

I'm responding to the idea that hundreds of bicycles in a city is somehow a problem whilst hundreds of cars isn't. Despite the cars doing more damage, taking up significantly more space, producing more pollution, causing more congestion. 

Ideally there would be separate pathways for bicycles, with physical barriers preventing cars crossing the lines into bicycle spaces but that's not practical. It shouldn't be neccessary either but it's not as if car drivers are famous for adhering to the rules, just look at how many cars are parked in any cycle lane that doesn't physically prevent them. 

In other words you are having a conversation with yourself, the only person who implied that.

Nope I also said that, a few times.

silverwhistle

The OP has managed to keep their own thread going for 13 pages and 6 months, which certainly colours my opinion of their views and makes me hope I don't meet them on the roads. 

I make progress out and about by various modes and like to make good progress; I'm a fast walker for example. But you have to adapt to conditions as BikingBud has so comprehensively described. In the city I've been faster than cars on foot and by bike, and in the car I have chuckled to myself at being passed, possibly cursed railway engineering works for forcing me in to the car, but ultimately you just have to chill.

I've seen cyclists out at night with no lights or reflective material and dark clothing. I've occasionally been known to do a loud B-movie voice "Death Wish", but have observed awful behaviour by drivers, the difference being they're more likely to kill or injure someone else with their tonne of metal. I always check before proceeding on Green due to the number of times I've seen cars jump the lights, and this is particularly important now I have an EV and no longer the geriatric acceleration of my previous cars.