Infirmary Road Tesco - are drivers targeting cyclists?

[monkey69]

why wear a seat belt?.. why do coaches have seat belts?

because people are basically adverse to putting anything to do with their own safety as their top priority.

[James77]

But stupid people need protecting.

 

Charles Darwin would argue otherwise.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 14:11 ----------

 

why wear a seat belt?.. why do coaches have seat belts?

because people are basically adverse to putting anything to do with their own safety as their top priority.

 

Or, because the coach company wants to ensure they don't get sued for not supplying seatbelts. It's down to the passenger to actually wear it.

[onewheeldave]

has warp speed been invented??.. IE faster than light... see people use their eyes and ears you know!!.. anyone on the roads knows that unless you can see the road you dont do anything!!

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 13:56 ----------

 

 

They we talking about making cyclist wear helmet compulsory on the breakfast program this morning.

Personally i agree, its far to dangerous (for cyclists) on the roads these days.

 

The reason most cyclist advocacy groups oppose compulsory helmet requirements is that in every country where they've been brought in, cycling injuries rise.

 

The biggest factor in making roads safer for cyclists is high numbers of cyclists on the roads.

 

Compulsory helmet laws tend to decrease numbers of cyclists- hence making it less safe for the fewer remaining cyclists.

[Squiggs]

There is now.

 

I think we all need to be aware whether we're pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists that some of our actions may cause danger to others. I'm not suggesting that people do it intentionally, but the actions of all three groups in the area where I live (Hillsborough) can be called into question.

 

My last dangerous experience as a pedestrian was as I crossed at Hillsborough Tram stop from the bottom of Forbes Road towards the interchange. I waited til the green man showed, and checked for traffic on my right as I crossed to the middle. A cyclist rode up between the tram tracks on my left (the opposite direction to that tramway) and looked surprised that I was there! He certainly shouldn't have been. I was quite shaken as he only just missed me. The driver of the stationary tram on the opposite side of the road saw what happened - he just shook his head.

 

What chance do we have if people completely ignore traffic signals?

 

Hillsborough Corner seems one of the worst places for it. Whether it is a bicycle or quite often a car turning left from Middlewood Road onto Bradfield Road, going through the green pedestrian crossing in the process

 

Or as I heard of today, going through against the tram gate wanting to turn right onto Holme Lane, being unable to so heading straight on, then doing a U-turn and coming back through the tram gate, picking up a double whammy fine in the process.

 

I couldn't help but

[Cyclone]

I know it's a pain but unfortunately it's the cyclist that would be prosecuted if you were to hit someone. There's quite a good discussion here http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/09/21/cyclists-pedestrians-shared-path/

Err, no it isn't.

 

The only possible prosecution would be for something like cycling furiously.

It's not a shared path, it's a separate cycling lane. The pedestrians would clearly be in the wrong.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:45 ----------

 

In an ideal world you are quite right, but we dont live in one. the top priority for everyone should be safety.

I am trying (in vain it seems) to state that for cyclists waiting at a busy junction with car, buses, lorrys, just itching to pull away when a light turns amber never mind green, that a cyclist is in a very vulnerable position.

So if by going through a junction with a red light showing AND the way ahead is clear so they are not putting anyone in any danger at all.

What is the problem with doing that if by doing so they lessen the danger aspect for everyone ??

 

They don't lessen the danger for anyone. They invariably create danger when they break fundamental rules like this.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:46 ----------

 

You're committing an offence watching a TV without a licence, smoking a naturally occurring plant, or congregating in numbers in a public place. Years ago you were committing an offence by being gay. Why not think for yourself? Deep down you know what's right and wrong.

 

Obeying the rules of the road in exactly the same way you expect a motorist to obey them is right. Running red lights, no matter how you try to justify it, is wrong. Simple, and thought out all by myself.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:47 ----------

 

some of them dont seem to have the intelligence to wear a helmet either

 

I guess this must mean that you don't have the intelligence to understand the research regarding helmets...

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:49 ----------

 

But stupid people need protecting.

 

Does that include those who have an opinion without having really researched the issue?

 

I've done my research you see, and whilst head injuries are reduced in a collision by wearing a helmet, the chances of a collision occurring are actually increased... So choose your poison, personally I prefer to have a cool head and a lower risk of accident, except when I off road, when a lid is far more likely to actually help you out.

[monkey69]

Err, no it isn't.

 

The only possible prosecution would be for something like cycling furiously.

It's not a shared path, it's a separate cycling lane. The pedestrians would clearly be in the wrong.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:45 ----------

 

 

They don't lessen the danger for anyone. They invariably create danger when they break fundamental rules like this.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:46 ----------

 

 

Obeying the rules of the road in exactly the same way you expect a motorist to obey them is right. Running red lights, no matter how you try to justify it, is wrong. Simple, and thought out all by myself.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 19:47 ----------

 

 

I guess this must mean that you don't have the intelligence to understand the research regarding helmets...

 

And what about cars breaking the speed limit on a regular basis?.... how do you square the circle?.

ban cycles and cars using the same road space altogether.

in this country the only SAFE OPTION for cyclists is to be a bit proactive in seeking to lessen the dangers wherever they can.

[hicksy3]

In clarification, yes I'm talking about Albert Terrace Road. The cycle path that just stops, closely followed by a chicane.

[Ghozer]

Why not????

 

It was regarding the thread title.... it's not needed now....

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 20:12 ----------

 

In an ideal world you are quite right, but we dont live in one. the top priority for everyone should be safety.

I am trying (in vain it seems) to state that for cyclists waiting at a busy junction with car, buses, lorrys, just itching to pull away when a light turns amber never mind green, that a cyclist is in a very vulnerable position.

So if by going through a junction with a red light showing AND the way ahead is clear so they are not putting anyone in any danger at all.

What is the problem with doing that if by doing so they lessen the danger aspect for everyone ??

 

It's actually illegal for a car to take off if it would put a cyclist in danger...

 

that's why they introduced some of those lights and junctions where the cycle path extends over the entire lane of the road at the lights, so that cyclists can go in there, and no one SHOULD move until the cyclist(s) is/are moving...

 

as a driver, you should be stopping before hitting the red part, and not sitting in it.. (as I see oh so many doing)

Edited August 22, 2013 by Ghozer

[Cyclone]

And what about cars breaking the speed limit on a regular basis?.... how do you square the circle?.

There is no circle. I dislike car drivers that drive badly, I dislike cyclists who cycle badly. One does not excuse the other, two wrongs don't make a right, etc...

ban cycles and cars using the same road space altogether.

in this country the only SAFE OPTION for cyclists is to be a bit proactive in seeking to lessen the dangers wherever they can.

Running a red light is increasing your danger and the danger for others.

 

As a motorist I've had to brake sharply to avoid cyclists running lights several times. As a cyclist I've never felt the need to run a light to somehow improve my safety. And re: lorries and buses, I don't go up their left hand side, and they are generally far more careful about overtaking than many motorists.

If I reach the lights first, I take a commanding position in the centre of the lane if i feel it's necessary, if I filter I stop when I feel it's the safest position.

I do get annoyed when I filter to the front, only for the driver to then drop their left hand indicator on, but they have little choice but to wait for me to go though.

[number27]

Would it not be fair to say that there is just too much traffic volume for cyclists/motorists to achieve perfect cohabitation? On telly the other night, it was saying that such and such a percent of people in Holland use bikes more than cars, and accident rates are far lower, but isnt Holland a lot flatter than Sheffield, and since most use bikes the accident figures WILL be less. That dosent seem possible here, what with there being an "Us and Them" attitude, where cyclists accuse motorists of trying to murder them, and motorist accusing bikers of doing whatever they bloody like. Its nice to think that we all live in harmony, but as long as there are as many vehicles in Sheffield, cycles will always be outnumbered.