Infirmary Road Tesco - are drivers targeting cyclists?

[BoyFromSmoke]

Cyclone old chap, would you mind having your Sf name emblazoned on the back of your cycling top so we know which one to target please

[monkey69]

are you one of these??https://twitter.com/MaxRobitzsch/status/517544897050464256/photo/1

[hyper]

Does the same apply if you're at the front of that queue in a smart car then?

hmmm .. I tried asking that a couple of pages ago.... still awaiting an answer ...

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 14:26 ----------

 

Cyclone old chap, would you mind having your Sf name emblazoned on the back of your cycling top so we know which one to target please

you'd never catch him. He has the name Cyclone for a reason .. lol

[Cyclone]

that is total crap. there are many occasion when as a cyclist at a red light, it has been SAFER to go through a red light WHEN you have eighteen wheel trucks, buses, AND aggressive drivers behind OR at the side of you.

You decide what vehicle ends up at the side of you, by either taking the primary road position, or not filtering to the side of a vehicle.

Don't use that as an excuse to run a light.

Not to mention that the supposedly cyclist only red boxes are filled up with cars buses, ect.

i cannot keep stressesing this enough. You only go through a set of lights at red, WHEN there is NO OTHER TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, going through on their green light.

ITS SAFER FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED.

 

IT NOT SAFER. And you aren't omniscient. You might think that it's clear when it isn't. Or halfway across a car that you couldn't see approaching is now heading straight towards you.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 14:32 ----------

 

Cyclone old chap, would you mind having your Sf name emblazoned on the back of your cycling top so we know which one to target please

 

Why would you want to do that?

[barleycorn]

And it would have been his fault. Going through a red when there's cars coming through way means he was either stupid or extremely unobservant.

 

The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when there's no traffic coming through the other way, and, to do so is safer than launching on green with a pack of hasty, unobservant motor vehicles.

If you're finding it that intimidating to negotiate a simple set of lights then perhaps you should be getting off your bike, mounting the pavement and negotiating the junction on foot. You could then rejoin the traffic further along the road at a point you judge to be safer.

 

jb

[mattleonard]

are you one of these??https://twitter.com/MaxRobitzsch/status/517544897050464256/photo/1

 

Haha! Assuming that's aimed at me, then it sums you up that you think I just drive a car, rather than spending most of my time cycling - and on no occasion during nearly ten years of daily commuting by bike have I even come remotely close to endangering either myself, nor another road user, through my custom of stopping at red lights.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 15:12 ----------

 

The vast majority of cyclist who die under cars, weren't running reds, they were killed by an ++shole in a metal box, and though drivers like that are in a minority, there are plenty out there.

 

It's beautiful the way you fail to notice the logical inconsistency in this statement. You are probably right that the vast majority of cyclists who die under cars aren't running reds; and yet in the very same sentence you demonstrate correctly that a minority of dangerous drivers present a significant risk. So do you feel that if, say only 20% of cyclist deaths are a result of running a red light, then that makes running a red light OK?

 

Here's a very balanced article which might educate you.

Edited October 2, 2014 by mattleonard
fix spelling mistake

[onewheeldave]

Being 100 yards further forward makes it more dangerous when they pass you, as they do so at higher speed and with a chip on their shoulder about your terrible road behaviour.

 

Not if I'm turning left after 50 yards. Given that you believe it's routine for some motorists to deliberately pull a dangerous manouver purely because a cyclist just passed through a red light, maybe you can start to see why I cycle with the focus on me being safe.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:05 ----------

 

He told me it was clear when he decided to continue through, which it was.

 

So he didn't get hit???

 

 

a) I think the highway code would disagree with you on that

I know. I just don't care

 

 

 

b) How will a cyclist know if the car(s) behind him/her are hasty and unobservant?

You can't know. But, averaged out over several journeys, there will be some. Any cyclist who wants to maximise safety, must ride as if motorists are blind/idiotic/hasty, cos it's inevitable you're going to encounter some.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:08 ----------

 

that is total crap. there are many occasion when as a cyclist at a red light, it has been SAFER to go through a red light WHEN you have eighteen wheel trucks, buses, AND aggressive drivers behind OR at the side of you.

Not to mention that the supposedly cyclist only red boxes are filled up with cars buses, ect.

i cannot keep stressesing this enough. You only go through a set of lights at red, WHEN there is NO OTHER TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, going through on their green light.

ITS SAFER FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED.

 

Well put sir :thumbsup:

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:16 ----------

 

Here's a very balanced article which might educate you.

 

Here's an excerpt-

 

Despite the potentially serious consequences, only 4% of all pedestrian injuries as a result of red light jumping have been caused by cyclists with the remaining 96% involving motor vehicles.

 

although I didn't realise we were talking about pedestrian crossings, which are totally different scenarios to road junction red lights.

[mattleonard]

Here's an excerpt-

 

Despite the potentially serious consequences, only 4% of all pedestrian injuries as a result of red light jumping have been caused by cyclists with the remaining 96% involving motor vehicles.

although I didn't realise we were talking about pedestrian crossings, which are totally different scenarios to road junction red lights.

 

You really don't grasp the subtleties of statistics do you - that doesn't show that cycling through red lights is safe, it merely shows that driving through red lights is considerably more dangerous. No-one is disputing that. But the total number of injuries will be fairly large, so that 4% adds up to quite a lot of people, whom you seem completely unconcerned about.

 

Oh, and I wasn't talking about pedestrian crossings - you just chose to pick out that particular bit from a larger article I'd linked to, in order to fail to demonstrate your point.

[WalkleyIan]

meanwhile while you lot were arguing

 

http://www.southyorkshire.police.uk/road-traffic-collisions/cyclist-dies-following-collision-rotherham

 

The driver of the skip wagon, a 52-year-old man, was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and remains police custody.

[onewheeldave]

You really don't grasp the subtleties of statistics do you - that doesn't show that cycling through red lights is safe, it merely shows that driving through red lights is considerably more dangerous. No-one is disputing that. But the total number of injuries will be fairly large, so that 4% adds up to quite a lot of people, whom you seem completely unconcerned about.

 

Never said it did.

 

Fact is, that of all the maimings, carnage and killings that happen on the roads, the vast majority are down to motor vehicles, and it's time something serious was done to end the madness.

 

A big step forward would be a genuine large scale effort to encourage cycling, make roads safe for cyclists and have proper sentencing for motorists who run cyclists down through proven negligence or malice.

 

Until that day, it's down to us cyclists to do what's necessary, in our judgement, to maximise our own safety.

 

Obviously, some of us think that, in some circumstances, passing through a red is safer for us, others think the opposite.

 

I happen to be in the former camp i.e. due to my experiences on the roads over many years, I genuinely believe that, in some circumstances, passing through a red is safer for me, and, I will ride in the way that I believe maximises my safety.

 

Other experienced cyclists, have the opposite opinion, but, you know what, much as they're entitled to their opinion, it would be bizarre/perverse of me, to ride according to opinions I don't hold

 

As for the opinions of motorists who don't themselves cycle on our insane road system, but who insist on whining and attacking cyclists who go through reds- they've got no right to talk about what's safe or not safe. If they get their lazy asses out of their boxes, and, spend some serious time out on a bike, dealing with idiots in boxes with no accountability, then, it'll be time to listen to their opinions.