Infirmary Road Tesco - are drivers targeting cyclists?

[RootsBooster]

So he didn't get hit???

Yes, of course he did, I already told you that. His problem was that he assumed that because he couldn't see any cars, it was safe to continue (at speed) through the red light.

 

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.

So because on average, over several journeys, there will be some hasty, unobservant drivers, it is safer to go through a red (a signal which is telling you to wait, for your own safety and that of others) ?

 

If you were to truly to maximise safety by riding as if motorists are blind/idiotic/hasty, then you wouldn't go through the red light, because there's just as much chance someone will be driving blindly/idiotically/hastily across your path, with their right of way.

Edited October 2, 2014 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

OWD is entitled to an opinion, as he suggests.

But he isn't entitled to break the law, and I seriously hope that he gets caught, and fined. Enough times to stop him.

My opinion is that cyclists who can't follow the rules shouldn't cycle. They give the rest of us a bad name.

[onewheeldave]

Yes, of course he did, I already told you that. His problem was that he assumed that because he couldn't see any cars, it was safe to continue (at speed) through the red light.

 

It's a bit confusing- it sounds like he wasn't looking properly doesn't it?

 

If you're a cyclist going through a red, it's very important that there's no cars coming, you really do need to be 100% sure it's totally clear.

 

TBH cyclists who don't put a lot of focus on looking are liable to come a cropper even when they're nowhere near a red light.

 

 

 

So because on average, over several journeys, there will be some hasty, unobservant drivers, it is safer to go through a red (a signal which is telling you to wait, for your own safety and that of others) ?

 

Yes. In some circumstances, it is safer to go through the red. And red lights aren't there just for safety reasons- their main purposes these days is regulating the grossly excessive numbers of motor vehicles that clog up the road system.

 

In particular, when there's a large build up of revving cars/taxis/vans/lorries, one/several of which have taken up the front position box which is supposed to be reserved for cyclists to enable them to take off from the front and enhance their survival prospects when the lights go green.

 

If that box is occupied by a motor vehicle, the cyclist ends up at the left, vulnerable to any motorist who turns left without noticing the cyclist.

 

Sometimes, there may be space for the cyclist to get in front of the offending vehicle, but, as the driver clearly has an attitude issue to be occupying the box in the first place, there's a danger that their fragile ego may be unable to handle the fact that the cyclist got in front anyway, with risk of road rage etc.

 

Also, it's generally difficult when in front of a car in the box to see the traffic lights- in fact it's probably in that very situation that, like me, a few cyclists have realised that, if there's no actual traffic coming the other way, that, rather than stay in this potentially dangerous situation, they can just nip across and not have to worry about 1. being abused by Mr/Mrs ego/attitude box stealer & 2, being mown down by Mr/Mrs non looking left turner.

 

So, for those motorists who get really angry at seeing a cyclist go through a red, bear in mind that when you occupy the box reserved for cyclists, it can well encourage them to start thinking for themselves and doing what's necessary for their own safey.

 

 

 

 

If you were to truly to maximise safety by riding as if motorists are blind/idiotic/hasty, then you wouldn't go through the red light, because there's just as much chance someone will be driving blindly/idiotically/hastily across your path, with their right of way.

If there is, I'll see them. And, in the unlikely event I'm either careless or unobservant enough to not spot them, then I'll get hit.

 

But, if I'm going to get hit, I'd prefer it to be due to my mistake, rather than be run over from behind by an idiot driver, or, wiped out by a left turner who can't be bothered to look before they go.

[mattleonard]

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.

 

Well considering your concern about eighteen-wheel lorries we're going to need a lot of rickshaws.

 

You're right that there are too many cars on the roads, but that's not where the madness lies. The madness lies in the attitude of road users - in all kinds of vehicles - who think that the law doesn't apply to them because they are "sensible", and all the danger lies in what the other less enlightened folks on the roads do.

 

The supposed driver/cyclist rivalry is exaggerated - the real divide is between considerate road users and others.

 

Oh, and your example about not being observed at the traffic lights... If it's safe for you to come alongside a car then you have at least the whole length of their bonnet to be in front of them and be clearly within their field of vision. If you're coming up the inside of a bus or am eighteen-wheeler then you're already asking for trouble

[Cyclone]

OWD, perhaps you can quote the highway code with regards to the advance stop line.

 

Because you don't seem to fully understand how a driver could end up in that box, attributing it to bad attitude only.

[gordius]

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.

 

Utter rubbish. You are in control as to whether you filter or not. If it's unsafe to go alongside a vehicle then hang back and let them go first. You have to apply some common sense - I have cycled to work almost every day for the last seven years or so and I've never felt unsafe at a red light.

[onewheeldave]

 

You're right that there are too many cars on the roads, but that's not where the madness lies.

 

Yes it is- that's the root of it all. People spend large portions of their income on these machines which promise freedom, speed and style; then lose a significant portion of their life everyday, sat in slow moving rush hour jams, as cyclists whizz past them. Hence the road rage and the frequent attacks on cyclists, ranging from verbal to physical.

 

 

 

 

The supposed driver/cyclist rivalry is exaggerated - the real divide is between considerate road users and others.

We'll disagree on that one too- simply reading the cycling threads on sheffield forum indicates the level of hatred some drivers bear towards cyclists.

[Cyclone]

It's a minority of drivers though, most drivers have no animosity towards cyclists and many drivers are also cyclists.

And whichever way you look at it, running a red light is likely to make that animosity worse. And despite what you say, you aren't omniscient, you will misjudge it one day and probably get hurt.

[mattleonard]

Yes it is- that's the root of it all. People spend large portions of their income on these machines which promise freedom, speed and style; then lose a significant portion of their life everyday, sat in slow moving rush hour jams, as cyclists whizz past them. Hence the road rage and the frequent attacks on cyclists, ranging from verbal to physical.

 

We'll disagree on that one too- simply reading the cycling threads on sheffield forum indicates the level of hatred some drivers bear towards cyclists.

 

Oh, absolutely there's hatred, I'm not denying that. But anyone with any commonsense will be able to extrapolate that the root cause of people's antagonism isn't one kind of vehicle's users being bad and the other's being good, but that either seeing a subset of road users behaving irresponsibly and then generalising, or else ignorance.

 

I've been on the receiving end of verbal and physical abuse from drivers - I'm not defending it, but I know that behaviour like yours magnifies it for those of us who are keen to ride safely and considerately.

 

---------- Post added 03-10-2014 at 11:12 ----------

 

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.

 

This shows the complete fallacy of your point. I'm all for the above. But you aren't encouraging cycling - quite the opposite. You're scaremongering. The danger which you are using to justify going through red lights is a completely mythical one. There are very real dangers which cyclists face, but being visible when stopped at a red light is really not a significant one to a cyclist who is using their common sense.

 

There's a really simple rule which I think might help you - if you have any concern at all that a particular road position might not make you obvious to other road users, then don't get into that position.

 

I fairly regularly not only decide to stop at red lights, but not to overtake on the inside at the queue. it's really not rocket surgery.

 

---------- Post added 03-10-2014 at 11:15 ----------

 

Fact remains, that in the judgement of many cyclists, in some circumstances it is safer to go through reds than wait while a bunch of impatient motorists build up behind.

 

In the actual, real, non-fantasy world, it is safer for me to park my car on the double-yellow lines outside my house than it is for me to use the side-road opposite and then cross the busy road.

Edited October 3, 2014 by mattleonard

[altus]

If that box is occupied by a motor vehicle, the cyclist ends up at the left, vulnerable to any motorist who turns left without noticing the cyclist.

 

If you position yourself alongside the car at the front of the queue it's no surprise they will find it hard to notice you. It sounds like you're more concerned about getting to the front of the queue than positioning yourself in a way that makes you more visible to other road users.

 

If you filter up to just behind the car at the front you'll be able to match your setting off theirs (whether they are turning left or not). If the car behind is turning left you'll be in their direct line of sight, if you haven't already passed the bit of road they are turning into before they start moving, and if they are going straight ahead you'll have time and space to be in the secondary position at least before they begin moving.