Infirmary Road Tesco - are drivers targeting cyclists?

[linaker]

I'm not a cyclist but I thought the building of that chicane was one of the stupidest things ever. Cars were already slowing down due to the approaching junction and I never noticed a speeding problem. It's hardly a pedestrian hotspot either - you rarely see a soul.

 

Now car drivers safety is threatened as drivers accelerate to get around the chicane before oncoming traffic gets there or just barge their way through expecting cars with the right of way to stop. I think it is dangerous and irritating, so I can see it seeming more so for cyclists. What a colossal waste of our money.

[Longcol]

I'm not a cyclist but I thought the building of that chicane was one of the stupidest things ever. Cars were already slowing down due to the approaching junction and I never noticed a speeding problem. It's hardly a pedestrian hotspot either - you rarely see a soul.

 

Now car drivers safety is threatened as drivers accelerate to get around the chicane before oncoming traffic gets there or just barge their way through expecting cars with the right of way to stop. I think it is dangerous and irritating, so I can see it seeming more so for cyclists. What a colossal waste of our money.

 

Yes - I use that road nearly every day and it does strike me as an odd place to narrow the road.

 

The only reason I can think of is to discourage traffic coming off Penistone Road / Infirmary Road using the road through Tesco's car park as a "rat run" between Montgomery Terrace and Albert Terrace so they get priority at the junction with Upperthorpe Road.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Longcol

[alchemist]

I think that demonstrate your lack of understanding completely. enough said i reckon!!

 

then please explain to us mere mortals how ignoring the rules of the road increases yours and others safety? your constant and arrogant claim that it is common sense, which it is NOT, is not an explanation

[Cyclone]

Not at all, there's no reason volume of traffic should make individuals act like t*ssers. The guy shouting at me yesterday is just a poor driver and has anger issues. He shouldn't be allowed to drive, or probably to cycle.

 

Utter twaddle. There is an overcrowding problem on all roads across the country, and although cyclists are helping ease the volumes by making less cars, there are still more drivers and cars joining the ranks of the road every day. The notion of cycling is very good, what with the emissions and obesity problems in the world, but not all people want to ride one. They are no good for doing the weekly shop, nor for buying paint and plants at B&Q, nor can you ride one to work if your commute is a fair-old distance. Other than for short commutes or keeping fit, the bicycle can never replace the motor car, for reasons that its just not practicable. I would love to see the whole world change to this green and sometimes pleasant pastime, but in the real world cycling may gain substantial popularity, but it will NEVER replace the convenience of the motor car. And there lies the problem. Far too many vehicles on the road, with cycles trying to fit in safely in between them all. So im sorry to disagree with you Cyclone, but laying the blame at a T**sers feet is not true. Its the amount of us that share the road that is the problem, and its sad but true that some of us just dont know how to behave.

 

You're trying to justify his behaviour because a bike isn't suitable to get the shopping from Tescos? There was little traffic on Langsett road, I hadn't been passed by another vehicle for about 500 metres, (not because they were queueing behind me, because there was so little traffic).

So a busy road is not an excuse for his behaviour, and more importantly could never have been an excuse.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2013 at 07:23 ----------

 

You speak fairly and wisely. My real point is that there really is too much argy-bargy on the roads between cyclists and motorists, and at peak times there simply isnt enough room. Its not the cyclists fault, and most bikers do seem to weave in and out safely to progress their journey. In my eyes, that is acceptable, however during a bumper to bumper rush hour, its human nature to want to progress, even if just an inch or two. The problem there is that the cyclist will be making his manoeuvre, and the equally peed-off motorist will be wanting to move too. There is no right or wrong here, just the notion that two brains cannot think the same, at the same time. And thats where bumps/scrapes and even fisty-cuffs come to fruition. Its not about who is to blame, but rather how safe it is to be there in the first place.

I also agree about the less congestion during the holidays, but the Americans do a great job to alleviate that with the use of Yellow School Buses. Why on earth cant we do that here, or at the very least ban motor cars within a mile of school gates? Its public nature to bicker, but road rage is a two way thing, the fault being everyone wants to progress INCLUDING the car driver, and not just the cyclist.

 

You're wrong, there is very much a right and a wrong. A car driver endangering a cyclist is wrong. A cyclist running a red light is wrong. Many brains can think those things at the same time.

It's really not difficult to drive home or cycle home, in busy traffic or not, without acting like an angry child.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2013 at 07:25 ----------

 

I think that demonstrate your lack of understanding completely. enough said i reckon!!

 

Pretty much every other cyclist on here has condemned your behaviour as irresponsible, foolhardy and dangerous.

Are you so arrogant that you think that not only are the drivers wrong, but all the cyclists as well. Only you know the true way, and that is to ignore whichever rules of the road you find inconvenient.

[altus]

You speak fairly and wisely. My real point is that there really is too much argy-bargy on the roads between cyclists and motorists, and at peak times there simply isnt enough room. Its not the cyclists fault, and most bikers do seem to weave in and out safely to progress their journey. In my eyes, that is acceptable, however during a bumper to bumper rush hour, its human nature to want to progress, even if just an inch or two. The problem there is that the cyclist will be making his manoeuvre, and the equally peed-off motorist will be wanting to move too. There is no right or wrong here, just the notion that two brains cannot think the same, at the same time. And thats where bumps/scrapes and even fisty-cuffs come to fruition. Its not about who is to blame, but rather how safe it is to be there in the first place.

I also agree about the less congestion during the holidays, but the Americans do a great job to alleviate that with the use of Yellow School Buses. Why on earth cant we do that here, or at the very least ban motor cars within a mile of school gates? Its public nature to bicker, but road rage is a two way thing, the fault being everyone wants to progress INCLUDING the car driver, and not just the cyclist.

 

 

You're wrong if you think road rage is always a two way thing. What about a cyclist who, following government cycle training, is riding in the middle of the lane and a motorist, who wrongly thinks cyclists should ride close to the kerb, behaves aggressively towards them? Or what about a motorist who drives though a green traffic light and gets an earful for nearly running into a foolish cyclist crossing the junction having just gone through a red light?

 

If somebody chooses to drive a car during rush hour they are going to get caught in congestion. There is no justification for them getting angry at people who have chosen a form of transport that means they don't. It's especially stupid of them to do so because more pedal/motor bikes = less cars = less congestion.

[Cyclone]

You're wrong if you think road rage is always a two way thing. What about a cyclist who, following government cycle training, is riding in the middle of the lane and a motorist, who wrongly thinks cyclists should ride close to the kerb, behaves aggressively towards them?

 

Exactly the example that restarted this thread last week. I didn't get angry at the guy for blowing his horn, and when he asked what I thought I was doing I told him it wasn't safe for him to overtake where he had wanted to. He was the one with anger issues there. I actually got angry about it afterwards, he was completely in the wrong, tried to put my safety at risk and didn't even realise that he was the one who was driving badly.

[adamf]

If somebody chooses to drive a car during rush hour they are going to get caught in congestion.

 

...and that congestion is of course someone else's fault!

[TimmyR]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

 

and so on

[altus]

...and that congestion is of course someone else's fault!

 

To be fair, whilst nobody likes getting stuck in congestion, I think most drivers realise they are contributing to it and accept the fact that, as they've choose to not adopt an alternative, they'll just have to put up with it.

[TimmyR]

To be fair, whilst nobody likes getting stuck in congestion, I think most drivers realise they are contributing to it and accept the fact that, as they've choose to not adopt an alternative, they'll just have to put up with it.

 

Not sure that's entirely true!