Infirmary Road Tesco - are drivers targeting cyclists?

[NightFlight]

Actually Homeopathy is based on dilutions of substances that would cause the symptoms in higher concentrations. A little bit like digitalis in too high a dosage can kill and in the right dosage, being used for some heart complaints works.

 

The dilutions used in homeopathy are so great that you'd need more water than is present on the planet to be certain of finding 1 molecule of the "active ingredient" in the treatment, instead homepathy followers believe (erroneously) that the water somehow (ie. magically) remembers the properties of the substance that was once diluted in it.

To expand your sample; a large dosage of digitalis will kill you, a therapeutic dosage of digitalis will benefit you, a homeopathic dosage of digitalis will do sweet fa.

To paraphrase Paracelsus "the dose maketh the poison"

[Cyclone]

I always thought of myself as a law abiding citizen, never been done for anything, have you?? pot kettle black, does that ring a bell?

 

No, it doesn't ring any bells. Your irresponsible cycling gives ammunition to idiot drivers who lump us all together and increases the danger to me. I don't care if you kill yourself, but I do care that your behaviour puts me in danger.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:21 ----------

 

which one,,, the coffee maybe?.. no seriously i have always thought that going through red lights when its safe to do so is only common sense.

whats the point of waiting for the change(if they ever do) if its safe to go through.

The same point it has for car drivers. It's the law, and whilst you might *think* it's safe, that doesn't make it so.

thats why they have put those funny drop kerbs next to the crossing on penistone road. technically if they were on red you could go up the pavement for a yard then back onto the road... all legal and above board.

No you couldn't, you shouldn't be riding on the pavement.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:24 ----------

 

I understood your comparison; I was looking for a very simple contextual description of why the cycle lane was not a suitable alternative to the supposed death trap chicane. Your answer came across as quite patronising and dismissive of me, as if I was a fool for suggesting using the cycle lane but I may have taken it to heart a bit too quick

There are good reasons not to use them even when they do exist.

Firstly, they are technically shared with pedestrians, and pedestrians seem to make a point of using that one, despite the perfectly good pavement a few feet away.

Secondly, they are not gritted in the winter, and are often filled with debris.

They have plants encroaching on them.

That particular one has a metal manhole cover on the corner, very dangerous in the wet.

You do not have priority at side road junctions anymore, so you have to slow down and possibly stop.

 

That said, I use it when going up infirmary road, but not when coming down.

Anyway, it sounds like with no other alternative routes (cycle lanes) to use, and with no one thus far coming forward to say they have experienced the same thing, I think the OP's only option is to now get a head-cam of come kind to record video evidence?

 

I suspect that the OP might have felt targeted, but in reality the van driver was probably just inattentive, and/or ignorant, to the point of being dangerous. No malice or intent to hurt, but putting cyclists at risk through their driving.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:30 ----------

 

you see this is what i am trying to say, i know the law says to do this and that but in the real sometimes painful world we live in, its just not that simple.

the individual has to have some leeway as to how the implement the law at certain points in day to day lives.

this i feel is one of them and to say that the law MUST BE OBEYED AT ALL TIMES is just stupid. but if people insist then drivers should also be made to obey the law,that includes sticking to speed limits, not using your phone, not tail gating, dont drive without a seat belt on, dont drive with children in without a booster seat.. the list is endless. and how many of you on here have broken these laws???.. are you criminals then?..

 

It really is very simple to stop at red lights. It's not in the slightest difficult, it's safer, and it means that drivers won't associate me with your dangerous cycling.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:33 ----------

 

Kinda off the subject, but isit only me who thinks cyclists should have road insurance? Or do other believe that too. They're not above the law!

The law doesn't require that they have insurance, and there's really no good reason that they should.

 

What happens if a cyclist has a collision with a car and they're at fault? All damaged would have to be claimed through the drivers insurance. Wouldn't this effect their no claims?

 

Perhaps when you can answer your question correctly (the answer you gave is not correct) then you'll understand.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:40 ----------

 

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.

 

Deep down, it's wrong to go through a red light.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:43 ----------

 

yes that as it should be but cyclist know that if you sit in the red box at the front then traffic builds up behind you. Lorries and buses have a nasty habit of wandering into these and on some occasions even running into cyclist because the force them into the kerb edge.

If you sit in the centre of the lane, you cannot be forced into the kerb.

On balance i would much rather go through a red light if it is safe, for me, for other traffic, for pedestrians .

I really cant see the problem with this EXCEPT its against the highway code.

And that 'safe' depends on you correctly seeing everything and everyone and your judgement being sound.

But then again as i have said consonantly so is speeding and using phones.

But a lot of motorist break the law as far as these rules go.

On balance going through a red on a bike is nothing in comparison.

 

Neither are acceptable, that some motorists break the law is not justification for other motorists or cyclists or pedestrians to do the same.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:44 ----------

 

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

 

I'm pretty sure you've had it explained that wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of an accident.

 

It's a personal choice to wear or not to wear, and failure to understand the arguments for and against is a failure of intelligence, unlike an active decision to not wear one.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:46 ----------

 

True,

 

I guess that brings up an entirely new debate. Should laws be made to stop people hurting themselves? Seat belts, crash helmets etc. What about sports, swimming in the sea etc?

 

Seat belts and helmets are nothing to do with personal safety, and all to do with the cost to society.

If cyclists were regularly getting head injuries and the cost to the NHS was large AND it could be reduced by compulsory helmet use, then it would be worth it. But none of those is correct.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:46 ----------

 

But stupid people need protecting.

 

What do we do about people who don't understand the argument then, like you?

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 10:59 ----------

 

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.

 

What about them. You constantly try to justify your own law breaking by pointing out that some others do it as well.

 

Should we all be allowed to commit murder because a few people do? That's basically the justification you're using.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 11:01 ----------

 

Its about time that cyclists should be made to have insurance and a reg plate.

I'm fed up of cyclists shouting at me when it obvious that they are the ones not obeying the rules of the road not me.

If they had a reg plate I could report them but they are just anonymous.

 

Really, do you really think that's a good idea.

 

For starters, you're probably doing something dangerous if cyclists are shouting at you.

 

Secondly, do you report car drivers that shout at you?

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 11:03 ----------

 

Actually Homeopathy is based on dilutions of substances that would cause the symptoms in higher concentrations. A little bit like digitalis in too high a dosage can kill and in the right dosage, being used for some heart complaints works.

 

 

it's based on dilutions that are so dilute that nothing of the original substance is there. And the explanation is that water has some sort of magic memory about the original substance. It's complete and utter bilge.

[dutch]

Its about time that cyclists should be made to have insurance and a reg plate.

I'm fed up of cyclists shouting at me when it obvious that they are the ones not obeying the rules of the road not me.

If they had a reg plate I could report them but they are just anonymous.

 

You may live in a cloud of frustration unhappiness disappointment.

Obeying the rules too much can turn a society in something very ugly. These cyclists are nowhere near as mad as some driver who thinks they need a reg plate.

[adamf]

funny that because i was driving down jenkin road yesterday and the push bike in front was doing well over 30mph as i was doing 30 and he left me for dead.so it,s not just motor cars that speed.and it,s not all bikers that are bad just some...................just like car drivers

 

In the UK, speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.

[JFKvsNixon]

In the UK, speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.

 

There is a of crime peddling vigorously, which covers speeding cyclists.

[altus]

There is a of crime peddling vigorously, which covers speeding cyclists.

 

I doubt "peddling vigorously" is required to exceed 30 MPH going down Jenkin Road although the bends and junctions do make it advisable to limit your speed on that road.

 

I think the law refers to "cycling furiously" rather than "peddling vigorously".

[JFKvsNixon]

I doubt "peddling vigorously" is required to exceed 30 MPH going down Jenkin Road although the bends and junctions do make it advisable to limit your speed on that road.

 

I think the law refers to "cycling furiously" rather than "peddling vigorously".

 

I bow to your superior knowledge. I remember a professional cyclist or an Olympic cyclist was done for this, and he was talking about it on the radio, he said it was some obscure 19th century law.

[Penistone999]

There is a of crime peddling vigorously, which covers speeding cyclists.

 

Which we all know is never upheld and cyclists do as they please as they think the laws of the road no not apply to them. They are a menace on the roads .

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 13:05 ----------

 

Its about time that cyclists should be made to have insurance and a reg plate.

I'm fed up of cyclists shouting at me when it obvious that they are the ones not obeying the rules of the road not me.

If they had a reg plate I could report them but they are just anonymous.

 

 

Totally agree, but as we know it will never happen and the lycra clad lunatics will continue to be allowed to do as the please on the roads , because no matter what they do ,no matter which laws of the road they break ,in their mind they are doing nothing wrong and motorists are to blame for EVERYTHING. This is the mentality of the two wheeled lunatics.

[Cyclone]

Yes, look at all the cyclists not telling monkey69 that he is wrong to run red lights.

 

It's like you actually inhabit a different world to everyone else, and only access this world to post your inanities on the forum.

[damageandy]

Which we all know is never upheld and cyclists do as they please as they think the laws of the road no not apply to them. They are a menace on the roads .

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2014 at 13:05 ----------

 

 

 

Totally agree, but as we know it will never happen and the lycra clad lunatics will continue to be allowed to do as the please on the roads , because no matter what they do ,no matter which laws of the road they break ,in their mind they are doing nothing wrong and motorists are to blame for EVERYTHING. This is the mentality of the two wheeled lunatics.

 

Could you be anymore of a stereotype if you tried?

 

SOME cyclists are a menace, so are SOME drivers. Difference is all you have to look at are the deaths and injury stats caused by each group to realise which need regulated, but carry on ignoring facts - its what the stupid rely on i suppose.

 

It is quite obvious from reading any of your posts on the subject its you and your attitude that is the problem.

 

As a driver (and a cyclist but i do about 1% of my cycling miles on the road) its not the lycra gang i fear, they arnt going to kill me, its the bad and awful drivers.