Infirmary Road Tesco - are drivers targeting cyclists?

[No User Name]

Why?

 

I'm a motorist and I don't feel insulted at all.

!

 

 

Well its been changed now.

[richkent]

...its much safer for the cyclist to use their own judgment and go through red lights...

 

You're not fit to be on the road. Sell your bike and catch a bus.

 

but cyclist dont kill people with speed!

 

Not true. People have been killed and seriously injured by speeding cyclists.

[Cyclone]

 

Not true. People have been killed and seriously injured by speeding cyclists.

 

Very few people.

The risk from cars is quite clearly much higher.

[James77]

I think a lot of this comes down to a mixture of 'divide & rule', and a general trend of low intelligence amongst drivers.

 

A bit like those 'furrowed-brow' types on here who blame all of society's problems on benefit claimants and immigrants, rather than looking up. Drivers generally cannot stand to see cyclists and the like using common sense, in respect to traffic lights etc. They'll shout "THEY SHOULD OBEY THE LAW" "PAY ROAD TAX" etc etc.

It really isn't that difficult to understand, that motorists need to heed traffic light signals because they're in control of a two-tonne moving object and the potential for serious damage to other road users is high. Whereas a cyclist will generally only hurt themselves. It's about common sense and personal responsibility. Rather than "THEY SHOULD, BECAUSE I HAVE TO" (Though I guess if you're using a car for personal transportation in 2013, then you have to be a bit simple Unless of course you're disabled, or drive for your job).

 

People should think for themselves, rather than treating every little problem with more laws, signs, warnings, rules & regulations.

 

Actually, I take all that back. They should introduce a mandatory 'basic intelligence test' to be included alongside the theory and practical driving tests.

[Guest]

Who prefer to risk being run down, rather than walk on the separate pedestrian pavement 3 feet away!

 

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/

 

I think a lot of this comes down to a mixture of 'divide & rule', and a general trend of low intelligence amongst drivers.

 

Wow, way to make friends there. Insult the majority of people here.

 

Cyclists are committing an offence if they go through a red light, it's nothing to do with personal responsibility.

[monkey69]

It's people like you, who think it's ok to run red lights that give cyclists a bad name...

 

I haven't cycled for a few years (mostly because I cannot afford a bike) but when I did, I always followed the rules of the road, stopped at red lights, approached roundabouts properly, followed one way rules, lane changes were always indicated etc...

 

I followed these rules for a few reasons, but the main of these was my own safety, so I knew the rules, I knew what the cars SHOULD be doing in certain situations, so I knew what to expect, and also so that cars knew what I was doing..

I had some driving lessons, took (and passed) my theory test, but I haven't had the final test (can't afford it)

 

It pains me so much to see so many cars breaking the rules... the most common of these being

 

*" Not indicating for turns or lane changes... "*

 

This one, can not just cause accidents on the roads involving other cars, or cyclists, but can also affect pedestrians if they are trying to cross the road, at a junction (T), they look, see it's clear, see a car that's NOT indicating, so they feel it's safe to cross, they start to cross, only for the car to turn, have to slam the breaks on so they don't hit the person, which could cause endless issues, cars behind them, or even a cyclist if they are in the left side as the car turns left and slams the breaks on..

 

... Any ways, that's my opinion, and rant over... :/

 

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 ??

[alchemist]

I think a lot of this comes down to a mixture of 'divide & rule', and a general trend of low intelligence amongst drivers.

 

A bit like those 'furrowed-brow' types on here who blame all of society's problems on benefit claimants and immigrants, rather than looking up. Drivers generally cannot stand to see cyclists and the like using common sense, in respect to traffic lights etc. They'll shout "THEY SHOULD OBEY THE LAW" "PAY ROAD TAX" etc etc.

It really isn't that difficult to understand, that motorists need to heed traffic light signals because they're in control of a two-tonne moving object and the potential for serious damage to other road users is high. Whereas a cyclist will generally only hurt themselves. It's about common sense and personal responsibility. Rather than "THEY SHOULD, BECAUSE I HAVE TO" (Though I guess if you're using a car for personal transportation in 2013, then you have to be a bit simple Unless of course you're disabled, or drive for your job).

 

People should think for themselves, rather than treating every little problem with more laws, signs, warnings, rules & regulations.

 

Actually, I take all that back. They should introduce a mandatory 'basic intelligence test' to be included alongside the theory and practical driving tests.

 

so i take it that you are in the monkey school of sod the law I will do what i want and just hope no one gets hurt? The rule is stop at the red light, simples

 

Oh, BTW the basic intelligence test should also be taken by cyclsts, more so it seems in yours and monkeys case

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 13:34 ----------

 

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.

 

do we seem to have a broken record here?

[monkey69]

so i take it that you are in the monkey school of sod the law I will do what i want and just hope no one gets hurt? The rule is stop at the red light, simples

 

Oh, BTW the basic intelligence test should also be taken by cyclsts, more so it seems in yours and monkeys case

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 13:34 ----------

 

 

do we seem to have a broken record here?

 

haha love that keep it coming it just shows your attitude to people who try to communicate properly on here without resorting to name calling!:rant:

[Frayava]

The issue of going through red lights raises the question of what rules should cyclists obey. Go through red - if it suits. Why not disobey all the rules - if it suits.

 

As for the addition of "when its safe" that opens up a whole new can of worms. It is a judgement call and the number of acccidents in general suggest that many are caused by an incorrect judgement call.

 

Stop at the lights: if the cars. lorries etc at the front are itching to race through at the first hint of amber- let them. Then set off with the rest of the traffic flow.

[James77]

Wow, way to make friends there. Insult the majority of people here.

 

Cyclists are committing an offence if they go through a red light, it's nothing to do with personal responsibility.

 

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.