Increased Police Vigilance

[monkey69]

I agree it is bad reasoning, but some non-cyclists think this way, and see all cyclists as being bad. They pick on anything they can to vilify all cyclists because of something that they can specifically identify as being illegal. It gives them some moral high ground from which to attack all cyclists. It might not be justified, but while ever somec yclists ignore red lights it is not going to go away.

 

Who said anything about ignoring the lights??. personally 99% of the time i do exactly what the lights indicate, BUT their are some instances when you just are stuck at a set until a car comes along.

That could be quite a while in some cases, So in that instance isn't it practical to use your own judgment over what the lights are commanding you to do?

[Squiggs]

Who said anything about ignoring the lights??. personally 99% of the time i do exactly what the lights indicate, BUT their are some instances when you just are stuck at a set until a car comes along.

That could be quite a while in some cases, So in that instance isn't it practical to use your own judgment over what the lights are commanding you to do?

 

Are you still banging on about that rare occurrence? The horse is dead, you can stop flogging it.

[monkey69]

Are you still banging on about that rare occurrence? The horse is dead, you can stop flogging it.

 

thought that was the first thread on this post? or am i missing something??

[onewheeldave]

Respectfully, I entirely disagree. Were I to hit a car travelling at under 30mph through a junction, it would be very unlikely to end in a serious injury or death. However, the cyclists (or indeed pedestrians) who pop out in front of me while jumping red lights, when I proceed on green, make me angry because they put themselves at such a great risk of injury or death!

Just to re-state: the cyclists here, myself included, only go through reds in the many scenarios where they is no danger to them. Because they are entering a clear stretch of road where there are no cars.

 

Like we've said, the motivation is because, in our judgement, it's safer to go through the red, than launch on the green with a pack of hasty car drivers jockying for position.

 

I'm happy to admit that some other cyclists do launch themselves into real danger through bad judgement or impatience- but that's irrelevant to the case I've made.

 

And, for those who do put themselves in that danger- that's their choice, as are the consequences.

 

Almost certainly they'll be the ones to get hurt, as when car hits bike, it's amost alwys the cyclist who gets maimed/killed.

 

 

The second reason it annoys me, when I drive my car (as opposed to getting on my bike which I used to do regularly) which I suspect is the real reason it annoys most car drivers, is that by jumping red lights they put themselves back in front of me. This is irksome to me because I take care to only overtake cyclists by leaving plenty of room. By jumping the red light they often unnecessarily impede my progress for a long time afterwards.

 

Cylists do not impede- you simply have to overtake them leaving the proper amount of room.

 

If you can't, it's cos the opposite lane is full of cars, or, because the side of the roads are occupied by large numbers of parked cars.

 

If the roads weren't clogged to the absolute max and beyond, with ludicrous amounts of cars, you'd be able to overtake. Use your eyes, open your mind, see the real cause.

 

Every cyclist on the road is one less car, and one less car is one less vehicle clogging the road system.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:09 ----------

 

The former comment - what were my words which gave you the impression I can't negotiate a blind corner?

 

I've explained the overtaking - simple maths. You need more room to overtake a wider object than a narrow object. To say or claim otherwise is just plain stupid. I mean properly properly stupid and unintelligent. Do I need to draw a picture for the imbeciles?

Highway code disagrees-

 

"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"

 

says 'at least', implying that you need to give them more than you would a car (wider object).

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:20 ----------

 

Which then leads to the vicious cycle of people with a vendetta against cyclists, who even take to twitter to boast about hitting cyclists

 

So thanks for encouraging people like that. It's much appreciated when they take out their aggression which you add to, upon me. Cheers!

 

 

I just don't believe it dude.

 

quote= ]Emma Way, 22, clipped cyclist Toby Hockley with her car in Norfolk in May.

 

She then tweeted: "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

 

Norwich magistrates convicted her of failing to stop after an accident and failing to report it, which she denied.

 

Way, of Watton, was acquitted of driving without due care and attention.

 

She was ordered to pay a £337 fine, £300 in costs and was given seven points on her licence.

 

I refuse to accept that people like that are using any kind of reasoning going from 'that cyclist just went through a red' to 'I'm going to deliberately mow down a cyclist'.

 

What I do believe is that there are some seriously f***ed up mentally twisted sickos who, due to their messed up mentalities, take pleasure in the fact that when they're in their sad little metal boxes, they can take out their pain on someone who isn't in a metal box.

 

And you'll never know which of the metal boxes revving up around you contain such an individual. So, if I judge that I can be safely through the red, down the road for 50 yards, then off up a side street and avoid them entirely, then you'll have to excuse me for doing what I see as necessary to maximise my chances of getting home uncrushed.

 

And if you cannot see that, then carry on classing us all as 'irresponsible', putting us all in the same comfy little box and, basically giving credence to the 'reasoning' of sickos like the above- but, you are deluded.

[RonJeremy]

Highway code disagrees-

 

"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"

 

says 'at least', implying that you need to give them more than you would a car (wider object).

 

Exactly... and if they are riding two abreast, then the obstacle is wider than if they were riding in single file and so you are further over on the road and when I am coming the other way I have to take avoiding action because some numpty is overtaking in an unsafe manner because the cyclists are riding in an unsafe manner.

It is very basic measurements. Surely you cant be so obtuse as not to be able to understand that?

Here is a picture https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 .

You have to scroll down a little bit - if you can manage that:hihi:

[Becky B]

The former comment - what were my words which gave you the impression I can't negotiate a blind corner?

 

I've explained the overtaking - simple maths. You need more room to overtake a wider object than a narrow object. To say or claim otherwise is just plain stupid. I mean properly properly stupid and unintelligent. Do I need to draw a picture for the imbeciles?

 

Your implication is that if there is only one cyclist you don't need to cross the line, suggesting that you just barge past regardless of how close you pass. You said

"What a stupid comment - if you want to give about 2 - 3 feet of wobble room to a cyclist and the road is wide enough then of course it makes a difference whether you are 3 feet across the line or zero feet. It is very simple maths."

 

Whether it's a single cyclist or a pair riding abreast you generally should be crossing the line, not just squeezing past, a single lane isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist with adequate room, in the main.

 

Have you ever ridden a bike?

[onewheeldave]

Which then leads to the vicious cycle of people with a vendetta against cyclists, who even take to twitter to boast about hitting cyclists

 

So thanks for encouraging people like that. It's much appreciated when they take out their aggression which you add to, upon me. Cheers!

 

 

I just don't believe it dude.

 

Emma Way, 22, clipped cyclist Toby Hockley with her car in Norfolk in May.

 

She then tweeted: "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

 

Norwich magistrates convicted her of failing to stop after an accident and failing to report it, which she denied.

 

Way, of Watton, was acquitted of driving without due care and attention.

 

She was ordered to pay a £337 fine, £300 in costs and was given seven points on her licence.

 

I refuse to accept that people like that are using any kind of reasoning going from 'that cyclist just went through a red' to 'I'm going to deliberately mow down a cyclist'.

 

What I do believe is that there are some seriously f***ed up mentally twisted sickos who, due to their messed up mentalities, take pleasure in the fact that when they're in their sad little metal boxes, they can take out their pain on someone who isn't in a metal box.

 

And you'll never know which of the metal boxes revving up around you contain such an individual. So, if I judge that I can be safely through the red, down the road for 50 yards, then off up a side street and avoid them entirely, then you'll have to excuse me for doing what I see as necessary to maximise my chances of getting home uncrushed.

 

And if you cannot see that, then carry on classing us all as 'irresponsible', putting us all in the same comfy little box and, basically giving credence to the 'reasoning' of sickos like the above- but, you are deluded.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:34 ----------

 

Exactly... and if they are riding two abreast, then the obstacle is wider than if they were riding in single file and so you are further over on the road and when I am coming the other way I have to take avoiding action because some numpty is overtaking in an unsafe manner because the cyclists are riding in an unsafe manner.

It is very basic measurements. Surely you cant be so obtuse as not to be able to understand that?

Here is a picture https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 .

You have to scroll down a little bit - if you can manage that:hihi:

Take note of this people. This is the mentality of those who routinely put the lives of cyclists at risk with utter impunity, presumably cos they know that when they're in their metal boxes, they're not being put at risk of being crushed to death.

 

Despite whining about red light crossing cyclists 'breaking the law', they'll happily themselves dismiss the highway codes rules for passing a cyclist.

 

And then, bizzarely, imply by the tone of their post that they're conveying some kind of intellectual superiority.

Edited December 30, 2014 by onewheeldave

[RonJeremy]

Your implication is that if there is only one cyclist you don't need to cross the line, suggesting that you just barge past regardless of how close you pass. You said

"What a stupid comment - if you want to give about 2 - 3 feet of wobble room to a cyclist and the road is wide enough then of course it makes a difference whether you are 3 feet across the line or zero feet. It is very simple maths."

 

Whether it's a single cyclist or a pair riding abreast you generally should be crossing the line, not just squeezing past, a single lane isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist with adequate room, in the main.

 

Have you ever ridden a bike?

I used to cycle regularly - I'm too fat and old to bother now.

 

Where have I said what should happen? I live in the real world, where what does happen is other people overtake in dangerous situations because of some cyclists making the situation more dangerous.

 

Two bikes are wider than one. Simple. Even for the simple.

[onewheeldave]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg

 

For anyone who needs a picture

[RonJeremy]

Take note of this people. This is the mentality of those who routinely put the lives of cyclists at risk with utter impunity, presumably cos they know that when they're in their metal boxes, they're not being put at risk of being crushed to death.

 

Despite whining about red light crossing cyclists 'breaking the law', they'll happily themselves dismiss the highway codes rules for passing a cyclist.

 

And then, bizzarely, imply by the tone of their post that they're conveying some kind of intellectual superiority.

 

If you mean me? Where have I whined about a cyclist jumping a red light?

 

Where have I condoned driving unsafely and not giving enough room to cyclists? I have said that people do overtake in situations like this. Are you really too unintelligent to read and understand what I have said?

I am not saying what you imply - I am saying it HAPPENS.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:43 ----------

 

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg

 

For anyone who needs a picture

 

That's the same picture I posted a link to - is that for the stupid who cant scroll down?...

Edited December 30, 2014 by RonJeremy