Cyclone Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 You shouldn't be embarrassed about it dude, a lot of times it makes sense to stop at the reds It's embarrassing to the see the other cyclists giving us all a bad name. It always makes sense to stop at red lights. ---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 09:24 ---------- Err yes it was a one way street. It's NOT a one way street. Cycles can go in both directions. A get out of my way its my cycle path attitude is exactly the attitude of some on this thread. Arrogant cyclists. And I suppose a car sounding it's horn is an arrogant car driver. If you shout at me and i catch up with you, see what you get. Then youll probably be on here moaning that you got chinned by an angry pedestrian...it would be of your doing of course because you should of kept your mouth shut tough guy. Hilarious. I don't advocate violence of course, and I wouldn't threaten you (or anyone else), but I'd love for you to try and hit me, I could then legally adjust your attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 A get out of my way its my cycle path attitude is exactly the attitude of some on this thread. Arrogant cyclists. [/color] If you shout at me and i catch up with you, see what you get. Then youll probably be on here moaning that you got chinned by an angry pedestrian...it would be of your doing of course because you should of kept your mouth shut tough guy. By the sounds of it, it was more a "please don't get us both seriously hurt" attitude. I'd be much more grateful for someone angrily saving me from a big injury, rather than threatening violence against them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Err yes it was a one way street. ---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 00:40 ---------- A get out of my way its my cycle path attitude is exactly the attitude of some on this thread. Arrogant cyclists. ---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 00:43 ---------- This is an interesting point of view as over on general discussions there is a thread about pedestrian safety at junctions. The general tone of that thread is that the pedestrian should get out of the way of cars at all times, even if they have right of way. Arrogant motorists maybe? This whole hierarchy of might taking right , get out of my way or ill run you down attitude points to the need for a European style of presumed liability (civil not criminal) This would give at least some legal protection for cyclist and pedestrians from motor vehicles, but would also protect the pedestrians from the “arrogant” cyclists. A form of this is employed in many counties in Europe Strict liability builds a culture of mutual respect between road users Strict liability ensures the most vulnerable road users are protected – cyclists from motorists and pedestrians from cyclists. Strict liability facilitates the development of a road hierarchy based on mutual respect between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. There are some indications that the Scottish government is considering just such a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Strict liability facilitates the development of a road hierarchy based on mutual respect between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. The strict liability idea is interesting, but I'm far from convinced about it. For one thing, the respect codified into the law is by definition non-mutual. But more than that, as much as all road users should anticipate each other's stupidity, and make each other aware of their presence, it is possible for cyclists to cause accidents with cars and for pedestrians to cause accidents with bikes. By the sounds of it, the main reason why ubermaus's actions didn't result in an different was because he didn't step out into the road a moment later. I worry that far from fostering mutual respect, strict liability would legitimate resentment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 The strict liability idea is interesting, but I'm far from convinced about it. For one thing, the respect codified into the law is by definition non-mutual. But more than that, as much as all road users should anticipate each other's stupidity, and make each other aware of their presence, it is possible for cyclists to cause accidents with cars and for pedestrians to cause accidents with bikes. By the sounds of it, the main reason why ubermaus's actions didn't result in an different was because he didn't step out into the road a moment later. I worry that far from fostering mutual respect, strict liability would legitimate resentment. I agree it would need proper discussion but why is it accepted in so many other European countries? I'm also against this white painted line culture as it always creates an us and them between pedestrians and cyclists. Upper Hanover st cycle lane , Bingham park are classic examples that create conflict. Where there are no lines painted and people manage to avoid avoid each other (eg in front of the city hall, the university concourse, there are no recorded incidents) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I agree it would need proper discussion but why is it accepted in so many other European countries? I'm also against this white painted line culture as it always creates an us and them between pedestrians and cyclists. Upper Hanover st cycle lane , Bingham park are classic examples that create conflict. Where there are no lines painted and people manage to avoid avoid each other (eg in front of the city hall, the university concourse, there are no recorded incidents) I agree about cycle paths on pavements. I think the idea of a shared pavement would be much better. It should be the responsibility of the cyclist to keep out of the pedestrian's way. But the Barkers Pool example was basically a pedestrian stepping into the road without looking for traffic, and that is a problem. Especially if the pedestrian decided to do so as a taxi was passing, leaving the cyclist a choice of hitting the pedestrian or the taxi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 It's embarrassing to the see the other cyclists giving us all a bad name. It doesn't give all other cyclists a bad name. It can't. Extrapolating from one cyclist to all others is faulty logic- simple as that. I'm not saying people don't 'think': "that cyclist did something wrong, therefore all cyclists are the same"- they do. But it's got no basis in rationality- it is in fact prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondeo blade Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I will show respect for cyclist when they show respect for me .they should have to observe road signs like other road uses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I will show respect for cyclist when they show respect for me .they should have to observe road signs like other road uses How many drivers observe the 30mph road signs on Penistone Road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 How many drivers observe the 30mph road signs on Penistone Road? Or how many keep to 70 MPH on the motorway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts