cuttsie Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I commute northbound on the A61 through Grenoside out towards M1 junction 36, and regularly pass a couple of cyclists, sometimes more. I often have to wait until there is a break in the traffic coming the other way so that I can give the cyclist a wide berth when I overtake. I may have to wait a while - although it may seem to be a long time, it is typically usually only a few seconds. I can't understand the need some motorists have to squeeze past the cyclists when there is something coming the other way. And the impact of being held up by the cyclist? I still usually catch up with the car in front either near the Jet Station or, at worst, I join them in the queue at the McDonalds roundabout. One of the best feelings ever is when on the same road going into Town I am passed by a car who honks his ,her hooter at me or yells that my mother was not married etc.And then as Penistone Road arrives I gently pull up on their inside tap on the window and give the thumbs up. I can then proceed into Town at my leisure as honker sits in the BMW or Range Rover threatening to run over me if he ,she can only get past this bloody bus lane:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backwardben Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 like to see you all pick on these cyclist http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Weser%C3%BCbung-S%C3%BCd_Danes_2.PNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyR Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Not surprisingly no new ground has been covered on this thread so far. It like the daily commute of thread topics where nothing ever changes...the same cyclist hating the same road tax drivel the same generalising. I'm off for a ride! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hicksy3 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Perhaps if cyclists stuck to the road signs and the law, then people would respect them more ,I doubt this will happen.When does a RED light mean go thru ,when does a stop sign mean go thru ,why is it ok to overtake on the nearside ,why is ok to go up or down a one way street the wrong way Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Four days out of five I will witness a car go through a red light at the Ripley St./Langsett Road junction. I used to regularly see buses going through red lights at the Wicker/Blonk St. junctions. Not in last two weeks; has a camera been put up? It's OK to overtake on the nearside (WITH CARE!!!!!) if traffic is in lanes and the lane to your right is moving slower than you are (Highway Code). What else is a cyclist s'posed to do, sit there breathing in all that lovely exhaust? Lots of one way streets have contraflow cycle lanes. However, going wrong way without them is naughty so I don't do that. It's naughtier to swerve towards cyclists using a well-marked contraflow cycle lane perfectly legally though; that happens quite regularly on Sydney Street one-way section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It probably goes down as well as drivers speeding, and we all know how many do that. This tit for tat war could go on for ever. Can't we all just admit that there are good and bad drivers, and good and bad cyclists, and also can we stop trying to hold all cyclists accountable for the actions of the bad cyclists? I agree that there ARE bad drivers and bad cyclists. What I cant understand how some cyclists seem to want to justify breaking the law when they should in fact be condemning those cyclists who break the law like I would condemn those drivers who do. I dont like crivers who tear through lights at amber and indeed at times speed up!! They are an accident looking for somewhere to happen and equally I dont like the cyclists who go through red lights, particularly on the pedestrian crossing on Arundel Gate, where it seems like stopping at the lights is for wimps where most cyclists are concerned. And they are NOT merely creeping through the red light because its safe for THEM. Its pure arrogance and sod the poor pedestrian who cant jump out of the way quick enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Ignorance is bliss (and annoying for everyone else). Roads are paid for from general taxation so anyone who pays income tax or VAT or any other tax pays for the roads. VED pays for your use of a polluting vehicle. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 08:39 ---------- I don't think nipping onto a path and using a pedestrian crossing really warrants such a reaction. Nobody gets hurt as a result of this - just look at the statistics. So who pays for these special cycle lanes then that part of the national cycle network. Is it muggings taxpayer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The much used argument that making cyclists do some kind of test or training before they go out onto the main roads is a barrier to them using the road... if someone who wants to be a cyclist on the major roads isn't prepared to spend just a little time with a more experienced cyclist, just until they get a feel of the road conditions - then I'd be worried that other obstacles, such as red lights, might also be too much of an inconvenience to them too, with that attitude. It is much used. It's also very valid- based on studies and actual stats. It's a straightforward fact that more cyclists on the road = safer road conditions for cyclists. I'm not aware of any evidence that that effect is diminished if a portion of those cyclists are inexperienced. Even if there was, it would cease at the point those inexperienced cyclists, having been on the roads a while, became experienced. Just increasing the number of cyclists on the road with ill-prepared novices can't be a good thing, and will just add to the number of incidents on the roads, and no doubt injuries/deaths would increase too. Can't it? Why not? You got a shred of evidence that it can't? Cos "increasing the number of cyclists on the road with ill-prepared novices" means more cyclists on the roads, and, according to the evidence, more cyclists on the roads = safer roads for cyclists. If you believe inexperience offsets that effect, then you'll be needing to provide some evidence of that. If you're going to spend hundreds of pounds on a flash bike, what's another fiver or so on top of that, if it helps prepare cyclists better? Any barrier to cycling, whether it's compulsory helmets, compulsory tests, or, a compulsory "fiver" equates directly to less cyclists on the road, and, hence, less safe road conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I agree that there ARE bad drivers and bad cyclists. What I cant understand how some cyclists seem to want to justify breaking the law when they should in fact be condemning those cyclists who break the law like I would condemn those drivers who do. I dont like crivers who tear through lights at amber and indeed at times speed up!! They are an accident looking for somewhere to happen and equally I dont like the cyclists who go through red lights, particularly on the pedestrian crossing on Arundel Gate, where it seems like stopping at the lights is for wimps where most cyclists are concerned. And they are NOT merely creeping through the red light because its safe for THEM. Its pure arrogance and sod the poor pedestrian who cant jump out of the way quick enough Most drivers pick and chose what rules they follow when they driving, and justify it on the grounds that it's safe to do so. For example, how many drivers keep to 70MPH on the motorways? My other point also still stands, what has the actions of these cyclists got to do with other cyclists? I was knocked off my cycle a few weeks ago on the way to work by a lady, the first thing she said -I'm sorry I normally look when I pull out of this junction. Would I be justified coming on here and ranting at you because of the actions of the lady, or is this lady alone accountable for her own actions? Why can't we have the same rules with cyclists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hicksy3 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 So who pays for these special cycle lanes then that part of the national cycle network. Is it muggings taxpayer? If they reduce vehicle numbers on the road they pay for themselves in reduced wear and tear of the road surface. As I said in my earlier post, a cycle and rider does between a thousand and ten thousand times less damage to the road surface than a car. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 So who pays for these special cycle lanes then that part of the national cycle network. Is it muggings taxpayer? Of course it's muggings tax payer, the same as it's muggings tax payer who pays for the motorways - regardless of whether they have a car or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts