Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[PeteM01]

Eh?

 

Someone stopped at a red light, and you've no sympathy they got rear ended?

 

 

They *nearly* got rear-ended, so it isn't quite as hard-hearted as you make out. My point is that if you begin decelerating as soon as you see amber (and not red), your intentions are clear to the driver behind you. Of course, this may not matter if they are texting or insane, or both, but at least you have done your bit as the driver in front.

[Squiggs]

They *nearly* got rear-ended, so it isn't quite as hard-hearted as you make out. My point is that if you begin decelerating as soon as you see amber (and not red), your intentions are clear to the driver behind you. Of course, this may not matter if they are texting or insane, or both, but at least you have done your bit as the driver in front.

 

A little bit more obvious if in a wide vehicle travelling at 40 and you slow to 25, than if you are travelling on a narrow vehicle at 18 and you slow to 12, no? Given speed and perspective issues

[AlexAtkin]

Having said that, he's wrong about EaterSundae - it was obvious what ES meant and it wasn't that he was intending to go screaming through an amber light.

 

I don't think it was obvious at all.

 

Considering how many drivers don't seem to grasp the concept of what amber means, its not unreasonable to misunderstand as he gave no indication in his original post that he had been preparing to stop on amber.

 

I would have expected him to say "I almost got rear-ended for stopping on amber". By saying red it was perfectly reasonable to think he literally MEANT red.

 

I'm not saying that to be argumentative either, its how I interpreted his post.

[mattleonard]

I don't think it was obvious at all.

 

Considering how many drivers don't seem to grasp the concept of what amber means, its not unreasonable to misunderstand as he gave no indication in his original post that he had been preparing to stop on amber.

 

I would have expected him to say "I almost got rear-ended for stopping on amber". By saying red it was perfectly reasonable to think he literally MEANT red.

 

I'm not saying that to be argumentative either, its how I interpreted his post.

 

Apart from the fact that he said that he thought he'd comfortably stop and the light was red. So yes, he did literally MEAN red.

 

You're right that many drivers don't seem to grasp the concept of what amber means - and for that reason it wouldn't necessarily be a huge shock if the car behind had nearly piled into him when it was amber; but they'd nearly piled into him when it was red. It doesn't make the former, hypothetical scenario OK, but by the sounds of it, it accurately describes the actual scenario and makes clear just how late the motorist behind thought they could get away with going through the red light.

 

The fact that ES thought he'd comfortably stop when it was red suggests he probably handled the actual situation OK, quite possibly including slowing down whilst it was amber. The fact that he didn't stop at an amber light presumably had something to do with the light not being amber when he arrived at it. Or do you think on seeing an amber light a driver should accelerate and then do an emergency stop in order to ensure that they stop at the line before the light turns red?

[jezzyjj]

You're right that many drivers don't seem to grasp the concept of what amber means - and for that reason it wouldn't necessarily be a huge shock if the car behind had nearly piled into him when it was amber; but they'd nearly piled into him when it was red.

 

As far as I can tell - when driving a car, amber means accelerate.

Red means the first two cars can keep going.

 

---------- Post added 10-06-2015 at 20:19 ----------

 

I was amused when I came ame across these two posts in a thread about the modified junction in Broomhill.

 

You still take your life in your hands. The number of drivers who ignore the red light on the Crookes filter is unbelievable.

The number of idiots who cross the road, oblivious of traffic, whilst playing with their phones is also unbelievable.

[mattleonard]

In the last week I've experienced some of the most shocking driving I've ever encountered. Twice on Little London Road I've had people attempt to speed through a tiny gap between me and some parked cars - on one time successfully, and then turning left up Aukley Road immediately, cutting me up, on the other occasion swearing at me and flipping me the bird when I made room for her at safe point for her to overtake.

 

Then this morning on a different stretch of road I look over my shoulder and see a car a distance behind me, indicate right, look again - still safe - and move into position for the right turn. At this point the lady behind accelerates and pulls across to my right to attempt to overtake just in front where I would turn - only she's now careering straight at oncoming cars and a traffic island, so she swerves back in at me, cutting me up. I'm amazed that I, her, and the driver of the oncoming car all escaped unscathed.

 

What's interesting is that with the exception of the second driver, I have no evidence of there actually being any animosity. I think there's a bigger problem, which is a reckless ambivalence. In all three occasions I was in primary position; I'd have no problem with not doing so, if all motorists displayed enough common sense to not choose such dangerous points to overtake. Unfortunately some continue to do so, despite lots of training which they shouldn't need in order to realise those particular manoeuvres are idiotic. The fact that I do cycle primary position in such circumstances daily prevents such recklessness, and the vast majority of people don't mind and aren't even affected as they'd never consider something so stupid. What shocked me about two of these incidents was that the drivers concerned still went ahead, making the situation multiple times more dangerous.

[Cyclone]

And this is why cyclists need cameras. If you had been hit the footage would at least provide proof of who was in the wrong.

And since you weren't hit, you could have at least passed it on to the police, since what you describe in the last one sounds like driving without due care.

 

I've had a good week, apart from pedestrians in the cycle path on Langsett Road, I've nothing to really complain about, although I have seen multiple cars run red lights and 1 cyclists on the pavement for no good reason this morning.

[JFKvsNixon]

That's happend a few times to me, and it really it really shook me up.I

 

've been in the centre of the road, indicating to turn right, and just about to start the manoeuvre when a car has gone on the opposite side of the road to overtake me. I dread to think what would have happen if I manoeuvred just a little earlier.

[gordius]

That's happend a few times to me, and it really it really shook me up.I

 

've been in the centre of the road, indicating to turn right, and just about to start the manoeuvre when a car has gone on the opposite side of the road to overtake me. I dread to think what would have happen if I manoeuvred just a little earlier.

 

 

This has happened to me at least 3 times too - I would say that one of those was the closest I've been to been killed on my bike... I got home shaking after that one.

Clearly the obvious road positioning, and the arm sticking right the way out, typically clad in some sort of day-glo material, isn't quite enough in the way of indication for some people.

Animosity towards cyclists??? I don't know....

[WalkleyIan]

And this is why cyclists need cameras. If you had been hit the footage would at least provide proof of who was in the wrong.

 

 

My case is now moving onto the CPS. One count of assault and one of a driving offence and possibly non insured thrown into the mix

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2015 at 10:26 ----------

 

Have a look at this , tram, bikes, cars, trucks mobility scooters, all flowing nicely. Doesn't look to be any animosity at all (or helmets for that matter but that's another debate).