Stupid cyclists

Status
Not open for further replies.

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I like it how speed cameras in Scotland have to be visible by law.

There was one on the outskirts of Edinburgh, on the road going under the Gogar roundabout, just by the Gyle, which they were forced to take out because it was deemed to be hidden.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
Yes but at the same point, some 30 zones are ridiculous and its probably safer and more efficient to be doing 40mph in 5th gear than 30mph in 4th gear (safer in that you wont have some frustrated driver tailgaiting you - i hate that!). the 70-40 bit i was talking about is the M8 coatbridge exit where its left lane then immediate left into Bargeddie. The police hide there which makes you think its more revenue generating than safety! It should be more a case of common sense - surely its better to drive at a safe speed for the conditions rather than just aiming for the speed limit (which never ususally takes into account the road conditions). Some cyclists should definitely use the pavement though, especially coming up to roundabouts where its annoying to slow down to their speed, and dangerous (or impossible if its a right only lane for example) to overtake.
The police hide on that particular road because there have been plenty of accidents, according to a source who lives in the houses on the A8. It's a dangerous road, and the blind corners, hidden traffic lights, bus stops and an exit from a residential estate all add up to make the 40 limit actually rather sensible for the most part. Indeed, in Bargeddie itself, I rarely get anywhere near the 40mph limit because of the parked cars, and 40mph on Edinburgh Road is pretty insane for the most part given the frequency of the traffic lights.
 

adamp

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2007
Messages
694
Location
Manchester
Being a cyclist myself, riding down Deansgate in Manchester, Everyday im bewildered by the amount of people who pass me on their bike at a red light and just procceed accross a busy junction.
I dont get it !!!!!
-Adam
 

Demps

Member
Joined
11 May 2006
Messages
692
Location
York
Must admit, seeing mongeys ride on the pavement is annoying, i dont move for them, they soon get the picture.

Being a cyclist myself, riding down Deansgate in Manchester, Everyday im bewildered by the amount of people who pass me on their bike at a red light and just procceed accross a busy junction.
I dont get it !!!!!
-Adam
becuase its quicker, i do it.
 

Aussie_Rail

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2008
Messages
561
Location
London, Great Britain!
Annoying cyclists are pretty universal. Here in Melbourne, Beach Road, which follows along side Port Phillip Bay from Mordialloc to St Kilda/Elwood is a popular run for cyclists where particularly on weekends great hoards of riders use it.

The road is single lane either side with extra lanes for parking and there is a shared path for walkers and cyclists. Cyclists still ride on the road, and not just one or two, but its common to see groups of 20 or more all riding along the road, its one of the worst roads in Melbourne for riders.

There have even been people killed, a pedestrian was killed there after being hit by a rider, riders have been killed after being hit by cars, there have been road-rage incidents where motorists have attacked cyclists and in the C.B.D cyclists have been hit and killed by buses and trams.
 

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,085
Location
Milton Keynes
in germany, any laws broken by cyclists may result in a fine or imprisonment. Such as jumping red light, not using cycle path, cycling on pavement, cycling the wrong way on a cycle path, not having working lights, not having a bell and cycling whilst drunk. The latter of these offences can result in very large fine (>€2000), imprisonment and the loss of (car) driving licence, imprisonment is unusual, but the other two penalties are common.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
The police in the City of London are sometimes out doing cyclists for jumping red (nearly 90% of cyclists will jump lights - it's another world, really) and most seem to think that they did nothing wrong and they're being picked on. (To keep things on topic, I saw the police give someone a £60 fine for going through a red light on a railway crossing, when the police were accompanying RPIs at a block at Cheshunt station a week ago. He also argued that he did nothing wrong as the barriers hadn't come down and the lights were only for cars!).

Sadly, I've heard many people say it's okay for a cyclist to run a red because they don't apply to them. I guess that without the cycling proficiency tests, or indeed any training, in recent years - it's pretty fair to say that some of them are genuinely ignorant. Sure, it's no excuse - but who exactly tells a train commuter that decides to switch to a bike what the rules are. Just go to Halfords, buy a £100 poor-excuse-for-a-bike and let loose.

No wonder cycling accidents are on the rise, and for once I don't blame the motorists for them all. Just look how many cyclists think they can weave in and out, undertake and ride the pavements. Then look at how a motorcyclist doesn't. Motorcyclists and scooter riders don't go on pavements, they won't go weave through pedestrian crossings against a red.

And again, I ask, who is telling the cyclists the rules of the road and that they have to give way to pedestrians like any other 'vehicle'?
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
I like to think I am a sensible cyclist, and as such obey the rules of the road. I have seen cyclists being stupid doing things like going the wrong way down a one way street, but some motorists aren't much better, overtaking a cyclist then immediately turning left for example. Despite my good road sense, I have nearly been killed three times by drivers who 'are not paying attention to the road'.

There is a cycle lane not far from me which is there to bypass a large busy roundabout. Many times I have contemplated not using it, why? because when you get to the bottom of the ramp, no matter which way you go, you are greeted by a gradient that must be somewhere in the region of 1:2!

Most of the other cycle paths are either just pavements painted red, which people walk in regardless of what else needs to use it, or part of the road, but covered in debris from accidents or smashed bottles, not exactly good for bike wheels.

There is a brillliant cycle path near where I work too, it is over a footbridge, is signposted for cyclists to use, but just below the cycle route sign there is a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount".:idea:

On the subject of speed cameras, I usually hear two examples of why they are a bad thing and in both cases the arguement is badly flawed.

1) They are just a way to get money out of people.....

They only get money out of people who break the speed limit!

2) They actually cause more accidents.....

B****cks! Bad driving causes the accidents.

If everyone obeyed the rules of the road, be them cyclists or motorists, we wouldn't need cycle paths or speed cameras!
 

Death

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2006
Messages
1,639
Location
Sat at the control desk of 370666...
Hail all! <D
As an occasional cyclist myself, I thought I'd post a few observations on the matters being discussed above and my own take on them. :)

Traffic lights:
As anyone who has read (And obeys) the Highway Code will know, traffic lights apply to all vehicles and other traffic that uses the carriageway, and therefore I always take care to obey such signals at all times - Not only when I'm cycling, but also when I'm using the carriageway as a pedestrian at times when the footway is too crowded for me to use at my higher than average walking speed. 8)
I have to admit that I'm not entirely blameless in my use of the road though, as I sometimes perform C-SPADs (Cautionary signal pass at danger) as a pedestrian if - In my view - It is safe for me to cross the road/junction whilst that danger signal is showing, and that such actions will not affect or hamper any other road user. This only applies when I am on foot though, and I always comply with signals when I am on my bicycle. :)

Incidentally; If I am in a hurry and I get held up by a danger signal, I do sometimes dismount, walk my bicycle to the other side of the junction via the footway, then mount and continue my journey on the other side. However, I believe that this practice is lawful under the Highway Code.

Cycle lanes and carriageway usage:
My choice of either cycle lane or carriageway tends to depend on the conditions under which I am riding. If I'm travelling at a leisurely pace and in no hurry to get to my destination, then I tend to stick to cycle lanes all the way as I am generally only travelling at <= 15mph. On the other hand though, it's not uncommon for me to fly along at 30-40mph under ideal conditions, and in such instances I will prefer the carriageway as that is better equipped for such speeds.
After all, I would sooner chance being the weaker end of the equation where possible...My getting hit by a vehicle and coming off badly is one thing, but I would rather endure that than present a potential safety risk to pedestrians on a shared or segregated cycle path. If I hit a pedestrian at 40mph, there's a high chance that I would severely injure or possibly even kill them - Hence my preference for using the carriageway in such cases. :)

To summerise: I would say that up to 15mph is probabally a safe speed for a cyclist to use a shared foot and cycle path, and 20mph is probabally safe for segregated and dedicated cycleways. Above those speeds though, I would suggest using the carriageway for the benefit of pedestrians. Additionally, if a cyclist can accellerate to and maintain a constant 75mph over some distance (Some cyclists can!) then I would consider their use of motorways to also be safe and appropriate, although I am aware what the Highway Code says to the contrary. :shock:<D

Behavior on the carriageway:
Although I acknowlege and realise that my bicycle is both smaller and slower than the average car for the most part, I prefer to ride in the centre of my lane whenever I am using it - Taking this approach to "defensive riding" from when I was learning to ride a motorcycle about ten years ago. Obviously I do move aside where possible to allow other traffic to pass (Or stay in the cess if the traffic is heavy) but riding in the centre of the lane gives me a better view of the road ahead, plus it allows other road users to see me more clearly - Indeed, I take especial care to avoid entering drivers blind spots, and prefer insted to stay behind them where they can see me in their interior mirror. :)

Although I use the road in the same way on a bicycle as I would when driving a car (I.E: Yielding to others where the Highway Code says that I should, and vice-versa) I do make exceptions for some vehicles where safe for me to do so. Obviously I move aside ASAP to allow emergency service vehicles through, but where possible I also try to give priority to emerging buses if safe to - Even if that means holding up traffic in my lane briefly whilst doing so. 8)

in germany, any laws broken by cyclists may result in a fine or imprisonment. The latter of these offences can result in very large fine (>€2000), imprisonment and the loss of (car) driving licence, imprisonment is unusual, but the other two penalties are common.
I know that in Germany the matter of road safety is taken very seriously, but can I confirm that a pedestrian disregarding a "Red man" light at a pedestrian crossing can earn points on his licence, or even have his/her licence confiscated? :shock:
I was told this by a friend last time I was in Hamburg (As I normally C-SPAD when using pedestrian crossings if safe to do so) and although it seems plausable to me, it does seem a little unreasonable, given just how long it takes to get a "green man" from the average German traffic light! :?

There is a brillliant cycle path near where I work too, it is over a footbridge, is signposted for cyclists to use, but just below the cycle route sign there is a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount".:idea:
:shock::lol::razz:
(For those who speak no Welsh: The text in Cymraeg roughly translates as "Cyclists beware of your bladder infection!" :? )

Farewell...And stay safe! <D
>> Death <<
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
There's no jaywalking offence in the UK, so you can (as a pedestrian) do as you like. Of course, doing so to prove your immense power over everything else will likely end with you dead!

I also cycle from time to time and feel quite unique in obeying the rules, and I bet you get rather frustrated when you see you're rapidly becoming the exception to the rule. In London, it's too far gone for me to ever see a time where cyclists will obey the law.

The problem is, with everyone (almost) doing it, you simply think that it's the norm. The police can't (or won't) cope - and would always be accused of 'not doing something more important like catching murderers and rapists' so it's become acceptable.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,085
Speaking of stupid cylist, I was at Stirling on sat whilst the 1011 1H09 Glasgow Queen Street-Inverness pulled in, train was already full from Queen st. and standing from Stirling thanks to Scotrails 158 playing hide and seek, anyway.... the 4 Cylist were papped off the train and told to get the next train and make a reservation... Next train would of been the 1611 1H15 Glasgow Queen Street-Inverness, that 1011 to Inverness has always been a discrace
Whats your point? Also isnt there any from Edinburgh?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,543
Location
Yorkshire
Whats your point? Also isnt there any from Edinburgh?
That's what I was thinking. I think his point is that the train is very busy (not relevant to this topic!) but the next journey opportunity is certainly not 6 hours later.

Mind you, it'd be interesting if car drivers were told they had to wait a few hours as the motorway was too busy ;)
 

The Snap

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
3,116
Much safer for pedestrians........gee whizz. :roll:
Pedestrians will suffer far less serious injuries if a bike crashes into them than if a bike crashes into a car...

Plus, if you use a bell on your bike there’s no problem with alerting pedestrians to your presence...
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Pedestrians will suffer far less serious injuries if a bike crashes into them than if a bike crashes into a car...
Not always true.

Bicycles can kill pedestrians, and cars can kill cyclists, but, in the majority of cases of a bike being hit by a car, the damage is only to the bike, with little or none to the rider, whereas if a bike hits a pedestrian, especially if going at top speed, there almost always be injuries, and sometimes deaths. Collision are also more likely becuase of the much narrower space available.

On a normal city street, a cyclist is much better suited to the road because of the speed of around 20-30mph, which works fine with cars doing 30. Compare that to pedestrians on the pavement, which is usually only wide enough for a pedestrian and a bike to just pass, with pedestrians doing maybe 5mph, and you've got a bad mix.
 

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,085
Location
Milton Keynes
also, pedestrians (and cats) can seriously injure cyclists, friends have had broken pelvis and broken collar bone in such accidents
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I know that in Germany the matter of road safety is taken very seriously, but can I confirm that a pedestrian disregarding a "Red man" light at a pedestrian crossing can earn points on his licence, or even have his/her licence confiscated? :shock:
I was told this by a friend last time I was in Hamburg (As I normally C-SPAD when using pedestrian crossings if safe to do so) and although it seems plausable to me, it does seem a little unreasonable, given just how long it takes to get a "green man" from the average German traffic light! :?
Not heard about the points thing/driving licence, but you can get fined for crossing against a red pedestrian signal. However, if you are not at a light controlled crossing, you can cross when & where you like
 

theblackwatch

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,369
Plus, if you use a bell on your bike theres no problem with alerting pedestrians to your presence...
So you expect a pedestrian to move out of to move out of the way so you can act illegally? Perhaps car drivers can do the same to cyclists and blow their horns to alert them of their presence?


 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
But when theres an empty pavement on a 40 road they should be a little considerate of us that want to do 40. And we pay road tax :-P that ought to ruffle a few feathers... but considering the amount we pay (ridiculous really) it should be our right to be able to get to decent speeds without cyclists blocking a lane and not wearing any hi-vis on a blind bend...
 

The Snap

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
3,116
Not always true.

Bicycles can kill pedestrians, and cars can kill cyclists, but, in the majority of cases of a bike being hit by a car, the damage is only to the bike, with little or none to the rider, whereas if a bike hits a pedestrian, especially if going at top speed, there almost always be injuries, and sometimes deaths. Collision are also more likely because of the much narrower space available.

On a normal city street, a cyclist is much better suited to the road because of the speed of around 20-30mph, which works fine with cars doing 30. Compare that to pedestrians on the pavement, which is usually only wide enough for a pedestrian and a bike to just pass, with pedestrians doing maybe 5mph, and you've got a bad mix.
Yes I fully agree with that. In a city centre of busy area, it's a bad idea to be on the pavement. But, in an urban area where pedestrians are infrequent on the pavement, I see no problem with a bike being on the pavement away from passing cars...

So you expect a pedestrian to move out of to move out of the way so you can act illegally? Perhaps car drivers can do the same to cyclists and blow their horns to alert them of their presence?
I love winding people up on this forum - everyone takes things so seriously! :D I understand your point, but as I said above in reply to 90019, in urban areas, I see no problem.

oh i've made that mistake before too no amount of ridiculous names can excuse the fact that its £120 year for me to drive over potholes and come across cyclists blocking lanes
Couldn't agree more, especially with the pothole bit! I pay £125 to tax my car...and for what? What purpose does it actually serve? The councils don't resurface roads that need resurfacing, they resurface ones that have only just been done! And when they do that, they do it on a Sunday in the busiest areas, or at 8am on a Monday morning outside a school, or at 5pm on a Friday on the main road out of the town centre...!! Whoever appoints these idiots in charge of the road maintenance within the Local Council system need to be sacked and deported!!

Rant over! :)
 
Last edited:

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
And when they do that, they do it on a Sunday in the busiest areas, or at 8am on a Monday morning outside a school, or at 5pm on a Friday on the main road out of the town centre...!! Whoever appoints these idiots in charge of the road maintenance within the Local Council system need to be sacked and deported!!

Rant over! :)
I've got a theory about Edinburgh, that they have a certain number of holes in the road that they just move around the city every now and again. :P
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,543
Location
Yorkshire
But when theres an empty pavement on a 40 road they should be a little considerate of us that want to do 40.
No!
And we pay road tax :-P
No-one pays road tax!

If you are talking about VED, are you suggesting you have more right to be on the road than a vintage car, an emergency vehicle, or a low emissions car?

An absurd argument!
that ought to ruffle a few feathers... but considering the amount we pay (ridiculous really) it should be our right to be able to get to decent speeds without cyclists blocking a lane and not wearing any hi-vis on a blind bend...
Right so the more you pay in VED the higher priority?

So that puts the police, fire service, etc right at the bottom and 4x4s right at the top of the list of priorities?

Funny, I always thought it should be the other way round.

And you pay a lot of VED because you cause a lot of pollution with effects including causing more people to get athsma.
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,563
Location
London
Its often not safe to be on the roads, particularly with a strong cross winds. I got pretty damn ****ed off with a lorry overtaking far too close the other day, so made sure that I was out into the road to disallow overtaking.
 
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Messages
1,008
Location
Milton Keynes
I always suggest that you cycle about 3 feet from the curb / verge so that vehicles have to overtake you and generally the rule is that the gap between you and the curb / vege is the same as the gap between you and the overtaking traffic, and yes I do get scared by lorries and buses overtaking me
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
Yorkie do you drive? haha I honestly dont think you can realise how frustrating cyclists are until you are stuck behind one at ridiculous speeds when they can clearly go onto the pavement! I certainly do think that cars have more of a right to use the road than cyclists, after all thats what the roads these days are generally for. Obviously (and everyone knows I didnt mean THAT) emergency vehicles etc should be using the roads, but no cyclists please :( whatever next, pedestrians walking in the left lane. It's easy to say just move onto the right lane, but sometimes its a bit full with cars going a good 15 or so mph extra so you can either swerve in dangerously forcing someone to brake, or go at a deathly speed behind some cyclist (using more petrol at the same time - 20mph in 3rd is less efficient than 45 in 5th!). At the same point, if someone wants to drive a 4x4, let them! they pay an absurd amount of road tax, so they should at least errr....be able to use the road. Driving is getting worse :(
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I honestly dont think you can realise how frustrating cyclists are until you are stuck behind one at ridiculous speeds when they can clearly go onto the pavement!
So, you're fine with cyclists going on the pavement and endangering the lives of pedestrians simply so you don't have to overtake them?
In other words, you're quite happy to endager pedestrians because it makes things more convenient for you.

I certainly do think that cars have more of a right to use the road than cyclists, after all thats what the roads these days are generally for.
Where does it say this then?

Obviously (and everyone knows I didnt mean THAT) emergency vehicles etc should be using the roads, but no cyclists please :(
And why not exactly?

It's easy to say just move onto the right lane, but sometimes its a bit full with cars going a good 15 or so mph extra so you can either swerve in dangerously forcing someone to brake
Or, you could drive properly, indicate and wait patiently for someone to let you out, rather than driving like an ar*e and sitting right up behind a cyclist or sweving into the other lane.

or go at a deathly speed behind some cyclist (using more petrol at the same time - 20mph in 3rd is less efficient than 45 in 5th!)
So, in other words, it's all about you.
Right then, lets get rid of everyone who doesn't always go as fast as you would like them to then, since you're obviously the only one that matters and obviously the whole road network revolves around you.
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
Lmao oh I love heated debates! I hardly think its endangering the lives of pedestrians, a 40mph crash because you're swerving to avoid some cyclist that could be on the pavement is a TAD more dangerous. I am quite a good driver I think, and i drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions, but it can be quite trickly when everyone is in the right lane and you're stuck in the left, with NOBODY at all flashing you in. It is about me when im driving...seeing as theres nobody else in the car, at the end of the day I want to get to where im going safely and as quick as possible (NOT Speeding btw - driving at the optimum speed). Its definately true that some cyclists could easily be on the pavement and save me a small headache, honestly some roads up here the pavement next to is empty, whereas they're blocking a lane and swerving all over the place, so it's not even as if you can creep by them you have to go into the other lane!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top