Stupid cyclists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

theblackwatch

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,369
Out of interest, how many of the 'experts' on this thread have passed their cycling proficiency?

I'll start off the list myself by saying I have.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
Ridiculous! You admit it's not their fault, so why don't you blame the people whose fault it is then, and ask them to correct their bad behaviour instead of asking cyclists to give up their rights?

Which is why dangerous overtaking should NOT be done. So why don't you have a go at the people who do it instead of having a go at cyclists?:roll:

...

Cyclists are the problem? No, it's the dangerous motorists who overtake in contravention of the Highway Code are the problem.
I'm not saying it's the cyclist's fault, but it could be prevented if they had the courtesy to move over on some narrower roads where their presence causes tailbacks and reckless drivers try to overtake them. Of course, the people who do so are "the problem", but why shouldn't slower traffic move over? On rural roads, the slower agricultural vehicles do so at every possible opportunity to allow traffic past, so I don't see why cyclists don't.

Do you think that the cars that gridlock my city on a daily basis making average speeds about walking pace should do the same and pull aside to let cyclists past? Or is that "different"?
I would never drive in a city in rush hour anyway, but yes that is different. Why? Well, there's more space on the roads, so it's easier to overtake the bikes. Indeed, many cities have cycle lanes and ASLs which make cycling easier when motorists respect them.

You seem to have missed my point, which is surprising given your usual point-by-point analysis of my previous response. I'm saying that on narrow, rural roads where overtaking the cyclist would dangerous, that it would be courteous to pull over in a safe place and allow traffic past. And in one or two of the roads that come into my mind, a safe place may be to pull onto an empty pavement and come to a halt. Of course, a passing place/parking place would be far more desirable.


No, it's illegal and a totally daft suggestion. cyclists have the right to use the road, and you can't deny that right.
Correct, of course. And I do not deny them that right. I get frustrated from time to time and I admit to that; I imagine most motorists do, whether or Nevertheless, I respect the right and treat them with respect on the road. I would never do anything to put a cyclist in danger. There's also a respinsability to be safe when on the road, for both the cyclists and for the motorists. I believe the safest option on some narrow roads would be to allow faster cars to pass if necessary. I'm not saying they should always ride on the pavement, as you go on to suggest. I'm not saying that they should be banned from the road. I'm saying that it would be responsible and courteous to let faster traffic through on occasion, as outlined above.

Do you respect that right? You just said they should be on the pavement in some places!
Yes I do. See above. The pavement was merely an example, but I think they should let faster traffic past when possible.

Why is the solution for cyclists to go on the pavement? Surely the solution is to stop these "dangerous morons" from driving?
The solution is not to restrict cyclists to the pavement. You are trying your hardest to put these words into my mouth, but that is not what I'm saying. Not at all.I was saying that, on certain narrow roads, if a cyclist has a long queue of traffic behind them, which is struggling to overtake or unable to overtake the cyclist, then in that case the cyclist should pull over, halt and proceed behind the faster traffic. Ideally, a passing place or a parking place would be used, but mounting an empty pavement and halting may well be the best suggestion.

Getting the "dangerous morons" off the road would be a dream, but it's impossible to implement. I encounter multiple idiots every time I go onto the road, people who cut you off at roundabouts and so on. It would be amazing to get these people off the road, but it just isn't realistically going to happen. There's not enough police to justify that, and if we put more cameras up, the anti-surveillance rally (which, IIRC, you support?) would go ballistic. I recently heard someone say "Once I pass my test, I don't have to drive sensibly any more". Obviously, the person was joking, but looking at a lot of people on the roads, I think some people genuinely take this advice to heart.

I look forward to reading your next breakdown of my post, explaining very clearly why my opinion is wrong yet again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Have I ever sat a cycling proficiency test? Sadly, no. But I've never claimed to be an expert, and I've only been offering my opinion on the matter. Surely, you don't need a qualification to comment on something? If you did, this forum probably wouldn't be in existence; only railway staff would be able to discuss anything.

That said, if I was ever given the opportunity to sit the test, I would have grabbed it with both hands. My school didn't offer the test, sadly.
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,212
Location
South West
I overtook a bike at 80mph on a blind bend in a 50 yesterday. Good darts 8)

Then I overtook the whole bloody Tour de France I think a bit further up the road. Either put some signs up or shut the road and I will find an alternative road, but I didn't need to come up behind 25ish bikes on a twisty turny country road unexpectedly!
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
When it comes to the idea of cyclists using the road well if they so badly want to why don't they pay road tax also because if you lot so badly want to use the road and shut the motorists up then pay the exact fares we do to use it.
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,212
Location
South West
Just a note about the earlier conversation on speed cameras - yes, positioning is awful.

There is one just into the village of Codnor in Derbyshire. You come down a hill on a left hand bend in a 60, at the bottom of the hill is a 30 and a speed camera just behind it. If you don't know the road, you almost certainly will be flashed!
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
I passed my cycling proficiency - but is there anything like that now?

Bet most cyclists have never been told a single thing about the rules of the road - hence the belief that road signs and signals only apply to motorised vehicles.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
When it comes to the idea of cyclists using the road well if they so badly want to why don't they pay road tax also because if you lot so badly want to use the road and shut the motorists up then pay the exact fares we do to use it.
Oh dear, not that again! As I said before, there is no "road tax" and no "fares" to use the road! There is vehicle excise duty, and it is chargeable based on emissions, but old vehicles and emergency vehicles are exempt. The 'greenest' cars pay nothing.

So a vintage vehicle pays no "road tax" as you call it (which it isn't, but anyway..), so are you waging a war against owners of vintage vehicles too, or are you just anti-cyclist?
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
trucks are the worst.
I have to disagree with that. I've never had any problems with larger vehicles like trucks and buses, if you're not stupid and don't go into their blind spots in a stupid place, like approaching a junction, i find that they're generally better than some car drivers.

When it comes to the idea of cyclists using the road well if they so badly want to why don't they pay road tax also because if you lot so badly want to use the road and shut the motorists up then pay the exact fares we do to use it.
How can you charge VED, which is based on the carbon emissions, usually from an internal combustion engine, for a bicycle, as it has no engine (And don't split hairs about the person riding it being an engine, you know what I mean).

Out of interest, how many of the 'experts' on this thread have passed their cycling proficiency?

I'll start off the list myself by saying I have.
I have.
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
are you just anti-cyclist?
Yorkie are you just Anti me? because I really get that impression as It does look like you have completly written me off as a human due to my road rage.

I can tell you are a pro cyclist but what you fail to remember is there are a majority of us who would much rather have a car I mean come one this is a Railway Enthusiast forum we love big nasty emission pumping machines.
So being a pro cyclist doesn't really work out except for traveling along former railway routes quicker.

I like bikes to be honest I own one and stick to the pavement just because im happier there so I'm not anti-cycle but I am sick of cyclists banging on about how they deserve rights and what not when they just plonk themselves onto the road with hardly any speed and expect no incidents to happen. And now apparently when cyclists start verbally abusing someone on a Mo-ped according to you it's all the non-cyclists fault.

Im sorry if im going to town on this one but I'll carry on till you start agreeing on some of the important points aka me not starting the situation I was involved in.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
Yorkie are you just Anti me? because I really get that impression as It does look like you have completly written me off as a human due to my road rage.
Not at all; I just asked a question - which you ignored!
.... I am sick of cyclists banging on about how they deserve rights and what not when they just plonk themselves onto the road with hardly any speed and expect no incidents to happen.
It is reasonable to "expect no incidents to happen" if you are just riding along a road sensibly, is it not?
And now apparently when cyclists start verbally abusing someone on a Mo-ped according to you it's all the non-cyclists fault.
Well that isn't what happened according to your original posts on the subject, which indicate that you initiated it by making a comment to him to which he responded.
Im sorry if im going to town on this one but I'll carry on till you start agreeing on some of the important points aka me not starting the situation I was involved in.
Unless you provide an aerial view of the location and more information about the speeds involved, it is very difficult to judge the original incident, but my main concern is the aggressive beeping that occurred after that, and you indicating you'd be happy to do that again.

Any chance of answering the VED question please? ;)
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
I can't exactly work out what happened here. Were you approaching a T junction at which you had to give way? If so, then what is wrong with what the cyclist did, as I can think of plenty of junctions around here where the on-road cycle lane continues right up to the point which you have to stop or give way, on the left hand side.
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
I can't exactly work out what happened here. Were you approaching a T junction at which you had to give way? If so, then what is wrong with what the cyclist did, as I can think of plenty of junctions around here where the on-road cycle lane continues right up to the point which you have to stop or give way, on the left hand side.
Okay the last time I explain exactly what happened.

1.I was travelling down a straight road around 40 Mph when I approached a cyclist going around 20 Mph.

2. with about 100 yards to go till a T junction which had no cycle lanes or speed boxed area I decided to overtake the cyclist due to our difference in speed.

3.I successfully had overtaken the cyclist and had around 50 yards to go so I applied my brakes and successfully stopped at the T junction to give way to any traffic on the road I was joining.

4.I waited for one car to pass by me traveling the direction I needed to travel and once this car had passed I move the throttle when a cyclist came and overtook me on my right hand side resulting in me heavily braking and shocked.

5. I opened my helmet and addressed the man asking what he was doing considering I nearly went into him (so I actually care about cyclists)

6.He decided to meet my question with a rather rude remark and rode off.

7.So in my annoyance I decided to forget the rules and annoy the cyclist because frankly I wasn't going to take being put down by someone of whom I didn't disrespect first.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
100 yards is too close at those speeds. The Highway Code says you "MUST NOT" do that. At 20mph the cyclist was about 3 seconds from the junction! To overtake someone that close to a junction if you are then going to be turning left is against the Highway Code. So you were originally at fault (like it or not). Even if you think it is acceptable, the cyclist will not, and understandably so!

I don't see the cyclist did anything wrong if he was along side you though, but if he cut across you then he was wrong, but you didn't originally say this is what happened. You then had a conversation with him which suggests you were along side him. You said you were annoyed that he was "queue jumping" which rather suggests a dispute about queuing rather than any safety concern. So which was it?
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
100 yards is too close at those speeds. The Highway Code says you "MUST NOT" do that. At 20mph the cyclist was about 3 seconds from the junction! To overtake someone that close to a junction if you are then going to be turning left is against the Highway Code. So you were originally at fault (like it or not). Even if you think it is acceptable, the cyclist will not, and understandably so!

I don't see the cyclist did anything wrong if he was along side you though, but if he cut across you then he was wrong, but you didn't originally say this is what happened. You then had a conversation with him which suggests you were along side him. You said you were annoyed that he was "queue jumping" which rather suggests a dispute about queuing rather than any safety concern. So which was it?
Well as I Mo-ped user we are not fully aware of the Highway code because we are not tested on it fully so I do my driving based upon what I feel is correct so not to different from the majority of cyclists who haven't been tested.

He did cut across me maybe I did not put this across right and I apologies for that but the conversation we me calling him behind then he turned around I spoke to him he replied then cycled off.

As for my queue jumping remark well considering I was about to pull out into a national speed limit road and a cyclist decides to cut across me sort of defines cutting in front to me because he simply could not wait for me to pull off.

I may not have been clear 100% on my original points and I am sorry for the confusion but honestly I have tried to explain as best as I can.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
OK, well I think the best thing to do is learn from this. Overtaking a cyclist when you have to stop isn't going to get you anywhere quicker anyway.

All road users should take more time to read the Highway Code. I'm not saying everyone should be an expert, but people should be more aware generally.

One rule that a lot of car drivers seem to disregard (and this is nothing to do with cycling) is this one:



Too many cars will either threaten to run people over, beep to scare them, or force the pedestrian to stop as they force themselves in front. <(

Given how lethal cars can be to pedestrians, that's a very nasty thing for people to do. Yet so many do it!
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
OK, well I think the best thing to do is learn from this. Overtaking a cyclist when you have to stop isn't going to get you anywhere quicker anyway.

All road users should take more time to read the Highway Code. I'm not saying everyone should be an expert, but people should be more aware generally.

One rule that a lot of car drivers seem to disregard (and this is nothing to do with cycling) is this one:



Too many cars will either threaten to run people over, beep to scare them, or force the pedestrian to stop as they force themselves in front. <(

Given how lethal cars can be to pedestrians, that's a very nasty thing for people to do. Yet so many do it!

As someone who is on the road yet doesn't use a car I do understand the problems cars cause and when I annoyed that cyclist I felt at that time it was needed due to his rudeness because I will not be verbally abused by anyone.
Also although my action were stupid I would never have done them to the point where I would cause a person injury as that is not in my nature as Matt and Andrewmay will tell you.
Im abit hot headed but not cruel.
 

theblackwatch

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,369
OK, well I think the best thing to do is learn from this. Overtaking a cyclist when you have to stop isn't going to get you anywhere quicker anyway.

All road users should take more time to read the Highway Code. I'm not saying everyone should be an expert, but people should be more aware generally.

One rule that a lot of car drivers seem to disregard (and this is nothing to do with cycling) is this one:



Too many cars will either threaten to run people over, beep to scare them, or force the pedestrian to stop as they force themselves in front. <(

Given how lethal cars can be to pedestrians, that's a very nasty thing for people to do. Yet so many do it!
And in the interests of balance, pedestrians should remember this:


And at the same time I suspect a few need to familiarise themselves with this:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

I guess I'm probably right in thinking that the Green Cross Code isn't taught at school any more?
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
But as usual its always the drivers fault, with 'speeding' usually the excuse completely ignoring the stupidity of the person walking in front of traffic.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
But as usual its always the drivers fault, with 'speeding' usually the excuse completely ignoring the stupidity of the person walking in front of traffic.
There's some advice to cover this, which you must take:-

205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

206

Drive carefully and slowly when

  • in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218 ) or residential areas
  • driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road
  • passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly
  • needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement
  • reversing into a side road; look all around the vehicle and give way to any pedestrians who may be crossing the road
  • turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
  • the pavement is closed due to street repairs and pedestrians are directed to use the road
  • approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past
 

Max

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
5,357
Location
Cardiff
I guess I'm probably right in thinking that the Green Cross Code isn't taught at school any more?
Well, I was certainly taught it, but whether it's on the national curriculum or not I'm not sure. I also have my cycling proficiency :D.

And Phoenix, I'm hardly ganging up, I simply voiced my opinion on one aspect of your story - the level of your response to the cyclist. Just because I'm an administrator doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Clearly, if what you're now saying is true, the cyclist was wrong to overtake you on the right and subsequently force you to brake. But if you didn't expect a little bit of criticism for the daft way you acted towards the guy, I'm somewhat surprised :roll:!
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,212
Location
South West
Bikes should be banned. They aren't safe. Either that or give them numberplates, make them pass a test and charge them insurance.

Then there should be safe areas off roads for kids to cycle up and down on.
 
Last edited:

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
But as usual its always the drivers fault, with 'speeding' usually the excuse completely ignoring the stupidity of the person walking in front of traffic.
There's some advice to cover this, which you must take:-

205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

206

Drive carefully and slowly when

  • in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218 ) or residential areas
  • driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road
  • passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly
  • needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement
  • reversing into a side road; look all around the vehicle and give way to any pedestrians who may be crossing the road
  • turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
  • the pavement is closed due to street repairs and pedestrians are directed to use the road
  • approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past
That's all true, but there are plenty of moronic pedestrians who walk out infront of a vehicle with no regard for them. In this case, TheBlackWatch's "Rule 7" is being ignored. Rule 170 does say that you give way to pedestrians who cross, of course that's true. Coming out of junctions you should be prepared as you've said above. But why should drivers always obey their rule when some pedestrians have little or no regard for it? I've never heard a pedestrian to be prosecuted for unsafe crossing/walking, which is also the case in many accidents.

Just a thought that maybe, just maybe, not all car drivers are evil and it's not always them that break the rules.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
Well as I Mo-ped user we are not fully aware of the Highway code because we are not tested on it fully....
Actually that is also quite shocking, though prevalent. ALL road users are aware the Highway Code exists, and ALL road users (including pedestrians, cyclsts, wheelchair drivers...) should be aware of their responsibilities under it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top