Stupid cyclists

Status
Not open for further replies.

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
Bikes should be banned. They aren't safe.
No, they may not be safe, but that could be improved. The way people react to cyclists is often unsafe.

Either that or give them numberplates, make them pass a test and charge them insurance.
Maybe enforcing the Cycling Proficiency test would be good; a lot of cyclists don't seem to know the rules, and plenty of them disregard them. But the logistics involved would be mind boggling. You'd have to hire probably thousands of people to conduct the tests, and then this discriminates against the many safe cyclists on the road.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,214
Location
Midlands
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.
Well when i got knocked off, I was just riding normally. He was too close, didn't allow enough room. And yes I have passed tests and had 20 years experience at the time. In fact everyone at our school had to pass a cycling proficiency test. The other time someone just pulled out on me and knocked me off. The fact is modern roads are just not made for bikes.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Well when i got knocked off, I was just riding normally. He was too close, didn't allow enough room. And yes I have passed tests and had 20 years experience at the time. In fact everyone at our school had to pass a cycling proficiency test. The fact is modern roads are just not made for bikes.
As has been said previously, there are bad drivers in all vehicles.
I've never been hit by a bus or a truck, or even come close to being so, but I've nearly been hit by cars many times.
My friend who I'm usually with when cycling has been hit three times, I think, but every time he has been hit it's been a car being driven badly.
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,214
Location
Midlands
Well I really hope you don't get knocked off 90019. I think some of it depends on the roads, road here I wouldn't ride a bike because of the blind bends and badly laid out roads. It just at pains to recommend cycling to anyone on road these days, although some places are better for cycle paths than others.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
But why should drivers always obey their rule when some pedestrians have little or no regard for it?
Because that's what the Highway Code says, it says to expect it and to drive at an appropriate speed. If you disregard it you will beat least partially liable in the event of an "accident".

Remember you are in a lethal vehicle. A very good reason for obeying the rules.
In fact everyone at our school had to pass a cycling proficiency test.
I wish that were the case today! The lazy people who don't want to get on a bike and want everything on a plate and be driven everywhere would just get out of it these days though :|
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Well I really hope you don't get knocked off 90019. I think some of it depends on the roads, road here I wouldn't ride a bike because of the blind bends and badly laid out roads. It just at pains to recommend cycling to anyone on road these days, although some places are better for cycle paths than others.
It does seem to be better here. I mostly ride in the city, if I'm going further afield, I'll tend to use the car.
It's just a case of being careful and always aware of what's around you. I'm not saying you don't do that, I'm just commenting on what I have to do in the city. But I spend a lot of time looking behind and looking all around me, just so I know where everyone around me is.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
Because that's what the Highway Code says, it says to expect it and to drive at an appropriate speed. If you disregard it you will beat least partially liable in the event of an "accident".

Remember you are in a lethal vehicle. A very good reason for obeying the rules.
OK, of course most people obey the rules. But my point is that I've never heard of pedestrians being blamed for being run over. Drivers are told to expect pedestrians and to give way to those who have started to cross, and I cannot question that. But pedestrians are similarly told to look all around and listen before attempting to cross the road. Many of them do not, so why are they not liable? They've broken a rule of the road in the same way that the driver has.

The irony here is that, if I was talking about people jumping in front of trains, everyone would say that the pedestrian was wrong, was selfish and was putting the driver at risk. Yet, when someone blindly walks into the road, it's the drivers fault? I understand that pedestrians are not allowed to cross railway lines and that they are allowed to cross roads, but I fail to see why they're not responsible for their part of the deal as well.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
Pedestrians have right of way, although jumping in front of a car will probably mean you're going to wind up dead (but hey, you were legally right).

On the railway, it's trespass and you do NOT have right of way. Ditto at an airport where I presume planes have right of way over everything else that may go on the runway/taxi lanes.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
Pedestrians have right of way, although jumping in front of a car will probably mean you're going to wind up dead (but hey, you were legally right).

On the railway, it's trespass and you do NOT have right of way. Ditto at an airport where I presume planes have right of way over everything else that may go on the runway/taxi lanes.
Pedestrians only have right of way under certain circumstances and certain conditions.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
I believe pedestrians have right of way at junctions that are not controlled by lights or other means.
I maybe wrong but I believe the rule only applies to pedestrians that have already stepped into the road and started to cross. But in essence you are correct.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
AIUI, pedestrians have right of way at pedestrian crossings with a "green man" and at zebra crossings. As seen above, they also have right of way once they step onto the road which is a bit odd considering if they were to step onto the road ten metres in front of a car moving at 40mph without looking, the driver has to at that point give way to them. Even with the best of brakes, that is impossible.

But, whilst a driver that strikes that pedestrian is in violation of the Highway Code, the (probably deceased) pedestrian is in no way responsible, despite the fact that they failed to observe before stepping onto the road.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
I think that the way that we seem to make pedestrians vegetate at pedestrian crossings waiting an age for the lights to change is pretty stupid. I, for one, begrudge the removal of subways on busy roads. It also annoys me the fact that in slow moving traffic many people don't stop to allow people to cross the road where they could easily do so.

In many areas the balance is starting to be struck by giving public transport vehicles, cycles and pedestrians greater priority than cars but sadly that number is still quite small.

I also heard that the health benefits by cycling outweigh the minimal risk of being killed or injured on city streets.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
But, whilst a driver that strikes that pedestrian is in violation of the Highway Code
Not in all (nor probably most) cases. Pedestrians also have a duty of care to follow thier part of the highway code and as such should...

A: Cross at a safe place were possible.
B: Look both ways before crossing
C: Allow road users plenty of time and space.

If a pedestrian steps out into the road between two parked cars for example, 5 meters infront of an on coming car, then no court in the land would convict the driver if the car should hit him.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
3,698
Location
Birmingham
Having driven in London many times, a minority of cyclists and motorbike riders are very inconsiderate in traffic even making contact with my car in an effort to squeeze through the queueing traffic. But on the same token, there are a minority of inconsiderate car, bus and lorry drivers who do exactly the same and would think nothing of taking a chunk out of your car just to save seconds
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
Revent example, I was out tonight and a woman limped in front of me. I had plenty of time to stop, thankfully, and it wasn't as if anyone was hurt. But what got me was that she didn't even care to look in my direction. I did not once see her face.

When pulling out at a junction, you should not cause any cars to require to slow down, or so I've been told in the past. But this woman made me come to a complete halt whilst she hobbled across. The best part was that the traffic lights were only a few metres further down the road :roll:

Of course I've done that before. Most people have. But when I do that, I check before crossing. There's nothing worse as a motorist than having someone step in front of you to which you have to react calmly and quickly despite the obvious panic that would set in. Why don't they look both ways? Why don't they check before crossing? And why don't they use traffic lights when they're there, even if you have to walk a bit further to get to them.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
I think that the way that we seem to make pedestrians vegetate at pedestrian crossings waiting an age for the lights to change is pretty stupid. I, for one, begrudge the removal of subways on busy roads. It also annoys me the fact that in slow moving traffic many people don't stop to allow people to cross the road where they could easily do so.
This story may be of interest to you, Mojo. The bridge was ruined when a lorry crashed into it. The suggestion was to replace the bridge with traffic lights, but this was fought by local residents who now will get the bridge replaced, and a lower speed limit to boot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In many areas the balance is starting to be struck by giving public transport vehicles, cycles and pedestrians greater priority than cars but sadly that number is still quite small.
This is the big pro of congestion charging. In Glasgow in the peak time, driving around appears to be nearly impossible. I've never tried it in peak times because I'm sensible, but it's even bad off-peak as well. It's the same in most cities across the UK, of course. I would welcome congestion charging in Glasgow City Centre for motor vehicles; the public transport infrastrucutre is definitely in place, although I think a much needed subway modernisation programme would be good to handle the increased use.

I welcome bus and cycle lanes. They are only part time in Glasgow for the most part, but these lanes are for buses, cycles and taxis only, and are the "inside" lane. The benefits of this on, for example, Great Western Road and Edinburgh Road, are obvious. The traffic continues to flow, yet the buses are moving on, unobstructed, cyclists have less traffic to contend with and taxis get to their destinations quicker. This small change has probably done a world of good keeping the roads in the city, and indeed the city itself, moving.
 
Last edited:

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
Maybe its about time we introduced J walking as an offence?
I hope not, why should I have to wait to cross the road when there are no vehicles coming, and then only cross the road at authorised points? Streets are for people and we need to share it fairly.

There is a crossing near where I live, which is made up of two sets of lights and two islands. From the moment I pressed the button until the lights change is one and a half minute. The pedestrian lights change to green for five seconds, which is long enough to reach the first island. It then takes 30 seconds before the traffic lights return to green (both traffic & pedestrian lights are red for those 30 seconds). You then wait another 90 seconds to cross the next section and then a whole two minutes to cross the next section.

This is the case even at 3am.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
Mojo, I have one of those near where I live. If there're no cars, I often just walk/jog across each bit, as the visiblity is good. I know the road well, and often by pressing the button I unnecesarily disrupt the traffic as well.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
This is the case even at 3am.
Blame the council for a poor setup of the lights, or for us not being more like mainland Europe where some crossings will change to flashing amber at night. A crossing should not keep you waiting a set time when there's nothing on the road.

In Sweden, and no doubt many other places, at junctions the lights will go red every direction for vehicles - meaning it's first come, first served. With sensors placed far enough out, there's rarely any need to slow down. The lights stay green just as long as they need, and go back to red.

Pedestrians can then come along and cross immediately, assuming the lights are red and there's no vehicle passing.

So, at 3am, you can drive around Sweden as if there are no lights at all. And this is from a small village with barely any traffic to the centre of Stockholm (which is busy enough that they introduced the congestion charge like us).

I have no idea why we don't do the same here. Sitting at red lights at 4am waiting for set phases to complete is ridiculous. No wonder people jump lights.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I have no idea why we don't do the same here. Sitting at red lights at 4am waiting for set phases to complete is ridiculous. No wonder people jump lights.
The government are now saying we should do this.
However until recently, they were against lights working like this because it would cause a drop in revenue from fuel duty. There are a few sets of lights around that do this, but I only know of one, and that's near Dumfries.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
Well to be honest I don't see the point in waiting a set time for the lights to change unless it's to ensure that they have just changed. The fact that the waiting time is exactly the same whenever you press the button, whether that be when it has just been pressed or whether the last press was over ten minutes ago proves that there is no sort of sensor to detect whether traffic is approaching. What difference is there between making the lights change right away to waiting 90 seconds before changing?

I agree with you that we need to have more part-time light phases though, nothing more infuriating when the lights are red and nothing is coming, especially on a roundabout. There's one set of lights round here on a roundabout that are both timed and pretty stupid, people coming around the roundabout (or now it's got lights should it be called a traffic circle?) are held at red lights to allow people to join the roundabout, the only problem is nobody is joining due to another set of traffic lights 200mtrs along the road which are at red. When cars finally approach it, their lights go red to allow people to carry on around the roundabout.

I often complain about this junction because it had its easy-to-use subways replaced with crossings that make pedestrians go out of their way, risk lives darting between cars (few of which obey the badly signposted 20mph limit (somewhat understandably)).

Subways might not have been pleasant, but surely that's down to poor design rather than anything else. Perhaps we should start reclaiming our streets and making it easier to get around our cities on non-motorised transports? It was noticeably more pleasant when the main road past me was closed for a race a while ago. http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/transforming-nyc-streets-with-jsk/
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
I hope not, why should I have to wait to cross the road when there are no vehicles coming, and then only cross the road at authorised points? Streets are for people and we need to share it fairly.

There is a crossing near where I live, which is made up of two sets of lights and two islands. From the moment I pressed the button until the lights change is one and a half minute. The pedestrian lights change to green for five seconds, which is long enough to reach the first island. It then takes 30 seconds before the traffic lights return to green (both traffic & pedestrian lights are red for those 30 seconds). You then wait another 90 seconds to cross the next section and then a whole two minutes to cross the next section.

This is the case even at 3am.
Why should motorists have to be put through crap when a pedestrian aimlessly crosses the road right in front of them when their is a perfectly good crossing a few meters away?
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
The government are now saying we should do this.
I'm 35 and remember being fascinated by the traffic lights (in Sweden) changing as a car approached them outside my grand parents flat - so I presume they've worked like this over there for a good 30 years or so!!

Then again, they got LED traffic lights years ago too - and I remember the press release from the Highways Agency saying how revolutionary they were when we started to get them here!

(For the record, we DO have some junctions where lights are on sensors - but we don't have the concept of having them all red so no side has to wait)
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
Why should motorists have to be put through crap when a pedestrian aimlessly crosses the road right in front of them when their is a perfectly good crossing a few meters away?
Why should people on foot be even more disadvantaged by only being able to cross the road at authorised points?

That's not always my personal belief, but I'd also say that most people would check to see if there are vehicles approaching and only cross if they could get to a safe place in time.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
What if the nearest crossing is more than a couple of metres away, or if walking to the crossing meant missing a gap in traffic? Let's share the streets properly and give better priority to people on bikes and on foot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top