Road issues that irritate me.......

NiallBoo

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.

It's worth noting that the cyclist will have a much better view of the road, road surface and traffic, and so be in a much better position to judge what's safe.

It's also worth noting that a road surface that's safe for a car might not be safe for a bike - surface is usually worst at the edges.

Seth Brundle

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.
And he never said anything about a country road.
And it's obvious to any one reading this that he is nervous because the cyclist might do something unpredictable, thereby causing an incident.



Maybe you should re evaluate your reading comprehension skills?

I interpreted narrow road as a country road (not sure why).
However at least my comprehension skills are not likely to kill someone!

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Because they are two different manoevres, with different levels of risk involved! Do I really need to spell that out, or do you go by some kind of childish tit-for-tat rule on the roads?

Cyclist have just as much of a right to be on the roads as motorists. That means they obey the same rules too.

Colser

Pinch Flat wrote:

How long do you get stuck behind a cyclist? I take it it's a daily occurrence that eats up hours of your time? I can never understand how people will happily sit for hours in bumper to bumper traffic, yet a cyclist "holding them up" and their world collapses around them.

It happens most days tbh but no doubt you'll say that's not true. I'm not going to discuss it further because obviously we have different opinions on the matter and there's no point in getting personal.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.
And he never said anything about a country road.
And it's obvious to any one reading this that he is nervous because the cyclist might do something unpredictable, thereby causing an incident.

Once he gives the cyclist plenty of room, the chances of the cyclist causing an incident are minimal. Nervous drivers are another matter entirely.

pablo128 wrote: »

Cyclist have just as much of a right to be on the roads as motorists. That means they obey the same rules too.

Actually, it doesn't. The rules are different for cyclists. There is no speed limit for cyclists, believe it or not. And I'm sure there are other differences too.

When a car passes a bike and the motorist screws up, somebody dies or gets injured. When a cyclist filters past a car and screws up, somebody gets a broken wing mirror or a scratch on their door. I presume you can see the difference in these two scenarios, and the different guidance attached. I presume you understand that the stopping distance for a HGV is different to the stopping distance for a Micra and is different to the stopping distance for a bike. Of course there are different expectations for drivers of different vehicles.

RainyDay

Colser wrote: »

It happens most days tbh but no doubt you'll say that's not true. I'm not going to discuss it further because obviously we have different opinions on the matter and there's no point in getting personal.

Interesting - and what proportion of your time do you spend stuck behind a cyclist vs time spent stuck behind a car? And how often do you hold up cyclists behind you in heavy urban traffic - just to get the full picture of these issues.

Pinch Flat

Colser wrote: »

It happens most days tbh but no doubt you'll say that's not true. I'm not going to discuss it further because obviously we have different opinions on the matter and there's no point in getting personal.

It's not a case of getting personal - I'm just curious that you're faced by cyclists who'd be better off having mirrors because they're wobbly that "hold you up" for lengthy periods on a daily basis.

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Once he gives the cyclist plenty of room, the chances of the cyclist causing an incident are minimal. Nervous drivers are another matter entirely.


Actually, it doesn't. The rules are different for cyclists. There is no speed limit for cyclists, believe it or not. And I'm sure there are other differences too.

So they would be prosecuted for a different offence if caught speeding, and..... is that it? My point stands. Same rules for all.

Colser

Pinch Flat wrote:

It's not a case of getting personal - I'm just curious that you're faced by cyclists who'd be better off having mirrors because they're wobbly that "hold you up" for lengthy periods on a daily basis.

It's more that I'm cautious about passing cyclists unless it's very safe.If I tip off a car the chances of someone being hurt is minimal but with a cyclist it's likely to be very different.I'm sure that a lot of drivers would pass them much quicker than I do but as I said I'm nervous in that situation..BTW I don't think that means I need to improve my driving skills but better safe than sorry imo.

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

So they would be prosecuted for a different offence if caught speeding, and..... is that it? My point stands. Same rules for all.

Eh no, they wouldn't be prosecuted for any offence if caught speeding, because there is no offence related to speeding for cyclists. Your point fails - different rules for all, because cyclists are not 'motor vehicles' under the Road Traffic Acts.

Are you really having difficulty in understanding different passing spaces for road users of different sizes/speeds/momentum?

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Eh no, they wouldn't be prosecuted for any offence if caught speeding, because there is no offence related to speeding for cyclists. Your point fails - different rules for all, because cyclists are not 'motor vehicles' under the Road Traffic Acts.

Are you really having difficulty in understanding different passing spaces for road users of different sizes/speeds/momentum?

Yes. I give the same amount of room to all other road users to be honest.

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

Yes. I give the same amount of room to all other road users to be honest.

Do you expect the same amount of passing space from a cyclist with a 10 kg bike doing 10 kmph and a HGV weighing 10 tonnes or more doing 80 kmph?

Latatian

Came across someone today doing 10kph on a small, windy road where it was impossible to overtake, and braking rhythmically, every 3 seconds or so. There did not seem to be any connection between the braking and the road conditions- it was as if they were listening to a song and braking in time with it or something, it was that regular and monotonous.

The traffic warden came and pulled them over.

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you expect the same amount of passing space from a cyclist with a 10 kg bike doing 10 kmph and a HGV weighing 10 tonnes or more doing 80 kmph?

Passing space, yes. Filtering up the inside, no. However full on cycling up the inside in slow moving or stopped traffic is utterly stupid in my book. Just as a cyclist will cycle in the middle of the lane to stop cars overtaking dangerously, if I'm turning left I will hug the kerb to prevent cyclists undertaking me dangerously. I think that's fair.

RainyDay

Latatian wrote: »

Came across someone today doing 10kph on a small, windy road where it was impossible to overtake, and braking rhythmically, every 3 seconds or so. There did not seem to be any connection between the braking and the road conditions- it was as if they were listening to a song and braking in time with it or something, it was that regular and monotonous.

The traffic warden came and pulled them over.

And then the pig flew overhead!

Traffic wardens have nothing to do with cyclists. They deal with parking.

pablo128 wrote: »

Passing space, yes. Filtering up the inside, no. However full on cycling up the inside in slow moving or stopped traffic is utterly stupid in my book. Just as a cyclist will cycle in the middle of the lane to stop cars overtaking dangerously, if I'm turning left I will hug the kerb to prevent cyclists undertaking me dangerously. I think that's fair.

Your book is not the Rules of the Road, as it happens. Go back and check the Rules of the Road and you'll see that you're wrong on two counts.

railer201

RainyDay wrote: »

The gives the game away a bit - this is some kind of game for you, some point-scoring issue. So you choose the 'per hour' or 'per mile' stats that suit your twisted arguement, even though they ignore the basic reality that;

- Vast majority of people killed on the road are motorists
- Next in overall numbers are walkists
- Finally, a very small number of cyclists

And of those cyclists that are killed, there is absolutely no evidence that their own behaviour is a significant factor in these collisions. Where formal research has been done, it shows that most of the time, the root cause is dangerous driving.

So if you really have any significant interest in safety or saving lives on the road, you need to change driver behaviours. But I'm not sure that you really are interested in that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29878233

Quote:

Starting with distance travelled, a cyclist travelling a mile in Great Britain is 15 times more likely to have a fatal accident than a car driver going the same distance.

Quote:
Based on the time spent travelling, a cyclist is five times more likely to have a fatal accident than a car driver.

That's how you compare modes statistically but clearly it doesn't fit in with your cycling creed of blaming the motorist for everything. Better to stick to the totals eh !!! :rolleyes:

RainyDay

railer201 wrote: »

That's how you compare modes statistically but clearly it doesn't fit in with your cycling creed of blaming the motorist for everything. Better to stick to the totals eh !!! :rolleyes:

If you want to save lives on the road, do you reckon that focus on the 95% of deaths involving motorists or the 5% of deaths involving cyclists would give the best return?

maudgonner

RainyDay wrote: »

And then the pig flew overhead!

Traffic wardens have nothing to do with cyclists. They deal with parking.

Where in that post did it mention that the person pulled over was a cyclist?

Pinch Flat

pablo128 wrote: »

However full on cycling up the inside in slow moving or stopped traffic is utterly stupid in my book.

Clearly cycling at full speed - with the risk of being "doored" or a car deciding to turn left suddenly - is something that would be front if my mind, but filtering on the left of slow moving or stationary cars is perfectly legal.

pablo128 wrote: »

Just as a cyclist will cycle in the middle of the lane to stop cars overtaking dangerously, if I'm turning left I will hug the kerb to prevent cyclists undertaking me dangerously. I think that's fair.

No issue with cycling or driving defensively. Cars turning left in front of me is one of my pet hates and high up the list of idiotic behaviour you'll experience on a daily basis. As long as a motorist is exceecosong due care and attention and a cyclist is paying attention to motorists indicting and turning left, this manoeuvre should be easy to execute by both groups of road users.

pablo128

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Clearly cycling at full speed - with the risk of being "doored" or a car deciding to turn left suddenly - is something that would be front if my mind, but filtering on the left of slow moving or stationary cars is perfectly legal.



No issue with cycling or driving defensively. Cars turning left in front of me is one of my pet hates and high up the list of idiotic behaviour you'll experience on a daily basis. As long as a motorist is excercising due care and attention and a cyclist is paying attention to motorists indicting and turning left, this manoeuvre should be easy to execute by both groups of road users.

I can't argue with that.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

The gives the game away a bit - this is some kind of game for you, some point-scoring issue. So you choose the 'per hour' or 'per mile' stats that suit your twisted arguement, even though they ignore the basic reality that;

- Vast majority of people killed on the road are motorists
- Next in overall numbers are walkists
- Finally, a very small number of cyclists

And of those cyclists that are killed, there is absolutely no evidence that their own behaviour is a significant factor in these collisions. Where formal research has been done, it shows that most of the time, the root cause is dangerous driving.

So if you really have any significant interest in safety or saving lives on the road, you need to change driver behaviours. But I'm not sure that you really are interested in that.

But this thread is not about a competition of who gets killed most on the roads, it's about "Road issues that irritate."

Cyclists irritate a lot of drivers.
Because drivers have to look after their welfare, have to anticipate their poor road sense, so as to avoid hurting them.

I don't mind if it's a kid cycling to school who crosses the road in front of me without looking, although I wonder if the parents should be aware I have saved their childs life by braking early in anticipation and they almost got their child killed by sending him/her out on a bike without enough knowledge to stay safe, but the adults in lycra who expect me to accommodate their sometimes suicidal actions in traffic, do irritate me.

MadDog76

Latatian wrote: »

Came across someone today doing 10kph on a small, windy road where it was impossible to overtake, and braking rhythmically, every 3 seconds or so. There did not seem to be any connection between the braking and the road conditions- it was as if they were listening to a song and braking in time with it or something, it was that regular and monotonous.

The traffic warden came and pulled them over.

RainyDay wrote: »

And then the pig flew overhead!

Traffic wardens have nothing to do with cyclists. They deal with parking.

Typically aggressive/defensive cyclist quick to point the finger of blame elsewhere (anywhere in fact!) ........... that post never mentioned a cyclist at all.

MadDog76

StewartGriffin wrote: »

But this thread is not about a competition of who gets killed most on the roads, it's about "Road issues that irritate."

Cyclists irritate a lot of drivers.
Because drivers have to look after their welfare, have to anticipate their poor road sense, so as to avoid hurting them.

I don't mind if it's a kid cycling to school who crosses the road in front of me without looking, although I wonder if the parents should be aware I have saved their childs life by braking early in anticipation and they almost got their child killed by sending him/her out on a bike without enough knowledge to stay safe, but the adults in lycra who expect me to accommodate their sometimes suicidal actions in traffic, do irritate me.

That sums it up perfectly ........... cyclists do irritate a lot of drivers, and with good reason, whether cyclists like/accept that fact or not is really irrelevant.

coolbeans

MadDog76 wrote: »

... cyclists do irritate a lot of drivers, and with good reason, whether cyclists like/accept that fact or not is really irrelevant.

And in other news, water is wet. Thanks for that Captain Obvious.

Page 40 like...

NiallBoo

One thing that irritates me is how any discussion of cycling and motoring always turns into some weird battle.

Nobody ever seems to learn anything from them and everybody comes away even more polarised in their opinions.

(It also ruins perfectly nice rant threads)

talking_walnut

NiallBoo wrote: »

One thing that irritates me is how any discussion of cycling and motoring always turns into some weird battle.

Nobody ever seems to learn anything from them and everybody comes away even more polarised in their opinions.

(It also ruins perfectly nice rant threads)

It's like you're born one or the other and must defend it above all else, until your untimely death on the road

Biggest personal peeve on the road is how long it takes people to start moving when the lights turn green. Get off your Facebook! And don't wait until the car in front of you has left before putting your own car in gear.

whoopsadoodles

I was crossing a road in a town last night, a very nice man coming from one direction stopped completely and waited until my way was clear the other direction to allow me to cross. It was over a minute that he sat there holding up traffic going through the town, at 5.15 in the evening!

It was very kind of him, but if I'd been behind him in the car I'm not sure I would have been quite so impressed :P

OldNotWIse

Veloce150 wrote: »

And for the driver to t-bone a cyclist coming up your inside in the bicycle lane...

It's not my responsibility to make sure other drivers don't hit cyclists. When you put yourself behind a wheel, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you don't hit a cyclist. I can see someone standing up in court and successfully arguing that another driver "made them" do it...

talking_walnut

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks - so it's definitely just personal opinion then. Good to know.

No dude. It's basic physics.

talking_walnut

The King of Moo wrote: »

Which applies equally to cars.

Look, a cyclist with earphones (unless they've got noise-cancelling earbuds wedged into their ears and volume up full, which I've never heard of happening) can hear ambient noise perfectly fine, usually moreso than a driver.

I can hear traffic, I can hear voices, I can hear relevant chimes and sirens.

Of course I'm partly focused on the music, just as I am when I'm driving.
But the human brain is great at compartmentalising. I can passively listen to music while still taking in the noises around me, just as I can when I drive.

Listening to music is functionally no different to listening to music while driving, except in that it might be less of a risk as cyclists are more exposed to ambient sound.

Cyclists listening to music is simply not an issue.

Seriously. Stop fooling yourself. You're impeding one of your primary senses when you wear headphones. Whether car drivers are more impaired or not doesn't matter. You're the one on the bike. Again, wear your headphones if you want, but don't pretend it doesn't impede your senses.


You also have an incorrect understanding of noise-cancelling headphones. They cancel out continuous, repetitive noise. They don't cancel out "one-shot" noises such as talking, beeps, shouts, etc.