cyclists are much more badly behaved
Comments
-
If you take out the bias it becomes more interesting - lose the stats that aren't offences from both sides (inc the 'almost causing a collision' as the judgement of the reporter is clearly biased) and the drivers offences drops from 380 to 321 and the cyclists from 719 to 181
So the cyclists 'offence rate' drops from 75% to 18% against 10% for the drivers. Take out the failures to indicate (which I think should be discounted) and you get about 7-8% for both cyclists and drivers proving that both are of the same species......
Bias? NaaaaahhhhhFaster than a tent.......0 -
Nobody going to point out the huge maths failure, or super math fail as I'm sure the kids call it?0
-
Indeed, you can't just add them up - they're lucky they didn't end up with more than 100%! For instance, the 83 cars "waiting in cycle box" would appear to be the same as the 83 crossing a stop line. I'd also be very surprised if the cyclists with no reflective clothing weren't responsible for a large chunk of the other "faults". The 74.2% and 12.1% figures at the bottom of the list are meaningless.bails87 wrote:One cyclist/driver could be counted twice if they fit into two or more "offence" categories?0 -
What a pointless biased article!! I'm suprised they didn't mark the cyclists down because they didn't have german bikes!0
-
I cycle on the pavement every day, and occasionally roll across red lights. I also cycle across zebra crossings, advance beyond ASLs when they're full,
Mostly I commit these offences when I have children on the bicycle, but I also do it when cycle routes on shared pavements end abruptly, and I roll across red lights (or past forward ASL lines) when I judge that it is going to be safer for me to be clearly ahead of traffic, than fighting to get off the line with (for example) the motorcycles which seem to view ASLs as theirs.
If people like jibberjim want ilmzero7 want to judge me for that, then go right ahead. I'm responsible for my safety, and the safety of anyone on my bicycle, and I'll do what's necessary to execute that responsibility.0 -
This doesn't surprise me. In Bristol I see dozens of cyclists break the law for every vehicle driver I see break the law. Of course I can't check that all the vehicles are road-worthy, taxed, insured, MOT'd etc. so there's more scope for rule breaking of drivers to go unnoticed. It would also be far more significant if a car were to mount a car or jump a red light, not that it's acceptable for cyclists to do so.0
-
jibberjim wrote:DarrenGTi wrote:I cycle to work and both jump lights and ride on the pavement. It is much safer that way. I jump the lights so I'm not battling the traffic on a big busy roundabout then use the pavement so I stay off a piece of dual carriageway. The rules of the road should perhaps by more friendly towards cyclists.
Ride a different route - you're a tosser who breaks the laws in a misguided idea that they don't apply to you with a justification to yourself that it's "safer" and "better". You're just an rude idiot.
Woah! This is part of the problem.
Intolerance.
Plenty of cities around the world have legalised RLJing for cyclists because it has been proven to be safer. And I don't think not wanting to be killed makes you a tosser.
Unfortunately we are living in a world where a 10kg bike is to share the road with powerful motorised vehicles weighing well in excess of a ton. On an evolutionary scale we are closer to pedestrians than we ever will be to cars and trucks. Yet we don't call them tossers when they sneak across the lights before the green man comes on.
Why is that?
Because not only must we share the road, we are stupidly bound by the same rules, and people get upset when they perceive you to be getting one over the system in which they are enforced to adhere to. It's about time cyclists were recognised as an individual entity on the roads. And only then can we start being sensible about it.
Tosser
0 -
DarrenGTi wrote:I cycle to work and both jump lights and ride on the pavement. It is much safer that way. I jump the lights so I'm not battling the traffic on a big busy roundabout then use the pavement so I stay off a piece of dual carriageway. The rules of the road should perhaps by more friendly towards cyclists.
Fair play mate.. you're far from being the only one
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3414065.ece
I'm guessing all those having a go have absolutely zero comprehension how dangerous it is cycling in London during rush hour. I couldn't give a flying f**k what anyone thinks so long as you are able to walk at the end of the day.0 -
I cycle during rush-hour in London. Yes, It's pretty scary, yes there have been many near misses, nope I don't jump red lights.
A few months back, I saw someone overtake me as I was slowing down due to the light change. Next thing I saw, they were mowed down by a lorry. They were dead on the scene.
The problem with running red lights, is the vehicles that aren't stationary waiting for the other lights to change. This was the case with the story above, the lorry driver hit the bike head on at 20-30mph I believe.
After seeing this, I cringe pretty much every time I see other cyclists jumping lights in-front of me.Bikes:
Felt F2 Di2 [2012]
Verenti Millook0 -
I have stopped doing it to for the most part, I do roll past them at a T-junction when it is safe to do so. And I will always make sure I'm way ahead if there are any buses or lorries at the front when waiting for lights to change, that is just common sense to me.
The problem is that the law and road usage are not exactly in sync, so most of the laws that currently apply to cyclists are inappropriate in a modern day context.0 -
It seems to me an irresponsibly stupid, reckless and dangerous thing to do in any circumstances and for any reason. I am really surprised that people will come on these forums and admit that they run red lights as though it is something to be proud of ...0
-
Apparently, The Motor Insurers’ Bureau reckon that up to 30% of all motorists are uninsured – so you can add that to the 10-12% of motorists seen by the survey 'breaking the law'.
I have no experience of commuting by bike in London, but I have done in Bristol for several years and I manage not to RLJ or ride on the pavement. If cyclists continue to break the law it only makes my life more difficult whenever I take to the road on two wheels.0 -
kleinstroker wrote:The problem is that the law and road usage are not exactly in sync, so most of the laws that currently apply to cyclists are inappropriate in a modern day context.
Innappropriate inasmuch that they don't give due consideration to your need to get to work a minute earlier than you would if you waited at the lights? Faster than a tent.......0 -
These are my views and not that of anyone else and are not aimed any person in particular. I have been driving in London for almost 4yrs and I believe there are two types of people on bicycles: Bike-ists and cyclists.
The bike-its rattle along many without a helmet ignore red traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, wear dark clothing and have no lights and have no consideration for other road users.
Cyclists on the other hand ride with purpose approach hazards (red traffic lights, pedestrian crossing) with caution slowing so as not having to stop if possible. Some I see at red lights alight from the cycle onto the pavement and cross the road as a pedestrian.
Those who ride through red lights I sincerely hope you have life insurance and your loved ones a strong stomach for that knock on the door by a member of the emergency services with the awful news. That is the hard truth with red light jumping. Cyclists do not have crumple zones and your helmet won't protect your body from that vehicle who has gone through a green light. The majority of comments on this have been straight on the defence of what is a great form of fitness and fun. But how would you feel if you car your hit a cyclist who ran the light.
I also think that Boris had a good idea creating cycle lanes and highways what he could do next is have a 10 second flashing green light that is for cyclists to get going from a standing start therefore when the motorist go the racing snakes will have got ahead and there is a line of cyclists and bike-ists and not a mass.
Interesting thread though.
Don't call me sir I work for a living0 -
As with all subjects there are degrees of behaviour that is either sensible/acceptable or downright stupid.
I was particularly amused by a South African woman who went through a red light on the outside of the traffic and then called me a "c**t" and "t**t" and suggested that "I learned to drive" as I was pulling out of the junction that had right of way because of the light. Her stubborn suggestion that I "had to give way to her" despite the fact that she'd jumped a red light, out of the view of me and the other cars coming out of the junction, gives a clue as to the sort of mentality that clearly needs to be weeded from the cycling gene pool (and will be, no doubt) to make this a less contentious subject.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
The only time I have had any serious problems at traffic lights is going through green lights when someone in a car or van wants to turn right over the crossing. I have scraped a couple of cars because they misjudged my speed and I could not react quickly enough to avoid them.
Riding a bike is dangerous, and if you cycle reasonably fast it is twice as dangerous because other motorists are crap at judging your speed and think that because they are in a car they are always faster. The only person on the road that really cares about your safety on the road is you, and you are the only person who can decide if something is safe or not. Nobody else can!!
the law....Bicycles are, in law, carriages (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) and should be on the road not footway.
So bicycles have not been reclassified since 1879 when they were seen to be the same menace as cars were!The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he “shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.”
Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”
The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. See below.
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.
So if you feel it is safer to use a footpath at certain times, then it seems you are right to do so in most cases.
Also according to the DoT, it is wrong for cyclists riding at speeds under 18mph to not use cycle paths when they are provided. This means you can be fined for obstructing motorists should plod decide he doesn't like your meandering cycling.
It is also worth noting that speed limits DO NOT APPLY to bicycles anywhere in the UK, http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html is this sensible? Is the law right in this case as well?
People who think the law is always right really should think for themselves once in a while. The law as always is there to offer guidelines and is not immutable. Hopefully the law pertaining to cyclists will change, but until it does I think I'll still make my own decisions regarding my own safety thank you very much.0 -
kleinstroker wrote:Also according to the DoT, it is wrong for cyclists riding at speeds under 18mph to not use cycle paths when they are provided. This means you can be fined for obstructing motorists should plod decide he doesn't like your meandering cycling.
It is also worth noting that speed limits DO NOT APPLY to bicycles anywhere in the UK, http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html is this sensible? Is the law right in this case as well?
If you are referring to your link when making the comment about 18mph - that says nothing of the sort.link wrote:Official Advice
Another interesting snippet arises from a Department for Transport consultation document that never turned into anything other than a consultation. The 2004 Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling document had an annex D Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists which recommends "As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
ie The advice is not to use cycle paths if you are going over 18mph. Quite different to the presumption that you must use cycle paths when doing less than 18mph. I didn't manage to find the 2004 doc referenced to confirm.
And whilst the police maybe understanding about you cycling on the pavement (probably only at walking pace) they won't be in the slightest bit convinced by your argument that it is safer to go through lights at red than green Faster than a tent.......0 -
I can understand that you may, one day, be in a situation where you believe a lorry driver hasn't seen you and if you don't get out of the way you'll be crushed when he pulls away from the lights. It might be that due to other vehicles, railings, whatever, the only option is to go through the red light.
But, I've never been in that situation. I've never seen that a cyclist be in that situation when I've been on foot, on the bike or in my car. And that situation is very different to "I'll jump all red lights, at any time, having checked that it's safe"
As for the "think for yourself" nonsense. Yeah,that makes sense in a car, when the limit might be 60mph, but it's wet, foggy and there are loads of blind bends. "Thinking for yourself" in that situation mean sslowing down below the maximum limit. The same doesn't apply to red lights. They mean stop, so stop.0 -
I ride in Nottingham, sometimes just on the roads and also the cycle routes.
On the roads I abode by the highway code and ride as if I was driving.
The problems are when on the cycle routes, there so messed up and badly implemented that you are up and down the pavement every 5 minutes, having to cross intersections with pedestrians, its a total mess and a half hearted implementation.
Motorists could see me ride towards the lights the jump on the pavement to follow the cycle lane and point me out to be a bad cyclist doing what he pleases, but no Im just following the Hodge podge of broken payments that constitutes a cycle route, the government have messed up the roads and the payment so neither sits right.
Also to make junctions safer it would be sensible to have four lights, red then say blue with a cycle symbol for a few seconds to let cycles move off in advance of cars, then the lights just change as normal.
The government are to blame for being tightfisted when it comes to cycle infrastructure and until that changes, it will always be a slightly unsafe and confrontational why to travel, and conflict between drivers and cyclists will remain, with both side being ambivalent to one another, and both being unsure of there rules on and off the road which adherer to them.
Rant over, feel better now. 0 -
2 of the laws broken were not wearing reflective material and not wearing a helmet.0
-
bails87 wrote:I can understand that you may, one day, be in a situation where you believe a lorry driver hasn't seen you and if you don't get out of the way you'll be crushed when he pulls away from the lights. It might be that due to other vehicles, railings, whatever, the only option is to go through the red light.
But, I've never been in that situation. I've never seen that a cyclist be in that situation when I've been on foot, on the bike or in my car. And that situation is very different to "I'll jump all red lights, at any time, having checked that it's safe"
I rarely ride in traffic (quite frankly because I don't feel safe) but even so, several times people have rolled alongside me at t-junctions and crossroads, and took a left turn (in most of those circumstances I have been continuing straight ahead!). In fact I just wrote a letter of complaint to a company whose driver done it to me the other day, despite good road position.
It really doesn't seem to matter if they've seen you or not. I'd rather be out of the flow of traffic, and trusting my own judgement where I can, rather than someone else's.
Blindly jumping through lights just for the sake of impatience is something else.0 -
butcher of bakersfield wrote:I rarely ride in traffic (quite frankly because I don't feel safe) but even so, several times people have rolled alongside me at t-junctions and crossroads, and took a left turn (in most of those circumstances I have been continuing straight ahead!). In fact I just wrote a letter of complaint to a company whose driver done it to me the other day, despite good road position.
At the risk of "teaching you to suck eggs" (apologies in advance) it sounds like you need to change your road position when stationary at junctions to the middle of your lane. That way vehicles will not be able to take a position alongside you. For the same reason I will queue with traffic in the middle of the lane rather than filtering to the front unless I know there is an advanced stop line (ASL). In long queues I will filter, but not directly to the front unless the junction is safe.
This is known as taking the primary riding position. There are plenty of other situations where it is the correct and safe approach, have a look at this BikeRadar article about road positioning for a better description than I could do.
You need to be assertive when riding in traffic and you need to think of yourself as a vehicle. Once you get the hang of it you will feel much more confident and safe.
Best regards
DavidBoardman CX Team0
