Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

TheBigBean

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

kingstongraham

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

I think if you are here, nobody should be starting to overtake.



Cyclist was always in the middle/right of the lane, in an advanced stop box. Sure, knowing how some drivers behave they could have anticipated bad driving, but that doesn't mean they did anything actually wrong.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

I think if you are here, nobody should be starting to overtake.



Cyclist was always in the middle/right of the lane, in an advanced stop box. Sure, knowing how some drivers behave they could have anticipated bad driving, but that doesn't mean they did anything actually wrong.

I have a similar junction on my commute and realised recently that this is a risk, so I've started to block the space to the right as much as possible. I shouldn't have to though.

pangolin

kingstongraham said:

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

I think if you are here, nobody should be starting to overtake.



Cyclist was always in the middle/right of the lane, in an advanced stop box. Sure, knowing how some drivers behave they could have anticipated bad driving, but that doesn't mean they did anything actually wrong.

What if you are here?



Again the moped is not in the right but if I'm going through a busy junction with bikes, motorbikes, mopeds etc around me I try to hold a sensible line. If it was me I don't think I'd upload this expecting a lot of sympathy.

TheBigBean

pangolin said:

Again the moped is not in the right but if I'm going through a busy junction with bikes, motorbikes, mopeds etc around me I try to hold a sensible line. If it was me I don't think I'd upload this expecting a lot of sympathy.

It is tricky though. You want to hold the middle of the lane to block cars doing something stupid, but also hold one side of the lane to stop motorbikes doing something stupid. In my case, you then also need to avoid the peds and the cyclists jumping the lights.

Would much rather walk these days.

pangolin

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

Again the moped is not in the right but if I'm going through a busy junction with bikes, motorbikes, mopeds etc around me I try to hold a sensible line. If it was me I don't think I'd upload this expecting a lot of sympathy.

It is tricky though. You want to hold the middle of the lane to block cars doing something stupid, but also hold one side of the lane to stop motorbikes doing something stupid. In my case, you then also need to avoid the peds and the cyclists jumping the lights.

Would much rather walk these days.

And all while making sure your cat is alright, it is hard.

pangolin

Hell yeah! Big mistake was stopping at the light, won't make that mistake again.

— Travis and Sigrid (@sigirides) November 13, 2023

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

More than a pedal stroke? Further than it takes for the rear wheel to cross the stop line? Past the pedestrian reservation perhaps? After the junction?

Moped was trying to nip through without stopping, because the lights changed on approach. Misjudged it, clearly, because cyclists should be given some wobble room. I believe the gold standard is 1.5 m.

rjsterry

Idiots claiming the National Trust is cancelling Christmas.

My nearest NT properties.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/surrey/polesden-lacey/christmas-at-polesden

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/london/morden-hall-park/christmas-at-morden-hall-park

kingstongraham

pangolin said:

kingstongraham said:

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

I think if you are here, nobody should be starting to overtake.



Cyclist was always in the middle/right of the lane, in an advanced stop box. Sure, knowing how some drivers behave they could have anticipated bad driving, but that doesn't mean they did anything actually wrong.

What if you are here?



Again the moped is not in the right but if I'm going through a busy junction with bikes, motorbikes, mopeds etc around me I try to hold a sensible line. If it was me I don't think I'd upload this expecting a lot of sympathy.

Same, but the moped was still behind in the picture I posted.

pangolin

kingstongraham said:

pangolin said:

kingstongraham said:

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

I think if you are here, nobody should be starting to overtake.



Cyclist was always in the middle/right of the lane, in an advanced stop box. Sure, knowing how some drivers behave they could have anticipated bad driving, but that doesn't mean they did anything actually wrong.

What if you are here?



Again the moped is not in the right but if I'm going through a busy junction with bikes, motorbikes, mopeds etc around me I try to hold a sensible line. If it was me I don't think I'd upload this expecting a lot of sympathy.

Same, but the moped was still behind in the picture I posted.

I don't think the cyclist technically did anything wrong according to the highway code, but he still ended up on the floor and I think he could have avoided that.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

pblakeney

pangolin said:

Hell yeah! Big mistake was stopping at the light, won't make that mistake again.

— Travis and Sigrid (@sigirides) November 13, 2023

Outs themselves as knobs.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

How far through the overtaking process does someone have to be before turning right across their path becomes your fault?

(Yes it is a stupid place to overtake)

More than a pedal stroke? Further than it takes for the rear wheel to cross the stop line? Past the pedestrian reservation perhaps? After the junction?

Moped was trying to nip through without stopping, because the lights changed on approach. Misjudged it, clearly, because cyclists should be given some wobble room. I believe the gold standard legal requirement is 1.5 m.

FTFY.

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

Not sure I follow. They are typically at 90 degrees to me, so full length of their bike blocking my way.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

Not sure I follow. They are typically at 90 degrees to me, so full length of their bike blocking my way.

I thought they were riding through red lights as you are crossing.
I guess you mean they are blind to where the white line is. I'd still give them a nudge.

TheBigBean

Wrong thread

pblakeney

Just seen another level of bad driving.
Driving while on the phone and with a dog in their lap.

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

Not sure I follow. They are typically at 90 degrees to me, so full length of their bike blocking my way.

I thought they were riding through red lights as you are crossing.
I guess you mean they are blind to where the white line is. I'd still give them a nudge.

They are cycling through red lights at a junction. I'm going through a green light at a junction. Our paths then cross in the middle as we travel in different directions. There is no nudging option. It also happens so often that I need to move to acceptance model somehow.

Then there are the ones that ride on the right.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

Not sure I follow. They are typically at 90 degrees to me, so full length of their bike blocking my way.

I thought they were riding through red lights as you are crossing.
I guess you mean they are blind to where the white line is. I'd still give them a nudge.

They are cycling through red lights at a junction. I'm going through a green light at a junction. Our paths then cross in the middle as we travel in different directions. There is no nudging option. It also happens so often that I need to move to acceptance model somehow.

Then there are the ones that ride on the right.

I fully support this kind of behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

Not sure I follow. They are typically at 90 degrees to me, so full length of their bike blocking my way.

I thought they were riding through red lights as you are crossing.
I guess you mean they are blind to where the white line is. I'd still give them a nudge.

They are cycling through red lights at a junction. I'm going through a green light at a junction. Our paths then cross in the middle as we travel in different directions. There is no nudging option. It also happens so often that I need to move to acceptance model somehow.

Then there are the ones that ride on the right.

I fully support this kind of behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

Not applicable to my situation although if a cyclist gets close when I'm crossing with my kids, they'll be getting a big nudge. That's not me starting a fight, just I'll make sure the kids are not run over.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm still being regularly ignored by near misses with cyclists that can't stop at red lights. Can't they at least treat them as give way signs rather riding straight in front of me?

Tap their handlebars?

Not sure I follow. They are typically at 90 degrees to me, so full length of their bike blocking my way.

I thought they were riding through red lights as you are crossing.
I guess you mean they are blind to where the white line is. I'd still give them a nudge.

They are cycling through red lights at a junction. I'm going through a green light at a junction. Our paths then cross in the middle as we travel in different directions. There is no nudging option. It also happens so often that I need to move to acceptance model somehow.

Then there are the ones that ride on the right.

I fully support this kind of behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

That whole road is a host of road rage from all sides, including peds.

I have had more than one instance about 100m down the road from that, where, the light having been green for a while, I arrive, at speed, only for a vigilante pedestrian to assume, falsely, that I am speeding through a red light, and so stand in the road and swing a punch at me.

I fully believe the poor design in and around Westminster and the fact it is an absolute race-track leads to MPs having a skewed view of the whole issue.

I have had multiple cyclists pile into the back of me at that very zebra crossing because they did not assume I would stop for the ped.

There comes a point where you need to re-evaluate the road design. TBH, I think it needs to be a pelican crossing.

pblakeney

Both opinions can be equally valid.
Knobs being knobs regardless of choice of transport.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

But back to the cat, it would be dead if it got off the harness. Looks cute though, eh? Lotsa social media likes.

Nothing is more British that focusing on the plight of a domesticated animal over a person; another trivial annoyance.

I personally struggle to see how anyone without empathy for animals can have empathy for people.

It's a question of priorities, I guess. I eat animals, I don't eat people. I'm not enough of a hypocrite to be so concerned with animal welfare when it suits but happy for them to be mass farmed so I can eat affordable meat.

Sorry, i'm in agreement with FA.
You don't eat cats.
The human put the cat in the basket which potentially exposes it to danger - unnecessarily.

Anyhoo, the police officer actually said "...I would recommend wearing a helmet."

No faux legal stipulations were dished out and she probably saw his head travelling towards the tarmac when he got knocked off.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

In terms of the actual cycling, he did nothing wrong. A moped overtook between him and the bollard and knocked him off. They were both turning right. 1. Onus on who is overtaking not to hit what you are overtaking. 2. In the middle of a junction is a censored stupid place to overtake.

But back to the cat, it would be dead if it got off the harness. Looks cute though, eh? Lotsa social media likes.

Nothing is more British that focusing on the plight of a domesticated animal over a person; another trivial annoyance.

I personally struggle to see how anyone without empathy for animals can have empathy for people.

It's a question of priorities, I guess. I eat animals, I don't eat people. I'm not enough of a hypocrite to be so concerned with animal welfare when it suits but happy for them to be mass farmed so I can eat affordable meat.

Sorry, i'm in agreement with FA.
You don't eat cats.
The human put the cat in the basket which potentially exposes it to danger - unnecessarily.

Anyhoo, the police officer actually said "...I would recommend wearing a helmet."

No faux legal stipulations were dished out and she probably saw his head travelling towards the tarmac when he got knocked off.

Why was his helmet the fist comment and not the moped guy knocking him off?

There is a real cultural problem on UK roads, with most people assuming, despite the actual Highway Code, that it is up to the cyclist as a vulnerable road user, to be fully responsible for any problems, as they’re the ones who will be hurt the most.

pinno

He said 'im okay' after she said something and then asked 'sure?' to confirm so it wasn't.
Therefore, she must have initially asked if he was okay.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

He said 'im okay' after she said something and then asked 'sure?' to confirm so it wasn't.
Therefore, se must have initially asked if he was okay.

Yeah, the focus of the police is always on the cyclist, regardless of the incident, or what caused it. Why was she not going after the moped?

We see it over and over. On the London commute every now and then a cyclist will be killed, usually by an articulated lorry (who continue to drive down one of the major cyle "superhighways" at rushhour), and the response is always to put policemen on the junctions and tell cyclists off for even parking half a metre over the line.

It's the same logic. They are not interested in prosecuting dangerous driving when the cyclists re victims, unless it is a death or has long-term consequences, and even then, the sentencing is weak.

The attention is always exclusively on the cyclist, and never the offender.

It was the same when a moped got boxed in trying to undertake me before a load of parked cars; he under-estimated my speed and so steered into me and ripped out all the spokes in my rear wheel. He carried on, a policeman on a motorbike came up, asked why I didn't stop to let him undertake me.

FFS, I didn't even fall off, why wasn't he going after the moped? Hit and run, likely deliberately, plain and simple.

You're part of the problem here Pinno.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

He said 'im okay' after she said something and then asked 'sure?' to confirm so it wasn't.
Therefore, se must have initially asked if he was okay.

Yeah, the focus of the police is always on the cyclist, regardless of the incident, or what caused it. Why was she not going after the moped?

We see it over and over. On the London commute every now and then a cyclist will be killed, usually by an articulated lorry (who continue to drive down one of the major cyle "superhighways" at rushhour), and the response is always to put policemen on the junctions and tell cyclists off for even parking half a metre over the line.

It's the same logic. They are not interested in prosecuting dangerous driving when the cyclists re victims, unless it is a death or has long-term consequences, and even then, the sentencing is weak.

The attention is always exclusively on the cyclist, and never the offender.

It was the same when a moped got boxed in trying to undertake me before a load of parked cars; he under-estimated my speed and so steered into me and ripped out all the spokes in my rear wheel. He carried on, a policeman on a motorbike came up, asked why I didn't stop to let him undertake me.

FFS, I didn't even fall off, why wasn't he going after the moped? Hit and run, likely deliberately, plain and simple.

You're part of the problem here Pinno.

Lol.
You expected the police to start chasing a moped rider through the streets of London after a minor incident? Moped rider would have been long gone.
She stopped to see if he was okay and by the looks of things, blocked the road to keep him safe.
She cannot do both.

pinno

I've commuted plenty btw. 13 years in all. Incidents galore.

rick_chasey

Yes I do expect the police to go after law breakers. Precisely.