Cyclists are worse than drivers!

rumbataz

I'm cycling nearly every day now and I'm finding that my fellow cyclists are total morons (not all, of course - some are very, very nice I'm pleased to say). I do my best to observe all road traffic signs, I stop at lights, I move over and let cars pass if I know I've been holding them up for more than a few seconds and I always acknowledge motorists who let me out at junctions.

Whilst I have my fair share of aggressive motorists to contend with (usually van drivers and minicab drivers who pass me leaving just a 6" gap), it is the majority of cyclists who make me cringe.

Yesterday I was terrorised by a fellow cyclist who overtook me in rush hour traffic at break-neck speed, cutting right across me, as I was stopped behind a bus. He then proceeded to ride on the pavement and weave in and out of pedestrians.

It's rare to see a cyclist observe a red light. It's even rarer to see a cyclist wearing a helmet, have lights on at night or ride courteously. And so many cyclists ride on pavements these days.

As a petrolhead, I can see why some drivers are not too keen on cyclists. We really need to get to a stage where cyclists need to pass a proficiency test, have adequate safety clothing, have a cycle that is roadworthy, be identifiable and have third-party liability insurance.

I just want to reiterate, as I don my flame-proof suit, that these are just my observations and I have had encounters with very nice cyclists in recent weeks.

fenix

People are stupid in all forms of transport. All you can do is not to be a nob yourself.

Man Of Lard

Some cyclists are worse than some drivers - that's true. Conversely some cyclists are better than some drivers.

Helmets are not compulsory - that's a whole new argument (including whether they actually meet the standards they claim to; whether the standards themselves are useful for actual use; whether they're correctly fitted; ...)

Personally I see far more drivers flaunting the law than cyclists - handheld mobile phones whilst driving (guaranteed to see at least 3 of those per hour); speeding (guaranteed to see that); driving whilst distracted (by phone, radio, makeup, ...); absurdly close passes due to the MGIF attitude even when stopping 50 yards up the road (recently including by a police vehicle on an important mission to the local bakery to secure some vital "evidence" (a corned beef pasty - I know because I was behind him in the queue)); failed lights on the vehicle; ...

As a driver (and cyclist) - I'd like to see the law enforced equitably on all road users - not singling out any particular group. Sadly the attitude of government over the last 30 years has been to implement more and more laws but seemingly to fail to enforce most of them.

deejaysee

I cycle and drive a lot so i can totally see both sides.
Lot of Pricks in both camps tbh

slowbike

Hmm - trying to think when the last time was I saw a cyclist riding badly - other than online of course - erm ... must've been last year - or was it the year before - black clothed, in the dark, no lights - waving angrily at a driver for not giving way when the cyclist was supposed to give way (god I hate those cycle lanes).
Other than that - nope - don't recall one - ignoring the riding on the path ones - as it's country paths used infrequently ...
Oh - and I've seen thousands of cyclists ...

The problem with bad cyclists is that you tend to notice them because of their bad behaviour - similar with bad drivers - yes I saw a coach driver on his mobile phone driving through a narrow & twisty road ...

I'm not quite sure how you were terrorised as you were stopped ... do you mean you were taken by surprise?

kingstongraham

A greater proportion of drivers speed than cyclists run red lights. Fact.

PS I know it's a fact because I put "Fact" after it.

slowbike

KingstonGraham wrote:

PS I know it's a fact because I put "Fact" after it.

Bobbinogs

deejaysee wrote:

I cycle and drive a lot so i can totally see both sides.
Lot of Pricks in both camps tbh

This, and there's a lot of very considerate people (in fact, the majority) in both camps too.

keef66

"handheld mobile phones whilst driving (guaranteed to see at least 3 of those per hour)"

Christ, as I'm crawling my way out of Cambridge at 5:30 I look across at the other drivers crawling in, and some nights it must be one in 3 of them using mobiles. Often the lights go green and nothing happens because the driver at the front is staring down at a screen. It will only get worse unless the police start prosecuting more of them.

lakesluddite

rumbataz wrote:

We really need to get to a stage where cyclists need to pass a proficiency test, have adequate safety clothing, have a cycle that is roadworthy, be identifiable and have third-party liability insurance.

No we don't - we just need to obey the current rules of the road, not have more imposed on us. None of the above will stop some people being tw@ts.

Man Of Lard

keef66 wrote:

"handheld mobile phones whilst driving (guaranteed to see at least 3 of those per hour)"

Christ, as I'm crawling my way out of Cambridge at 5:30 I look across at the other drivers crawling in, and some nights it must be one in 3 of them using mobiles. Often the lights go green and nothing happens because the driver at the front is staring down at a screen. It will only get worse unless the police start prosecuting more of them.

Yes - but I only see 5 or 6 cars per hour when I'm out riding

KevinA

I personally think cyclist are worse and for these reasons.

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance, it may be a safe distance and the speed might not be slow enough but you have to be comfortable with cars passing at speed past you if you want to be on the roads. Not saying they do sometimes take liberties and pass stupidly close but youtube has plenty examples of road rage or close calls and its not really.

For me personally cycling in the UK should require helmet use (Not getting into that debate its just my personal opinion)

But for me cycling on the pavement and then jumping onto the road to skip lights, jumping red lights, breaking the speed limit even is a common cyclists thing.

No indications, weaving carelessly in and out of traffic, cycling with unmanageable loads, (tool box and planks of wood was my recent one)

We as cyclists are at risk and must make sure we have complete control over our bike and abide by the highway code, a car protects a driver, road cyclists have very little protection (Me its Lycra shorts, gloves and a helmet)

KevinA

Man Of Lard wrote:

keef66 wrote:

"handheld mobile phones whilst driving (guaranteed to see at least 3 of those per hour)"

Christ, as I'm crawling my way out of Cambridge at 5:30 I look across at the other drivers crawling in, and some nights it must be one in 3 of them using mobiles. Often the lights go green and nothing happens because the driver at the front is staring down at a screen. It will only get worse unless the police start prosecuting more of them.

Yes - but I only see 5 or 6 cars per hour when I'm out riding

I see more tractors than cars at times, god I love the countryside.

Vslowpace

Oh for the love of god.

I didn't mean to get so close to the cyclist when I ran him over and killed him.

You've got into the helmet debate by mentioning it.

Bicycles are not subject to speed limits

and we are not one homogeneous group.

pblakeney

KevinA wrote:

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance..

Sometimes they get too close and are not even aware of it.
Case in point this morning. A car was trying to overtake me in town whist straddling the white line, facing oncoming traffic.
The fact that I was keeping up with the lorry in front seemed irrelevant.
I knew exactly where they were going to go to avoid the head on collision so I took the safe option and backed off to let them in.
How close were they? I gave the passenger window a good hard knock while doing 20+ mph.
Their response? I'm supposed to give way. I suppose the fact that I did give way would prove their point in a twisted way but no point being in the right 6 feet under.
Arseholes use all modes of transport. End of.

KevinA

PBlakeney wrote:

KevinA wrote:

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance..

Sometimes they get too close and are not even aware of it.
Case in point this morning. A car was trying to overtake me in town whist straddling the white line, facing oncoming traffic.
The fact that I was keeping up with the lorry in front seemed irrelevant.
I knew exactly where they were going to go to avoid the head on collision so I took the safe option and backed off to let them in.
How close were they? I gave the passenger window a good hard knock while doing 20+ mph.
Their response? I'm supposed to give way. I suppose the fact that I did give way would prove their point in a twisted way but no point being in the right 6 feet under.
Arseholes use all modes of transport. End of.

That is unfortunately a bad motorist, my point was that some distances aren't dangerous, its just the cyclist isn't that confident or comfortable cycling on busy roads.

slowbike

It isn't just the distance away that matters - it's the speed differential and size along with the distance that matters.

sungod

rumbataz wrote:

It's rare to see a cyclist observe a red light. It's even rarer to see a cyclist wearing a helmet, have lights on at night or ride courteously. And so many cyclists ride on pavements these days.

rare? seriously?

in london, the majority: are wearing helmets, stop at red lights, have lights, ride courteously and are on the roads not the pavements

there are exceptions, mostly casual riders on boris bikes and idiot commuters who probably drive the way they ride, but also experienced cyclists who are just being twunts

same with drivers, most are fine, but some red light jump, go the wrong way down one-way streets, make illegal turns, and of course almost all drivers speed

though at the moment by far the most dangerous in number if not lethality are pedestrians failing to look before stepping into the road, which cleary justifies them having to be licensed for the protection of the rest of us

KevinA

Slowbike wrote:

It isn't just the distance away that matters - it's the speed differential and size along with the distance that matters.

Yeah, I'm quite comfortable with people speeding past as long as they give a good distance, if they are close and the slow down that is equally appreciated.

If they speed and are close i.e. within a meter then it can get dicy. If you can touch their window then thats is just dangerous.

KevinA

sungod wrote:

rumbataz wrote:

It's rare to see a cyclist observe a red light. It's even rarer to see a cyclist wearing a helmet, have lights on at night or ride courteously. And so many cyclists ride on pavements these days.

Its the ones who cycle through the red light because the lights are allowing pedestrians to cross the road that really annoys me. I know its easy for them to do and they probably determine its very low risk but its only 30 - 60 seconds to wait for the green light.

mrfpb

KevinA wrote:

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance, it may be a safe distance and the speed might not be slow enough but you have to be comfortable with cars passing at speed past you if you want to be on the roads.

Cars must give bikes the same space as a car when overtaking. That's 90 cm to 1 metre. On most town roads this will mean crossing the white line partially into the next lane, so on a single carriageway with one lane each way a car/motor vehicle should never attempt to overtake a cyclist when there is traffic coming the other way. There is no safe way to do this.

If I think a car is going to try to do this, I will move to the centre of the lane until it is safe for the car behind me to overtake, unless I believe it is a nutter that will try to take me out. This is called "taking the lane" and is the recommended safe way of cycling as it ensures the drivers know I am there, and discourages unsafe behaviour. Gutter/kerb hogging is not seen as safe for bikes as it gives the cyclist nowhere to go in crisis except the pavement and puts you in a spot where car drivers aren't looking out for road users.

KevinA wrote:

breaking the speed limit even is a common cyclists thing.

Breaking a speed limit would be very impressive in any town for a cyclist. This is bull.

KevinA wrote:

No indications,

Given a choice between indicating and braking what would you choose.

KevinA wrote:

We as cyclists are at risk and must make sure we have complete control over our bike and abide by the highway code

Please do read the highway code and a decent book on cyclecraft before you next go out. there is no requirement to wear helmets, no requirement for bikes to obey the speed limit.

Jumping red lights is a perenial topic on this forum. It is against the law. However studies in London show that the same percentage of cars as cyclists jump red lights.

KevinA wrote:

a car protects a driver, road cyclists have very little protection (Me its Lycra shorts, gloves and a helmet)

A poorly driven car can kill and most cyclist fatalities are caused by cars. There are so few bike/bike or bike/pedestrian fatalities compared to bike/car or car /pedestrian fatalities as to make this obvious. The person with the more dangerous vehicle carries more liability for their behaviour (in my opinion - the law doesn't seem to enforce this) but all road users should have safety of self and others as their main concern. Cyclists tend to be more focussed on riding in my experiecne rather than distracted by the inside of a vehicle, phone, stereo, passengers.

chris_bass

red lights - check
helmets - check
insurance - check
no lights - check
waving - ah so close

almost had the full set in one thread!

as for being terrorised, you were overtaken by a cyclist when you were stopped? you must scare easy!

KevinA

mrfpb wrote:

KevinA wrote:

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance, it may be a safe distance and the speed might not be slow enough but you have to be comfortable with cars passing at speed past you if you want to be on the roads.

Cars must give bikes the same space as a car when overtaking. That's 90 cm to 1 metre. On most town roads this will mean crossing the white line partially into the next lane, so on a single carriageway with one lane each way a car/motor vehicle should never attempt to overtake a cyclist when there is traffic coming the other way. There is no safe way to do this.

If I think a car is going to try to do this, I will move to the centre of the lane until it is safe for the car behind me to overtake, unless I believe it is a nutter that will try to take me out. This is called "taking the lane" and is the recommended safe way of cycling as it ensures the drivers know I am there, and discourages unsafe behaviour. Gutter/kerb hogging is not seen as safe for bikes as it gives the cyclist nowhere to go in crisis except the pavement and puts you in a spot where car drivers aren't looking out for road users.


Yes but not everyone abides by the law which is my point

KevinA wrote:

breaking the speed limit even is a common cyclists thing.

Breaking a speed limit would be very impressive in any town for a cyclist. This is bull.

So your saying that a cyclist can't break a 20mph speed limit (round schools) slipping through the speed bumps?

KevinA wrote:

No indications,

Given a choice between indicating and braking what would you choose.

I tend to try and decrease my speed to allow myself to indicate letting the driver behind me know I am turning.

KevinA wrote:

We as cyclists are at risk and must make sure we have complete control over our bike and abide by the highway code

Please do read the highway code and a decent book on cyclecraft before you next go out. there is no requirement to wear helmets, no requirement for bikes to obey the speed limit.

Very true about wearing a helmet, didn't know about the bikes obeying the speed limit though, thats a new one to me.


Jumping red lights is a perenial topic on this forum. It is against the law. However studies in London show that the same percentage of cars as cyclists jump red lights.

2 wrongs don't make a right though

KevinA wrote:

a car protects a driver, road cyclists have very little protection (Me its Lycra shorts, gloves and a helmet)

A poorly driven car can kill and most cyclist fatalities are caused by cars. There are so few bike/bike or bike/pedestrian fatalities compared to bike/car or car /pedestrian fatalities as to make this obvious. The person with the more dangerous vehicle carries more liability for their behaviour (in my opinion - the law doesn't seem to enforce this) but all road users should have safety of self and others as their main concern. Cyclists tend to be more focussed on riding in my experiecne rather than distracted by the inside of a vehicle, phone, stereo, passengers.

So true, I would say the only distraction that a cyclist will have is the bike computer, although I have seen the odd cyclist using the phone either talking, texting or hunting for pokemon haha

fenix

If you think about a 20mph speed limit near schools - its designed for cars.

Bikes don't have to have computers. I know I'm not looking at my speeds.

And also look at the mass of a bike v car. The car will easily be 10 times as large as a bike if not more.

You have a choice of a car doing 20 or a bike doing - lets say 22 mph. What would you rather be hit by ?

KevinA

Fenix wrote:

If you think about a 20mph speed limit near schools - its designed for cars.

Bikes don't have to have computers. I know I'm not looking at my speeds.

And also look at the mass of a bike v car. The car will easily be 10 times as large as a bike if not more.

You have a choice of a car doing 20 or a bike doing - lets say 22 mph. What would you rather be hit by ?

My choice would be neither.

I was using 20mph as an example although I've been doing 20 plus in Edinburgh City Centre and people have flew past me on bikes so going about the speed limit on a bike isn't as BS as claimed.

fenix

Its a bit of a rare scenario though isnt it ? Cyclists going fast in a school zone.

Compare with motorists - they can and do speed on any given road. Why focus on something :

1. With low mass and therefore low damage risk
2. That doesnt happen very often
3. When worse things are much more prevalent.

KevinA

Fenix wrote:

If you think about a 20mph speed limit near schools - its designed for cars.

Bikes don't have to have computers. I know I'm not looking at my speeds.

I tend to have a glance down every now and then, because I live outside of the city a lot of my routes are quiet roads and I have a map or directions on my garmin.

Busy roads I tend not to look as much.

KevinA

Fenix wrote:

Its a bit of a rare scenario though isnt it ? Cyclists going fast in a school zone.

Compare with motorists - they can and do speed on any given road. Why focus on something :

1. With low mass and therefore low damage risk
2. That doesnt happen very often
3. When worse things are much more prevalent.

Yeah it is rare but still happens and can still be dangerous.

You are on the road and should be aware of your surroundings, or maybe thats just my opinion.

I would hate to collide with a small child cause I was hammering if through a school zone.

davep1

KevinA wrote:

I personally think cyclist are worse and for these reasons.

There are 2 sides to every coin...

KevinA wrote:

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close...

They are in control of their vehicle, so they do mean to get too close. It's lazy and it is bad driving. The Highway code says to give a bicycle at least as much room as a car when you overtake. To me, any other vehicle (and I include other cyclists in this) within arm's reach of me is too close, and I will tell them. I would estimate a 3m gap as a minimum. No journey is so important you have to squeeze past another road user.

KevinA wrote:

...but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance, it may be a safe distance and the speed might not be slow enough but you have to be comfortable with cars passing at speed past you if you want to be on the roads.

No, you should not have to put up with it, or expect it. Just because most motorists treat bikes as obstacles to be passed as quickly as possible regardless of everyone's safety does NOT make it ok. Not saying they do sometimes take liberties and pass stupidly close but youtube has plenty examples of road rage or close calls and its not really.

KevinA wrote:

For me personally cycling in the UK should require helmet use (Not getting into that debate its just my personal opinion)

I wear a helmet too, but it should not be compulsory for the reasons others have stated. Never mind that if made compulsory it will deter lots of cyclists from riding, and make the motorist think the roads are theirs more than they already do.

KevinA wrote:

But for me cycling on the pavement and then jumping onto the road to skip lights, jumping red lights, breaking the speed limit even is a common cyclists thing.

Skipping red lights is wrong, whatever vehicle you are using, and not something I do. Cyclists on pavements does not have to be a crime, if the cyclist is considerate to others. Breaking the speed limit common? Are you sure?

KevinA wrote:

No indications, weaving carelessly in and out of traffic, cycling with unmanageable loads, (tool box and planks of wood was my recent one)

Not signalling is stupid, as is not looking behind you. Weaving in and out of traffic can however be done if you take care and make sure you know what other vehicles around you are doing. It's called filtering. Toolbox and planks of wood, now that is stupid!


We as cyclists are at risk and must make sure we have complete control over our bike and abide by the highway code, a car protects a driver, road cyclists have very little protection (Me its Lycra shorts, gloves and a helmet)[/quote]

KevinA

DaveP1 wrote:

KevinA wrote:

I personally think cyclist are worse and for these reasons.

There are 2 sides to every coin...

KevinA wrote:

Most cars/van/bus drivers etc don't mean to get too close...

They are in control of their vehicle, so they do mean to get too close. It's lazy and it is bad driving. The Highway code says to give a bicycle at least as much room as a car when you overtake. To me, any other vehicle (and I include other cyclists in this) within arm's reach of me is too close, and I will tell them. I would estimate a 3m gap as a minimum. No journey is so important you have to squeeze past another road user.

KevinA wrote:

...but some cyclist judge them to be close and that is because they might not be comfortable with the distance, it may be a safe distance and the speed might not be slow enough but you have to be comfortable with cars passing at speed past you if you want to be on the roads.

No, you should not have to put up with it, or expect it. Just because most motorists treat bikes as obstacles to be passed as quickly as possible regardless of everyone's safety does NOT make it ok. Not saying they do sometimes take liberties and pass stupidly close but youtube has plenty examples of road rage or close calls and its not really.

KevinA wrote:

For me personally cycling in the UK should require helmet use (Not getting into that debate its just my personal opinion)

I wear a helmet too, but it should not be compulsory for the reasons others have stated. Never mind that if made compulsory it will deter lots of cyclists from riding, and make the motorist think the roads are theirs more than they already do.

KevinA wrote:

But for me cycling on the pavement and then jumping onto the road to skip lights, jumping red lights, breaking the speed limit even is a common cyclists thing.

Skipping red lights is wrong, whatever vehicle you are using, and not something I do. Cyclists on pavements does not have to be a crime, if the cyclist is considerate to others. Breaking the speed limit common? Are you sure?

KevinA wrote:

No indications, weaving carelessly in and out of traffic, cycling with unmanageable loads, (tool box and planks of wood was my recent one)

Not signalling is stupid, as is not looking behind you. Weaving in and out of traffic can however be done if you take care and make sure you know what other vehicles around you are doing. It's called filtering. Toolbox and planks of wood, now that is stupid!


We as cyclists are at risk and must make sure we have complete control over our bike and abide by the highway code, a car protects a driver, road cyclists have very little protection (Me its Lycra shorts, gloves and a helmet)

[/quote]

Agree with 99% with you Dave - Common may be a slight exaggeration but its definitely a sight I see a lot more than I would like, mostly at the school my daughter goes to as its on the downhill.

Think a lot of the errors that happen on the road are due to a lack of common sense from both cyclists and motorists.

de_sisti

rumbataz wrote:

Yesterday I was terrorised by a fellow cyclist who overtook me in rush hour traffic at break-neck speed,
It's even rarer to see a cyclist wearing a helmet,

Define "terrorised".
"Break-neck speed" in rush-hour traffic. You're 'aving a larf.
Helmets are not compulsory. You should know that!