Some People

[Barty]

I think that a lot of drivers' attitudes towards cyclists would change if cyclists obeyed the Highway Code.

Both as a driver, and as a pedestrian, I am frequently wound up by cyclists' disregard for the rules of the road that drivers have to follow.

Watching a cyclist go straight through red lights......or coming up to a red light, cycling onto the pavement and somehow changing into a pedestrian in order to cross the road, then turning back into a cyclist and continuing on their way.....or turning left at a red light .... in my car turning right at a t junction on a green light and watching a cyclist approach from my left and shout at ME for pulling out in front of him....watching a cyclist approach in my offside wing mirror as I sat in traffic, moving off and moving to the nearside to let him by, only to find that he'd switched sides and was thumping the side of my car and cursing me....

Or dodging them on the pavement cos they can't be bothered to cycle along the road where they are supposed to be........

We are not talking about mouthy youths either, I've been shouted at by Lance Armstrong looking types with pointy helmets and lycra suits, and dodged middle aged women cycling on pavements who really ought to know better.

Little wonder motorists spit and swear at cyclists. Have a number plate, pay road tax and insurance, like motorists have to. Be accountable for your behaviour. Then you will earn respect from drivers.

[ALIB]

No Barty ! Don't do it....!

I've already discussed this with Chazza and the issue is not related (in the main) to the motorist v cyclist v pedestrian conflict. Chazza is referring to purely anti-social behaviour from people who happen to be in the relative safety of a car.
These people are a blight.....having experienced an idiot motorist today. As a pedestrian i was looking towards the road outside Forest Hill Sainsburys and a motorist beckoned from his car for a confrontation. When i walked towards him and asked what he was doing, he drove off.

Idiots come in all guises.

[leenewham]

I have visions of AliB chasing after the car like Terminator 2!

[Chazza]

As ALIB said, I originally started this thread to vent about the behaviour of some people towards me one day while I was on my way home from work, because the lack of consideration and respect for a fellow human being really saddened me. This thread wasn't intended as yet another discussion about cars vs cyclists vs pedestrians, but that's what it has turned into, so I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Barty.

For the record, I own and regularly drive a car, and I also walk on pavements daily.

Poor cycling annoys me, but then my definition of poor cycling is probably not the generally accepted one. Cycling on the pavement, passing red lights on pedestrian crossings and riding badly maintained bikes with no brakes counts as poor cycling in my book. Passing a red light just before it turns to red/amber on one of London's many "two-lanes-into-one" junctions to avoid getting caught in the melee when the lights actually go green, I count as self-preservation. Yes, it's against the law and I don't do it in other cities, because I don't need to. But in London, it is often safer to pass a red light than to wait for it to turn green, obviously when there are no pedestrians around and the lights controlling traffic on the bisecting road are also red. I find that doing this does infuriate some drivers, but not because I've endangered them or any other road user - more because I'm getting to my destination more quickly than they are.

Both as a driver, and as a pedestrian, I am frequently wound up by cyclists' disregard for the rules of the road that drivers have to follow.

Yes, there are bad cyclists out there just as there are bad drivers. There are also pedestrians who step out into the road without having a good look. All road users have to share the space and all road users have different needs, so it's natural that we're going to wind eachother up now and again. What I don't like is the dangerous behaviour that some road users resort to when they feel wound up.

Have a number plate, pay road tax and insurance, like motorists have to.

Upkeep of the roads is mostly paid for from council tax contributions, of which I pay my fair share. While it's not compulsory, I hold third party insurance - if I injure someone or damage their property while cycling, their loss is covered. Calling for me to also wear a licence plate is a bit extreme. Cars are licenced because they can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Pedal cycles simply aren't anywhere near as dangerous, therefore there is no requirement to be licenced - in London during the period 2001-05, 534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed by a person on a bicycle.

So - let's all just have a bit more (hate to use this word) respect for eachother as road users and as people.

[Barty]

As ALIB said, I originally started this thread to vent about the behaviour of some people towards me one day while I was on my way home from work, because the lack of consideration and respect for a fellow human being really saddened me. This thread wasn't intended as yet another discussion about cars vs cyclists vs pedestrians, but that's what it has turned into, so I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Barty.

Well apologies for that, I probably wasn't a member here when it was previously discussed!

Passing a red light just before it turns to red/amber on one of London's many "two-lanes-into-one" junctions to avoid getting caught in the melee when the lights actually go green, I count as self-preservation. Yes, it's against the law.......I find that doing this does infuriate some drivers, but not because I've endangered them or any other road user - more because I'm getting to my destination more quickly than they are.

I would say it infuriates drivers because they resent the fact that you have broken the law and have a very small chance of being punished for it.

Yes, there are bad cyclists out there just as there are bad drivers. There are also pedestrians who step out into the road without having a good look. All road users have to share the space and all road users have different needs, so it's natural that we're going to wind eachother up now and again. What I don't like is the dangerous behaviour that some road users resort to when they feel wound up.

I completely take your point about road rage and dangerous behaviour of drivers - but there is a document called the Highway Code - a document with sections and rules for all road users - pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, car, lorry coach drivers, everybody. When cyclists break the rules of this Code, they are not punished. Even if red-light cameras were triggered by cyclists, they are not required to display anything that identifies them to the police and thus cannot be traced.

Upkeep of the roads is mostly paid for from council tax contributions, of which I pay my fair share........ Calling for me to also wear a licence plate is a bit extreme.

I want cyclists to pay a road tax and display some form of identification because of what I said above, as opposed to making them pay for the upkeep of roads - although it could be asked who pays for the various cycle lanes, road and pavement markings, and cyclist-specific traffic lights provided for cyclists.

While it's not compulsory, I hold third party insurance - if I injure someone or damage their property while cycling, their loss is covered.......Pedal cycles simply aren't anywhere near as dangerous, therefore there is no requirement to be licenced - in London during the period 2001-05, 534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed by a person on a bicycle.

I completely applaud you for this - and as you point out, pedal cycles being less dangerous than cars, I would suspect your annual insurance premium is somewhat less than the average car driver's. Don't forget, though, that car drivers may be involved in accidents with other motor vehicles caused by avoiding cyclists. I wonder whether any statistics exist on accidents caused by cyclists?

So - let's all just have a bit more (hate to use this word) respect for eachother as road users and as people.

As my previous post - the respect that cyclists seek from road users will come when they are treated like other road users

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Barty,

I'm assuming you have not ridden may miles on a cycle in London over the past few years. If you had, I think you would be writing something very different. Indeed it is a pity that is not a precondition of getting a driving licence. I would argue that would do more to reduce casulties then anything you can dream up to inflict on mostly innocent cyclists. Those, like me, who do drive and pay taxes too.

The logical conclusion to your arguement is that pedestrians should be licensed and taxed for using the pavements, have number plates attached to their heads and so on. They are responsible for more accidents than cyclists.

The bottom line is a careful car driver is more likely to kill than a lunatic cyclist. Cars are inherently lethal. That is why there is so much legislation to try and control them. For this and other good reasons we should want to encourage people to switch some travel from four to two wheels. Your ideas would have the opposite effect.

So please take to two wheels for a week or two and see whether your view changes.

PP

[Eagle]

When cyclists go through red lights they tend to forget about the good old pedestrian who is often trying to cross the road.
Cyclist should obey the rules.

[Marathon]

When cyclists go through red lights they tend to forget about the good old pedestrian who is often trying to cross the road.
Cyclist should obey the rules.

One could quite easily substitute 'driver' for 'cyclist' in that quote.

Kent House Rd/Sydenham Rd junction yesterday afternoon: 5 cars decided to jump the lights as they turned red. No-one around to tag their plates, so they escaped punishment too.

[lizzie]

Getting back to the original topic, while walking down Sydenham Road towards the library about a year ago I had eggs thrown at me from a passing car.

Nice.

re. the subtopic of cyclists v. motorists, when I walk to work from Charing Cross through Bloomsbury, I'm far more wary of cyclists than I am of motorists because they're so much more unpredictable and difficult to see. They come out of nowhere. I might start doing a tally of cyclists I see going through red lights - figures would be pretty high after a week or two. Yes, motorists often push it when the lights are changing, but it's more difficult for them to do much more than that.

What really gets me about motorists is the blatant disregard for speed limits. The speed at which some people drive down Sydenham Road is shocking. And in my road, too, I'm just waiting for the death of a small child / pet due to the way cars scream down there. Partly why people don't let their kids play out anymore, I suppose.

So.. they both have their bad points. Pedestrians can be annoying too, though - it amazes me how often I see people weaving in and out of fast moving traffic and taking a chance at a crossing. Must be scary for car drivers.

Either way, I don't appreciate having eggs thrown at me by Sydenham lowlife.

Liz

[Barty]

I'm assuming you have not ridden may miles on a cycle in London over the past few years.

You're damn right. I value my life. I do recognise that in any collision between a cyclist and a motor vehicle a cyclist will come off worse. However, if i did switch to two wheels from several hundred (my most regular form of transport being a train) I would be a cyclist that followed the Highway Code, not one who disregarded it.

The bottom line is a careful car driver is more likely to kill than a lunatic cyclist.

Rubbish. A careful car driver will never kill anyone. A very careful car driver can drive for decades without even having any sort of accident. A lunatic cyclist can knock over a pedestrian, sometimes causing injuries which will kill an elderly person or child. A lunatic cyclist can cause a car to swerve, thus making that car more likely to have an accident.

I think you're missing the point, anyway. I'm not trying to argue about who kills the most people or causes the most accidents. I am asking why cyclists see fit to disobey the rules that other road users have to follow, and why they are not prosecuted for it as often as motorists.

5 cars decided to jump the lights as they turned red. No-one around to tag their plates, so they escaped punishment too.

There is a difference between road users who break the law but are not caught because the police have insufficient manpower/will/time to catch them, and road users who break the law and are never going to get caught because they are not legally obliged to identify themselves.

I'm far more wary of cyclists than I am of motorists because they're so much more unpredictable and difficult to see. They come out of nowhere.......... Yes, motorists often push it when the lights are changing, but it's more difficult for them to do much more than that.

Exactly, Lizzie. These "innocent" cyclists portrayed by PP as the victims of evil or careless motorists are themselves the perpetrators when it comes to pedestrians. At least when a car has stopped at a red light it stays stopped. You cannot guarantee that when it comes to cyclists. And not only do you have to watch for them when crossing roads, but you have to dodge them on the pavements as well.

[Chazza]

I am asking why cyclists see fit to disobey the rules that other road users have to follow, and why they are not prosecuted for it as often as motorists.

You're tarring all people who ride bicycles with the same brush Barty. Saying that all cyclists disobey the rules is like saying that all car drivers break the speed limit. Some do, some don't. I do not want to speculate about what occurs most often; drivers breaking speed limits or cyclists jumping red lights? There aren't the stats to back up any opinion I'd offer.

There is a difference between road users who break the law but are not caught because the police have insufficient manpower/will/time to catch them, and road users who break the law and are never going to get caught because they are not legally obliged to identify themselves.

What is that difference? I don't see one. If you force people who just happen to be on a bicycle to wear some form of visible ID, why not have pedestrians do it? Or everyone? All those criminals who go unpunished because the CCTV camera didn't get a good picture of someone's face, or because the victim can't give a good description of the perpetrator, would be brought to justice! All we need to do it brand everyone with an ID number on their forehead...

I don't appreciate having eggs thrown at me by Sydenham lowlife.

I do sympathise... that's the sort of behaviour I was venting against in my original post on this thread.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

I have to agree with Chazza. Anti-social behaviour is what the thread is about whether committed by pedestrian, motorist or cyclist. It is people trying to be nasty to someone else.

I don't think we should confuse that with other behaviour. It is just that from a cyclist point of view - a careful driver will, unless he understands the consequences, will inadvertantly and unconciously do things that endangers cyclists.

You can also argue that a careful cyclist may do the same to pedestrians and motorists. Except that most adult cyclists are drivers and pedestrians too so can, perhaps, take a more balanced view. That's why I suggested taking to two wheels to find out if I am wrong.

The bottom line is safety. The Highway Code often helps, but sometimes hinders. It was designed for a different time and place than London in 2009. One has to improvise to stay alive. It helps if people can understand why people do what they do and not automatically put it down to malice or thoughtlessness.

As the thread suggests - we have a problem with nasty people - without seeking to demonise people who are doing no harm and some good. That occasionally means going through a red light.

PP

[Barty]

I am asking why cyclists see fit to disobey the rules that other road users have to follow, and why they are not prosecuted for it as often as motorists.

You're tarring all people who ride bicycles with the same brush Barty.

Not what I intended. I apologise for that, but stand by the second half of that quote - a motorist who commits a traffic offence is more likely to be prosecuted for it than a cyclist.

I do not want to speculate about what occurs most often; drivers breaking speed limits or cyclists jumping red lights? There aren't the stats to back up any opinion I'd offer.

....because cyclists do not have to be insured or display a number plate on their cycles.

There is a difference between road users who break the law but are not caught because the police have insufficient manpower/will/time to catch them, and road users who break the law and are never going to get caught because they are not legally obliged to identify themselves.

What is that difference? I don't see one.

Do you not? Cycles do not have to display a licence plate or be insured. So they will NEVER be able to be identified on traffic signal cameras or CCTV in the way that cars can.

If you force people who just happen to be on a bicycle to wear some form of visible ID, why not have pedestrians do it? Or everyone?

Not the cyclist....the CYCLE. Like a car number plate.

I don't appreciate having eggs thrown at me by Sydenham lowlife.

I do sympathise... that's the sort of behaviour I was venting against in my original post on this thread.

Anti-social behaviour is what the thread is about whether committed by pedestrian, motorist or cyclist

If Admin wants to doctor this thread and move my (and subsequent posts answering me) to a different thread, that is fine. As I said before, i did not get the opportunity to participate in any debates on the "motorists vs cyclists" issue before I joined.

a careful driver will, unless he understands the consequences, will inadvertantly and unconciously do things that endangers cyclists.

I cannot agree with this PP. A careful driver will take into account the needs of all other road users when driving and do nothing to endanger anybody. Driving is all about being aware of, and taking pre-emptive action to avoid hazards. My example, in an earlier post in this thread, seeing a cyclists approaching from the rear, moving over, to suddenly find he had inexplicably swapped sides and a was about to squish him.

In helps if people can understand why people do what they do and not automatically put it down to malice or thoughtlessness.

I invite you to explain why a cyclist behaved in whis way in this, and the other examples I gave in my previous post.

without seeking to demonise people who are doing no harm and some good. That occasionally means going through a red light.

So it's ok to break the law, then, as long as nobody gets hurt? How far do you take that? Wave a shotgun around.....no, don't worry officer, I wasn't actually going to shoot anyone, honest.

[bensonby]

The Highway Code often helps, but sometimes hinders. It was designed for a different time and place than London in 2009.

What's wrong with the highway code? Or, rather, parts of it?

[bensonby]

Rubbish. A careful car driver will never kill anyone.

that's nonsense.... If a small kid runs out from behind a parked car in front of your oncoming car which is traveling dead on the speed limit there is a good chance that they will die.

The most careful of drivers can't predict every eventuality...

[Barty]

Fair comment Bensonby.

Perhaps more accurate to say that a careful driver will do all (s)he can to avoid an accident.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of drivers will drive their entire life without killing anybody, and many drive for a long time without causing an accident.

[Barty]

The Highway Code often helps, but sometimes hinders. It was designed for a different time and place than London in 2009.

What's wrong with the highway code? Or, rather, parts of it?

the parts that forbid cyclists from going thru red traffic lights???

[Paddy Pantsdown]

To answer Bensonby on the Highway Code: the HC is mostly practical common sense and has evolved over the years to reflect changes in road conditions. It has tended to follow and is optimised at general national conditions and hence not at their best for the rather peculiar and dense traffic conditions of central London.

But an example that effected every cyclist. At one stage to stay legal and obey the Highway Code one had to use poor, dim & unreliable lighting systems (BS approved). A killer on a wet night. Many cyclists sensibly ignored this and rode with brighter, more reliable LED lighting. Should they be prosecuted?

Thankfully the law & HC have caught up on that one - what is legal and right should be the same. When they are not, which should you choose?

As for riding through a red light Barty. Let me give you one example. Years ago most pedestrian crossings were 'zebra'. There was little conflict between a careful cyclist and pedestrian. A cyclist could with timing ride behind or round the person without inhibiting the pedestrian. The pedestrian always had precedence. No problem. Now most pedestrian crossings are light controlled. You are supposed to stop, even if no one is crossing (usually the situation). So why not wait and stop complaining? Well most pedestrian crossings have no cyclists box. What do you do? Pull into mid lane to command it (the current legal advice) impeding the motorist when the lights change. Try it Barty. Being shunted from the rear is not fun. Or stay in the gutter and be sideswiped as you wobble on takeoff (especially on an incline).

Which is why I now elect to ride through such a red light if I am not impeding anyone. It is simply the safest thing to do. It harms no one, indeed arguably preserves my life and the conscience of anyone who otherwise might hit me. It also has the bonus of speeding my journey and make it more attractive than driving. Is that not a good thing? Should I be prosecuted?

The law is there to protect people from people, it is not a thing to be obeyed unquestionably when it doesn't. Good police officers understand that. Bad ones may differ ...

PP

[Barty]

At one stage to stay legal and obey the Highway Code one had to use poor, dim & unreliable lighting systems (BS approved). A killer on a wet night. Many cyclists sensibly ignored this and rode with brighter, more reliable LED lighting. Should they be prosecuted?

Of course not. Would I be right in saying that, in terms of equipment on a vehicle to be used on a public road, the Highway Code lays down minimum requirements? For example, some years ago my car passed an MOT without a nearside wing mirror. At that point (possibly not any longer) it was only mandatory to have an offside wing mirror. So no, you're not going to be prosecuted for exceeding a standard, are you? Only falling below it.

Now most pedestrian crossings are light controlled. You are supposed to stop, even if no one is crossing (usually the situation). So why not wait and stop complaining? Well most pedestrian crossings have no cyclists box. What do you do?

What the Highway Code says you should do.

What if car drivers took up this cyclist's pick-and-choose-when-to-stop-at-red-lights philosophy? It's late at night, I'm driving down the road, no traffic about....I come to a red light.....oh well, I'll just go through it, no-one's around, it speeds my journey, I'm not impeding anyone, and hey, it even reduces my carbon footprint cos I don't have to brake and then accelerate away again.

<FLASH> Back to reality.

Yes, that flash was a traffic signal camera, which has just taken a photo of the VEHICLE REGISTRATION PLATE WHICH I AM REQUIRED TO DISPLAY and in a couple of days time a fixed penalty notice will land on my doormat and my licence will be endorsedwith points, thereby increasing my insurance premium.

If a cyclist is mown down by a car, you report the incident to the police. You claim off Accident Lawyers 4 You, the driver is prosecuted for dangerous driving, etc etc etc.

If a pedestrian is knocked over by a cyclist, what does the pedestrian do as the cyclist cycles off into the distance????

[Chazza]

If a pedestrian is knocked over by a cyclist, what does the pedestrian do as the cyclist cycles off into the distance????

The cyclist will probably be laying in the road with similar injuries to the ped... but I digress.

Mandatory registration of motor vehicles does nothing to prevent hit-and-run accidents involving those vehicles, so why would it do anything to prevent hit-and-run accidents involving pedal cycles?