Cyclists and pedestrians
Discussion
After the, um, interesting link to Cyclists Plus yesterday, I think I must be sensitised to seeing them.
Last night on the way home I saw at least a dozen cyclists. Only one actually had effective front and rear lights. A small number had just one light on. The majority had no lights at all, or had left their lights off. One cyclist (in black clothing, no lights, black or dark coloured bike) was happily negotiating one of the busiest roundabouts in town. The cycle lanes meant he had to cut right across the two lanes around the roundabout. It's amazing no-one hit him. Should we be introducing tests and licenses before people are allowed to risk their lives at the hand of inattentive motorists?
Even better, driving down the unlit country lanes between villages (a nice quiet road that people regularly thrash down, often the location of accidents), I came across three different people walking in the pitch black. One jogger and one guy walking his barely controlled dog. No reflective clothing, no torches, no pavement and walking along the verge. What are these people thinking?
Have the dark evenings removed people's sense of self preservation?
Last night on the way home I saw at least a dozen cyclists. Only one actually had effective front and rear lights. A small number had just one light on. The majority had no lights at all, or had left their lights off. One cyclist (in black clothing, no lights, black or dark coloured bike) was happily negotiating one of the busiest roundabouts in town. The cycle lanes meant he had to cut right across the two lanes around the roundabout. It's amazing no-one hit him. Should we be introducing tests and licenses before people are allowed to risk their lives at the hand of inattentive motorists?
Even better, driving down the unlit country lanes between villages (a nice quiet road that people regularly thrash down, often the location of accidents), I came across three different people walking in the pitch black. One jogger and one guy walking his barely controlled dog. No reflective clothing, no torches, no pavement and walking along the verge. What are these people thinking?
Have the dark evenings removed people's sense of self preservation?
I found a cyclist yesterday in central London who had obviously not read the highway code. i was in a lane where you have a thick white line that you are not meant to cross, however, the cyclist felt he was allowed to cross into the lane and narrowly avoid getting run over by me! strangely enough he felt it was my fault?
You're forgetting that cyclists are immune from any law as they are 'in fashion'.
I was having a (pedestrian)tour of Cambridge yesterday and my colleague advised me that the biggest hazard was not cars but cyclists. We crossed at a zebra crossing and a cyclist had to stop - but you could see from the look on his face he didn't like doing it.
Knock down an unlit cyclist and who goes to jail? You do. Because whatever happens, it's the motorist's fault.
Whenever I go past a cyclist after dark who's not got any lights, I lower the window and tell them to get some bloody lights, and I suggest you do too. After all, you might save his life!
I was having a (pedestrian)tour of Cambridge yesterday and my colleague advised me that the biggest hazard was not cars but cyclists. We crossed at a zebra crossing and a cyclist had to stop - but you could see from the look on his face he didn't like doing it.
Knock down an unlit cyclist and who goes to jail? You do. Because whatever happens, it's the motorist's fault.
Whenever I go past a cyclist after dark who's not got any lights, I lower the window and tell them to get some bloody lights, and I suggest you do too. After all, you might save his life!
That is something I don't get, in broad daylight with perfect visibility there are far too many car drivers oblivious to cyclists (even ones like myself who actually ride within the law), so why at night allow yourself to be all but completely invisible to motorists? Do these people want to die? I have £300 worth of lights on my mountain bike, I can dazzle car drivers at will, I know I have to make it as easy as possible for them to see me, or I will be knocked off. There is a natural pecking order here, it is the cyclist's responsiblity to be as visible as possible, because any accident with a car, they will lose.
While I'm being a cyclist complaining about other cyclists, I stopped at a red light the other week on my bike and was promptly ridden into by another cyclist who didn't understand why I would stop at a red!!!
While I'm being a cyclist complaining about other cyclists, I stopped at a red light the other week on my bike and was promptly ridden into by another cyclist who didn't understand why I would stop at a red!!!
tinman0 said:
Dunno what they'd say on that cyclist forum but round the top of Northampton all the cyclists must have infra-red vision as they don't seem to bother with lights at all.
if only drivers had the infrared vision as well....
Some newer luxo barges have it, coming to a fiesta near you in ten years.
Munter said:
I keep thinking something like this must be true:
In order to avoid an accident cyclists have to take action for 1 in 10 cars. While motorists have to take action for 1 in 2 cyclists. Now whos the worst road user....
Though whilst cycling I've been knocked off and put in hospital twice by motorists, but cyclists have never knocked me out of my car.
I quite often go for a cycle if the weathers nice, and I have back and front lights for my bike, plus a helmet.
I cannot understand wny so many cyclists don't bother! When I was at University the BiBs were forever nabbing us if we didn't have lights, have they given up om this?
From the ped perspective, cyclists in London are often utter arseholes, who ride straight through red lights at pedestrian crossings because I presume they can't be bothered to stop and think they don't need to.
A friend of my mothers was killed by a cyclist in London btw. She was crossing at a zebra crossing, this t
t cycled straight into her and knocked her down , she hit her head and died later of a brain hemorrage.
I cannot understand wny so many cyclists don't bother! When I was at University the BiBs were forever nabbing us if we didn't have lights, have they given up om this?
From the ped perspective, cyclists in London are often utter arseholes, who ride straight through red lights at pedestrian crossings because I presume they can't be bothered to stop and think they don't need to.
A friend of my mothers was killed by a cyclist in London btw. She was crossing at a zebra crossing, this t
t cycled straight into her and knocked her down , she hit her head and died later of a brain hemorrage. Munter said:
I keep thinking something like this must be true:
In order to avoid an accident cyclists have to take action for 1 in 10 cars. While motorists have to take action for 1 in 2 cyclists. Now whos the worst road user....
I'm both a cyclist and driver ( and I don't cycle at night without lights ... ) ...I agree that a lot of cyclists ARE reckless - don't think its as many as 1 in 2 mind you.
And as a cyclist - you often don't have an option to "take action" - if a vehicle hits you from behind
While recently cycling the South Downs Way - and riding the last few miles into Eastbourne by road - I'd have to say probably 1 in 3 drivers drove past dangerously close (less than a foot) - many of them talking on mobile phones ..... its not nice to think that one small deviation from a car driver not paying attention and my life is over.
Which is why I prefer to cycle off-road (mtn biking) -and only really cycle on roads when there isn't an alternative - I honestly think that given the ( pretty poor )levels of observation and concentration from many drivers (not aimed at PH'ers )- if you regularly cycle on a road these days ( even if you are a safe cyclist ) - it is only a matter of time before you end up in hospital ( sadly)
A crux issue is this .... many cyclists get killed or injured by vehicles (and I accept some will be the cyclists fault ).... I doubt many car or truck drivers get killed by cyclists ( just a fact , not apportioning blame )
alfaman said:
I keep thinking something like this must be true:
In order to avoid an accident cyclists have to take action for 1 in 10 cars. While motorists have to take action for 1 in 2 cyclists. Now whos the worst road user....
I'm both a cyclist and driver ( and I don't cycle at night without lights ... ) ...I agree that a lot of cyclists ARE reckless - don't think its as many as 1 in 2 mind you.
My numbers may well be wildy out! It was just a thought.
alfaman said:
I doubt many car or truck drivers get killed by cyclists ( just a fact , not apportioning blame )
The problem comes when Cycling Extreamists decide that this fact means all motorists should be banned....
Munter said:
I keep thinking something like this must be true:
In order to avoid an accident cyclists have to take action for 1 in 10 cars. While motorists have to take action for 1 in 2 cyclists. Now whos the worst road user....
I'm both a cyclist and driver ( and I don't cycle at night without lights ... ) ...I agree that a lot of cyclists ARE reckless - don't think its as many as 1 in 2 mind you.
My numbers may well be wildy out! It was just a thought.
alfaman said:
I doubt many car or truck drivers get killed by cyclists ( just a fact , not apportioning blame )
The problem comes when Cycling Extreamists decide that this fact means all motorists should be banned....
Agree with you - *some* cyclists group don't do themselves any favours - tending to escalate the debate into "Us" and "Them" - forgetting that many people are *both* drivers and cyclists.
I think its fine for cyclists and drivers to "co-exist" - they just need to see each others point of view a bit -
and the Government could do a LOT more to improve cycle-ways etc. e.g : ones which keep cars and cyclists separated - if there was more good (safe) provision for people cycling in towns and cities more people would cycle , fewer people would need to drive .... and the roads would not be as congested for cars.... a "win win" I think .
alfaman said:
and the Government could do a LOT more to improve cycle-ways etc. e.g : ones which keep cars and cyclists separated - if there was more good (safe) provision for people cycling in towns and cities more people would cycle , fewer people would need to drive .... and the roads would not be as congested for cars.... a "win win" I think .
Unfortunately cyclists like my boss believe that using the cycle paths is a choise. And his choise is to ride on the road despite a cycle path alongside that stretch of road. The cycle path was put in because they put in pinch points to slow traffic down (50 limit) and didn't want cyclists to get squished. But he's now campaining to get them removed because they are dangerous when he chooses to ride on the road rather than the cycle path... The only good point is he blaims everything on the design of the road and not on the motorists. But then he's also a bit of a petrol head....
follow this link for some crap cycle facilities;
[url]www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/September2004.htm[/url]
:rollseyes:
I use lights, three rear and three front, sometimes in the day aswell, I also use reflective gear and sometimes one of these, [not me I might add]
Personally I believe the consequences for bad driving are seen as an acceptable risk [a sort of I'm insured it doesn't matter]rather than a detterent, I am talking in general here not just bike /car accidents, after all how much bad driving do you see everyday when you are out and about, tailgating, mad overtaking, pulling out without looking and my pet hate driving on whilst using a hand held phone
for a little more than the cost of the fine they could get a blue tooth headset or a cheap handsfree kit.
Hopefully the proposed new charge of 'causing death by careless driving' will if it goes through see a beginning of improvements and maybe make people think twice before carrying out an irresponsible manouvre, and I include law breaking cyclists in there aswell there is no excuse for no lights or red light jumping.
Is it not a bit ironic that cyclists lit up like christmas trees get knocked off by people that didn't see them but riders in black and no lights everyone shouts look at him with no lights
cheers
Steve
[url]www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/September2004.htm[/url]
:rollseyes:
I use lights, three rear and three front, sometimes in the day aswell, I also use reflective gear and sometimes one of these, [not me I might add]
Personally I believe the consequences for bad driving are seen as an acceptable risk [a sort of I'm insured it doesn't matter]rather than a detterent, I am talking in general here not just bike /car accidents, after all how much bad driving do you see everyday when you are out and about, tailgating, mad overtaking, pulling out without looking and my pet hate driving on whilst using a hand held phone
for a little more than the cost of the fine they could get a blue tooth headset or a cheap handsfree kit. Hopefully the proposed new charge of 'causing death by careless driving' will if it goes through see a beginning of improvements and maybe make people think twice before carrying out an irresponsible manouvre, and I include law breaking cyclists in there aswell there is no excuse for no lights or red light jumping.
Is it not a bit ironic that cyclists lit up like christmas trees get knocked off by people that didn't see them but riders in black and no lights everyone shouts look at him with no lights
cheers
Steve
In Holland I have seen many instances of Cyclists and pedestrians using the same space. I have often thought that this is a MUCH better solution than having cyclists mix it with motorized transport of all sizes!..
Allowing (nay, forcing) cyclists to use pavements would bestow upon them them same responsibilies that they now demand from the motorist!..and a damned sight safer if a collision occurs...
Let's change the law..................
Allowing (nay, forcing) cyclists to use pavements would bestow upon them them same responsibilies that they now demand from the motorist!..and a damned sight safer if a collision occurs...
Let's change the law..................
alfaman said:
And as a cyclist - you often don't have an option to "take action" - if a vehicle hits you from behind
Can't one get mirrors? The last time I checked, a car won't stay on the road very long if it doesn't have any mirrors. Not being able to see behind oneself on the road is dangerous and irresponsible. To suggest that cyclists are incapable of riding defensively is ridiculous; and if a cyclist can't see behind himself on the road, and he gets hit, it's his own fault for not being observant. It boggles my mind how there exists a double standard that motorists need to be observant and watch out for cyclists and pedestrians, yet no one expects them to watch out for motorists. At a train crossing, it's a motorist's responsibility to make sure no trains are coming. Similarly, cyclists must watch out for motor vehicles if they decide they need to ride on roads. As has been mentioned, bicycles are exercise tools meant to be used in isolated areas; allowing them on the road has just become a convenience for bike riders. We wouldn't expect someone to walk down the sidewalk with an Olympic bar and then whine whenever someone makes him drop it by bumping it.
alfaman said:
While recently cycling the South Downs Way - and riding the last few miles into Eastbourne by road - I'd have to say probably 1 in 3 drivers drove past dangerously close (less than a foot) - many of them talking on mobile phones ..... its not nice to think that one small deviation from a car driver not paying attention and my life is over.
Yet as Prof Beard said in the other thread, by cycling you accept a risk. If you can't face the risks, then don't cycle. It's as easy as that. You don't see skydivers getting in a huff about "careless parachute packers" or "damn inconveniently located trees that I get caught in and get injured by"; they accept it as a risk. Why should cycling be any different?
And let's face it: roads are designed for cars. Thus, drivers are meant to intereact with other drivers. They're not trained and expected to cope with cyclists pedalling away at 15mph in a 45mph zone, where there's barely enough room for two cars to pass in opposite directions. Why aren't bikers constantly getting knocked off of their motorcycles? They're essentially the same size and shape. It's just that bikers have to have a license, and they can actually travel at a normal speed. They don't hold up traffic, and don't force people to pass them in areas where passing isn't suitable. Cyclists should stay off the roads unless they're capable of traveling at speeds near that of which a car is capable. Otherwise they're just an annoying obstruction.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff