British Cyclists

[Boldface_Type]

@TheLoadedDog

Most car/bike altercations happen in heavy traffic. Bikes can weave between cars, and if you flip the bird at one, he’s likely to catch you at the next light. Cyclists have been known to punch/ spit at drivers through the open window, to key cars as they ride past, and they then ride off and are away before the drivers can even get their seatbelt off to pursue on foot.

In counterpoint, cars have been known to deliberately wipe cyclists out, attempting to kill them. Happened to a guy I know just over a week ago. Car coming the opposite way to the cyclist crossed the road, accelerating straight at the cyclist. Impact. Cyclist survives, although will need skin grafts, and a fist-sized lump of muscle torn from his upper leg may hinder his future athletic actions.

If a cyclist behaves badly toward a driver, the driver will typically be inconvenienced (e.g., delayed). In some circumstances the driver will be inconvenienced, but the cylist killed (e.g., if the cyclist jumps a red light at the wrong time).

If a driver behaves badly toward a cyclist, the latter will quite possibly be killed.

Cyclists are vulnerable, and - alas - even cyclists who follow the law to the utmost will face all sorts of shit from motorists, shit that can easily put 'em 6-feet under. I think it’s reached a stage - in some places - where there’s just no point attempting to reach a compromise between cars and bikes.

If it was about cowardice, I’d be going after the pedestrians, no?

Well, no. It’s far easier to get away with wiping out a cyclist than a ped.

And regarding jumping red lights: Not legal behaviour by the cyclist, but it does prevent same from delaying the car drivers behind.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@TheLoadedDog

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

My head is starting to hurt. This is now starting to get surreal. No cyclist anywhere, ever, has done ANYTHING wrong. Ever. At all. Is that right?

Where did you get that bit of mental driftwood. Of course there are cyclists that have done wrong. Plenty of it. The problem is that the complaints about cyclists far outweigh the consequences. If cyclists cause 5% of the real problems, they get 90% of the complaints. Even fucking liberal NPR is getting into the anti-cycling mode these days.

But the bottom line is that all such complaints, when coming from drivers, boil down to the essential get offa mah road cycle-boy. In your own example you could have solved your problem by remaining in the faster lane, but you seemed to prefer compounding it by returning to the original lane over and over.

Of course, you want to boil down the problems with lawless bicycles you only have to look at yourself. In the United States, the Uniform Vehicle Code, which almost all states have boiled down their traffic laws from, was written by drivers who wrote the laws with the intent of trying to get bicycles off the road or out of their way. The result being that bicycle laws are confusing, ineptly written, poorly implemented, badly misunderstood, and so are very often ignored.

[Dead_Badger]

@Princhester

Or in other words, the statistics don’t suit me so I’m ignoring them. They exactly precisely represent to you what your risk is. Near enough to zip.

Actually, you are misrepresenting the statistics you quoted, even if inadvertently. Cyclists as a group represent a lesser danger than motorists, but there are vastly fewer of them around; of course the number of accidents is going to be fewer. Moreover, their mode of transport is intrinsically less deadly, since it weighs a fraction of a car’s weight, and travels at a lower speed, making it both more avoidable and less damaging in an actual collision. Thus, showing that cyclists as a group are responsible for fewer injuries does not prove that the average individual cyclist is a more considerate or responsible road user than the average individual motorist.

Purely anecdotally, I know that I’ve had to jump out of the way of a lot more erratic cyclists in my time than I have cars. I’m still more wary of cars, as they have a lot more potential to do me in, despite their more predictable behaviour*. However, cyclists undoubtedly piss me off more, because they often (not always) behave in ways I simply can’t predict or trust. It’s nothing intrinsic to cycling, it’s just that cyclists don’t generally get punished for running red lights or riding on the pavement (at least where I live), and they don’t need licences to ride. The barrier to entry is much lower, so you get a lot more wankers cycling.

*Predictable from the perspective of a pedestrian, I emphasise. Cars tend not to cane through pedestrian crossings because they’re very likely to kill someone. Cyclists, IMO, do so because they think it’s not really dangerous. It’s not, at least not to the same extent, but it’s still reckless. I have no doubt, having cycled a fair bit myself, that some motorists are just as careless with cyclists as some cyclists are with pedestrians, but that excuses neither group.

Which is the more dangerous group to be in? Take your time.

I’m far less likely overall to be killed by a shark than I am by a cyclist. Is it therefore safer to swim with sharks than walk with cyclists?

@MrAlpen

And, for heaven’s sake, a MINORITY.

I must humbly suggest that you have never tried walking around Oxford or Cambridge. It’s an eye-opening experience, not least because if you so much as blink some cunt will bowl you over. You can keep saying “MINORITY” as much as you like, but it is at the very least a huge minority, and one which makes it impossible to predict the behaviour of cyclists as a whole, since there’s pretty much no way to tell beforehand whether the cyclist approaching the crossing is a dickhead or not. I’m not exaggerating that I sometimes feel like applauding when I see a cyclist in London stop at a red light; it really is that rare. If you are not one of the light-running dickheads, I salute you, but Jeez, I seriously hesitate to describe you as the norm.

[MrAlpen]

@Dead Badger

…
I must humbly suggest that you have never tried walking around Oxford or Cambridge. It’s an eye-opening experience, not least because if you so much as blink some cunt will bowl you over …

Why don’t you read TRL583 linked above? Fitzroy Street Cambridge was even in the study. The objectively observed behaviour is that cyclists slow down for pedestrians and dismount when the pedestrian density is high. There are a small number of (largely young male) cyclists who don’t. They are a minority. Other studies show the same: cyclists do not TYPICALLY behave badly, but pedestrian fear that they might. It’s a property of pedestrians and not cyclists, although there are exceptions.

Finally, I walked out from a city centre to my office this morning: narrow streets out to a university suburb with broad avenues. 87 cyclists observed, 14 actively “giving way” at junctions, 4 breaking rules (2 cycling in deserted pedestrianised shopping centres, 1 cutting in front of oncoming traffic and 1 looking ridiculous on a reclined bike).

[Princhester]

@Dead Badger

Actually, you are misrepresenting the statistics you quoted, even if inadvertently. Cyclists as a group represent a lesser danger than motorists, but there are vastly fewer of them around; of course the number of accidents is going to be fewer.

No I’m not. My post was a response to the OP. The OP states that cyclists are the greatest danger to him as a pedestrian. An absolute not proportionate conclusion. Thus absolute (not proportionate) statistics were all that were needed to show that the OP was crap.

Moreover, their mode of transport is intrinsically less deadly, since it weighs a fraction of a car’s weight, and travels at a lower speed, making it both more avoidable and less damaging in an actual collision. Thus, showing that cyclists as a group are responsible for fewer injuries does not prove that the average individual cyclist is a more considerate or responsible road user than the average individual motorist.

Never said he was. But you might like to consider this: when wielding a dangerous object (such as a 50km/hr 1000kg car) one needs to act more responsibly and with greater consideration than when wielding a 25 km/h 100kg bike, in order to achieve a comparable level of safety for those around you. This is the factor that many try to overlook in this debate.

I must humbly suggest that you have never tried walking around Oxford or Cambridge.

I have. Spent ten days there only a month ago.

It’s an eye-opening experience, not least because if you so much as blink some cunt will bowl you over.

It sounds like you’ve spent a fair bit of time walking around in Oxford or Cambridge. Given that you (being human) would have blinked many many times over that period, I take it that you have been bowled over many, many times. You are one unlucky bastard. There were only 159 slight pedestrian injuries caused by cyclists in the whole of the UK in 2003. Poor old Dead Badger seems to have been the victim in most of them. Or are you exaggerating wildly?

[Dead_Badger]

@Princhester

No I’m not. My post was a response to the OP. The OP states that cyclists are the greatest danger to him as a pedestrian. An absolute not proportionate conclusion. Thus absolute (not proportionate) statistics were all that were needed to show that the OP was crap.

Fair enough; I certainly wouldn’t go as far as to say that the greatest danger to me is cyclists. I do think that any given cyclist is more likely to actively endanger me in some manner than any given driver, however, even though the level of danger itself is less.

Never said he was. But you might like to consider this: when wielding a dangerous object (such as a 50km/hr 1000kg car) one needs to act more responsibly and with greater consideration than when wielding a 25 km/h 100kg bike, in order to achieve a comparable level of safety for those around you. This is the factor that many try to overlook in this debate.

I don’t think the relative lightness of cycles excuses lesser consideration on the part of their riders. Someone with a pellet gun is endangering me far less than someone with an actual gun, but I’d still like it if they didn’t keep aiming at me. Just the same way, a car running over me at a traffic light will kill me, while a cyclist doing the same will only bloody hurt. But both are legally obliged to stop; it’s not up to the cyclist to assess how dangerous he’s being, and decide whether the pedestrian ought to take the risk. He’s supposed to obey the rules of the road.

I have. Spent ten days there only a month ago.

Fair enough, I guess. I spent four years there, hoofing it about from one place to t’other, and all I can say is that I guess we’ve formed different opinions. For some reason, it’s my observation that Cambridge students are totally and utterly brainless in two main scenarios*: on a bike, and replying to email (the concept of not pressing “reply all” apparently eludes the brightest minds of our nation). The sheer number of them riding without helmets, lights, reflectors, running lights and crossings, turning against signs, riding the wrong way up one-way streets, weaving and dodging through buses etc. is insane.

It sounds like you’ve spent a fair bit of time walking around in Oxford or Cambridge. Given that you (being human) would have blinked many many times over that period, I take it that you have been bowled over many, many times. You are one unlucky bastard. There were only 159 slight pedestrian injuries caused by cyclists in the whole of the UK in 2003. Poor old Dead Badger seems to have been the victim in most of them. Or are you exaggerating wildly?

Yes, that was dramatic licence. Well spotted. That’s the thing, though; I’m not claiming I’ve been injured, since I have the wherewithal and reactions to generally jump out of the way. I have literally never had to jump out of the way of a car at a pedestrian crossing, whereas I’ve had to step back to avoid numerous cyclists running red lights. None of them are all that likely to injure or kill me, but I sure would like it if they’d obey the rules of the road.

• Actually, three: drinking society initiations. Jesus. :eek:

[Princhester]

@Dead Badger

I don’t think the relative lightness of cycles excuses lesser consideration on the part of their riders. Someone with a pellet gun is endangering me far less than someone with an actual gun, but I’d still like it if they didn’t keep aiming at me. Just the same way, a car running over me at a traffic light will kill me, while a cyclist doing the same will only bloody hurt. But both are legally obliged to stop; it’s not up to the cyclist to assess how dangerous he’s being, and decide whether the pedestrian ought to take the risk. He’s supposed to obey the rules of the road.

This is where we differ. Most road rules were introduced to control the danger that is cars. Most of them are total overkill for bikes.

[Dead_Badger]

@Princhester

This is where we differ. Most road rules were introduced to control the danger that is cars. Most of them are total overkill for bikes.

Well, I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. Cyclists should bloody well stop at pedestrian crossings, because those crossing signs tell pedestrians that it is safe to cross, not that it’s probably safe unless there’s a cyclist coming. Are you really saying that it’s alright for cyclists to run red lights and pedestrian crossings if they think it’s safe? If not, could you explain which road rules you think cyclists should be exempt from, and why?

[DSeid]

Just out of curiousity Dead Badger, as a pedestrian do you always wait for the green beforre you cross? Do you you never jaywalk? Do you follow all the rules all the time, and if not then which rules do you ignore and why?

No doubt cyclists should not be reckless and that a few are. And that many more bend the traffic rules on occassion at least. But not every bend is recklessness. “Most” are not reckless.

[GLWasteful]

@Dead Badger

Are you really saying that it’s alright for cyclists to run red lights and pedestrian crossings if they think it’s safe? If not, could you explain which road rules you think cyclists should be exempt from, and why?

Well, I can take a stab at this. On my morning commute, I make two left turns. Since the pads that allow a left turn signal aren’t tripped by my weight (not that I’m not trying to change that, you understand), then I will, if there is no car behind me to trip the pad and give me a green light, run those red lights. This, of course, is after I’ve determined that there are no cars coming toward me, since I’m in no hurry to die. Too, since I usually am out and about early of a morn, there are damned few instances where a car comes along and helps me out.

That said, if the light sensors could be tripped by me, I would cheerfully wait for a green light. But until the road rules (written by drivers) mandate a system whereby a cyclist can affect a green light, then I will continue to break this particular rule.

Waste

[Dead_Badger]

@GLWasteful

That said, if the light sensors could be tripped by me, I would cheerfully wait for a green light. But until the road rules (written by drivers) mandate a system whereby a cyclist can affect a green light, then I will continue to break this particular rule.

Fair enough; if the traffic technology effectively renders the roads unusable for you, then it absolutely makes sense for you to ignore the lights. But I think this is a pretty rare example, and is one of necessity, not convenience.

DSeid, there aren’t any jaywalking laws in the UK, so crossing the road on a red or not at some lights is (as far as I am aware) legal. It would be impossible to cross the road in a lot of places if this were not the case. Nonetheless, if there is a light, I wait for it. If there isn’t one, I cross as safely as possible.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

I know that the plural of ancedotes is not data, but I’ll throw this into the ring.

In the past week I’ve seen around a dozend cyclists (Texan, not British) run red lights. Net results - not much.

I’ve also seen two cars run red lights. Results - one minor accident and one that involved two wrecked cars and (later) two ambulances.

Cyclists are annoying, but it’s cars that actually do the damage.

[GLWasteful]

@Dead Badger

Fair enough; if the traffic technology effectively renders the roads unusable for you, then it absolutely makes sense for you to ignore the lights. But I think this is a pretty rare example, and is one of necessity, not convenience.

Dunno what it’s like where you are (a thousand pardons, but I’ve since forgotten if you’re one of those being so shat upon in Oxford &/or Cambridge), but where I’m at, it’s not rare. As a matter of fact, it happens all the damned time due entirely to the fact that the sensors do not register that a cyclist is sitting in the left turn lane. Or, for that matter, waiting to go directly through a light.

@Dead Badger

Cyclists should bloody well stop at pedestrian crossings, because those crossing signs tell pedestrians that it is safe to cross, not that it’s probably safe unless there’s a cyclist coming.

Since it appears that you are, indeed, in Britain, I must ask for clarification: Are automobiles required to stop at what you are referring to as “pedestrian crossings”? Because if not, and again, I’m coming at this from a US POV, why in hell should cyclists?

[Dead_Badger]

@GLWasteful

Dunno what it’s like where you are (a thousand pardons, but I’ve since forgotten if you’re one of those being so shat upon in Oxford &/or Cambridge), but where I’m at, it’s not rare. As a matter of fact, it happens all the damned time due entirely to the fact that the sensors do not register that a cyclist is sitting in the left turn lane. Or, for that matter, waiting to go directly through a light.

Where I am, there are pedestrian switches and timers. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an induction-loop-triggered light over here. Like I say; if a light is never going to go green for a cyclist, I think he’s entitled to run it. I’ve just never seen anything like this, but I’m more than willing to take your word for it.

Since it appears that you are, indeed, in Britain, I must ask for clarification: Are automobiles required to stop at what you are referring to as “pedestrian crossings”?

They are (surely otherwise they wouldn’t be “crossings” in any meaningful sense). I’m talking about full-on red lights, or zebra crossings at which, if a pedestrian is waiting to cross, oncoming vehicles are obliged to give way to them. Of course I would not expect cyclists to stop where cars are not expected to. But then, I can’t really see the point of a pedestrian crossing at which vehicles are not expected to stop.

[Princhester]

@Dead Badger

Well, I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. Cyclists should bloody well stop at pedestrian crossings, because those crossing signs tell pedestrians that it is safe to cross, not that it’s probably safe unless there’s a cyclist coming. Are you really saying that it’s alright for cyclists to run red lights and pedestrian crossings if they think it’s safe? If not, could you explain which road rules you think cyclists should be exempt from, and why?

I agree that cyclists should bloody well give way when they don’t have right of way. However, I think that many road rules are very clumsy for something as light and agile and narrow as a bike. Stop signs that require a complete stop, pedestrian crossings that require a complete stop if anyone is on the crossing even if they are yards and yards away are a couple of examples. Obviously, any cyclist who “plays chicken” with you on a pedestrian crossing is an arsehole, no two ways about it.

I should make this clear (if it isn’t from what I just said): I have nothing good to say about cyclists who actually endanger others. I have no word against those who complain about such cyclists. But what annoys me is people (and there are numerous examples in this thread) who seem to have a petty hate of cyclists who don’t follow the rules, just because they are not following the rules, even though they are not particularly endangering anyone.

[Walker_in_Eternity]

@Princhester

Thanks for that Mr Miskatonic.

I had been idly thinking about making particular comment on this:

but your cite prompted me to action.

Stryfe you live in fairy land. Your comment comes from the other side of the looking glass. In the real world where I live

• the police are motorheads who tend not be too keen on cyclists,

• you’re lucky if a jury has a single cyclist on it, and

• every jury is likely to have some irrationally prejudiced fuckhead on it who thinks that the real threat to pedestrians is the type of road user that causes (let me mention that figure again) 0.6% of pedestrian injuries

Not that I’m thinking of anyone in particular.

Read my posts, I’m a pedestrian mostly. Sure I agree motorists are far from perfect and car drivers do tend to live in an insulated bubble, but in my experience the majority stop at red lights, the same cannot be said of cyclists.

I agree that cyclists get a raw deal from motorists, but as someone who walks to work each day, my biggest hazard is cycles. Looking at the statistics for injuries involving pedestrians/cyclists earlier I can only say that the statistics don’t take into account near misses, of which though no fault of my own I must have on a weekly basis due to cyclists not stopping at red lights or riding at speed on a footpath. Note that’s footpath, not cyclepath.

I’m not saying all cyclists are bad, but certainly the majority do not show consideration to other road users, particularly pedestrians. You are correct in your assertion that car drivers cause more injuries and deaths and often speed.

I agree with what was said earlier that dangerous cycling is a generational thing, the majority of considerate cyclists are elderly or middle aged. The worst offenders are younger and fall into the categories stated earlier.

Do they still even do cycling proficiency traiing in the Uk? When I was at school it was strongly encouraged, for our own safety as well as others. Yes I did my proficiency test (about 1977 if I remember correctly).

[Princhester]

@Stryfe

Read my posts, I’m a pedestrian mostly.

What does that have to do with the dumbass comment you made in the post under reply, and my refutation of it?

Looking at the statistics for injuries involving pedestrians/cyclists earlier I can only say that the statistics don’t take into account near misses, of which though no fault of my own I must have on a weekly basis due to cyclists not stopping at red lights or riding at speed on a footpath.

Injury statistics don’t take into account non-injury incidents. No shit, Sherlock.

Non-injury incidents don’t cause injury, see. Things that don’t cause injury aren’t dangerous. Tricky, huh?

[Walker_in_Eternity]

Ok to refute your refutation. In the UK within the last few years moves were made by the government to make motorists responsible for accidents with cyclists, regardless of who was at fault in the accident. I am not sure whether this actually made it to law or not and will try to find a cite to back up my assertion.

To answer your second point of course non accidents don’t count as accidents (except under theHealth and Safety at work act where near misses are notifiable), but thety are only near misses because pedestrians have learned that cyclists are unlikely to stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings and react accordingly.

As far as I can see no-one here is saying that cyclists are inherently more dangerous than cars, the jist of my OP was that for my journey to work they pose more of a threat to me than cars. For the record I use pedestrian crossings where available and if not available only cross when safe to do so using the green cross code.

In fact only yesterday I after patiently waiting for the pedestrian crossing to turn green (for me) I saw a cyclist and some cars approacing the crossing. The cars stopped, but the motherfucker on the bike looked me in the eye and went straight through the (for him) red light. Luckly I had seen him coming and was expecting this type of ignorance.

Maybe I’ve just been unluck recently, but this is not an isolated incident, nor am I being victimised by a single cyclist, this seems to be the norm with the cyclists that I have encountered. If law abiding cyclists are offended, I’m sorry, my ire is not aimed at you, just at the people that make my journey to work unsafe.

[Walker_in_Eternity]

@Princhester

. Things that don’t cause injury aren’t dangerous. Tricky, huh?

Bullshit.

Near misses are only near misses for reasons stated in my previous post.

[Princhester]

I know what your impressions are, and I know what the data says.

I don’t think you are coming even close to grasping the absolute ridiculousness of your OP and what the data says about it. The data does not suggest that you are slightly wrong. It does not allow room for argument. It says you are wrong by a factor of about 100 to one

Your latest dumbass theory is a joke. For it to be true, you have to assume that cars represent less of a danger to pedestrians than cars but that pedestrians are so much more careful about bikes that the result is they actually get injured by cars 100 times more.

That is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard this week.

You just keep digging, old son. Hopefully soon the hole you’re in won’t allow you to reach the keyboard and then the average IQ around here will go up a few points.

By the way, your “it would no doubt still be the motorists fault, even though the cyclist broke the law” comment is I suspect based on this proposal, which firstly covers pedestrians too, and secondly is only about insurance not inappropriate assignment of fault.