davidk

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So many drivers in London disobey rules of the > road, quite blatantly, that I've > begun to believe many of them are immune to > prosecution or not legal or never took > a test. > > Unfortunately they beep and wave and try to get > other drivers to break the law > at traffic lights, box junctions etc also. You're not far off the mark. Law breaking by motorists is socially acceptable (though it seems to be becoming less so) and the authorities have a very poor record of proper enforcement. Often the courts hands are tied by jurys who don't understand the issues or by sentencing guidelines that are shockingly lenient. Whether this is relevant to the OP is of course debatable! :D

+1 to that ^^ Not a day goes by without me shaking my head in amazement at the weak positioning and lack of observation of some of my fellow two wheelers.

Loz Wrote: cyclists claiming > the are disobeying rules 'because it's safer' are > being disingenuous. Perhaps, but a great number of them are just being honest.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What if drivers took responsibility for their > > actions for once? > > They seem to want no rules > applied to them. Know all the cyclists do you? You have selectively quoted me there. I also said that I follow all the rules but would like DfT and TFL to allow exceptions for cyclists. For example on left turns at red lights and on one way streets.

No, I obey the traffic lights and the rules. But I recognise the absurdity that the authorities in this country won't make perfectly sensible exceptions for cyclits. You are simply resorting to victim blaming and it's disgusting.

The rules on the highway are designed to restrict the movement of heavy and dangerous vehicles, not cyclists. It is often far safer for everyone for a cyclist to carefully proceed on a red rather than wait for the inevitable race off the green. Especially on left turns. The idea that red light jumping by cycling can be blamed for agressive driving is abhorrent. Victim blaming in the extreme. Bear in mind, there is no evidence that in any of the deaths that have happened in the last two weeks (the reason these issues are being discussed here now) the cyclist was doing anything wrong.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Entirely plausible, thing is they're the ones > causing all the anger and resentment and making > some drivers behave more aggressively and other's > more carelessly, whilst yet others are now > ignoring zebra crossings and the like completely. > > If so, their safety is at the cost of injuries and > lives of others. Wow - That's an awesome comment, such efficient use of weapons grade bullshit. So, if I'm killed tomorrow by an agressive motorist it will be because cyclists made him drive that way?

Thanks for digging that out. It's an interesting way of looking at it. Although perhaps a little cynical? Are you basically saying that the deaths on our roads can be explained away as statistical collateral damage? If I was prioritising policing resources I wouldn't be trying to clamp down on a mode of transport (cycling) that causes less than one death per year. I'd be focusing on the mode that kills hundreds (thousands if you include externalities), whatever the figures per mile travelled. This of course isn't to excuse the behaviour of any cyclist who is genuinely endangering people. I just don't think it is as big a problem as many try to make out. Infact it isn't really a problem at all IMO.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > davidk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-not > > > e-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf > > > > Here is the data. Actually, it's a little less > > than 17%. > > > > These are FACTS, WVM. Actually observed facts. > > This data is very out of date but I'd say 17% is a > pretty high number anyway. The problem is that > the 17% (or whatever the true figure is now) are > cocking things up massively for those cyclists > that are sensible. Every day I see cyclists > jumping lights and I think that is too often. > > That said, there seem to be a large number of HGV > drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and motorists > in general who make it their mission to make life > difficult for cyclists. > > We need better infrastructure and much tougher > penalties for motorists AND cyclists when they > break the rules. Catching them is the problem. Of course 17% is too many - The point I was making with that figure is that it is very similar to the proportion of motor vehicles doing it. So if you're going to call yourself White Van Man and call out cyclists for RLJing, at least have a bit of self awareness (not you, I know). The other angle here of course is that not all RLJs are equal. Many do it because it feels safer. And/or in response to hostile road design. Still no excuses ultimately and I don't do it myself.

On headphones, I can only give my own experience. I cycle about 20 miles per day in London. Usually wearing headphones (and not wearing a helmet). Sometimes listening to podcasts/spoken word/audio books, sometimes listening to music. I don't feel that the wearing of the headphones deprives me of the ability to hear what is going on. I can still hear fellow cyclists around me, I can still hear cars, buses, motorbikes etc etc. Obviously, the inputs are at a sensible volume to allow for comprehension whilst still being able to hear ambient noise. If anything, I find that wearing well fitting earbuds actually cuts out a lot of the wind noise that you get on a bike (especially if you have a helmet on - the straps create a great deal of turbulence around the ears) allowing me to concentrate on the noises that are important. It's also quite an interesting experiment in how the brain functions. I can quite easily bimble along the road listening to whatever is playing. But I'll find my subconscious completely tuning it out when I am going through a busy junction or approaching a situation where I need greater awareness. In summary: A lot more complicated and nuanced than The Telegraph and the Standard would have you believe. Who'd have thought?!

A couple of good articles currently doing the rounds that touch on a lot of what is being discussed on this thread: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100246626/boris-dont-ban-cycling-with-headphones-youll-make-people-die-younger/ http://t.co/qalInx4ZFO

Really getting into Quasi at the moment. New album is ace.

Perhaps also therefore worth noting that there are a heck of a lot of good cyclists out there too? With or without day-glo clothing and polysterene hats?

the man with a van Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh so I am thick am I funny because you do not > know me so I can say you are a stupid idiot who > says most cyclists do not break the law a load of > bollocks Haha yeah it's hard to imagine how anyone could draw the conclusion that you are a meathead.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do I need to dig those stats I did showing > cyclists are at least just as lethal to > pedestrians as cars/vans per mile driven/cycled? > Otherwise you could argue that white HGVs driven > by women with nose piercings are safer than > bicycles to pedestrians. Yes please.

But... that's what you have been saying......?

I understand that high-viz jackets don't constitute safety - Will that do? Also. You need the "k" key. Two to the right of the "h".

I've yet to see any evidence that wearing high-viz makes any difference. Drivers looking, and looking again, does. As thankfully, the OP did on this occasion.

Because I don't believe you.

It's a culture problem. Magistrates and coroners still deem it acceptable to reference whether a cyclist was wearing high-viz or a helmet even when it is completely irrelevant to the incident. This doesn't happen in any other transport mode.

... by telling the blameless person that she almost ran down to change his behaviour next time?

If you can get me one in high-viz yellow then we have a deal. Dial back the hatred a little bit though, eh? Perhaps you just find them irritating? Or you really understand their motivations and behaviours. No need for the hatin'.

Liar.

The irritation comes from the idea that it is appropriate to tell cyclists how they should behave, even when they are behaving perfectly safely and legally. If the OP had almost pulled out and crashed into another car, would s/he have come on here lecturing motorists to use lights in the day time or buy bright yellow cars? Of course not.

You should leave an appropriate gap. It is your responsibility to not kill people. You haven't answered my question. Did you exceed the speed limit yesterday? Use your phone at any point? Maybe run a red trying to nip through before it changes?