Anti-social vehicle - test case

Whoa; red light jumping is half the point of cycling - the ones that get munched are the ones who stop on red, go on green, look straight ahead of them when cycling. The ones that don't give a f**k what colour the lights are or waht the road markings - but look around them and proceed when things are clear - are the ones who don't...

Plus by ignoring signals and moving when appropriate (and hopping out the saddle to become a ped occasinally) you make reasonable time with no added risk.

The "bring it on" approach to cars is the safest - you can be fairly sure that if you've irritated them (by riding in front of them as traffic speeds pick up, or down the middle of the road between traffic, forcing them to the side rather than filtering down by the pavement and getting sideswiped) they've seen you. Nobody wants to scratch their shiny new motor on a bike and you soon learn the off the bike and land on your feet running routine, be it over tarmac or their bonnet. ;-)

marko snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk opined the following...

And where can we find you, so that you can get the thumping you truly deserve? That attitude to cycling is why those of us who still make good time by following the rules of the road take so much sh*t from drivers. How are you supposed to argue the point of the ASL when the tw*t on a bike behind you rolls straight through the red? For the sake of the rest of us, please lock up your bike and lose the key!

...

Or stop trolling if that's what you're doing.

The same could be said (Without hopping out of the saddle) for drivers. After all, there's no real risk to them if they jump the odd red.

Agreed in places. Ride so that you are visible, overtake when possible in preference to undertaking. Signal (Guilty of not doing this one all the time). These are good things. Since I changed my riding style to a more assertive one, I've only had one driver beep me for being in the way. Most pull out further to overtake, and when they don't... I've still got room to move.

Jon

Odd how none gives a flying f*ck about the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths caused in other ways.

Absolutely.

Sarfampton this afternoon, coming in from Chilworth and Winchester Rd Rbt towards the common. Narrow lanes. Fast traffic (40 limit). Cycle lane (shared ped use, v. light ped traffic).

Three cyclists, two "ordinary" and one full works, bananas on head, spray-on lycra, dressed like a clown.

Two were using the cycle track. One was not.

One overtook using the "fast" lane for opposing traffic at Burgess Rd lights, cut across the waiting two rows of vehicles at the red light, and then jumped the lights, pedalling furiously to avoid traffic which had just got a green from his right.

In both cases the "one" was the lycra-clad lout - the "ordinary" cyclists behaved themselves.

Guess which of the three is likely to be involved in an accident first? And guess which of the three is likely to be most vociferous about other road users?

Ian

For example? Ones that can be avoided using practical measures?

Sweeping generalisation. I wear lycra shorts and a cycling jersey to ride my daily 16 mile commute and would not consider riding it in anything else -- I am extremely vociferous about dangerous road users, yet I always follow the rules of the road.

I would not presume to pass judgements on other cyclists based on their choice of clothing other than to point out that lycra and clothes designed for cycling are far preferable to cotton for any journey of more than, say,

Cambridge; you'll likely not run into me unless you're into cyclind /really/ long distance eh? ;-)

ASL?

And what harm would one be doing cycling alongside a line of stationary traffic backed up all the way through a traffic-lighted box-junction and not waiting a minute (of a 5 minute journey) to cycle alongside stationary traffic when the light is green not red?

Nope, provided you're on the ball, filtering left on red (or straight on on red if there's only a road joining from the right) is both a good idea and adopted in some other countries. So illegal here on both bike and in car but neither unsafe or foolhardy. Majority of UK drivers are too innatentive or generally incompetent at the minute for it to be legalised.

And no you can hardly hop out the car, walk across a zerba/pedestrain crossing and continue your journey on the clear side, disagree with you there.

Mow me down next time you're out? ;-)

Aye.

I take it you're uk.rec.cycling then rather than uk.rec.cars.mods?

I believe Jon travels there occasionally :)

No, wait a minute, Advanced Stop Line. Where there's an extra bit at the front at traffic lights for bikes to wait in and get away first.

In this case I suggest you stop for one second, take your hand off that net curtain, put down the pen you are using to write council complaint letters, take your c*ck out of your sisters ass or whatever else you might/are doing at this instance..

being rude won't get you anywhere, try being civil and curteous, see where it takes you...

You're a prick, you know that, don't you?

You keep battering on about the noise, and choose to cross post it to a group where anti car/ car noise sentiments aren't overly welcome. That's about as offensive to some as you find an aftermarket exhaust. Doesn't stop you though, does it?

And time and time gain you go on about those poor old souls who are this that and the other, and never take the blindest bit of notice when I point out that to an extent, I'm one of the ones you seek to defend, and I'd rather you shut the f*ck up than claim your crusade's in my name. Hurts your argument for someone who *does* suffer from noise issues, lack of sleep, and other things, to come along and tell you to piss off, doesn't it?

So, piss off. You keep whittering on and mumbling about stern letters of complaint to your local rag, and let the rest of the world get on with it's thing too.

Nothing generalised here, sweeping or otherwise. These were three individuals seen (yesterday) and I'm talking about them in particular. It was the one in Lycra who "misbehaved" throughout. It was the two "ordinary" joe soaps on pushbikes who did not. That's specific. Not a generalisation.

Generally, they would all mostly "misbehave". *That* is a generalisation.

I wear lycra shorts and a cycling jersey to ride my

Glad to hear it.

marko snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk opined the following...

Don't be so sure. My folks live 18miles from there!

Advanced Stop Line. Forms a box with a picture of a bike in it at junctions and allows cyclists to start from a position of high visibility at junctions. I frequently find myself explaining this to drivers who think that they are only valid when no bikes are present, and it kind of spoils the case when another cyclist takes the opportunity to jump the lights.

Not totally sure that I understand the description, but... is your time really so precious that you can't afford the minute at the lights. Use it as an opportunity to take a drink, or get your breath back.

My experience of it, is that it makes junctions considerably less predictable. If red no longer means stop, how do you tell drivers that a pedestrian has right of way?

Both unsafe and foolhardy. While I'm sure that you pay the greatest attention when jumping reds; since you don't have priority, if you are hit, it is your fault. It doesn't really further the cause for those of us who want to see bikes publically recognised as a legitimate form of transport, and it promotes the idea amongst non-cyclists that cyclists can't be trusted to follow the rules of the road, and thus deserve less respect.

I did say "Without hopping out of the saddle", with the intention of not including this example.

I'll be on a bike, so just as likely to be injured as you. Put a stick through your front wheel though! ;-)

Yup.

Jon

Excuse me ?

If they were actively working to reduce the thousands of deaths caused every year by clueless drivers, then they would have MORE traffic police - not less ! And they would be placing LESS reliance on cameras, not more !

Um, pedestrians ALWAYS have right-of-way :)

No. They could only do something about it, if you and the rest of the public, were willing to pay a bunch of extra taxes to cover the extra cost. It's just not gonna happen.

Obviously it does ! Noise that stops you sleeping, is quite obviously much worse than noise that does nothing whatsoever !

Yep, all the time. Doesn't bother me one jot though.

I'll keep an eye out for a (scotsman?) clad in lycra carrying a stick and eyeing up front wheels suspiciously then! ;-)

Ah yes, car parking spaces...

Entire road of cars parked at 9am, mixture of red and green lights along the route, just cycle down the side of the row regardless of the colour of the lights as they're not going to be going anywhere and it'd be daft to keep stoppign when you're the onl thing moving?

Say to drivers "pedestrians have right of way", then nick 'em if they don't abide by it. Also nick 'em if they park in the ASL boxes and nick the cyclists if they jump reds. We pay for cameras now though, not traffic police, so it won't happen. They already think that zebra crossing are guidelines here, so the way to go about things is to step into the road and look 'em straight in the eye until they stop. (note: this does not work for taxis/7.5t trucks/vans, different rules apply there)

Junctions need not be preictable if you're filtering through on red becasue you're either the only one there or the only one still moving and everything else is parked. You seem to be assumign a busy junction or filtering into moving traffic - no, jsut when its empty and the light is pointless or when super-busy and nothing else can move.

My assumption is that people can/will go at any minute from any direction, and working on that basis its not often wrong; or when it is its wrong for the better. Don't the dutch have no signals or markings of any description that mean just this - and that people have to pay attention/think and have found a reduction in accidents comapred to the UK traffic lights and lanes and this and that and t'other?

Aye; cars kill other people, bikes kill their riders (or very occasionally a ped if you're being really stupid or they're being really careless), seems fair to me. As I'll only go when its safe to do so (ie - when the traffic is stationary or there is none), I don't get hit. Quite simple...

Equally, cars, trucks, buses, and especially taxis or white vans deserve little respect - they're as bad for following rules of the road aor attentiveness/care. The respect goes something along the lines of "that's mroe likely to kill me than me him, therefore he gets respect". Human nature is fundamentally self-centred, and its just made worse when you put drivers into wheeled penis-extensions. Don't think rules of the road come into th respect thign much myself. (besides - rules of the road require traffic police not cameras...)

I'm just a car driver in disguise, prolly explains the differing viewpoint!

LOL!

Sling us some examples of other major ways?

A laudable philosophy, that cuts both ways.

Because the noise upsets you.

Why should I or anyone else (including children) have to read obscenities in an international forum?

Because some "bastard" posted them, and there are no laws against that as yet.

Yes, and since there *already are* laws about noise pollution, I would judge you have been told that you are whining about a non-issue by whoever you've asked to enforce the laws. Although they probably had a polite way to put it, I don't imagine they called you a "brainless selfish bastard", even if that would have summed up their opinion of you. So now you want some spurious new laws, hey? Maybe a ban on all cars during the hours of darkness?