What on the roads has annoyed you today?

[adam]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

And again... cyclists using the main road when there's a dedicated cycle lane right next to them. Why? Please explain. Surely, it's less risky and cycle lanes have no drains or access covers to negotiate. Seems to me to be a case "**** you, motorists, I'm using the road whether you like it or not. If you kill me, it's always gonna be your fault.

As someone who likes to potter about on their road bike. I don't think I have ever used a cycle lane.  

The ones round here are hopless and littered with dog walkers and mothers pushing kids about in prams. Far safer on the road. 

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, The Bear said:

I nearly knocked a bloke off his bike just opening my pavement-side car door yesterday. Came from nowhere almost silently and had to swerve to miss my door as it swung fully open as I was getting in. 

 

I nearly swore at him but held my tongue. My street is one way and I get cyclists riding up the "wrong" way along the paths all the time. Winds me up. 

Cyclists seem to think the law doesn't apply to them and they can do what the **** they like. Crossing junctions on red lights, cutting up pedestrians legitimately using a footpath, riding 3 abreast on a country lane and ignoring any driver coming up behind them. Probably a minority, I accept that, but so many.

Worst are MAMILS. IME arrogant and inconsiderate. Apologies if this doesn't apply to you as an individual. I'm speaking from personal experience.

[adam1]

3 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Cyclists seem to think the law doesn't apply to them and they can do what the **** they like. Crossing junctions on red lights, cutting up pedestrians legitimately using a footpath, riding 3 abreast on a country lane and ignoring any driver coming up behind them. Probably a minority, I accept that, but so many.

Worst are MAMILS. IME arrogant and inconsiderate. Apologies if this doesn't apply to you as an individual. I'm speaking from personal experience.

Cyclists should be riding three abreast when its unsafe for you to overtake, riding in a single line encourages the overtake (if that makes sense).

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, adam said:

As someone who likes to potter about on their road bike. I don't think I have ever used a cycle lane.  

The ones round here are hopless and littered with dog walkers and mothers pushing kids about in prams. Far safer on the road. 

Not on the A5/A47 or any other main road used by heavy traffic. Get on the cycle lane. They're there for your safety. Get run over on a main road when there's a cycle lane there to use for your safety then you're the (dead/injured) fool.

If it's there, use it. Uneven surfaces or whatever, surely the alternative is worse. Oh, and a cycle helmet won't stop your skull being crushed under a 40 ft trailer. I've seen it.

Edited 18 October 2022 by Parafox

[Parafox]

Just now, adam1 said:

Cyclists should be riding three abreast when its unsafe for you to overtake, riding in a single line encourages the overtake (if that makes sense).

It doesn't.

If it's unsafe to overtake, then it's unsafe regardless of the hazard. If a driver can't judge when it's safe, then they lack awareness, competency and driving skill.

[Leeds Fox]

Drivers who leave the inside lane of a roundabout into the outside lane of a dual carriageway. Assuming the left indication means leaving the roundabout and changing lanes at the same time.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

9 hours ago, Parafox said:

Cyclists seem to think the law doesn't apply to them and they can do what the **** they like. Crossing junctions on red lights, cutting up pedestrians legitimately using a footpath, riding 3 abreast on a country lane and ignoring any driver coming up behind them. Probably a minority, I accept that, but so many.

Worst are MAMILS. IME arrogant and inconsiderate. Apologies if this doesn't apply to you as an individual. I'm speaking from personal experience.

Yep, some cyclists are w**kers. But (at the very least) the same proportion of motorists are w**kers too, so there are a lot more of them and they're a lot more likely to kill someone by being a d**khead on the road.

People on bicycles really aren't the problem on our roads.

 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

9 hours ago, Parafox said:

9 hours ago, adam1 said:

Cyclists should be riding three abreast when its unsafe for you to overtake, riding in a single line encourages the overtake (if that makes sense).

It doesn't.

If it's unsafe to overtake, then it's unsafe regardless of the hazard. If a driver can't judge when it's safe, then they lack awareness, competency and driving skill

It does make sense. Surely you must have noticed that a lot of drivers do indeed lack awareness, competency and driving skill! (And add to that the irrationally selfish hatred some drivers have for cyclists). There are loads of drivers who will overtake a single cyclist (passing dangerously close to them) regardless of oncoming traffic on the other side - you see it all the time.

[Daggers]

Précis: “Cyclists are idiots because they’d be safe if they simply opted to stay at home an use an exercise machine”

 

Anti-cycling sentiment only comes from selfish, inadequate drivers who lack patience and require courses in anger management. I’m glad that my cycling pisses you off. I laugh when you have to slow down for a few seconds behind me. I’m laughing at the pulsating veins in your fat faces right now. I’m laughing at you because your upset is proof that I am a better person than you.

[Daggers]

7 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Précis: “Cyclists are idiots because they’d be safe if they simply opted to stay at home an use an exercise machine”

 

Anti-cycling sentiment only comes from selfish, inadequate drivers who lack patience and require courses in anger management. I’m glad that my cycling pisses you off. I laugh when you have to slow down for a few seconds behind me. I’m laughing at the pulsating veins in your fat faces right now. I’m laughing at you because your upset is proof that I am a better person than you.

 

Edited 19 October 2022 by Daggers

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

What I really don't understand on the roads is the idiot drivers who leap out dangerously in front of learners or drive impatiently about a foot behind them.

Surely if there's one group of drivers you'd want to give more time and space to, not less, it'd be learners, who are far more likely to either drive into you or stop suddenly right in front of you?

[The Bear]

2 hours ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

What I really don't understand on the roads is the idiot drivers who leap out dangerously in front of learners or drive impatiently about a foot behind them.

Surely if there's one group of drivers you'd want to give more time and space to, not less, it'd be learners, who are far more likely to either drive into you or stop suddenly right in front of you?

Yep I always back off and give them space. Tailgating them isn't going to help any one. Plus I remember learning myself, and thinking I was driving along great but looked down and was only doing 20mph. Everyone needs to build up their confidence. 

[adam]

12 hours ago, Parafox said:

Not on the A5/A47 or any other main road used by heavy traffic. Get on the cycle lane. They're there for your safety. Get run over on a main road when there's a cycle lane there to use for your safety then you're the (dead/injured) fool.

If it's there, use it. Uneven surfaces or whatever, surely the alternative is worse. Oh, and a cycle helmet won't stop your skull being crushed under a 40 ft trailer. I've seen it.

I think if everyone uses the road correctly and safely all will be well. Problem  we have in this country is that we have a lot of drivers with your aggressive views towards cyclists. 

 

[Footballwipe]

The problem is that the cyclist v car user argument will remain the same cycle of extreme views forever. you get your militant drivers and your militant cyclists and it creates a divide that'll never be healed. Add in a dash of dash cam footage, plus social media, and the extreme examples of indiscretion on both sides stokes the fire of the view which you hold.

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, adam said:

I think if everyone uses the road correctly and safely all will be well. Problem  we have in this country is that we have a lot of drivers with your aggressive views towards cyclists. 

 

My views are not aggressive in the least and if you read my post properly you will see that it is borne of frustration at cyclists putting themselves at risk, not out of malice or anything else. I ALWAYS take care passing cyclist on any road and will always allow them room and not put them at risk, largely because I've had to deal with the outcomes of cyclists v motor vehicle. I never judged any blame, I just dealt with the incident, but it certainly sharpened my awareness.

My point is cycle lanes are there for the safety of cyclists. Not using them is putting yourself at risk. You cannot possibly know what any driver is like as a driver. Some are very considerate; many are not and are idiots on the road. 

9 hours ago, Daggers said:

Anti-cycling sentiment

I am not and never have been "anti-cyclist". I just think they'd be safer to use a cycle lane on a busy main A road. 

Edited 19 October 2022 by Parafox

[Trumpet]

18 hours ago, Parafox said:

It doesn't.

If it's unsafe to overtake, then it's unsafe regardless of the hazard. If a driver can't judge when it's safe, then they lack awareness, competency and driving skill.

I’m not a cyclist, but this is what kills cyclists and I can’t blame them for doing whatever they can to better their chances. Got lots of time for them personally and the reason I don’t cycle is through fear of being knocked off.

 

What’s terrifying nowadays is the amount of people driving and looking down at their phones. Next time you’re in slow moving traffic, take a look around and you’ll see so many people doing it. In the 90s and previous decades you’d spot a drink driver, nowadays the same style of driving is likely to mean they’re looking at their phone.

 

edit - added the bit about mobile phones. Slightly off on a tangent but relevant to the thread.

Edited 19 October 2022 by Trumpet

[Dahnsouff]

14 minutes ago, Parafox said:

My views are not aggressive in the least and if you read my post properly you will see that it is borne of frustration at cyclists putting themselves at risk, not out of malice or anything else. I ALWAYS take care passing cyclist on any road and will always allow them room and not put them at risk, largely because I've had to deal with the outcomes of cyclists v motor vehicle. I never judged any blame, I just dealt with the incident, but it certainly sharpened my awareness.

My point is cycle lanes are there for the safety of cyclists. Not using them is putting yourself at risk. You cannot possibly know what any driver is like as a driver. Some are very considerate; many are not and are idiots on the road. 

I am not and never have been "anti-cyclist". I just think they'd be safer to use a cycle lane on a busy main A road. 

We discussed this yesterday and I do not believe there is that much common ground to be found, but what I will say is that as the more dangerous road user, the vehicle should always defer to the more vulnerable in line with the HC, not as a ‘always cyclist/pedestrians first’ as they must share to the same laws too.

 

Just think it is the mindset of road users that needs to change, and this will happen possibly, at some point, maybe….but external stresses are often played out on the roads, both by car drivers and cyclists, it’s just that in the case of car users, they may become deadly, something you are obviously all to familiar with.

[Parafox]

13 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

I’m not a cyclist, but this is what kills cyclists and I can’t blame them for doing whatever they can to better their chances. Got lots of time for them personally and the reason I don’t cycle is through fear of being knocked off.

 

What’s terrifying nowadays is the amount of people driving and looking down at their phones. Next time you’re in slow moving traffic, take a look around and you’ll see so many people doing it. In the 90s and previous decades you’d spot a drink driver, nowadays the same style of driving is likely to mean they’re looking at their phone.

 

edit - added the bit about mobile phones. Slightly off on a tangent but relevant to the thread.

 Like using cycle lanes?

[Trumpet]

Just now, Parafox said:

 Like using cycle lanes?

Yeah absolutely. But also going three abreast on dangerous stretches of country roads.

[Parafox]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

We discussed this yesterday and I do not believe there is that much common ground to be found, but what I will say is that as the more dangerous road user, the vehicle should always defer to the more vulnerable in line with the HC, not as a ‘always cyclist/pedestrians first’ as they must share to the same laws too.

 

Just think it is the mindset of road users that needs to change, and this will happen possibly, at some point, maybe….but external stresses are often played out on the roads, both by car drivers and cyclists, it’s just that in the case of car users, they may become deadly, something you are obviously all to familiar with.

I agree with you "in line with the Highway Code."

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Parafox said:

I agree with you "in line with the Highway Code."

Bear in mind, cycle line usage is not mandatory for cyclists though. 

[Parafox]

3 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

Yeah absolutely. But also going three abreast on dangerous stretches of country roads.

The HC guidance is that riding 2-3 abreast on country lanes and minor roadsis acceptable and is safer for the cyclists as it gives a bigger profile for an oncoming motorists view of a potential hazard. I don't have an argument with that, I do have an issue with casual cyclists riding on the main carriageway when they would be safer on a cycle lane. The more experienced road riders are better at reading situations around them that might put them at risk and those aren't the ones I'm most frustrated by.

[Parafox]

11 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Bear in mind, cycle line usage is not mandatory for cyclists though. 

No, it's not and it's down to and individual cyclists' judgement, skill and experience as to whether to use them or not. And not all of them have those.

I'm only expressing a view borne from my experiences encountering cyclists during emergency driving (not always a positive thing to deal with in the aftermath of a tragic collision), my HGV driving and my domestic driving. 

 

Edited 19 October 2022 by Parafox

[taupe]

19 hours ago, Parafox said:

. If a driver can't judge when it's safe, then they lack awareness, competency and driving skill.

...and the cyclist pays the price for when the driver can't judge when it's safe?

 

Is it you that's the ambulance driver or am I confusing you with someone else on here?

[Parafox]

44 minutes ago, taupe said:

...and the cyclist pays the price for when the driver can't judge when it's safe?

 

Is it you that's the ambulance driver or am I confusing you with someone else on here?

I'm a recently retired Paramedic. Not an "ambulance driver." None taken... 

 

And sadly, yes. But so many innocent others can pay the price.

 

BTW. The emergency services no longer refer to any incident where the incident is between vehicles/cyclists/pedestrians, as a road traffic accident but as a "collision." Because no collision is not an "accident". Someone or something will be the cause.

Edited 19 October 2022 by Parafox