AUDIO NSFW - This is why I have a dashcam in evey one of my vehicles..

[Marlon]

 

[Bing]

.... Totally her fault if anything happened - teh corner is also blond for her. Idiot.

Couldn't tell her hair colour was blond, Bing, but that might explain things ... :roll:

I meant blind, of course

 

[stuartC]

Cyclists want their cake and to eat it too.
They want to use the roads as they always say they have the right to, but dont follow the rules of the road and also want to use pavements and use them like a pedestrian.
If she was crossing the road from pavement to pavement she should have been pushing her bike.

Precisely!

Stupid place to cross, even on foot.

Mike

That's a pretty huge generalisation.

 

[Sae]

Bit of a stewards enquiry on this one, any corner these days should be taken as "double yellow flags", it's drivers responsibility to aware of any potential hazard - even if it's some numpty riding in the wrong direction or crossing the road as you should be in control enough to come to a halt. The modern theory tests and hazard perception focus that...
I agree with Bing on the rule 170 as its not a crossing. But general driving for the condition and visibility apply.

Completely fecks me off no end but the onous these days is mostly on the driver.
Ps, they should force cyclists to pass a cycling proficiency test before being let out, like a motorbike compulsory basic training, it would get rid of half the numpties.

 

[Ducklakeview]

Bit of a stewards enquiry on this one, any corner these days should be taken as "double yellow flags", it's drivers responsibility to aware of any potential hazard - even if it's some numpty riding in the wrong direction or crossing the road as you should be in control enough to come to a halt. The modern theory tests and hazard perception focus that...
I agree with Bing on the rule 170 as its not a crossing. But general driving for the condition and visibility apply.

Completely fecks me off no end but the onous these days is mostly on the driver.
Ps, they should force cyclists to pass a cycling proficiency test before being let out, like a motorbike compulsory basic training, it would get rid of half the numpties.

And I was observant and reacted accordingly. My vocalising was a free of charge addition!

Mike

 

[Nictrix]

Cyclists want their cake and to eat it too.
They want to use the roads as they always say they have the right to, but dont follow the rules of the road and also want to use pavements and use them like a pedestrian.
If she was crossing the road from pavement to pavement she should have been pushing her bike.

Precisely!

Stupid place to cross, even on foot.

Mike

That's a pretty huge generalisation.

Do you mean about cyclists wanting their cake and eat it too?
If it is, how many cyclists do you see on the pavement, cycling through red lights, cycling in pedestrian precincts, cycling wrong way on one way streets, not using cycle lanes when they are provided. The list goes on. But they also want free reign of the roads also. They cycle two abreast when if I done this on my motorbike I could be done for racing. They practice for racing on the roads when no other road user is allowed.
A favourite one that I see every day on the way to work is at the back of the airport. The road is basically a country road with no street lights and is a 50mph and really very busy. There is a dedicated cycle path/pavement that is sign posted for cyclists yet they use the road putting themselves in danger. Why?
I dont have anything against cyclists but they should really think of the danger that they put themselves in needlessly.

 

[maxman]

A favourite one that I see every day on the way to work is at the back of the airport. The road is basically a country road with no street lights and is a 50mph and really very busy. There is a dedicated cycle path/pavement that is sign posted for cyclists yet they use the road putting themselves in danger. Why?
I dont have anything against cyclists but they should really think of the danger that they put themselves in needlessly.

I don't know the cycle path you mention,but in general cycle paths are not maintained and are full of crap ,that is the reason they are not used.The paths are designed by someone who has not ridden a bike on the road.
I'm not saying all cyclists are angels,but the same could be said for any group of road users. :roll:

 

[David-H]

A favourite one that I see every day on the way to work is at the back of the airport. The road is basically a country road with no street lights and is a 50mph and really very busy. There is a dedicated cycle path/pavement that is sign posted for cyclists yet they use the road putting themselves in danger. Why?
I dont have anything against cyclists but they should really think of the danger that they put themselves in needlessly.

I don't know the cycle path you mention,but in general cycle paths are not maintained and are full of crap ,that is the reason they are not used.The paths are designed by someone who has not ridden a bike on the road.
I'm not saying all cyclists are angels,but the same could be said for any group of road users. :roll:

+1 ^
I find that, generally, most so called cycle lanes are full of debris and I rarely use them and prefer to ride on the road.

 

[stuartC]

Precisely! Stupid place to cross, even on foot. Mike

That's a pretty huge generalisation.

Do you mean about cyclists wanting their cake and eat it too? If it is, how many cyclists do you see on the pavement, cycling through red lights, cycling in pedestrian precincts, cycling wrong way on one way streets, not using cycle lanes when they are provided. The list goes on.

Not many to be honest, but then it's not terribly busy round here. Like all groups of people (including motorists) there's a few bad apples. To be fair, in busy town & city centres it's often way safer to be on the pavement than on the road. You've just got to look back a couple of years & recollect the six people killed on cycles in London to realise that.

But they also want free reign of the roads also. They cycle two abreast when if I done this on my motorbike I could be done for racing.

Two abreast is not illegal but for sure cyclists have to exercise common sense. On narrow roads we're advised to cycle in single file, but on bends it's far safer to cycle two abreast rather than risk the motorist overtaking on a blind corners. In large groups, two abreast is also safer as it reduces the length of the group, therefore the motorist has to spend less time on the opposite side of the road.

It's all down to common sense and some have it, some don't.

They practice for racing on the roads when no other road user is allowed.

Aww, come on, seriously? Even when we're practicing racing the speeds are w-a-y lower than the speed limit and we stick to the left-hand side, even at full chat. If motorists were to practice racing you could be doing double the speed limit and endangering yourself and anyone you encounter. Bikers even more so as they're capable of huge speeds & don't have the protection of a body shell.

A favourite one that I see every day on the way to work is at the back of the airport. The road is basically a country road with no street lights and is a 50mph and really very busy. There is a dedicated cycle path/pavement that is sign posted for cyclists yet they use the road putting themselves in danger. Why?

As DLH & Maxman have already alluded, cycle paths are usually awful. They're almost always designed by someone who's clearly never cycled anywhere in their life, ever. They cross driveways and other obstacles which means cars pull out of their drives straight across the cycle path & don't bother to look. They're full of weeds & potholes. And worst of all, they're often shared with pedestrians.

We have a pretty new and very expensive shared cycle & pedestrian path that runs alongside a fairly busy 50mph road for about 5 miles. My own friends are always moaning about cyclists not using it, & then I have to point out that it crosses so many side roads and farm openings that's it's actually pretty unsafe to ride, because no motorist I have encountered along that route has ever stopped to look for approaching cyclists. I've nearly been knocked off twice and now refuse to use it.

That doesn't even bring pedestrians into the equation... that's a whole new level of dangerous. Who decided to mix ambling half-wits with cyclists who can do 20+ mph. Epic fail.

I dont have anything against cyclists but they should really think of the danger that they put themselves in needlessly

I have nothing against the vast majority of drivers either - let's face it, I am one - but a small minority are just aggressive morons who think they own the road. As a m'cyclist, you've no doubt encountered your fair share too.

But I'm also a cyclist -- and other cyclists ignoring the rules really, really annoys me. So, I just don't like being labelled as one with sweeping generalisations. That's all

Peace

 

[PerryGunn]

To be fair, in busy town & city centres it's often way safer to be on the pavement than on the road.

For the cyclists, maybe - but the pedestrians who have to dive out of their way aren't so lucky. I can accept this to a certain extent for kids but adult cyclists should be on the road, and, working in London, I think less of them would have accidents if they learnt to cycle without having their hearing effectively disabled because they're cycling around plugged into their iPods

Even when we're practicing racing the speeds are w-a-y lower than the speed limit and we stick to the left-hand side, even at full chat.

They're not 'way lower than the speed limit' when they're overtaking cars in the 20mph zones in town - but speed limits are like no entry signs and red lights, they don't apply to cyclists do they?


And before you say 'the majority of cyclists obey the rules', that's a fallacy that seems to be the standard answer from all cyclists but is easily at odds with my personal experience - the vast majority of cyclists I encounter, and I'm on foot most of the time rather than driving, be they casual cyclists or lycra-clad Tour de France wannabes break rules that motorists would lose their licence for ignoring.

If I'm honest the ones in lycra out on a weekend morning run are the worst as they appear to be trying to break their own 'personal best' for a particular route so the idea of slowing down for anything including red lights on pedestrian crossings seems abhorrent to them - but that's OK because shouting 'Get the f*ck out of my way' at the little old lady who's just stepped off the kerb is perfectly acceptable nowadays

 

[WLH]

It's not a junction with lines across it, it's a filter lane off a dual carriageway, and there is a crossing - pretty sure that Highway Code rule does not apply.

She was on the wrong side of the road heading towards the junction, not even crossing directly to the other side until she had to swerve. Totally her fault if anything happened - teh corner is also blond for her. Idiot.

My first thought as well under the vehicle code where I live on this side of the pond.

 

[stuartC]

To be fair, in busy town & city centres it's often way safer to be on the pavement than on the road.

For the cyclists, maybe - but the pedestrians who have to dive out of their way aren't so lucky. I can accept this to a certain extent for kids but adult cyclists should be on the road, and, working in London, I think less of them would have accidents if they learnt to cycle without having their hearing effectively disabled because they're cycling around plugged into their iPods

Agreed. If you're on the pavement, get off your bike. See? Agreeing with you. That said cyclists aren't the only ones plugged into their iPods. Jesus, the number of gormless idiots who just wander out into the road that I have to serve/brake to avoid. And don't get me started on the Pokemoners... :thumbsdown:

Even when we're practicing racing the speeds are w-a-y lower than the speed limit and we stick to the left-hand side, even at full chat.

They're not 'way lower than the speed limit' when they're overtaking cars in the 20mph zones in town - but speed limits are like no entry signs and red lights, they don't apply to cyclists do they?

Ah., another sweeping generalisation. Think we'll leave it there as you obviously have a major problem with bad cyclists in your area.

Not the case everywhere, I'm a cyclist and it annoys me just as much, gives the rest of us a bad name. Just sayin.