Cyclists and road rage..

[spindrift 10]

Lets tell the families of those killed by cyclists that there is no risk shall we?

 

And those untold, countless grieving families mourning loved ones killed by bees and golf balls:mad:!

[decaff 10]

Bee stings can cause anaphylaxis in some people and yes they do actually die. Would you like examples?

[spindrift 10]

Bee stings can cause anaphylaxis in some people and yes they do actually die. Would you like examples?

 

Why do the bees die? :mad:

 

Two sad smileys. Justified I think.

[decaff 10]

Why do the bees die? :mad:

 

Two sad smileys. Justified I think.

 

Read up on why the bees die...

 

This probably means nothing to you but 3-4 times more people in the US die from bee stings each year than snake bites see here

 

Here is a UK example in case people dying in america means nothing to you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5259380.stm (Yes i know it is a wasp sting but the effects can be the same)

[denlin 12]

But an allergic reaction is hardly the same as some buffoon riding into an old lady on a FOOTPATH when they are supposed to ride on road, or skirting round inside of red lights to avoid waiting then crossing against oncoming traffic and blaming car driver for having audacity to go through Green light and knocking them off their bike:roll:

[Cyclone 10]

Lets tell the families of those killed by cyclists that there is no risk shall we?

 

Both of them?

 

Cyclists really present very little risk to other road users though, much less than motorists. And even when they do behave badly, it never justifies assault, which seemed to be what you were saying in your OP. It does justify 'words' or even shouting though and if spotted it should justify a fine and points on their license if they have one.

[0742Sheff 10]

Do some cyclists bring it on themselves?

 

Yes. Some cyclist's are numpties and deserve all they get. I do not class these people as cyclists. I prefer to call them 'idiots that happen to be on a bike'.

 

This isn’t a question designed to stir up anger

 

Yes it was and yes it has

 

Take this morning for example, I was approaching a T-junction and had stopped at the “Stop” sign (not a giveway sign) and there was a line of 4 cars approaching when a cyclist appeared from behind me and carried straight on through the stop sign without appearing to slow down. Now the speed he was travelling caused him to ride into the middle of the road meaning the line of cars had to brake unnecessarily…

 

Idiot on a bike.

 

Last weekend I was out in the Peak District and the number of cyclists who ride two even 3 abreast is unbelievable. I know there are probably more bikes than cars on the roads up there at weekends but cyclists should not be riding like this anywhere!

 

Two abreast is legal and fine. Three is pushing a bit even from my side of the fence. If a car driver can't manouver around two cyclists riding in an orderly fashion then that driver needs to ask himself if he can really drive at all.

 

Finally and perhaps worst was an example given to me by a friend is of a guy on a bike who ran a red light and was hit by a car coming through a set of lights at 90 degrees to him. Thankfully no one was injured but the cyclist had the cheek to blame the car driver despite running the red light. I have seen cyclists show a blatant disregard for red lights all to often, as I’m sure many of you have.

 

Idiot on a bike.

 

 

This isn’t to say that cyclists are demons and most of them do seem to take their safety into account at all times but when things do go wrong everyone is quick to blame the driver when in actual fact it isn’t always that simple.

 

Absolutely agree 100%.

[0742Sheff 10]

Cyclists really present very little risk to other road users though, much less than motorists. And even when they do behave badly, it never justifies assault, which seemed to be what you were saying in your OP. It does justify 'words' or even shouting though and if spotted it should justify a fine and points on their license if they have one.

 

Like the time i was cycling home from work and for no reason whatsoever some pleb in a sports car decided he was going to ram me off the road. It ended up with me on the pavement and him missing his wing mirror.

 

No doubt it could have been much worse but i guess it cost him a fortune to replace the wing mirror

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Its not cyclisys who need reminding, its drivers - who are flouting the rules of the roads in their THOUSANDS on a daily basis.

 

We (you) have footpaths for pedestrians. That - presumably - is because it has been recognised that mixing pedestrian traffic and motor vehicle traffic is dangerous.

 

Cyclists are slow (most of them travel at speeds nearer those of pedestrians than motorised traffic) so why should they not be separated (where possible) from motor vehicles?

 

"Who breaks the rules" is - IMO - far less important than "who gets hurt".

 

I'm a pedestrian, a cyclist, a motorcyclist and (occasionally) a car driver.

 

The law (in the UK) requires a bicycle to be fitted with 'An audible means of notifying people of your approach'. A Bell. (Isabelle better than a hooter?)

 

How many bicycles are not fitted with either? What happens to those who ride without a bell?

 

The law also requires cyclists to exhibit a fixed white light at the front of the machine (and it IS a machine) and a fixed red light at the rear. How many cyclists ignore that law? (It's a law designed to enhance their survivability.)

 

As a motorcyclist, I ALWAYS ride wearing protective equipment. A helmet (required by law) gloves and leathers (or other heavily reinforced clothing.)

 

How many cyclists do you see wearing a helmet? Or gloves? (If you fell off, would you be tempted to put a hand out to break your fall? - The road is rough and skin doesn't last long. Even at 10mph.)

 

I've no argument with your suggestion that motorists need to be reminded of the risk they pose to 'soft skinned' road users, but it works both ways.

 

I used to live a few miles North of Cambridge (cycling city.) The behaviour of the average cyclist in that town was far worse than that of the average motorist. "I'm on a bike, I can do what I like" seemed to be the 'law of cycling'.

 

'Give and take' has its limitations. - Particularly when one of the people involved in an accident is 'soft skinned'. That participant tends to come off worse.

 

There is no room for 'road rage' and (IMO) those who are found guilty of it should be punished severely.

 

I can't see any justification for 'provocation of road rage" either.

 

We all (most of us) use the roads; as pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and tin can drivers. We should all be aware of the needs (and limitations) of other road users.

 

It's not all 'one-sided', however. Neither is it a one-way street.

 

But one-way streets don't apply to cyclists, do they?

[anywebsite 10]

I suggest you alert the British Medical Association.

 

A BMA study in 1999 found that the benefits of cycling outweighed the risks by 20:1.

 

The risks are so negligible that can be discounted, that's why many cycling groups or clubs offer free Third Party Insurance for cyclists.

 

Reckon drivers could get free insurance?

 

My CTC membership gives me free insurance, and I get it on my household policy, personally I can never properly relax on a bike unless I know I'm covered third party up to £3 million.

 

The reason that you get cheap or free third party insurance, is because your bike is unlikely to do much damage to a third party.

 

If you run into a bus or a car with your bike, you're unlikely to cause much damage to the car or bus, maybe a smashed window at worst. That doesn't mean you'll be uninjured. That's why you only get free third party insurance.

Edited March 12, 2011 by anywebsite

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

The reason that you get cheap or free third party insurance, is because your bike is unlikely to do much damage to a third party.

 

If you run into a bus or a car with your bike, you're unlikely to cause much damage to the car or bus, maybe a smashed window at worst. That doesn't mean you'll be uninjured.

 

TPI for cyclists is dirt cheap! - I get mine through my household insurance policy. (I don't think they'd be willing to reduce the premium if I said I never rode a bicycle.)

 

There are, however, a number of cyclists who are NOT insured for third-party claims.

 

I am also a pedestrian and if I'm hit (and injured) by a cyclist is it so unreasonable to assume that said cyclist will be insured and his insurance will cover my damages?

[denlin 12]

We (you) have footpaths for pedestrians. That - presumably - is because it has been recognised that mixing pedestrian traffic and motor vehicle traffic is dangerous.

 

Then why do half of all cyclists ride on footpath (illegal), flout red traffic lights (illegal) and ride without lights at night (illegal) but get away with all 3, if a motorcyclist or car driver did any of these they would be fined or finish up court. If police are reading this, opportunity to make money and stop stupidity in one fell swoop