Cyclists going through red lights. Localised colour blindness?

[ads36 214]

That would be daft.

 

Cycling past a stationary/slow car puts the cyclist in control. There's little/no threat to life and limb.

 

Overtaking a cyclist puts the driver in control. Speeds are higher, things can and do go very wrong.

[stifflersmom 11]

Can we take it that also applies to cyclists who like to squeeze down the side of cars in traffic jams ?

 

Why, in case the cyclist knocks the car over? Ever been overtaken by a larger vehicle when in your car.

It's like standing near the edge of s platform as actraim speeds through, versus walking along a platform next to a stationary train. One situation puts tge person at risk, neither situation puts the train at risk.

[Cyclone 10]

Can we take it that also applies to cyclists who like to squeeze down the side of cars in traffic jams ?

 

No, don't be ridiculous.

[DT Ralge 10]

It is now LAW ...... 1.5 metres clearence for motorists passing cyclists.

 

LAW.

 

Stuff your red lights .......... how many motorists know the LAW or apply it?

 

1.5 metres.

 

You overstate it, the law has not changed, merely its application.

HC talks “should give cyclists as much room as you would a car”.

“should” means that there is no law specifically attached to the “offence” (unlike a “must”).

The amount of clearance is not specified - I can’t find any reference to 1.5 metres in HC (maybe you can and prove me wrong).

Various Police forces have run “Operation Close Pass” and have decided on 1.5 metres. That is their prerogative/job (to define what constitutes the standard of driving to be expected of a reasonably competent and considerate driver).

Edited September 9, 2018 by DT Ralge

[alchemist 35]

So this morning I saw a well known national brand of driving instructor (franchised I expect) with no student in the car, make an illegal left turn at Hillsborough corner, meaning they drove across the pedestrian crossing that had a green man.

But to balance it up yesterday I saw a cyclist run a red light and then hop onto the pavement to go through the same corner (in the other direction).

I know which was more dangerous though.

 

And if it came down to it, which could the police identify??

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2018 at 08:04 ----------

 

Isn’t this thread daft.

 

There are bad drivers and bad cyclists- good drivers and good cyclists.

 

The thread is more about cyclists can/should be bad cyclists BECAUSE there are bad/illegal motorists and that they should be allowed to be so because there are no ways of identifying them to apply any form of sanction

[Bargepole23 337]

And if it came down to it, which could the police identify??

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2018 at 08:04 ----------

 

 

The thread is more about cyclists can/should be bad cyclists BECAUSE there are bad/illegal motorists and that they should be allowed to be so because there are no ways of identifying them to apply any form of sanction

 

I think they all have unique faces, much like everybody else who needs identifying to be held accountable for their actions.

[Penistone999 10]

Why, in case the cyclist knocks the car over? Ever been overtaken by a larger vehicle when in your car.

It's like standing near the edge of s platform as actraim speeds through, versus walking along a platform next to a stationary train. One situation puts tge person at risk, neither situation puts the train at risk.

 

No , because of the amount of times cyclists scratch vehicles because they cant wait ,and feel they have the right to jump to the front of the queue.

[Resident 1,185]

I think they all have unique faces, much like everybody else who needs identifying to be held accountable for their actions.

 

So by this you also think that cars, vans, trucks etc don't need VRM displayed, drivers after-all have unique faces.

[ads36 214]

I really don't mean to sound like I'm just having a personal dig, but here goes...

 

For some time now, (since page 1 ) we've just been moaning about things we think should happen.

 

'cyclists' should pay road tax.

 

'cyclists' should have license plates.

 

Etc. You know the kind of thing.

 

But the reality is, that people simply don't need to pay ved, or wear a numbered Tabard, to legally ride a bike. You might think this is wrong, but your opinion doesn't alter the reality. People don't need to pay bicycle ved. Even if they wanted to, there's no way of doing so. Show me the page on the dvla website where I can pay my bike tax ..

 

There's an interesting, and relevant discussion somewhere in here, we all grumble about traffic, noise, pollution, the cost of transport, kids relying on their taxi-parents, physical inactivity, and yes, car/bike/pedestrian interactions...

 

We don't solve any of these problems with a bike tax.

 

(If anything, that would make them all worse)

Edited September 11, 2018 by ads36

[Bargepole23 337]

So by this you also think that cars, vans, trucks etc don't need VRM displayed, drivers after-all have unique faces.

 

You think the level of risk to people and property posed by bicycles is in any way comparable to that posed by cars?

 

Do you think implementing such a scheme would reduce that risk?

 

Do you think that increasing the barriers to using a bike and the subsequent increase in car traffic would be a public benefit?

 

I'm answering "no" to those questions.

[Cyclone 10]

And if it came down to it, which could the police identify??

 

Quite clearly the car would be more traceable, but if it came down to it, which was more dangerous?

 

---------- Post added 11-09-2018 at 07:31 ----------

 

The thread is more about cyclists can/should be bad cyclists BECAUSE there are bad/illegal motorists and that they should be allowed to be so because there are no ways of identifying them to apply any form of sanction

 

Not one single person has made that argument. It's a wild strawman designed to imply that cyclists wish to be able to break the law and feel entitled to do so. Complete nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 11-09-2018 at 07:32 ----------

 

No , because of the amount of times cyclists scratch vehicles because they cant wait ,and feel they have the right to jump to the front of the queue.

 

So in your world a scratch to an object is as important as a life. Figures.

[alchemist 35]

Not one single person has made that argument. It's a wild strawman designed to imply that cyclists wish to be able to break the law and feel entitled to do so. Complete nonsense.

 

Not in so many words, no, but the implication is always there. Because when you cannot be identified the temptation to break the law increases.

 

What IS it that really frightens cyclists so much about being able to be identified that they feel the need to come out with rubbish such as "well motorists sometimes break the law", "you dont expect pedestrians to wear identifying signs" or the ever popular "pedestrians dont pay VED so why should cyclists".

 

Is it a fear that if you can be identified it might actually make a cyclist act more responsible? Is there a nugget of rebellion inside every cyclist just waiting to break out and not being able to be identified pushes that ever so closer to the surface?