I was walking with the mrs up a street near us (mildmay grove south -
quiet one-way street next to train tracks), and some asshat on a bike rode
down the pavement, doing a wheelie, past my wife and I, passing within
inches of us. I was sooo tempted to push a bin out in front of him or
just jump at him shouting something, but then I figured he probably had an
AK-47 and close air support, so I let it slide.


That was me - and I am deeply offended by your remarks.
And what exactly is an "asshat"? As you so braindeadly refer to me as.
FYI, I was not performing a wheelie, but a hard brake swerve to avoid
two drunken fat middle-aged fools - you and your podgey inebriated missus!
And as for what you shouted after me - NO, you cannot dance, and NO I was
not interested in your "missus for a fiver for ten minutes".............
But having said that, nice to have heard from you again and hoping you and
your missus are well and the dentures fit better when you're sober.
Take care
Fondest regards.
Eddie Merc's

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:18:07 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

d wrote in
:

I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the
pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've
seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of
"rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every
member of the public.

Add to that the utter ****wits who ride around (usually dressed in
black) with no lights.


I suggest:

- compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists

I agree thus far but insurance, for me, is to protect me from the
actions of car drivers. Mate of mine has a SMIDSY the other day which
trashed his bike and left him with a £500 dental bill. He's got the
drivers details but has been told it's going to be very difficult to
prove the crash caused it (it's from clenching his teeth prior to
impact). Sure... if I ever make a mistake it'll cover me for that but
I hope that I won't do so in the first place.

(and before the flames - I drive, and cycle and walk)

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance.
Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a queue of cars on
the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I dismount and walk on
the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I have never gone through
a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it.
But I think I'm very much in the minority :-(

I don't either but I'd heartily support the sniper idea for those that
do...

Can I also request the death penalty for people who drive their cars
around with their side lights on plus front fog lights?

Chris! wrote in
:

Firstly, the subject, are you only against right wing cyclists?

Martin Underwood wrote:

I suggest:

- compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury
to pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them
when the cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as
they overtake illegally on the left coming up to a junction)

What is making insurance compulsary going to do? If a cyclist causes
such damage (which I have personally yet to see) and the damage was
such that you could claim off their insurance then you could also
claim off them. Anyway most cyclists I know (myself included) have
3rd party insurance (but very few have theft insurance because the
bike needs to be stolen three times per year to make insurance
viable).

I was meaning that if cyclists were required to have insurance and to be
readily identifiable to witnesses who might want to report their actions to
the police, it might (just "might") make those cyclists more responsible.

Where I live (near Abingdon in Oxfordshire) I see a lot of cyclists go
through red traffic lights as if they don't apply to cyclists - especially
in the centre of Oxford. In contrast, I've seen far fewer cars go through
red lights - and when they do, it's often in the second or so after the
lights have gone red, before opposing traffic has started to move, rather
than when the lights have been red for many seconds - it's quite common to
see cyclists quite blatantly ignore red lights and force their way out into
traffic that's moving across their path.

Oxford cyclists also seem to think that pedestrian crossings don't apply to
them either. Once when I was cycling up St Giles, I was approaching a zebra
crossing on which there were people crossing and more about to cross. I
slowed down nice and gently, hoping that if I was very lucky the crossing
might be clear by the time I approached, before I had to stop. As it
happens, this wasn't the case. I'd been stopped at the crossing for a few
seconds and there were still many people on the crossing (they may have been
a coach party) when a cyclist overtook me riding like a bat out of hell,
forcing pedestrians to scatter left and right as he rode right at them.
Fortunately he narrowly missed colliding with anyone, but there were lots of
shocked people. Where are the police when you want them?

Also, I would like to point out that "overtaking" on the left is also
illegal in cars in the circumastances it is for cyclists. Even if
there is a gap the width of a car to the left of the one ahead, you
cannot pass it unless it is indicating right or you are on a one way
street or in a different lane and your lane is moving slower.

That's a fair point. I suppose the only difference is that cars are large
enough for drivers who are planning to turn left to see them very easily in
their left door mirror if they do try to overtake on the left, and cars
which are planning to turn left don't usually leave a car's width between
them and the kerb for another car to nip through the gap. Cyclists, on the
other hand, often overtake cars which are indicating left. As a car driver,
I usually pull close to the kerb as I approach a junction where I'm turning
left if I've recently overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from
overtaking illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic.

and I have never gone through
a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people
on it.

Neither have I. Although at least half of the junctions I use daily
have taxis and cars which have jumped the red light and stopped
between the normal line and the advanced start line for cyclists.

I must confess I've occasionally done this: stopped at the line that's level
with the lights, as normal, rather than the one a few yards back where cars
must stop. But this is accidental rather than deliberate: if there are cars
ahead of you covering up the the road ahead, it's sometimes very difficult
to see that there is also an "early" line and the green road surface of a
cyclists' advance starting area as you approach. Nowadays if there's a green
cycle lane to my left, I plan for there being an "early" stop line at
lights, but I bet few drivers make that connection. It's a shame that lights
with a cyclists' advance area aren't signposted as such so you know you'll
have to stop short of the lights.

Chris! wrote in
:

Martin Underwood wrote:
whose cars they scrape as they overtake
illegally on the left coming up to a junction)

One point I missed.. I don't know about your part of London but where
I am there are cycle lanes on the approach to most busy junctions.
Mostly, these are occupied by the wheels of a taxi or 4x4 (which, if
it is a solid line lane, is illegal). The use of these cycle lanes to
pass cars is perfectly legal, and the whole reason for the lanes being
there.

If the cycle lane is not close to a junction when traffic is turning left,
that's fine. Even if there's not a marked lane, and if the road is wide
enough, I'll try to leave space for bikes to overtake on the left. Likewise
on a wide road I often move left to give motorbikes chance to overtake on
the right.

But if I'm planning to turn left, everything's different. I never know what
the correct thing to do is when the lane continues right up to the junction
and when there's an advanced starting area. Obviously I should let the bikes
that are already on the advance area go ahead of me, and I should wait until
they have gone ahead before starting to turn left. But what about bikes that
are coming up behind me on the left. Should I wait indefinitely (blocking
traffic that wants to go straight ahead) until there are no more cyclists
coming up on my left. Or should I position myself close to the left kerb (on
the cycle lane but before the advance stop line) to make sure that cyclists
who aren't already on the advance area can't overtake on the left till I'm
out of the way. It's a very difficult one. As a driver, I always feel very
uneasy if the cycle lane continues right up to the junction because I know
it's a more hazardous junction.

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are
indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb as
I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently
overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking
illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic.

It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know you'll be
turning left shortly afterwards.

start a campaign yourself, at www.bbc.co.uk/actionnetwork

Martin Underwood wrote:
[snip - discussion about turning left at traffic lights with ASL and
cycle lane to the left]
Should I wait indefinitely (blocking
traffic that wants to go straight ahead) until there are no more cyclists
coming up on my left. Or should I position myself close to the left kerb (on
the cycle lane but before the advance stop line) to make sure that cyclists
who aren't already on the advance area can't overtake on the left till I'm
out of the way. It's a very difficult one. As a driver, I always feel very
uneasy if the cycle lane continues right up to the junction because I know
it's a more hazardous junction.

At those junctions, as a cyclist, I only use the mini lane leading up
to the junction if the lights are on red. If I don't get to the ASL
before the lights change I am very wary of traffic turning left and
will slow down to let it pass. If the lights are green on approach I
will stay in the normal line of traffic.

Luckily there is not much traffic which turns left at these junctions
on my route.

I agree they seem very badly designed

Adrian wrote in
70:

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are
indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb as
I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently
overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking
illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic.

It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know
you'll be turning left shortly afterwards.

It's not that simple. I may encounter the cyclist (maybe going as slowly as
5 mph when I'm going at 30) when I'm several hundred yards from the
junction. To slow down to his speed and drive behind him for ages is absurd
and would incur the wrath of other traffic. So I overtake him. Then the
lights change just as I'm approaching the lights: maybe I'm first or second
car. While I'm stopped, the cyclist catches up with me. The lights turn
green. If he's already level with me or in front of me, fine - he goes
first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I
delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've
turned? I reckon the latter.

I think the problem stems from the design of the junction which
permits/encourages a lane of vehicles (cyclists) to the left of the stream
of cars that wants to turn left. A scheme that encouraged cyclists to
overtake on the right when there was a stream of cars waiting to turn right
would be equally absurd.


As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points
of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible
to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never
getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In
dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number
plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and
(via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is
moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm
capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come
to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary
traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be
turning, either with or without an indicator.

Phil Clark wrote:

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a
runner is rather more limited. Thus exercise can more feasibly be
gained as part of the daily routine rather than as a separate activity.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
Phil Clark wrote:

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a
runner is rather more limited.

And with panniers on you can carry a damned sight more shopping back from
the supermarket than by walking or running!