Cyclists ignoring traffic lights

[Cyril Haearn]

Most drivers can not read

Just spend a while by a STOP sign, observe how many stop

Near me there is a narrow cycle way right beside the road, I am the only driver who moves over to give cyclists enough room, normal drivers hate me, I imagine

Moton? "Terrorist" is often the correct description

Seems perfectly appropriate to me, wonder if anyone disagrees and will report me I am not insulting another forum member, I would not do that
..
Maybe some motons are "only" stupid, another example: there is a folding bridge near home, the road is closed for ten minutes a couple of times a day. Many drivers leave their motors running or start them long before they can move off. Really stupid, more noise, pollution, costs
Illegal too, it would be a great place for the cops to give the motons an earful

[kwackers]

This applies to all road users. Behave, act in accordance with the rules and accidents are minimised

LOL.

If only.
When the big boys don't obey the rules and put your life at risk why wouldn't you try to minimise that risk?

Then there's the question of which rules?
I can jump on the pavement up the road to avoid the lights if I'm turning left completely legally. Why can't I do that at the next set?
I can cycle the wrong way up a one way street not far away either - but why only that one?

Why am I forced to dice with death because folk want a fast junction for traffic, but am an idiot if I decide to jump the lights early to avoid the fast left hook inserted to allow motorists to leave the road at high speed?
How is walking across a junction pushing a bike legal but pedalling across it dangerous and idiotic?

Bikes aren't cars. Never have been and never will be.
Once we realise that we can design proper facilities that doesn't assume that everything using it is a "vehicle".

[mjr]

OK one last message. My commute is 20 miles a day, when I visit relatives it is 76 miles minimum. How many 200km audaxes have you completed? Tell me mjr as you pedal around your corner of Norfolk,what was your experience of completing a 400km Audax? What is it like riding all night? Tell me about your last tour up to Scotland.

Ha! My views on audax are readily available in searches on here so you're on a safe wicket there. You're doing nothing to make me think more fondly towards doing any again, though!

I've toured in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, as well as ridden Austria, NZ, USA, probably others but I've saved touring Scotland for if it all goes wrong next year

[Lou]

At the end of the day, a cycle can kill a pedestrian if they collide, two walkers or joggers will probably suffer soft tissue damage if they collide. A cycle and car collision could be fatal if the impact speed is great enough. A ridden bicycle is still a vehicle being ridden by an operator when on the highway.
The important thing is to use common sense, whether driving or cycling, to show consideration and adhere to the highway code, that way nobody has an accident.
I am a stickler for following the rules of the road, having driven since 1982, driving 20,000+ miles a year.
My only rta a few years ago, when a silly man overtook an articulated lorry on double whites, on a blind bend, I was in his way! Facing death gives one a whole new perspective on following rules. Carpe Diem.

[Cyril Haearn]

As noted elsewhere, the number of people killed by cyclists is very low

[Lou]

You'd hope so but judging by the selfish mamils who go on my trails, it must be by mere luck!

[Cyril Haearn]

Of course it is not luck, motons kill hundreds each year (walkers, cyclists, other motons), more knowledgeable fora members have discussed this elsewhere

"Professional" truck drivers kill many and often survive, not many truck drivers die in "accidents"

I am all for segregation of walkers from cyclists, space needed could be taken from motor roads

[mjr]

The important thing is to use common sense, whether driving or cycling, to show consideration and adhere to the highway code, that way nobody has an accident.

That's the second time a similar claim has been made and it's still wrong. There are a few things in the code which were dodgy at the time (put in without solid evidence) and a few that have been disproved. Nothing important, no MUSTs as far as I know, but I'm not going to adhere to nonsense just because it's in that book. I'll show consideration, though.

An accident? That's a loaded word. Collision and incident are both better, depending on context.

[meic]

At the end of the day, a cycle can kill a pedestrian if they collide, two walkers or joggers will probably suffer soft tissue damage if they collide.

True but equally true is
At the end of the day walkers and joggers can kill one another if they collide, a cyclist and a pedestrian will probably suffer soft tissue damage if they collide.

In both cases the former happens but on very, very rare occasions and the latter is quite commonplace.

[Postboxer]

It wouldn't surprise me if in most collisions between a car and a pedestrian there is only soft tissue damage. Probably a lack of statistics to prove this either way though.

[RichK]

It wouldn't surprise me if in most collisions between a car and a pedestrian there is only soft tissue damage. Probably a lack of statistics to prove this either way though.

I've bumped into our car walking down the drive many a time ('tis a bit of a squeeze). A bit of bruising is the worst I've suffered (I do bruise easily due to medication...)

[Cunobelin]

As noted elsewhere, the number of people killed by cyclists is very low

....but exists.

If I hit you I will only injure, I am unlikely to kill you, is hardly a supportable defence

[Cunobelin]

This applies to all road users. Behave, act in accordance with the rules and accidents are minimised

LOL.

If only.
When the big boys don't obey the rules and put your life at risk why wouldn't you try to minimise that risk?

Because if they obeyed the riles it WOULD minimise the risk, and there still needs to be an explanation why erratic behaviour that means your next move is unpredictable and hence appropriate action taken is safe!

Then there's the question of which rules?
I can jump on the pavement up the road to avoid the lights if I'm turning left completely legally. Why can't I do that at the next set?
I can cycle the wrong way up a one way street not far away either - but why only that one?

For the same reason you cannot drive the wrong way down a dual carriageway, the design of that particular road?

Is one road wide enough for a contraflow, the other not. Something There is insufficient detail to comment on

Why am I forced to dice with death because folk want a fast junction for traffic, but am an idiot if I decide to jump the lights early to avoid the fast left hook inserted to allow motorists to leave the road at high speed?

Again there would be no left hook to avoid if everyone obeyed the rules

How is walking across a junction pushing a bike legal but pedalling across it dangerous and idiotic?

For the same reason I can be drunk as a skunk in my front room, with my car in the drive, yet it is illegal to sit in or drive my car in that state... different acts

Bikes aren't cars. Never have been and never will be.
Once we realise that we can design proper facilities that doesn't assume that everything using it is a "vehicle"

However they do share the same space, and the same rules. Behaving and obeying those rules makes everyone more predictable and allows appropriate response.

It reminds me a lot of the S@feSpeed arguments as to why drivers should be allowed to choose their own speed on safety grounds

I will never be David Beckham, but I still play football by the same rules

[mjr]

Bikes aren't cars. Never have been and never will be.
Once we realise that we can design proper facilities that doesn't assume that everything using it is a "vehicle"

However they do share the same space, and the same rules. Behaving and obeying those rules makes everyone more predictable and allows appropriate response.

I agree with some of what you write but the above is generally untrue. The "rules for drivers" and "rules for cyclists" sections of the Highway Code are very different. We do not share all the same rules, plus each has spaces the other cannot use: motorways and cycleways.

[kwackers]

Again there would be no left hook to avoid if everyone obeyed the rules

And if pigs flew we could saddle them up.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, not only does everyone not obey the rules but it turns out very few do and when they do for most people they simply cherry pick the ones they obey and the others are just cheeky little misdemeanours - unless done by a cyclist when it makes their anti-cyclist neurons fire like crazy.

Depending on the junction I'm more than happy to sit in front of the stop line, preempt the change or horror of horrors - sit in the middle of the lane annoying all and sundry behind me!
When self driving cars are the prime movers of people and I can rely on consistent behaviour then peace, harmony and an angelic choir will be the order of the day. Until then.