You are putting all the onus on the car driver.
No i am not.
I mentioned about the things that get you wound up.
Big difference.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:19 PM
You are putting all the onus on the car driver.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:49 PM
The biggest problem I've found (Not hit one yet) is many cyclists seem to think that only they are using the road and often change direction around pot holes etc without any form of indication........or you could spot a potential hazard and adjust your driving to take it into account.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 03:32 PM
Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:14 PM
A driver of a car involved in a collision with a bicycle will most probably just suffer a bit of shock. A cyclist may end up in hospital.And unless you are a nutjob sick sod white van man in Cardiff, no car driver wants to be involved in a collision with a cyclist. ALL road users have to take responsibility for themselves as well as each other. Some cyclists need to take more responsibility for themselves.
Well what is the problem then? If they are in front of you then they aren't in danger of hitting you.lol! I am behind them. They pull out IN FRONT of me. Did you not read the words IN FRONT OF? How can I not be giving them enough room when they are IN FRONT OF me?
I'm a member of British Cycling they produced the report linked below summarising the view of its members when it comes to road safety. It might make interesting reading for you as they mention that many drivers do not know the rules/best practice for cyclists.That is asking for trouble. Exactly where is it recommended practice? It used to be outlawed practice.
A cyclist is in a very vulnerable position, not enclosed by a steel cage.And how is that any different from being a car driver?
Edited by Severus, 21 October 2012 - 05:18 PM.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:15 PM
Sometimes unavoidable, hence why the highway code says to give cyclists as much room as you would if they were a car.The biggest problem I've found (Not hit one yet) is many cyclists seem to think that only they are using the road and often change direction around pot holes etc without any form of indication.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:53 PM
More than a bit of shock.A driver of a car involved in a collision with a bicycle will most probably just suffer a bit of shock. A cyclist may end up in hospital.
Are you for real? It's not them hitting me I'm worried about. It's me hitting them. If they suddenly pull out into my lane without any indication that they are going to then the chance of me ploughing into them increases significantly, don't you think?Well what is the problem then? If they are in front of you then they aren't in danger of hitting you.
Indeed, which is why they should take more responsibility on the road by observing the rules of the road and not behaving like prats.A cyclist is in a very vulnerable position, not enclosed by a steel cage.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:15 PM
I think we can definitely say the cyclist will come off worst.More than a bit of shock.
You seem to be having difficulty understand what I am saying. If you are behind a cyclist then either you overtake giving them as much room as you would a car and therefore even if they do serve in the road you aren't going to hit them or you drive behind them. If it is a two lane carriageway ad they do serve across into the outside lane in front if you without signalling then yes you are correct, they are idiots.Are you for real? It's not them hitting me I'm worried about. It's me hitting them. If they suddenly pull out into my lane without any indication that they are going to then the chance of me ploughing into them increases significantly, don't you think?
Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:32 PM
Edited by JohnM, 21 October 2012 - 06:32 PM.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:15 PM
In that case a cyclist should have insurance and have to pass some kind of test so they can become responsable cyclists as well.Sometimes unavoidable, hence why the highway code says to give cyclists as much room as you would if they were a car.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:58 PM
I didn't say they wouldn't. I just said that I would suffer more than 'a bit of shock' if I happened to knock over a cyclist.I think we can definitely say the cyclist will come off worst.
I understand what you are saying perfectly. But you are missing my point. A cyclist is to my left but in front of me. We are stationary at traffic lights, say. Lights go to green. Everyone, including cyclist, accelerates - as one does when one wants to make a vehicle move forward- but cyclist is still ahead. Then, out of the blue, cyclist crosses in front of my car. No indication that is what they are going to do. Nothing. They just do it. I have to hit brakes. That is what I am talking about now and it is the scenario I first described.You seem to be having difficulty understand what I am saying. If you are behind a cyclist then either you overtake giving them as much room as you would a car and therefore even if they do serve in the road you aren't going to hit them or you drive behind them. If it is a two lane carriageway ad they do serve across into the outside lane in front if you without signalling then yes you are correct, they are idiots.
Absolutely agree. All road users should have to pass a test, not least to teach them how to be aware of others on the road, not just for their own safety but for the safety of other road users.I would like to see cycling as part of the driving test. It wasn't until I started cycling that I realised the dangers that cyclists have to watch out for.
Edited by Saintslass, 21 October 2012 - 08:00 PM.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:00 PM
I understand what you are saying perfectly. But you are missing my point. A cyclist is to my left but in front of me. We are stationary at traffic lights, say. Lights go to green. Everyone, including cyclist, accelerates - as one does when one wants to make a motorised vehicle move forward. Then, out of the blue, cyclist crosses in front of my car. No indication that is what they are going to do. Nothing. They just do it. I have to hit brakes. That is what I am talking about now and it is the scenario I first described.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:16 PM
In a responsible cyclist but there are occasions when you need to serve to avoid pedestrians, pot holes and obstacles. If car drivers follow the Highway Code this isn't a problem.In that case a cyclist should have insurance and have to pass some kind of test so they can become responsable cyclists as well.
Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:21 PM
What you have described shows you are in the wrong. If the cyclist is in front of you they have the lane. If you want to overtake you must insure that there is enough room to do so. This is why there is a green strip at many sets of lights, so a cyclists can take up a position in front of the cars. Although in my experience many car drivers seem to think this is for them. It seems like you don't realise that a cyclist is well within their rights to cycle in the middle of the lane. Personally I don't do this and cycle towards the left of the lane unless I feel it is unsafe to do so.I didn't say they wouldn't. I just said that I would suffer more than 'a bit of shock' if I happened to knock over a cyclist.
I understand what you are saying perfectly. But you are missing my point. A cyclist is to my left but in front of me. We are stationary at traffic lights, say. Lights go to green. Everyone, including cyclist, accelerates - as one does when one wants to make a vehicle move forward- but cyclist is still ahead. Then, out of the blue, cyclist crosses in front of my car. No indication that is what they are going to do. Nothing. They just do it. I have to hit brakes.
Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:22 PM
*pulls hair out through frustration*What you have described shows you are in the wrong. If the cyclist is in front of you they have the lane. If you want to overtake you must insure that there is enough room to do so.
Edited by Saintslass, 22 October 2012 - 12:22 PM.
Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:11 PM
Calm down dear.*pulls hair out through frustration*
I wasn't in the wrong. I wasn't bl*ody overtaking! I hadn't even got to that stage yet! Jeez! The bloke pulled in front of me without signalling. Had I been going any faster than I was at the time there would have been no guarantee I could have stopped in time to avoid him, the total and utter plank.
Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM
Calm down dear.
Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:22 PM
I was because I was pulling away, same as everyone, and he just pulled in front of me. Had I been going faster, which in my car isn't possible, then there is every chance I would have hit him. And it was a him, incidentally.If you weren't overtaking and driving behind the cyclist then you weren't in danger of hitting him.
Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:26 PM
Here's another one for you. Today I was driving out of town on the dual carriageway arterial road.
Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:51 PM
In St Helens? Now we know you're exaggerating!
![]()
Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:54 PM
I understand what you are saying perfectly. But you are missing my point. A cyclist is to my left but in front of me. We are stationary at traffic lights, say. Lights go to green. Everyone, including cyclist, accelerates - as one does when one wants to make a vehicle move forward- but cyclist is still ahead. Then, out of the blue, cyclist crosses in front of my car. No indication that is what they are going to do. Nothing. They just do it. I have to hit brakes. That is what I am talking about now and it is the scenario I first described.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users