Driving too Close to Cyclist offence

[SmallTown]

I think this stems from a cyclist running a red light causes little harm. I am pretty sure I have read (in the cycling press) that they have considered making red lights not applicable to cyclists.

Yeah that's the usual eaxuce for breaking the law.

But, of course, it's a lie. A cyclist going at, say 15 moh can do damage to any pedestrian. And if they are old or infirm in some way that can be serious damage.

That's the problem we have with a certain breed of cyclist. Their law breaking will always be defended by "but cars kill" so apparently it's OK to injured pedestrians?

Let's flip it around? If I drive at 5 mph my car won't kill anyone either? So if I creep through the lights that's allowed?

 

[Redpete]

Yeah that's the usual eaxuce for breaking the law.

But, of course, it's a lie. A cyclist going at, say 15 moh can do damage to any pedestrian. And if they are old or infirm in some way that can be serious damage.

That's the problem we have with a certain breed of cyclist. Their law breaking will always be defended by "but cars kill" so apparently it's OK to injured pedestrians?

Let's flip it around? If I drive at 5 mph my car won't kill anyone either? So if I creep through the lights that's allowed?

Comments like this are not just wrong but are harmful to cyclist in general as it reinforces the anti cyclist brigade who dare I say it deliberately put cyclists at risk.

I suspect you rarely cycle maybe you should get yourself out on the open roads of the countryside to get some reality.

Here Is a fact for you.
Only 5% of red light jumping that resulted in a pedestrian being injured involved a bicycle. 95% involved a MOTORIZED VEHICLE.

Now I am in no way defending the red light jumping cyclist its wrong and I would call them out if I saw it but lets not call it a problem and demonize " a certain breed of cyclists " when in reality the problem is " a certain breed " of car drivers.

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

Riding in the centre of the road avoids drains and rubbish at the side of the road. And stops drivers trying to squeeze past when they don’t have enough space.
would guess cyclists ride in the centre for that reason and not just to annoy drivers

Makes sense, then as the highway code says, move to the left or stop to allow following faster moving traffic to pass.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Yeah that's the usual eaxuce for breaking the law.

But, of course, it's a lie. A cyclist going at, say 15 moh can do damage to any pedestrian. And if they are old or infirm in some way that can be serious damage.

That's the problem we have with a certain breed of cyclist. Their law breaking will always be defended by "but cars kill" so apparently it's OK to injured pedestrians?

Let's flip it around? If I drive at 5 mph my car won't kill anyone either? So if I creep through the lights that's allowed?

It’s not a lie - it is backed up by the fact that cyclist kill 1-2 pedestrians a year and cars kill over 400, serious injure over 5000 and slightly injure over 13,000. Plus remember that according to the wider cycling hating public many more cyclists run red lights and breaks the law than cars!

Your car would kill someone at 5mph, it just depends if you stop or not. You could creep over a pedestrian and squash them quite easily. A bike at 5mph would do hardly any damage at all at 5mph.

I don’t think it is an excuse for lawbreaking on cycles like you suggest. I think the point you are missing is people are targeting the wrong group. No one should be breaking the law, we all agree, but the group who kills the most appear to get a free pass.

If terrorism was killing over 400 people a year there would be an outcry. If dodgy boilers were blowing up and killing 400 people a year there would be an outcry. If dodgy cheese poisoned and killed 400 people a year it would be banned. Car kills over 400 a year… crack on lads.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Riding in the centre of the road avoids drains and rubbish at the side of the road. And stops drivers trying to squeeze past when they don’t have enough space.
would guess cyclists ride in the centre for that reason and not just to annoy drivers

Makes sense, then as the highway code says, move to the left or stop to allow following faster moving traffic to pass.

The correct and safe way to ride

 

[SmallTown]

Comments like this are not just wrong but are harmful to cyclist in general as it reinforces the anti cyclist brigade who dare I say it deliberately put cyclists at risk.

I suspect you rarely cycle maybe you should get yourself out on the open roads of the countryside to get some reality.

Here Is a fact for you.
Only 5% of red light jumping that resulted in a pedestrian being injured involved a bicycle. 95% involved a MOTORIZED VEHICLE.

Now I am in no way defending the red light jumping cyclist its wrong and I would call them out if I saw it but lets not call it a problem and demonize " a certain breed of cyclists " when in reality the problem is " a certain breed " of car drivers.

That's the problem we have, the comment isn't wrong. You yourself amdit that cyclists jumping red lights cause pedestrian injuries.

Plus I cycle to work or the gym every other day. I use my bike way more than I use my car.

Plus your last sentence proves the rooblem we have. A certain breed of cyclists will always defend red light jumpers and when challenged will always just say "but motorists". Taking no responsibility for cyclists injuring people

 

[SmallTown]

It’s not a lie - it is backed up by the fact that cyclist kill 1-2 pedestrians a year and cars kill over 400, serious injure over 5000 and slightly injure over 13,000. Plus remember that according to the wider cycling hating public many more cyclists run red lights and breaks the law than cars!

Your car would kill someone at 5mph, it just depends if you stop or not. You could creep over a pedestrian and squash them quite easily. A bike at 5mph would do hardly any damage at all at 5mph.

I don’t think it is an excuse for lawbreaking on cycles like you suggest. I think the point you are missing is people are targeting the wrong group. No one should be breaking the law, we all agree, but the group who kills the most appear to get a free pass.

If terrorism was killing over 400 people a year there would be an outcry. If dodgy boilers were blowing up and killing 400 people a year there would be an outcry. If dodgy cheese poisoned and killed 400 people a year it would be banned. Car kills over 400 a year… crack on lads.

It is a lie, and you go in to prove it by admitting that cyclists DO kill pedestrians. Interesting yiu don't say how many they injured by breaking the law.

 

[Redpete]

That's the problem we have, the comment isn't wrong. You yourself amdit that cyclists jumping red lights cause pedestrian injuries.

Plus I cycle to work or the gym every other day. I use my bike way more than I use my car.

Plus your last sentence proves the rooblem we have. A certain breed of cyclists will always defend red light jumpers and when challenged will always just say "but motorists". Taking no responsibility for cyclists injuring people

Cycling around London is very different to cycling elsewhere as I said get yourself out onto the open roads of the countryside.

The problem is clearly not cyclist jumping red lights as you want to focus on but car drivers jumping red lights. So stop spreading misinformation.

No one has defended red light jumpers your just spreading the usual rubbish that the anti cycle brigade lap up.

 

[SmallTown]

Cycling around London is very different to cycling else were as I said get yourself out onto the open roads of the countryside.

The problem is clearly not cyclist jumping red lights as you want to focus on but car drivers jumping red lights. So stop spreading misinformation.

No one has defended red light jumpers your just spreading the usual rubbish that the anti cycle brigade lap up.

Your middle paragraph is exactly what the issue is. You will ignore cyclists breaking the law by using the but motorists line.

Cyclists running red lights is an issue in the city, no motor how many times you try and deflect from it. Even you and molten, who are trying to ignore the issue, admits cyclists going through red lights are a danger to pedestrians. So it isn't misinformation. No

 

[B_G]

@BigUnit dropped a bomb and fvcked off into the sunset here didn't he

 

[ForssAwakens]

The 1.5 rule is divisive, because on a nice wide carriageway with a well maintained (I’m going to use the phrase hard-shoulder, for want of a better way to describe the edge between the start of the gutter out to the grass verge) hard shoulder on a single carriageway road, to an unmaintained country lane with potholes and random obstacles discarded along it, are two different things.

1.5m is loads on Stainton Way, but a cyclist would need a lot of that on Low Lane, Stainton towards Thornaby.

Equally a driver would far more easily find 1.5m for a cyclist on Acklam Rd, than the Stokesley Rd past Cherry Tree - which is horrible for cyclists.

I’m not sure on size fits all, but cyclists must be given space to protect both themselves, and a motorist making a mistake. The cyclist is immeasurably more likely to me killed.

Not all 30mph roads need to be 30mph roads….

 

[Redpete]

Your middle paragraph is exactly what the issue is. You will ignore cyclists breaking the law by using the but motorists line.

Cyclists running red lights is an issue in the city, no motor how many times you try and deflect from it. Even you and molten, who are trying to ignore the issue, admits cyclists going through red lights are a danger to pedestrians. So it isn't misinformation. No

Of course running red lights is a problem I have never said it wasn't, not only is it dangerous it also gives the vast majority of safe and considerate cyclists a bad name.

It also gives people like you the opportunity to spout out the usual rubbish the anti cyclist brigade love.

Its not though the major problem you want people to believe it is.

 

[SmallTown]

Of course running red lights is a problem I have never said it wasn't, not only is it dangerous it also gives the vast majority of safe and considerate cyclists a bad name.

It also gives people like you the opportunity to spout out the usual rubbish the anti cyclist brigade love.

Its not the major problem you want people to believe it is.

At last we agree! Apart for. You middle paragraph (you seem to have a problem with middle paragraphs!) I’m a cyclist. I’m very much against the type of cyclist that has the arrogant, self righteous attitude that leads to them justifying jumping red lights as it makes me look bad. You’ve got me wrong, but that’s OK because we agree on the fundamental, which is that cyclist shouldn’t jump red lights as it is a danger

 

[Big_Fat_Parmo]

If you don't clip them, you aren't driving close enough!

 

[t4tomo]

Here Is the full story.

Bad Driving

The truck driver was a **** for overtaking when cars were oncoming, and prosecution was deserved.

However, from the photo sequence he appears to have put himself and the other car driver in more danger than the cyclist, as having started a ***** manoeuvre, he has then give the cyclist nearly all of the very limited spare room.

of course had he clipped the red car, he could well have wiped out the cyclist in the aftermath anyway

 

[Redpete]

At last we agree! Apart for. You middle paragraph (you seem to have a problem with middle paragraphs!) I’m a cyclist. I’m very much against the type of cyclist that has the arrogant, self righteous attitude that leads to them justifying jumping red lights as it makes me look bad. You’ve got me wrong, but that’s OK because we agree on the fundamental, which is that cyclist shouldn’t jump red lights as it is a danger

If you read my posts again you will see we never disagreed.

Middle paragraph alert. Where we did disagree was your bias in that its a major problem and your post in my opinion was the usual anti cycling rubbish. I dont remember you making any comments on the problem of cars jumping red lights.

If you had put something like there is a small % of cyclist who consistently break the law by red light jumping putting people in danger I wouldn't have an issue with that.

but you said " That's the problem we have with a certain breed of cyclist. Their law breaking will always be defended by "but cars kill" so apparently it's OK to injured pedestrians? "

Which is clearly inflammatory and no one would defend injuring somebody.

Anyway enough for now.

 

[Way_Out_West]

I’m very much against the type of cyclist that has the arrogant, self righteous attitude

 

[SmallTown]

Middle paragraph alert. Where we did disagree was your bias in that its a major problem and your post in my opinion was the usual anti cycling rubbish. I dont remember you making any comments on the problem of cars jumping red lights.

That was LITERALLY the problem I had with those cyclists, using that as a get out for their own bad habits. So why would I mention the very thing I complained about?

Anyway, glad we got to a point where we agreed that cyclists jumping red lights were dangerous and didn't have to engage in any further whataboutery

 

[Redpete]

I dont remember you making any comments on the problem of cars jumping red lights.

I only used this to show YOU have a cycling bias rather than as a defense for cyclist running red lights. Look at the context I used the comment.

 

[SmallTown]

I dont remember you making any comments on the problem of cars jumping red lights.

I only used this to show YOU have a cycling bias rather than as a defense for cyclist running red lights. Look at the context I used the comment.

Yeah and as usual you are incorrect. Given I am a cyclist. Let’s just leave it at the redact we both dislike cyclists jumping red lights. You can stop misunderstanding me and what I’m saying then