Typical Cyclist

[The PNP]

A) Cyclists who move off to jump red lights put themselves into danger by being where they shouldn't when they shouldn't and are plain wrong.

B) The figures that matter are the total number of injuries to cyclists and the biggest cause is not motorists.

C) Trying to target other road users is misleading.

D) If for once you stuck to the truth you may engender support for real cyclists like me,

E) as it is I am cursed with the aggravating drivel you spout incessantly.

A) Do they? Tbh I can't see how, since there's nothing there to collide with. More likely, cyclists who set off once the cross-traffic has stopped, simply cheeze off the motorists behind, who have to wait for a green.

B) In that case, let's look at the total number of injuries to motorists - a figure which far surpasses injured cyclists. And the biggest cause of that is not cyclists, it's motorists failing to look properly!

C) Targeting cyclists is misleading and, since they are more often than not the innocent party in a collision, simply amounts to 'victim-blaming'.

D) Likewise, truth is all there in black and white, on the DfT website.

E) You don't have to read what I post, there is I believe an 'ignore' button.

[justbecause]

A) Which is have I have often said....Cyclists move off 'jump' lights, to get away from the danger zone before traffic behind them sets off and crushes the rider.

B) A figure which is entirely irrelevant to the debate...I'm sure plenty of drivers injure themselves too. By crashing when no other vehicle is involved, or damaging themselves with the car in other ways, e.g. crushing a hand in car door, etc.

The figures that count, are those relating to car v bike accidents. In these instances, according to the DfT motorists have a greater percentage of fault attributed to them, than cyclists do.

Just a thought, (and I’m sure you have some stupid smart arsed answer), but what if cyclists didn’t put themselves in the “danger zone” in the first place?

[The PNP]

Just a thought, (and I’m sure you have some stupid smart arsed answer), but what if cyclists didn’t put themselves in the “danger zone” in the first place?

Danger zone? It's not infrequently provided for them, in the form of a cyclists box, set between the Advance Stop Line and the regular Stop Line. A short length of cycle-lane may also exist, leading them to the front.....The missing piece of the jigsaw, is the green-bike button, to let them get away first legally - just like various other countries have.

[justbecause]

I don’t cycle, but if I did, I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to to sit in the middle of the road at traffic lights just to ensure I got ahead of the bus or the 44 tonne truck, knowing full well I was putting myself in danger when said large vehicle tries to overtake me, 100 yards further along. I would do the common sense thing, keep to the left and allow the faster moving vehicles to get on their way.
Perhaps that why I don’t cycle, AND perhaps why I’m still alive.

[The PNP]

I don’t cycle, but if I did, I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to to sit in the middle of the road at traffic lights just to ensure I got ahead of the bus or the 44 tonne truck, knowing full well I was putting myself in danger when said large vehicle tries to overtake me, 100 yards further along. I would do the common sense thing, keep to the left and allow the faster moving vehicles to get on their way.
Perhaps that why I don’t cycle, AND perhaps why I’m still alive.

A rider may well arrive at the lights alone, sit there quietly for a couple of minutes waiting for a green, during which time allsorts of traffic accumulates behind. In which case what do you do? Dismount and stand on the pavement waiting for traffic behind to clear, then go through the whole routine repeatedly - until everyone's gone home to bed?

The real issue; cycle provision here in the UK is quite primitive. Usually requiring riders (of all ages and varying ability) to mix it with as you put it, 44 tonne trucks etc......It wasn't so bad
on-road over half a century ago when I learnt to ride, there was only a fraction of the traffic.
My mate from primary school and I, would happily ride out to Shirdley Hill on our kids bikes and play in the old railway goods waggons. Never had any problems, with only the occasional car to worry about.

I might be prepared to cope with present-day traffic levels, even taking to riding the pavement on occasion to stay safe. But fact is, our congested roads put a lot of people off who would otherwise use their bikes..Quality safe separate tarmac on busy main routes is long overdue.

[local]

A) Do they? Tbh I can't see how, since there's nothing there to collide with. More likely, cyclists who set off once the cross-traffic has stopped, simply cheeze off the motorists behind, who have to wait for a green.

B) In that case, let's look at the total number of injuries to motorists - a figure which far surpasses injured cyclists. And the biggest cause of that is not cyclists, it's motorists failing to look properly!

C) Targeting cyclists is misleading and, since they are more often than not the innocent party in a collision, simply amounts to 'victim-blaming'.

D) Likewise, truth is all there in black and white, on the DfT website.

E) You don't have to read what I post, there is I believe an 'ignore' button.

You regularly post illogical rubbish and real cyclists like me have people believing were all as stupid as you.


For some reason you think its amusing for cyclists to jump red lights and endanger themselves with traffic still likely to be going across them.


Hopefully you are not allowed anywhere near children.

[The PNP]

A) You regularly post illogical rubbish and real cyclists like me have people believing were all as stupid as you.

B) For some reason you think its amusing for cyclists to jump red lights and endanger themselves with traffic still likely to be going across them.

C) Hopefully you are not allowed anywhere near children.

A) Since you're also a 'real motorist', that would categorise yourself as a part-time cyclist. As am I, since I often have to drive the works vehicles daytimes.

B) Let's put it this way. If a cross-traffic vehicle blows through on a red, it's in the wrong and will share 50% of the blame should it hit a cyclist who has set off too soon....But as cyclist, you will be fully aware that a rider has ears and eyes and will be highly unlikely to continue whilst there's still cross-traffic, regardless what phase the lights are at.

Don't forget, that a car risking it after lights turn red, will be moving fast and generating a lot of engine noise. Whereas a cyclist who is only just setting off, will be moving very slowly indeed. So he/she can stop again within a couple of feet if necessary.

C) Love kids - had a couple myself.

[Little Londoner]

A)

Don't forget, that a car risking it after lights turn red, will be moving fast and generating a lot of engine noise.

For such an expert on Highways, construction and use of vehicles, cycling I'm quite surprised you think electric vehicles generate a lot of noise. How you breathe and eat at the same time baffles me.

[Kippax]

More likely, cyclists who set off once the cross-traffic has stopped, simply cheeze off the motorists behind, who have to wait for a green.

Surely the green light applies to all road users and it’s not just car and van drivers “who have to wait for a green”

Sorry I forgot, cyclists have no requirement to obey traffic lights and can simply do as they please.

.
Coe Lane Tarleton traffic lights with the A59. The last photo shows an electric Amazon Delivery van almost taking one of them out, I wonder who’s fault that would have been ?. Fortunately for the van driver I would have had the whole incident on video.


.

[The PNP]

A) Surely the green light applies to all road users and it’s not just car and van drivers “who have to wait for a green”

Sorry I forgot, cyclists have no requirement to obey traffic lights and can simply do as they please.

B) Coe Lane Tarleton traffic lights with the A59. The last photo shows an electric Amazon Delivery van almost taking one of them out, I wonder who’s fault that would have been ?. Fortunately for the van driver I would have had the whole incident on video.

A) Agree.....I'm not condoning riders who don't wait for a green light. I'm saying riders who don't wait, will be using their eyes and ears to ensure they can do it safely.

B) First rider slots in behind the silver estate. Second rider wants to follow, looks to the right checking for traffic (in second pic) and can see the Amazon van, so slows enough to let it pass - aiming to slot in behind it.

It's a move that's perfectly legal at any junction in the U.S. Also legal in some EU States, where a plate on the lights-pole permits it. All it amounts to (where permitted) is riders then treat the junction as a give-way, which really is no big deal....I would happily support the same rule if it were introduced here in the UK.

[local]

They can't do it safely;

ignoring the requirement to stop puts the cyclist at risk.

When they get hit or cause an accident the blame is often wrongly attributed elsewhere.

[The PNP]

For such an expert on Highways, construction and use of vehicles, cycling I'm quite surprised you think electric vehicles generate a lot of noise. How you breathe and eat at the same time baffles me.

The point I'm making, is cars 'running' a red do so at significant speed, (e.g. 30mph) because they know they will heartily T-bone someone if they hang about.....Whereas a cyclist who sets off (jumps) before he/she gets a green, is moving only slowly. Which allows them to stop in a couple of feet should that ever be necessary.

[The PNP]

They can't do it safely;

ignoring the requirement to stop puts the cyclist at risk.

When they get hit or cause an accident the blame is often wrongly attributed elsewhere.

Disagree....

You're effectively saying cyclists can't emerge left at a give-way safely - which is silly!

[justbecause]

A) Agree.....I'm not condoning riders who don't wait for a green light. I'm saying riders who don't wait, will be using their eyes and ears to ensure they can do it safely.

B) First rider slots in behind the silver estate. Second rider wants to follow, looks to the right (in second pic) and sees the Amazon van, slows enough to let it pass - aiming to slot in behind it.

It's a move that's perfectly legal at any junction in the U.S. Also legal in some EU States, where a plate on the lights-pole permits it. All it amounts to (where permitted) is riders then treat the junction as a give-way, which really is no big deal....I would happily support the same rule if it were introduced here in the UK.

We are all well used to your ridiculous posts, but this one takes your stupidity to a wholly new level. How on Earth can running a red light be deemed safe, if the rider is using their eyes and ears?

[The PNP]

We are all well used to your ridiculous posts, but this one takes your stupidity to a wholly new level. How on Earth can running a red light be deemed safe, if the rider is using their eyes and ears?

A rider, just like a pedestrian, can see and hear clearly what's happening around them. A motorists senses however, sealed inside a glass and steel box, are significantly more limited.
1) Acoustically, due the sound-insulating properties of a car. 2) Visually, by windscreen column and door column, etc.