After 45 minutes of observations...

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
After reading Vike's thread on road law I took the opportunity to actually look at cyclists behaviour on a busy junction for 45 min:
* about 1/3 of people wear high-viz
* about 1/3 of people don't wear a helmet (but around half of the non-helmet wears did wear high-viz)
* The majority of cyclist while not technically abiding every law show reasonable common sense.
* The riders who took the most risks & pissed off the most people were those who looked to be seasoned cyclists & should have known better.
* Car drivers want cyclists to disobey traffic laws when it means they wouldn't be inconvenienced by the cyclist.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
GrasB said:
* Car drivers want cyclists to disobey traffic laws when it means they wouldn't be inconvenienced by the cyclist.
An interesting point...
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
Tut tut on including helmets and hiviz in a discussion on road law!!! Perhaps it's better to look at actually following the traffic laws, rather than opinion pieces.
 

Molecule Man

Well-Known Member
Location
London
jonny jeez said:
How do you know that, did you interview them and ask?

Its a bit of a broad statement
Purely anecdotal of course, but I have been shouted at or beeped at many times from the car behind me after stopping at red lights or zebra crossings.
 

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
BentMikey said:
Tut tut on including helmets and hiviz in a discussion on road law!!! Perhaps it's better to look at actually following the traffic laws, rather than opinion pieces.
It was observation Mikey, he wasn't attributing any relevance, the only opinion seemed to be around the idea of motorists wanting cyclists to break laws that convenience them.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
I suspect the motorist this morning on the way to school would have preferred it if I had ridden up onto the pavement rather than be in a strong primary to prevent him squeezing past my son and I on the car free side of the road. He was busy putting on his seat belt as he had to pull into a space between cars but I did hear he shout of Thanks to me.
 

dondare

Über Member
Location
London
BentMikey said:
Tut tut on including helmets and hiviz in a discussion on road law!!! Perhaps it's better to look at actually following the traffic laws, rather than opinion pieces.
Absolutely. I (for example) ride without helmet or hi-viz but I know and obey the Law.

As for the point about motorists wanting cyclists to break the Law in order to get out of their way this is something that I also suspect. However, I do not oblige them in this and I doubt if it could be used as justification in court.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
GrasB said:
After reading Vike's thread on road law I took the opportunity to actually look at cyclists behaviour on a busy junction for 45 min:
* about 1/3 of people wear high-viz
* about 1/3 of people don't wear a helmet (but around half of the non-helmet wears did wear high-viz)
* The majority of cyclist while not technically abiding every law show reasonable common sense.
* The riders who took the most risks & pissed off the most people were those who looked to be seasoned cyclists & should have known better.
* Car drivers want cyclists to disobey traffic laws when it means they wouldn't be inconvenienced by the cyclist.
Yup.

Ride bike past line of cars waiting at red light. Go far beyond STOP line. Set off as opposing direction changes to red ( if clear ).

Motorists prefer this rather than me 'getting in the way'.
 

Davidc

Guru
Location
Somerset UK
What does wearing a helmet, which may or may not increase the likelihood of injury in an accident depending on speed, have to do with the law?

Wearing Hi-Viz is again nothing to do with traffic law. It is an individual option which may under some circumstances, in daylight only, help in being seen.

There is plenty of road law affecting cyclists which can be discussed without adding extras.
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
Davidc said:
What does wearing a helmet, which may or may not increase the likelihood of injury in an accident depending on speed, have to do with the law?

Wearing Hi-Viz is again nothing to do with traffic law. It is an individual option which may under some circumstances, in daylight only, help in being seen.

There is plenty of road law affecting cyclists which can be discussed without adding extras.
There is a lot of law breaking done to convenience both cyclist and motorist.
The threshold between safe and dangerous is what Mr Policeman is interested in.
 
OP
GrasB

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
jonny jeez said:
How do you know that, did you interview them and ask?

Its a bit of a broad statement
By car drives beeping cyclists pointing to the pavement (not a cycle path) & a chevroned area with a solid line surrounding it.
 
OP
GrasB

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
BentMikey said:
Tut tut on including helmets and hiviz in a discussion on road law!!! Perhaps it's better to look at actually following the traffic laws, rather than opinion pieces.
while it does have reference to another one on road law I'm just making some observations of which some aren't relevant to the original thread hence why it's in a separate thread.
 

jonny jeez

Legendary Member
GrasB said:
By car drives beeping cyclists pointing to the pavement (not a cycle path) & a chevroned area with a solid line surrounding it.
I quite agree.

But then literally THOUSANDS of cars/drivers dont. (at least on my commute)

Perhaps your comment should have stated "SOME" drivers.

Not ALL cyclists vote green party, eat lentils and jump red lights and yet this is the assumed view of us. So why assume, just because one jumped up little prick in a penis replacement beeps you, that all drivers are the same.
 
Top Bottom