Discussion in 'Commuting' started by PBancroft, 28 Jun 2008.
Just seen in on the news - the condenced report isn't very balanced - just mentioned 'cyclists break the rules' - nothing about a minority......
i am totally vindicated now i assume. Please PM your apologies to me.
Bloke from CTC was on 5 Live this morning as well. Thought he did alright.
A bit too defensive, maybe. Should sell the benefits of cycling a bit more.
Cyclists flout law 'to stay safe'
Of course it's total bo%%ox.
Dreadful reporting on BBC this morning. A bit of helmet cam footage of a white van pulling right out in front of a bike, the cyclist slowed and then filtered right past all of the traffic that the van had pulled into, and the reporter said something like "here we see an example of someone not watching out for bicycles, but then the cyclist seems to forget which side of the road he's meant to be on"... NOOOOO! Absolutely no editorial intelligence or integrity. Drivelling snotbag.
Is that the same BBC that has the enormously well balanced motoring show Top Gear? Nothing more than car porn. I may well be wrong but I can't remember the last article I saw on BBC that attempted to address the real issues involved in road safety, cars!
That bloke for being a role model comes across as a complete tit.
Magnatom's video on BBC news ?????????
Why did the commentator said the "cyclist forgot which side of the road he was supposed to be on" ??? What a moron (the commentator). IT IS A PERFECTLY LEGAL OVERTAKING:
Linked from the same page, here - listen to the comments of the motorists, what a bunch of gobblers. One accuses us of 'having the god given right to cycle down the road at 1000 miles an hour, when all the other traffic has stopped.
Monger - as if we should sit in the traffic with all the cagers. Quite liked the cyclist in the helmet - Jaded, this is how I imagine you.
Fair enough about 'obeying the rules' although it would be nice if motorists obey the rules as well.
Yeah what is that all about?
Overtaking you (dangerously) just to be stopped 50 yards up the road.
Some hypocrite motorists there.
The only thing i've issues with are:
"Edmund King, of the AA, said at times it appeared there were two tribes at war on the roads.
He said: "We do see cyclists just not obeying the rules of the road jumping red lights, one way streets, also we get motorists doing things that they shouldn't so maybe we need to clarify the rules for all."
Obviously Mr King hasnt got his leg-over since since toddler times ?????
I was really annoyed by all of this reporting. However, what annoyed me the most was the assertion that cyclists break the rules for safety reasons. What utter, utter crap!!
Did the CT really say this? Does anyone have a link where the CTC are directly attributed to saying this? If so I will be writing a strong letter of complaint!
First off, as I have hinted above, the assertion (as hackbike so eloquently put it) is bo%%ocks! Cyclists who run red lights, pavement cycle etc do so, either because they can't be bothered to follow the rules, they are just plain ignorant about them or they are ignorant about the real risks and benefits of cycling on the road (when compared to pavements). I have never, ever, had to run a red light or cycled on the path because I felt it was safer. If you ride correctly there is no need to break any rules (I say this understanding that there are extreme cases where there are very fast, dangerous roads on which it is not safe to cycle. However, this is very rare and not the situation being eluded to by the reports and I fear, the CTC.)
The other and, probably bigger problem in taking a stance like this is that it will not win any friends in the motoring community. To ask for cyclists to be made a special case, go on, let them run a red light, is incredibly naive of the CTC. Of course that is going to annoy drivers who hear of this.
I honestly think Saturday was a bad day for on road cyclists. Some drivers will hate us even more. On the news they talked of two tribes. The solutions were described as new rules allowing cyclists to jump red lights etc. How is this going to pull the two tribes together
P.S That helmet footage wasn't mine. The van driver was an idiot. The cyclist, although he did not break any laws did overtake dangerously IMO. He did not have a clear enough view of the road ahead, i.e if a car came towards him fast, could he have been sure of an escape route? Does anyone know who's footage this was?
I don't know about that - stopping over the white line at the lights (which is sometimes the only way to get seen by all the cars in the ASL), is considered as jumping the lights.
There are some junctions that I always do this at, simply too busy and the motorists are in too much of a rush to get away for me to risk not being seen.
You don't need to do this though. Why not filter in a couple of cars back, instead of filtering to the front. There is no need to filter to the front to be safe. In fact, filtering to the front, can, as I am sure you are aware, sometimes be dangerous.
I don't understand, why, as cyclists, we feel we need to get to the front of the queue to be safe. We don't.
Separate names with a comma.