Disgusting excuse of a cyclist 🤷‍♂️

[Dogtrousers]

What if that cyclist hits a pedestrian or gets taken out by another driver? Still no victim?
The lights are there for a reason. Not coz they look pretty.

We're getting into ludicrous whatiffery.

In the scenario above a rider jumped a light. Someone disapproved and beeped their horn. The rider made a gesture at them.

Nobody died.

An utterly trivial and everyday occurrence. Road users often jump lights, cars probably more often than bikes. Road users are are forever beeping and gesturing at each other. It's not very edifying but nor is it very interesting.

 

[T4tomo]

2 rather pointless things:
1 the motorist beeping a cyclist for jumping a light - it was no detriment to them whatsoever
2 @Bonzothechippy getting all upset about it.

 

[Dogtrousers]

2 rather pointless things:
1 the motorist beeping a cyclist for jumping a light - it was no detriment to them whatsoever
2 @Bonzothechippy getting all upset about it.

Yeah but what if ...

 

[winjim]

So we just let idiots do as they please?
Granted, the following scenarios are a bit out of proportion but maybe it'll get you thinking.
You see a woman being raped in a park. Do you walk past and do nothing or do you intervene?
You see an old man being beaten by a gang of teenagers. Do you walk past or do you intervene?
You see a scrote blatantly trying to steal someone's bike. Do you walk past or do you intervene?
Personally, I'll do my best to stop these people and call them out. Same with idiot cyclists/drivers/peds.
I'm not a Karen but standing by and doing nothing isn't in my blood. The police and courts do the exact same thing but with authority given to them by someone else.
At the end of the day, we're just trying to make the world a nicer place.

Alright calm down Edward Woodward

 

[Binky]

I'd rather be hit by an RLJ cyclist than a Range Rover. How about you?

I'd rather be hit by an RLJ cyclist than a Range Rover. How about you?

Depends.

 

[Vantage]

They're predominantly there for motorists as cars kill and injure daily. For cyclists, it's exceptionally rare for such injuries. Hence why there's no traffic lights at junctions where there's no cars. Because it's just not deemed necessary.
Yes there's a victim if the cyclist had hit someone. But then you went off on some tangent about actual victims being actually hurt and conflated it with the incredibly low chance of an action causing harm.

Well, no. They're there for all road users.
If some dickhead on a bike jumps the lights and a driver has to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him/her there's a risk of other following drivers hitting the first braking vehicle.
Yes it's a small risk, but one that could be entirely non existent if said dickhead just followed the rules.
You can't just pick and choose which rules you want to follow because you think you're special.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

a driver has to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him/her there's a risk of other following drivers hitting the first braking vehicle.

Then the following drivers were not driving in a safe and competent manner. Neither was the lead driver, they should have proceeded with caution and only if the way was clear.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Then the following drivers were not driving in a safe and competent manner. Neither was the lead driver, they should have proceeded with caution and only if the way was clear.

Yeah but what if one of the cars was rushing a sick child to hospital? And what if another had a box of cute kittens on the back seat. You need to consider all the possibilities.

 

[markemark]

Well, no. They're there for all road users.
If some dickhead on a bike jumps the lights and a driver has to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him/her there's a risk of other following drivers hitting the first braking vehicle.
Yes it's a small risk, but one that could be entirely non existent if said dickhead just followed the rules.
You can't just pick and choose which rules you want to follow because you think you're special.

When one vehicle types kills 5 people a day and another kills 5 people a decade I couldn’t care less what the latter does. The lights are there for everyone where cars are involved. No cars, no lights. There’s a reason for that.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What if that cyclist hits a pedestrian or gets taken out by another driver?

They didn’t, that’s the point here.

You can wander off into ‘what if’ land all you like if you want to create a scenario that suits you rather than address what actually happened here.

This thread is about a non-event.

 

[markemark]

They didn’t, that’s the point here.

You can wander off into ‘what if’ land all you like if you want to create a scenario that suits you rather than address what actually happened here.

This thread is about a non-event.

Is impossible to know all that what ifs. They don’t make policy by thinking of all the possible outcomes of what people do daily. They look at the stats. They see that cars kill in the thousand. That cyclists simply don’t. We have hundred of countries and decades to look at the figures. Cyclists are safe. So there’s little point legislating or wasting court or police time trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Bonzothechippy didn't even suggest that pat. (mod's note: that the cyclist should have been run over)

Well, he said that a gentleman should have come to the aid of the female horn tooting driver, because the cyclist scared her by making a rude gesture.
As everybody in he event described was in their car, I can only assume that the punishment advocated here is for the cyclist to be run over.
Yes, there is also the possibility of @Bonzothechippy meaning for the cyclist to be scared by close passing, tailgating, verbal abuse.

Can I suggest that CC provides some sort of policy statement so its approach & interpretation of the new legislation can be readily understood by posters.

The mods are waiting for @Shaun the forum's owner to do this.
I don't think it's a matter of interpretation of the law - we are cyclists not barristers lol - from the bits I have read, forum owners and mods have the duty to delete any material inciting/triggering violence, murder, discrimination, bullying, pornography, etc.
In theory we should delete it before it goes live!
How we are meant to do this without being online 24/7 or without having all posts on approval is still unclear.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Q1. What is the sex and size of the person driving the car at the stop line?
Q2. Who beeped their horn and how do you know?
Q3. Bonus question, what is the cycle rider ahead of them doing?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The next car he gave them the thumbs up and the next.

Sounds almost like he might have been a nice bloke, apologising to the other drivers for any inconvenience.

Sat as a passenger four cars back

So you might well have missed any interaction between the cyclist and the car driver while they were stood at the lights.

 

[Time Waster]

When one vehicle types kills 5 people a day and another kills 5 people a decade I couldn’t care less what the latter does. The lights are there for everyone where cars are involved. No cars, no lights. There’s a reason for that.

I care that even one person dies on the roads. To not think one death on the road is one too much is psychopathic surely?

On my work commute there's lights for cars and separate lights for cyclists at a few junctions. Apparently both apply to the respective road users. However to add to the anecdata of one most cyclists sit until green cycle appears but there's cases when someone on a bike doesn't. Usually it's because you have to put your front wheel across the line before the lights detect you. Failure to do so means the cyclist's lights don't change and makes it more likely cyclists jump the lights.

Another issue is actually paying attention to the lights puts you at risk further on when the cycle path goes somewhere no cyclist wants to go and cyclists at the point such duck through the cycle path barrier markers to rejoin the main carriageway.

Going the other way you cycle behind the marker poles that separates the road from cycle path at the top of a T junction. The lights there actually have no point for cyclists so no cyclist paya those lights any attention.

My point being there's special lights for cyclists in places and they can have real value with a good reason to obey them. Where there's a good logic for them and they work well cyclists follow them, where not that don't.

Interestingly at the first set I described car drivers from both sides ignore the lights more than cyclists. There's cars from both directions turning into the side road leading to a company multi storey carpark some days there a lot of traffic backing up. Cars take their chance and go through the lights when they changing and there's already cars in the junction anyway. Those then cross in front of the cyclists when all three lanes are showing red to cars but green to cyclists.

Overall I think cycle lights are good but like many other road technology and designs we in the UK are terrible at implementing them.