What annoys car drivers most about cyclists?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Carwash

Señor Member
Location
Visby
Tynan said:
cars tend to go through lights 'late', bikes tend to go stright through them regardless of timing, there's a difference

But only an academic one. Both are illegal and needlessly unsafe.
 

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
Carwash said:
But only an academic one. Both are illegal and needlessly unsafe.

academic? they're real differences and the ones that mattter to the question asked

your point is inane with respect, cyclists jump lights safely, you'd be insane to do it otherwise on a pushbike against cars
 

Carwash

Señor Member
Location
Visby
Tynan said:
cyclists jump lights safely

I'm convinced that cyclists frequently jump the lights without injuring or hindering the progress of themselves or others. I'm not convinced that they do it without unnecessary risk.

Can you please explain, as though to a bear of very little brain, why you feel it is necessary to break the law in this way - a law designed to make the roads safe? Do you believe that cyclists are special in this regard, that the law does not apply to them? I am new to this debate, so I'm genuinely curious as to what might justify it.

Tynan said:
you'd be insane to do it otherwise on a pushbike against cars

'Against cars'? I wasn't aware that it was us vs. them!
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
It might be safe to RLJ some of the time, but it's definitely at increased risk over waiting at the lights. You can't judge how safe cycling is from personal experience either.
 

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
Carwash said:
I'm convinced that cyclists frequently jump the lights without injuring or hindering the progress of themselves or others. I'm not convinced that they do it without unnecessary risk.

Can you please explain, as though to a bear of very little brain, why you feel it is necessary to break the law in this way - a law designed to make the roads safe? Do you believe that cyclists are special in this regard, that the law does not apply to them? I am new to this debate, so I'm genuinely curious as to what might justify it.



'Against cars'? I wasn't aware that it was us vs. them!

Unnecessary risk? Strange concept, perhaps you could define the risks inherent in cycling to work that are necessary and unnecessary? Genuine question

Who said it was necessary to break the law in that way? I'm not an rljer at all, I stop for every single red light. As to justify, it saves a huge amount of time and saves an inordinate amount of stopping and starting

us v them? I assume that's a quip

If no-one is able to judge safety from personal experience that how can you say rljing increases risk?
 

Carwash

Señor Member
Location
Visby
Tynan said:
Unnecessary risk? Strange concept, perhaps you could define the risks inherent in cycling to work that are necessary and unnecessary? Genuine question

I see what you're getting at, but that's not what I mean. I was thinking more that, as I see it, RLJing puts cyclists and others at more risk of having an accident than not RLJing, but gives little benefit for this (so it seems to me). Is that added risk necessary?

What I'm asking I suppose - and I realise I'm not phrasing this very well - is: What benefit does RLJing give that justifies this increased risk? Clearly there must be one, or people wouldn't do it. But I can't see what it is.

That, plus the fact that it's against the law and gives cyclists a bad rap (undeserved or not) seems to me to be a strong argument against it.

Tynan said:
Who said it was necessary to break the law in that way? I'm not an rljer at all, I stop for every single red light.

Fair enough, my mistake. So just so I'm clear - you don't do it, but you do condone it?

Tynan said:
As to justify, it saves a huge amount of time and saves an inordinate amount of stopping and starting

So it's quicker, and means that you don't have to stop so often? That doesn't seem like much of a justification to me. The same might be said of breaking the speed limit. You can't just ignore laws that you happen to find inconvenient. Traffic flow requires that vehicles pause to allow other vehicles to move. It's give and take. Why should bicycles be excluded from that?

Tynan said:
us v them? I assume that's a quip

Of course. ;)
 

cannondale boy

Über Member
tdr1nka said:
RLJ'ing is just crap.
By anyone.
Hit an amber and you're commited, go on thru.
Otherwise just stop, like everyone else has to.

Depending on what speed your travelling at?...could be dangerous, and the driver thats behind you is thinking "why the f*** did he not just go"! ;) (debatable)

Just another possibility that some drivers don't like cyclists.
 

tdr1nka

Taking the biscuit
cannondale boy said:
Depending on what speed your travelling at?...could be dangerous, and the driver thats behind you is thinking "why the f*** did he not just go"! ;) (debatable)

Just another possibility that some drivers don't like cyclists.


I prefer not to let assumptions of what a car driver is thinking suggest the way I ride.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
 

simoncc

New Member
The thing most motorists complain to me about is my behaviour on narrow roads. Usually these are urban, with cars parked on both sides, leaving a narrow carriageway in the centre. As I approach an oncoming car they seem to expect me to slow down and get out of the way. I never do and the car has to stop. Occasionally I am asked by the car driver why I didn't get out of the way. I explain that the left side of the road has more than enough space for me to travel along unhindered while they need both the left side and the right side to progress, and that's why they should wait. Of course, my reasoning is not well received.
 

Abitrary

New Member
simoncc, why are you such a whinger??? I tried to read that, with honest intent, and my leg started involintarlily kicking.

Most commuters want to get from a to b without any fuss.

You my friend are going to put people off of cycling forever, if you don't shut up.
 
Top Bottom