Careful when you drive too close to that cyclist

[BlueSharp]

There are signs that mean mandatory cycling path only sh!theads like you don't seem to understand what mandatory means.
PS Im a very regular cyclist myself and seem to be the only one keeping to the rules

Wrong again. You really need to hand your licence in.

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/d...ory-cycle-lane

[WTFH]

People should drive/ride with respect and responsibility. If you don't show respect for other road users or act responsibly, you shouldn't be on the road.

[bobspud]

The vast majority of the time cyclists on the pavement do not endanger pedestrians. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, both get hurt. When a car driver hits a cyclist, only the cyclist gets hurt. The cases where cyclists are killed usually involve cyclists not being aggressive enough.

Technically thats not really true. You never know if the pedestrians can hear you. Or more importantly if they will choose to change direction suddenly. So its never safe to cycle near pedestrians.

Im not sure how you think you can get more aggressive when your opponent is a multi tonne vehicle with an occupant that probably doesn't care if you go bouncing off down the road. Every day I'm in London I see people that insist on taking the blind side of articulated lorries and busses as their preferred route. You can't help these people, natural selection is their only end game.

Also worth pointing out there are a fair few deer wandering around near madness mile in Epping forest at the moment. I saw a really pretty one stood with its arse in the road chewing on the bushes on my way to the m25 last week. They are dumb as stones and likely to do quite a bit of damage to the unwary.

[WTFH]

Technically thats not really true. You never know if the pedestrians can hear you. Or more importantly if they will choose to change direction suddenly. So its never safe to cycle near pedestrians.

That's also true for cyclists and vehicle drivers. If a cyclist/pedestrian has headphones on, or a vehicle driver has there stereo turned up so loud that they can't here (or any of the three categories are on the phone, etc), then they are putting themselves and others in danger.

[bobspud]

That's also true for cyclists and vehicle drivers. If a cyclist/pedestrian has headphones on, or a vehicle driver has there stereo turned up so loud that they can't here (or any of the three categories are on the phone, etc), then they are putting themselves and others in danger.

Absolutely spot on. It horrifies me that we concede our key senses just for a bit of music.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

There are signs that mean mandatory cycling path only sh!theads like you don't seem to understand what mandatory means.
PS Im a very regular cyclist myself and seem to be the only one keeping to the rules

*facepalm*

There are no cycle lanes which are mandatory for cyclists to use.

Mandatory cycle lanes mean vehicles MUST NOT enter them.

Back to driving school for you.

[BrilloPad]

Are you related to sasguru?

Technically thats not really true. You never know if the pedestrians can hear you. Or more importantly if they will choose to change direction suddenly. So its never safe to cycle near pedestrians.

You have not mentioned the word pavement in there. I occasionally cycle on the pavement. Though never near pedestrians.

Often pedestrians will go into roads on the assumption that they have right of way over other vehicles(and cyclists). Sometimes they get hit and hurt.

Im not sure how you think you can get more aggressive when your opponent is a multi tonne vehicle with an occupant that probably doesn't care if you go bouncing off down the road. Every day I'm in London I see people that insist on taking the blind side of articulated lorries and busses as their preferred route. You can't help these people, natural selection is their only end game.

Imagine you are a cyclist 4th in the queue at a red light. Behind you is a lorry. You have 2 choices: -
1. Sit there passively and then risk getting squashed. Junctions are usually narrow.
2. Move aggressively down the queue. That might involve going onto the pavement. Or left of lorries. You can then get to be 1st - usually through the red light as the motorist is probably in the cyclist only box.

Sadly most women choose number 1 so have a far higher chance of death. The best option is number 2.

Of course number 2 means the cyclist also gets on faster. The drivers then get upset. They have paid £20k for their car. Surely they should go 100 times faster than the £200 bike. Then they go onto Daily Mail and write their stupid comments. Or if they are very stupid they go onto CUK. All due to jealousy.

To get a car licence you should have to cycle across London at rush hour every day for a week.

[bobspud]

Are you related to sasguru?



You have not mentioned the word pavement in there. I occasionally cycle on the pavement. Though never near pedestrians.

Often pedestrians will go into roads on the assumption that they have right of way over other vehicles(and cyclists). Sometimes they get hit and hurt.



Imagine you are a cyclist 4th in the queue at a red light. Behind you is a lorry. You have 2 choices: -
1. Sit there passively and then risk getting squashed. Junctions are usually narrow.
2. Move aggressively down the queue. That might involve going onto the pavement. Or left of lorries. You can then get to be 1st - usually through the red light as the motorist is probably in the cyclist only box.

Sadly most women choose number 1 so have a far higher chance of death. The best option is number 2.

Of course number 2 means the cyclist also gets on faster. The drivers then get upset. They have paid £20k for their car. Surely they should go 100 times faster than the £200 bike. Then they go onto Daily Mail and write their stupid comments. Or if they are very stupid they go onto CUK. All due to jealousy.

To get a car licence you should have to cycle across London at rush hour every day for a week.

The original point did indeed refer to pavements but in general pedestrians are pretty unaware of their surroundings. So I will reiterate that despite your own skills as a cyclist its never safe to cycle in their territory regardless of if the accident will be their fault or your own...

I have aimlessly strolled onto the cycle lane side of shared pavements and it always scares the cyclist and I always apologies profusely.

[BrilloPad]

The original point did indeed refer to pavements but in general pedestrians are pretty unaware of their surroundings. So I will reiterate that despite your own skills as a cyclist its never safe to cycle in their territory regardless of if the accident will be their fault or your own...

I have aimlessly strolled onto the cycle lane side of shared pavements and it always scares the cyclist and I always apologies profusely.

Pedestrians need to be aware of their surroundings when moving off the pavement.

I often see pedestrians in cycle lanes. I just go round them if safe to do so.

Though a few times I have been had a go at for cycling in a cycle lane! Pedestrians are sometimes aware there are cyclists though unaware of their surroundings.

[grabri]

Imagine you are a cyclist 4th in the queue at a red light. Behind you is a lorry. You have 2 choices: -
1. Sit there passively and then risk getting squashed. Junctions are usually narrow.
2. Move aggressively down the queue. That might involve going onto the pavement. Or left of lorries. You can then get to be 1st - usually through the red light as the motorist is probably in the cyclist only box.

3. Take up a position in the centre of the lane and maintain position until through junction, returning to a more passive position in the road if safe to do so.