Why do drivers yell at me when I'm cycling?, I am doing nothing wrong Options

[factsonly]

No he's not!
I am not going to quote the law as in the Highway Code again as this has been done many times.
Until the law is changed he is wrong!

Thank you. Isn't it strange that the comments from the cyclist here that they WILL and DO ride on the pavement, road and cycle lanes as they see fit. Yet God help a pedestrian if they should step into a cycle lane for one second, outstanding hypocrisy. Perhaps we can all pick and choose when we apply the highway code.

It really easy for the hard of thinking - cycles are allowed to use roads and cycle lanes, pavements are for the exclusive use of pedestrians.

While I'm on a rant, pedestrian crossings are just that, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts apply the same laws to cyclist as motorists and one way streets are one way for all road users.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Maybe it's just me being fickle, but we're not picking and choosing laws. We're choosing to ignore laws which are not adversely affecting anyone else, like when we do 80mph on the motorway or any other petit motoring offence. Equally like how cycling on a pavement will generally not result in a pedestrian being run over.

While I'm on a rant, pedestrian crossings are just that, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts apply the same laws to cyclist as motorists and one way streets are one way for all road users.

You mention one way streets, reminded me that yesterday, I was walking down Bone Lane back towards work from Lunch, and where the 4x4 Service Centre is at the bottom of the hill, and that bodyshop is, I saw a car come the WRONG WAY down the one way street and nearly have a head on collision with a learner driver! Complete joke...Needless to say he was a cook with a c instead of the second o.

[Andy Capp]

It really easy for the hard of thinking - cycles are allowed to use roads and cycle lanes, pavements are for the exclusive use of pedestrians.

My personal safety and the comfort of other road users comes before a pervasive rule that is not necessary all the time. Hambridge Road needs a cycle lane and while it is void of pedestrians, I'll use the path on that bit of road.

Unless the law are about!

[spartacus]

I wonder how many of these pedestrians that get their knickers in a twist about cyclists are perhaps less than perfect when it comes to crossing the road.....

Jaywalking isn't yet illegal in this country, although you'd be advised not to try it in the US ( Don't jaywalk in the USA ) but every day I see parents tugging their children as they cross the busy A4 through Thatcham on their way to Francis Baily school, yet within 100m in either direction there are proper traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings which must have cost of bomb to install.... The idle sods can't be bothered to walk that 100m and would rather put their children at risk.

If we're going to apply the strict letter of the law to cyclists then I accept that they shouldn't really be doing it. But where a footway is relatively devoid of pedestrians; where the cyclist uses that space with consideration and slows down to pass pedestrians; where the carriageway is relatively busy and includes HGV as well as other traffic, then I don't see that anyone should have a problem with the cyclist choosing to use the footway where they feel vulnerable.

Every year DfT publish the road casualty figures and during 2010 there were 111 cyclists killed on the road. 2,660 cyclists were classed as 'seriously injured'.

Would you be happy if one of your family members contributed to the 2011 figures because some half asleep lorry driver, or commuter on the phone, ploughed into them when they could have avoided it by using the empty footway?


Cyclist vs HGV = Big nasty mess
(Inconsiderate) cyclist vs pedestrian = cut lip

[Strafin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7V0BTMwGzQ

Jaywalking vs Bad Cycling

[Biker1]

Have you seen those d***kheads who cycle down the railway station platform? Even if it is crowded and a train is pulling out?

[On the edge]

Have you seen those d***kheads who cycle down the railway station platform? Even if it is crowded and a train is pulling out?

With you on that one Biker. Have even seen some comic doing same at Paddington - and trying to hold a coffee at same time!!

[JeffG]

I thought this was a democracy. If cyclists want the law changed, they should campaign to have it changed. Ideally there should be legislation that requires authorities to provide safe cycleways away from traffic where it's necessary. Then everybody wins - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

In places in the Netherlands there are cycleway networks completely separate from ordinary roads with their own underpasses etc. . (Yes, I'm aware there are far more of them there!)

[Andy Capp]

I thought this was a democracy. If cyclists want the law changed

Good idea, but I am not about to try and turn a path I use 3 or 4 times a year into a cycle path. This road services industrial units, it is obvious that it is a route that needs to encourage cycle use. It is also a logical cycle way for people from the south of Newbury who wish to ride to Thatcham.

If I thought, or demonstrated, that when I cycle on the path that I was a nuisance, I wouldn't. Just like with many laws, they/it is not always necessary.

[stewiegriffin]

In places in the Netherlands there are cycleway networks completely separate from ordinary roads with their own underpasses etc. . (Yes, I'm aware there are far more of them there!)

I used to live in Amsterdam and the cyclists there are a total law unto themselves. Where pedestrians and cyclists have no choice but to mix they will think nothing of riding straight at you, forcing you to jump out of the way. A friend of mine once picked one of them up and threw him into the canal followed by his bike for doing just that. A lot of bikes end up in the canals like that. The city sends boats around to fish them out from time to time.

[Bartholomew]

I used to live in Amsterdam and the cyclists there are a total law unto themselves. Where pedestrians and cyclists have no choice but to mix they will think nothing of riding straight at you, forcing you to jump out of the way.

This is a like the pavements around St Johns roundabout. The road has a cycleway painted on it and in the years I've been around the area, I've only seen it used once. Cycling on this pavement is dangerous and illegal. I can understand why cyclists use the pavement but at least they can show some respect whilst breaking the law!

[Biker1]

I can understand why cyclists use the pavement but at least they can show some respect whilst breaking the law!

Exactly!

Rarely seen I'm afraid.
Same on the canal tow-path, all-being that it is legal to cycle there.

[JeffG]

Same on the canal tow-path, all-being that it is legal to cycle there.

Technically speaking, I don't think the law is involved, since it's private land owned by British Waterways, who allow cyclists to use it. It used to be the case that cyclists needed a pass, but I assume that is no longer so, since the lock-keeper's cottage went.

[massifheed]

(Inconsiderate) cyclist vs pedestrian = cut lip

Not quite. At least not the toddler who had their arm broken by a cyclist running into them in Northbrook street a few months ago. Rather more than a "cut lip" there, don't you think?

[factsonly]

All cyclist should have to carry id and insurance, just like all other vehicles on the road, there really is no reason why they shouldn't. It's because they are, to all intense and purpose, anonymous they feel able to ignore the law and highway code.

By far the worst cyclist are those fools who have cycle races along the A4, hundreds of the buggers all of whom ignore every single junction, light or roundabout they come to. It would seem because your having a race you don't have to give way or stop for red lights, bloody idiots.

[JeffG]

All cyclist should have to carry id and insurance, just like all other vehicles on the road

Do you mean on the person? Because I am a car driver, and don't need to carry either of these with me. Everybody needs to produce ID in one form or another on occasion for various reasons, but unlike some countries it is not a requirement to have it with you.

I agree, the requirement for cyclists to hold some sort of third-party insurance is not a bad idea, but that is the sort of thing that should be considered Europe-wide.

[Andy Capp]

All cyclist should have to carry id and insurance, just like all other vehicles on the road, there really is no reason why they shouldn't.

Because many couldn't afford it. Because we should be encouraging cycle use. Because it would add costs to public finances. Because the problem as I see it is insignificant; a tiny problem in the scheme of things.

If we wanted to get all authoritarian on people, who would deny that alcohol abuse is not a real problem? I'd therefore suggest a drinking licence. Misbehave and you lose your licence. In terms of merit, if not practicality, that is in my view a more deserving case.

It's because they are, to all intense and purpose, anonymous they feel able to ignore the law and highway code.

This is not unique to cyclists.

[factsonly]

Do you mean on the person? Because I am a car driver, and don't need to carry either of these with me.

But every vehicle user on the road does carry id apart for cyclists (and horse riders, but most of them do have insurance at least), that's exactly what number plates are there for.

[spartacus]

Not quite. At least not the toddler who had their arm broken by a cyclist running into them in Northbrook street a few months ago. Rather more than a "cut lip" there, don't you think?

Generally speaking, I think a 'cut lip', or being knocked to your feet, is the most severe after-effect of a cyclist vs pedestrian collision. Yes, there will be the more extreme injuries. The incident with the child in Northbrook St happened in 2008 didn't it? (Or has there been another one?) And in that case there was (an admittedly small) part of the blame perhaps with the mother for letting her child run around without any control and he ran out across the junction with the Northcorft Lane entrance into the path of a bike as it came through.

Another incident from 2008 was when an elderly pedestrian was actually killed by a cyclist in Poplar Place/Maple Crescent. In that incident she just happened to be walking around the path on a blind bend as a child cyclist came bombing round the other way.... (the child's younger brother had just hurt himself in the playpark and the little fella was cycling back to get his mum as quick as possible) Broken hip and the elderly lady passed away a day or so later... Tragic accident, but thankfully very rare consequences as far as cyclist vs pedestrian is concerned.


At the extreme end of cyclist vs HGV incidents however you delve into the areas which only people with VERY strong stomachs could deal with. Nasty, nasty stuff... Often there's nothing for the relatives to view. And that's fairly routine when heavy metal comes into contact at speed with someone who's only protection is a piece of plastic and polystyrene strapped to their head....

On balance I think I'd still opt to use the footway wherever possible when cycling, but just use it with consideration for pedestrians... I don't know about you but I don't fancy being smeared along the A4 just so that my epitaph can say that at least I wasn't breaking the law....

[Andy Capp]

On balance I think I'd still opt to use the footway wherever possible when cycling, but just use it with consideration for pedestrians... I don't know about you but I don't fancy being smeared along the A4 just so that my epitaph can say that at least I wasn't breaking the law....

I agree. If the road is clear then that is fine, but sometimes it is not. This is the same with pavements. If I ride on the pavement, I will ride with courtesy for pedestrians; granting them right of way, of course.

All people who ride on the pavement are not all equally as dangerous.