Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never seen that - but we're a bit behind the trend here in Devon.  Drivers even stop at pedestrian crossings if someone is waiting to cross.

Is it possible that they start flashing right to indicate that they are moving right to pass you and when they draw level with you they then flash left to indicate that they are going to pull back in? Lot's of cars now have lane assist that encourages better flashings.

Bananahead posted:

Is it possible that they start flashing right to indicate that they are moving right to pass you and when they draw level with you they then flash left to indicate that they are going to pull back in? Lot's of cars now have lane assist that encourages better flashings.

That was my thought (indicating to move back in, that is,  not an automated indication). Or, as is far too common, indicating an intent to turn left, ignorong the cyclist that the car is about to cut up ( and sometimes accelerating and then braking hard to achieve the manouvre, so as to avoid slowing slightly until the cyclist has passed the turning). I haven't observed any other odd use of left indicator either when I have been cycling or driving. More common is an annoying failure to indicate at all, which is especially frustrating to a cyclist approaching, say, a mini roundabout and assessing any need to slow or stop, or whether to pass one side or other or stay behind a waiting car - the failure to indicate often accompanied by ambiguous positioning.

Jude2012 posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Jude2012 posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Jude2012 posted:

Well the sheep and education aspects are interesting.  Whilst we are not sheep, we certainly don't seem to be able to co-operate like ants or bees to achieve a common aim.

As for legislation Public Space Protection Orders are being used by a number of Councils for control or dogs, and I believe for bicycle in centres in some cities. So, no reason why it cannot be applied to specific hot spots where the interaction between cars, pedestrians and cyclists is dangerous. 

Well, dogs are a nuisance in public places unless on a short leash and have a poo-slave picking up their excrement. That is different from people with awareness, understanding and judgement ability crossing the road: Yes, I am sure that laws could be made or existing ones applied to control pedestrians - but that does not mean it is either necessary or right, nor that it will necessarily stop people crossing the road when and where they wish.  The fact is PSPOs are in use and are enforced 

And the comparison with ants or bees is irrelevant when considering individuals crossing the road, even many at about the same time and place, provided that each is indeed exercising proper assessment - the problem comes when people adopt a sheep mentality and blindly cross just because others do.  (And that, of course, can lead to fatalities when people start to cross a road when a crossing light indicates that they can do so, but a vehicle has failed to see the red light.)   This is only one scenario, the report talks about cyclists and pedestrians crossing without warning. In any case, in your example, the motorist will be at a standstill, or at worse starting to accelerate.

 

The fact of PSPOs existing and enforced is irrelevant - I believe it is simply wrong to apply them to people exercising judgement to cross a road.

And my example was not one where the motorist is at a standstill or starting to accerlerate, but one where a motorist  fails to see the light turn to red and so is fully up to speed, presenting maximum dager to the witless pedestrian - and that does happen in reality (though I have no statistics for how often)

 

Simply wrong, eh? :-))))

Next - train drivers are responsible for people/motorists /cyclits  hurling themselves in front of trains.

end.

 

That is a quite ridiculous and disingenous extrapolation of my comments.

We have the lovely situation at junctions where green lights tell pedestrians that they can cross and green lights tell cars that they can turn right across the crossing. I have never seen or heard of an accident but it seems to terrify people from the UK.

Bananahead posted:

Is it possible that they start flashing right to indicate that they are moving right to pass you and when they draw level with you they then flash left to indicate that they are going to pull back in? Lot's of cars now have lane assist that encourages better flashings.

Modern indicator stalks that return to centre while the indicators are still flashing are a poorly thought-out curse. How do you cancel the indicator without indicating the opposite turn? I drive along for km sometimes alternately flashing left and right, just trying to get the thing to stop.

Re post before wimky,

Yes, it takes a bit of getting used to. As a motorist I give way to any pedestrian, most of whom don't bother to look. As a pedestrian I wait until I am 100% certain the motorist is going to give way.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Another good one, but it was yesterday morning.

I pulled up at a "T" junction to turn right. The "pedestrian" who was actually a jogger, was approaching from the right, about 50 yards away, so let's say 10 seconds to go to cross in front of me.

No one else around, so I could have just pulled ahead and turned right before she reached me. But no, rather than potentially interrupt her rhythm, I waited (ok, it was only going to be a few seconds anyway).

She turned left at the T junction. She could have indicated. She could have signalled a "thank you". But no. Nothing.

Next time will I bother ? 

You didn't do anything that benefitted her. Why would she thank you?

I was dismayed when I moved to Vancouver that the use of turn indicators amongst motorists was virtually non-existent. I later realised it was for safety. I mean, with a Blenz/Timbos/Artigiano in one hand and a cell phone in the other, who could safely use their indicators? We cyclists are worse. We don't often signal, often preferring to keep both hands available for braking and steering, and when we do, half the time it is with that goofy upraised left arm to indicate a right turn.

Actually, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. If she had been going straight across she would have had to break her stride if I had pulled out. I would have been within my rights so to do.

A bit of reciprocal common courtesy wouldn't have gone amiss.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Another good one, but it was yesterday morning.

I pulled up at a "T" junction to turn right. The "pedestrian" who was actually a jogger, was approaching from the right, about 50 yards away, so let's say 10 seconds to go to cross in front of me.

No one else around, so I could have just pulled ahead and turned right before she reached me. But no, rather than potentially interrupt her rhythm, I waited (ok, it was only going to be a few seconds anyway).

She turned left at the T junction. She could have indicated. She could have signalled a "thank you". But no. Nothing.

Next time will I bother ? 

You didn't do anything that benefitted her. Why would she thank you?

I was dismayed when I moved to Vancouver that the use of turn indicators amongst motorists was virtually non-existent. I later realised it was for safety. I mean, with a Blenz/Timbos/Artigiano in one hand and a cell phone in the other, who could safely use their indicators? We cyclists are worse. We don't often signal, often preferring to keep both hands available for braking and steering, and when we do, half the time it is with that goofy upraised left arm to indicate a right turn.

Actually, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. If she had been going straight across she would have had to break her stride if I had pulled out. I would have been within my rights so to do.

A bit of reciprocal common courtesy wouldn't have gone amiss.

It's perhaps lack of awareness on her part rather than lack of courtesy. For all she knew you were waiting for something, or someone else. Perhaps to quickly check a text message.

As a pedestrian I know that I am more important than cyclists and motorists.

As a cyclist I know that pedestrians are more important than me and that I am more important than motorists.

As a motorist I know that pedestrians and cyclists are more important than me.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Another good one, but it was yesterday morning.

I pulled up at a "T" junction to turn right. The "pedestrian" who was actually a jogger, was approaching from the right, about 50 yards away, so let's say 10 seconds to go to cross in front of me.

No one else around, so I could have just pulled ahead and turned right before she reached me. But no, rather than potentially interrupt her rhythm, I waited (ok, it was only going to be a few seconds anyway).

She turned left at the T junction. She could have indicated. She could have signalled a "thank you". But no. Nothing.

Next time will I bother ? 

You didn't do anything that benefitted her. Why would she thank you?

I was dismayed when I moved to Vancouver that the use of turn indicators amongst motorists was virtually non-existent. I later realised it was for safety. I mean, with a Blenz/Timbos/Artigiano in one hand and a cell phone in the other, who could safely use their indicators? We cyclists are worse. We don't often signal, often preferring to keep both hands available for braking and steering, and when we do, half the time it is with that goofy upraised left arm to indicate a right turn.

Actually, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. If she had been going straight across she would have had to break her stride if I had pulled out. I would have been within my rights so to do.

A bit of reciprocal common courtesy wouldn't have gone amiss.

It's perhaps lack of awareness on her part rather than lack of courtesy. For all she knew you were waiting for something, or someone else. Perhaps to quickly check a text message.

A total non-event to a person not seeking vicarious gratuity 

Don Atkinson posted:

Another good one, but it was yesterday morning.

I pulled up at a "T" junction to turn right. The "pedestrian" who was actually a jogger, was approaching from the right, about 50 yards away, so let's say 10 seconds to go to cross in front of me.

No one else around, so I could have just pulled ahead and turned right before she reached me. But no, rather than potentially interrupt her rhythm, I waited (ok, it was only going to be a few seconds anyway).

She turned left at the T junction. She could have indicated. She could have signalled a "thank you". But no. Nothing.

Next time will I bother ? 

I must be honest, I thought Don was a bit of an idiot for insisting that I should be pleased to pay £8 a day to cycle to work & back along almost deserted country lanes, instead of using four quid's worth of diesel to drive it. Now it seems that he's an egomaniac too, only helping others in order to receive his thoroughly deserved acknowledgement for not blocking someone's path with his car. Still it ties in with that generic view on all cyclists being one homogeneous globule of road users; now he can also convince himself that all joggers are awful because one of them failed to adequately thank him. As he himself said - "Next time will I bother?".

Don't upset The Don.

Personally I've always found that life works better if we treat other road users how we'd expect to be treated ourselves. The moron in a red Astra who nearly put me, my younger son & my car in a ditch last year was a moron. He has no bearing on other people who drive Astras, red or otherwise. 

Agreed, they may not all be morons, but they clearly exhibit a lack of taste in choice of model and colour of car.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

As he himself said - "Next time will I bother?".

 

You've got it. This is it. This is what annoys me. "Next time will I bother?" As if all joggers are deserving of his judgement on the basis of what this one person may have done.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Another good one, but it was yesterday morning.

I pulled up at a "T" junction to turn right. The "pedestrian" who was actually a jogger, was approaching from the right, about 50 yards away, so let's say 10 seconds to go to cross in front of me.

No one else around, so I could have just pulled ahead and turned right before she reached me. But no, rather than potentially interrupt her rhythm, I waited (ok, it was only going to be a few seconds anyway).

She turned left at the T junction. She could have indicated. She could have signalled a "thank you". But no. Nothing.

Next time will I bother ? 

I must be honest, I thought Don was a bit of an idiot for insisting that I should be pleased to pay £8 a day to cycle to work & back along almost deserted country lanes, instead of using four quid's worth of diesel to drive it. Now it seems that he's an egomaniac too, only helping others in order to receive his thoroughly deserved acknowledgement for not blocking someone's path with his car. Still it ties in with that generic view on all cyclists being one homogeneous globule of road users; now he can also convince himself that all joggers are awful because one of them failed to adequately thank him. As he himself said - "Next time will I bother?".

Don't upset The Don.

Personally I've always found that life works better if we treat other road users how we'd expect to be treated ourselves. The moron in a red Astra who nearly put me, my younger son & my car in a ditch last year was a moron. He has no bearing on other people who drive Astras, red or otherwise. 

I'm not insisting that you should be PLEASED to pay £8 a day etc, just that you SHOULD pay it because it's equitable.

As for treating other road users as we would like to be treated (I include pedestrians in this, even if you don't) that's exactly what I did and shall continue to do.

winkyincanada posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

As he himself said - "Next time will I bother?".

 

You've got it. This is it. This is what annoys me. "Next time will I bother?" As if all joggers are deserving of his judgement on the basis of what this one person may have done.

And what annoys me, likewise, is the judgement by a couple of cyclists, that all motorists are morons, based on the unacceptable actions that one or two may have performed.

As for cyclists., well, I started this thread on the basis of the unexpextedly high percentage of discourteous ones at a family holiday centre and on narrow towpaths. This thread hasn't provided any encouragement that my sample is unrepresentative.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

As he himself said - "Next time will I bother?".

 

You've got it. This is it. This is what annoys me. "Next time will I bother?" As if all joggers are deserving of his judgement on the basis of what this one person may have done.

And what annoys me, likewise, is the judgement by a couple of cyclists, that all motorists are morons, based on the unacceptable actions that one or two may have performed.

As for cyclists., well, I started this thread on the basis of the unexpextedly high percentage of discourteous ones at a family holiday centre and on narrow towpaths. This thread hasn't provided any encouragement that my sample is unrepresentative.

I've never said that all motorists are morons. And where does "one or two" come from anyway? My observation is that many are aggressive, impatient, distracted, law-breaking and potentially dangerous. I observe "one or two" motorists displaying at least one sort of this behaviour every few minutes. No-body stops at stop signs, no-body stops before right-turns-on-red, speed limits are always exceeded (except where corners or other cars prevent it) and the orange light at the end of every signal phase is run by at least one motorist (or cyclist) if the there is anybody there to do so. Motorists have also become obsessed with their crotches. They are always staring at them for some reason.

The collective stupidity motorists exhibit is pretty widespread, though. I can't help but laugh a little each morning as a glide by the gridlocked traffic coming into town.

I was scolded twice on the way home today by cyclists who felt I should have shouted "on your left" before I overtook them. Personally, I find this idea that a slower vehicle must take some action to avoid a faster rider overtaking them to be offensive. The idea that we need to give way to vehicles behind us is absurd.

Nevertheless, I now accept that I am not supported in this view, and that it seems most people are happy enough to scurry into the gutter lest they impede the progress of the more important and better rider coming from behind.

So I have decided to get a bell. Woe betide anyone who doesn't clear a path for me when I ring it. They will have no-one but themselves to blame, should I run them down.

winkyincanada posted:

I was scolded twice on the way home today by cyclists who felt I should have shouted "on your left" before I overtook them. Personally, I find this idea that a slower vehicle must take some action to avoid a faster rider overtaking them to be offensive. The idea that we need to give way to vehicles behind us is absurd.

Nevertheless, I now accept that I am not supported in this view, and that it seems most people are happy enough to scurry into the gutter lest they impede the progress of the more important and better rider coming from behind.

So I have decided to get a bell. Woe betide anyone who doesn't clear a path for me when I ring it. They will have no-one but themselves to blame, should I run them down.

Seems a bizarre expectation to me - it is always the overtaker's responsibility to ensure it is clear, and to give adequate clearance as they pass (and it is all road users' responsibility to know what is behind before they make any manoeuvre). Of course, It is polite to give warning if you might startle the cyclist being overtaken, so the bell idea is probably good (and better than shouting "on your left", which at best is terse, can be ambiguous, and might not be heard with clarity and so either ineffective or cause a wobble while the person hastily looks round for the source of the noise). Where I live, it is quite common for an overtaking cyclist to simply call a greeting as they are coming alongside, usually gaining a similar response as they pass (depending on relative speed).

Don Atkinson posted:

I'm not insisting that you should be PLEASED to pay £8 a day etc, just that you SHOULD pay it because it's equitable.

No. Anyone who cycles to work should be given a tax rebate.

The arguments about why regular cycling is such a positive thing have been posted here numerous times. You've failed to discuss any of them, instead choosing to hide behind petulant responses like 'feel better now?', or dismissing a few paragraphs of reasoned discussion as a rant. You've completely failed to put forward any opposition to any points raised, because you know that in reality there is no argument against regular cycling.

The link I posted that covered the 43% reduction in cancers & other serious illnesses? You'd impose a punitive £2000 a year tax on cyclists and negate all of that benefit? Like I said Don, I thought at first you were a bit of an idiot; everything you've posted since has confirmed that and now you tell us that thanks to one jogger you'll refuse to help all joggers. What berk you are. A bit of an idiot, and belligerent with it.

Cycling to work reduces pollution and congestion (despite your ridiculous idea that cyclists cause congestion). It reduces wear & tear on the roads to zero. It has enormous measurable short and long term health benefits. It makes people who do cycle to work better employees. If there are to be changes to the tax system, cycling needs to be given an almighty push to make it an easier choice, with tax incentives to do it. Let's start with a refund of VED, and the mileage rate equivalent to business miles by car being refunded back through the tax system. That's be a good start. Not hitting people with a £2000 charge to even think about cycling to work.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I'm not insisting that you should be PLEASED to pay £8 a day etc, just that you SHOULD pay it because it's equitable.

No. Anyone who cycles to work should be given a tax rebate.

The arguments about why regular cycling is such a positive thing have been posted here numerous times. You've failed to discuss any of them, instead choosing to hide behind petulant responses like 'feel better now?', or dismissing a few paragraphs of reasoned discussion as a rant. You've completely failed to put forward any opposition to any points raised, because you know that in reality there is no argument against regular cycling.

The link I posted that covered the 43% reduction in cancers & other serious illnesses? You'd impose a punitive £2000 a year tax on cyclists and negate all of that benefit? Like I said Don, I thought at first you were a bit of an idiot; everything you've posted since has confirmed that and now you tell us that thanks to one jogger you'll refuse to help all joggers. What berk you are. A bit of an idiot, and belligerent with it.

Cycling to work reduces pollution and congestion (despite your ridiculous idea that cyclists cause congestion). It reduces wear & tear on the roads to zero. It has enormous measurable short and long term health benefits. It makes people who do cycle to work better employees. If there are to be changes to the tax system, cycling needs to be given an almighty push to make it an easier choice, with tax incentives to do it. Let's start with a refund of VED, and the mileage rate equivalent to business miles by car being refunded back through the tax system. That's be a good start. Not hitting people with a £2000 charge to even think about cycling to work.

And increase VED very significantly, but put it on fuel so it is fair, proportional to pollution and road use (with a rebate system in for bone fide commercial use).

Innocent Bystander posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I was scolded twice on the way home today by cyclists who felt I should have shouted "on your left" before I overtook them. Personally, I find this idea that a slower vehicle must take some action to avoid a faster rider overtaking them to be offensive. The idea that we need to give way to vehicles behind us is absurd.

Nevertheless, I now accept that I am not supported in this view, and that it seems most people are happy enough to scurry into the gutter lest they impede the progress of the more important and better rider coming from behind.

So I have decided to get a bell. Woe betide anyone who doesn't clear a path for me when I ring it. They will have no-one but themselves to blame, should I run them down.

Seems a bizarre expectation to me - it is always the overtaker's responsibility to ensure it is clear, and to give adequate clearance as they pass (and it is all road users' responsibility to know what is behind before they make any manoeuvre). Of course, It is polite to give warning if you might startle the cyclist being overtaken, so the bell idea is probably good (and better than shouting "on your left", which at best is terse, can be ambiguous, and might not be heard with clarity and so either ineffective or cause a wobble while the person hastily looks round for the source of the noise). Where I live, it is quite common for an overtaking cyclist to simply call a greeting as they are coming alongside, usually gaining a similar response as they pass (depending on relative speed).

I'm being facetious of course. I will continue to very carefully give way to those I am overtaking. It's just now they will hear the mellifluous tones of my bell beforehand. Nothing else will change.

winkyincanada posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I was scolded twice on the way home today by cyclists who felt I should have shouted "on your left" before I overtook them. Personally, I find this idea that a slower vehicle must take some action to avoid a faster rider overtaking them to be offensive. The idea that we need to give way to vehicles behind us is absurd.

Nevertheless, I now accept that I am not supported in this view, and that it seems most people are happy enough to scurry into the gutter lest they impede the progress of the more important and better rider coming from behind.

So I have decided to get a bell. Woe betide anyone who doesn't clear a path for me when I ring it. They will have no-one but themselves to blame, should I run them down.

Seems a bizarre expectation to me - it is always the overtaker's responsibility to ensure it is clear, and to give adequate clearance as they pass (and it is all road users' responsibility to know what is behind before they make any manoeuvre). Of course, It is polite to give warning if you might startle the cyclist being overtaken, so the bell idea is probably good (and better than shouting "on your left", which at best is terse, can be ambiguous, and might not be heard with clarity and so either ineffective or cause a wobble while the person hastily looks round for the source of the noise). Where I live, it is quite common for an overtaking cyclist to simply call a greeting as they are coming alongside, usually gaining a similar response as they pass (depending on relative speed).

I'm being facetious of course. I will continue to very carefully give way to those I am overtaking. It's just now they will hear the mellifluous tones of my bell beforehand. Nothing else will change.

In case it was unclear, what I think is bizarre is the people being overtaken's expectation of an "on your left" call by an overtaker. If any call like that were to be given, it should be an unambiguous "overtaking left" or "passing left".

If the aforementioned people object to the bell, you could always try "out of my way", "pull over, slowcoach", or "get off and milk it"...  or get a foghorn.

Innocent Bystander posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

winkyincanada posted:

I was scolded twice on the way home today by cyclists who felt I should have shouted "on your left" before I overtook them. Personally, I find this idea that a slower vehicle must take some action to avoid a faster rider overtaking them to be offensive. The idea that we need to give way to vehicles behind us is absurd.

Nevertheless, I now accept that I am not supported in this view, and that it seems most people are happy enough to scurry into the gutter lest they impede the progress of the more important and better rider coming from behind.

So I have decided to get a bell. Woe betide anyone who doesn't clear a path for me when I ring it. They will have no-one but themselves to blame, should I run them down.

Seems a bizarre expectation to me - it is always the overtaker's responsibility to ensure it is clear, and to give adequate clearance as they pass (and it is all road users' responsibility to know what is behind before they make any manoeuvre). Of course, It is polite to give warning if you might startle the cyclist being overtaken, so the bell idea is probably good (and better than shouting "on your left", which at best is terse, can be ambiguous, and might not be heard with clarity and so either ineffective or cause a wobble while the person hastily looks round for the source of the noise). Where I live, it is quite common for an overtaking cyclist to simply call a greeting as they are coming alongside, usually gaining a similar response as they pass (depending on relative speed).

I'm being facetious of course. I will continue to very carefully give way to those I am overtaking. It's just now they will hear the mellifluous tones of my bell beforehand. Nothing else will change.

In case it was unclear, what I think is bizarre is the people being overtaken's expectation of an "on your left" call by an overtaker. If any call like that were to be given, it should be an unambiguous "overtaking left" or "passing left".

If the aforementioned people object to the bell, you could always try "out of my way", "pull over, slowcoach", or "get off and milk it"...  or get a foghorn.

"On your left"

"Passing left"

"Overtaking left"

They're all the same level of dumb, ambiguous, confusing arrogance.

I always say a cheerful "morning" or "afternoon". They just need to know I am passing without being startled. Works for me...

Stu