# Pr*cks on bikes



## Becs (3 Apr 2012)

In the last 3 weeks I have had 4 near misses . . . All with other cyclists! Nearly got hit by a RLJer when I was on green, had 2 people try to undertake me at junctions when I was clearly signalling left and one girl ran into the back of me at a light because she "fought you was going to keep going like everyone else"! On the flip side I had a thoroughly pleasant interaction with an Addison lee taxi - wtf has happened to the world?!?!


----------



## Becs (3 Apr 2012)

I really think some sort of compulsory road safety test would be useful. I'm sad to say the more cyclists are on the road the more unsafe I feel, I'm sure a lot of mistakes are through ignorance, the rest just seem to be a certain breed of fixie rider that seems very abundant in Camden!


----------



## Crackedheadset (3 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> I really think some sort of compulsory road safety test would be useful. I'm sad to say the more cyclists are on the road the more unsafe I feel, I'm sure a lot of mistakes are through ignorance, the rest just seem to be a certain breed of fixie rider that seems very abundant in Camden!


 
It would be would be impossible to enforce.

And yeah, bad riding is mostly down to ignorance. and when you bother (politely as well) to point out a simple error, like giving way when the road markings dictate, not undertaking a bus at a red light, not being passed at speed when I'm coching on shared path turning a gear, you get abuse for it.

I'd even go as far to say as a %, cyclists are worse then other road users both in terms of trying to explain what they have just done and why it is wrong, and general ability.

And when I talk ab out general ability, I'm talking the very basics, basic checks that you can do for example.


----------



## MisterStan (3 Apr 2012)

I agree! I would say (not scientifcally proven) that the majority of cyclists in Cambridge are RLJers, don't use lights, undertake buses (i've even seen one do this at a bus stop - nearly gave me a heart attack) whilst the rest of us behave ourselves and get all the abuse for it. Whilst on the (ahem, cough cough) bus this morning, i noted three cyclist jump the same red light, one of them giving a driver who beeped the finger, then cut across two lanes of traffice without even looking over their shoulder, then jump a second red light, the joke was that there is a 'safe route' for cyclists to avoid this junction completely.


----------



## Moodyman (3 Apr 2012)

Be positive. These newbies are great for the scalp tally.


----------



## Becs (3 Apr 2012)

Moodyman said:


> Be positive. These newbies are great for the scalp tally.



Until they swerve right with no warning!


----------



## Moodyman (3 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Until they swerve right with no warning!


 
Hmmm. Yes, that is an issue, but hey ho.


----------



## gaz (3 Apr 2012)

I call them Silly Cyclists. I would expect to see a lot more in the upcomming months.


----------



## MisterStan (3 Apr 2012)

gaz said:


> I call them Silly Cyclists. I would expect to see a lot more in the upcomming months.


 
Sadly i fear you are right.


----------



## spen666 (3 Apr 2012)

This is not a purely cycling related issue. As a society we have become more and more selfish and less considerant and less tolerant of others.

People talk all the time about their rights - no one ever talks about their responsibilities.

We are quick to see bad in others - that motorist that cut us up did it deliberately, rather than accidentally.

We want to get to our destination and justify our own law breaking whilst condemning others.


----------



## clarion (3 Apr 2012)

Our own what?

Let's just share the roads. And give a good example to the POBs. Even if they ignore it.


----------



## jonny jeez (3 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> In the last 3 weeks I have had 4 near misses . . . All with other cyclists! Nearly got hit by a RLJer when I was on green, had 2 people try to undertake me at junctions when I was clearly signalling left and one girl ran into the back of me at a light because she "fought you was going to keep going like everyone else"! On the flip side I had a thoroughly pleasant interaction with an Addison lee taxi - wtf has happened to the world?!?!


I maintain that, by a far majority the most unskilled lawbreaking users of the road...are cyclists. we really need to get our own house in order if we want to be treated with the respect we crave.

It seems we are a long way behind other countries in understanding this.

We argue that bad cycling doesn't cause injury's or damage but this is just wrong. Aside from this it sets appalling examples for new riders, hands out precedents, as a gift for those that need little excuse to form a poor impression and generally just spoils it for the rest of us.

I really want the authorities to clamp down on this crap riding.


----------



## Beebo (3 Apr 2012)

I have a 12 mile commute and the last 2 miles into London in the morning and the first 2 miles out of London at night are the bits I enjoy the least, mainly due to the volume of inconsiderate cyclists. I tend to slow down and hang back for those two miles to let the idiots get on with it.

I can anticipate the actions of cars, buses and taxis, but having bikes hover rounds me, take my braking space, undertake me and half wheel me is a constant problem; but only for those 2 miles, the other 10 miles are great.

I am amazed that we have as few accidents than we do; it's often only the swift actions of drivers taking evasive action that protects these cyclists from injury.


----------



## stowie (3 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> I maintain that, by a far majority the most unskilled lawbreaking users of the road...are cyclists. we really need to get our own house in order if we want to be treated with the respect we crave.
> 
> It seems we are a long way behind other countries in understanding this.
> 
> ...


 
I am not so sure. What is the percentage of drivers that regularly speed? The issue is that much of the law-breaking by motorists is deemed socially acceptable by many people, and many motorists. So therefore it gets overlooked. Whereas the law breaking by cyclists is a convenient tool to prod cyclists with when we get uppity about things.

There is also a law of diminishing returns here. Cycling, like walking, is a right on the highways, and as such will always have very variable levels of competence. By all means have awareness campaigns for cyclists, training days and so on (in the same way that pedestrians get taught and made aware). Also make sure the worst transgressions are dealt with. But without a major change to the cyclists relationship with road use, we have to accept that there will be variable competence out there, as there are pedestrians who are alert and others who wander around in a trance.

As a motorist I feel it is right for the bar of competence to be set higher than cyclists and pedestrians and for there to be more responsibility placed on the person trained to use a vehicle.

I view transgressions such as endemic speeding (my 20mph road is an utter joke, and kids play on the street whilst vans and cars break the limits to get to the next queue in the rat-run) as more dangerous - problems which won't be resolved whilst the common perception of these transgressions is that they are minor. And that is without going into the 13% of uninsured motorists in London.

Motorists treating cyclists with care so that they don't endanger them shouldn't be predicated on all cyclists becoming law-abiding beforehand. In the same way that motorists shouldn't assume it OK to harass and endanger pedestrians because some aren't attentive to roads.


----------



## stowie (3 Apr 2012)

Oh, and that isn't to say I don't see some shocking cycling in London. I do. I think that the accident rate isn't higher because cycles are agile, and motorists speeds low on most of the roads in London. And most motorists know to look out for cyclists. I also see some absolutely appalling driving, which is also accommodated by other road users.


----------



## Ian H (3 Apr 2012)

It's not all bad. I was in London yesterday cycling between Ealing and Euston. On the way back in rush hour there were crowds of cyclists stopped at various lights. I stopped at red on the Brompton Road, two stopped alongside me, one zapped through. My comment that there's always one idiot met with rueful laughter.


----------



## spen666 (3 Apr 2012)

Beebo said:


> I have a 12 mile commute and the last 2 miles into London in the morning and the first 2 miles out of London at night are the bits I enjoy the least, mainly due to the volume of inconsiderate cyclists. I tend to slow down and hang back for those two miles to let the idiots get on with it.
> 
> I can anticipate the actions of cars, buses and taxis, but having bikes hover rounds me, take my braking space, undertake me and half wheel me is a constant problem; but only for those 2 miles, the other 10 miles are great.
> 
> I am amazed that we have as few accidents than we do; it's often only the swift actions of drivers taking evasive action that protects these cyclists from injury.


 
I agree


----------



## Ian H (3 Apr 2012)

There's a way we can help the future. I'm old enough that my father cycled for transport though he was never a club cyclist. He taught me basic maintenance and the highway code. The next generation went straight to mopeds and cars and never learned to cycle. Thus, knowledge wasn't passed on. So teach your kids the Highway code. Show them that a bike's a grown-up form of transport and riding one involves rights and responsibilities just like any other vehicle.


----------



## jonny jeez (3 Apr 2012)

stowie said:


> I am not so sure. What is the percentage of drivers that regularly speed? The issue is that much of the law-breaking by motorists is deemed socially acceptable by many people, and many motorists. So therefore it gets overlooked. Whereas the law breaking by cyclists is a convenient tool to prod cyclists with when we get uppity about things.
> 
> There is also a law of diminishing returns here. Cycling, like walking, is a right on the highways, and as such will always have very variable levels of competence. By all means have awareness campaigns for cyclists, training days and so on (in the same way that pedestrians get taught and made aware). Also make sure the worst transgressions are dealt with. But without a major change to the cyclists relationship with road use, we have to accept that there will be variable competence out there, as there are pedestrians who are alert and others who wander around in a trance.
> 
> ...


 
I totally agree with your sentiment here but the only point in your post that is relevant to mine is the issue of competence levels which I accept will have a direct effect on the "total" skill of cyclists.

Other than that, I'm sorry but your post just sounds like a "well cars are worse than us so its fine" responce.

Axe murderes are even worse than us so perhaps we should all jump reds and cruise pavements as we are far ahead of the curve on that comparison.

Comparing us to cars doesn't help. We need to improve cyclists skills (and attitudes) and forget about what others do or don't do...we need to get on with it and stop making excuses for crap riding by constantly comparing ourselves to the next worst thing.

getting a bit ranty...sorry


----------



## Norm (3 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> getting a bit ranty...sorry


Don't be.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Apr 2012)

I welcome the wobblers and the pr1cks. They teach drivers to be more careful around all of us, and they help to make cycling safer. Bring them on, and bring them on in droves!!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Apr 2012)

I wish I saw more cyclists on my commute to comment upon. Two hours a day riding and I'm very lucky/surprised if it gets into double figures per day more than once or twice a month.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I wish I saw more cyclists on my commute to comment upon. Two hours a day riding and I'm very lucky/surprised if it gets into double figures per day more than once or twice a month.


 

They are all avoiding you Greg...


----------



## Becs (3 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I welcome the wobblers and the pr1cks. They teach drivers to be more careful around all of us, and they help to make cycling safer. Bring them on, and bring them on in droves!!!


 
all fine until they knock you off and you end up under a taxi


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Apr 2012)

ianrauk said:


> They are all avoiding you Greg...


Who could blame them? Fear of conscription into the Taliban Wheelers causes them to go to ground.


----------



## spen666 (3 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I welcome the wobblers and the pr1cks. They teach drivers to be more careful around all of us, and they help to make cycling safer. Bring them on, and bring them on in droves!!!


 
Sadly Mickety in your Utopia it may well be the case that they teach drivers to be more careful, but here in the real world all they do is annoy and frustrate motorists and make them hate all cyclists as they tar us all with the same brush - in much the same way as cyclists tar all young drivers as chave and all taxi drivers as homicidal maniacs

The wobblers are not the issue as we all have to learn, but those pr*cks are the problem


----------



## Norm (3 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I wish I saw more cyclists on my commute to comment upon. Two hours a day riding and I'm very lucky/surprised if it gets into double figures per day more than once or twice a month.





ianrauk said:


> *We* are all avoiding you Greg...


FTFY.


----------



## Becs (3 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1794129, member: 1314"]I'm with Becs. And BM funnily enough. More bikes are great. But wish they would stop undertaking me, passing too close...*showing me up by going faster than me on flat pedals is the worse, though*.[/quote]
especially when they are girls


----------



## al78 (3 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I wish I saw more cyclists on my commute to comment upon. Two hours a day riding and I'm very lucky/surprised if it gets into double figures per day more than once or twice a month.


 
I never see more than three on any one day, and that is with about an hour and 20 mins cycling in total.

Where do you commute?


----------



## Norm (3 Apr 2012)

al78 said:


> Where do you commute?


My guess here is either home to work or work to home. 

Hope that helped.


----------



## spen666 (3 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> My guess here is either home to work or work to home.
> 
> Hope that helped.


 I'd hazard a guess its both


----------



## Norm (3 Apr 2012)

spen666 said:


> I'd hazard a guess its both


But not concurrently.


----------



## Becs (4 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1794176, member: 1314"]Happens on a daily basis, Becs - small, skinny girls on mtbs in trainers.[/quote]
I hate those b*tches! Nice view as they ride off though I guess!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 Apr 2012)

Boris bike went up the pavement at Bank this morning to get to the front at the lights and some female had a white flashing light on the back of her bike at Stepney Green when I was returning home.Got both on film I think.Also picked up some good motorist footage.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (4 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Until they swerve right with no warning!


 
First came the doorzone. Now comes the Swervezone!


----------



## Crankarm (4 Apr 2012)

Cars, vans, buses, trucks and drug dealers on bikes, they are all lethal. I thought I was toast yesterday as a druggie came steaming around a corner, head down and hoodie up, from behind a high hedge on the wrong side of the path straight into me in a cycle lane. Fortunately I was about to cross a road and was going quite slowly and my big pannier up front was full enough to give me some protection as he skidded into me."Ayyyyyyyy!" He must have skidded for ten feet as soon as he heard me shout, stopping as he ploughed into my front pannier. The fecker was wearing a scummy hooded parker, had a palid filthy malnourished complexion, with staring drugged out eyes, most of his front teeth were missing, he looked like 60 years old with scraggy goaty but probably a wasted 30 years old. Started shouting and swearing at me. So exit right not before telling him he should be more fecking careful. Fortunately no damage to me or my bike, just very shaken.


----------



## MisterStan (4 Apr 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Cars, vans, buses, trucks and drug dealers on bikes, they are all lethal. I thought I was toast yesterday as a druggie came steaming around a corner, head down and hoodie up, from behind a high hedge on the wrong side of the path straight into me in a cycle lane. Fortunately I was about to cross a road and was going quite slowly and my big pannier up front was full enough to give me some protection as he skidded into me."Ayyyyyyyy!" He must have skidded for ten feet as soon as he heard me shout, stopping as he ploughed into my front pannier. The fecker was wearing a scummy hooded parker, had a palid filthy malnourished complexion, with staring drugged out eyes, most of his front teeth were missing, he looked like 60 years old with scraggy goaty but probably a wasted 30 years old. Started shouting and swearing at me. So exit right not before telling him he should be more fecking careful. Fortunately no damage to me or my bike, just very shaken.


Sorry about that, I was in a hurry!


----------



## Kiwiavenger (4 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1794176, member: 1314"]Happens on a daily basis, Becs - small, skinny girls on mtbs in trainers.[/quote]
i find flip flops make them go faster though!


----------



## Crankarm (4 Apr 2012)

1794345 said:


> You're not given up the cycling then. Excellent.


 
*You've not* don't you mean? No need to place the definite article before *cycling* as it is a verb.

I don't ride on the roads.

HTH.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Apr 2012)

MisterStan said:


> Sorry about that, I was in a hurry!


 
Heeheee ............


----------



## BentMikey (4 Apr 2012)

If you're worried about the wobblers knocking you under a taxi, then perhaps give a bit more room and/or a bit more brake?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Until they swerve right with no warning!


Highway code rule 213:
"Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."


----------



## jonny jeez (4 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I welcome the wobblers and the pr1cks. They teach drivers to be more careful around all of us, and they help to make cycling safer. Bring them on, and bring them on in droves!!!


no proboem with wobblers...in fact I dont think this thread does either. Certainly the OP didn't. How did we get onto wobblers.

its the pricks Mikey...its all about the pricks!

red light jumping, pavement riding, pedestrian abusing pricks


----------



## MisterStan (4 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> no proboem with wobblers...in fact I dont think this thread does either. Certainly the OP didn't. How did we get onto wobblers.
> 
> its the pricks Mikey...its all about the pricks!
> 
> red light jumping, pavement riding, pedestrian abusing pricks


 
You're ranting again Jonny!


----------



## ianrauk (4 Apr 2012)

MisterStan said:


> You're ranting again Jonny!


 

Rant away is what I say...


----------



## Becs (4 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> no proboem with wobblers...in fact I dont think this thread does either. Certainly the OP didn't. How did we get onto wobblers.
> 
> its the pricks Mikey...its all about the pricks!
> 
> red light jumping, pavement riding, pedestrian abusing pricks



What he said!!!! People that wobble worry me, for their own safety (especially when they wobble up the inside of buses and hgvs - but I always give them a wide berth. It's the swerving right on their crappy mountain bike with their saddle (and jeans) too low, hoodie wearing pricks that are the worst offenders


----------



## Jdratcliffe (4 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I wish I saw more cyclists on my commute to comment upon. Two hours a day riding and I'm very lucky/surprised if it gets into double figures per day more than once or twice a month.


are poor you greg - where you cycle to -from i head up from Merstham along the A23 every morning into London on a nice weather day i can see 60/70+ admitting more as i near London but at lest 10 or so into Purley and Croydon.


----------



## Becs (4 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> If you're worried about the wobblers knocking you under a taxi, then perhaps give a bit more room and/or a bit more brake?



Somewhat patronising don't you think?


----------



## BentMikey (4 Apr 2012)

It sounds like whinging rather than real danger to me. I don't mean to belittle your concerns, but it's almost certain they're no danger to anyone else, and not very much danger to themselves either.

Risky cycling is rarely to blame for "accidents" [sic]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study


----------



## BentMikey (4 Apr 2012)

Patronising, no, but honest, certainly. If you're not close enough for them to pose danger to you, then there's no problem.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

Jdratcliffe said:


> are poor you greg - where you cycle to -from i head up from Merstham along the A23 every morning into London on a nice weather day i can see 60/70+ admitting more as i near London but at lest 10 or so into Purley and Croydon.


Horsham Town Centre to the west side of Haywards Heath. 6 this morning. And one of those was pushing her bike along the pavement whilst another was about 4-years-old.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It sounds like whinging rather than real danger to me. I don't mean to belittle your concerns, but it's almost certain they're no danger to anyone else, and not very much danger to themselves either.
> 
> Risky cycling is rarely to blame for "accidents" [sic]
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study


 

Well I came within inches of hitting one of these morons last week and just by sheer luck I wasn't involved in an accident.That's without looking out for the cabs and cars that cut me up because their owners just haven't got a clue or are just total cretins.


----------



## Becs (4 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It sounds like whinging rather than real danger to me. I don't mean to belittle your concerns, but it's almost certain they're no danger to anyone else, and not very much danger to themselves either.
> 
> Risky cycling is rarely to blame for "accidents" [sic]
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study


I'm not sure you can say that, with so many of us having near misses. If you look back all of the problems I encountered were people nearly running into me at junctions or coming up the inside from behind, so your "you're obviously too close" lecture is not relevant.


----------



## stowie (4 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> I totally agree with your sentiment here but the only point in your post that is relevant to mine is the issue of competence levels which I accept will have a direct effect on the "total" skill of cyclists.
> 
> Other than that, I'm sorry but your post just sounds like a "well cars are worse than us so its fine" responce.
> 
> ...


 
Not ranty at all!




> _I maintain that, by a far majority the most unskilled lawbreaking users of the road...are cyclists. we really need to get our own house in order if we want to be treated with the respect we crave._


 
This was really the bit I was responding to. I don't think cyclists are the majority of law breakers - not least because our numbers are small compared with the numbers of motor vehicles. If you were thinking that the proportion of law breakers to total users was greater with cyclists, I also think that this may well not be true - it is just that we take a number of quite serious law breaking activities that motorists do as simply "something that happens". 13% of London motorists are uninsured, so there is a quite large proportion to start with, add in those who regularly break speed limits plus those who use mobile phone, amber gamble, cross ASLs on red and we get a fairly hefty proportion of motorists. There are many road users who don't view breaking the 20mph limits, or even 30mph limits to be that serious - but it can and does cost lives. This has become so common place that it is accepted. 

My second point was really that getting "our house in order" will matter not one jot with how we are treated on the road. I don't bully BMW drivers because one the other day was an idiot and cut me up. Cyclists are bullied on the roads because it people can and it is unfortunately deemed acceptable by a proportion of other road users. On the other hand, even if it were true that all motorists would suddenly treat us well if we all collectively behaved, this would be nigh on impossible as cycling is treated as a right on the roads in law and so anyone can do it without training. Unless we want to change this, we have to accept the vast range of competence that will be out there and try to educate by example etc. As long as there are idiots in the world there will be idiots on bicycles.

Finally, the interesting thing is that I sometimes feel crowded by cyclists when in central London. But the risk is really small - I wonder if it is because we are collectively used to motorised road traffic and their issues but, until relatively recently, have not had to negotiate with large numbers of cyclists as well. Maybe we are all collectively learning how to share the road with larger numbers of cyclists. For my part, I am always amazed by the procedure that happens at London lights. Those serious cyclists in clipless pedals spend a while faffing around when it goes green whilst us flat pedal users go past, only to be overtaken by the serious cyclists on the straight and then all reach the next red light for the procedure to happen all over again! I put it down to the tapestry of life.


----------



## jonny jeez (4 Apr 2012)

stowie said:


> This was really the bit I was responding to. I don't think cyclists are the majority of law breakers - not least because our numbers are small compared with the numbers of motor vehicles. *If you were thinking that the proportion of law breakers* to total users was greater with cyclists, I also think that this may well not be true - it is just that we take a number of quite serious law breaking activities that motorists do as simply "something that happens". 13% of London motorists are uninsured, so there is a quite large proportion to start with, add in those who regularly break speed limits plus those who use mobile phone, amber gamble, cross ASLs on red and we get a fairly hefty proportion of motorists. There are many road users who don't view breaking the 20mph limits, or even 30mph limits to be that serious - but it can and does cost lives. This has become so common place that it is accepted.
> 
> My second point was really that getting "our house in order" will matter not one jot with how we are treated on the road. I don't bully BMW drivers because one the other day was an idiot and cut me up. Cyclists are bullied on the roads because it people can and it is unfortunately deemed acceptable by a proportion of other road users.


 
I don't really want to get into a comparison discussion but I do have to say that I think "proportionally" this is still not the case. From my own experience about 50-60% of cyclists jump red lights, around 30% ride on pavements at some point (I was stuck in a log jam last night and every single rider ...except me, just rode along the pavement or between the roadwork cones to carry on...I have footage of a similar indecent a year ago that attracted comments to this effect). That means that Half the drivers on the road would need to be breaking the law to keep their end up...this just isn't the case. You only have to watch channels like the droids to see that proportionally very few drivers do so. that's not to defend or condone those that do, its just that many, many dont.

Your second point is made very clearly and I know is one that is shared by many, just not me. I have the opposing view that collectivly we can alter our impression by good behaviour. You dont bully BMW drivers... because you are not a bully so it is not in your nature. But I'll bet your bottom dollar you do take extra care around taxis, black cabs, mini cabs, motorcycles, van drivers and cars that have unusually loud exhausts and stereos...why...what made you "assume" these would be a problem?

Experience did... negative experience to be accurate.

Furthermore, if the authorities made a sterner/more visible effort to clamp down (as they are now being allowed to) this would help to educate drivers on what is right and wrong. Drivers would soon understand that cycle lanes are not mandatory, that we are allowed on the road and that riding in primary is done for a reason.


----------



## Crackedheadset (4 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It sounds like whinging rather than real danger to me. I don't mean to belittle your concerns, but it's almost certain they're no danger to anyone else, and not very much danger to themselves either.
> 
> Risky cycling is rarely to blame for "accidents" [sic]
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study


 
Don't be silly with respect to them not being a danger to themselves and other people.

Last night waiting in the filter lane to turn right off the Marly road into Pancras road that leads down the side of Kings X.

Lights go green and me and another cyclist start to turn right, people at the junction crossing on Pancras road use this break in the lights to cross. I touch the brakes and slow down waiting for a safe point to go through.

The other cyclist does not touch the brakes, actually accelerates with his finger firmly pressed on his Airzound, giving a blast 2 feet from a couple of peds legally crossing the road scaring the shoot of them.

I catch up with him and ask him if there is any need to use his horn on peds, to which he laughed and replied ''yeah''.

Seriously, what a self-gratification artist, it won't be long before he causes himself and/or others harm with that type of attitude towards other road users.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

We can all dredge up stories of ghastly, dangerous, careless motorists - and cyclists who are the same or worse.

I now ride regularly with my 16-year-old son and as we wind down after a piece of work the chat sometimes turns to close passes and artics slamming the door too early after a pass. Then we just simmer down and keep pedalling.

It is horrid to be needlessly exposed to peril by the poor behaviour of another road user. Some members of this forum like to demonstrate with statistics how it is much more likely that a motorist will kill a cyclist than vice versa. I've assumed that since my age was in single figures and as a topic of thought it doesn't really have a place at the top table. I know that for some it does, but for me and many like me it is not a thing to get all 'rightfully indignant' about.

Some cyclists are ghastly, selfish or dangerous. Some are all of those. Similarly, some motorists tick those boxes, but most are courteous and skilled.

When I read pieces here and elsewhere that seem to have a slightly anti-cyclist or anti-motorist flavour, I cannot help but be reminded a little of the sort of objectionable anti-immigrant drivel one reads in some of the red tops. I'm not drawing a direct link, but there is something of the same odour about both.

Many of us who have cycled, driven different classes of road vehicle and ridden motorcycles over a number of decades find this divisive view of different types of road user unhelpful.

If you want to get cross about something, what about ivy roots? There are places where I've been digging, mattocking and ripping the roots for years and they still come back. Bastards! Heartless, rampaging, garden-ruining, tree-smothering, mortar cracking bastards!!!

Thank you.


----------



## stowie (4 Apr 2012)

Jonny,

I would say that speeding is endemic and most motorists do it on a regular basis - whether it is 30mph in a 20mph or 80mph on the motorway. I would wager that more than half the drivers on the A11 between Bow and Stratford are over 30mph. I would also wager that virtually everyone on the M11 slip road from the North Circular is doing much more than the posted 50mph. I know because if I try 50mph I get a log jam of vehicles behind me (the slip comes in from the right - it is a bit odd hence the lowered speed limit). Speeding is so endemic that no-one really notices except the blatent cases.

I think that making cyclists more aware of other road-users and stopping anti-social behaviour is a good thing. I don't think it will change attitudes that much though. I have an example the other day where I was driving in a 20mph residential area with a car (normal car, normal driver) right on my tail since I was actually doing 20mph. A teenage cyclist comes up the road the wrong way (one way street) pulling a wheelie. I slow and stop. One can either assume that the 15 year old out playing with his friends in his street should be accommodated until he finds somewhere to pull over or that the motorist has an inalienable right of way and the youngster deserves to be punished. I think the former, judging by the hand gestures of the driver behind, he thought the latter. I used to think the latter as well, but changed my views when I started to cycle. We need to have motorists and society change their attitude to their road-use, and this will only happen with them.

As cyclists, I just don't think we should beat ourselves up over others actions, or assume that their actions are the reason why things are less than ideal on our roads for us.


----------



## stowie (4 Apr 2012)

Crackedheadset said:


> Don't be silly with respect to them not being a danger to themselves and other people.
> 
> Last night waiting in the filter lane to turn right off the Marly road into Pancras road that leads down the side of Kings X.
> 
> ...


 
And this idiot cyclist will get into a car and be exactly the same. Although I do say that we shouldn't worry about others cycling, the blasting through pedestrians really gets my goat. It is so uncivilised, and unnecessary. Not least because, as you managed, with a little bit of accommodation cyclists and pedestrians can mingle perfectly well.


----------



## dawesome (4 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> From my own experience about 50-60% of cyclists jump red lights, around 30% ride on pavements at some point That means that Half the drivers on the road would need to be breaking the law to keep their end up...this just isn't the case.


*Most drivers admit speeding on motorways*


As many as 61% of drivers admitted to going at speeds of 80mph or more on motorways - at least 10mph above the limit, the survey showed.
Some 23% of motorists reached these excessive speeds at least once a week, the poll of 942 drivers revealed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8089230/Most-drivers-admit-speeding-on-motorways.html

*A poll taken by road safety charity **Brake**, in association with Direct Line insurance has found that nearly half of drivers questioned admitted to using their **mobile phone** whilst driving.*

http://blog.rightmobilephone.co.uk/half-of-drivers-admit-to-using-mobile-whilst-at-the-wheel/

Drivers chatting on mobiles killed 11 people last year, speeding drivers killed a thousand. Cyclists killed nobody. Law breaking is rife on the roads, the real danger most certainly does not come from cyclists.


----------



## jonny jeez (4 Apr 2012)

dawesome said:


> *Most drivers admit speeding on motorways*
> 
> 
> As many as 61% of drivers admitted to going at speeds of 80mph or more on motorways - at least 10mph above the limit, the survey showed.
> ...


 
See this is what I didnt want, we are now comparing motorway drivers to the daily commuter. 

My point is that cyclist, proportionally (when compared to all road users and commuters...that's car drivers, bus drivers, pedestrians equestrians, van drivers motorcyclists, scooterists, hang glidersists...everyone) and from my own experience, not govnt stats ...are the most lawless.

Its hard (trust me) to speed when driving in the rush hour in a car you are mostly limited to crawling along at 20mph, very few drivers actually use phones when driving..so few in fact that we gasp when we spot them (which is a good thing!) and a red light jumping car driver is very rare (due to glaringly identifiable registration plates I suspect). this even takes into account the fact that...IMO... Motorcycles are the group most guilt of speeding (an offence that I want to see eradicated from our roads) 

But when ever I make this connection we get lost in a sea of comparison stat's for car drivers, we are fixated with comparing ourselves to car drivers and it stops us from bettering ourselves.

oh and as a PS, how do you KNOW that cyclsit's killed nobody...how do you know that the actions of some imbecile jumping a red light didn't cause an accident that resulted in a fatality. As I have mentioned on another thread I've been personally involved in accidents caused by cyclists whilst on the motorbike and if I were not riding sensibly and had allowed myself enough space to anticipate such actions, it could well have ended much worse for me.


----------



## BalkanExpress (4 Apr 2012)

1795303 said:


> I really must see if I can interest Rapha in making a limited edition hair shirt.


 

Presumably Yak hair as they must have a load on their hands at the moment.


----------



## dawesome (4 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> See this is what I didnt want, we are now comparing motorway drivers to the daily commuter.


 

There are more uninsured cars in this country (1.1m) than regular cyclist commuters (1m).

Naturally I respect your own personal experience of what you see on the roads, but when you claim cyclists are the main transgressors of traffic law you're plain wrong.


----------



## dawesome (4 Apr 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> oh and as a PS, how do you KNOW that cyclsit's killed nobody...how do you know that the actions of some imbecile jumping a red light didn't cause an accident that resulted in a fatality.


 
I've never heard of that happening, any actual examples?

Drivers on mobiles are not as rare as you think, half of all drivers admit using a mobile whilst driving yet only 200,000 a year are caught and fined. The detection rate is roughly 5%. Madness.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (4 Apr 2012)

MisterStan said:


> I agree! I would say (not scientifcally proven) that the majority of cyclists in Cambridge are RLJers, don't use lights, undertake buses (i've even seen one do this at a bus stop - nearly gave me a heart attack) whilst the rest of us behave ourselves and get all the abuse for it. Whilst on the (ahem, cough cough) bus this morning, i noted three cyclist jump the same red light, one of them giving a driver who beeped the finger, then cut across two lanes of traffice without even looking over their shoulder, then jump a second red light, the joke was that there is a 'safe route' for cyclists to avoid this junction completely.


 

I cycle from St Ives to Cambridge every day, the state of cycling in Cambridge is simply shocking, I am embarrassed by it, but unless the Police do something, what can u do?


----------



## jonny jeez (4 Apr 2012)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> I cycle from St Ives to Cambridge every day, the state of cycling in Cambridge is simply shocking, I am embarrassed by it, but unless the Police do something, what can u do?


This is my point but whenever its raised too many of us leap to the defensive (or sarcastic in Adrians case) which is a shame as a group like ours could really make a difference if only we were in agreement.


----------



## Becs (4 Apr 2012)

1795552 said:


> I see so many instances of illegal driving on a daily basis that *I am almost ashamed to admit that I have a driving licence*. If I routinely heard people expressing the same I'd take your argument seriously. As it is *I see no reason to beat myself for the transgressions of others*.


 
Surely a somewhat contradictory statement . . . .


----------



## Becs (4 Apr 2012)

1795601 said:


> Thank you Becs.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Apr 2012)

dawesome said:


> *Most drivers admit speeding on motorways*
> 
> 
> As many as 61% of drivers admitted to going at speeds of 80mph or more on motorways - at least 10mph above the limit, the survey showed.
> ...


 
I have seen two vehicles both being driven by young women who have been tapping away on their laptops as they drive. Yep lap tops in their ........... laps. Unbelievable. You coppers on here, stand on the Girton Road near to the junction with Histon Road just before the traffic lights and you will bag about 10 drivers driving and dialing or driving and texting within 3 minutes. It is that bad as I sometimes walk this way to and from work. Obviously wear plain clothes, in fact some of the drivers wouldn't even notice you if you had your reflective hi-viz on with a huge blue light on your heads with sirens going. It's mad this road. It could be a nice little earner for yous. The fines could pay for all those Easter Eggs .................


----------



## Crankarm (4 Apr 2012)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> I cycle from St Ives to Cambridge every day, the state of cycling in Cambridge is simply shocking, I am embarrassed by it, but unless the Police do something, what can u do?


 
Students that's why. You would have thought all these brainy types would mean that they would be careful and considerate cyclists. Not likely. It's frightening that some of these muppets will some day be politicians, top scientists, doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, engineers, senior civil servants, top army brass, even hacks. But it has improved in the last couple of years as I think Cambridge County Council and the police have done a lot of work with colleges taking responsibilty for their students being repsonsible cyclists like having lights after dark. But yes there are quite a few kamikaze cyclists in Cambridge.

The GBW is a cycling nirvana though, apart from the horse shoot.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Apr 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Students that's why. You would have thought all these brainy types would mean that they would be careful and considerate cyclists. Not likely. It's frightening that some of these muppets will some day be politicians, top scientists, doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, engineers, senior civil servants, top army brass, even hacks. But it has improved in the last couple of years as I think Cambridge County Council and the police have done a lot of work with colleges taking responsibilty for their students being repsonsible cyclists like having lights after dark. But yes there are quite a few kamikaze cyclists in Cambridge.
> 
> The GBW is a cycling nirvana though, apart from the horse shoot.


 
I agree with most of this, except they can't ALL be students. 

You are 100% correct about the GBW - it is a cycling nirvana, i'm happier to take my chances with the horse shoot than the poor drivers around here though.


----------



## GrasB (5 Apr 2012)

MisterStan said:


> I agree with most of this, except they can't ALL be students.


Not all but most. You've also got to remember that there's also all the language schools & medium-term visitors to throw into the mix which won't get the college treatment.



> You are 100% correct about the GBW - it is a cycling nirvana, i'm happier to take my chances with the horse shoot than the poor drivers around here though.


the GBW bridle path is fine as long as you want to travel at slow to moderate speeds. Once you get into the low 20mph range it's starting to get uncomfortable when there's a ped or two about & once you start to approach 30mph it downright dangerous. It's not the fault of the facility, it's just what happens when you get very rapid cyclists & pedestrians in the same traveling space


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Students that's why. You would have thought all these brainy types would mean that they would be careful and considerate cyclists. Not likely.* It's frightening that some of these muppets will some day be politicians, top scientists, doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, engineers, senior civil servants, top army brass, even hacks*. But it has improved in the last couple of years as I think Cambridge County Council and the police have done a lot of work with colleges taking responsibilty for their students being repsonsible cyclists like having lights after dark. But yes there are quite a few kamikaze cyclists in Cambridge.
> 
> The GBW is a cycling nirvana though, apart from the horse shoot.


 
In what way does it frighten you?


----------



## jonny jeez (5 Apr 2012)

1795552 said:


> I see so many instances of illegal driving on a daily basis that I am almost ashamed to admit that I have a driving licence. *If I routinely heard people expressing the same I'd take your argument seriously*. As it is I see no reason to beat myself for the transgressions of others.


 
Contradiction aside (which simply confused me as it appeared to be an agreement with my point of view). I never put you down as a sheep Adrian?, I'm surprised you suggest you require the confirmation of others before you form an opinion.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Apr 2012)

GrasB said:


> the GBW bridle path is fine as long as you want to travel at slow to moderate speeds. Once you get into the low 20mph range it's starting to get uncomfortable when there's a ped or two about & once you start to approach 30mph it downright dangerous. It's not the fault of the facility, it's just what happens when you get very rapid cyclists & pedestrians in the same traveling space


 
Most of the time when i commute the bridleway is pretty empty, i use my bell to alert any peds of my presence and if i need to slow down for dog walkers with their trip wires, i do so.


----------



## clarion (5 Apr 2012)

Having stood at some junctions and done a count, I have come to the conclusion that as many motorists who have the opportunity jump red lights as do cyclists. Thing is, once one car stops, the others (generally*) can't then jump it. One cyclist stopping does not affect the ability of others behind going through, since s/he will not block the road completely.

ftr, I've done counts at Cedars Road, Clapham, Amen Corner, Tooting, and Carshalton High St. Merely because I was stood outside waiting for someone.

Cedars Road is an interesting case. Going up past Sainsburys, the ASL is filled with cars on every single cycle of the lights.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

clarion said:


> Having stood at some junctions and done a count, I have come to the conclusion that as many motorists who have the opportunity jump red lights as do cyclists. Thing is, once one car stops, the others (generally*) can't then jump it. One cyclist stopping does not affect the ability of others behind going through, since s/he will not block the road completely.
> 
> ftr, I've done counts at Cedars Road, Clapham, Amen Corner, Tooting, and Carshalton High St. Merely because I was stood outside waiting for someone.
> 
> Cedars Road is an interesting case. Going up past Sainsburys, the ASL is filled with cars on every single cycle of the lights.


 
That's a good point. The thing with cyclists RLJ is that it is generally done blatantly so everyone around has seen them RLJ-hence the perception by motorists and peds that cyclists routinely RLJ.


----------



## clarion (5 Apr 2012)

Your post reminds me that I didn't include my footnote, so I shall now

* I have seen, on at least two occasions, someone pulling out of a line of traffic at a red light, into the oncoming lane (and once the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge and across a pelican with a green man) and through a red light. So it won't completely block the utter utter _utter_ lamebrained wazzocks, but it does inhibit lawbreaking when someone has stopped a car at red.


----------



## GrasB (5 Apr 2012)

MisterStan said:


> Most of the time when i commute the bridleway is pretty empty, i use my bell to alert any peds of my presence and if i need to slow down for dog walkers with their trip wires, i do so.


What sort of speeds are you doing? I've done it a few times in the mid-20s & there's enough ped traffic that it's not pleasant. A lot of the problem is the peds don't expect to find a cyclists doing 23-28mph. Plus at the higher end of that speed range there's something odd about the surface, it seems ridiculously easy to lock a wheel. Then add in the road crossings & it starts feeling a very awkward path to ride down.


----------



## MisterStan (5 Apr 2012)

GrasB said:


> What sort of speeds are you doing? I've done it a few times in the mid-20s & there's enough ped traffic that it's not pleasant. A lot of the problem is the peds don't expect to find a cyclists doing 23-28mph. Plus at the higher end of that speed range there's something odd about the surface, it seems ridiculously easy to lock a wheel. Then add in the road crossings & it starts feeling a very awkward path to ride down.


 
Mid 20s on a hybrid with skinny 700C wheels, there aren't really any blind corners so it's not like peds should be surprised and like i said if you use a bell to warn them you're there and slow down a tad then it should be OK. I find that the path itself is very smooth and don't have any issues with it, the crossings are a tad annoying but TBH they aren't that close together that it bothers me - its not like i'm time trialling - just biking to work and back!


----------



## GrasB (5 Apr 2012)

MAybe it's the time I'm going through, people aren't expecting to see anyone so don't think about their actions but while peds aren't supprise, they're acting like I'm going 5mph not 25mph. They also wander across the path from one side to the other despite a warning shout of 'excuse me, cyclist coming through'. Cue me slowing down to about 10 then getting back up to speed again, throw in the road crossings & it's annoying & uncomfortable. The one time I did it at >30mph cruise every time I met a ped I had to break down to a virtual hault before they realised how fast I was approaching them.
Compare this to the road where once I'm up to speed no one really bothers me & I can be doing 10 miles without interruption at threshold pace or above.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Apr 2012)

One today Waterloo Bridge while he wobbled about and stopped pedaling in front of me,reached into his front pannier to get his mobile phone out and chat on it.Some people are brain dead.



dawesome said:


> Drivers chatting on mobiles killed 11 people last year, speeding drivers killed a thousand. Cyclists killed nobody. Law breaking is rife on the roads, the real danger most certainly does not come from cyclists.


 
That's not really an excuse for cyclists to not follow the rules though.


----------



## Crankarm (6 Apr 2012)

GrasB said:


> What sort of speeds are you doing? I've done it a few times in the mid-20s & there's enough ped traffic that it's not pleasant. A lot of the problem is the peds don't expect to find a cyclists doing 23-28mph. Plus at the higher end of that speed range there's something odd about the surface, it seems ridiculously easy to lock a wheel. Then add in the road crossings & it starts feeling a very awkward path to ride down.


 
I've not had any problems, except as I previously mentioned avoiding the horse shoot. It's cycling bliss! The service road must be 10-12 feet wide of lovely smooth asphalt all the way between St Ives and Milton in Cambridge. I hardly see any cyclists on it. I thought it would be really busy. Saw a couple of roadies yesterday afternoon time trialling - perfect surface for it, really smooth.

If you are having so many problems maybe you should modify how you cycle on the GBW or get an Airzound?


----------



## Crankarm (6 Apr 2012)

MisterStan said:


> Mid 20s on a hybrid with skinny 700C wheels, there aren't really any blind corners so it's not like peds should be surprised and like i said if you use a bell to warn them you're there and slow down a tad then it should be OK. I find that the path itself is very smooth and don't have any issues with it, _*the crossings are a tad annoying*_ but TBH they aren't that close together that it bothers me - its not like i'm time trialling - just biking to work and back!


 
The barriers are an accident waiting to happen. Painted grey with no reflective material or signs on them so in poor visibility or after dark there is a strong likelihood of crashing into them which would make for an interesting claim against Cambs County Council.


----------



## green1 (6 Apr 2012)

dawesome said:


> I've never heard of that happening, any actual examples?
> 
> Drivers on mobiles are not as rare as you think, half of all drivers admit using a mobile whilst driving yet only 200,000 a year are caught and fined. The detection rate is roughly 5%. Madness.


Just because you admit to using a mobile doesn't mean your breaking the law. If my phone goes off in the car I press a button on the steering wheel and take the call on the car's inbuilt hands free system. That's using a mobile whilst driving and not breaking the law.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> Just because you admit to using a mobile doesn't mean your breaking the law. If my phone goes off in the car I press a button on the steering wheel and take the call on the car's inbuilt hands free system. That's using a mobile whilst driving and not breaking the law.


 

My phone is set to go into flight mode when the screen is off so it doesn't distract me while im driving or cycling.No bother really missing a call,I just ring them back.


----------



## Adasta (11 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1794129, member: 1314"]More bikes are great. But wish they would stop undertaking me, passing too close...[/quote]

"Inside!"


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> Just because you admit to using a mobile doesn't mean your breaking the law. If my phone goes off in the car I press a button on the steering wheel and take the call on the car's inbuilt hands free system. That's using a mobile whilst driving and not breaking the law.


 
You might still be breaking the law - if you drive in a bad enough manner whilst doing this. It's still just as distracting as using the phone hand-held, as the problem comes from your mental investment in a remote conversation, not from the loss of use of one arm.


----------



## Becs (11 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> You might still be breaking the law - if you drive in a bad enough manner whilst doing this. It's still just as distracting as using the phone hand-held, as the problem comes from your mental investment in a remote conversation, not from the loss of use of one arm.


can't see the difference between a hands free conversation by phone and chatting to someone in the car. Tbh you could argue that if you can't drive and talk at the same time you shouldn't be driving!


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> can't see the difference between a hands free conversation by phone and chatting to someone in the car. Tbh you could argue that if you can't drive and talk at the same time you shouldn't be driving!



Rigorous peer-reviewed science doesn't agree with that. The right and safe approach is just drive, and turn the phone off.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (12 Apr 2012)

100% with mikey on this one.Mobiles,Satnavs and anything that distracts your attention are a no no in your protective metal box,even if your metal box protects you from a cock up it doesn't protect the outside world.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (12 Apr 2012)

He's wrong,any distraction is a bad thing.


----------



## Norm (12 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1804508, member: 9609"] I asked a police patrol driver and his explanation was the mic is usually on a curly springy bit of wire so the driver can leave go at any time - I was wanting to ask if I could attach a curly springy bit of wire to my mobile phone, but thought that might be seen as flippant!

Top gear like to exploit this anomaly on TV by using two way radios whilst driving - and they aren't attached to springy bits of wire either. ( I didn't tell that to the policeman either)[/quote]
He's arguably wrong, as are the TG chaps, as the Road Traffic Act 1988 (amended) says:


> 41D: Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc. A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement—
> (a) as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person in such a position, or
> (b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or *other hand-held interactive communication device*, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,


I'd consider a CB or a hand-held radio to be a "similar device (that must be held at some point)", although I understand that case law doesn't agree with me and allows the use of radios.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

How would the police force function without radios/phones/sat navs in their cars/motorcycle helmets?


----------



## 400bhp (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> How would the police force function without radios/phones/sat navs in their cars/motorcycle helmets?


 
The world would melt and Beelzebub would inherit the earth.


----------



## BSRU (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> How would the police force function without radios/phones/sat navs in their cars/motorcycle helmets?


The same way they did before this technology arrived, with lots of police on the beat with whistles .


----------



## ianrauk (12 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> The world would melt and Beelzebub would inherit the earth.


 

Now that did make me chuckle over my morning tea...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (12 Apr 2012)

BBC Breakfast had a report this morning about a stall holder refusing to serve people using mobiles.
Perhaps they should put him in charge of traffic patrols, then the number of driving phone users might decrease.


----------



## ianrauk (12 Apr 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> BBC Breakfast had a report this morning about a stall holder refusing to serve people using mobiles.
> Perhaps they should put him in charge of traffic patrols, then the number of driving phone users might decrease.


 

The Cafe at Faygate on the FNRttC Bognor/Felpham run also has a sign saying you will not be served if you are on a mobile phone.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

Have any of you lot whining about using a phone, hands free when driving actually tried it, it really isn't that difficult!

You'll be banning kids fighting in the back of mummy's car next - much more distracting than a phone call!


----------



## Jezston (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Have any of you lot whining about using a phone, hands free when driving actually tried it, it really isn't that difficult!
> 
> You'll be banning kids fighting in the back of mummy's car next - much more distracting than a phone call!


 
I've used a phone hands free whilst riding a bike if that helps. The conversation usually goes something along the lines of "on bike call you back" [beep]

I'm also not sure why anyone, especially mummys, would be against a ban against kids fighting in the back of cars!


----------



## Theseus (12 Apr 2012)

That bastion of road safety, Sweden, has decided not to ban mobile phone use while driving.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Apr 2012)

Very interestring. Very unusual that their evidence suggests no change to crash risks. I wonder if there is some unusual characteristic of the situation in Sweden that makes it different than most others?


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2012)

The facts that you were careful enough to slow down, choose a quiet bit of road, and keep the conversation simple and short kinda gives the lie to that though. Of course it's a credit to your responsible approach, but it's full-on risk compensation showing that you fully acknowledged the real dangers and took a number of steps to mitigate them.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1804952, member: 9609"]

1. T*BH I used to occasionally use a mobile while driving (before it was outlawed) and I never felt it was a particularly dangerous thing to do, I would choose a quiet section of road, slow down a bit, speed dial the wife tell her what time I would be home and that would be it, no conversation; I don't believe that posed any danger whatsoever, no more taxing that changing radio stations.*

2.The problem in the UK is the total obsession that so many people have with these dam phones, people were, (and still are) making entire journeys while on the phone, busy town centre busy motorway junctions, the phone is never put down, and that is why there was a need for a ban. *May be the Sweedish have a different approach to mobile phones, may be they have a little more to their lives other than the need to yak non stop on a phone*.[/quote]

1. A sensible approach, however you are/were in the minority.

2. Perhaps you are right and perhaps the Swedes on the whole go with your approach in 1.

I recall reading some stuff about the swedes and their driving standards -think nothing of driving on ice covered roads and understand the dynamics to be able to control a car. Perhaps the Swedes are the Master Race.


----------



## theclaud (12 Apr 2012)

ianrauk said:


> The Cafe at Faygate on the FNRttC Bognor/Felpham run also has a sign saying you will not be served if you are on a mobile phone.


 
Actually I believe it says "Rudeness we do not tolerate. Using mobile phones at the counter is one of them." And quite right too!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (12 Apr 2012)

I've no problem with hands-free, although I've used it very rarely.
It's the near death experiences I've had at roundabouts that disturb me. Typical scenario is handheld mobile user flying straight through unable to look right, brake, gear change, steer or indicate due to being minus 1 arm and having no neck movement.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Actually I believe it says "Rudeness we do not tolerate. Using mobile phones at the counter is one of them." And quite right too!


 
Superb - I like this attitude. 

Now, if we can extend "over the counter" to trains/trams/buses/theatre/cinema.....


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> How would the police force function without radios/phones/sat navs in their cars/motorcycle helmets?



Since the radios went digital with Airwaves, it's actually illegal for us to use our handheld radios (which are normally clipped to our stab vest) whilst driving.

It would to be illegal for me to dig out my old Motorola radio and use it whilst driving. I'd be talking to myself though!

The law is strange sometimes. It can't be written to cover every eventuality, and we need prosecutions followed by case law to fill in the gaps sometimes.


----------



## Jezston (12 Apr 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Since the radios went digital with Airwaves, it's actually illegal for us to use our handheld radios (which are normally clipped to our stab vest) whilst driving.
> 
> It would to be illegal for me to dig out my old Motorola radio and use it whilst driving. I'd be talking to myself though!
> 
> The law is strange sometimes. It can't be written to cover every eventuality, and we need prosecutions followed by case law to fill in the gaps sometimes.


 
From what I recall from the cops with cameras type shows is that there's always two of you in the car anyway? So the other officer does the talking, meaning the driver wouldn't have any need to use one anyway. Right?


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Since the radios went digital with Airwaves, it's actually illegal for us to use our handheld radios (which are normally clipped to our stab vest) whilst driving.
> 
> It would to be illegal for me to dig out my old Motorola radio and use it whilst driving. I'd be talking to myself though!
> 
> The law is strange sometimes. It can't be written to cover every eventuality, and we need prosecutions followed by case law to fill in the gaps sometimes.


I was referring to the hands free stuff, obviously.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

People who's jobs involve a lot of driving (some doctors, vets, tradesmen, and the like) rely on the use of hands free phones/communication to people outside of the car during their driving, to say it should be banned is just ridiculous. People that drive like tw*ts when they are on the phone would probably be driving like tw*ts when they are off the phone. I find all this anti-phone (hands free of course) militance completely stupid.


----------



## ianrauk (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> People who's jobs involve a lot of driving (some doctors, vets, tradesmen, and the like) rely on the use of hands free phones/communication to people outside of the car during their driving, to say it should be banned is just ridiculous. People that drive like tw*ts when they are on the phone would probably be driving like tw*ts when they are off the phone. I find all this anti-phone (hands free of course) militance completely stupid.


 

I read the first bit as 'People who's jobs involve a lot of drinking'....


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> People who's jobs involve a lot of driving (some doctors, vets, tradesmen, and the like) rely on the use of hands free phones/communication to people outside of the car during their driving, to say it should be banned is just ridiculous. People that drive like tw*ts when they are on the phone would probably be driving like tw*ts when they are off the phone. I find all this anti-phone (hands free of course) militance completely stupid.


 
"I find all this anti-drink driving militance completely stupid."

Same thing, just less socially acceptable.


----------



## briantrumpet (12 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Actually I believe it says "Rudeness we do not tolerate. Using mobile phones at the counter is one of them." And quite right too!


And I like politeness too. So I was pleased one day when I pulled my car into a passing place to let a driver coming the other way come through that he gave me a cheery wave. I was less pleased when I realised that his other hand was holding a mobile to his left ear. Hands-free driving.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> "I find all this anti-drink driving militance completely stupid."
> 
> Same thing, just less socially acceptable.


Massively different actually, as you well know.


----------



## Bromptonaut (12 Apr 2012)

I think the definition of mobile hand held device includes a reference to kit that uses the frequencies allocated for mobile use. That's why Copper cannot use his airwave but can use the old walkie-talkie. It's also why truckers can use CB and any of us can use PMR446 from the car - very useful if driving in convoy.

Don't share Becs' view that talking on handsfree is same as talking to a passenger. Firstly most passengers have the nous to pause the conversation if they see the driver's workload increasing such as junctions or in jams etc. Secondly in car chit chat with the family is quite different from carrying out a business to business conversation or giving medical or even veterinary advice requiring recall, calculation and perhaps a manager/employee power relationship. Too much attention to the matter on the 'phone, too little on the road.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

Obviously you pick and choose your conversations and the roads on which you have them, but if you're sensible it's really very straightforward and poses little, if any additional risk than talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. Sadly there are many professions were your car becomes your office and a phone is a necessity.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2012)

Sorry that the truth doesn't match what you hope and wish for, Becs, but using a phone in a car is pretty much the same as drink driving in terms of the risk you bring to others, and the distraction it poses to your driving. It's contemptible behaviour.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Sorry that the truth doesn't match what you hope and wish for, Becs, but using a phone in a car is pretty much the same as drink driving in terms of the risk you bring to others, and the distraction it poses to your driving. It's contemptible behaviour.


You better tell Sweden that then!

Do you drive by the way?


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2012)

Yes, I drive, and I'm a bit of a petrolhead.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2012)




----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

I'm not defending texting, I'm defending sensible, legal use of a hands free set!


----------



## briantrumpet (12 Apr 2012)

How on earth did we survive before mobile phones? Surely it's just not possible. People tell me there was a time before mobile phones, instant messaging and answerphones but I don't believe them. If it is true, it must have been terrible.

Seriously, where did we get this addiction from for instantly answering every electronic/telephonic message? Unless you're in the life-saving business, there isn't a single message that can't wait a few minutes until it's safe to answer it.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (12 Apr 2012)

briantrumpet said:


> How on earth did we survive before mobile phones? Surely it's just not possible. People tell me there was a time before mobile phones, instant messaging and answerphones but I don't believe them. If it is true, it must have been terrible.


 
It is funny, watching something which I still think of fairly modern - for instance Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the 'scoobies' gets in a pickle and I am thinking "why not just use your mobile" - then I remember that the show was a while ago and the prevalence of mobiles is a relatively new thing.

So in answer to your question, before mobile phones we all got our blood drained by vampires.


----------



## theclaud (12 Apr 2012)

Even better than I remembered...


----------



## jonny jeez (12 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Obviously you pick and choose your conversations and the roads on which you have them, but if you're sensible it's really very straightforward and poses little, if any additional risk than talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. Sadly there are many professions were your car becomes your office and a phone is a necessity.


Whilst I accept and agree that doing anything that distracts you from driving (smoking, eating, fiddling with sat nav, stereo ) is a bad thing I am also intrigued that...right up untill we are re-programmed to find these activities unacceptable...we all thought nothing of performing them on a regular basis.

-not using rear seatbelts
-Driving home from the pub after a few jars (I'm a bit young to remember this one personally but i know for a fact people of my parents generation used to without concern)
-using the phone whilst driving

in a few years time we shall no doubt look back on some of today's common practices and be ashamed of our actions.

I appreciate (and am grateful)that this is all positive progress...but it amazes me just how fickle we are.


----------



## Theseus (12 Apr 2012)

1805418 said:


> So good I just had to take its photo.


 
Did you use your mobile?


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Apr 2012)

Jezston said:


> From what I recall from the cops with cameras type shows is that there's always two of you in the car anyway? So the other officer does the talking, meaning the driver wouldn't have any need to use one anyway. Right?



Since the cuts it's very common to be single crewed now, but otherwise yes.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1805652, member: 9609"]+1 for the contemptible behaviour.

What level of drinking are we equating talking on a hand held mobile phone use to; ½pint shandy, 1 pint of best, 5 pints stella or a bottle of whiskey.?

If I was to compose a table from guesswork i would go with -
½ pint ~ talking hands free
1 pint ~ talking hand held
3 pints ~ reading a text or dialing a number
6 pints ~ composing a text.[/quote]

Sounds fair enough - 1/2 a pint having very little if any effect on a normal, competent person's driving and being completely legal.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1805652, member: 9609"]+1 for the contemptible behaviour.

What level of drinking are we equating talking on a hand held mobile phone use to; ½pint shandy, 1 pint of best, 5 pints stella or a bottle of whiskey.?

If I was to compose a table from guesswork i would go with -
½ pint ~ talking hands free
1 pint ~ talking hand held
3 pints ~ reading a text or dialing a number
6 pints ~ composing a text.[/quote]

I feel that the first half-pint line is significantly incorrect, as from what I've read, the level of distraction hand held or hands free is roughly the same. It's not about the lost use of hand, but about the mental investment in the remote conversation. I suspect that the 1 pint line is also too low.


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 Apr 2012)

This thread is in danger of becoming an argument about how far a mouse can spit in zero gravity.

We all seem to agree that distraction is ungood and that higher levels of distraction are even more ungooder (ungooderer?).

I never drink & drive and never have. It's not a moral thing for me; it just doesn't seem sensible.

Nonetheless, I eat and drink while driving; I have occasionally taken the odd call in my car (never dialled or texted); I regularly drink from a bidon while riding. I once got a bad muscle spasm (or similar) in my arm while reaching into the back pocket of my cycling top at speed for a snack. Had there been a car near me, it could have been a Splatto Maximo moment... Control was maintained, but it took most of two lanes to do so.

To my way of thinking, drinking from a bidon while cycling is the equivalent of 2 pints and a line of coke.

That's if it's just Gin & Tonic in the bidon... If it's a Martini or similar strong cocktail, you can probably raise it to three pints.

Just a guess, but based on empirical research.


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 Apr 2012)

1805408 said:


>


 
How can customers order food and drinks if the staff consider *speaking* at the counter rude?

Sorry... 

I might mention one or two grammar points that come to mind, but as I admire the sentiment of the notice I'll let it go.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

Well I hope all the unrealistic sanctimonious types on here remember their side of the argument they listen to the radio, think about what they're going to do when they get home or scratch their balls while driving! Wouldn't want to not be entirely focussed on their driving 100% of the time now would we chaps . . . . . or maybe us girls are just better at multitasking


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

1805907 said:


> Becs, some studies have suggested that speaking on a hands free phone is more distracting or occupies more of the mind than talking to a passenger sat next to you or listening to the radio. Whether or not this really is the case I don't know.


I am aware of this, but I still think it"s a load of crap. You can find a study to back up whatever statement you'd like to make (within reason obviously). Also "more" could just be a very small amount more that is virtually insignificant - if the research was that compelling it would be banned already. Dad was a traffic copper for 30 years and a police pursuit driving trainer and he (and his ex colleagues) talks on a hands free phone and will drive after half a pint - that's all the recommendation I need.


----------



## Becs (12 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1805942, member: 9609"]Becs, Is the purpose of your hands free mobile purely so as you can hold onto your beer glass - you should go for the hat trick and jump a red light or two[/quote]
Busted! Although sometimes, if I'm feeling really naughty I use my free hand for a quick w*nk - now that is a distraction!


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1805993, member: 9609"]eh - You drive with one eye shut?[/quote]


----------



## snapper_37 (13 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Busted! Although sometimes, if I'm feeling really naughty I use my free hand for a quick w*nk - now that is a distraction!


 
Fr*ggin'ell. Waaaaay too much information.


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

snapper_37 said:


> Fr*ggin'ell. Waaaaay too much information.


**** sarcasm ****


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

User13710 said:


> Yeah, I sometimes think that when the guys go on about yoghourt and running out of tissues . What a shock that women do it too!


Although not while driving - that would be incredibly naughty, utterly contemptible and the equivalent to drinking 30 pints of whiskey!!!  Best to get someone else to do it for you, "hands free"


----------



## BSRU (13 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Wouldn't want to not be entirely focussed on their driving 100% of the time now would we chaps


Try riding a motorbike, if you are at risk of serious injury or death it tends to concentrate the mind unlike steel box drivers who are probably going to seriously injure or kill someone else.


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

BSRU said:


> Try riding a motorbike, if you are at risk of serious injury or death it tends to concentrate the mind unlike steel box drivers who are probably going to seriously injure or kill someone else.


Oh come on, I was doing my best to lighten the mood with humour and you have to be a Debbie downer! Is humour not allowed in "commuting"?


----------



## BSRU (13 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Oh come on, I was doing my best to lighten the mood with humour and you have to be a Debbie downer! Is humour not allowed in "commuting"?


The humour did not start until after the post I replied to, which at the time I had not read.


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

BSRU said:


> The humour did not start until after the post I replied to, which at the time I had not read.


Well that one was sarcastic too, but no big deal


----------



## snapper_37 (13 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> **** sarcasm ****


 
Nope, not sarcasm at all. Having a bit of humour hence the 'fr*ggin'ell'.


----------



## gambatte (13 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> if the research was that compelling it would be banned already.


 
Which is why of course, as soon as the research was published, all tobacco products were removed from sale.....


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Apr 2012)

gambatte said:


> Which is why of course, as soon as the research was published, all tobacco products were removed from sale.....


 
Can't ban things that bring in tax revenue. Can only say how very naughty they are


----------



## gambatte (13 Apr 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Can't ban things that bring in tax revenue. Can only say how very naughty they are


 
Another cynical South Yorkshireman, why we talking on here? Looking at your location, bet if I stick my head out of the window we could shout!


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

snapper_37 said:


> Nope, not sarcasm at all. Having a bit of humour hence the 'fr*ggin'ell'.


 I meant I was being sarcastic! I was worried that you had taken my w*nking comment seriously!


----------



## snapper_37 (13 Apr 2012)

I thought you _were _being serious. Ah well, a shattered illusion.


----------



## Norm (13 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Busted! Although sometimes, if I'm feeling really naughty I use my free hand for a quick w*nk - now that is a distraction!


I feel the topic has wandered a little. In fact, I can't think it could have gone much further than from the OP's ****** on bikes to a quick **** in a car.


----------



## snapper_37 (13 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> I feel the topic has wandered a little.


 






Nothing like a Topic 'wandering' Norm. Although some prefer a Mars Bar.


----------



## Jezston (13 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> I feel the topic has wandered a little. In fact, I can't think it could have gone much further than from the OP's ****** on bikes to a quick **** in a car.


 
I'm sure the two could be combined in some beautiful way thus forever ending all conflict between cyclists and motorists


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (13 Apr 2012)

Back to the hands free mobile use and pint of beer – as I understand it, you can still be prosecuted for drink driving if you are under the legal limit but it is thought that the alcohol was a contributing factor, and the same goes for making a phone call while driving – hands free or not. It might be “legal” but they can still stop you from driving legally...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Apr 2012)

Jezston said:


> I'm sure the two could be combined in some beautiful way thus forever ending all conflict between cyclists and motorists


 
I'm keeping my windows shut at traffic lights from now on!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Apr 2012)

I was a pr*ck on a bike yesterday, according to a pr*ck on a bike.


----------



## Boris Bajic (13 Apr 2012)

Jezston said:


> I'm sure the two could be combined in some beautiful way thus forever ending all conflict between cyclists and motorists


 
As far as my limited memory tells me, no highway harmony is achieved when I'm badly f**ked by another road user who insists on driving or riding like a p***k and generally being a w***er. I wrote this in a futile attempt to get back to the Topic and/or Snickers raised by the OP.

Hanging is too good for them. For whom, I'm not quite sure, but you can bet I'm right. 

(When people say the above and mean it, what punishment do they have in mind? Just asking...)


----------



## Becs (13 Apr 2012)

You could argue that, as the OP, any direction I choose to steer it it in could be seen as "on topic" . . . Perhaps!

So back to jokes about w*nking and other such fun things! :-)


----------



## Norm (13 Apr 2012)

Jezston said:


> I'm sure the two could be combined in some beautiful way thus forever ending all conflict between cyclists and motorists


My mind was wandering in that same direction, but I was still a little distracted at Becs' (sadly not serious) confession.


----------

