Bikers vs. Drivers and smoked mirrors (story)

[doog442]

You come from a country where J walking is illegal ...yet post this. 

On 13/11/2017 at 12:16 PM, Linas.P said:

I came to pedestrian crossing and it was red, but is was late evening and not many cars, so I looked if there are any cars only one way.... because hey that is one way street, stepped into the road and was hit by cyclists to the back...

I have every sympathy with your case against the moped but for added effect you went on an anti cyclist rant - there is no comparison between your incident and cyclists and I struggle to see the connection. 

Can you advise in which country pedestrians are lawfully required to wear high visibility in the dark...I'm intrigued only because I have never seen it in any city and will remember to take my high vis when I pop into bars and restaurants if I go there.  

Your instance that High Vis is the answer is simply shifting the blame from motorists who chose not to drive without due care and attention to vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists . There is no evidence to prove high vis has any impact on cycling safety ...lights yes and we have laws in relation to that.

Have you been to Holland ? Millions of cyclists - no helmets or requirement for high vis, yet if there is there is an accident with a cyclists the onus is automatically placed on the driver of the vehicle until proved otherwise. As a result people drive more carefully and are more aware of their surroundings ( as you should be). 

You mention congestion and traffic being worse here than everywhere else yet go on a rant about cyclists - can't you see the hypocrisy in that statement ? 

[Spacewagon52]

A difficult subject that has many facets - but we need to calm down chaps!

[Linas.P]

12 hours ago, doog442 said:

You come from a country where J walking is illegal ...yet post this. - Yes indeed. I have never said I fully support the law. Additionally, cyclists are not allowed to cycle wrong way on one way street in that country. And I accept my fault in that situation i.e. putting myself in vulnerable situation - yet cyclists was still moron - didn't even stopped to check if I am ok and just mumbled something like "look where you going".

I have every sympathy with your case against the moped but for added effect you went on an anti cyclist rant - there is no comparison between your incident and cyclists and I struggle to see the connection. - the reason I borough that up is because both cyclist and motorcyclists are considered "vulnerable" and in my opinion is that they advantage of that status and use it for not so "vulnerable" causes. In the past I have seen cyclist doing same to car mirror and therefore I consider that to be a trend. 

Can you advise in which country pedestrians are lawfully required to wear high visibility in the dark...I'm intrigued only because I have never seen it in any city and will remember to take my high vis when I pop into bars and restaurants if I go there.  - I am not going to advise, and as well it is not high viz - it is light reflectors. Only drivers and cyclists have to wear high viz.

Your instance that High Vis is the answer is simply shifting the blame from motorists who chose not to drive without due care and attention to vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists . There is no evidence to prove high vis has any impact on cycling safety ...lights yes and we have laws in relation to that. - no - high viz or being visible is simply common sense! If you being (de facto) vulnerable make an effort not to put yourself in even more vulnerable situation, by looking around, being visible and taking care and only then if you still get hit by car... no doubt that is drivers fault and driver should take responsibility. But if you going commando by riding the bike over pedestrian crossing (which you must not do) at night, in rain without, without lights, without looking and you expect driver to react and avoid you somehow... then sorry it is your own choice to "be vulnerable".

Have you been to Holland ? - Already said Holland, Denmark are villages, no point to even compare, different scales, different problems and different solution. London alone has more people that entire Denmark, Copenhagen has 500k people ... yes cycling might work there, not here and not with infrastructure available - these things are incomparable.

You mention congestion and traffic being worse here than everywhere else yet go on a rant about cyclists - can't you see the hypocrisy in that statement ? - there is no hypocrisy, the road infrastructure was starved from investment for over 50 years. It is not fit for the purpose, neither for drivers, nor for cyclists, nor for any other road users. And there are money to improve it, but government never spent even 30% of what they raise from motorists back on the roads (see graph below). Switching from car to bicycle is not a solution.. well in government mind it is... and the reason why they would like us to think so as well is because it would cost them no money. Promoting cycling is just easy and free way to continue demonise drivers and spend nothing on rod infrastructure.

[rich1068]

We're still on the demonising and scapegoating drivers thing I see.

[doog442]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

In the past I have seen cyclist doing same to car mirror and therefore I consider that to be a trend. 

You saw one incident involving a cyclist and a car mirror and you think it happens all of the time ?  Perhaps..just perhaps the motorist in his one ton comfort capsule got to close to the cyclist and put his life in danger...I dunno and I don't condone it. Random cyclists don't knock off car mirrors as a matter of routine.

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

no - high viz or being visible is simply common sense! 

Why - because you don't pay attention ? By insisting that cyclists wear high visibility clothing you are doing two things. You are adding to the misconception that cycling is dangerous when it isn't. You are also attempting to put blame on cyclists involved in collisions with  motor vehicles who aren't wearing some kind of dayglow outfit. You failed to tell me the country in which you stated it was law for pedestrians to light reflectors / high vis in the dark - please do.

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Already said Holland, Denmark are villages, no point to even compare, different scales, different problems and different solution. London alone has more people that entire Denmark, Copenhagen has 500k people ... yes cycling might work there, not here and not with infrastructure available - these things are incomparable.

I see. Because it doesn't fit your narrative you simply dismiss it. You also dismiss best practice - what a way for a country to advance itself eh !

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Promoting cycling is just easy and free way to continue demonise drivers and spend nothing on rod infrastructure.

Hilarious.  No mate. Promoting cycling is aimed at making people healthier, reducing traffic and helping the environment. 

[Linas.P]

Ohhh.. brilliant mate. Your words are exactly type of public opinion I am talking about! Thanks!

So you are saying it is fine to commit crime (criminal damage) if driver maybe have not seen you coming from nowhere in the dark and rain. Why not smash their mirrors so that they know next time you are "vulnerable". Understood... and you questioning where my narrative comes from?!

Cycling on the road is dangerous that is not misconception, same as diving in the shark invested sea.... but... In fact that in itself is misconception, because diving with sharks is relatively safe - around 8 people worldwide die from sharks each year and about same number of cyclists in London each month. Cycling and metal boxes travelling at high speed doesn't add very well together, don't need to be genius to understand that. I am not attempting to blame them, it is actually their fault. Imagine now black and matte car driving at night without lights on and getting involved in accident - is that not fault of car driver? Yes it is... 

Best practice in Copenhagen with 500k people is not best practice in London with 8-12million people. If you try to apply it in Brighton ... yes sure that would work!

Making people healthier... sure.. by getting lung cancer or crushed under wheels of truck? That will make you healthier for sure...

I must say  - I love cycling ... as an leisure activity in seaside and maybe some park or forest, but that is the only kind of use for it - leisure, similar as horse riding - you would not ride horse to work would you? Using bicycle to travel in busy metropolitan city is just retarded and nothing else. Now you can say... "but pollution is from the cars! So if every driver will switch then it will be fine...". well that is wrong "squared". First of all every driver will never switch, secondly personal car use only contributes 2.4% of overall pollution in UK. Transportation overall produces 14%, but that includes public transport, planes, trucks and even ships. The heating at homes contributes more than transportation overall at 16%, farming, electricity generation and manufacturing going to stay there with remaining 70% regardless if everyone drives or not. So you are just wrong - the only thing cycling gives you is cancer, not a health... at least in London.

[doog442]

24 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Ohhh.. brilliant mate. Your words are exactly type of public opinion I am talking about! Thanks!

So you are saying it is fine to commit crime (criminal damage) if driver maybe have not seen you coming from nowhere in the dark and rain. Why not smash their mirrors so that they know next time you are "vulnerable". Understood... and you questioning where my narrative comes from?!

 

Linas..read my post. i said I don't condone it. That means I don't agree / accept/ approve it. Look it up mate, I would hate for you to get in a  bit of bother over language difficulties 

[Linas.P]

You do not condone it, but I need to get "better gasp of my surroundings" if my mirrors gets hit... As well you don't agree / accept it... well unless maybe perhaps the driver "nearly" killed the cyclist.. in which case it is probably fine... What are you trying to fool?!

[doog442]

28 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Cycling on the road is dangerous that is not misconception

It is not dangerous. 

29 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Best practice in Copenhagen with 500k people is not best practice in London with 8-12million people. If you try to apply it in Brighton ... yes sure that would work!

Holland has a population of 16 million - more than London..and the majority of people own a bike. 

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Making people healthier... sure.. by getting lung cancer or crushed under wheels of truck? That will make you healthier for sure...

Lung cancer from what exactly - all them pesky vehicles..haha. You just don't get it do you.

[doog442]

3 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

You do not condone it, but I need to get "better gasp of my surroundings" if my mirrors gets hit..

Your mirror was hit by a mechanically propelled vehicle - not a bicycle. 

[Linas.P]

Enjoy your cycle mate - your earned it!

[Linas.P]

Just now, doog442 said:

Your mirror was hit by a mechanically propelled vehicle - not a bicycle. 

The mirror was hit by hand, the vehicle is irrelevant. Equally, I have seen mirrors hit by cyclists.. again it could have been pedestrians or the truck drivers who got out of their cabins.. it makes no difference - it is same criminal damage.

[doog442]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

The mirror was hit by hand, the vehicle is irrelevant. Equally, I have seen mirrors hit by cyclists.. again it could have been pedestrians or the truck drivers who got out of their cabins.. it makes no difference - it is same criminal damage.

You said you considered cyclist hitting mirrors 'a trend'.   

[doog442]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Using bicycle to travel in busy metropolitan city is just retarded and nothing else.

The thread that keeps on giving. Where exactly do you come from Linas? I'm honestly intrigued as I've cycled  thousands of miles through many cities in mainland Europe and look here I am alive, non retarded ,not suffering from cancer and strangely devoid of truck collisions (London is probably the safest city I've been to in that regard)

 Is this the place local pedestrians must wear high viz / reflection at night due to the actions of impatient drivers like you per chance 

 

Pray tell 

[Linas.P]

Cycling across Europe is leisure activity - I completely support it, there is nothing dangerous in it. Commuting to work on bicycle everyday jumping red lights, filtering between cars on multi-lane highways and in heavy traffic between HGVs is different thing and it is dangerous and should not be allowed.

You are a perfect example of "public" I am talking about - if there is any problem on the road "it is just those impatient drivers" who makes the roads dangerous for everyone - "Do I need to look around when crossing the street?... no.. why... this is driver job to babysit everyone... I am vulnerable road user so I can do whatever I like and I don't need to take any care of myself.... Ohh and in case some impatient driver doesn't pays attention I need I will kick their mirrors-off... after all it is just a car and they have comfort of being surrounded in safe metal cage!".

[Glover]

Countries in Europe where it is mandatory are:

France - Hi Vis jacket or Gilet when cycling

Belgium - Hi Vis Jacket/ Gilet When Cycling

Italy - Hi Vis Jacket/Gilet When Cycling

Austria - Hi Vis Jacket or Gilet When Cycling

Spain - Hi Vis Jacket or Gilet When Cycling

 

Apparently the jury is out on the benefits of high vis - some research has shown that drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing high vis and/or helmets!

[doog442]

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

You are a perfect example of "public" I am talking about - if there is any problem on the road "it is just those impatient drivers" who makes the roads dangerous for everyone - "Do I need to look around when crossing the street?... no.. why... this is driver job to babysit everyone... I am vulnerable road user so I can do whatever I like and I don't need to take any care of myself.... Ohh and in case some impatient driver doesn't pays attention I need I will kick their mirrors-off... after all it is just a car and they have comfort of being surrounded in safe metal cage!".

There are idiots in all walks of life (cycling included) but in my experience there are far more behind a wheel and you appear to be demonstrating that quite well.

12 hours ago, Glover said:

Countries in Europe where it is mandatory are:

France - Hi Vis jacket or Gilet when cycling

Belgium - Hi Vis Jacket/ Gilet When Cycling

Italy - Hi Vis Jacket/Gilet When Cycling

Austria - Hi Vis Jacket or Gilet When Cycling

Spain - Hi Vis Jacket or Gilet When Cycling

 

Apparently the jury is out on the benefits of high vis - some research has shown that drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing high vis and/or helmets!

Mandatory only under certain conditions of course ie after dark in rural areas, poor lighting conditions etc.As you say the jury is out but  I'm surprised Linas hasn't mentioned helmets in his anti cyclist rants.

[Linas.P]

Helmets only matters if cyclist fall of or after being hit - the topic is (or to be honest off-topic) how to see them i.e. passive not active safety.

Yes sure - they show it of ... because you know they have that 2 ton steel safety cage around them.

For example case yesterday. Just daily occurrence and when I say daily I mean daily or several times a day. (satire warning from this point on) Literally, after driving to work on Monday next week I am certain I will be able to tell several more such stories. So I was driving to work as always - morning peak time. I was standing by traffic lights in the first lane out of two. The cyclists filtered and stopped in front of me on pedestrian crossing (on that crossroad there are no extended stop line for cyclists). That was kind of already annoying.. he could have stopped on the cycling lane on my left and thus not block me from accelerating. And in fact that he filtered between lanes instead of using cycling lane was already wrong. I believe cycle lane turns onto pavement there and is directed onto pedestrian crossing, so just as normal this guy decided not to follow cycle lane and instead be "vulnerable". What a **** I though.. What made the situation even more annoying is that I could see ~50m in front there was delivery truck which meant I had to change into the second lane. Now normally, by the use of 204hp v6 and my right foot I would have no issue to make good start and change the lane, but I had bicycle in front of me... but hey that is daily, so I have used to that. What happened next is again daily - he did not wait for green light and jumped red... again just one of the million such occurrences every day - ****. This was both offence by cyclists and positive thing for me - now I had free road in front of me. Green turned on and I swiftly got into second lane.. life is beautiful, but wait.... same cyclists **** was in the second lane now in front of me, he made about 300m before I caught him-up. There were several cars (legally) parked on the first lane so I have slowed down and drove behind him for ~500 meters. I know annoying to do 10MPH on what is otherwise 40MPH road, but hey he is a cyclists and cyclists are *****. To be honest there was plenty of space for him to drive in the first lane to let the cars trough... not to mention the pavement there was so called pedestrian/cyclists path marked with this so he need not to drive on the road to begin with.. but hey he is "vulnerable" and just likes to feel it. After 500m of torture, there was good 200m of first lane empty... bus stop and no parking zone so I expected the cyclists **** to move to let the traffic past (~20 cars by that time). When he didn't for 100m I remembered that this is the same **** who deliberately takes a ***** and deliberately **** the traffic - it was not the first our occurrence with him, nor with similar types. Now the legal bit - the cyclists was not committing any offence (what a surprise - I don't think "cyclists" and "offence" are permitted in single sentence in UK grammar unless offence is negative i.e. has "not" as a prefix). He was just taking ***** according to HC rule 169 and drivers, and his life, and common sense - those pesky little impatient drivers... I know. According to this rule - cycle lanes are for safety, but cyclists are not obliged to use them and can do so on their own discretion a.k.a **** all. As well they have no obligation to pull over to let the cars trough and can ride in the middle of the lane if they ******* deem circumstances not safe to overtake (I am not aware there are any save circumstances). Basically, it means cyclists who have no clue how about the rules, because they have no obligation to know, have no obligations to follow them and as well have discretion to control traffic in any way they like as some sort of ******* police officers. HC rule 264 doesn't apply here nor to them as well - obviously not, rules are only for those impatient motorists to worry about. As there are no rule in my favour in such situation (there are never rules in favour of drivers) I just called the cyclists **** an obstacle and call it a day... D>S two clicks of "-" into 2nd little V6 rumble and I can see cyclists **** showing me middle finger in rear view mirror. End of story. I know undertaking is nothing to be proud about, but this time I knew all to well this cyclist **** like to take a ***** and just wind-up everyone deliberately. Oh have I mentioned.. he had no helmet.. and why would he... it is safe to be "vulnerable". Was wearing black coat (though it was a daytime anyway), no reflectors, no high viz (obviously) and was wearing headphones... why not - after getting hit by the car he can say he had not heard anything.. and why would you care when you are "vulnerable" and you have those impatient drivers employed to take care of you (end).

In my opinion cyclists naturally comes closer to pedestrians and pavement rather than HGVs and road. More similar speeds, more similar mass and in case of incident the likelihood of injury is bruise or scratch in comparison of becoming piece of meet. My friend is surgeon and few weeks ago he described one case where he could not figure out which body part was where - end result, guy 28y old lost both legs, manhood.. they stabilised him, but my friend is not sure if he lived. In his words - "and all that just because somebody has decided that bicycle is viable options of transportation". anyway.... 

Let's defuse it a little bit. So what I am saying in ideal world cyclist should cycle on pavements or separate cycling lanes and must not be allowed on the road. That is because it is dangerous for them and it is frustrating for the drivers and frustrated driver is dangerous driver. In less ideal world or where conditions allows (like Copenhagen village) they can cycle on the road, but because of that they should have appropriate training and gear, follow road rules and those rules should be strongly enforced on them (and make sense to everyone not only to them).

Point taken - cyclists and motorcyclist are aggravated and sometimes starts kicking the mirrors because they are vulnerable... understood. No need to discuss it anymore.

Point 2 taken as well - if I ever get my mirrors damaged - I am better to "get gasp of my surroundings".

Can we stick to the topic from here on?

[NemesisUK]

[doog442]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Can we stick to the topic from here on?

We get it..you have a V6 (with only 204hp - your words mind) and these **** **** ******** cyclists are making you look a bit of a tit.

[Linas.P]

Not sure how getting around the cyclist who is deliberately takes ***** of the drivers and rules is equivalent of being a tit, not to mention that calling somebody "a bit of a fool/******" on the forum is not very acceptable. Just naturally cyclists becomes obstacles for the drivers, because I am sure nobody is fancy to drive behind one at 10MPH on 40MPH road, the reasonable cyclists would use cycling lanes (especially where available), but it seems very few of the cyclists are reasonable in London. That is massive generalisation and overstatement, but I drive in London every day and it is unbelievable how many **** cyclists there are. That is exactly the reason why I think that it is a trend... to be more specific the trend is to disrespect the drivers, but that is growing from simply disrespecting towards the actions - physically expressing the disrespect. Furthermore, I clearly stated that is result of negative public opinion towards motorists (including some motorists themselves) and you just came here to prove it - thank you.

[doog442]

Give over. The trend is for people like you to disrespect cyclists having read the complete vitriol and detritus you've aimed at them.

You need to understand that you don't own the road in your V6 204 bhp metal box.  (I chucked that in because for some reason you think the size of your engine relates to your entitlement to progress down a road ).

Answer me this. Have you ever read the Highway code ? My guess is you passed your test in Poland / Latvia or whatever....as part of it did you study the Highway Code as its blatantly obvious to me you've never set eyes on it.

[Northern isf]

Wow I think your both as bad as each other come on what's the whole point in arguing on like this you don't live long enough to waste time being negative to other people especially on a website!

[Rebecca]

1 hour ago, doog442 said:

Give over. The trend is for people like you to disrespect cyclists having read the complete vitriol and detritus you've aimed at them.

You need to understand that you don't own the road in your V6 204 bhp metal box.  (I chucked that in because for some reason you think the size of your engine relates to your entitlement to progress down a road ).

Answer me this. Have you ever read the Highway code ? My guess is you passed your test in Poland / Latvia or whatever....as part of it did you study the Highway Code as its blatantly obvious to me you've never set eyes on it.

Shame on you @doog442 😳

Totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

[Glover]

31 minutes ago, Northern isf said:

Wow I think your both as bad as each other come on what's the whole point in arguing on like this you don't live long enough to waste time being negative to other people especially on a website!

Totally agree Wayne. From being what I thought might be an interesting thread about cost of/replacing mirrors this is just a diatribe. Please lighten up guys this is the best forum I've ever been on; don't spoil it. thanks