Driving into cyclists the Emma way

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
stutue said:
In general I find lorry drivers to be amongst the most cautious and bus drivers to be the worst.
Agree that lorry drivers are generally fine. Bus drivers are a mixed bag IMO. I think most now "know me" on my commute, and give adequate space, but the odd one seems a bit impatient.
 
fatandfast said:
I always find it strange that nobody mentions that the auto industry is in turbo mode to find ways for drivers not to look at the road. Devices like LCD screens and buttons on the steering wheel, indicators in the dash display, indicators on the windshield, flashing something in the the side view mirror, all kinds of computer assistance for parking, lane changes and on and on. Nobody talks about the simple act of paying fu--ing attention while behind the wheel.

Yes I love the concept of selecting a Pearl Jam song list on a dash mounted touch screen, just not while driving through a school zone or past a group of people on a bike ride. Texting and driving kills more people than drunk drivers do but the issue is glossed over because everybody is doing it. Lots of people are driving while not looking at the road...by design.
yep, it's full tilt to dumb-down driver ability. Not assisted by the slackening of requirements to actually "earn" the privilege of a driver's licence.

Too stupid to be able to park a car?? Well, do we have the push-button deal for you!!


I once heard a stat that more people have been killed in the last century by/in Fords than by all those killed by all brands of firearms combined. IF that's true, I'd hate to think of the number if we included all motor companies...
 
Archibald said:
yep, it's full tilt to dumb-down driver ability. Not assisted by the slackening of requirements to actually "earn" the privilege of a driver's licence.

Too stupid to be able to park a car?? Well, do we have the push-button deal for you!!


I once heard a stat that more people have been killed in the last century by/in Fords than by all those killed by all brands of firearms combined. IF that's true, I'd hate to think of the number if we included all motor companies...
Yep. The ONLY thing that most of us do that truly endangers the lives and well-being of our family, friends and others, is to drive a motor vehicle. Yet we as a society accept that it isn't really important to be careful doing it. Impatience and convenience trump safety every time.
 
Krebs cycle said:
Excellent article. I often apply the "Idaho stop" principle for a simple reason: my personal safety. Getting mixed up with accelerating traffic in a busy intersection is not the place for a cyclist to be if concerned about his safety. The best (and safest according to the article) option is to clear the intersection before the cars.

A recent modification to the French traffic code allows cyclists to treat red lights as a yield for turning right (note that right turns at a red light are not allowed for vehicules like in some countries). This is interesting in that a separate rule has been implemented for cyclists and furthers the argument that bikes are NOT vehicules the same as cars and therefore merit separate rules for some situations. The French cycling association (Fédération française des Usagers de la Bicyclette or FUB) has the "Idaho stop" as one initiative they are lobbying for.
 
frenchfry said:
Excellent article. I often apply the "Idaho stop" principle for a simple reason: my personal safety. Getting mixed up with accelerating traffic in a busy intersection is not the place for a cyclist to be if concerned about his safety. The best (and safest according to the article) option is to clear the intersection before the cars.

A recent modification to the French traffic code allows cyclists to treat red lights as a yield for turning right (note that right turns at a red light are not allowed for vehicules like in some countries). This is interesting in that a separate rule has been implemented for cyclists and furthers the argument that bikes are NOT vehicules the same as cars and therefore merit separate rules for some situations. The French cycling association (Fédération française des Usagers de la Bicyclette or FUB) has the "Idaho stop" as one initiative they are lobbying for.
Here in Vancouver all traffic already follows the "Idaho Stop" principles. No-one, not cars nor bikes stops completely at stop signs unless they need to in order to actually avoid a collision. Everyone rolls through. Everyone. No exceptions. OK, maybe 1 in 10,000 cars actually stop unneccessarily. 0 bikes do.
 
Drunks, cell phone vermin, right-turners, and t-bones are my worries (in that order). I've never found following the traffic laws unsafe (with rare exceptions).

Cyclists who ignore the rules of the road are a danger to everybody.
 
MarkvW said:
Drunks, cell phone vermin, right-turners, and t-bones are my worries (in that order). I've never found following the traffic laws unsafe (with rare exceptions).

Cyclists who ignore the rules of the road are a danger to everybody.
You must be talking about rules conceived uniquely for motorized vehicles.

I am suggesting, as other cycling associations do, that the rules be modified to take into account the specificities of bicycles - which in almost no way resemble motorised vehicles. Fortunately this process has already started, so stupid comments like yours will some day no longer be relevent.

I do agree about drunks and cell phone vermin, though recently I would switch the order.
 
frenchfry said:
You must be talking about rules conceived uniquely for motorized vehicles.

I am suggesting, as other cycling associations do, that the rules be modified to take into account the specificities of bicycles - which in almost no way resemble motorised vehicles. Fortunately this process has already started, so stupid comments like yours will some day no longer be relevent.

I do agree about drunks and cell phone vermin, though recently I would switch the order.
A factor from the article that interested me was a benefit of "rolling stop" rules for bikes that I hadn't previously considered. If bikes were allowed to treat stop signs as yield (give-way) signs, then this perhaps makes cycling on quiet streets a much more appealing proposition. A section of my commute has a busy, traffic-light controlled section that I can avoid by taking a quieter parallel street. Unfortunately, the quiet street is quiet only because it contains dozens of four-way stop-sign controlled intersections. I put up with it by breaking the law and rolling through the stop signs (as do ALL cars on that street). It would be better if I could do it legally. If I was forced to stop at the usually empty intersections, I'd give up and take the busy street instead and put up with the lights.
 
frenchfry said:
You must be talking about rules conceived uniquely for motorized vehicles.

I am suggesting, as other cycling associations do, that the rules be modified to take into account the specificities of bicycles - which in almost no way resemble motorised vehicles. Fortunately this process has already started, so stupid comments like yours will some day no longer be relevent.

I do agree about drunks and cell phone vermin, though recently I would switch the order.
I agree that the rules should change to accommodate the peculiar nature of cyclists.
However "stupid" you may consider it, I do believe cyclists should follow the rules of the road. Not just because it is the law, but because predictability is so vital to safe travel for everybody.
 
leftover pie said:
More cycling opinion from the mainstream Australian media:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/today-i-saved-a-cyclists-life-not-that-he-cares/story-fni0cwl5-1226920501835

Note: This article was written by a Sydney journalist (east coast of Australia), but then reworded slightly (names of the streets/parks changed) so it could be printed in a Perth (west coast) paper and be "relevant" for local readers.
saw the original here in sydney - Claire Harvey, daughter of the late great Robert Harvey. Looks like journalistic integrity skipped a generation :rolleyes:
 
Only made it through the first few lines of that bunch of rubbish!
WTF? :confused:

Do (some) people seriously think that merely following traffic Laws/common sense and not running cyclists over is the same as saving an ungrateful ******* of a cyclist?

:eek:


And I complain about the car-drivers around here... :rolleyes:
 
leftover pie said:
More cycling opinion from the mainstream Australian media:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/today-i-saved-a-cyclists-life-not-that-he-cares/story-fni0cwl5-1226920501835

Note: This article was written by a Sydney journalist (east coast of Australia), but then reworded slightly (names of the streets/parks changed) so it could be printed in a Perth (west coast) paper and be "relevant" for local readers.
I can't believe I wasted 60 seconds of my life reading that. But you are wrong. Clearly not written by a "journalist" (east coast or otherwise). Written by a hack, purely as clickbait. She should be ashamed of what she does for a living.
 
That horrendous article did produce some good responses. Notably this one, which is the best response I've ever seen to this kind of invective:

First things first: this is not about cars or cyclists. Ms Harvey is a narcissistic psychopath who is escalating.

1. Humans as targets. Ms Harvey dehumanises the other people: they are variously "lumpy, chunky, wobbly... etc". She sees other people as being described by their weak and pathetic bodies. They are not someone's father or someone's daughter. Someone of value who is loved by others.

2. Choice of weapon. Her car weaponises her, it's both a shield and a weapon. She is invincible with her car as an exoskeleton. She is fast, strong and capable of killing the pathetic beings around her. When she sees a potential unaware victim in her weaponised state, she fantasises about killing them, then restrains herself. Probably because killing with a car would leave a mark on the car - both evidence and damage to her exoskeleton that props up her narcissistic kill fantasies.

3. Escalation. It was enough for her to fantasise about the kill and think about how these people now owe their lives to her. They owe their lives to her! To her!!!. She has already escalated to telling others about her kill fantasies and how many people she could have killed, but didn't. There's only one step left. People who have made made the next step have names like Ivan Millat, Anders Behring Breivik, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.
 
mr. tibbs said:
That horrendous article did produce some good responses. Notably this one, which is the best response I've ever seen to this kind of invective:
I was planning to quote that exact response! It impressed me, too. This Harvey woman should be called to account for her hate-filled rant.
 
winkybiker said:
I was planning to quote that exact response! It impressed me, too. This Harvey woman should be called to account for her hate-filled rant.
This primal hate of cyclists is troubling, but unfortunately not all that uncommon. It is particularly disturbing that the mainstream press reinforces this attitude.

This quote is particularly indicative of the "my car personifies my life" mindset that is omnipresent in modern society, as if we can only experience joy from the interior of an automobile:

driving through the winding streets around my place one beautiful autumnal weekend morning, when the birds are tweeting, the surf is crashing ...
I just can't figure out how mankind evolved to such a miserably low level.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
On the way home tonight I got thinking, what the hell chance do we, as cyclists, have when no one seems to be able to understand what hand signals mean.

One turn I make, a right hand turn. I always signal my turn at this intersection as the traffic is moving pretty quickly so I like to let people know I'm turning onto the cross street and not going straight through. Cyclist comes down the cross street to my right, comes to the stop sign and stops, he is clearly going to make a left but there is no signal. He sees me signalling the right turn, looks at me and does the same thing! I'm going through my turn looking at him and he's standing there looking at me with his arm in the air, signalling a right hand turn! I think it suddenly dawned on him because he pulled his arm down and looked the other way, but Jesus wept.

Then, a little bit later, signalling to make a left onto a side road. A guy coming down the road toward me, starts waving at me and pulls over because he thought I was waving him down! Nice enough, but jeesus ........
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0

ASK THE COMMUNITY