Motorists naughtier than cyclists? Surely not!

Danish study

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329

“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;

No, they are not. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights





I really don’t understand this pathological hatred some drivers seem to have for another group of road users.

Footpath/footway - Seank, it’s rarely a good idea to argue semantics with the good folk on here. It generally ends badly!

I don't really care about cyclists and red lights, but I can report that "right turn on red" is a state-by-state law in the US, so whether it is legal or not depends on which state you're in. In California, my ex-home state, it is allowed--after stopping--unless a sign prohibits it. Most drivers, however, treat those red lights the same way they treat stop signs, which is to say: like "give way" signs are here in the UK. There's even a term for it: to perform a "California stop". It's the easiest ticket a cop can write...

--Churchmouse

True.

Footways are the things alongside a carriageway, commonly called pavements.
Footpaths are things that go through the countryside (usually) that people can walk along.
Cyclists should not be riding on either of them unless signed to allow it.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views...s-england-wales

Yeah, that’s what I said when you were arguing the opposite, nice of you to catch up with me on that.

Not sure why you had to post all that instead of just ‘oops, you’re right, my bad’?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awD1gtpdWIA

Some sort of know. But sort of.
This is the real story.
It helps when you know but for those who don’t believe anything without a link.

https://www.energy.gov/articles/right-turn-red

I have never used the term "footway" in my life.
In Yorkshire, all the pavements are called footpaths.
In America they're called sidewalks.
Who cares?
The reality is that my meaning was very clear throughout my posts here. If I am brought into proximity with a Lycra lout executing what I consider to be illegal behaviour, there may well be trouble ahead.
A Lycra lout deliberately riding through a red light is asking for trouble. One day, he'll surely meet someone like me coming the other way.
As Clint Eastwood said, "Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?"
Lycra versus a 2 tonne vehicle. Do ya feel lucky, punk?

The point is if your making legal arguments you have to use the right term, a footway is different legally to a footpath, hence why you need to care, as what you were saying was wrong with respect to footpaths as you meant a footway.

Suggesting you’ll commit a criminal offence in a public forum isn’t very bright I think. As for feeling lucky, no I know many drivers are total bell ends around cyclists and ride appropriately. As I don’t jump red lights or ride on footways and everyone else posting as a cyclist on here says the same then again I don’t understand why you’re ranting AT ALL.

Anyway as no-one here has advocated riding on footway (other than designated shared use) I’m not sure why you’re ranting, and the irony is that the so called Lycra Louts are the least likely cyclists to be on the footway, it’s more usually kids or teens in jeans, Deliveroo or old ladies!

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sat, 18 May 2019 - 07:40

What you consider illegal behaviour is irrelevant, I hope you don't genuinely think that if someone rides their bike past a red light you would be justified in driving I to them?

What about the cyclist who nominally has "right of way" on green but seems deaf and blind to a fire engine ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-69...quick-turn.html

I am not likely to change my terminology just because you prefer a different word for footpaths.
Whichever term is used, I object to cyclists using them, when I believe they should be on the road.
In terms of ranting, I sit here calmly, in my home surroundings.
You appear to be so agitated that your typing has gone to pot. Either that, or I refer you to my comments earlier about education.
Nowhere have I suggested that I'd commit a criminal offence. I'd be more than happy to explain to a court that I drove a vehicle across a junction when my light was green, only to come across a cyclist who had mysteriously ignored his red light. It was unfortunate that he was crushed to death, but I was certainly not expecting his illegal ignorance.
This isn't a public forum. It's a private forum to which the public has access. Fredd kindly makes it available to us. What you consider bright isn't my issue. It's clearly yours, or you'd have a life, which would prevent you mega-posting on here all the time.
We plainly have different views and have clashed before. Unpleasant for others to read and rather pointless.

Absolutely shocking. I do hope the fire engine wasn’t needed somewhere else urgently, and I do hope the cyclist has some kind of charge brought against them.

This post has been edited by Starworshipper12: Sat, 18 May 2019 - 10:23

With Blues nd Twos going, I suspect the fire engine was already needed somewhere urgent
There will IMO be no chance of any charge against the cyclist.
Within the scheme of things, the fire engine has no right of way nor is there any mandatory requirement to give way to them.
End of the day, the pirrock on the bike could end up with a compensation payout while the engine driver could face careless or dangerous driving charges.

To me the cyclist is a good example of those who do wind up many drivers..."my right of way, I'm coming through and you must avoid me!"
To be fair, many car/van/lorry drivers seem to have the same attitude, it is not all one way.

Ok, as a cyclist, I’m going to bite here!

At the start of the video, the fire engine is alongside the cyclist and not indicating. The lights turn green and both move forwards. The fire engine starts to indicate left but moves to the right and at no point does the fire engine get beyond the cyclist where he could see the indicator, there don’t appear to be indicators on the side of the fire engine. The cyclist, having seen the fire engine move wide to the right is, therefore, expecting the fire engine to be going either straight on or right but is certainly not expecting to be ‘left-hooked’ by the fire engine.

I agree that there are examples all over the internet of cyclists riding in an appalling manner. This is not one of them.

Unfortunately we don’t see enough of the video to see who was where and at what point but this is certainly a very good example of why cyclists should not go up the inside of large vehicles. The fire engine driver was clearly not using his mirrors.

No fire engine was side on ant the pleb rode right into him. Should look where your going not at the front wheel

No, at the start the cyclist is stationary and the fire engine is overtaking.
Before the cyclist moves off, the engine is ahead with two ruddy great indicators going.
In full view of the cyclist had they looked.... check out start to 4-5 seconds of the video.
The cyclist simply got his head down and pedalled like the clappers with no regard to siren, blue lights, indicators or that they were undertaking a fire engine.

Fully agree that the driver cut across the cyclist and that makes it his "fault"
But that does not excuse the cyclist from using a little common sense, patience and looking at the big red machine making the funny noises.
They put themselves in the position to be wiped out, quite possibly in the driver's blind spot.

How often do cyclists need to be told not to go up the inside of large vehicles at junctions ?

Perhaps he was riding one of those fancy cycles that don’t have brakes, so he needed to just keep going...

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime...eeker-1-5153536

Yep, you're right, Cyclist was a pillock!

Except that the fire engine illegally turned left when there are 2 prominent no left turn signs immediately before the junction.
The cyclist was riding quite correctly and should not have expected the engine to illegally turn left across his path.