Video: Cyclists behaving badly - helmetcam cyclist turns his lens on other cyclists

indyjukebox wrote:

One rule for motorists, another for cyclists. Cycling without hands is ok, but if that was a motorist, then he would have been crucified on here. Yet, we (cyclists) demand respect and better treatment. Oh, the irony!

Some of the above posts tell me why motorists hate cyclists. Its no surprise if that just gets worse with the sort of posts/attitudes above.

My interpretation is simple, if you share the road with cars, follow the rules. Not that difficult is it? And yes it works both ways.

Are those the same rules that motorist religiously follow ?

Point is you get rule breakers on bikes and you get them in cars, we're just the same as motorist it's just our form of transport is different. Oh, but despite what the daily mail tells you cyclists do not account for thousands of deaths and serious injuries on the roads that the motorists, and as such they should be held to a higher standard.

KnightBiker wrote:

what point is there in waiting for a red light when there's no traffic? what point is there against riding on the footpath to steal a light while not posing any dangers or hindrance.

Shall we let lorry drivers do the same? Cut red lights and ride on footpaths? Next will you start advocating letting people carry knives?

Sara_H wrote:

I'm a very experienced rider, but since I started riding with my child I use the pavements (considerately) more and more as the roads around us are to busy, too unsafe and too complex for a child to manage. There is also one junction on my work commute that is generally far safer for me to go through on red, which is exactly what I do if there aren't any pedestrians crossing.

My son got knocked down last week by another child riding on the pavement. The boy who ran into my son did have his parents in tow. Thankfully my boy was ok. Let me tell you that I wasn't too impressed. He has yet to be knocked over by a pedestrian. Interpret that however you want, but I would rather see people riding on the road than posing a danger to my 5 year old. So what you see as considerate use of the pavement, I see as a danger to my child. Why should I have to accept that just so that you and your child can ride on a pavement?

Quote:

red light jumping offences...most of the time the junction is quiet, the cyclist can simply jump off the bike and push across the road, which is completely legal and would have caused no issues. only issue is they are pedalling, so what's the big deal.

It's cycling across a road where the light is red FFS!, you cannot seriously tell me pushing a bike across is the same as cycling so what's the big deal? ITS AGAINST THE LAW

Quote:

one way street...quite a wide road to fit cars and road. i would guess they chose to go up one way road because the natural cycling route is a detour which doesn't necessarily get them to where they need to go. maybe these roads should have cycle lanes installed that allow bi-direction travel for bikes. like a lot of busy town centres.

So in your way of thinking if I am driving and the road detours away from where I need to be I can just nip up the nearest one way street the wrong way as it wouldn't otherwise get me where I need to be, I mean is that the best reason you can come up with? It is simple if you ride a bike drive a car or whatever we have highway laws which apply to everyone not just drivers etc so stop trying to advocate breaking the law with weak poor thought out justifications

Quote:

pavement cycling...government has set guide lines on this, long as you are not endangering anyone then it shouldn't be seen as a problem. the video captured during rush hour it would appear and I would suspect some of the offenders aren't comfortable with filters through traffic. the royal mail man may well be going to every door on that side of the road. I shan't think I would like to push a bike loaded with parcels and letters all the way down the road and he was going ever so slow so no harm there.

So in your own statement the guidelines say if it isn't likely to endanger others it's ok but in rush hour doesn't that become more likely to endanger others? if you don't feel safe riding in traffic fair enough go on the path and push your bike until you can ride without endangering others.

Quote:

Oh also weaving in and out of traffic is called "Filtering" and this is one of the advantages of having a bike as we can squeeze between traffic and get ahead of slow or stationary motor vehicles...it is entirely legal! so if you are sitting there in a car going no where and crying about the fact then ditch the car and get on a bike.

Let me ask one question where in a lane should a bicycle be? I am pretty sure it isn't wherever the cyclist feels like cos he is filtering

Quote:

mobile phone usage...quiet cycle path, no one around, no issues.-

Just plain stupid do you think we should text whilst riding as well? But only if it's quiet?

Quote:

cycling without hands...ok, not having 100% control, give you that. but seriously, do you want to see these sort of behaviour being put on the same agenda as dangerous drive causing death??? really.

No but you are incharge of a vehicle and in essence are operating it carelessly; what if for the sake of the example you were riding without hands and lost control and veered into traffic and were killed would that be the fault of the other party? Of course not you had no control. But then I guess they should have been more aware and accepted more responsibility.

Quote:

I think the video maker needs to get his priority right and maybe declare his Daily Mail

royalty.

Stereotyping don't you just love it? In the same way I love getting tarred with the brush that I jump red lights.

I hate the broadsheets and do not read any paper but I think that there is a group of individuals on here who feed their descriminations and do more harm than good to cyclists across the span. If you want to run red lights,ride up one way streets on the footpath weaving in and out of traffic; whilst phoning or tweeting or whatever whilst not having your hands on the handlebars good for you. At some point it will go wrong, epically wrong. But then I guess you can always blame the infrastructure.

bikebot wrote:

24 hours later, and the jacket clip is still funny.

Very true.

Scoob_84 wrote:

Funny how the film maker is getting more blame than the people in the film.

He's the one damaging my safety, not them.

sfichele wrote:

Anyone else notice how the jacket guy hits his head really hard, and WASNT wearing a helmet?

I'm taking this as "proof" and counter argument to the usual anecdote garbage from some cyclists that have hit their head, but the helmet *definitely* saved their life

You MUST be seeing things.

However, you can't take it as proof. You can take it as part of evidence to support your case....

Housecathst wrote:

indyjukebox wrote:

And yes it works both ways.

Are those the same rules that motorist religiously follow ?

Hence what I said, right above your question.

My point was more about the justification going on above. Don't try to justify the idiots in the video, just accept that there are a whole bunch of cyclists who are absolute t*ats. Just as there are idiot motorists. But it doesn't make a lot of the things seen on the video correct, "because they are cyclists/ mobile pedestrians/ motorists speed all the time in a 30 zone etc".

indyjukebox wrote:

Sara_H wrote:

I'm a very experienced rider, but since I started riding with my child I use the pavements (considerately) more and more as the roads around us are to busy, too unsafe and too complex for a child to manage. There is also one junction on my work commute that is generally far safer for me to go through on red, which is exactly what I do if there aren't any pedestrians crossing.

My son got knocked down last week by another child riding on the pavement. The boy who ran into my son did have his parents in tow.

So what you see as considerate use of the pavement, I see as a danger to my child. Why should I have to accept that just so that you and your child can ride on a pavement?

Then your son has also been let down by the infrastructure. There shouldn't be any need for this conflict, there should be safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. Sadly, planning has focused far too long on the convenience of drivers to the detriment of everyone else's safety.

Fortunately, collisions like the one your son had involving a pedestrian and a cyclist are rare, he was very unlucky.

Why should you have to accept my son and I riding on the pavement? Because we don't pose any danger, we don't incovenience anyone, we ride safely and considerately, to force a child into busy roads with fast moving traffic would be stupid beyond belief.

If you don't like it, campaign for safer infrastructure that everyone from age 6 to age 96 can use safely.

indyjukebox wrote:

KnightBiker wrote:

what point is there in waiting for a red light when there's no traffic? what point is there against riding on the footpath to steal a light while not posing any dangers or hindrance.

Shall we let lorry drivers do the same? Cut red lights and ride on footpaths? Next will you start advocating letting people carry knives?

I do hope you don't mean anything you have typed. if you did, my god...

but to the original quote. I think more to the point is if you want to deter cyclists from jumping red, what is the point of the video that has been put up? it is not educational nor is it helpful. it simply reinforces many people's opinion that red-light jumping can be done and it is safe at times. if you want to show reasons of not red-light jumping...show something that shocks and that will put people off. not great for viewing but shock tactics will work for a percentage of people, the rest well it will have to be intervention.

my take of the video taker is that he is definitely a moaner of life and has too much self-righteousness and has a massive passive-aggressive personality.

vbvb wrote:

Scoob_84 wrote:

Funny how the film maker is getting more blame than the people in the film.

He's the one damaging my safety, not them.

No its the bad cyclists flouting the hgihway code doing that

EDIT: deleted

indyjukebox wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

indyjukebox wrote:

And yes it works both ways.

Are those the same rules that motorist religiously follow ?

Hence what I said, right above your question.

My point was more about the justification going on above. Don't try to justify the idiots in the video, just accept that there are a whole bunch of cyclists who are absolute t*ats. Just as there are idiot motorists. But it doesn't make a lot of the things seen on the video correct, "because they are cyclists/ mobile pedestrians/ motorists speed all the time in a 30 zone etc".

They justify it for the same reason that if you go on the maxpower forum and look at the videos of irresponsible driving you'll get people defending it there also. People are people regardless of there form of transport.

Irresponsible cyclists very rarely course any degree of harm to other road user. I agree that cycling could make more of an effort to follow the rules but lets deal with the real problem first, which is motorists.

Sara_H wrote:

indyjukebox wrote:

Sara_H wrote:

I'm a very experienced rider, but since I started riding with my child I use the pavements (considerately) more and more as the roads around us are to busy, too unsafe and too complex for a child to manage. There is also one junction on my work commute that is generally far safer for me to go through on red, which is exactly what I do if there aren't any pedestrians crossing.

My son got knocked down last week by another child riding on the pavement. The boy who ran into my son did have his parents in tow.

So what you see as considerate use of the pavement, I see as a danger to my child. Why should I have to accept that just so that you and your child can ride on a pavement?

Then your son has also been let down by the infrastructure.

If you don't like it, campaign for safer infrastructure that everyone from age 6 to age 96 can use safely.

No, the point is that you need to campaign for safer infrastructure for cycling. Not the pedestrian. The pedestrian already has a safe infrastructure. It is the cyclist who makes it unsafe by choosing to ride on a pavement.

Again you pass the buck onto the pedestrian for a lack of cycling infrastructure. That is what bothers me bout everything said above. It is ok as a cyclist to break rules because "we don't have an adequate infrastructure, or the motorists are horrible people or I am very considerate cyclist" etc etc. Stop with the excuses, man up and learn to do things properly rather than taking short cuts.

Scoob_84 wrote:

vbvb wrote:

Scoob_84 wrote:

Funny how the film maker is getting more blame than the people in the film.

He's the one damaging my safety, not them.

No its the bad cyclists flouting the hgihway code doing that

Well they both are and neither are. I don't think its fair to hold either responsible for the irrational way others choose to react to it.

indyjukebox wrote:

No, the point is that you need to campaign for safer infrastructure for cycling. Not the pedestrian. The pedestrian already has a safe infrastructure.

Pedestrians don't have safe infrastructure, how else would you explain why drivers kill c70 pedestrians on the pavement each year and more are killed using crossings.

indyjukebox wrote:

No, the point is that you need to campaign for safer infrastructure for cycling. Not the pedestrian. The pedestrian already has a safe infrastructure. It is the cyclist who makes it unsafe by choosing to ride on a pavement.

Again you pass the buck onto the pedestrian for a lack of cycling infrastructure. That is what bothers me bout everything said above. It is ok as a cyclist to break rules because "we don't have an adequate infrastructure, or the motorists are horrible people or I am very considerate cyclist" etc etc. Stop with the excuses, man up and learn to do things properly rather than taking short cuts.

I mostly agree, but perhaps not entirely.

I agree that you can't say "it's OK for the cyclist to break the rules in a way that causes problems for pedestrians, because we don't have adequate infrastructure". That's a bit like saying its OK to bully your children because your boss at work is bullying you. Its not OK to pass on the problem to someone else.

However, it is correct to note that there will _always_ be people in every group who break the rules, and that you are never going to have cops present on every street (and who polices the police anyway!) and so, pragmatically, the best hope of reducing the problems the selfish can cause is by changing the physical environment.

So even back when I was a pedestrian (who didn't even consider cycling as a possibility) I would have liked to have seen proper cycling infrastructure in place.

The other point is that better cycling infrastructure means more cyclists and fewer drivers, and the reality is that cars are still the bigger threat to pedestrians because they can do so much more damage.

indyjukebox wrote:

Sara_H wrote:

indyjukebox wrote:

Sara_H wrote:

I'm a very experienced rider, but since I started riding with my child I use the pavements (considerately) more and more as the roads around us are to busy, too unsafe and too complex for a child to manage. There is also one junction on my work commute that is generally far safer for me to go through on red, which is exactly what I do if there aren't any pedestrians crossing.

My son got knocked down last week by another child riding on the pavement. The boy who ran into my son did have his parents in tow.

So what you see as considerate use of the pavement, I see as a danger to my child. Why should I have to accept that just so that you and your child can ride on a pavement?

Then your son has also been let down by the infrastructure.

If you don't like it, campaign for safer infrastructure that everyone from age 6 to age 96 can use safely.

No, the point is that you need to campaign for safer infrastructure for cycling. Not the pedestrian. The pedestrian already has a safe infrastructure. It is the cyclist who makes it unsafe by choosing to ride on a pavement.

Again you pass the buck onto the pedestrian for a lack of cycling infrastructure. That is what bothers me bout everything said above. It is ok as a cyclist to break rules because "we don't have an adequate infrastructure, or the motorists are horrible people or I am very considerate cyclist" etc etc. Stop with the excuses, man up and learn to do things properly rather than taking short cuts.

Not passing the buck, better infrastructure for cyclists will benefit everyone by removing conflict.
Maybe I'm an anarchist, but I don't blindly follow rules if they put people at risk.
My son and I frequently ride the pavement where the road is unsafe, we doi it without causing risk or inconvenience to others. If we can't, we get off and walk.
To put ourselves at risk for no reason whatsoever other than blindly obeying the law would be stupid.