The Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association film 53% of RLJ-ing Cyclists at 2 junctions

People who drive for a

People who drive for a profession should be the best drivers on the road & in my experience quite often end up being the worst.

paulfg42 wrote:
There is

paulfg42 wrote:

There is plenty of evidence showing that cyclists are mostly innocent victims when hit by a vehicle so I have no idea where your ‘suspicion’ comes from. In fact, I find it quite a distasteful comment.

And you’ve never been overtaken by a bus/lorry/other vehicle and then been cut up at a junction when they decide to turn left even though they are not clear of you?

The one time I got hit that was _exactly_ how it happened.

It did make me determined to be much more aggressive about ‘taking the lane’ in future though (and more determined to ignore enticing-looking cycle lanes that go right across the mouths of t-junctions). And then motorists get angry that you are ‘in their way’ and ‘not using the cycle lane provided’ 8|

GoingRoundInCycles

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously.

The problem is there is no ‘we’ in the sense you are using the word.

By “We”, I meant cyclists. If getting the authorities to take cyclists’ rights to safety more seriously is not a concern of yours, I sincerely apologise.

If you want the authorities to take cyclists (and pedestrians) rights to safety more seriously you need to put pressure on those authorities. Constantly addressing double-standard sniping at some entirely imaginary amalgamated union of cyclists is a cop-out.

Gkam84 wrote:I went and had a

Gkam84 wrote:

I went and had a look at the unedited version’s. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor’s filling the ASL….Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye’s, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

The first three vehilce’s turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4×4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic….there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

I would just sit behind him and wait for him to make his move. When the lights change I’m not going to be any slower than him.

It makes me cringe watching the RLJers go through. I think it is a little contagious. You notice that where one does it other are tempted to follow unless other cyclists have already stopped.

But the thing it made me think (which made me cringe) is watching the motorcyclist and moped riders sitting there correctly behind the ASL, but all the cyclists that appear just buzz straight on through. Some of the RLJers are stupider than others….joining moving traffic from the left. Idiotic and stupid.

People sitting in the ASL do not bother me though. I sort of wish they didn’t really exist, except that they remind motorists that cyclists aren’t petrol fuelled accelerating machines.

Matt eaton wrote:This is just

Matt eaton wrote:

This is just the LTDA looking for a fight. Forget about it.

Aye, people tend to get a bit more aggressive when they are ripped to the tits on crack.

Gkam84 wrote:I went and had a

Gkam84 wrote:

I went and had a look at the unedited version’s. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor’s filling the ASL….Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye’s, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

The first three vehilce’s turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4×4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic….there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

I think what the van does is certainly illegal because his front wheels appear to be across the second white line, there is no excuse for this given that the lights are amber when the van crosses the first line. Strictly with respect to ASL rules as set out in the RTA and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 the van has probably again broken the law. Its velocity appears to be such as it is capable of safely stopping before the first line therefore it falls under TSRGD 36(1)e but cannot use the exemption. To be sure we’d need the video to be shot from a little further back so as judge the velocity of the van (and see its brake lights).
Law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made
Highway Code 178: https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

There’s a great quote by W
There’s a great quote by W Edwards Deming: “Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you’re getting.”

So if fallible people are regularly dying under the wheels of lorries, it’s because the system’s design facilitates that. change the design. let’s not forget, also, that the people who regularly die under the wheels of lorries are neither the demographic that are more likely to run the lights, nor is their running of a red light often cited as a factor in their death. the point being that even if everyone stopped at the lights tomorrow, people would still die. because their failure to stop at the lights isn’t what’s causing them to die in the first place. this is a good read on that subject:

http://brackenworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/it-isnt-about-cyclist-behaviour.html

Dave Atkinson wrote:if you’re

Dave Atkinson wrote:

if you’re going to argue that no improvements can be made before a certain group of vehicles behaves, then you’ll be waiting a long time for any new infrastructure, be it for bikes or motor vehicles. this ‘behave and we’ll talk’ attitude only applies to bikes, it seems.

We’ll be waiting a long time then. I don’t think any group is looking for infrastructure changes quite like the cycling lobby, and while cyclists ‘appear’ to be endangering themselves by cycling through red lights and not wearing helmets cyclists so when the call comes for ‘something should be done’, they say put a helmet on, or cycle carefully/don’t break the rules.

I’m not saying it is right, but equally I don’t feel like many cycling deaths don’t come without the suspicion that cyclists aren’t helping themselves because of regular reckless behaviour which is evident, sad as that is to say. But I can’t think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus.

You can’t point the finger all around, but if you don’t recognise that there are problems that need to be sorted (police stopping poor cycling behaviour is a start – as well as other road users exhibiting poor behaviour) then you don’t really move the argument forward. There are as many cyclists on this website that recognise that the poor behaviour of other cyclists really doesn’t help the perception of them.