to still be fuming today about this cyclist?

[microserf]

i have to rant. i have form ranting on here about how much i hate ill mannered cyclists, but this one really took the piss.

last night, at 5pm (so still sunny) i was walking with my 2 kids in the double buggy and we had to cross a busy road at a crossroads. i waited ages at the crossing for the green man. green man light flicked on, i checked the cars had actually stopped and stepped out onto the crossing. all seemed fine.

only for the buggy to be nearly hit by some fucking asshole who came flying around the corner on his bike and ran the red light (he was going downhill, so had built up a bit of speed) swerved at the last second and cycled off without a word of apology.

i am still furious!!! i was really shaken up by it, and i am really tired of bad cyclists running red lights and cycling over pedestrian crossings when i'm crossing, esp with the kids. it's not like a fully loaded buggy can jump out of the way!

i think we should put license plates on the cycles, so the bad ones can be weeded out! if i did that in my car, i'd not be driving for much longer.

SDTG - More pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists as do car drivers. Enforcing helmet wearing for these two activities would prevent more head injuries than making cyclists wear helmets.

Well - that really surprises me, tyler. Not the part about the drivers - but that more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists do. Can you tell me if the statistics break down to show whether it is simply numerically more or a greater percentage, and what percentages of head injuries in cyclists and pedestrians are severe - ie, do a greater percentage of pedestrians than cyclists suffer severe head injuries?

Why do some cyclists think it is ok to jump red lights? That is what makes me so mad

I have had to yell at cyclists before when they have gone through a red light and nearly hit me and my children. What makes these people think they above the law and everyone else!

Isuspect some cyclist go through red lights because if you have a good head of speed up it's a real mither to stop and then start all over again, esp. on a hill. Drivers just shift their feet around on the pedals. If going through a red light isn't holding anyone else up, or endangering anyone else, then I see the sense they are trying to make. I don't do it meself, mainly because I am not aware of any police cars around, and it generally puts me in even more danger than I already am.
It's bit like traffic customs abroad ( I know it's like this in Vancouver for eg) where if the lights are on red but you want to turn right ( on t'other side of raod driving) and there is no-one crossing then it's legal, in the hope of keeping traffic flowing.

Don't ask that! They'll accuse you of cyclist-bashing.

Doesn't convince anyone else, of course, but I think it makes them feel better.

Some of them on here won't say, but they seem to think they're entitled do it, and that it isn't bad behaviour.

Yes, I have a bike, No, I don't jump red lights or pedestrian crossings, and I don't ride on the pavement, or at night without lights.

Sometimes it's a real mither for me to slow down to wait until it's safe to go round a cyclist and give them sufficient clearance - is it OK if I don't, AP?

why do you invest in absurd questions SDTG? Have you nothing left in your locker?

yourself and T&T really need to look at your nasty little prejudical thinking about cyclists. You seem to have an aversion to sensitive think about the dangers and consequences that cyclists face.

Riding a motor bike years ago, and riding a bike now has made me a much more careful road user, esp. as a car driver. they are both real educations.

Roads are public highways. They are there to be used by anyone as long as they are used responsibly. What happened to Microserf was disgusting.

To have a sense of entitlement about road used based on your mode of transport, generally gives the impression that, such a person is not a courteous or careful driver.

Blaming, only cyclists for problems on the road blinkers a driver to any other hazards out there. Like the utter fool who was so busy and irate trying to get past a stationary cyclist he failed to notice all the cars had also stopped...... to let the fire engine through.

DTG, Pan answered your question why. And plenty of motorists don't consider cyclists or pedestrians, it's their choice.

My absurd question was intended to point out how absurd your statement about 'some cyclists not stopping at red lights because it is such a mither' is. You've made my point.

As far as I am aware, I have only been nasty about or shown prejudice towards cyclists who cycle dangerously or inconsiderately. I see no good reason to stop judging people who put others at risk and/or abuse them. Please, quote my posts where I have said anything prejudicial or nasty about safe, considerate cyclists.

Well, I have to take myself away from this thread, and hide it.We are not going to have anything like a meeting of minds and there's other things to do. Table-tennis on the internet is pretty pointless. Good evening!

Can anyone else show me the posts where I have been nasty or prejudiced towards all cyclists - I honestly don't think I have been, but reserve the right to be nasty about the rude ones who think it's ok to cycle dangerously and put themselves and others at risk.

SDTG

"Microfight - the question 'Do you think a 3-year-old would be fine if hit by a bike' was NOT asking if you think it is OK to hit a 3-year-old with a bike - it's asking if you think the 3-year-old will be unhurt or less badly hurt than the cyclist."

Why is that any better? I have not once posted that I think it's okay to cycle badly. Of course I think it would be absolutely terrible if a 3 year old was hit by a bike.

I ask again what relevance has this question to my original post.

My original post was asking asking people not to GENERALISE about cyclists and write comments like "I hate ALL bloody cyclists" why do you feel the need to ask me such a ridiculous question as to whether I think a 3 year old would be hurt if hit by a cyclists, of course they would. It would be like me asking you whether you think it's okay to hit a child with a stick and whether they would be hurt simply because you have never expressed on this thread otherwise.

Once again, I have never said it's okay to cycle through red lights etc I don't do it ever I was asking people not to start saying nasty things about a group of people based on some of that groups bad behaviour. So stop asking people irrelevant questions.

Oh and lastly StayingDavid, when I cycle I actually have a three year old on the back of my bike, not relevant to my argument but just thought you might like to know

Tea
"Don't ask that! They'll accuse you of cyclist-bashing."

No cycle bashing is when you GENERALISE about all cyclist in a negative way like "I hate ALL bloody cyclists" If you don't understand this very simple point then I give up.

SDTG
"Can anyone else show me the posts where I have been nasty or prejudiced towards all cyclists - I honestly don't think I have been, but reserve the right to be nasty about the rude ones who think it's ok to cycle dangerously and put themselves and others at risk."

In answer to this question. You have not written words explicitly being nasty to all cyclists, however, you have asked me and others some rather patronising and rude questions about whether we believe it's okay to hurt a young child simply because we have asked other not to write nasty generalised statements about all cyclists. Just because our posts were not expressing another terrible cyclists story does not mean we condoned the behaviour of terrible cyclists. Just because we don't want people to hate a complete group of people based upon the actions of some should not lead you to insult me by asking whether I think a three year old would be hurt if hit by a bike.

That is why people think you are cyclist bashing because you have been rude and asked patronising questions to cyclists who ask people to stop tarring us all with the same brush.

I hope that clears things up. You really need to read peoples posts fully and not jump on them for what is effectively your prejudice rather than what they are actually writing about.

Ah - I see - it's my fault you weren't clear enough.

Cyclists who break the rules and ride dangerously/inconsiderately put other people at risk - someone braking hard to avoid a cyclist who's jumped a red light, might cause an accident. Someone who hits a cyclist who rides out in front of them, leaving them no chance or time to stop, or who suddenly appears in front of them riding the wrong way up a one way street, might be injured themselves when they brake (whiplash) or might be traumatised afterwards (in the same way train drivers are when they hit someone on the railway line - they can't swerve, or stop in time, and thus can't avoid the accident, but that doesn't stop them being horribly upset and traumatised - some never work again) - I imagine hitting a cyclist would be just as traumatising.

If people want to take risks, that's fine, no problem - until the risks they take put other people in harm's way. That's wrong, and I will not apologise for thinking so, or saying so, or for making my point as strongly as I feel is neccessary.

I think the nastiness has come from some of those who have cried 'cyclist bashing' - as a way to deflect attention away from the bad cyclists. Far easier to criticise and be nasty to someone who just thinks everyone should be considerate of other road users than to admit that some cyclist bashing is justified - 'inconsiderate-cyclist-bashing', in other words, before anyone tries to put words into my mouth.

I think the nastiness has come from some of those who have cried 'cyclist bashing' - as a way to deflect attention away from the bad cyclists.

This is simply rubbish, I have spent time explaining several times that I do not condoned bad cycle behaviour. I do condoned people writing nasty hate comments about ALL cyclist of which I am one. For you to say that we have have cried cyclists bashing to deflect attention away from bad cyclists shows you don't understand mine and others basic point.

If I were from an ethic minority of which some of that group had behaved badly I would be just as outraged that people thought it was okay to write some thing like "I hate all x group" based upon some of that group.

If this thread contained nothing but debate and stories about poor cycling then fair enough but it doesn't. I have copied and pasted a few examples one of which is not just cycle bashing but uses the hate against a whole group of people and yet you think the only reason myself and others are posting it is to deflect away from bad cycling. It is not, I posted because I read some posts that I found offensive. I also find it offensive that you are dismissing the fact that others have been rude and are saying we have a hidden agenda.

SDTG, you don't seem to be able to understand this very basic point. It's a shame but I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of understanding it and so I give up.

I think the OP is NBU to be annoyed at that particular cyclist.

As a cyclist, I never run red lights. However I do , on certain junctions, wait for the lights to turn green ahead of the solid white line, because it is the only safe place to do so.

Microfight - I have not argued that the posts you quoted were nasty about cyclists in general, nor have I condoned such generalising.

SDTG
No but you have offended me by asking me really patronising questions which bear no relation to my posts. You also did this to another poster. I have written about this before at 14.33 today but you have chosen to ignore why you would ask me such a ridiculous questions when all I had written at that time was that I don't think people should write nasty comments relating to ALL cyclists.

I'm sorry you felt patronised, microfight - that was not my intention.