to want to throttle cyclists who run red lights?

[Millionprammiles]

Just that really. Am sick of dd being narrowly missed when crossing at a green man (outside a primary school ffs) . Small children are especially at risk as cyclists can't see them when they're coming up on the inside of cars, so they assume its clear.
Not one cyclist has stopped to apologise.

I can't take a licence plate number. Unless one of them actually hits her I'm guessing the police won't be interested in looking at CCTV. Which is why cyclists continue doing it, day after day.
I think I'm in danger of running after one of them and pushing him off his bike.
(And yes its always been a male cyclist).

Better cycling infrastructure. Have space on the road for bikes to be, which keeps them separate from the pedestrians and the cars.
How can we achieve that though in most of our towns and cities which consist of road that were never designed for motor traffic?

Much of the the irresponsible behaviour in which cyclists engage is due to them being vulnerable road users who have to continually fight for road space
No - flying though a red light at speed is not due to that at all.

So in 2012 there were 79 pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclist. There were 4679 pedestrians killed or seriously injured by motor vehicle
So that's 4600 more pedestrians seriously injured by drivers than on push-bikes,bhardly the same is it when you present it by pedestrians injured or killed

It's quite a lot when you think that bikes on make up 2% of the road traffic. Also when you consider how easy it is to kill or injure someone with a car compared to a bike, you really have to be monumentally unsafe to injure someone and I hate to think what you need to be doing to kill someone.

Much of the the irresponsible behaviour in which cyclists engage is due to them being vulnerable road users who have to continually fight for road space

My god, that's bullshit.

People who don't know what advanced stop boxes are should check out the highway code, they're clearly explained in there.
Those of us who took our test a great many years ago aren't generally in the habit of reading them every year. I think they should bring back the public information film about general road stuff that people have forgotten or didn't ever know.

Bring back Tufty!

How can we achieve that though in most of our towns and cities which consist of road that were never designed for motor traffic?

Same way they did in the Netherlands, or in Denmark?

There are reasons of safety for cyclists that rules have been changed in other countries. In San Fransisco last year cyclist reverted to cycling by the rules, as motorist were complaining. So for one day all cyclist followed the rules to the letter. The motorist were furious, as it caused problems for <a class="break-all" href="//motorist.road.cc/content/news/160118-san-francisco-cyclists-protest-obeying-traffic-rules" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">motorist.road.cc/content/news/160118-san-francisco-cyclists-protest-obeying-traffic-rules

Sometimes the are not excuses but valid reasons for doing things in a different way.
just because a law is good for cars doesn't mean it is good for other road users that have different dimensions

Whilst I'd go ballistic at a cyclist endangering my DC, its worth getting deaths caused by cyclists into perspective. Cyclists are much more likely to be near pedestrians than cars are: many of the miles clocked up by cars are on motorways and on roads devoid of pedestrians. Most miles clocked up by cyclists are on roads where pedestrians are likely to be around.

So even Cycles accounted for about 2% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.7% of serious injuries to pedestrians from this link doesn't really represent the relative risk, since most urban miles cycled will be close to pedestrians, while a fair proportion of urban miles driven will be on non-motorway dual carriageways where neither pedestrians nor bikes are common (and the pedestrians will probably be behind barriers anyway).

I'm a motorist, a pedestrian and an occasional cyclist. I have no patience with dangerous cyclists, like the one who rode straight into my stationary car because he was so busy texting, but most cyclists I see are behaving perfectly sensibly.

Nope

I was fuming yesterday when a cyclist went straight in front of me, I was cm's off clipping her and the speed I was doing I would have seriously harmed, if not killed her.

Had to emergency brake and swerve, my daughter was so upset because she initially thought we'd hit the stupid bitch.

Its a burgeoning societal problem. As the UK becomes more crowded and society less equal, the number of people falling into an entirely selfish and inconsiderate lifestyle increases. Some of them ride bicycles.

Unfortunately, cyclists are highly visible but relatively few in number. Those who do not cycle see all cyclists as "them". Unacceptable behaviour of one or two cyclist becomes the natural perception of "them". Attitudes like that of the OP are akin to group prejudice.

Cyclists are vulnerable road users. They are lumps of meat, sharing road space with tonnes of metal. The promotion of attitudes such as that of the OP dehumanises cyclists. It is this dehumanisation that makes cyclists more vulnerable. These days cyclists are seen as legitimate targets in certain sectors of society.

So, I agree that idiots on bikes are idiots, on bikes. I sometimes feel like throttling them too. But the message is that cyclists are increasingly subjected to victimisation becasue of the tendancy to apply the characteristics of a few idiots to a whole group of society. That is unreasonable. That is why some cyclists feel the need to be ultra-defensive.

Those of us who took our test a great many years ago aren't generally in the habit of reading them every year

Maybe when a big box is drawn onto the road and you aren't sure what it is, you go and look it up in the Highway Code rather than ignoring it?

Great post, LoveBuzz

CockacidalManiac Why is it bullshit?

For example,any people cycle on pavements because car drivers often don't respect a cyclist's right to road space and the cyclist is scared. That's not excusing why someone cycles on a pavement but it's a reason why.

And how does that entitle them to ride through red lights, which is what the thread is all about?

Pipbin - if you're not willing to keep up with the highway code and abide with its rules you shouldn't be driving.

Coming home from work today, I was stopped at traffic lights, 3 cars back waiting to turn left onto the bigger main road.
A cyclist stopped on my near side.
The traffic lights changed to green we all moved off, I began to give the cyclist loads of room as I was turning left to go past him on the corner & he was turning right!!!!
No collision fortunately, but he mouthed some obscenity at me & I was pretty gobsmacked too at his stupidity.
When did it become OK to be to the left of a car turning left when you want to turn right?
Or am I being dim & there is some new law of the road.
All I could think is no wonder some cyclists get killed going down the inside of lorries.

CockacidalManiac At no point have I said it's acceptable to break any law of the road.

I'm simply trying to explain that if ALL road users obeyed the law then we would ALL be safer on the road; pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and riders.

The promotion of attitudes such as that of the OP dehumanises cyclists. It is this dehumanisation that makes cyclists more vulnerable.
Am I the only person who thinks this is unfair? The OP isn't dehumanising cyclists, she's just cross at the ones who behave dangerously on a regular basis. Surely it's the dickhead cyclists who get other cyclists a bad name? An people who say 'All cyclists are dickheads' are the ones who dehumanise them?

Most of the post made perfect sense to me, but not that bit.

Pitbin, serious injury covers a broken collar bone or brain trauma and everything inbetween.

I have had pedestrians walk out onto the road in front of me, they didn't look before crossing the road.

I have a bell and two brakes, which should I use first?

If they get hurt it's a serious injury.

Twice I have had people walk in front of me onto the road from the pavement without checking.

Cyclists make up 24% of London traffic and up to 64% in the morning commuting traffic and 16% through the entire day.

17% of cyclist in London jump red lights
Cars causing pedestrians injury jumping red lights is 71%
83% of cyclists stop at red lights

That's just Whattaboutery, Zampa.

CockacidalManiac Why is it Whattaboutery?

backwardpossom
"Whataboutery doesn't help anyone. Nor does a list of other stupid things dickhead cyclists do."

Given that the thread is about what dickhead cyclists do, its more on topic than the whataboutery that is still going on.

Has it ever occurred to some cyclists that one of the reasons that people complain is that on many occasions some cyclists come up with excuses for the poor behaviour that affects others.

For example, I personally have no problem with cyclists on the path but they should be be giving way to pedestrians not making excuses for almost hitting them.

Because the thread is about bad behaviour by cyclists. Behaviour we've all witnessed.
Unfortunately, it's been hijacked by the 'yes, but what about car drivers crowd.

We know that car drivers can be knobs, but it doesn't excuse that a lot of cyclists have no regard for anyone else.

Sooner or later someone always suggests that cyclists ride on pavements because drivers don't give them space and they're scared

So why is it apparently okay for a cyclist to deal with their own fright by simply passing it on to someone even more vulnerable?

It started off as a thread about cyclists going through red lights. I still don't see how that means that "other bad behaviour by cyclists" is relevant, but "other road users going through red lights" is off-topic and beside the point