AIBU to find cyclists annoying

[MumOfTheNorth]

This probably is unreasonable but I just find cyclists so annoying. Not saying every cyclist does every one of these things. It just seems to happen a lot. Am I the only one that gets this irrational irritation?

What I find annoying...

• Taking up the whole road so you can't leave enough space to safely over take
• Weaving in and out of traffic
• Walking around cafes or the office in sweaty lycra with their click clacky shoes
• Running red lights when I'm trying to cross on a green man
• Cycling on the pavement
• Not tucking in on small country roads once in a while when there's a massive que of traffic behind them
• Having no lights or helmet on in the dark
• And most of all... talking to me about cycling

I rather doubt that. But ok.

Do you see cars waiting on red and just setting off anyway, every day?

They were doing 20 in a 20 though. The motorist was whinging that they couldn't overtake someone who was doing the speed limit. Seemed to be just annoyed that there was another person in front of them, even though there was no reason to overtake. Just like those people who overtake you and then slow down, what's the point?

A couple of observations about red lights:

some lights are on a trigger. There’s a T junction near me, when I cycle late at night and the roads are empty it’s set to the main road. When a vehicle approaches from the more minor T to turn left or right the sensor changes the lights.

me on a bike won’t trigger the change. I either have to sit at the lights looking at an empty road until a car comes up behind me to set off the sensor, I use the pavement and the pedestrian crossing, or I go through the red light.

roadworks as well- i find if there are temporary traffic lights their timer isn’t set to allow a bike time to get through the roadworks before the other end turns green. So again, I wait for the lights and hold up traffic both ways as no one can overtake, and the opposite direction misses their “turn”. Or i use the pavement. Or I jump the light as soon as it’s clear to get a start and less inconvenience to other road users.

Whilemydishwasher, no they generally carry on driving after the light has turned red, its an everyday occurrence on my commute, its just something you get used to

As I said earlier in this thread, I’ve seen a cyclist run a red light at speed well after the lights changed. In 35 years of driving I’ve never seen a motorist do that

Come to Brixton! Happens every day on some of the roads around here. Presumably the drivers in question have already lost their licences, or never had one in the first place.

i use the pavement and the pedestrian crossing, or I go through the red light.

Even if this is really an issue at all, why not always push your bike on the pavement and crossing and never disobey the signal? In any case, the same must apply to motorcyclists. I’ve never of heard any such problem with them.

i find if there are temporary traffic lights their timer isn’t set to allow a bike time to get through the roadworks before the other end turns green.

I don’t believe this, sorry. It’s just implausible. Temporary lights are set to allow sufficient time for everyone to obey the lights perfectly well. Since there are now many 20mph zones, the idea that cars can get through at that speed or below but bicycles can’t makes no sense. (I’m regularly overtaken by cyclists doing more than 20mph in 20mph zones, but then they have no prospect of a big fine or a licence to attract points.)

That wasn’t my question. You’ve avoided it.

I've answered it, I said no

Also I don't lie, which you have also accused me of, nice

You know not all cyclists can cycle at 20mph? And hills slow them down? And not all roadworks are on 20mph roads?

I have a Xc bike which is designed for manouvrebility, not speed. On a road it’s slow, plus I’m a middle aged woman not Laura Trott. On the last set of temporary lights that stretch of road I normally average around 13 KPH, so 8mph.

so no, I don’t get through roadworks as quickly as a motorised car.

I think you were exaggerating about what you see “every day”. But I’m happy to withdraw the comment.

My question was: Do you see cars waiting on red and just setting off anyway, every day?

You didn’t answer that.

The reason I asked that question is because cyclists do this all the time: it’s not an issue of chancing the timing (wrong as that is) - it’s a conscious ‘I can ignore the rules whenever I wish, in all circumstances’ mentality.

A sensor-triggered junction is about the only time that I've ever gone through a red too. The sort where the sensor is in the tarmac and doesn't pick me up. It was 1am, and I was waiting at reds where there wasn't anything moving for half a mile. Eventually I just went.

Even if this is really an issue at all, why not always push your bike on the pavement and crossing and never disobey the signal? In any case, the same must apply to motorcyclists. I’ve never of heard any such problem with them.

Do you believe that car drivers should do the same if lights refuse to change? Because believe me, they don't.

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse, because there's nothing challenging to understand in what I've said.

Have you ever spoken to someone who has just been in a serious accident, let alone innumerable people who have? Because I can guarantee to you that you would be extremely risk averse after doing so.

Therefore, when I see a quite blatant hazard on a busy road, I wouldn't be very smart to assume that nothing could possibly go wrong. Because I know very well that it could.

People who have some God complex that they're somehow immune to danger really freak me out.

Because the lights are broken and stuck, you mean? Sure, anyone - car, lorry, cyclist, whatever - can legitimately, and cautiously, go through a red then. But that’s not really relevant, I think.

So if it’s only happened once it’s not much of a problem is it?

And ‘there was nothing around’ is what speeding motorists often say. It’s fair enough in its own way, but I doubt you’d endorse that.

It's precisely the scenario posed by the PP you quoted - the lights were stuck on red, not changing, and there was absolutely no traffic around.

It's hardly the only time I've encountered a set of traffic lights that never (and I mean "never") clear.

In this case I had a clear view of the approach roads and would have seen any headlights from a long way away. In this case the junction in question is a very large roundabout with traffic lights controlling entry. If no vehicles are detected then the entrances stay red and the lights for traffic already on the roundabout (not that there was any) hold green. What did you expect me to do? Hang around for another couple of hours or so until a larger vehicle turned up to trigger the sensor? I guarantee you that cars don't wait if they realise that the lights won't ever be changing.

Modern temporary traffic lights are much better, they have optical sensors that seem sensitive enough.

Dishwasher, I replied way up on the thread, I said no, they don't do that. However it makes little difference to the data that a car jumping a red light at what ever part of the phase is more likely to kill than a cyclist

Dishwasher, so I'm exaggerating the dangers I see on the roads every day? classic arrogant driver mentality, minimising the impact they have the world, their surroundings and others. Cyclists are vulnerable road users, they are not protected by a box of metal.

I didn’t say that. I said I thought you were exaggerating when you said “I see cars going through red lights after amber every day”.

But if that’s your experience of drivers and lights, fair enough. I drive and walk by roads every day and I don’t see that each time I’m out. Of course I do see it, but nothing like as often as that.

I can easily believe you see what you consider dangerous behaviour, of all sorts, every day. Cars parked on pavements and corners, people leaving driveways too fast, speeding, not paying attention at crossings, late lane charging, no indicators etc.

No sensible person would doubt that the millions of vehicle users feature enough twits to make poor driving a regular sight.

But cyclists - of which there are far fewer - behave badly, stupidly and selfishly on the roads very regularly too. And this thread is about cyclists.

It means you should follow the rules as a cyclist, even though the rules sometimes don't seem to make sense. Taking a red at speed is obviously bad.

Cars should pass bikes when safe to do so. On shared paths (which I don't like) cyclists should pass pedestrians when safe to do so, and pedestrians should be on alert for bikes. They usually aren't and typically don't realise they're on shared paths, which is why they're bad. Sometimes you do have to ring your bell or call out, or you'd be going at a walking pace. That's not the same as haring around and expecting people to leap out of the way.

Cyclists are vulnerable road users, they are not protected by a box of metal

Well they can always go by car or bus.
Nobody's forcing them to cycle.

Next posts from ShellBeach: "Road congestion is worse than ever this year," "It's impossible to find a parking space in XYZ, shouldn't someone do something about this?" "AIBU to be fed up with roads being narrowed for bus lanes?"

What if they can't drive and there's no bus service?