Dee said:Around here, it's easy to see why cyclists don't follow the rules - they don't know them! And neither do the motorists. Nobody knows what cyclists are supposed to do. Many motorists actually think that we're not supposed to be on the streets, that it's illegal. Growing up, we are never taught any cycling rules; living in the suburbs, we barely know how to properly cross a street walking. I made it a point to search out cycling laws for my community, but it was no easy thing to find; I had to doggedly search the internet.
Great point IMO. In the UK you have very little if any, awareness regarding cycling itself or cyclists. You're at the complete mercy of car drivers who have no inclination of what it's like to have to walk let along avoid potholes, with many drivers who just hate ANYTHING in their way.
You also have pedestrians and cyclists who share the same disregard for others, in particular what it actually means to have a blind-spot or be unable to see some idiot coming at you at 20mph, wearing dark clothing and no lights whatsoever.
The Highway Code is very ambiguous. It only scrapes the surface, probably due to the attention span of the intended party combined with the intellect behind its rational; why should laws matter when there's money to be made simply from forcing people to pay extortionate fuel prices and tax hikes?
Ask any cyclist and they will all, sooner or later, tell you about where 'flashpoints' can occur; it's not rocket-science it's just preservation of human life. Yet some (not all), drivers seem completely oblivious that the repeated disregard for cyclists at areas such as islands, lights and junctions is unbelievable. The Highway Code isn't enforced basically, not nearly enough where cyclists are concerned.
How the Highway Code is interpreted, in some cases:
. The notion that cyclists need room is a fallacy - one must follow as close as possible as to force the cyclist out of the way and ideally into gaps between stationary traffic. They should never have to pull out to avoid doors opening or to be seen by other road users..
. Upon approaching an island (roundabout), if there is a cyclist attempting to go across or (Lord forbid) round the island, then it is your right to overtake them at ANY cost. Forget their lack of speed or the fact that they cannot envisage what you are doing from behind them, forget the fact that you have to be prepared for them to go any direction - they MUST be overtaken at all costs because they exist in YOUR world and they are in your way.
. Turning right at junctions. Same as islands; a cyclist will attempt to correctly indicate and position themselves as soon as possible. It's not intended to impair your rightful path in life! I have simply lost count at the number of times an idiot has pulled up to my right in an attempt to overtake me no sooner I move, blocking my right-hand view and forcing me to swerve to avoid impact. Then there are people who undertake from your left.
. Traffic Lights. Despite green cycle lanes (that cannot be seen after a while), if a cyclist is turning left at a set of traffic lights in full view, why do cars adapt the same attitude as when cyclists are turning left at junctions; i.e. it's obvious a cyclist is turning left, so why drive an inch in front of them, signal as if it actually means something in such a short space of time, and then cut them up? It's stupid and dangerous.
. Just one wee small point: cyclists are human, they can get tired. Which means that just because they appear to be going too slow for you, doesn't mean they're doing it on purpose..especially with daft things like going up hills or in strong winds.
Motorcycle riders and other cars command more space, so why is there such an attitude towards cyclists? Time after time we are told that we don't pay road tax, and that we have no right to be on the road, "wasting their time". These are opinions and not facts, not the law and if people can't abide by the law - which states that cyclists ARE traffic whether they agree or not - they don't deserve to be behind the wheel.
Plus, I don't own a car at the moment (in rapair), but part of my taxes goes towards the upkeep of roads that have been damaged by cars. Part of my taxes goes towards building roads. Should I have to pay for something not attributed to cycle use? If I do cycle on the road 100% of the time, should I refuse to contribute to the upkeep of pavements seeing as I seldom use them? If we take this argument that cyclists don't contribute and therefore don't count, we go down a path of illogical conclusion.
I've seen some pretty bad cyclists in my time, people with scant regard for others; there also seems to be an element within the "yob" culture that likes to roam the streets on their chrome contraptions, both as a means to rob and abuse others as well as a quick getaway. But there's also people that use cars as weapons, that use cars to intimidate others and break the law. I have to say that I have seen more deranged people behind the wheel of a car than I ever have on two wheels, and those cyclists stupid enough to play chicken with traffic usually find out the hard way..when it's too late.
It's a risky game being on two wheels, especially with the changes in policing which dictate that the law has to adopt a centralised approach to monitoring both driver and cyclist behaviour. That's the reason I don't let situations get to me anymore because you can be as right and as angry as you want - when people are driving round with hammers, knives and guns and sometimes looking for confrontation, it's not worth it unless you have no other choice. There is no law to rely on. Considering the demographics of our transient societies - unable to acknowledge even communication and language skills - it's not worth it by a long shot..
Maybe we need more awareness training from all sides..
