wants a cracker
- Dec 9, 2006
Hitler was my uncle. ...I don't have a problem with cyclists, and I find people here remarkably intolerant to be perfectly honest. For every cyclists that momentarily inconveniences me, 1000 people in cars/trucks/buses/tractors inconvenience me by either driving 10,20,30 km/h under the speed limit FOR KILOMETRE AFTER KILOMETRE, or because they think the green traffic light signifys the beginning of a camping expedition, which means I miss the green, or because they don't indicate etc, etc.
I am only thankful you're not the one making decisions at number 10, because I shudder to think what your United Kingdom would be like judging from a lot of your posts.
Germany is actually a very rare example of bicycle rules done right, most other places they are not. To top it off unlike cars there is nothing that identifies a specific bicycle. So say I get stopped for running a red light on a cycle, I present my employee ID (AFAIK in NYS it is a valid form of identification), if my name is John Smith there is no unique identifier on that ID so I don't have to bother paying the fine. Try that with your driver's license..I don't get how everyone rants about cyclists not being regulated. There are tons of laws surrounding the bicycle (in Germany). Sure, not every cyclist follows these laws, so you may of course rant about those.
Additionally, cyclists never get fined for violations? Yeah, right. I've seen tons of cyclists get stopped for not having proper lights. Rant about the lack of enforcement in your area :lol:
Thing is pedestrians and cars rarely interact. You only really have to worry about them crossing the road and in most cases a honk will get them out of your way pronto. Also if you hit a pedestrian it is not automatically your fault (at least not here and not yet) if they try to run across at a non designated intersection or when you have a green light.Identification of misbehaving cyclists is a troublesome issue, but you get the same problem with pedestrians who for example cross a red light. You could argue that red light cameras for cars are a discrimination against drivers because pedestrians and cyclists doing the "same" offence are not caught by the same measures. Obviously the offence is not the same because a car running a red light most likely causes more harm to others, while a pedestrian/cyclist most lilely only harms himself.
Yeah well, as much as I agree with you , acting on that will get you several decades in jail over here, while the cyclist (if he survives) will get counseling 'for beeing attacked by the big bad cardriver'.I'd agree with you up to a point. One shouldn't intentionally use a car as a weapon without adequate provocation.
Cyclist just being a dick in traffic: Eh, okay, whatever.
Cyclist acting like a rabid zoo monkey and (instead of flinging feces) throwing water bottles, air pumps, tool kits or other gear at your car without provocation or any apparent reason: Oh hell yeah, it's on now! Let me introduce you to my brush bar.
Disclaimer: Applying German road rules.Cyclists are on the road WITH cars and the ones who are asshats generally assume they have a right of way. I have been yelled at by a cyclist when I was turning right and he was behind me but decided to go around me on the right side. For bonus points it was at night, he had no lights on that could identify him and I had my right indicator on...
I agree with you except for the percentage of idiots- I think about 99% of cyclists have the opinion that they will not be hit by a car unless the driver is being stupid and that they can therefore have some "leeway" in the rules and such and are invincilbe from the cops, injury, blame, etc. Cyclists need to do a course like motorcyclists do- the number one thing you learn there (apart from techniques obviously) is that you are a vulnerable road user and that you have to be the one looking out for the cars to make sure you don't get hit. Hence, you ride safer to suit that. Some of the things I see cyclists do (dogde out in front of cars with no warning to avoid obstacles- eg parked cars- on the side of the road- really, see it, stop and wait.) really amazes and scares me- they seem to think they are freaking invicible and that they will automatically be the poor little victim if they ever come off.On the topic itself, I remain (as I have written here on several occaisions) that where I live, the majority of cylists pose no problem or threat. It?s the 5% Idiots that you notice. In my subjective opinion, "cyclists" are not worse than car drivers or motorcycle drivers ... there are Idiots ... but aren?t they everywhere?
One thing I can?t really get my head around is racing cyclist practicing on publich roads. If I were to use the roads as a training ground with my car ... they?d take away my license. If I want to train with my car ... or with my basketball ... or skateboard ... I am not allowed to do this on the road. Why is there an exemption for racing cylists? It?s a sport. Why do we allow this form of sports on the road and not others?
See thats another thing, if his next to me, yes it's his right of way and if I see the moron I will absolutely wait, but if his behind me why in the fuck does he get the right of way? Car/motorcycle would not, his behind me, I'm turning right, if I know what I'm doing I will be through that intersection anyway.Disclaimer: Applying German road rules.
Bar the missing lights that would be correct behavior by the cyclist. When a car turns right and there is a cyclist next to the car or behind the car then the cyclist going straight has the right of way.
Him having no lights in the dark would most likely put the blame of an accident on the cyclist though, I believe we all can agree on mandatory lights (go LEDs and hub dynamos!).
Oh, and you having your indicators on does not give you the right of way :lol: it's your duty by the law to use them.
Let me explain it differently what I'm on about.See thats another thing, if his next to me, yes it's his right of way and if I see the moron I will absolutely wait, but if his behind me why in the fuck does he get the right of way? Car/motorcycle would not, his behind me, I'm turning right, if I know what I'm doing I will be through that intersection anyway.
That's a heavy bike.My bicycle was over 500 pounds, do I have midlife crises now? :lol:
I don't wear lycra though, it's mostly used as a tool for commuting.
And this is bad desing for sure. I explain:Let me explain it differently what I'm on about.
Over here cyclists going on the road either have a marked lane on the right side like pictured below, or ride on the right edge of the rightmost lane. You as a car turning right are in the middle of the rightmost lane, so you will cross the (marked or virtual) bike lane to your right. You cross his lane, so you need to yield even if he is behind you.
It's similar to if you were to turn right from the second lane to the right, and there was a car coming behind you on the right lane. You also need to yield to that, even if it is not next to you.
This is no problem, as long as they are not allowed to do so when the light is green and the cars are moving. Turning right when the light goes green and you have a crowded bike lane on your right can rapidly turn into a frustrating, endless series of cyclists yelling at you because they have the right to pass even if you were in front of them before, if you are indicating and if you struggle to see them approaching. I know cyclists are the same people who drive cars, but this situation could make even their blood boil if they were in the car rather than on the bike.Oh, and bicycles are expressly allowed to undertake on the right when cars are waiting at an intersection.
You'll find that design all over Germany.And this is bad desing for sure.
Bicycles about to pass on your right appear in your right mirror before they pass. To cover the blind spot you're obliged to turn your head before you turn your car.Cars have blind spots, particularly on the rear right (or left, if you drive along on the left). To partly cope with this, when you are turning right you need to be on the rightmost lane (you are not allowed to turn right directly from the second lane if the first one allows to proceed straight on), indicate, check for pedestrian, turn. If a cyclist (or someone else, for what matters) pass you on the right at this moment (no bike lanes), then it's not your fault.
There is no rule to slow down to let other cars move into your lane (merging lanes, construction zones etc excepted).Similarly, when you need to move from one lane to the next one on the right, you indicate, check and wait for room, then move. The incoming cars on the right have right of way, but can not simply speed up and pass, they have an obligation to help you complete your movement safely; this means that if they are behind you they should slow down.
Cars are allowed to overtake on the right in city streets.a car is not allowed to overtake on the right (city streets)
They are governed by laws. In poor visibility weather they are required to turn on their lights, in clear weather you just need to open your eyes. Not making noise should be no factor in whether you as a car driver yield to them or not. My brakes work fine, the rear ones are able to lock up and the front ones are able to get rear lift-off.Bicycles on the other hand, CAN overtake you on the right, you can rarely leave no room for them to pass, they can skip on the "help another road user" rule, they have no law punishing them for not behaving safely, they are not well visible, they are small and noiseless, they have no great brakes and/but they can go quite fast.
If the cyclist is on your right, where should he go when you want to turn? Vanish into thin air? Engage reverse?So, if you are in slow moving traffic (about the same speed as a bicycle), you might well not know if there is a cyclist on your right
This is unrelated to badness, pollution, aggression, weight or evilness. You have two lanes with travelling vehicles, a vehicle from the left lane wants to move across the right lane. It's quite obvious that the vehicle from the left lane needs to yield for any vehicle on the right lane.Clearly, since you are the bad, polluting, aggressive, heavy, evil car, you are at fault in every one of these situations.
How is this different from a driveway going through a house? You slowly inch your car forward as long as you can't see anything, giving everyone else enough time to decide whether to pass in front of you or to stop. If however you dart out of such an enclosed exit at speed you can only expect carnage, no matter if there is a bicycle lane or pedestrians or just other cars.http://tinyurl.com/32dnbpk
the small street is merging into the bigger one, passing directly on the bike lane. Bicycles pass on both direction and since there are arches, before you can actually see something you need to put all the front part of the car ON the bike lane. Yet, if something happen, it's YOUR fault.
If the bicycles are approaching then they will appear in your right mirror, just look into it. If they already are next to your car then you will see them by turning your head to the right. If there are lots of bicycles then why should you make lots of people wait? Instead lots of people should pass making only one wait.This is no problem, as long as they are not allowed to do so when the light is green and the cars are moving. Turning right when the light goes green and you have a crowded bike lane on your right can rapidly turn into a frustrating, endless series of cyclists yelling at you because they have the right to pass even if you were in front of them before, if you are indicating and if you struggle to see them approaching.
Which is illegal.All of this not mentioning bicycles' behaviour in pedestrian areas.
I'm both. Guess how difficult it is to explain the laws to a car driverThe incredibly annoying thing, however, is that it is incredibly difficult to explain all of these issues to someone who is more of a cyclist than a car driver. They simply won't understand. They will say: "the law says I'm doing right, so you pay attention and don't bother me".