Is it time to start calling out bad cyclists?

I find i get distracted by the smell when i ride past a morleys, will plugging my nostrils make me a safer rider?

No, clearly the only safe option when approaching a Morleys is to stop.

And ingest an inhuman amount of chicken.

Through your eyes.

Good god man, the salt content would reduce your eyes to nothing.

causing some ripples on twitter

I would have laughed if it wasn't a regular occurrence.

Doesn't rhyme.

^ true, more info here http://road.cc/content/news/70235-dont-be-stupid-twat-says-new-safety-campaign

They must've been inspired by Skydancers "don't be a dick" topic on here a couple years back!

Where are these stupid signs? I've got a multitool.

Basically it's saying that the cyclists are the one who cause the accident despite the majority of faults are drivers.

Basically it's saying that the cyclists are the one who cause the accident despite the majority of faults are drivers.

Er, no it isn't saying that at all.

Well, "victim blaming" really.

Calling myself out, not for cycling badly but for loosing my temper **very **badly, and then running away.

I was cycling home from a monster session in the gym coming down Uxbridge Road in primary position past a row of parked cars, the last car in the row, a silver E class Merc with mini cab stickers in the back window just pulled out as I was passing it and almost went straight into me. I shouted my usual greeting to such people "Oi! Dick! use your mirrors!" shortly after which the guy swung his car into me.

At this point I saw red and kicked the car. I'm not proud of this and would normally report him to the police but don't think it would be a good idea as I retaliated. This is why I'm calling myself out, this guy needs to be off the road if his stock response to well founded criticism is to threaten someone with 2+ tons of metal, because of my actions I cannot take part in this.

Roid rage brah

I.am.not.chainbraker.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think that cyclists should approach in single file, you're welcome to ride in the traffic if you want. Nor do I think that they have to wait in single file at the junction, anyone who's going straight ahead can move over to the right of the ASL box. The only thing that causes problems is left-turning cyclists being on the right of cyclists going straight on.

If you do not believe they should approach in single file then leaving space for a fellow cyclist wanting to left shouldn't be seen as abnormal (as so many seem to).

I do see what you mean here. The problem is that you want others to take the lane and be a vehicular cyclist like you, while they want to make use of the cycle lane that's been provided. The merits of both positions have been discussed at length and in detail elsewhere, but I think it's worth reiterating that not everyone is comfortable being a vehicular cyclist and the lack of provision for them is one of the main things holding cycling back.

I'd like people to understand their rights, responsibilities and understand sensible use of shared space. Better than that I'd love to see more and more taking up cycle training. (I dislike the connotation of 'training', it needs a makeover to get widespread interest and less ego beating.)

No, but I've not seen those anywhere. Do they exist?

That's my point: drivers have no compulsion to give way therefore the most 'predictable' place would be further right. (Not necessarily in the middle of the motorised lane but somewhere that communicates something of your intent to fellow road users.)

Well if they motorist behind you in the situation described was going straight on, then I suspect his major irritation was sitting behind you when you could have moved over the left and made the turn with the other cyclists.

Huh?

But the lane that the bloke (who you had a confrontation with) was aiming for is delineated by a solid line. I agree that it's scant protection but it's not an unreasonable thing to do to position yourself so that you can go straight into it. You've not answered my question about what he should have done: if he filtered down the left in the bike lane and was aiming for the equivalent bike lane ahead on the left, your suggestion is that he should pull out into the middle of the lane and then back over to the left again. This seems really convoluted. Nor have you dealt with the problem that, had you been there first, he would have had to manoeuvre round the back of you to let you turn left. Another really awkward move.

Ok, I've not made it clear enough. In the mornings both of the cycle lanes (assuming you agree there's enough space for 2 breast) are majority filled with those going straight ahead. The only place to overtake going over the bridge is in the the next (non cycle) lane. As you approach the Northside you're looking for a clear gap to filter across the slower moving cycle flow going straight. What makes it complicated is that you're trying get across two lanes of traffic mostly going straight instead of one. Add to that few want to give way despite seeing a signal.
It's not complex: don't hug the kerb on approach to a junction - especially in the event you're not turning left. Don't forget^^^ there's no give way from motorised traffic on your right. Riding to the extreme right of the cycle lane is enough to tell most others that you plan on at least going straight. But yeah shit layout. A layout and policy brought to us by people that pay lip service to green/health/financial/safety issues for it's cyclists yet refuse to acknowledge the volume of cycle traffic instead opting for: what's best for motorised traffic.

Again I think this comes down to crap design. It's slightly ironic that the design of the bike lane brings cyclists into conflict not only with cars, but also with other cyclists who are acting like cars.

Hang on, I'm going mostly by the highway code and I'm fairly aware that I'm not a ford focus. There's a system for road use that mostly works.....amongst other road users. As a road user I see nothing wrong in passing slower vehicles on the right (where possible/sensible). Why do you think this strange?

I would have laughed if it wasn't a regular occurrence.

Nailed it.

I do see what you mean here. The problem is that you want others to take the lane and be a vehicular cyclist like you, while they want to make use of the cycle lane that's been provided. The merits of both positions have been discussed at length and in detail elsewhere, but I think it's worth reiterating that not everyone is comfortable being a vehicular cyclist and the lack of provision for them is one of the main things holding cycling back.

Remember that 'being a vehicular cyclist' is not actually the sort of clichéd (and nonsensical) position it is often made out to be. At its essence, it is simply 'operating a pedal cycle in accordance with the laws for drivers of vehicles'. This includes things like not jumping red lights, not riding on footways, etc., and those are things with which a broad range of bike users agree no matter what their politics are. (Quite a few people who would call themselves 'vehicular cyclists' are blissfully unaware of this and jump red lights, etc.)

That the spotlight always shines on taking the lane as seemingly the signature technique of vehicular cycling, when it is just one of a number, is quite a distraction from the real meaning and the insight inherent in vehicular cycling advice. When you ride vehicularly, you're not obliged to take the lane; rather, you do your own risk assessment, and based on that, will probably take the lane more often than others whose risk assessment is not informed by the same sources, but that's where the differences end.

To suggest, as many do (you (ffm) seem to imply something like this, but I'm sure it's not what you mean), that there must exist some sort of absolute divide between cycle users based solely on their willingness to apply this technique is nonsense. Even the most timid rider will find it useful where their risk assessment demands it, and of course cycle trainees find time and time again that it is actually quite easy to apply. Even the most confident rider will opt to ride in the secondary position at times.

Let's not get too distracted by labels. :)

causing some ripples on twitter
Quite some ripples. My guess is that if they left the ride-smart.org site up for 24 hours there would have been a boycott of the brands that pay Karmarama a fortune to keep on advertising. The original site and signs around London were the worst sort of deliberate victim blaming I have ever seen.
Road.cc analysed the content then explored the background to these ads. I wonder who paid for it all, and why. Good work at advertise-smart.org

Why does the media continue to describe cycle transport and the associated safety as a 'debate'? There's not that much to discuss in all reality.

Victim blaming and skirting around factual issues aside, I think this country has very real problem with facing up to personal responsibility. Leaving London out of the equation for a minute, many if not most people rely on a car. Clearly any suggestion that they should obey the law regarding the car must be a huge issue for the government to tackle, like limiting the number of children people have, or whether to bring back the death penalty.
It seems so simple to reasonable people with a modicum of intelligence: prevent deaths at the root cause, in this case, by discovering why and how motorists kill. It's not because of a painted blue path (or lack of), it's not because of the victim failing to use optional protective equipment, it's not really even about whether some cyclists break the law as much as motorists do. Its a plain and simple fact that an increasing number of drivers are being at best careless, negligent and selfish, and at worst, aggressive, lawless and willfully violent. Furthermore, the chances of being caught and brought to book for this behaviour are few and far between, and when they are, often with surprisingly leniency.

The real 'debate' is not who's or what is to blame, it's whether we, as a country can admit we are wrong and work to redeem ourselves, and know that when we start up that motor, it's a privilege which requires us to respect and safeguard ourselves and others we encounter, by obeying the law, being considerate, knowledgable and skilled behind the wheel.

You may also consider, that the death of a pedestrian is lamented as a terrible 'accident', and you rarely hear anyone suggest it's their own fault because 'they run out in the road without looking' or 'they disobey traffic signals', yet these must be the cause of many pedestrian deaths. Not only is there a very 'pro motoring' attitude in the UK, there's a lot of daily evidence to say it's very much 'anti cycling' too.

I got called out by a pedestrian this morning, while stopped at a red light. "It's still red you know!" he yelled while pointing at the lights. I'm getting confused now.

Maybe I was wearing it on behalf of the white ortlieb blue bars wanker who plowed straight through the red light earlier, weaving an S-bend around cross traffic to avoid collision.

^^repped for writing so lucidly at such an early hour

I called out another cyclist somewhere in islington (not sure, just went for a random ride from home so wasn't following any directions) for RLJ + turn into flowing traffic at a crossroads (I was in aforesaid traffic, going straight ahead, she pulled in from left arm of crossroads)...

Me: "You shouldn't come out at a red light"

...Then I overtook and went off. Later I'm wiggling between cars and pull out into the bus lane as she comes up from behind "You should check behind you"

Touche.

Fuck, seems i got a lot to learn on the etiquette of cycling and cycling forums.

This is not your normal cycling forum my friend...

That >>>>>>>>>>>> f**k off to the other argument discussion on that topic... is just a thing they do here.

My mate descibes this place as "a bit rabid at times". You'll get used to it. :-)

I got called out by a pedestrian this morning, while stopped at a red light. "It's still red you know!" he yelled while pointing at the lights. I'm getting confused now.

Maybe I was wearing it on behalf of the white ortlieb blue bars wanker who plowed straight through the red light earlier, weaving an S-bend around cross traffic to avoid collision.

I've had this a few times. We are all the same in some people's eyes. We have debated this on this thread plenty of times before but it shows how the behaviour of some cyclists affects us all.

Of course they could have just been a nutter. I had an old duffer in a dark suit amble across the road 5ft away from a ped crossing on Belgrave Sq. He stopped a few feet short of the curb turned to me as I approached and shouted in a splendidly plummy accent "LIGHTS!". After checking that the both the Blackburn was on full beam and my little knog flasher was still flashing away I did consider doubling back to find out quite what he meant but I was too far down the road by then.