Stupid cyclist!

[pk]

On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on the
Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies with the two
carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front wheel.

I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he get half
way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues his overtake and
cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front wing. Fortunately
the driver was alert and let him go.

Cyclist turns left into Hartfield road and proceeds to ride no hands on the
wrong side of the road - car passes on the correct side of the road.

Cyclist sees car coming up Hartfield road, and continues no hands hard up
against the RH kerb ie in the face of the oncoming traffic carrier bags
still swinging. Sees a cyclist positioned correctly, being overtaken and is
heading for head on collision, so exits road onto pavement, ignoring the
pedestrians walking there. Passes several parked cars then hops onto road
again as I am passing and he continues to cycle on the wrong side of the
road.

You could not make it up!

pk

[David[_11_]]

"pk" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on the
> Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies with the two
> carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front wheel.
>
> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
> Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he get
> half way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues his
> overtake and cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front
> wing. Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
>

Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking and had
the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad driving (the same as
accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which is the
same as not hitting!

Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.

[bugbear]

pk wrote:
> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on the
> Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies with the
> two carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front wheel.
>
> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
> Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he get
> half way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues his
> overtake and cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front
> wing. Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
>
> Cyclist turns left into Hartfield road and proceeds to ride no hands on
> the wrong side of the road - car passes on the correct side of the road.
>
> Cyclist sees car coming up Hartfield road, and continues no hands hard
> up against the RH kerb ie in the face of the oncoming traffic carrier
> bags still swinging. Sees a cyclist positioned correctly, being
> overtaken and is heading for head on collision, so exits road onto
> pavement, ignoring the pedestrians walking there. Passes several parked
> cars then hops onto road again as I am passing and he continues to cycle
> on the wrong side of the road.
>
> You could not make it up!

If he could ride no hands with carrier
bags on the handles bars, I'm impressed.

Or should that be "doubtful"?

BugBear

[pk]

"David" > wrote in message
...
> "pk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on the
>> Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies with the two
>> carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front wheel.
>>
>> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
>> Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he get
>> half way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues his
>> overtake and cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front
>> wing. Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
>>
>
> Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking and
> had the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad driving (the
> same as accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
> Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which is the
> same as not hitting!
>
> Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
>
>


I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach they ARE
about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor technique and
very stupid - from the cyclists positioning, the driver could easily have
assumed he was going ahead/right with the road.

pk

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

pk wrote:

> "David" > wrote in message
> ... >"pk"
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > > On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist
> > > on the Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old
> > > Woolies with the two carrier bags on his right handle bar
> > > knocking his front wheel.
> > >
> > > I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just
> > > before Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary
> > > car. As he get half way along the car, the lights start to
> > > change, he continues his overtake and cuts across the car at 45
> > > degrees barely missing the front wing. Fortunately the driver
> > > was alert and let him go.
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking
> > and had the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad
> > driving (the same as accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
> > Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which
> > is the same as not hitting!
> >
> > Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
> >
> >
>
>
> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
> technique and very stupid

Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
to do.

> - from the cyclists positioning, the
> driver could easily have assumed he was going ahead/right with the
> road.

Assume away, but there was no accident, so all's well.

It does sound like this particular teen may not get past his teens
though .. ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Derek C]

On Jun 22, 10:58*am, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> pk wrote:
> > "David" > wrote in message
> ... *>"pk"
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > On Saturday morning I followed (in *my car) a mid teens cyclist
> > > > on the *Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old
> > > > Woolies with the two *carrier bags on his right handle bar
> > > > knocking his front wheel.
>
> > > > I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just
> > > > before *Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary
> > > > car. As he get *half way along the car, the lights start to
> > > > change, he continues his *overtake and cuts across the car at 45
> > > > degrees barely missing the front *wing. Fortunately the driver
> > > > was alert and let him go.
>
> > > Absolutely nothing wrong here. *He was in the process of overtaking
> > > and *had the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad
> > > driving (the *same as accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
> > > Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which
> > > is the *same as not hitting!
>
> > > Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
>
> > I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
> > they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
> > technique and very stupid
>
> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
> to do.
>
> > - from the cyclists *positioning, the
> > driver could easily have assumed he was going ahead/right with the
> > road.
>
> Assume away, but there was no accident, so all's well.
>
> It does sound like this particular teen may not get past his teens
> though .. ;)
>
> --
Darwin in action again! Sounds like perfectly normal behaviour for a
cyclist anyway.

[David[_11_]]

"pk" > wrote in message
...
> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach they
> ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor technique
> and very stupid - from the cyclists positioning, the driver could easily
> have assumed he was going ahead/right with the road.

So what, even if they 'were' green, the cyclists was overtaking so the car
should not accelerate!

[Matt B]

On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
> pk wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...>"pk"
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist
>>>> on the Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old
>>>> Woolies with the two carrier bags on his right handle bar
>>>> knocking his front wheel.
>>>>
>>>> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just
>>>> before Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary
>>>> car. As he get half way along the car, the lights start to
>>>> change, he continues his overtake and cuts across the car at 45
>>>> degrees barely missing the front wing. Fortunately the driver
>>>> was alert and let him go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking
>>> and had the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad
>>> driving (the same as accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
>>> Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which
>>> is the same as not hitting!
>>>
>>> Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
>>
>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>> technique and very stupid
>
> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
> to do.

No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle
lane (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if
the lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the
stop line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.

--
Matt B

[pk]

"David" > wrote in message
...
> "pk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach they
>> ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor technique
>> and very stupid - from the cyclists positioning, the driver could easily
>> have assumed he was going ahead/right with the road.
>
> So what, even if they 'were' green, the cyclists was overtaking so the car
> should not accelerate!
>

the cyclist's maneuver could easily have been interpreted as passing in
the the right hand lane of the two lane one way system

pk

[mileburner]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:

>>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>>> technique and very stupid
>>
>> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
>> to do.
>
> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle lane
> (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if the
> lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the stop
> line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.

Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Matt B wrote:

> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
> > pk wrote:
> >
> > wrote in message
> > > ...>"pk"
> > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens
> > > > > cyclist on the Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past
> > > > > the old Woolies with the two carrier bags on his right
> > > > > handle bar knocking his front wheel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just
> > > > > before Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the
> > > > > stationary car. As he get half way along the car, the lights
> > > > > start to change, he continues his overtake and cuts across
> > > > > the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front wing.
> > > > > Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of
> > > > overtaking and had the car pulled away it would have been
> > > > exceedingly bad driving (the same as accelerating when a car
> > > > is overtaking!!!). Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the
> > > > same as missing which is the same as not hitting!
> > > >
> > > > Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
> > >
> > > I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
> > > they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is
> > > poor technique and very stupid
> >
> > Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are
> > expected to do.
>
> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle
> lane (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places)
> if the lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross
> the stop line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.

The ASL closest to me has this cycle lane in the gutter .. but a couple
in town have them on the right hand side of the lane, angled in so
you're forced to cut across the front of stationary traffic.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[pk]

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
>
>>>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>>>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>>>> technique and very stupid
>>>
>>> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
>>> to do.
>>
>> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle
>> lane (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if
>> the lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the
>> stop line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.
>
> Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?
>

an irrelevant argument - there was no ASL box at the lights in question,
simply two lines of one way traffic, the cyclist passed in the RH and and
immediately cut across

pk

[mileburner]

"pk" > wrote in message
...
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
>>
>>>>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>>>>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>>>>> technique and very stupid
>>>>
>>>> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
>>>> to do.
>>>
>>> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle
>>> lane (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if
>>> the lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the
>>> stop line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.
>>
>> Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?
>>
>
> an irrelevant argument - there was no ASL box at the lights in question,
> simply two lines of one way traffic, the cyclist passed in the RH and and
> immediately cut across

What is "an irrelevant argument"? I was merely asking a question.

[pk]

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>>>>>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>>>>>> technique and very stupid
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are
>>>>> expected
>>>>> to do.
>>>>
>>>> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle
>>>> lane (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places)
>>>> if the lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross
>>>> the stop line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.
>>>
>>> Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?
>>>
>>
>> an irrelevant argument - there was no ASL box at the lights in question,
>> simply two lines of one way traffic, the cyclist passed in the RH and and
>> immediately cut across
>
> What is "an irrelevant argument"? I was merely asking a question.
>


in the current context any arguments about ASL justifying the cyclists
behaviour is irrelevant - the guy was a ****wit auditioning for a Darwin
award.

pk

[JNugent[_7_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:

> The ASL closest to me has this cycle lane in the gutter .. but a couple
> in town have them on the right hand side of the lane, angled in so
> you're forced to cut across the front of stationary traffic.

"Forced"?

If you don't think it's wise, don't do it. And I'm sure you don't.

[JNugent[_7_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "pk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
>>>>>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>>>>>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>>>>>> technique and very stupid
>>>>> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
>>>>> to do.
>>>> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle
>>>> lane (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if
>>>> the lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the
>>>> stop line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.
>>> Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?
>>>
>> an irrelevant argument - there was no ASL box at the lights in question,
>> simply two lines of one way traffic, the cyclist passed in the RH and and
>> immediately cut across
>
> What is "an irrelevant argument"? I was merely asking a question.

Posters frequently make that mistake in this NG.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:

> Paul - xxx wrote:
>
> > The ASL closest to me has this cycle lane in the gutter .. but a
> > couple in town have them on the right hand side of the lane, angled
> > in so you're forced to cut across the front of stationary traffic.
>
> "Forced"?
>
> If you don't think it's wise, don't do it. And I'm sure you don't.

I'm not on about me ... but yes. If you come into the ASL box you have
to cut across the front vehicle otherwise you're aiming into the lane
or going over a kerb.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[JNugent[_7_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Paul - xxx wrote:

>>> The ASL closest to me has this cycle lane in the gutter .. but a
>>> couple in town have them on the right hand side of the lane, angled
>>> in so you're forced to cut across the front of stationary traffic.

>> "Forced"?
>> If you don't think it's wise, don't do it. And I'm sure you don't.

> I'm not on about me ... but yes. If you come into the ASL box you have
> to cut across the front vehicle otherwise you're aiming into the lane
> or going over a kerb.

The first use of "you" there was in the sense of "one".

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:48:51 +0100, "mileburner"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
>> On 22/06/2010 10:58, Paul - xxx wrote:
>
>>>> I disagree, if lights have been red for the whole of your approach
>>>> they ARE about to change, overtaking and then cutting across is poor
>>>> technique and very stupid
>>>
>>> Not if there's an ASL at the lights ... it's what cyclists are expected
>>> to do.
>>
>> No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle lane
>> (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if the
>> lights are on red. It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the stop
>> line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.
>
>Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?

I'm not sure that I'd expect a typical policeman to know that.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 22, 1:48*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>
> > No, cyclists are only allowed to enter the ASL box via a marked cycle lane
> > (which may be just a funny little "gate" marking in some places) if the
> > lights are on red. *It is illegal for them to otherwise cross the stop
> > line (when lights are red) into the ASL box.
>
> Do you actually expect a typical road user to know that?

The law is the law and ignorance is no excuse. So says mileburner,
but only when "the law" applies to motorists. Almost like he has a
prejudice against cars and is looking for any means possible to make
driving them more unpleasant, whatever the side effects of doing so.

[Tony Dragon]

David wrote:
> "pk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on the
>> Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies with the two
>> carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front wheel.
>>
>> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
>> Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he get
>> half way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues his
>> overtake and cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front
>> wing. Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
>>
>
> Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking and had
> the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad driving (the same as
> accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
> Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which is the
> same as not hitting!
>
> Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
>
>

So it's ok to overtake just before you turn left, correct me if I am
wrong but cyclists are always complaining about trucks etc doing this.

--
Tony Dragon

[pk]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
>> "pk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on the
>>> Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies with the
>>> two carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front wheel.
>>>
>>> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
>>> Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he get
>>> half way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues his
>>> overtake and cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing the front
>>> wing. Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking and
>> had the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad driving (the
>> same as accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
>> Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which is the
>> same as not hitting!
>>
>> Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
>>
>>
>
> So it's ok to overtake just before you turn left, correct me if I am wrong
> but cyclists are always complaining about trucks etc doing this.
>
> --
> Tony Dragon


tut tut, Tony! Pointing out such logical flaws by the "two wheels good"
brotherhood is bad form!

pk

[Tony Dragon]

pk wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David wrote:
>>> "pk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Saturday morning I followed (in my car) a mid teens cyclist on
>>>> the Wimbledon one way system, as he wobbled past the old Woolies
>>>> with the two carrier bags on his right handle bar knocking his front
>>>> wheel.
>>>>
>>>> I stayed in lane behind him as we approached the lights just before
>>>> Hartfield road. Lights red. He overtakes the stationary car. As he
>>>> get half way along the car, the lights start to change, he continues
>>>> his overtake and cuts across the car at 45 degrees barely missing
>>>> the front wing. Fortunately the driver was alert and let him go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely nothing wrong here. He was in the process of overtaking
>>> and had the car pulled away it would have been exceedingly bad
>>> driving (the same as accelerating when a car is overtaking!!!).
>>> Also 'barely missing the front wing' is the same as missing which is
>>> the same as not hitting!
>>>
>>> Admittedly from there on in it all goes pear shaped.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So it's ok to overtake just before you turn left, correct me if I am
>> wrong but cyclists are always complaining about trucks etc doing this.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Dragon
>
>
> tut tut, Tony! Pointing out such logical flaws by the "two wheels good"
> brotherhood is bad form!
>
> pk
>

I am so sorry, my logic will be more flawed after a few drinks.

--
Tony Dragon

[Happi Monday[_3_]]

On 22/06/2010 10:29, pk wrote:

> You could not make it up!

Didn't you just?

[pk]

"Happi Monday" > wrote in message
...
> On 22/06/2010 10:29, pk wrote:
>
>> You could not make it up!
>
> Didn't you just?



sadly it happened exactly as described!

pk

[Happi Monday[_3_]]

On 22/06/2010 14:57, JNugent wrote:

> Posters frequently make that mistake in this NG.

Whereas, you are simply a mistake :-)