Cycling in traffic, the French way

Gungahlin Al said :

beardedclam said :

Do you know me? What do you mean people like me. I will have a go at making assumptions too…ready…. You referenced the folk festival, you must be a hippy that loves trees and bicycles and hates anything that pollutes…. way off?? What a surprise.

Or are you upset because i suggested dismounting a bicycle at a crossing.

The fact is, I ride bicycles, I dont ride them in a situation that seems silly, or dangerous. I am aware of the road rules, moreso than you I suspect. I dont have a problem with cyclists that use common sense.

All I am saying is common sense must come into it.

Think about this:
The law says only licenced electricians can change lightbulbs, do you follow the law or change the bulb yourself. What does common sense suggest? Thanks Al

Mate I’m all of the above. Except I wear a suit.

So let’s step down from being rude to each other…?

My reasoning for assuming that you are one of the sort of driver who squeezes through in the same lane beside a cyclist is that you said yourself that the cyclist should have moved over to the side of the lane. If not so that you and others could squeeze through then why? I think that’s a reasonable assumption to reach from the words you wrote.

And I’m trying to tell you that this is a practice the scares the bejesus out of cyclists because it has no regard for the possibility they may jag around a bit of glass or a pothole, or that the driver may miscalculate and go even closer.
So faced with that potentially painful possibility, many cyclists choose to occupy the lane, which they are entirely entitled to do.

You suggest that he should “go pedestrian” and walk across at the lights. This is a process that will take him several minutes with changes. You are suggesting he should sacrifice that time, rather than undertake what should be a perfectly safe right turn, because it held you up for what – 10 seconds?

I disagree. Just be patient for a few seconds.

Is that suit made from lycra?

beardedclam said :

Do you know me? What do you mean people like me. I will have a go at making assumptions too…ready…. You referenced the folk festival, you must be a hippy that loves trees and bicycles and hates anything that pollutes…. way off?? What a surprise.

Or are you upset because i suggested dismounting a bicycle at a crossing.

The fact is, I ride bicycles, I dont ride them in a situation that seems silly, or dangerous. I am aware of the road rules, moreso than you I suspect. I dont have a problem with cyclists that use common sense.

All I am saying is common sense must come into it.

Think about this:
The law says only licenced electricians can change lightbulbs, do you follow the law or change the bulb yourself. What does common sense suggest? Thanks Al

Mate I’m all of the above. Except I wear a suit.

So let’s step down from being rude to each other…?

My reasoning for assuming that you are one of the sort of driver who squeezes through in the same lane beside a cyclist is that you said yourself that the cyclist should have moved over to the side of the lane. If not so that you and others could squeeze through then why? I think that’s a reasonable assumption to reach from the words you wrote.

And I’m trying to tell you that this is a practice the scares the bejesus out of cyclists because it has no regard for the possibility they may jag around a bit of glass or a pothole, or that the driver may miscalculate and go even closer.
So faced with that potentially painful possibility, many cyclists choose to occupy the lane, which they are entirely entitled to do.

You suggest that he should “go pedestrian” and walk across at the lights. This is a process that will take him several minutes with changes. You are suggesting he should sacrifice that time, rather than undertake what should be a perfectly safe right turn, because it held you up for what – 10 seconds?

I disagree. Just be patient for a few seconds.

Gungahlin Al said :

beardedclam said :

So, I will say again, yes he has the right to be there and good for him too. And yes there may be some valid reasons for it such as he only can afford a bike etc. I actually think the proposal in France may work, depending on the common sense of the cyclists. Unfortunately based on my experiences, it wouldn’t work here with lack of common sense. Not all the time, but frequently.
However, when a knob is riding his fashionable fold up cycle in the middle of the lane along a busy main road near a town centre mid Saturday morning during a peak period, perhaps a novice perhaps not, oblivious to his surroundings, is it common sense to ride in the middle of the road, or in a designated bike path?
Just because you are allowed, doesn’t always mean you should.
And GungAl, maybe hop off the bike where the bike lane permits at the intersection, then walk the bike across the road at the designated pedestrian crossing or assisted by the little green man.

People get cheesed off if cyclists switch between “now I’m a road user; now I’m a footpath user” modes. People get cheesed off if cyclists stay with one or the other. Can’t win.

He’s entitled to use the road lane. And he’s justified sitting in the middle of the lane because if he goes to one side people like you will try to squeeze through, infringing his “bubble” with no regard for the possibility of a wobble or pothole dodge. It’s a legitimate cyclist safety tactic that I use myself.

The Folk Festival regulars The Spooky Men’s Chorale do a street skit where they’re all in suits and they drive a wedge through the crowd chanting “Let me through, let me through, I’ve got important things to do.” I’ve always thought that sums up the impatience of Canberra drivers exquisitely.

Do you know me? What do you mean people like me. I will have a go at making assumptions too…ready…. You referenced the folk festival, you must be a hippy that loves trees and bicycles and hates anything that pollutes…. way off?? What a surprise.

Or are you upset because i suggested dismounting a bicycle at a crossing.

The fact is, I ride bicycles, I dont ride them in a situation that seems silly, or dangerous. I am aware of the road rules, moreso than you I suspect. I dont have a problem with cyclists that use common sense.

All I am saying is common sense must come into it.

Think about this:
The law says only licenced electricians can change lightbulbs, do you follow the law or change the bulb yourself. What does common sense suggest? Thanks Al

beardedclam said :

So, I will say again, yes he has the right to be there and good for him too. And yes there may be some valid reasons for it such as he only can afford a bike etc. I actually think the proposal in France may work, depending on the common sense of the cyclists. Unfortunately based on my experiences, it wouldn’t work here with lack of common sense. Not all the time, but frequently.
However, when a knob is riding his fashionable fold up cycle in the middle of the lane along a busy main road near a town centre mid Saturday morning during a peak period, perhaps a novice perhaps not, oblivious to his surroundings, is it common sense to ride in the middle of the road, or in a designated bike path?
Just because you are allowed, doesn’t always mean you should.
And GungAl, maybe hop off the bike where the bike lane permits at the intersection, then walk the bike across the road at the designated pedestrian crossing or assisted by the little green man.

People get cheesed off if cyclists switch between “now I’m a road user; now I’m a footpath user” modes. People get cheesed off if cyclists stay with one or the other. Can’t win.

He’s entitled to use the road lane. And he’s justified sitting in the middle of the lane because if he goes to one side people like you will try to squeeze through, infringing his “bubble” with no regard for the possibility of a wobble or pothole dodge. It’s a legitimate cyclist safety tactic that I use myself.

The Folk Festival regulars The Spooky Men’s Chorale do a street skit where they’re all in suits and they drive a wedge through the crowd chanting “Let me through, let me through, I’ve got important things to do.” I’ve always thought that sums up the impatience of Canberra drivers exquisitely.

awesome 🙂

So, I will say again, yes he has the right to be there and good for him too. And yes there may be some valid reasons for it such as he only can afford a bike etc. I actually think the proposal in France may work, depending on the common sense of the cyclists. Unfortunately based on my experiences, it wouldn’t work here with lack of common sense. Not all the time, but frequently.
However, when a knob is riding his fashionable fold up cycle in the middle of the lane along a busy main road near a town centre mid Saturday morning during a peak period, perhaps a novice perhaps not, oblivious to his surroundings, is it common sense to ride in the middle of the road, or in a designated bike path?
Just because you are allowed, doesn’t always mean you should.
And GungAl, maybe hop off the bike where the bike lane permits at the intersection, then walk the bike across the road at the designated pedestrian crossing or assisted by the little green man.

beardedclam said :

Another law that will enable cyclists to use the old “I’m allowed to so I will, regardless of how dangerous it may be to myself or other road users” excuse to defend their stupid actions on the road. Case in point, I witnessed the same cyclist on a fold up bicycle following all the road rules, on two seperate occassions in two seperate locations within about two minutes.
He was oblivious, or choosing to show no respect, to the other vehicles, particularly in the right hand lane directly behind him as he turned right across an intersection. Sounds fine. He was slow, very slow. Not to the left of the lane, right in the middle. There were no traffic lights, just an intersection with its own turning lane. I thought the car behind was going to nail him, so much so that I grabbed the wifes leg in the passenger seat and squeezed as the car approached. I puckered, lifted and….. the cars came to a sudden stop, the cyclist rode off, not flinching and unaware of what he just caused. He was wearing a helmet though, and he was allowed to be on the road, but surely when there are safer bicycle lanes and street crossings all around, common sense can sometimes outwiegh the law…. can’t it?

The guy has to turn right. How else do you suggest he does that?
It’s only hazardous if drivers get upset at the lost 10 seconds – which they’ll make up before they get to the next corner anyway.
Sit back, relax, and contemplate that his physical activity is probably contributing to a) reduced road construction costs, and b) reduced health care costs, for you as a taxpayer.

Solidarity said :

KB1971 said :

beardedclam said :

Another law that will enable cyclists to use the old “I’m allowed to so I will, regardless of how dangerous it may be to myself or other road users” excuse to defend their stupid actions on the road. Case in point, I witnessed the same cyclist on a fold up bicycle following all the road rules, on two seperate occassions in two seperate locations within about two minutes.
He was oblivious, or choosing to show no respect, to the other vehicles, particularly in the right hand lane directly behind him as he turned right across an intersection. Sounds fine. He was slow, very slow. Not to the left of the lane, right in the middle. There were no traffic lights, just an intersection with its own turning lane. I thought the car behind was going to nail him, so much so that I grabbed the wifes leg in the passenger seat and squeezed as the car approached. I puckered, lifted and….. the cars came to a sudden stop, the cyclist rode off, not flinching and unaware of what he just caused. He was wearing a helmet though, and he was allowed to be on the road, but surely when there are safer bicycle lanes and street crossings all around, common sense can sometimes outwiegh the law…. can’t it?

WTF? So a car driver wasnt aware of his surroundings & it was the cyclists fault? (even though the rider was lawfully in the right).

This is the problem with a lot of car drivers, putting aside the antics of some riders (I acknowledge that they are dicks), they think they can just do what they like & push past a rider. Take Poetix’s thread as a case in point. They just dont seem to see them as a road user like everybody else (& dont start with the no rego crap, ATM riders are legally entitled to use the road).

I wonder what would happen if semi trailer and B-double drivers started doing the same thing to cars what would happen? How do you recon that would go if a fully loaded B-double ran you over.

Its a bit like emergency vehicles, for some reason people dont geddit.

I don’t see where it says the cyclist is at fault? It actually says he was abiding by the law.

“the cars came to a sudden stop, the cyclist rode off, not flinching and unaware of what he just caused.”

well, then if anything “did” happen, the onus of responsibility is still on car number 2 (the one behind the one behind the cyclist). not the cyclist, or the car number 1 driving appropriately to the conditions…

The “knob” may be someone with a physical limitation who will never be legally capable of riding a car and it may be his ONLY form of transport.

The knob may be someone who has only recently learnt to ride a bike, or a novice rider who is just venturing onto the road.

The knob may be someone who can’t afford a car

Knobbiness is in the eye of the beholder….

Sounds to me like a cunning example of Darwinianism on the part of the French legislators.