5 ms·

I thoroughly agree. I live in Oxford, UK, well known for being bike-friendly, and it's incredibly rare that cyclists stop at lights here. It's a historic city w

I thoroughly agree. I live in Oxford, UK, well known for being bike-friendly, and it's incredibly rare that cyclists stop at lights here. It's a historic city with narrow streets and restricted visibility in some places. More than once I've gone to pull away from lights and a cyclist has zoomed through a red, forcing me to swerve. I've also encountered the 3-abreast thing and it's infuriating as a driver. Many ignore the fact there's a car behind them and force me to overtake dangerously rather than going to single-file. Now don't get me wrong, it's frustrating, but I'm also a cyclist. I appreciate Oxford's bike-friendliness. I cycle more than I drive. In fact, I've encountered more of the 3-abreast problem when I'm riding - groups having a chat at a slow speed while I'm trying to get to work. I stop at lights for my own safety while others completely ignore them. I never ride without a helmet. And when I'm on the road, I try to keep as close to the kerb as I can without hitting drains. It's frustrating, for sure, but the internet breeds hatred from frustration. There's a nice little graphic showing it as a distillation process. Facebook is phenomenally bad at this, by design, since it groups and sorts these kinds of people together. This DFROC group has one advantage though - it could be turned into a private group and then this pool of cess would never need to leak out to the rest of the internet. So long as it stays there, this hatred can continue to fester without hurting anyone, but as we know by now, it always leaks back into real life. The minority may give the majority a bad name, but the boiling hatred from these echo chambers eventually convinces somebody that their feelings are justified and go do something they will regret. The internet is not a healthy place, but it does have its distant basis in facts.

7952 8y ago
Mildly chaotic behaviour is a perfectly normal thing for a densley populated urban area. And that chaotic behaviour is true of absolutely everyone. Drunk pedestrians walking into the road. Kids wobbling on their bikes or walking out into the street without looking. Getting cut up at roundabouts when someone is in a hurry. All these things are perfectly normal and suprisingly safe, except when you add cars the the mix. Then suddenly you need hundreds of rules to do the most basic things. And Oxford is a perfect example of a city centre that is completely inappropriate for cars. The roads are simply not designed for it, and there are thousands of chaotic normal people in close proximity. That is what causes the conflict and frustration.
- foldr 8y ago
  >That is what causes the conflict and frustration. So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light?
  - lmm 8y ago
    > So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light? Sounds like it's the light that's causing it, given how much you're focusing on the light in your comments. Take the light out of the picture (which probably requires taking cars off of that road) and what would happen?
    - foldr 8y ago
      That would make it worse, since the issue is that you often can't see the bike coming. (Bikes are quiet and quite difficult to detect in peripheral vision.) When there's a convention that everyone stops at certain times to let pedestrians cross the road, you don't have to worry too much about that -- if people actually follow the rules.
      - lmm 8y ago
        I've never seen a no-motor-traffic intersection that used or needed lights. Somehow cyclists and pedestrians manage to negotiate priority at junctions on paths, cycleways, and in pedestrianized town centers just fine, human-to-human, even blind corners.
        foldr 8y ago
        Who said anything about no-motor-traffic intersections? I'm talking about cyclists in London. Regardless, it's pretty eccentric to suggest that traffic lights are responsible for collisions caused by people who ignore them. However safe a particular intersection currently is, removing traffic lights from it will make it less safe than that. That might be tolerable in a scenario where there's no motor traffic. But there is, obviously, motor traffic in London.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I live near Oxford and although there are a lot of cyclists I wouldn't describe it as bike-friendly. Every time I cycle down the Botley road I feel like I'm putting my life in my hands.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>Many ignore the fact there's a car behind them and force me to overtake dangerously rather than going to single-file. // FWIW cyclists are allowed to ride 2 abreast in the UK (occupying the full lane), the correct procedure as with any slow moving traffic in front of you is to be patient and wait for a safe place to pass. A cyclist riding close to the kerb increases danger, you invite cars to pass at higher speed and you leave no margin for error then - one wiggle and you're toast.

7952 8y ago

Mildly chaotic behaviour is a perfectly normal thing for a densley populated urban area. And that chaotic behaviour is true of absolutely everyone. Drunk pedestrians walking into the road. Kids wobbling on their bikes or walking out into the street without looking. Getting cut up at roundabouts when someone is in a hurry. All these things are perfectly normal and suprisingly safe, except when you add cars the the mix. Then suddenly you need hundreds of rules to do the most basic things. And Oxford is a perfect example of a city centre that is completely inappropriate for cars. The roads are simply not designed for it, and there are thousands of chaotic normal people in close proximity. That is what causes the conflict and frustration.

foldr 8y ago
>That is what causes the conflict and frustration. So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light?
- lmm 8y ago
  > So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light? Sounds like it's the light that's causing it, given how much you're focusing on the light in your comments. Take the light out of the picture (which probably requires taking cars off of that road) and what would happen?
  - foldr 8y ago
    That would make it worse, since the issue is that you often can't see the bike coming. (Bikes are quiet and quite difficult to detect in peripheral vision.) When there's a convention that everyone stops at certain times to let pedestrians cross the road, you don't have to worry too much about that -- if people actually follow the rules.
    - lmm 8y ago
      I've never seen a no-motor-traffic intersection that used or needed lights. Somehow cyclists and pedestrians manage to negotiate priority at junctions on paths, cycleways, and in pedestrianized town centers just fine, human-to-human, even blind corners.
      - foldr 8y ago
        Who said anything about no-motor-traffic intersections? I'm talking about cyclists in London. Regardless, it's pretty eccentric to suggest that traffic lights are responsible for collisions caused by people who ignore them. However safe a particular intersection currently is, removing traffic lights from it will make it less safe than that. That might be tolerable in a scenario where there's no motor traffic. But there is, obviously, motor traffic in London.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

I live near Oxford and although there are a lot of cyclists I wouldn't describe it as bike-friendly. Every time I cycle down the Botley road I feel like I'm putting my life in my hands.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>Many ignore the fact there's a car behind them and force me to overtake dangerously rather than going to single-file. // FWIW cyclists are allowed to ride 2 abreast in the UK (occupying the full lane), the correct procedure as with any slow moving traffic in front of you is to be patient and wait for a safe place to pass. A cyclist riding close to the kerb increases danger, you invite cars to pass at higher speed and you leave no margin for error then - one wiggle and you're toast.