Cyclists should obey the rules of the road too

“I wouldn't condone anyone jumping a red light, cyclist or motorist, but if a cyclist chooses to weave through narrow gaps between vehicles that's up to them (and if they were required to leave a six-foot gap cycle lanes would have to be a whole lot wider).”

“"...not having proper lights or reflective clothing,"

... motorists with defective lights - even buses & local taxis.”

“It's ironic that Mr. Patrick mentions the Morrisons junction. As DanBath007 intimates, it has to be one of the worst for poor driving behaviour. Not only the light jumpers, but also the lane swappers who can't make up their mind if they want to go shopping or not, the two yellow box abusers (why don't motorists know how to use them?), the bus lane mergers, the fail to indicators & the bike lane blockers (It's only 3 feet wide - why do you have to sit in it!).

However the worst have to be the ones who, even with their blues & twos blasting away, fail to notice emergency vehicles coming towards them & still insist on turning into their path. Stupid.”

“Having spent years commuting by motorcycle, bicycle, car and walking, I would say that cyclists are by far the most likely to break the rules on red lights, weaving, not having proper lights or reflective clothing, and cycling where they are not supposed to, often at speed such that they couldn't possibly stop if something was in the way. However, it could be argued that the consequences of the cyclist committing these transgressions are in general less severe than those of a motorist doing similar. From a cyclist's point of view, it is often frightening how little consideration is given to the cyclist by motorists at junctions or when passing at speed. Of course there are good and bad cyclists and motorists, so perhaps I shouldn't generalise too much....”

“I've seen bikes "weave through traffic" complained about several times recently, and always - like here - in a way that implies cyclists aren't supposed to do that. Actually it's perfectly legal, as has been pointed out below. The Highway Code has provisions in it both for filterer and the surrounding traffic See rule 88 and 211:

https://http://tinyurl.com/8kgurnp

It is rather annoying to be lectured about the "rules of the road" by people who appear to have a very tenuous grasp of what those rules actually are.

The idea of leaving 6 feet is so that if the cyclist swerves for any reason, or falls off their bike the car won't run over them. It's important because both are moving, and the car is moving fast. Obviously cyclists don't need to leave a similar space if they're filtering because the traffic is stationary. That's common sense - you'd be happy to walk closer to a parked car than one in motion.

If we're going to complain about people not following the rules of the road, then we should also be looking at the large number of drivers who don't leave anything like the requisite space whilst overtaking. As someone who cycles London road twice a day, it's commonplace for cars to leave scant inches as they roar past you (to stop 30metres up the road at the next red light). It's especially dangerous on that road as it's in an appalling state.

None of which is to absolve stupid cyclists of the blame for accidents they cause. But ill-informed complaints like this lump perfectly law abiding cyclists in with them. That doesn't help anybody.”

“I'm amazed that such things are actually taught to prospective car drivers - but then so many other things are learned just to get through the test only to be forgotten afterwards - such as "Amber means STOP unless unsafe to do so - car drivers effectively jump red lights all the time.

I wouldn't know because I taught myself to drive a car one evening in 1984 and the driving test back then was somewhat inadequate - but I have learned how to use the road firstly as a motorcyclist and now as a cyclist - and I hope that is what informs my driving on those fortunately rare occasions when I'm forced to drive a car. (I can't think why any healthy person would choose that transport option for journeys under 5 miles with any enthusiasm)

To suggest that all problems would be solved if no cyclist ever filtered (yes, that's the term and it's totally legal) through a gap in grid-locked traffic less than 12 feet wide is bonkers.

In fact filtering past static traffic is often the only sensible use for the so-called "advisory cycle lanes" - that frequently are barely wider than the gutter. ( a glaring omission by the OP)”

“It's interesting you mention red light jumping at this junction. As a pedestrian I find it a crossing where you have to take great caution in not simply obeying the lights due to the great frequency of cars that jump these lights.”

“"Why are cyclists not expected to leave a similar clearance between them and the cars/lorries they pass when weaving through heavy traffic?"

Quite simple: speed and mass, and e=mc2.

Cyclist = small, slow ball. Motor vehicle = big, fast ball.

Small ball hit big ball stuck in traffic of own making: small ball bounce back!

Big, moving ball hit small, slower ball: big ball squash small ball, cyclist die!”

“When a car passes a bike it is making the assertive move and should leave the required clearance. If a bike chooses to pass a car closer then the cyclist has chosen to make the move, having assessed the risks. The important part of this is that the person at risk (the cyclist) has made the choice. The car driver is only risking the paintwork not their life.

It is also worth pointing out that often the cyclist has in fact looked and assessed far more than you may appreciate. They have far better all round view, even hearing and smell help in a way drivers cannot, cocooned in a box. They are also far more likely to be fully awake and attentive having the advantage of being involved in a physical activity.

I am not excusing bad cycling just pointing out that your perception may not be the full picture.”