Irritating cyclists

[inlinesix]

When vehicular traffic is light, they're welcome to use the overpass, since inconvenience is minimal. But when traffic is significant (but still freely flowing on all lanes on the flyover), then they should be considerate enough to choose the underpass. Of course, if there's traffic gridlock, then it makes no difference at all - they'll still be the fastest vehicles except for motorbikes.

How about cyclist safety? Have you consider that?

[inlinesix]

I've encountered cyclists in a pelaton (that's a new word for me) two-abreast along the narrow, winding two-lane 99 bends road. There is *no* way to safely overtake them because there are too many of them (the phalanx is too long), so cars have to trudge along behind them at 20 km/hr (yes, they were travelling that slowly) the whole way. And there were a lot of cars trudging along.

 

Were the cyclists breaking the law? Probably not. But was their behaviour the height of inconsideration? Almost definitely yes. Because there are *plenty* of other roads they could've taken for their leisurely little ride, but they chose to go on a route that caused maximal inconvenience and frustration to motorists.

Do you mean that cyclist should not cycle in groups? Otherwise, drivers cannot overtake them. On 99 bends, the faster i could drive is 40km/h.

[Scoots]

How about cyclist safety? Have you consider that?

 

Care to elaborate how cyclist's safety differ between the 2 options?

[Scoots]

Do you mean that cyclist should not cycle in groups? Otherwise, drivers cannot overtake them. On 99 bends, the faster i could drive is 40km/h.

 

I believe the point is that cyclists should not hold up other road users for their own personal leisure

[Puteh]

I am perfectly OK with 80% of cyclists on the road, it's the minority that tarnish the reputation of the whole, and that's a shame.

 

Yes, its those yayapapaya minority type that I cant stand too! :angry: I cant stand it when these cyclists over exert their rights to be on the road. Thats when he endangers not only his life but other road users as well.

[Atonchia]

Some cyclist really have no sense of road safety and self preservation.

Just saw a young cyclist in full gear as well as blinker lights trying to turn right at the Bedok South Ave 1 and Bedok South Road Junction.

It was the same junction that a cyclist was killed on the spot when hit by a lorry few months back, pictures of the incident was even posted on

STOMP as well as here.

 

There were 3 lanes, left lane going straight to the direction of Bedok interchange, the middle lane is a straight with right turn lane, the right most lane is a right-turn only lane. This junction has a different right turn green arrow timing which will remain red even with green light for cars to move forward.

Only light up about half a minute.

 

This cyclist stay at the centre of middle lane awaiting the red arrow to turn green, foolishly exposing himself at the centre lane with a green light for cars to move forward. Whole middle lane no cars, and he just stayed right there.

 

It's night time, even with blinking lights if any distracted or blur driver did not notice him, think he'll just add to the statistic.

 

[Fondue]

...........

The last point is an important one - remember that vehicular traffic is most often trying to get someplace (be it work, home or other destination), but "athletic" bicyclers are just trying to get exercise and have some fun. To me, it's clear how the two types of traffic should be prioritised in terms of need (yes, and this applies even if the cyclists are training for some big event - there are always other times and other venues to do this sort of thing).

 

I fully understand where you are coming from on this point. You feel strongly that : vehicles going home/work/other destination = higher priority, cyclists just out to exercise= lower priority. Sounds logical, BUT, who are you to make the judgement for everyone ??

 

Lets change the scenario : MRT during rush hour.

Same limited public resources with 2 group of users.

 

One group of users going school/home/work = higher priority.

Other group on leave and going out to lim kopi = lower priority.

 

Based on your argument, the 2nd group should be considerate and not fight for the usage of public transport during rush hour.

Does it make sense ? Prob. yes. But can you make the judgement ?? Definitely NOT.

 

Given a choice, I would not want to take the MRT during rush hour. But life is not always so simple, so sometimes, I have to join in the mad rush even thought I'm just going for a TKSS session with friends.

 

Similarly, given a choice, most cyclist would want to cycle/train when and where the road is safe and free from impatient motorist. But as I said, life is more complex than just A or B.

[Scoots]

 

I fully understand where you are coming from on this point. You feel strongly that : vehicles going home/work/other destination = higher priority, cyclists just out to exercise= lower priority. Sounds logical, BUT, who are you to make the judgement for everyone ??

 

Lets change the scenario : MRT during rush hour.

Same limited public resources with 2 group of users.

 

One group of users going school/home/work = higher priority.

Other group on leave and going out to lim kopi = lower priority.

 

Based on your argument, the 2nd group should be considerate and not fight for the usage of public transport during rush hour.

Does it make sense ? Prob. yes. But can you make the judgement ?? Definitely NOT.

 

Given a choice, I would not want to take the MRT during rush hour. But life is not always so simple, so sometimes, I have to join in the mad rush even thought I'm just going for a TKSS session with friends.

 

Similarly, given a choice, most cyclist would want to cycle/train when and where the road is safe and free from impatient motorist. But as I said, life is more complex than just A or B.

 

But as long as neither group delay each other and use the MRT/road in the propler manner, there's no reason to fault them (ie they do not use up more of the shared resource than they should be, nor do they prevent others from using the shared resource). You'll definitely still give stares of disapproval if you enter a MRT cabin to see a group of 10+ beach-going school holidayers clowing around in the cabin, taking up more seats and floor space with their roller blades+holiday bags+guitar+football etc... during a weekday morning peak hour traffic right?

 

Going back to cyclists, the problem comes when

 

1.They take up a lane (either by riding in the middle or 2 cyclists abreast) and hold up traffic. If it was an empty road, which driver would want to crawl behind that pack anc complain when he'she can just simply overtake using the other lanes?

 

2.Cyclists toggle between pedestrain and road users when they choose to ride on the roads along the flow of traffic at some occasions, and when convenient to them, choose to be pedestrains at others, so that they can ride across pedestrain/zebra crossings

 

3.When they decide to adopt they own riding 'rules' (instead of those set down by the authorities) and ride on pedestrain walkways or against flow of traffic as oppose to the required, along the flow of traffic and obeying traffic rules

 

And in any and all instances, there's no way to report such errant cyclists simply by the fact that there's no means of identifying them to the proper authorities. And frankly, it's the educated and affluent cyclists who appreciate this loophole and exploit it

 

1.Are cyclists allowed on the roads? Yes.

2.Are they supposed to obey the traffic rules like all other road users? Also "yes".

3.Are cyclists allowed on pavements? No.

 

The problem is that most educated cyclists seem to appreciate the above mentioned point 1 but somehow conveniently disregard point 2. and 3.

 

Similarly, given a choice, most cyclist would want to cycle/train when and where the road is safe and free from impatient motorist. But as I said, life is more complex than just A or B

See... the thing is, they HAVE a choice. Ad they chose to cycle on the roads, claiming their rights. At the very least, they should also rememebr and shoulder their share of responsibility

Edited July 8, 2010 by Scoots

[1fast1]

But as long as neither group delay each other and use the MRT/road in the propler manner, there's no reason to fault them (ie they do not use up more of the shared resource than they should be, nor do they prevent others from using the shared resource). You'll definitely still give stares of disapproval if you enter a MRT cabin to see a group of 10+ beach-going school holidayers clowing around in the cabin, taking up more seats and floor space with their roller blades+holiday bags+guitar+football etc... during a weekday morning peak hour traffic right?

 

Going back to cyclists, the problem comes when

 

1.They take up a lane (either by riding in the middle or 2 cyclists abreast) and hold up traffic. If it was an empty road, which driver would want to crawl behind that pack anc complain when he'she can just simply overtake using the other lanes?

 

2.Cyclists toggle between pedestrain and road users when they choose to ride on the roads along the flow of traffic at some occasions, and when convenient to them, choose to be pedestrains at others, so that they can ride across pedestrain/zebra crossings

 

3.When they decide to adopt they own riding 'rules' (instead of those set down by the authorities) and ride on pedestrain walkways or against flow of traffic as oppose to the required, along the flow of traffic and obeying traffic rules

 

And in any and all instances, there's no way to report such errant cyclists simply by the fact that there's no means of identifying them to the proper authorities. And frankly, it's the educated and affluent cyclists who appreciate this loophole and exploit it

 

1.Are cyclists allowed on the roads? Yes.

2.Are they supposed to obey the traffic rules like all other road users? Also "yes".

3.Are cyclists allowed on pavements? No.

 

The problem is that most educated cyclists seem to appreciate the above mentioned point 1 but somehow conveniently disregard point 2. and 3.

 

 

See... the thing is, they HAVE a choice. Ad they chose to cycle on the roads, claiming their rights. At the very least, they should also rememebr and shoulder their share of responsibility

 

Scoots, I haven't been able to reply to the latest rebuttals, but you've spoken my mind almost exactly! Very well argued.

[Hypermiler]

All these argument back and forth is moot. As long as the ENFORCEMENT AGENCY is not there to enforce the respective traffic regulations, the grassroots will take the law/matter into their own hands. This is what is happening now.

 

Where are the LTA/ROV/TP/Traffic marshals, and the officials when i still see many cyclists cycling recklessly on roads, pavements, and designated footpaths?

 

Why are those with electric bikes still carrying passengers. Why are they still not wearing helmets.

 

Why are many cyclists still riding against the flow of traffic.

 

Why are many cyclists still riding across traffic junctions and zebra crossings when they are supposed to get down and push their bikes across.

 

Why are cyclists still riding thru the shelter of a bus-stops.

 

Why are cyclsits still riding with no head/tail lamps at night.

 

Why are cyclists still riding without warning bells.

 

It's fair to demand that drivers pay special attention to them. It's also fair that the cyclists share the road with drivers. However, there must be a two way give and take.

 

Bicyclists must go for highway code test. They MUST obey all traffic rules.

 

There's no point for cyclists demanding this and that when they can't even get all their own kind to act in one considerate manner. If they want to get a point across, clean up their own backyard first before pointing fingers at drivers.

 

Now, if the cyclists thinks that by distributing educational flyers to drivers will solve the problem. Think again. Better they spend their precious effort educating the reckless cyclists who flout traffic rules day in and out. Better they form a volunteer enforcement agency to apprehend cyclists who flout the laws. That means they go after even the foreign workers, uncle, aunties, kids, and whosoever claim ignorance of the law.

 

Once they get their act together, people will start listening.

 

As i have mentioned, I am also a cyclist. And i get very annoyed when i see cyclists with bad road attitudes. Is it so difficult for cyclists to obey traffic rules???

[inlinesix]

I believe the point is that cyclists should not hold up other road users for their own personal leisure

Cycle in group will hold up drivers. So, cyclist should cycle individually especially in places with 1 lane (from your POV).

[inlinesix]

Care to elaborate how cyclist's safety differ between the 2 options?

On the overpass, there is traffic lite. So, traffic is moving at a lower speed as compared to underpass.

[Aeromania]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE GO BACK TO EAST COAST PARK OR PASIR RIS PARK TO CYCLE.... WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE OUR LIFE THAT REMEMBERING THAT WE KILLED A CYCLIST BEFORE....

[Fastjimmy]

cyclists also (like grade of cars that TP lets off or pick on) have caste treatment - try Nicholl Highway on weekdays, you'll see Indian cyclists trying to hold hands towards Geyland diERECTION, China cyclists in bunch confused if Singapore's another PRCity, caucausian cyclists paddling frantically to race against cars...try (not) to knock down one while avoiding collision shunting another car, if xBox/PS doesn't give ya guys excitement of ramming motorbikes off the road (e.g., PGR4), get real life driving skill at our own re-erected nichol highway, with police camera ever watching you. What a challenge!

[Krado]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE GO BACK TO EAST COAST PARK OR PASIR RIS PARK TO CYCLE.... WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE OUR LIFE THAT REMEMBERING THAT WE KILLED A CYCLIST BEFORE....

 

Then don't bang us lor.

 

No bang = no kill.

[Seaweed]

they make us angry...we make them angry...they make us angry .....we make them angry....then all keep complaining....humm....it probably won't stop....I had my share of bad cyclists and bad drivers...

[Seaweed]

I am a cyclist who cycle regularly at parks as well...because the road is too dangerous for me to endure...and cycling at park is good enough distance for me...from ford rd to changi end and back is easily 30km...

 

looking at a perspective of a driver...if the bicycle wants to get onto the road....they need first to get two things done....pay road tax....and buy insurance coverage....and yes....get a license....should there is any form of transportation on road that requires no insurance....why should the rest need insurance ??? simple logic....

[HARDGAYHOOOO]

Ya, saw 1 cyclist this morning cycling at lane 2 along Mandai Road towards BKE. I don't undersatnd why he wanted to take such a risk

 

Towards an expressway????? Tot it is not allow????? Cyclist wanna to keep fit and lead an healthy lifestyle also must consider road wisedom too mah. Becos when kana accident,esp when the cyclist suffers major injuries, who will suffer in the end???