A cyclist's rant to incompetent road users...

custardy

blissfulbabe wrote: »

Ah, but the cyclist who rode through a red light, in February this year,and hit me as I was crossing at a pedestrian crossing (where the green man was displayed) was a male. He was nearly as upset about his damaged front wheel as I was about my discolated knee cap and the gash in my leg that needed seven stitches.

I hit a pedestrian on the crossing on my bike once
light was green for me but it was my fault according to those around as i was going to fast, and there was no traffic :eek:

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Rossy. wrote: »

Pew pew we get the point you're a cyclist.

You may well abide the highway code and i applaud you if you do, but it still doesn't retract the fact that the majority of cyclists are pure wan*ers solely because they do not adhere to the highway code. The majority of RTC's that involve cyclists are purely because the cyclist popped a red light or something, or worse tried undertaking a HGV/Bus etc.

Don't get me wrong i like riding a bike but only on bike trails etc.

How do you manage to make your buttocks approximate human speech so convincingly?

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Gloomendoom wrote: »

You are wrong. Motorists have exactly the same rights as cyclists. The only public highways that cyclists have the right to use and motorists don't are dedicated cycleways, bridleways (but only since 1968), some restricted byways or any other public highway where other traffic is controlled by a Traffic Regulation Order. Cyclists have no right at all to use the public roads defined as motorways.

Motorists have a entitlement to use the roads, gained with a licence. That licence must be earned, and it may also be revoked.

What part of that system implies any kind of legal right?

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Your logic is flawed. Some of the highest CO2 emitting vehicles also pay no VED. Applying your logic to that fact would suggest that, as they are at the opposite end of the scale, cyclists should pay more than anyone else.

I'm talking about vehicles manufactured for the last 10 years or so, not vehicles sold before emissions tests were required. Obviously you know that, and are hoping that others here do not.

vikingaero

custardy wrote: »

I hit a pedestrian on the crossing on my bike once
light was green for me but it was my fault according to those around as i was going to fast, and there was no traffic :eek:

Isn't that the problem - peoples social perception. car hits bike, must be the car drivers fault; bike hits pedestrian, must be the bikers fault; pedestrian retard can do what he/she likes with no personal responsibility because of this absurd attitude of our blame culture.

andygb

As an ex cyclist, I can see much wrong with SOME cyclists behaviour, the same as I can with SOME car drivers behaviour.
SOME cyclists run red lights, and so do SOME car drivers. SOME cyclists do not stop at pedestrian crossings, the same with SOME car drivers.
Car drivers should get a ticket for parking in a cycle lane, and cyclists should get warned for not using road based cycling lanes when available.
I get really annoyed when I can see a cyclist up ahead, and none of the cars indicate to overtake them.
I also get really annoyed when cyclists ride two abreast on narrow country roads, and hold up traffic.
I also get annoyed, when people say they want to see bicycles banned from the roads - why, they are the most efficient form of transport ever invented.

vikingaero

andygb wrote: »

As an ex cyclist, I can see much wrong with SOME cyclists behaviour, the same as I can with SOME car drivers behaviour.
SOME cyclists run red lights, and so do SOME car drivers. SOME cyclists do not stop at pedestrian crossings, the same with SOME car drivers.
Car drivers should get a ticket for parking in a cycle lane, and cyclists should get warned for not using road based cycling lanes when available.
I get really annoyed when I can see a cyclist up ahead, and none of the cars indicate to overtake them.
I also get really annoyed when cyclists ride two abreast on narrow country roads, and hold up traffic.
I also get annoyed, when people say they want to see bicycles banned from the roads - why, they are the most efficient form of transport ever invented.

In general I would agree with you Andy. You comments apply to the whole of the UK. But in London and most cities you'd have to rephrase what you have said to:

98% of cyclists run red lights, and so do 2% of car drivers. MOST cyclists do not stop at pedestrian crossings, MOST car drivers do.

The percentage of offences by cyclists are far higher than those committed by motorists. Remember that a number of lights are protected by Red Light Cameras which catch motorists but not cyclists. Most motorist in London wouldn't run reds with cameras.

custardy

vikingaero wrote: »

In general I would agree with you Andy. You comments apply to the whole of the UK. But in London and most cities you'd have to rephrase what you have said to:

98% of cyclists run red lights, and so do 2% of car drivers. MOST cyclists do not stop at pedestrian crossings, MOST car drivers do.

The percentage of offences by cyclists are far higher than those committed by motorists. Remember that a number of lights are protected by Red Light Cameras which catch motorists but not cyclists. Most motorist in London wouldn't run reds with cameras.

I will agree its more prevalent in the cities(but then out of the city it less of an issue by the roads set up)
always amazes me when you see older cyclists with no lights though

sequence

muckybutt wrote: »

ASL's shame the stupid cyclist didnt know how to use them in York last week when I knocked her off !

Two lanes - ASL for both, im turning left, bike comes along the right side of me and stops in the middle of both lanes, light changes to green and I proceed to set off, bike goes straight on then decides no shes going left too.....bike meet my bumper.
She gave no signals that she was turning, im glad I have cctv in the van as a third witness.

Police agreed with me bikers fault, its about time bikers were made to pay insurance and competancy before being allowed on the road.

]

So how much £ damage did the cyclist do to your bumper ?

Care to pot the video ?

[Deleted User]

I don't mind the proper road cyclists that abide by the law e.g. stop at red lights. Wear the right gear and travel up to speed in the primary position.

The ones I can't stand are the ones that wobble about the road at 2mph with no viability gear on, jumping lights and bumping up pavements to jump corners, etc.

Gloomendoom

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Motorists have a entitlement to use the roads, gained with a licence. That licence must be earned, and it may also be revoked.

What part of that system implies any kind of legal right?

Motorists have the legal right to use any public highway that law does not specifically prevent them from doing so. They may have to meet certain conditions in order to exercise that right, but that does not mean that that right does not exist. Cyclists are the same, they can use any public highway that the law does not specifically exclude them from (footpaths, motorways etc.) but only if they meet certain conditions. Their bicycles must be fitted with an audible means of warning of their approach (a bell or similar), for example, and must be fitted with lights if used at at night.

Cyclists are the same as motorists... they must meet conditions before they can exercise their right to use the roads.

I'm talking about vehicles manufactured for the last 10 years or so, not vehicles sold before emissions tests were required. Obviously you know that, and are hoping that others here do not.

I was/am hoping nothing of the sort. You tried to establish a link between the lack of VED on bicycles and the lack of VED on low polluting motor vehicles. I, and others, pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Yes, it is true bicycles attract no VED. Yes, it is true that bicycles emit low levels of CO2. Is there a link? Unlikely. After all, bicycles have never been liable for VED.