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

muckybutt

sequence wrote: »

]

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

Care to pot the video ?

None but her back wheel is burgered.

Cant post video as that is with my companies insurers as evidence if she ever tries to make a claim against me.

andygb

custardy wrote: »

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

Saw one last night Custardy (only just in time). It was raining and he had dark clothing on. He must have thought that the blinking front light would enable the traffic behind to see him.
Very scary, very stupid.
I used to get the Mickey taken for wearing a dayglo jacket, fluo sam browne belt and the brightest lights you have ever seen.

custardy

andygb wrote: »

Saw one last night Custardy (only just in time). It was raining and he had dark clothing on. He must have thought that the blinking front light would enable the traffic behind to see him.
Very scary, very stupid.
I used to get the Mickey taken for wearing a dayglo jacket, fluo sam browne belt and the brightest lights you have ever seen.

you dont even have to be dayglo
that newer silver high viz piping you get is very effective
my winter running top has it and it lights up well, when cars come round on unlit bits
(yes if you are driving around holyrood park in winter,Im one of the loons running in the dark)

andygb

custardy wrote: »

you dont even have to be dayglo
that newer silver high viz piping you get is very effective
my winter running top has it and it lights up well, when cars come round on unlit bits
(yes if you are driving around holyrood park in winter,Im one of the loons running in the dark)

You are one of the sensible ones. I hate to say it, but I think that a lot of safety gear is seen as "uncool".

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Gloomendoom wrote: »

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.

Licensed motorists have an entitlement. That is not the same as a right.

If you don't believe me, have 3 pints, drive your car, and contact the police while doing so. See how long your right lasts.

I don't know why you're talking about bells, because cyclists are not required to have a bell on a bicycle they are operating. Do try and get your facts straight.

Its a simple fact - cyclists have an inalienable right to use the roads. Motorists do not. I'm sorry you don't appear to understand the distinction.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

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.

No, I am not trying to establish any link. It is the ignorant !!!!wits who constantly harp on about "CYCLISTS DONT PAY ROAD TAX" who do that. My point is that even were cyclists to require a tax disc, under the current rules they would pay nothing.

Anything more to add to the discussion, other than tired clich!s?

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

andygb wrote: »

I used to get the Mickey taken for wearing a dayglo jacket, fluo sam browne belt and the brightest lights you have ever seen.

Fluorescent jackets are almost invisible under sodium lighting.

mikey72

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Fluorescent jackets are almost invisible under sodium lighting.

Fortunately cyclists aren't.

custardy

andygb wrote: »

You are one of the sensible ones. I hate to say it, but I think that a lot of safety gear is seen as "uncool".

oh yeah.the old hi viz waist coats etc a uncool
however stuff like this has enough piping to work alongside decent lights/reflectors

freakybacon

Cyclist bashing- its always a popular thread!

Gloomendoom

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Licensed motorists have an entitlement. That is not the same as a right.

If you don't believe me, have 3 pints, drive your car, and contact the police while doing so. See how long your right lasts.

Again, no difference. It is illegal for a cyclist to use a public road while under the influence of drink or drugs.

I don't know why you're talking about bells, because cyclists are not required to have a bell on a bicycle they are operating. Do try and get your facts straight.

I beg your pardon. A red rear reflector would have been a better example.

Its a simple fact - cyclists have an inalienable right to use the roads. Motorists do not. I'm sorry you don't appear to understand the distinction.

If it was an inalienable right it would not be subject to any conditions.

No, I am not trying to establish any link. It is the ignorant !!!!wits who constantly harp on about "CYCLISTS DONT PAY ROAD TAX" who do that. My point is that even were cyclists to require a tax disc, under the current rules they would pay nothing.

That's better. Now you are making sense.

Anything more to add to the discussion, other than tired clich!s?

I wasn't aware that I had contributed any cliches, tired or otherwise. I bow to your superior repertoire.
.
.
.