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

WhiteHorse

And let's hear it for hikers too, who now have to deal with the trendy mountain bike brigade.

I've often seen a biker come sailing down the track, fully expecting those on foot to automatically leap out of their way. Perhaps this is some new variant of the 'aristocrat on horseback, peasant on foot' thing.

On several occasions, the hiker-peasant was subject to a torrent of abuse for not showing due deference to the new wheeled aristocracy. On a couple of occasions, bikers actually launched flying kicks at people as they went past.

Nowadays, whenever these barbarians approach I make suitably menacing gestures with my steel shod hiking pole (long spears being the traditional defence against cavalry), and find that it has a salutory effect. The glint in the eye helps too.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Gloomendoom wrote: »

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

...and aside from prison, have you ever read of a single instance anywhere where that person's right to cycle on the roads has been removed?

No? Me neither. However, I've seen many instances where a motorist's "right" to use the roads has been removed. I wonder what the difference is?

Gloomendoom wrote: »

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

Utter nonsense. I have the right to walk along any street in this country, but first I am required to wear some form of clothing. I have the right to vote, but I must be on the electoral register.

Come back when you understand what having a right means.

TVR2

So bored of this thread now...

Gloomendoom

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Utter nonsense. I have the right to walk along any street in this country, but first I am required to wear some form of clothing. I have the right to vote, but I must be on the electoral register.

You also have the right to drive a car along any street in the country, but first you are required to have a licence, an MoT, insurance...

Come back when you understand what having a right means.

OK, I've had enough. As a parting shot I suggest you look up 'inalienable' and try to reconcile it with all the restrictions a cyclist faces when exercising his 'right'.

DirectDebacle

Everybody has the right to use the public highway. However there are laws, rules and regulations which place restrictions on how members of the public can use the public highway.

Other restrictions may prevent you from excercising certain rights but do not remove the right itself.

For example if you are placed under house arrest 24/7 you retain your right to use the public highway. You are simply unable to excercise that right because of a restriction that has been placed upon you.

sebdangerfield

Col7777 wrote: »

I've seen police pull lads for cycling on a footpath, but then only a few days later I saw two police cycling on a footpath, not on an emergency just taking a short cut.


As mentioned earlier a lot if not almost all cyclist don't know there is NO CYCLING on a towpath next to a canal, the poster earlier mentioned the cyclist broke some fishing rods, I saw one once break a fishing pole that cost a over a thousand pounds and he rode off, plus as mentioned they cycle at speed too on these towpaths and expect others to move.

This is really poor post. Firstly, How on earth do you know if a police cyclist is on an emergency? They don't have to tell you! Even the vehicles, which have the lights and sirens the bikes lack often don't use them in order to make a silent approach to a job. You never really know when any police officer is on an emergency.

Secondly, British waterways actively encourage cyclists on the canals. They offer a free pass card to anyone who applies, have 55% of the national cycle network run long their towpaths and are even subsidised by sustrans.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Gloomendoom wrote: »

You also have the right to drive a car along any street in the country, but first you are required to have a licence, an MoT, insurance...



OK, I've had enough. As a parting shot I suggest you look up 'inalienable' and try to reconcile it with all the restrictions a cyclist faces when exercising his 'right'.

Show me an example where, in this country, a cyclist has been banned from cycling on the roads.

Just one. Go on.

Gloomendoom

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Show me an example where, in this country, a cyclist has been banned from cycling on the roads.

Just one. Go on.

Not just one cyclist... all of them.



Despite their 'inalienable' rights (and no, it's not a motorway).

boliston

TVR2 wrote: »

.....

We're concentrating on cyclists in the city and they do present a problem, but out on the open roads they are a menace. I was driving behind a queue of traffic on a small A/B road at around 45mph whilst ascending a bendy hill. Fortunately we'd all kept a reasonable distance because the lead car had to perform an emergency stop, as did the rest of the tail..

Sounds like the lead car was the one at fault here for not driving in a way that they can safely stop within the distance they can see to be clear ahead.

Also he was probably in the middle of his LANE rather than in the "middle of the road" as the white centre line is very slippery for cyclists and by keeping to the middle of his lane it will ensure that faster vehicles overtake correctly using the other lane rather than simply trying to squeeze past dangerously in the same lane.

boliston

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

....

Utter nonsense. I have the right to walk along any street in this country, but first I am required to wear some form of clothing....

I don't think public nudity is an offence in itself. I seem to remember a rambler who recently walked nude the entire length of the UK and he was arrested on a number of occasions not for the offence of being nude in public, but apparently for "breach of the peace".