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

sebdangerfield

Thought I might jump in here. Expressed my opinion here on this subject previously so wont bother again but just wanted to clear up some glaring issues.

All this talk of inalienable rights is utter nonsense. An inalienable right is a natural right, not a legal one. It can never be a legal right, like to the right to food and air is an inalienable right. A cyclist has a common law right to use the roads. Two very different things. A motorist does not have a common law right. He is allowed by the government to use the roads when certain criteria are met, licence acquired, tax paid etc. A cyclist does not need to obtain anything for that right to be used and it therefore is a common law right. Either way, not really much point in arguing it as both do use the roads so it's irrelevant 'who has more right' albeit would be the cyclist.

Trying to prove a point by googling cases where the cyclist has been banned is impressive and much have taken some time! Ultimately, the case is an asbo, not the removal of the common law right. An asbo could be used to stop anybody doing any anti-social act in a given geographical area. It could have been a man singing too loudly to the annoyance of others being told to stop singing loudly in a certain area. it does not mean he can be stopped singing! An asbo on a bloke who assaulted people over 7 years whilst riding a bicycle does not prove your point. A cyclists ability to ride on a road can not be taken away, it is a right in common law. A motorist's can be taken away or not even granted in the first place.

Hope this helps.

exup

Cyclists trying to improve other road users bad habits is generally doomed to failure

Just reminds me of Calvin and Hobbes.
"Hobbes, what do you do when faced by charging Rhino?"
"We run like idiots for the nearest tree"
"YOU CLIMB A TREE ? ?"
"It doesn't impress the girls of course, but there's no point in impressing the girls and getting killed - my Dad used to say."

Gloomendoom

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Thought I might jump in here. Expressed my opinion here on this subject previously so wont bother again but just wanted to clear up some glaring issues.

All this talk of inalienable rights is utter nonsense. An inalienable right is a natural right, not a legal one. It can never be a legal right, like to the right to food and air is an inalienable right. A cyclist has a common law right to use the roads. Two very different things. A motorist does not have a common law right. He is allowed by the government to use the roads when certain criteria are met, licence acquired, tax paid etc. A cyclist does not need to obtain anything for that right to be used and it therefore is a common law right. Either way, not really much point in arguing it as both do use the roads so it's irrelevant 'who has more right' albeit would be the cyclist.

Trying to prove a point by googling cases where the cyclist has been banned is impressive and much have taken some time! Ultimately, the case is an asbo, not the removal of the common law right. An asbo could be used to stop anybody doing any anti-social act in a given geographical area. It could have been a man singing too loudly to the annoyance of others being told to stop singing loudly in a certain area. it does not mean he can be stopped singing! An asbo on a bloke who assaulted people over 7 years whilst riding a bicycle does not prove your point. A cyclists ability to ride on a road can not be taken away, it is a right in common law. A motorist's can be taken away or not even granted in the first place.

Hope this helps.

It does, but it also spoils our fun.

A question...

When motor vehicles started using the public highways some 200 years ago, what right did their drivers have to use the road? If it wasn't common law, what was it?

I'm genuinely interested.

custardy

Quinny wrote: »

Like the one in Hull 5 years ago, who decided to sneak up my nearside at a crossroads with traffic lights on it, but was totally oblivious to the fact I was turning left as she failed to observe the 3 indicators on my combination (Trailer rear, n/s/r on unit, and step indicator.) up until the point she was in my blind spot.

When I turned left, she got flattened under the mid axle on the tractor unit. It's a good job for her that I was virtually unladen, and that the mid axle was in the up position otherwise she would have been killed. Silly cow.

So to the original poster of this thread.

Get your own house in order you muppet, before you crticise others.

well personally.I think they should stop all the lorry drivers murdering prostitutes before they dig into their drivers putting cyclists lives at risk
"Get your own house in order you muppet, before you criticise others."
that how it works?

Rolandtheroadie

sequence wrote: »

Now you know the reason why cyclists aren't required to have insurance! The chances of a cyclist causing any significant damage to a car or anything is almost zero.

Side window, windscreen, wing mirror, dented door. It would surprise you how much damage they can cause.

Strider590

Col7777 wrote: »

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.

I think you got this wrong....

I once broke a fishing pole too, some fishermen have the opinion that cyclists shouldn't ride along canals and deliberately pull there rods/poles back to block the path. Someone did it to a family with young children, who had to stop, get off and lift the bikes over, I went to bunny hop over it at speed, he lifted it into my rear wheel and it broke into several pieces. His own fault.....

TheMiner

Interesting thread - some very interesting comments being both a cyclist and a driver. Have to say tho with the increasing cost of motoring we are going to have to get along. I do have a few small requests to the newer cyclists joining me on my commute...

PLEASE stop riding on the path, not only does in infuriate drivers and pedestrians (and isn't really allowed), but it's actually going to be safer on the road. The more of us that use the roads, the more drivers get used to us (this may have been posted before)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale

PLEASE oil your flipping chains - they last longer and sound a lot better

PLEASE get some lights - there's no excuse when they are as cheap and good as the ones I got recently from Tesco.

Cheers - here's to safer roads for both of us

Rolandtheroadie

thelawnet wrote: »

And whereas motorists breaking the speed limit kill hundreds each year, law-breaking cyclists kill one or two at most.

Thats an interesting one, I didnt realise that.
Where do you get the figures that seperate speeding from inappropriate speed for the conditions?
A link would be nice.

thelawnet

scotsman4th wrote: »

Thats an interesting one, I didnt realise that.
Where do you get the figures that seperate speeding from inappropriate speed for the conditions?
A link would be nice.

http://www.bobulous.org.uk/articles/road_traffic_accident.html

"Excessive speed was the most common contributory factor in fatal accidents"

Strider590

^^ Lets not turn this into a speeding debate, the argument that speed kills has already been lost several times in as many weeks