Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

marleyboy

Blobby8 wrote: »

So you really believe all the people on the roads are pleasure drivers? The vast majority are travelling due to their employment.

Ironically, I used to cycle to work for a good 15 Years, first thing in the morning and back home in the evening, safely and with due care and attention, as did the majority of other cyclists I would pass on route.

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

cyclists certainly don't (and won't) get the same consideration from me as paying road users do.

Should any vehicle choose to disregard me, cut me up, or put me in risk of peril on the grounds they think they have a given right to,

I would have no problem in catching up with them at the next junction or set of lights, and happily beating the living daylight's out of them, then casually continue on my journey.

As a driver, I know only too well to respect the cyclist ahead of me, who has as much rights to the road as I have, who are only to happy to allow me room to overtake safely.

paddedjohn

Pound wrote: »

Well, if you want some more reasons that gives cyclists entitlement:

• Health benefits (less burden on the health service).
• Less impact on natural resources.
• Almost zero (or positive) impact on road maintenance costs.
• Almost zero (or positive) impact on congestion.
• Road safety benefits.

some reasons why cars have more entitlement
you jump red lights:)
you ride on pavements:)
we are faster and you slow us down:)
you hold us up causing queues of traffic thus causing extra pollution:)
you are not insured:)
you have no identification marks i.e number plate:)
my vehicle is taxed to use the road (i know you may have a car at home but that doesnt mean the cycle is taxed):)
finally, cycles should be melted down and all the steel used to make a big big car:)
CYCLES ARE A MENACE

adouglasmhor

paddedjohn wrote: »

some reasons why cars have more entitlement
you jump red lights:)I don't, I have seen car and cycle users do this though
you ride on pavements:)Only on shared footpaths and bridle paths in my case it is ilegal otherwise
we are faster and you slow us down:) I always wave cars past when safe to do so
you hold us up causing queues of traffic thus causing extra pollution:)only becaus you drive badly
you are not insured:) I am actually
you have no identification marks i.e number plate:)Don't need one that's tha law but I owuldn't object to the plates you see on the frame in Belgium and France
my vehicle is taxed to use the road (i know you may have a car at home but that doesnt mean the cycle is taxed):)It's taxed to emit polution actually
finally, cycles should be melted down and all the steel used to make a big big car:) so blind drivers like you can see it
CYCLES ARE A MENACE

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Harry_Flashman

marleyboy wrote: »

I would have no problem in catching up with them at the next junction or set of lights, and happily beating the living daylight's out of them, then casually continue on my journey.

:rotfl:Only if you're fast enough and big enough :rotfl:

Azari

aheaton46 wrote: »

With a post like that you're surely up for some sort of award for abuse of statistics. Of course more pedestrians are - there are many more of them.

That isn't really the point, is it.

If you want to cut down on head injuries it behooves you to concentrate first on the group that suffers more head injuries.

Azari

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Not legally it doesn't, but morally it does (in my opinion anyway), it just makes them irritating parasites on roads that others pay to use. If cyclists don't need tarmac, why do they insist on being in the way on roads?

Can I just say that you have done an excellent job in matching both your avatar and user name to the tone of your posts?

Azari

paddedjohn wrote: »

some reasons why cars have more entitlement

You can make a list as long as you like.

The plain fact is that cars do not have more entitlement, other than on motorways and a very few other 'motorway class' roads.

Harry_Flashman

Ah - you're talking about the letter of the law.

However, often enough, the law is neither right or fair.

Size and weight clearly dictate that motors will have more entitlement on all roads

marleyboy

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

:rotfl:Only if you're fast enough and big enough :rotfl:

Any cyclist can tell you just how easy it is to catch up with a vehicle crawling through the rush hour on a busy main road, it is probably one of the reasons cyclists nick you off. I generally find if I cycle to work, it takes me about 15 minutes, whereas it takes me around 30-40 minutes to do the same journey in the car.

Its one of the reasons most cyclists who have cars, choose to cycle to work. Catching up with traffic in rush hour is a doddle. :D

marleyboy

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Ah - you're talking about the letter of the law.

However, often enough, the law is neither right or fair.

Size and weight clearly dictate that motors will have more entitlement on all roads

Nonsense, I have no doubt in my mind you cannot back this up with evidence.

Fact is, whether you like it or not, Law is Law :D:D