Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

Azari

Some good news on the BBC news website Here.

scottishblondie

That goes to an article about child protection! I'm guessing you were aiming for here.

Azari

scottishblondie wrote: »

That goes to an article about child protection! I'm guessing you were aiming for here.

Oops!

Thanks.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

So what about the bolshy cyclists who show no disregard fro the pavement users? Are you suggesting we should get cameras on our heads and film them too?

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

So what about the bolshy cyclists who show no disregard fro the pavement users?

Not quite sure of the relevance of this.

Are you saying that motorrsts should be allowed to endanger the lives of cyclists who cycle on the road because other cyclists cycle on the pavement?

There seems to be a fundamental error in logic there.

Are you suggesting we should get cameras on our heads and film them too?

I didn't suggest anything.

I was just pointing out, for anyone interested, that a few oafs are now getting their comeuppance.

That does not mean that we are suddenly going to get perfect justice for everyone in all circumstances.

libertysurf

Azari wrote: »

Some good news on the BBC news website Here.

Brilliant! It is so different in Austria, France, Italy where cyclists are accepted. UK drivers seem to curse as soon as they see a cyclist IN THEIR WAY.

We aren't, we are just using the road. Most of us have paid road tax on our cars and when we cycle we save the road use so car users, be grateful - I can but wish

fluffnutter

libertysurf wrote: »

Brilliant! It is so different in Austria, France, Italy where cyclists are accepted. UK drivers seem to curse as soon as they see a cyclist IN THEIR WAY.

We aren't, we are just using the road. Most of us have paid road tax on our cars and when we cycle we save the road use so car users, be grateful - I can but wish

Cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians are in fact the only people legally entitled to use the road. Others, e.g. cars, have to pay a road tax before they can do so. We do not have the concept of jaywalking here, and cars must give way to both pedestrians and cyclists. I do believe a lot of people forget that when they drive - that somehow cyclists shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps they've forgotten their Highway Code and (more recently) theory test, both of which make clear the various rights and responsibilities of cyclists and motorists.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Azari wrote: »

Not quite sure of the relevance of this.

Are you saying that motorrsts should be allowed to endanger the lives of cyclists who cycle on the road because other cyclists cycle on the pavement?

There seems to be a fundamental error in logic there.



I didn't suggest anything.

I was just pointing out, for anyone interested, that a few oafs are now getting their comeuppance.

That does not mean that we are suddenly going to get perfect justice for everyone in all circumstances.

The relevance of it being , that some cyclists are just as crap on their bikes with regards to pedestrians as some car drivers are towards cyclists. By Holborn station its wild, as soon as a red light comes on the jump the curb where pedestrians are waiting to cross and shout all sorts of abuse at them for being in their way.

Thats just one small example that happens every day all over the country.So what shall we do to get our comeuppence to the oafish cyclists who seem to think they can do what ever they want too?

George_Michael

Cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians are in fact the only people legally entitled to use the road. Others, e.g. cars, have to pay a road tax before they can do so.

And these "others" are the only one who are required to have insurance to cover their liability if they cause an accident.
Surely anyone (whether a car driver, motorcycle rider or cyclist) has the potential to cause an accident, and so should be tested to ascertain their ability and should also be insured before being able to use the roads.

Others, e.g. cars, have to pay a road tax before they can do so.

What about the cars that are zero rated for VED and so are not required to pay any "road tax". Going by what you've stated above, these are not legally allowed to be on the road.

anotherbaldrick

Trouble is you need to differentiate. Cyclists are like Bassetts Allsorts, (I am one myself). You find some in town or village who tear through the precincts and pedestrian areas weaving amongst the old and young not caring that a collision would break someone's legs and totally ignore one way streets and traffic lights. The other end of the spectrum is the enthusiast who rides responsibly to commute or enjoys cycling as a sport. We get a lot of them in groups cycling to meet up on the coast, if I was not broken winded I would join them. When they stop at the lights I do not draw alongside them but always stop behind and when they have gained momentum and the way is clear overtake.

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

The relevance of it being , that some cyclists are just as crap on their bikes with regards to pedestrians as some car drivers are towards cyclists.

I say again, what is the relevance of this?

Are you suggesting that because some members or some group are less than perfect that all members of that group should be disallowed protection from those who misbehave towards them?

So what shall we do to get our comeuppence to the oafish cyclists who seem to think they can do what ever they want too?

Again, I'm not really sure why you think this is relevant.

Society is not set up on the basis that any group of people have to be perfect in order to be protected.

The answer to your question is, of course, to lobby your MP to try and get whatever changes you think might mitigate the situation implemented and get any others you may know who are of like mind to do the same.