Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

chewynut

custardy wrote: »

Its not a cycle lane
its a pavement with a bit painted/tarred on
try going down there when theres been a frost
try doing 20mph with dogs,kids& peds wandering around
most intersect with junctions
so you have to cross multiple roads
etc etc
If its practical,why wouldnt people use it?

I'd understand that if there were people walking on it, but round my way, the roads are the long way round between towns and there's no bus route down them. Nobody walks on them. Not even dog walkers.

derrick

brat wrote: »

Ah, so you accept your VED argument totally and utterly fails at the earliest examination. Good! Let's bin it now.

No it doesn't "fails at the earliest examination", just that is the way it is now, IMO all vehicles should pay a form of tax to use the roads, either that or no one pays and we fund them out of general taxation.


These are points that need to be made in the political arena. You simply cannot and shouldn't rail against cyclists because they don't do something they either are not required to do, or couldn't do even if they wanted to.
If I had to pay £50 tax per year to ride my bike I would do it. If I wasn't insured, I'd feel uncomfortable, but many won't because they don't have to. I can't get a cycle licence, because there isn't such a thing.

This is a thread about cyclists annoying motorists and as such is not political and as such this being an open forum we can all have our views, even yours, and they are required to adhere to the Highway Code, but most don't.
And to say "I can't get a cycle licence, because there isn't such a thing." is ridiculous, there did not used to be a car licence, but there is now!

If you didn't have to pay tax, would you?
If you didn't have to wear your seat belt would you?

Of course not, but they have been brought into existence, that does not stop tax, insurance and tests being brought in for cyclists

Dave Cameron is the man you'll have to shout at to get all these things you feel the need to burden cyclists with. Not cyclists. That's why your rant only has value in the political arena.

As I said above this is an open forum, i am not ranting, unless you and all the others on this thread are ranting and if so then yes I am.


I'm sure that the 'cyclists' you refer to will stop doing those things you don't like as soon as you 'motorists' stop driving drunk, unlicensed and uninsured.

Do you really think so? The difference is most of those motorists will be prosecuted, the cyclists that commit road traffic offences won't.

.

derrick

custardy wrote: »

So how would you enforce this test?
Still not grasping the way road networks are funded I see

Same as the test for cars,it just needs setting up.

Yes I do, it is just that the motorist pays in excess of £40 billion pounds in motoring taxes and only about £10 billion is spent on the roads, so again I say, the motorists more than funds the road structure in GB.


.

custardy

derrick wrote: »

Same as the test for cars,it just needs setting up.

Yes I do, it is just that the motorist pays in excess of £40 billion pounds in motoring taxes and only about £10 billion is spent on the roads, so again I say, the motorists more than funds the road structure in GB.


.

lol,"it just needs setting up"

Well thats a bit of an obvious and yet naive answer
So to clarify
At what age is this test administered?
What would be the groups involved?
would it involve all cyclists? or just those who use the roads?
If you have a tandem,do both cyclists need to have passed the test,or just the one steering?
would you be required to register your bike(s)
once more,would that include off road bikes?
etc etc

Strider590

derrick wrote: »

Don't where you got that assumption?

Cyclists will pay various taxes, like motorists, but motorists pay an extra 40 billion pounds in motor related taxes

.

But none of which pay for the roads..... motorists don't pay a penny more for the roads than cyclists.
If drivers have an issue which that, they need to blame the govt, not ram cyclists into the nearest ditch.

derrick

Strider590 wrote: »

But none of which pay for the roads..... motorists don't pay a penny more for the roads than cyclists.
If drivers have an issue which that, they need to blame the govt, not ram cyclists into the nearest ditch.

I don't care what it is called today, it used to be called the Road Fund Licence and is still favoured historically as such by millions, (as demonstrated in this thread as an example), the clue is in the name, Licence that is required by law, Fund as in to Fund the Roads.

No need to get animated, who is talking about "ram cyclists into the nearest ditch."? Only you.

You really are not awake yet are you?
Motorists annual tax take, in excess of 40 BILLION pounds, of which only 10 billion is spent on roads, meaning an excess of £30 billion that the motorist pays over the cyclist.
Cyclists tax take, near to zero, I don't have figures, not even sure they exist, but is is only the VAT that will be levied on the bikes themselves and any accessories they choose to purchase, which will be a drop in the ocean as for as tax is concerned.

Yes it is the government who have to implement such a thing, and that probably won't happen, (never say never), but this is an open forum and we all have views.


.

derrick

custardy wrote: »

lol,"it just needs setting up"

That's right, same as anything new has to be.

Well thats a bit of an obvious and yet naive answer
So to clarify
At what age is this test administered?
What would be the groups involved?
would it involve all cyclists? or just those who use the roads?
If you have a tandem,do both cyclists need to have passed the test,or just the one steering?
would you be required to register your bike(s)
once more,would that include off road bikes?
etc etc

To be determined, but I would suggest the same as a moped.
Don't know what you mean by "groups".
Obviously those who use the roads, pavements are not to be cycled on anyway.
As with cars and mopeds, passengers don't need a licence.
There was a programme a few weeks ago that suggested a number was given to each cyclist and that number stayed with them for life, the number would be displayed on high vis clothing and helmets, both of which would be compulsory, I think that is a great idea.
Off road bikes, answered above, if they are not road legal then they won't be on the roads.

.

SLITHER99

I lost a court case with a cyclist just after my first year of driving. It was winter and I'd just left work at about 9pm. I knew I had a bit of a drive so, switched the car on, put on me lights, put on the blower and let it sit to warm up. Bear in mind, I hadn't moved at this point.

I was rumaging around for a CD I wanted to listen to and a cyclist slammed straight into the side of the bonnet. I got out, realised what happened and did the standard fare of making sure he was ok and offered to call him an ambulance. We exchanged details and I informed my insurnace company to get the massive dent in my car fixed.

It turned out the cyclist was claiming me at fault and was suing for major damages. It went to court and was voted in his favour. Because my car was running and I was not in control of it instead looking for a compact disk, I was driving without due care, despite having not actually moved the car at this point a single inch.

My lesson was that in every instance, the car driver is at fault. So damn right, I give cyclists all the room they need to be morons!

Paradigm

brat wrote: »

No, you asked me to clarify a point, which I did by posing a further question. Your unwillingness to answer that question makes it abundantly clear that you now understand my point, which is this;

Of course every road user should read other road users signals, and act on them, but if they clearly haven't, there is a duty on all motorists to do what they can to prevent harm to that person.

Maybe I'm reading more into your posts than I should, I dunno.

As I said earlier, you seem to be placing all the responsibility on the motorist but very little on cyclists. The word in bold above should have been "road users".

Surely, as the most vulnerable, the cyclist should be more attentive, more alert than anyone else on the road & should be looking for vehicles indicating when approaching turnings, not hoping the motorist will bail them out when they don't see or ignore (& some do) the flashing orangey thing.

What was it you said in a previous post "all road users are equals" or words to that effect? I agree but that's not how, to me, you are coming across.... cyclists seem to be more equal than others.
If we are all equal when using the roads then we should all share equal responsibility when using said roads but that's not what I see day in day out.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't deliberately clip a cyclist (or any other road user) but surely it's up to the cyclist not to put themselves in a position where they depend on me saving them from injury or worse... I'll do all I can but it's a 2 way way thing isn't it?

custardy

derrick wrote: »

To be determined, but I would suggest the same as a moped.
Don't know what you mean by "groups".
Obviously those who use the roads, pavements are not to be cycled on anyway.
As with cars and mopeds, passengers don't need a licence.
There was a programme a few weeks ago that suggested a number was given to each cyclist and that number stayed with them for life, the number would be displayed on high vis clothing and helmets, both of which would be compulsory, I think that is a great idea.
Off road bikes, answered above, if they are not road legal then they won't be on the roads.

.

you seem a little misinformed
a bike used off road can still be road legal
the second person on the tandem is still providing drive and has input on the balance of the bike
The nazis liked to number certain people,wouldnt it be easier to just tattoo cyclists accross the forehead?
Then they could really be segregated
On a serious point. where exactly am I putting this number?
Do i need to put this on every item I wear on the bike?
you still havent answered how this test will be set up?