Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

Marvel1

SLITHER99 wrote: »

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!

:eek: What if you didn't have the engine running, you be at fault?!



Just to clarify the point again about road fund licence or whatever you want to call it, if your vehicle is tax band A you don't pay:
http://carfueldata.dft.gov.uk/new-vehicle-tax.aspx

What is the difference?

SLITHER99

I don't see the problem with cyclists being required to undergo a cycling proficiency test. You know what, you could even manage it the same as a driver's license.

I fully support uniquely identifying cycles and making it a requirement for adults to display such a marking! Motorcyclists don't seem to have a problem doing so!

I cycle as well as drive. However, journeys I can technically cycle, if I can see that it's dark, frosty and visibility is generally poor, I'll opt to take the car. It is of no use being right but missing an arm at the end of it if you get hit by a car, IMO. I also keep to cycle paths and, yes some are of poor condition and you can be hampered by a pedestrian, but I take the view that I'd rather deal with these issues, rather than adopt a BMW-driver's mentality when armed with nothing but a small bike. I also use the roadways but I keep to the left and signal.

I have been shouted at before too by some idiot car drivers for existing, so I do get it.

At the end of the day, there are idiot car drivers and there are attentive car drivers. There are idiot cyclists and attentive cyclists. Your perception from one angle will largely amplify the other. However, I still maintain that all road users should be identifiable in every instance.

Paradigm

cjdavies wrote: »

:eek: What if you didn't have the engine running, you be at fault?!

No. Having the engine running is key.

The same with using a mobile phone... pull up at the side of the road to use the phone with engine running is an offence.

Do the same but turn the engine off & it isn't an offence :mad:

derrick

custardy wrote: »

you seem a little misinformed
a bike used off road can still be road legal
I seem misinformed?
As said in the post you quoted,"if they are not road legal then they won't be on the roads.", there I have highlighted the relevant part as you seem incapable of reading the post.

the second person on the tandem is still providing drive and has input on the balance of the bike
They are a passenger and therefore not driving

The nazis liked to number certain people,wouldnt it be easier to just tattoo cyclists accross the forehead?
Then they could really be segregated

Why do you have to bring Nazis into it? We all have numbers, there is a reg number identifing the registered keeper, we all have NI numbers, income tax numbers, NHS numbers, do you want to get rid of those?

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?

Read the post before you reply! "the number would be displayed on high vis clothing and helmets, both of which would be compulsory,"

you still havent answered how this test will be set up?

You never asked that, you asked how it would be enforced, to which my answer is the same. it needs setting up, as the driving test was set up when it was decided there was to be one as prior to it being set up there wasn't one!

.

SLITHER99

cjdavies wrote: »

:eek: What if you didn't have the engine running, you be at fault?!



Just to clarify the point again about road fund licence or whatever you want to call it, if your vehicle is tax band A you don't pay:
http://carfueldata.dft.gov.uk/new-vehicle-tax.aspx

What is the difference?

I have no idea. I didn't actually get to speak in court, my insurance's legal team handled it. Been with the same insurance ever since and paid for legal, courtesy car. I pay more than similar insurers, but I just seem to really trust their reactions, especially hearing how friends have had some of their (cheaper) claims go. I had another incident since and they were nothing but brilliant!

£0 road tax is a really new thing for car drivers. This isn't as old as the hills. Though my cynical side says that one day, when some Government official reads about all the nasty crap that diesel engines spew out, that £0 tax will quickly shoot up! You know, that whole thing about being punished for buying a thirsty car ten years ago...

You could similarly argue the notion that, if there are cars with £0 road tax (or VED, whatever you want to call it, not going to get into an argument over a form of words), why should they actually go to the bother of requesting a tax disk or even displaying it?

I have no problem with paying my taxes/insurance/fuel duty as it's my primary means of transport, given I work two jobs and pay plenty tax on both. I hate the fact that these things only ever seem to go up, but there it is. But the fact is that you can essentially buy a bike off ebay for a fiver, no matter the condition, take it out on the roads and generally act like a total idiot. And if a car driver is unfortunate to cross your path while you're pulling a wheelie, or seeing how fast you can take the racing line around a bend, don't worry, you're immune!

THAT is what I think a lot of car drivers have a problem with; that and if there is an incident caused by a cyclist, there is no means of identifying them to police or officials. If a car driver is caught without valid insurance, tax, MOT, they can expect their car to be siezed and plenty consequences besides. Yet, as far as I know, there is no repurcussion for a cyclist riding around on a cycle where the breaks don't work.

That, together with the generally smug and "bang you to rights" mentality a lot of cyclists portray, simply because they're untouchable, just really grates on me. It bothers me when other cyclists don't treat the roads with the same respect I do when I cycle. The times I've waited on cycle paths for lights to change in my favour, yet cyclists with no helmets or reflective gear with a baby strapped to the back simply barrel through red lights as if the cross traffic just isn't there and, if they are there, then thats there problem, just scares me!

Norman_Castle

Whilst all taxes go into one pot, with very little ring fenced, the motorist pays in excess of 40 BILLION pounds per year in various taxes, (the cyclists next to nothing), and only around 10 billion is spent on roads, so yes the motorist more than pays for the road network, as you say, we all pay taxes, just that the motorist pays 40 billion pounds more!

Does a 65 year old cyclist who has been a higher rate taxpayer for all of his working life who also smokes and drinks a lot have less right to use the roads than an unemployed 17 year old driving a zero ved car?. Do you consider yourself less entitled to use the roads compared to the driver of a higher ved rate vehicle?.
You own a car. You don't own the road.

Norman_Castle

Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)
Standard Note:
SN/BT/1482
Last updated:
16 November 2010
Author:
Louise Butcher
Section
Business and Transport
This note outlines the rates of vehicle excise duty (VED) for cars and other vehicles and gives information as to the exemptions from payment and how the government enforces its collection.
Motoring taxation is made up of two elements, vehicle excise duty (VED), which can be considered a tax on ownership, and fuel duty, which is a tax on use. Although historically the road fund tax was considered a hypothecated tax to pay for the building and maintenance of the road network, this has not been so since 1937 and it is now a general revenue raising tax. Changes to the rates and coverage of the duty are made in the Finance Acts.

The above is from the people who demand you pay VED. Why not contact them with your ideas.

derrick

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Does a 65 year old cyclist who has been a higher rate taxpayer for all of his working life who also smokes and drinks a lot have less right to use the roads than an unemployed 17 year old driving a zero ved car?. Do you consider yourself less entitled to use the roads compared to the driver of a higher ved rate vehicle?.
You own a car. You don't own the road.

Never said anything of the sort.

My point is if you use a vehicle on the roads and should be adhering to the HC then you should pay for the privilege, the motorist pays £30 billion more in motor taxes than is spent on the roads, cyclists should pay a share and have licence and insurance and identification.

Your point about smoking and drinking raises a similar point, i.e. both pay a lot more in taxes than the figures put forward for drink and smoking related incidents that "put pressure on the NHS", but as they pay a lot more than it costs, then I have no problem with that.

If you don't agree that's fine, this is an open forum, we are all entitled to our opinions, and they will never be 100% in agreement.

.

SLITHER99

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Does a 65 year old cyclist who has been a higher rate taxpayer for all of his working life who also smokes and drinks a lot have less right to use the roads than an unemployed 17 year old driving a zero ved car?. Do you consider yourself less entitled to use the roads compared to the driver of a higher ved rate vehicle?.
You own a car. You don't own the road.

You can come up with an infinite amount of paradoxical anecdotes, but it really doesn't do much to support your point of view.

I mean, does an out-of-work teetotal 22 year old university student with a Scania Truck have less of a right to use a wheelbarrow than a tour-de-france cyclist who keeps disadvantaged kittens and nurses them back to health but who smokes, drinks and regulary makes donations to the IRS's fund for people who really ought to pay more when he's not out volunteering at a local hospice for old codgers?

brat

Paradigm wrote: »

As I said earlier, you seem to be placing all the responsibility on the motorist but very little on cyclists.

No, I’m placing all the reponsibility on all road users.

Paradigm wrote: »

The word in bold above should have been "road users".

That wouldn’t be wrong, but ‘motorists’ was the relevant contextual subset.

Paradigm wrote: »

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.

They absolutely should be more attentive, but when that attention fails, as it does to all road users on occasions, they will hope the motorist will bail them out.

This is no different to many incidents I’ve experienced when cycling along the main road, and a motorist has pulled out from a junction into my path. Clearly the motorist was wrong, and has committed a dangerous manoeuvre, but I should stop if I can.

Paradigm wrote: »

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.

All road users must be treated as equals. We are all responsible for our safety and that of other road users. What keeps our roads so remarkably safe is that we maintain a protective ‘double cushion’ of looking after ourselves and others, so that hopefully when one road user’s concentration fails for whatever reason, the other road user will be concentrating sufficiently to provide the second cushion of safety. .

This essential road etiquette is at a much higher plane of importance than the blame game, which always follows.

Paradigm wrote: »

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?

Good. We must do what we can to help other road users who might have got it wrong. Blame can always be apportioned later.