Killer motorists!

alastairq

Marktheshark wrote: »

Funny they never need a full cars width when undertaking cars do they ?
How odd

Because they themselves are dealing with a close quarters situation, probably moving alongside stationary vehicles...?

The issues that have to be dealt with by drivers involve passing the cyclist at speed, and the effect the presence their vehicle has on that cyclist [especially their stability]....

RMS2

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Nobody pays road tax.

More fool you, if all it takes is a name change to confuse you that much.


If they called Income Tax, a tax on earnings, you'd think that they had abolished Income Tax?


How easily people are brainwashed by MPs and civil servants.

wheelz

paulsad wrote: »

- riding at speed on pavements then glaring at you if you step out in front of one from your driveway - the list goes on ...

I was once nearly run over when I stepped out of the shop by a skateboarder going at speed on the pavement.

brat

RMS2 wrote: »

More fool you, if all it takes is a name change to confuse you that much.


If they called Income Tax, a tax on earnings, you'd think that they had abolished Income Tax?


How easily people are brainwashed by MPs and civil servants.

So what is it then, and how is it calculated.

How much "Road Tax" (VED) would you pay on a Nissan Qashqai 1.5-litre dCi diesel?

wheelz

Marktheshark wrote: »

Funny they never need a full cars width when undertaking cars do they ?
How odd

As far as I know, and I have cycled here, a cyclist needs to ride on the left side of the road not in the middle. So there's no undertaking, that is the correct place for them to be.

Retrogamer

RMS2 wrote: »

How easily people are brainwashed by MPs and civil servants.

More like "how easily people are educated with facts"

Vehicle Excise Duty (which replaced road tax in the 30's IIRC) is based on how much a vehicle pollutes. There are some cars out there that don't pay any VED. Since other road uses such as horses, cyclists, joggers and walkers don't pollute like cars they don't pay VED

brat

Marktheshark wrote: »

Funny they never need a full cars width when undertaking cars do they ?
How odd

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you consider the difference in momentum of each vehicle, you would have an explanation as to why the action carries much less risk.

wheelz

There are people making silly, sometimes personal comments in this thread. Is it done on this forum to get in touch with admin/moderators. Who are they? I've seen an email address but would like to keep it on the forum and PM them.

wheelz

brat wrote: »

Firstly, an apology.

I opened this thread in the motoring forum as a response to this thread in the cycling forum. One of the posters felt that the way cyclists were dealing with this topic of cyclists without lights wouldn't happen in a discussion about motoring issues.
This thread was designed to prove him wrong.

As a cyclist I do have serious issues with motorists getting too close.

Why use the word 'motorist'. You clearly mean car drivers. It makes it more realistic in my view.

heartbreak_star

brat wrote: »

Firstly, an apology.

I opened this thread in the motoring forum as a response to this thread in the cycling forum. One of the posters felt that the way cyclists were dealing with this topic of cyclists without lights wouldn't happen in a discussion about motoring issues.
This thread was designed to prove him wrong.

As a cyclist I do have serious issues with motorists getting too close. But I wouldn't normally open a thread on a motoring forum and express it in the antagonistic way I did. It was designed to replicate the opening post of the parallel thread on the cycling forum.

So for that I apologise. But after the initial (expected) anti cycling tirade from some, this thread tail seems to have settled into reasoned discussion.

I was pondering that you seemed more vehement than normal with the OP

HBS x