FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Twats on bikes

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Ok hope this is the right forum but have to have a moan about the twats who ride bikes in the morning when its dark with no lights and all dressed in black they deserve to be crushes under the next car that has no way of seeing them until they're under the wheels.Why would you go on the road,in the dark,with no lights complete retards.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Or the ones that cycle three abreast taking up the whole damn road...grrrrrr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *horltzMan
over a year ago

heysham

thought this was about damp saddles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Feel Better now ?

Ding Ding Gimp

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asandmeCouple
over a year ago

camden town

My wife has been hit by a cyclist who ran a red light and went through a pedestrian crossing. He smacked into her, she hit the floor and he rode off.

As you may have noticed, i'm not a big fan!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Feel Better now ?

Ding Ding Gimp"

Yes you'll have to let us know what it's like with 2 gimps in a relationship.

Ding Dong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester

I always use my lights im a good boy me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ampWithABrainWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

I used to cycle a lot and also a driver, cyclists not the only bad road users but yea they seem to be getting more dim lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They are an absolute pain in the arse.Especially the ones who don't even say thankyou when I have to move three grandchildren and two dogs out of their way!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I'm a cyclist (stops me getting too fat) and I find that it doesn't matter how well you light yourself up, there'll still be drivers who don't see you.... on the other hand, I'd rather increase my odds and I've got reflective bits everywhere and the brightest lights I can find. Now people complain that I dazzle them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm a cyclist (stops me getting too fat) and I find that it doesn't matter how well you light yourself up, there'll still be drivers who don't see you.... on the other hand, I'd rather increase my odds and I've got reflective bits everywhere and the brightest lights I can find. Now people complain that I dazzle them. "

You sound like some kind of mobile blackpool illuminations!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge


"Ok hope this is the right forum but have to have a moan about the twats who ride bikes in the morning when its dark with no lights and all dressed in black they deserve to be crushes under the next car that has no way of seeing them until they're under the wheels.Why would you go on the road,in the dark,with no lights complete retards."

I've had that - but the idiot was cycling the wrong way up a one way street, in the middle of the road, right towards me.Luckily, I spotted him just in time. He then became very abusive when I honked my horn at him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries. "

Can't imagine any of them not noticing you Anna!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries.

Can't imagine any of them not noticing you Anna!"

Well if they notice me I must enrage them then because I'm always getting nearly run over!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries. "

And twats on feet (not you, but there are a lot of twats walking about town these days!)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries. "

foooookinel never before have I hit so many categories in 1 post...downer

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reelove1969Couple
over a year ago

bristol

having been a cyclist who was hit by a hit and run driver in broad daylight i see where you are coming from

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries.

And twats on feet (not you, but there are a lot of twats walking about town these days!)"

Agreed....slow walking ones or people with no awareness of their surroundings in particular!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries.

foooookinel never before have I hit so many categories in 1 post...downer "

I'm not saying they're *all* twats!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well if they notice me I must enrage them then because I'm always getting nearly run over! "

Must be envious female drivers haha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am123Man
over a year ago

essex chelmsford

oh crystal wheels where are you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow (for now)

Up here the Greens are trying to get 'strict liability' -

Under a "strict liability" law, motorists would be held responsible in the civil courts for all accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians - unless they can prove they were not to blame.

Ms Johnstone, the co-convener of Holyrood's group on cycling, told the chamber 12 cyclists had been killed already this year.

She said: "Stricter liability is a contribution to a better culture on our roads where vulnerable users are better protected".

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i stick to the pavements myself

ill run over a pedestrian before i get hit by some douchbag driver

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

Unfortunately there are twats on all forms of transport (foot, 2 wheels, 4 wheels, etc), and in every case each one of them give those who choose to use the same transtport a bad name. Of course it never the twats that end up with the grief, but these who try to be considerate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittykate84Woman
over a year ago

CHESTER

As a pedestrian i hate the ones who ride on the pavement and ding their bell at me to move! If you are over 12yrs old get on the damn road!

I refuse to move out of the way for them and sometimes even walk slower!! Yes im evil

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icked weaselCouple
over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

Cycling is Only an Excuse for Grown men to Wear Lycra...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend

Although not quite the same, I was driving the other day and saw a 7.5tonne lorry switch lanes and nearly take a motorbike out. The motorbike is question was a standard bright green Kawasaki Ninja, the rider was wearing matching leathers and didn't have a muffler so had really loud pipes. Still didn't stop the lorry driver nearly take him out though.

There are arses everywhere, and wishing people die a horrible death isn't exactly painting yourself in a basking glow.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Every road user has to take some kind of test to prove their vehicle is roadworthy and to prove they are responsible. Why not do the same with cyclists?

Some are good and responsible, others wobble around all over the place and don't wear helmets...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Cycling is Only an Excuse for Grown men to Wear Lycra... "

And didn't they look great in the Men's World Champion Road Race today too!

OP - yes I agree cyclists should have lights at night. However , I've had three friends knocked off road bikes in broad daylight , one just left injured in the ditch by the driver who had clipped him. Like others said - there are idiots in every form of transport, from pedestrians to the HGV lorry driver that totalled my last car on the M42.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucyfur77Woman
over a year ago

Pleasuretown


"Ok hope this is the right forum but have to have a moan about the twats who ride bikes in the morning when its dark with no lights and all dressed in black they deserve to be crushes under the next car that has no way of seeing them until they're under the wheels.Why would you go on the road,in the dark,with no lights complete retards."

I see a lot that don't wear helmets and jump traffic lights (this is daytime in rush hour Edinburgh traffic btw)

What's that all about? ..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"Every road user has to take some kind of test to prove their vehicle is roadworthy and to prove they are responsible. Why not do the same with cyclists?

Some are good and responsible, others wobble around all over the place and don't wear helmets..."

Helmets are not compulsory, & 51% of ALL fatal head injuries occur inside motor vehicles, if you really want to halve fatal head injuries then make motorists wear a helmet.

Cycle helmets are only rated to 13mph impacts from vertical - in other words toppling sideways from a bike.

Cyclists - along with pedestrians and equestrians - have Statutory Right to the highways (excepting M/ways) whereas Moto vehicle users are merely licensed.

Taylor V Goodwin 1879 leading to the Road Traffic Act 1888 and all subsequent Acts, and the Vienna Convention on Road Access 1968 enshrine this in UK Law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I see a lot that don't wear helmets and jump traffic lights (this is daytime in rush hour Edinburgh traffic btw)

What's that all about? .."

That's the thing about traffic- everyone wants to beat it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

didn't want to peak too early ... but now it's time for the popcorn

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What pisses me off is the wankers who INSIST on riding on the main carriageway when theres a perfectly good cycle path next ti ot but the lycra clad jerks will NOT use it. GRRRRR

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oooooo it's been a while since we had a good 'let's bash cyclists with ill informed opinions' thread.

Always a laugh to read.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"What pisses me off is the wankers who INSIST on riding on the main carriageway when theres a perfectly good cycle path next ti ot but the lycra clad jerks will NOT use it. GRRRRR"

The problem is, most of the UK's cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose. They stop without warning, go nowhere you need to be, are too narrow to be safe, are poorly maintained and aren't swept.

And that's the ones that are well designed (for the UK) most are just random white lines painted around street furniture.

Most cyclists would love to use decent cycle lanes - on the whole they don't exist.

Plus, its the cyclist's road too - by statute law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok hope this is the right forum but have to have a moan about the twats who ride bikes in the morning when its dark with no lights and all dressed in black they deserve to be crushes under the next car that has no way of seeing them until they're under the wheels.Why would you go on the road,in the dark,with no lights complete retards."

Because they think they can be seen as they can see you, also they don't realise it is illegal.

I have been cycling on roads since I was 6, I have ridden at club level for several years and have passed several cycle profiecency tests in various school.

It does seem as quite a few people have stated the are idiots in all walks of life, sadly there does seem an increase of idiots cycling on our roads in dark clothing without lights on at night. Just think you can sleep at night knowing you never hit him.

I ride on the roads of Brighton in daylight with bright clothing on, I have been forced into a line of parked cars and shouted at that I should be on the cycle path. I have also been joked at that I should pay road tax after keeping up with a car on the same road.

I ride on the cycle path and having suicidal pedestrians step out in front of me as they don't look to see what is coming.

The last time I got knocked off the bike it was dayight and I was wearing a HiVis vest, he didn't look for me and hence never saw me. So the hi vis clothing doesn't mean shit if the driver is not looking for a cyclist.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iceduoCouple (FF)
over a year ago

manchester


"Up here the Greens are trying to get 'strict liability' -

Under a "strict liability" law, motorists would be held responsible in the civil courts for all accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians - unless they can prove they were not to blame.

Ms Johnstone, the co-convener of Holyrood's group on cycling, told the chamber 12 cyclists had been killed already this year.

She said: "Stricter liability is a contribution to a better culture on our roads where vulnerable users are better protected".

Be afraid, be very afraid..."

In many countries there is presumed liability.. Meaning its up to you to prove your innocence. To many drivers get away with murder.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

For me I hate using cycle lanes, the one in merseyside are littered with broken bottles. The ones in Brighton are a joke, a painted line on the pavement. It is funny I found riad users up in Merseyside more tolerant of cyclists, yet down in sussex it is the opposite. I have had my arm and legs clipped by wing mirrors of passing cars, cars pull over to the kerb to stop me passing. Only to give me abuse for going roynd them, then getting forced into the kerb when they pass me.

Everyday I use the cycle paths it gets silly with the amount of people not looking and stepping out in front of you.

No one would step out in front of a car doing 20mph, so why do that to me?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iceduoCouple (FF)
over a year ago

manchester

[Removed by poster at 28/09/14 22:13:44]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

is this a spin off group from Gay Bikers on Acid?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

lesbian dope heads on mopeds?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham


"Ok hope this is the right forum but have to have a moan about the twats who ride bikes in the morning when its dark with no lights and all dressed in black they deserve to be crushes under the next car that has no way of seeing them until they're under the wheels.Why would you go on the road,in the dark,with no lights complete retards.

I see a lot that don't wear helmets and jump traffic lights (this is daytime in rush hour Edinburgh traffic btw)

What's that all about? .."

I have a theory on that, some of us are evolved from lemmings. This is the lemming coming out in them, instead of jumping off a cliff they jump a red light.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"lesbian dope heads on mopeds?"

Saw them once!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a pedestrian i hate the ones who ride on the pavement and ding their bell at me to move! If you are over 12yrs old get on the damn road!

I refuse to move out of the way for them and sometimes even walk slower!! Yes im evil "

I challenged a lady on a bike who did this and she proceeded to become aggressive and insulting, saying it was ok for her to ride on the pavement because she had a bell and that I was obnoxious and something wrong in my head, and why don't I walk my dog in a field. She looked like some reject from th JK show!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House

Make ALL cyclists wear safety equipment, all bikes must be taxed and all bikers insured. If they want to use the road they can pay for it like everyone else. Make them have number plates too.

Go to any city, town etc and bikers ride through red lights, in between cars, rip off mirrors, scratch paintwork, ride two/three abreast etc. Ensure they're insured so they can pay for the damage they do or get compensated for any damage done to them.

If they want all these specialist bike lanes, bike routes etc make the gits pay for it. They can pay their own tax like motorised vehicles do.

Sticking a cheap plastic pot on their head isn't really safety equipment is it? They should be made to wear kite-marked safety helmets (with lights for added visibility), clothes with padded areas (spine, elbows, knees) etc. That might actually help save some of their lives.

Compulsory training, riding test and road awareness theory tests like all other road users have to.

Then and only then may we see an actual drop in cyclist deaths. They'll be better riders because they won't flaunt the rules of the road so much and they'll be better trained in road craft. Car drivers will be less inclined to drive recklessly when they see a bike in front of them etc because the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Make ALL cyclists wear safety equipment, all bikes must be taxed and all bikers insured. If they want to use the road they can pay for it like everyone else. Make them have number plates too.

Go to any city, town etc and bikers ride through red lights, in between cars, rip off mirrors, scratch paintwork, ride two/three abreast etc. Ensure they're insured so they can pay for the damage they do or get compensated for any damage done to them.

If they want all these specialist bike lanes, bike routes etc make the gits pay for it. They can pay their own tax like motorised vehicles do.

Sticking a cheap plastic pot on their head isn't really safety equipment is it? They should be made to wear kite-marked safety helmets (with lights for added visibility), clothes with padded areas (spine, elbows, knees) etc. That might actually help save some of their lives.

Compulsory training, riding test and road awareness theory tests like all other road users have to.

Then and only then may we see an actual drop in cyclist deaths. They'll be better riders because they won't flaunt the rules of the road so much and they'll be better trained in road craft. Car drivers will be less inclined to drive recklessly when they see a bike in front of them etc because the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road.

"

Tit, because all those laws applied to drivers have produced a nation of ultra safe road users. It's people who are the problem, regardless if they get on a bike, in a car or lorry and do not obey the law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"Make ALL cyclists wear safety equipment, all bikes must be taxed and all bikers insured. If they want to use the road they can pay for it like everyone else. Make them have number plates too.

Go to any city, town etc and bikers ride through red lights, in between cars, rip off mirrors, scratch paintwork, ride two/three abreast etc. Ensure they're insured so they can pay for the damage they do or get compensated for any damage done to them.

If they want all these specialist bike lanes, bike routes etc make the gits pay for it. They can pay their own tax like motorised vehicles do.

Sticking a cheap plastic pot on their head isn't really safety equipment is it? They should be made to wear kite-marked safety helmets (with lights for added visibility), clothes with padded areas (spine, elbows, knees) etc. That might actually help save some of their lives.

Compulsory training, riding test and road awareness theory tests like all other road users have to.

Then and only then may we see an actual drop in cyclist deaths. They'll be better riders because they won't flaunt the rules of the road so much and they'll be better trained in road craft. Car drivers will be less inclined to drive recklessly when they see a bike in front of them etc because the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road.

"

All helmets sold in the UK must meet UK/EU laws on safety, so your argument holds no water.

All roads (except M/Ways) are funded via Council Tax. Cyclists pay Council Tax. Road Tax doesn't exist and hasn't done since 1937. Your argument holds no water.

Riding two abreast is perfectly legal and best practice for groups as taught by cyclecraft etc. Three abreast is not illegal but not good practice. Your argument is wrong.

Cycle infrastructure is paid for by Council Tax - your argument is wrong.

Padded clothing? Against a 2 ton car driven at over 30mph? Your argument is patently ridiculous.

Cycle training is offered for free by most Local Authorities.

Are you admitting you deliberately driving recklessly around cyclists because you perceive them not to be obeying the very rules that YOU don't understand yourself?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok hope this is the right forum but have to have a moan about the twats who ride bikes in the morning when its dark with no lights and all dressed in black they deserve to be crushes under the next car that has no way of seeing them until they're under the wheels.Why would you go on the road,in the dark,with no lights complete retards."

No insurance, no road tax, no MOT, no responsibility, and no consequences. But that applies to a lot of motorists, I'm afraid to say. Its getting more difficult for motorists, but nothing has changed for cyclists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"oh crystal wheels where are you? "

Can't be done with these threads anymore. I'll leave it to Sara to out argue hearsay and rhetoric with facts and laws.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Madness, You can wrap yourselves in as many Laws as you like, you can pad your Lycra in Geneva Rulings but if im wrapped in two ton of metal and someone pulls out in front of me in the dark or heavy rain and they have no lights on all the Law will buy you is a Wheelchair but hey the Law is on your side so everythings Ok, As for the strict liability the first thing i will do is jump out n make sure i have lots of Photos of the Mangled bits to prove there are no Lights and only then will i phone for an Ambulance and Fire Service to wash the Blood and bits away because no brain dead numpty is going to lose me my License/Living..

Selfish Gimp

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"Make ALL cyclists wear safety equipment, all bikes must be taxed and all bikers insured. If they want to use the road they can pay for it like everyone else. Make them have number plates too.

Go to any city, town etc and bikers ride through red lights, in between cars, rip off mirrors, scratch paintwork, ride two/three abreast etc. Ensure they're insured so they can pay for the damage they do or get compensated for any damage done to them.

If they want all these specialist bike lanes, bike routes etc make the gits pay for it. They can pay their own tax like motorised vehicles do.

Sticking a cheap plastic pot on their head isn't really safety equipment is it? They should be made to wear kite-marked safety helmets (with lights for added visibility), clothes with padded areas (spine, elbows, knees) etc. That might actually help save some of their lives.

Compulsory training, riding test and road awareness theory tests like all other road users have to.

Then and only then may we see an actual drop in cyclist deaths. They'll be better riders because they won't flaunt the rules of the road so much and they'll be better trained in road craft. Car drivers will be less inclined to drive recklessly when they see a bike in front of them etc because the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road.

"

it is this sort of ill informed rant that shows why there is so much angst between cyclists and other road users, road tax does not exist and hasnt done for a very long time, and everyone has a right to use the roads, however you get idiots using the roads in any form of transport, just because you pass a test doesnt mean you are good at that particular thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Make ALL cyclists wear safety equipment, all bikes must be taxed and all bikers insured. If they want to use the road they can pay for it like everyone else. Make them have number plates too.

Go to any city, town etc and bikers ride through red lights, in between cars, rip off mirrors, scratch paintwork, ride two/three abreast etc. Ensure they're insured so they can pay for the damage they do or get compensated for any damage done to them.

If they want all these specialist bike lanes, bike routes etc make the gits pay for it. They can pay their own tax like motorised vehicles do.

Sticking a cheap plastic pot on their head isn't really safety equipment is it? They should be made to wear kite-marked safety helmets (with lights for added visibility), clothes with padded areas (spine, elbows, knees) etc. That might actually help save some of their lives.

Compulsory training, riding test and road awareness theory tests like all other road users have to.

Then and only then may we see an actual drop in cyclist deaths. They'll be better riders because they won't flaunt the rules of the road so much and they'll be better trained in road craft. Car drivers will be less inclined to drive recklessly when they see a bike in front of them etc because the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road.

it is this sort of ill informed rant that shows why there is so much angst between cyclists and other road users, road tax does not exist and hasnt done for a very long time, and everyone has a right to use the roads, however you get idiots using the roads in any form of transport, just because you pass a test doesnt mean you are good at that particular thing."

idiot in Car meets Idiot on Bicycle...Idiot on Bicycle loses.

Oh and you can change the Name but it is still a Tax to use the Road.

Gimp

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *luezuluMan
over a year ago

Suffolk

Am I ok to go on the road if I've got fluorescent tassels on my handle bars

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't disagree with compulsory road safety schemes. Seems an obvious thing to do really. As a cyclist I think inconsiderate drivers are definitely a problem. If you delay someone by a few seconds they see the red mist. The state of our roads doesn't help. Having to swerve every 15 yards to avoid a pot hole or poorly fitted drain cover is just dangerous. It's not a tax to use the road and hasn't been for decades. It's a tax based on emissions, that's why its tiered. Mobility vehicles, electric cars etc all free from emissions tax.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

Some people are happily,deliberately ignorant and love to revel in that ignorance. That's fine, it just shows them up as know-nothings.

The vast majority of drivers are ignorant of the rights and laws of cycling simply because they have never been taught such, its not really their fault more a fault of the system.

They don't understand that cyclists may legally use the full width of the lane & that staying left is not a legal requirement, only a courtesy.

They have never heard of the safe method of Vehicular Cycling and the Primary & Secondary Positions.

Its this ignorance that leads to bafflement and misunderstanding, add to it all that most drivers seriously underestimate the speed of a bicycle (mainly because they cant ride at 20mph) and you have a problem.

For example, how many on here actually know what the requirement is for passing a cyclist on the road?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

Getting back to the point of the thread - the idiots who ride around on bikes seemingly unaware of their vulnerability.

I recently turned sharply right down a one way street and nearly had a head on collision with a cyclist going through wrong way down the street in the middle of the road and checking his phone at the same time!

I have every sympathy for cyclists on the roads who ride with awareness of the road conditions and traffic and try to give a bike at much space as I'd give a car, but this numpty shaved years off my life as I stood on the brakes and I'd be surprised if his pants were still clean!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House


"

All helmets sold in the UK must meet UK/EU laws on safety, so your argument holds no water."

Doesn't mean that those laws are stringent enough to protect the head though does it? Those cycle helmet 'laws' are based solely upon a rider falling off their bike and not based upon collision. Motorbike helmets, for example, are based on the reverse and it would do no harm for cyclist helmets to be based on the same. Cycle helmets should also have extra lights. Not for the wearers added visibility maybe but for other motorists to see THEM. My next door neighbour wears a helmet with so many lights he literally lights up the street in the dark.


" All roads (except M/Ways) are funded via Council Tax. Cyclists pay Council Tax. Road Tax doesn't exist and hasn't done since 1937. Your argument holds no water."
Which still leads us to the plain fact that road users pay an EXTRA tax for the privilege of driving on the road. So why should cyclists be any different? Oh well, you know best I'm sure....


"Riding two abreast is perfectly legal and best practice for groups as taught by cyclecraft etc. Three abreast is not illegal but not good practice. Your argument is wrong."
And riding two abreast (or more) is not, in any way imaginable, going to make an impatient driver (late for a meeting or just because they're a poor, angry driver anyway etc etc) act in an even more reckless manner? Think about it, making an attempt to to diffuse a situation rather than being 'in your face' about it will help. Purposely goading the driver cannot help in any way you can think of. We're talking about cyclist safely here.


"Cycle infrastructure is paid for by Council Tax - your argument is wrong."
As refer you to the previous point about taxes and a blatant denial that road users pay extra for that privilege. YOUR argument was wrong before and continues to be so.


"Padded clothing? Against a 2 ton car driven at over 30mph? Your argument is patently ridiculous."
And right back at you with that statement. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that said cyclist isn't killed in their brush with death disguised as a rabid, mad, two ton death machine wielding motorist. Instead they suffer serious head trauma because they wear a plastic pot on their head (see previous argument), or severe back injury through not wearing padded clothing (check out motorbike jackets for the extra padding they have for lower back, chest, elbows, knee, neck. This padding didn't used to be part of the jacket but rather bought as a separate item. I'm not saying they should be wearing leathers either, the padding is lightweight and can be worn under any clothing at all) or just lets say all they get is cuts and bruises instead of instant death due to protective clothing? As tesco likes to tell us, every little helps? Or not, after all, all cyclists are perfect and it's always the fault of the rabid, mad, two ton machine of death wielding motorist.


" Cycle training is offered for free by most Local Authorities."
But it's not an proper exam is it? My children didn't have to learn the highway code before they were allowed to ride on the road. My kids (or yours, or his, or hers) weren't tested with lots of lessons before the instructor deemed them potentially trained enough before they even took said test. No, they rode around a playground, learnt how to signal without falling over, how to turn left/right and stop. Yeah, that's proper training all right, can't think what I was thinking about when I made my original statement!


" Are you admitting you deliberately driving recklessly around cyclists because you perceive them not to be obeying the very rules that YOU don't understand yourself?"
The pure, unadulterated stupidity of your statement there is amazing. You know what I wrote but you chose to ignore it in an attempt to get a cheap shot in. Cheap and you seem to go hand in hand.

I see you didn't argue against insurance though. Well I got something right in your eyes anyway .....

I'm not saying motorists are better, safer etc. But cyclists refusal to own up to their own shortcoming in riding safely, to pay so little and yet complain so much about roads and want so much for for so little, to disregard their own safety and blame others for their injuries ... well basically not only do they want their cake and eat it but to smear said cake all over the faces of everyone else on the road. Make them insured, make them properly dressed, make them taxed and make them registered. For their safety as well as everyone else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"Make ALL cyclists wear safety equipment, all bikes must be taxed and all bikers insured. If they want to use the road they can pay for it like everyone else. Make them have number plates too.

Go to any city, town etc and bikers ride through red lights, in between cars, rip off mirrors, scratch paintwork, ride two/three abreast etc. Ensure they're insured so they can pay for the damage they do or get compensated for any damage done to them.

If they want all these specialist bike lanes, bike routes etc make the gits pay for it. They can pay their own tax like motorised vehicles do.

Sticking a cheap plastic pot on their head isn't really safety equipment is it? They should be made to wear kite-marked safety helmets (with lights for added visibility), clothes with padded areas (spine, elbows, knees) etc. That might actually help save some of their lives.

Compulsory training, riding test and road awareness theory tests like all other road users have to.

Then and only then may we see an actual drop in cyclist deaths. They'll be better riders because they won't flaunt the rules of the road so much and they'll be better trained in road craft. Car drivers will be less inclined to drive recklessly when they see a bike in front of them etc because the cyclist is obeying the rules of the road.

it is this sort of ill informed rant that shows why there is so much angst between cyclists and other road users, road tax does not exist and hasnt done for a very long time, and everyone has a right to use the roads, however you get idiots using the roads in any form of transport, just because you pass a test doesnt mean you are good at that particular thing.

idiot in Car meets Idiot on Bicycle...Idiot on Bicycle loses.

Oh and you can change the Name but it is still a Tax to use the Road.

Gimp"

No it isnt, tax to use the roads was abolished a long time ago, what motor vehicle users pay (including myself) is a levy based on the emissions the vehicle gives off, there are no fees to use the road, hence a horse or pedal bike, totally entitled to use the road but pays no levy, a car on the or motorbike on the other hand, gives off plenty emissions so are hit with the levy, but everyone is entitled to use the road.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was about to write a reply on here - but can see that it's developing into a flame war....!

So, I'll just keep out of it, I think.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

I won't link as it takes up space, however..

Insurance - its not a bad idea, but not really practicable as how much of a threat to public and property does a bike actually present when compared to a vehicle? The fact that the insurance firms aren't clamouring for it should give us a clue to its effectiveness.

I do have public liability insurance however.

Padded clothing - said before, its useless against cars. Even motorcycle leathers don't protect against vehicle impacts.

I have downhill body armour, its good for crashes but you can't pedal in it, simply too hot. Same reason why cyclists don't use motorcycle helmets - which incidentally aren't as effective as you seem to think.

Road Tax - its a tax on emissions. Two million plus vehicles legally use UK roads without paying VED, so how can it be a road tax.

On the current system cycles would be Band A, ie free.

It would cost around £2 Billion to impose a (free) tax disc on cycles & cost each driver an extra £20 per year. As I have 5 bikes I'll happily have a tax disc knowing your payment has gone up.

What you are doing is victim blaming, motorists cause the great majority of incidents yet you want to force the victims to take protective measures that will not work, rather than addressing the actual problem. Road Tax is just a silly deflection & an assumption of ownership - which is exactly the reason Churchill abolished it in 1937.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *luezuluMan
over a year ago

Suffolk

I've decided to take the tassels off my handle bars.

I'm sick of people shouting, "look at that twat on his bike"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House


"

No it isnt, tax to use the roads was abolished a long time ago, what motor vehicle users pay (including myself) is a levy based on the emissions the vehicle gives off, there are no fees to use the road, hence a horse or pedal bike, totally entitled to use the road but pays no levy, a car on the or motorbike on the other hand, gives off plenty emissions so are hit with the levy, but everyone is entitled to use the road."

The tax based on 'emissions' is quite new. You can dress it anyway you like but a tax is a tax regardless of the name you give it and motorists pay that extra. Stating you pay less tax (levy if you wish) based on less emissions doesn't remove the fact it's still a tax (levy is you wish). I'm still waiting for the 'cyclists are saving the planet' argument to raise its head above the parapets.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

dinging the bell is a courtesy to let you know we are approaching so we dont startle you

gives you plenty of time to take a single step aside to let us through

the pavement is wide enough for both in most cases

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But the point is vehicle excise duty (road tax) isn't used in any way to maintain the roads. Most cyclists also have a car, which they pay VED for too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have to agree. I am a car driver, motorcyclist and commute to work on my pushbike. As such I have good road awareness and dress accordingly. I belive that cyclists should undertake a road safety awareness course before they can ride on the road.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andG4moreCouple
over a year ago

Dunbartonshire


"Feel Better now ?

Ding Ding Gimp"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dventuroususCouple
over a year ago

sunderland


"

No it isnt, tax to use the roads was abolished a long time ago, what motor vehicle users pay (including myself) is a levy based on the emissions the vehicle gives off, there are no fees to use the road, hence a horse or pedal bike, totally entitled to use the road but pays no levy, a car on the or motorbike on the other hand, gives off plenty emissions so are hit with the levy, but everyone is entitled to use the road.

The tax based on 'emissions' is quite new. You can dress it anyway you like but a tax is a tax regardless of the name you give it and motorists pay that extra. Stating you pay less tax (levy if you wish) based on less emissions doesn't remove the fact it's still a tax (levy is you wish). I'm still waiting for the 'cyclists are saving the planet' argument to raise its head above the parapets. "

I am not dressing it anyway I like, it is what it is, and the facts are that no one pays a tax/fee/levy/charge to use the road, that was abolished a long time ago, you pay tax on what vehicle you use to go on those roads, and simply paying that tax to use a car doesnt give you anymore right to be on that road than someone using a vehicle that doesnt demand that duty to be paid, ie a bike, I drive a car, paying my duty and I use bike, I do not think I have more right than a cyclist or a horse and cart to be on the road when im in my car, because quite simply I dont, everyone is entitled to use the roads.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It must be quite annoying, as a motorist - to sit there behind 20 cars at the lights, burning off fuel that is what - a quid a litre, - and watch some slim sexy cyclist go whizzing by.

What used to get me, driving in London- is those fuds who would pull out from the left + sneak in front of you, drive 100m + then try go to the right. Holding everyone up behind them, right turns should be banned in London

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos

The youngsters are by far the worst cyclists, jumping red lights, jumping off pavements onto the road without even a glance .....the list is endless

If your going to play chicken with heavy metal your going to loose every time

They should pass a test, be licenced and have to pay insurance to be on the road.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"I have to agree. I am a car driver, motorcyclist and commute to work on my pushbike. As such I have good road awareness and dress accordingly. I belive that cyclists should undertake a road safety awareness course before they can ride on the road. "

Difficult (if not impossible) to enforce, due to the Statutory Right to use the road. Instead, why not force anyone convicted of an offence to do a Bikeability course from their Local Authority?

Personally I would like to see more enforcement over ALL road users, targetting one user group doesn't address the problem & creates a mentality that some users believe they are superior which is not the case.

The road tax myth is just a straw man.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House


"

Insurance - its not a bad idea, but not really practicable as how much of a threat to public and property does a bike actually present when compared to a vehicle? The fact that the insurance firms aren't clamouring for it should give us a clue to its effectiveness."
Point taken but I still disagree. Be the owner of a car and have it's paintwork scratched by an errant cyclist and tell 'well that's ok as they didn't do as much damage as another car would have'. Insurance companies don't need to clamour for anything. You can drive a vehicle without being insured. For them it's easy money. The last thing you hear them complain about is a drop in profits. More people claim? the higher the premiums. Costs them nothing at the end of the day.


"I do have public liability insurance however."
Good for you (no sarcasm intended). But most people don't, most cyclists certainly don't so your point is well made for you and I praise you for it, but mute for the vast majority of others


"Padded clothing - said before, its useless against cars. Even motorcycle leathers don't protect against vehicle impacts.

I have downhill body armour, its good for crashes but you can't pedal in it, simply too hot. Same reason why cyclists don't use motorcycle helmets - which incidentally aren't as effective as you seem to think."
You'll excuse me while I completely and utterly disagree with you here and can confidently claim experience and knowledge that you're wrong and clueless. As the wife of a ex-biker, helmets are extremely effective and a life saver. Too many stories of reckless drivers to relay here, but his life has been saved on (for me) too many occasions by his helmet and clothing. You cannot state, at all, that no life has been saved or injuries prevented from wearing protective clothing. Paramedics are NOT allowed any more from cutting a bikers leathers at the scene as it has been proven time and time again that the clothing itself has reduced the injury or severity of the injury and it should be only done at the A&E or in theatre. A friend of ours had his leg crushed in an accident and only the tightness of his leathers prevented the leg from spewing out. As it is, the leathers kept it all in and his leg was saved (but never to be the same again)


"Road Tax - its a tax on emissions. Two million plus vehicles legally use UK roads without paying VED, so how can it be a road tax. On the current system cycles would be Band A, ie free.

It would cost around £2 Billion to impose a (free) tax disc on cycles & cost each driver an extra £20 per year. As I have 5 bikes I'll happily have a tax disc knowing your payment has gone up."
Yes, it's not been a 'road tax' since 1937 however, over 75% still call it either 'road tax' or 'car tax', though it's actually the 'vehicle excise duty'. That doesn't remove the fact it's a tax from the equation. Basing it on emissions didn't make any difference or reduction to the overall financial injection the Govt receives from the excise duty. People who can afford the larger engine cars wont be worrying about the larger duty at all. The two million vehicles you mention are (via wikipedia): electrically propelled vehicles, vehicles older than 40 years, trams, vehicles which cannot convey people, police vehicles, fire engines, ambulances and health service vehicles, mine rescue vehicles, lifeboat vehicles, certain road construction and maintenance vehicles, vehicles for disabled people, certain agricultural and land maintenance vehicles, road gritters and snow ploughs, vehicles undergoing statutory tests, vehicles imported by members of foreign armed forces, and crown vehicles.

You get me wrong, when I say tax cycles I in NO WAY mean let you go Band A and pay nothing because of emssions. I would charge cyclist £20 PER bike per year. So that's a hundred quid from you please as you own so many bikes (or £50 if you're really nice about it).


" What you are doing is victim blaming, motorists cause the great majority of incidents yet you want to force the victims to take protective measures that will not work, rather than addressing the actual problem. Road Tax is just a silly deflection & an assumption of ownership - which is exactly the reason Churchill abolished it in 1937.

"

The 'silly deflection & assumption of ownership' (thanks again wikipedia eh?) is EXACTLY the same argument that you are making, albeit via a different viewpoint. Motorists causing the 'greater majority of incidents' is only because of the greater numbers of motorised vehicles on the roads. NOT because they are inherently less skilled than cyclists (though many are silly to believe their little magic box with wheels protects them). Forcing the 'victims' to take protective measures is forcing them to take life saving measures (seat belts anyone and the fuss when that was made compulsory?). Well excuse me for wanting people to live or have a better chance of living than if they don't take protective measures. Under your guidance motorists do all the hard work, paying all the money etc while cyclists can swan around with a total disregard for their own safety as well as others. The 'actual problem' is both sides being at fault but you want only one side to be blamed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"I have to agree. I am a car driver, motorcyclist and commute to work on my pushbike. As such I have good road awareness and dress accordingly. I belive that cyclists should undertake a road safety awareness course before they can ride on the road.

Difficult (if not impossible) to enforce, due to the Statutory Right to use the road. Instead, why not force anyone convicted of an offence to do a Bikeability course from their Local Authority?

Personally I would like to see more enforcement over ALL road users, targetting one user group doesn't address the problem & creates a mentality that some users believe they are superior which is not the case.

The road tax myth is just a straw man."

Road tax is no good but having to be insured would have an impact I believe and if a cyclist is the cause of an accident such as a car swerving to avoid them etc why should they not pay the cost like all other road users

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 29/09/14 13:12:21]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Doesn't matter what mode of transport I use, I'm still a twat

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Love these threads, they always end up full of tit for tat arguments.

At the end of all the discussions, one fact remains.

There are users of all forms of transport who disregard the rules of the roads, cause accidents or disruptions. No amount of blaming each other will change that, enforcement standards are so poor it will sadly stay that way.

Forcing a duty, training, tax or whatever on a cyclist will not alter behaviour if he/she wants to jump a red light, ride with inadequate equipment or care for other road users.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm a cyclist who wears all the correct gear and lights.. There's some right twats in cars who think it's right to cut me up whether it's day or night.

Some drivers respect riders other don't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oveSlutForUseCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Fucking bike riders.

"hey, respect my right to be on the road!"

"ooo look, a red light, fuck it, all over the pavement, respect my right!"

"Oooo look, a cycle path! Fuck it, I prefer the pavement - respect my right!"

bunch of fucking cunts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House


"

Personally I would like to see more enforcement over ALL road users, targetting one user group doesn't address the problem & creates a mentality that some users believe they are superior which is not the case.

"

I totally agree. See we're not total enemies after all

But while you have car owners etc paying that (and call it by the name of your choosing) tax and bikes not, there will continue to be trouble. Someone else stated that everyone has a right to use the road. Well, when that law was originally written in the late 19th/early 20th century they didn't envisage so many motorised vehicles and still felt that way (due to us peasants being to poor and to uneducated to own a car) up to the 50s/60s. No one believed at all that horse and carts would ever make way to the engine. But they did, the law is now defunct and should be revised. Pedestrians don't even have the right of way on a pavement, did you know that? Cars etc can park on the pavement but they mustn't block the pavement causing a pedestrian to be in an 'unsafe manner'. Pedestrians only have rights on certain, but not all, crossings. Bikes can be on pavements as long as they don't cause danger to pedestrians.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fucking bike riders.

"hey, respect my right to be on the road!"

"ooo look, a red light, fuck it, all over the pavement, respect my right!"

"Oooo look, a cycle path! Fuck it, I prefer the pavement - respect my right!"

bunch of fucking cunts."

No need is there, terrible language.

What if you lose your license and have to cycle to work?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icksoneMan
over a year ago

oldham

Apparently its against the Law to ride with no lights on your bike at night.

The same for riding on the pavement.

A friend has had a £60 fine for doing both.

But that's Cambridge for you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House


"The youngsters are by far the worst cyclists, jumping red lights, jumping off pavements onto the road without even a glance .....the list is endless

If your going to play chicken with heavy metal your going to loose every time

They should pass a test, be licenced and have to pay insurance to be on the road."

And ...


"Road tax is no good but having to be insured would have an impact I believe and if a cyclist is the cause of an accident such as a car swerving to avoid them etc why should they not pay the cost like all other road users"

I love YOU xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

This thread has turned into a load of nonsense all i meant when I posted it was that people who ride bikes in the dark on the road should have enough sense to have lights so that they can be seen.If i drive down the road with no lights on I'm sure the police may well have something to say about it the same should apply to cyclists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently its against the Law to ride with no lights on your bike at night.

The same for riding on the pavement.

A friend has had a £60 fine for doing both.

But that's Cambridge for you."

Happens in London too. But let's not let facts get in the way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"The youngsters are by far the worst cyclists, jumping red lights, jumping off pavements onto the road without even a glance .....the list is endless

If your going to play chicken with heavy metal your going to loose every time

They should pass a test, be licenced and have to pay insurance to be on the road.

And ...

Road tax is no good but having to be insured would have an impact I believe and if a cyclist is the cause of an accident such as a car swerving to avoid them etc why should they not pay the cost like all other road users

I love YOU xx"

Ahhh feeling the love

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

When I used a motorcycle as my sole form of transport I came to the belief that one of the best things one could do to improve road safety is make everyone use two wheels for a while.

This is not simply so that everyone understands how volnerable those on two wheels actually are, but would make them realise just how important it is to look at the environment one is traveling in. Things like changes in road surface, understanding the effect of different quantities of water on the surface, the effect of the sun (brightness and position) on visability and lights. Stupid things like the colour of the vehicle and available lighting. Fundimentals like physically looking over ones shoulder before changing lane. This list could go on and on.

I am by no means a great car driver, but I am considerably better than I was before riding my motorcycle, and am far more considerate since I started using my bicycle to comute to work a couple of years ago.

That said, I gave up on such an idea on the grounds that there are some people who would just be too dangerous.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am123Man
over a year ago

essex chelmsford


"oh crystal wheels where are you?

Can't be done with these threads anymore. I'll leave it to Sara to out argue hearsay and rhetoric with facts and laws.

"
shame you always give a good argument from the cyclist point of view.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anyone tried a tandem?

Also why do bike riders shy from the extensive cycle paths (surely safer)?

I always give them room, but sometimes overtaking them is like playing chicken withon-coming traffic...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Anyone tried a tandem?

Also why do bike riders shy from the extensive cycle paths (surely safer)?

I always give them room, but sometimes overtaking them is like playing chicken withon-coming traffic...

"

Thats your fault,not the cyclists. If it's not safe to overtake then don't take chances.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"

Insurance - its not a bad idea, but not really practicable as how much of a threat to public and property does a bike actually present when compared to a vehicle? The fact that the insurance firms aren't clamouring for it should give us a clue to its effectiveness. Point taken but I still disagree. Be the owner of a car and have it's paintwork scratched by an errant cyclist and tell 'well that's ok as they didn't do as much damage as another car would have'. Insurance companies don't need to clamour for anything. You can drive a vehicle without being insured. For them it's easy money. The last thing you hear them complain about is a drop in profits. More people claim? the higher the premiums. Costs them nothing at the end of the day.

I do have public liability insurance however. Good for you (no sarcasm intended). But most people don't, most cyclists certainly don't so your point is well made for you and I praise you for it, but mute for the vast majority of others

Padded clothing - said before, its useless against cars. Even motorcycle leathers don't protect against vehicle impacts.

I have downhill body armour, its good for crashes but you can't pedal in it, simply too hot. Same reason why cyclists don't use motorcycle helmets - which incidentally aren't as effective as you seem to think. You'll excuse me while I completely and utterly disagree with you here and can confidently claim experience and knowledge that you're wrong and clueless. As the wife of a ex-biker, helmets are extremely effective and a life saver. Too many stories of reckless drivers to relay here, but his life has been saved on (for me) too many occasions by his helmet and clothing. You cannot state, at all, that no life has been saved or injuries prevented from wearing protective clothing. Paramedics are NOT allowed any more from cutting a bikers leathers at the scene as it has been proven time and time again that the clothing itself has reduced the injury or severity of the injury and it should be only done at the A&E or in theatre. A friend of ours had his leg crushed in an accident and only the tightness of his leathers prevented the leg from spewing out. As it is, the leathers kept it all in and his leg was saved (but never to be the same again)

Road Tax - its a tax on emissions. Two million plus vehicles legally use UK roads without paying VED, so how can it be a road tax. On the current system cycles would be Band A, ie free.

It would cost around £2 Billion to impose a (free) tax disc on cycles & cost each driver an extra £20 per year. As I have 5 bikes I'll happily have a tax disc knowing your payment has gone up. Yes, it's not been a 'road tax' since 1937 however, over 75% still call it either 'road tax' or 'car tax', though it's actually the 'vehicle excise duty'. That doesn't remove the fact it's a tax from the equation. Basing it on emissions didn't make any difference or reduction to the overall financial injection the Govt receives from the excise duty. People who can afford the larger engine cars wont be worrying about the larger duty at all. The two million vehicles you mention are (via wikipedia): electrically propelled vehicles, vehicles older than 40 years, trams, vehicles which cannot convey people, police vehicles, fire engines, ambulances and health service vehicles, mine rescue vehicles, lifeboat vehicles, certain road construction and maintenance vehicles, vehicles for disabled people, certain agricultural and land maintenance vehicles, road gritters and snow ploughs, vehicles undergoing statutory tests, vehicles imported by members of foreign armed forces, and crown vehicles.

You get me wrong, when I say tax cycles I in NO WAY mean let you go Band A and pay nothing because of emssions. I would charge cyclist £20 PER bike per year. So that's a hundred quid from you please as you own so many bikes (or £50 if you're really nice about it).

What you are doing is victim blaming, motorists cause the great majority of incidents yet you want to force the victims to take protective measures that will not work, rather than addressing the actual problem. Road Tax is just a silly deflection & an assumption of ownership - which is exactly the reason Churchill abolished it in 1937.

The 'silly deflection & assumption of ownership' (thanks again wikipedia eh?) is EXACTLY the same argument that you are making, albeit via a different viewpoint. Motorists causing the 'greater majority of incidents' is only because of the greater numbers of motorised vehicles on the roads. NOT because they are inherently less skilled than cyclists (though many are silly to believe their little magic box with wheels protects them). Forcing the 'victims' to take protective measures is forcing them to take life saving measures (seat belts anyone and the fuss when that was made compulsory?). Well excuse me for wanting people to live or have a better chance of living than if they don't take protective measures. Under your guidance motorists do all the hard work, paying all the money etc while cyclists can swan around with a total disregard for their own safety as well as others. The 'actual problem' is both sides being at fault but you want only one side to be blamed. "

OK, isn't it illegal to drive without insurance?

Most cyclists you will meet on the road will be adults, they will either own their homes or rent them. Either way they will almost certainly have household insurance (especially if they have expensive bikes) and that cover comes with public liability cover - mine is £5 million. Therefore most adult cyclists will have insurance. Just because its not specific road insurance doesn't negate its worth. You can also claim directly from anyone, you don't need an insurance firm.

Bike Leathers - you miss my point. Leathers don't prevent crush injuries/broken bones or internal organ damage, they aren't designed to do that. They are designed to help against road rash and they do that very well. You can't cycle in leathers so any protective clothing that was light enough to cycle in would be worthless, a bit of foam padding doesn't help against a two-ton 4x4 hitting you at 40mph.

Motorcycle helmets are tested at 9-16mph impacts in lab tests - that certainly surprised me and that is what I was referring to when I said they aren't as effective as some people may think they are, I certainly thought they were tested much more strictly than that - but that is another subject.

Road Tax (again) you want to charge cyclists £20 when a Band A vehicle that emits more pollutants pays £0.00?

That smacks of vindictiveness I'm afraid but whilst we have the current system then a cycle is would be rated as a Band A vehicle so that's £0.00.

Yes, there ARE more motorists, but most of them don't hit cyclists do they? Of the ones that ARE involved in collisions with cyclists various studies have found them to be at sole fault in between 68-72% of cases, some 20% of incidents where the driver and cyclist shared the fault and only 12% of cases where the cyclist was at sole fault. I'm afraid the figures clearly show that when collisions happen the driver is at fault far more often.

I've no problem with safety gear - I wear a hi-viz helmet and bright clothes on the road, I have daytime running lights as well. What I object to is the deflection from sorting out the bigger problem - the people causing the collisions in the first place. A cyclist can wear all sorts of aids but they are useless if the driver A) isn't looking where he is going B) doesn't care about the cyclists safety or C)deliberately tries to intimidate or hit the cyclist.

You can say the laws don't suit, but they are the laws we have right now - if you don't like them write to your MP and try to get them changed, I won't hold my breath.

I am a cyclist. When I am on the road doing what is perfectly legal I have - I demand - the same rights, the same courtesies, the same consideration as any other road user.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

I'll leave you with some examples, all of which I have experienced in the last six months - the latter 2 in the last month.

Cycling over a moorland road, approaching a blind left hand bend with high stone walls limiting visibility. Sharp, near 90 degree bend, double white lines and two cars oncoming in the opposite direction. Woman in a mini decides to put my life, her life and the lives of the oncoming drivers at risk by overtaking me on the apex of the bend and forcing me into the wall even though it was an illegal manoeuvre.

I caught up and asked her why she put me and others at risk, she had no answer except to say "my family are cyclists" but yet she was happy to risk my life in order to get past.

Approaching a crossroad junction, my light is green and I want to turn right. I Cannot because two cars are sat in the middle of the junction with indicators on trying to turn right but having to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. I stop behind the white stop line and wait. Lights go red, first car turns right and clears the junction. The van in front of me then decides to throw his vehicle into reverse and drives into me, knocking me off.

He claims not to have seen me despite me being stationary and in the centre of his rear window wearing a hi-viz helmet and having a bright flashing light shining into his vehicle.

Having got out and realised he 'only' hit a cyclist he drove off without giving me his insurance details. I now have had to involve the police in order to get his details. It could have been sorted out easily, but now I am determined to hit him in his pocket.

Cycling up a main road through a local village. Parked cars to my left, double white lines and oncoming traffic. pinchpoint (pedestrian island) ahead and vehicles stopped at a pedestrian crossing.

Idiot in a white 4x4 decides to overtake me even though there is only half the width of the lane available and vehicles coming the other way.

He forced me into the parked vehicles (I managed not to hit them) and then cut me up and forced me to make an emergency stop. When I shouted, he then got aggressive, tried to run me off the road and jumped out of his vehicle. I rode away and he came after me, chasing me down a side street then jumped out and assaulted me twice.

The police are now involved.

The actions of those drivers are fed by attitudes similar to those on this thread. Attitudes that say cyclists don't count, cyclists don't pay their way, cyclists are always at fault even when the evidence states otherwise.

Its bigotry pure and simple and I've had enough, I pay my taxes, I obey the law and I ride safely and courteously.

Just because you don't understand why I am riding in a certain manner - primary position for example - doesn't mean its wrong, it means you don't understand.

I'm going to step away now before I say something offensive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"

Insurance - its not a bad idea, but not really practicable as how much of a threat to public and property does a bike actually present when compared to a vehicle? The fact that the insurance firms aren't clamouring for it should give us a clue to its effectiveness. Point taken but I still disagree. Be the owner of a car and have it's paintwork scratched by an errant cyclist and tell 'well that's ok as they didn't do as much damage as another car would have'. Insurance companies don't need to clamour for anything. You can drive a vehicle without being insured. For them it's easy money. The last thing you hear them complain about is a drop in profits. More people claim? the higher the premiums. Costs them nothing at the end of the day.

I do have public liability insurance however. Good for you (no sarcasm intended). But most people don't, most cyclists certainly don't so your point is well made for you and I praise you for it, but mute for the vast majority of others

Padded clothing - said before, its useless against cars. Even motorcycle leathers don't protect against vehicle impacts.

I have downhill body armour, its good for crashes but you can't pedal in it, simply too hot. Same reason why cyclists don't use motorcycle helmets - which incidentally aren't as effective as you seem to think. You'll excuse me while I completely and utterly disagree with you here and can confidently claim experience and knowledge that you're wrong and clueless. As the wife of a ex-biker, helmets are extremely effective and a life saver. Too many stories of reckless drivers to relay here, but his life has been saved on (for me) too many occasions by his helmet and clothing. You cannot state, at all, that no life has been saved or injuries prevented from wearing protective clothing. Paramedics are NOT allowed any more from cutting a bikers leathers at the scene as it has been proven time and time again that the clothing itself has reduced the injury or severity of the injury and it should be only done at the A&E or in theatre. A friend of ours had his leg crushed in an accident and only the tightness of his leathers prevented the leg from spewing out. As it is, the leathers kept it all in and his leg was saved (but never to be the same again)

Road Tax - its a tax on emissions. Two million plus vehicles legally use UK roads without paying VED, so how can it be a road tax. On the current system cycles would be Band A, ie free.

It would cost around £2 Billion to impose a (free) tax disc on cycles & cost each driver an extra £20 per year. As I have 5 bikes I'll happily have a tax disc knowing your payment has gone up. Yes, it's not been a 'road tax' since 1937 however, over 75% still call it either 'road tax' or 'car tax', though it's actually the 'vehicle excise duty'. That doesn't remove the fact it's a tax from the equation. Basing it on emissions didn't make any difference or reduction to the overall financial injection the Govt receives from the excise duty. People who can afford the larger engine cars wont be worrying about the larger duty at all. The two million vehicles you mention are (via wikipedia): electrically propelled vehicles, vehicles older than 40 years, trams, vehicles which cannot convey people, police vehicles, fire engines, ambulances and health service vehicles, mine rescue vehicles, lifeboat vehicles, certain road construction and maintenance vehicles, vehicles for disabled people, certain agricultural and land maintenance vehicles, road gritters and snow ploughs, vehicles undergoing statutory tests, vehicles imported by members of foreign armed forces, and crown vehicles.

You get me wrong, when I say tax cycles I in NO WAY mean let you go Band A and pay nothing because of emssions. I would charge cyclist £20 PER bike per year. So that's a hundred quid from you please as you own so many bikes (or £50 if you're really nice about it).

What you are doing is victim blaming, motorists cause the great majority of incidents yet you want to force the victims to take protective measures that will not work, rather than addressing the actual problem. Road Tax is just a silly deflection & an assumption of ownership - which is exactly the reason Churchill abolished it in 1937.

The 'silly deflection & assumption of ownership' (thanks again wikipedia eh?) is EXACTLY the same argument that you are making, albeit via a different viewpoint. Motorists causing the 'greater majority of incidents' is only because of the greater numbers of motorised vehicles on the roads. NOT because they are inherently less skilled than cyclists (though many are silly to believe their little magic box with wheels protects them). Forcing the 'victims' to take protective measures is forcing them to take life saving measures (seat belts anyone and the fuss when that was made compulsory?). Well excuse me for wanting people to live or have a better chance of living than if they don't take protective measures. Under your guidance motorists do all the hard work, paying all the money etc while cyclists can swan around with a total disregard for their own safety as well as others. The 'actual problem' is both sides being at fault but you want only one side to be blamed.

OK, isn't it illegal to drive without insurance?

Most cyclists you will meet on the road will be adults, they will either own their homes or rent them. Either way they will almost certainly have household insurance (especially if they have expensive bikes) and that cover comes with public liability cover - mine is £5 million. Therefore most adult cyclists will have insurance. Just because its not specific road insurance doesn't negate its worth. You can also claim directly from anyone, you don't need an insurance firm.

Bike Leathers - you miss my point. Leathers don't prevent crush injuries/broken bones or internal organ damage, they aren't designed to do that. They are designed to help against road rash and they do that very well. You can't cycle in leathers so any protective clothing that was light enough to cycle in would be worthless, a bit of foam padding doesn't help against a two-ton 4x4 hitting you at 40mph.

Motorcycle helmets are tested at 9-16mph impacts in lab tests - that certainly surprised me and that is what I was referring to when I said they aren't as effective as some people may think they are, I certainly thought they were tested much more strictly than that - but that is another subject.

Road Tax (again) you want to charge cyclists £20 when a Band A vehicle that emits more pollutants pays £0.00?

That smacks of vindictiveness I'm afraid but whilst we have the current system then a cycle is would be rated as a Band A vehicle so that's £0.00.

Yes, there ARE more motorists, but most of them don't hit cyclists do they? Of the ones that ARE involved in collisions with cyclists various studies have found them to be at sole fault in between 68-72% of cases, some 20% of incidents where the driver and cyclist shared the fault and only 12% of cases where the cyclist was at sole fault. I'm afraid the figures clearly show that when collisions happen the driver is at fault far more often.

I've no problem with safety gear - I wear a hi-viz helmet and bright clothes on the road, I have daytime running lights as well. What I object to is the deflection from sorting out the bigger problem - the people causing the collisions in the first place. A cyclist can wear all sorts of aids but they are useless if the driver A) isn't looking where he is going B) doesn't care about the cyclists safety or C)deliberately tries to intimidate or hit the cyclist.

You can say the laws don't suit, but they are the laws we have right now - if you don't like them write to your MP and try to get them changed, I won't hold my breath.

I am a cyclist. When I am on the road doing what is perfectly legal I have - I demand - the same rights, the same courtesies, the same consideration as any other road user."

Yet when a cyclist hits a pothole in the road falls off gets injured and damages their bike ....do they claim on their house insurance NO.

They make a claim against the council for compensation and who pays into the fund that that compensation is paid out from ?.....

Why do cyclists want everything for nothing?

No tax no insurance free to use the road and pavements and ignore the law......

Makes my Fukin blood boil

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance."

Oh I shall try so hard not to.... After all ignorance is bliss

And maybe when my local mp comes to the door again and tells me the council budget for road maintenance is allocated from Westminster and not taken from my council tax.....

I can tell him he is talking nonsense...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance.

Oh I shall try so hard not to.... After all ignorance is bliss

And maybe when my local mp comes to the door again and tells me the council budget for road maintenance is allocated from Westminster and not taken from my council tax.....

I can tell him he is talking nonsense... "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i thought that is why i have bullbars on my jeep so i dont scratch the paint when i hit a bike

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance.

Oh I shall try so hard not to.... After all ignorance is bliss

And maybe when my local mp comes to the door again and tells me the council budget for road maintenance is allocated from Westminster and not taken from my council tax.....

Or maybe even tell him ...get on yer bike !

I can tell him he is talking nonsense... "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance.

Oh I shall try so hard not to.... After all ignorance is bliss

And maybe when my local mp comes to the door again and tells me the council budget for road maintenance is allocated from Westminster and not taken from my council tax.....

I can tell him he is talking nonsense... "

Neither of these things are true...depending where you live the proportion of your local Council's budget that is made up from council tax vs how much comes from central government grant will vary dramatically.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"

Yet when a cyclist hits a pothole in the road falls off gets injured and damages their bike ....do they claim on their house insurance NO.

They make a claim against the council for compensation and who pays into the fund that that compensation is paid out from ?.....

Why do cyclists want everything for nothing?

No tax no insurance free to use the road and pavements and ignore the law......

Makes my Fukin blood boil "

motorists claim compo off the council or hitting potholes to and they have tax and insurance.

Pedestrians claim compo off the council if they trip or fall in the street and they dont have tax or insurance.

i'm not sure your point stands up to scrutiny really

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *CoastFunMan
over a year ago

Southampron

Back to the OP's point I agree. Whilst cycling into work the other day I came across two cyclists, both in grey, black bags, no lights and it was a dull morning. I'd struggled to see them at first from my bike and my light is as bright as a cars! Idiots and no doubt will be first to shout couldn't you see me if they got knocked off.

Everyone else please try to get along. The road is for all to use regardless of whether you think it's just for you and you only because you might pay something that others don't. If everyone had respect for other users on the road it would be far less stressful for all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"

Yet when a cyclist hits a pothole in the road falls off gets injured and damages their bike ....do they claim on their house insurance NO.

They make a claim against the council for compensation and who pays into the fund that that compensation is paid out from ?.....

Why do cyclists want everything for nothing?

No tax no insurance free to use the road and pavements and ignore the law......

Makes my Fukin blood boil

motorists claim compo off the council or hitting potholes to and they have tax and insurance.

Pedestrians claim compo off the council if they trip or fall in the street and they dont have tax or insurance.

i'm not sure your point stands up to scrutiny really"

Maybe your right there

However as you say motorists do pay insurance to be on that road and road tax.

It is also the councils duty of care to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

But what seems to have been left out from my little rant is why cyclists can feel free to use both the pavements and roads as they please and jump red lights etc ...seemingly having no regard for the law or other road users ...and I did say earlier this applied to the young cyclists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance.

Oh I shall try so hard not to.... After all ignorance is bliss

And maybe when my local mp comes to the door again and tells me the council budget for road maintenance is allocated from Westminster and not taken from my council tax.....

I can tell him he is talking nonsense...

Neither of these things are true...depending where you live the proportion of your local Council's budget that is made up from council tax vs how much comes from central government grant will vary dramatically.

"

Yet none of it is from a ring-fenced mythical tax for maintaining the road and only payable by the motorist.

We ALL pay for public infrastructure like roads whether we personally use them or not. The attitude of some on here is akin to Violet Elisabeth Bott stamping her feet and threatening to scream, if it didn't engender such dangerous attitudes it would be funny.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"The youngsters are by far the worst cyclists, jumping red lights, jumping off pavements onto the road without even a glance .....the list is endless

If your going to play chicken with heavy metal your going to loose every time

They should pass a test, be licenced and have to pay insurance to be on the road."

Please if you are going quote me select my original reply as above not a morphed version

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cyclist pays council tax.

Council tax funds the roads.

The cyclist has the same right to claim as any other council tax payer.

But don't let simple fact get in the way of your ignorance.

Oh I shall try so hard not to.... After all ignorance is bliss

And maybe when my local mp comes to the door again and tells me the council budget for road maintenance is allocated from Westminster and not taken from my council tax.....

I can tell him he is talking nonsense...

Neither of these things are true...depending where you live the proportion of your local Council's budget that is made up from council tax vs how much comes from central government grant will vary dramatically.

Yet none of it is from a ring-fenced mythical tax for maintaining the road and only payable by the motorist.

We ALL pay for public infrastructure like roads whether we personally use them or not. The attitude of some on here is akin to Violet Elisabeth Bott stamping her feet and threatening to scream, if it didn't engender such dangerous attitudes it would be funny. "

Agreed...same as we all pay for the NHS, education, social care etc. Anyway there's no such thing as road tax, vehicle excise duty is a pollution tax. And until they fit bicycles with engines I'm ok with cyclists not paying that!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"The youngsters are by far the worst cyclists, jumping red lights, jumping off pavements onto the road without even a glance .....the list is endless

If your going to play chicken with heavy metal your going to loose every time

They should pass a test, be licenced and have to pay insurance to be on the road.

Please if you are going quote me select my original reply as above not a morphed version "

And if you wish to insult me use my mailbox .....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"

Yet when a cyclist hits a pothole in the road falls off gets injured and damages their bike ....do they claim on their house insurance NO.

They make a claim against the council for compensation and who pays into the fund that that compensation is paid out from ?.....

Why do cyclists want everything for nothing?

No tax no insurance free to use the road and pavements and ignore the law......

Makes my Fukin blood boil

motorists claim compo off the council or hitting potholes to and they have tax and insurance.

Pedestrians claim compo off the council if they trip or fall in the street and they dont have tax or insurance.

i'm not sure your point stands up to scrutiny really

Maybe your right there

However as you say motorists do pay insurance to be on that road and road tax.

It is also the councils duty of care to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

But what seems to have been left out from my little rant is why cyclists can feel free to use both the pavements and roads as they please and jump red lights etc ...seemingly having no regard for the law or other road users ...and I did say earlier this applied to the young cyclists."

and pedestrians cross the roads dangerously, not at designated crossings, play chicken with cars etc

or every mode of transport there are dickheads.

also, they pay insurance to protect them against damage and injury, not to be on the road

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Considering how many children ride bikes - how would insurance work?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Holy fuck this is a thread n half!

I was at the NEC bike show at the weekend and bought a Smart E-Bike (saving £800)!

I think I'm gonna invest in a video camera for my helmet at the weekend...

Ps I own a motor cycle and car and, thus, pay a fair bit of VED

Just trying to keep fit

Hope I don't meet some of the anti-cycle thread posters on my travels

X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Considering how many children ride bikes - how would insurance work?

"

Equally, as people cycle from a very early age at what point would the training people talk about take effect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"Considering how many children ride bikes - how would insurance work?

"

Ok and a good point, at least it has something to do with my forum reply,

Firstly would you be ok with your 10 year old out on a road alone on a bike? And how would you know where they were riding their bikes.

Should parents allow young ones to roam the streets on bikes?

Insurance and licences I think May reduce the number of young dangerous riders on the road

That's my opinion but having so many young ones ride off the pavements onto the road in front of me I think something needs doing ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Do we know what percentage of 'cyclists' are also 'tax paying' car/motorcycle users?

Because I am willing to bet its in the high 90%+

In my office there are lots of cyclists who commute to work....100% of the ones I know have a car too, so the ranty throbing blood vessel types above are IMHO talking utter utter bollocks although nothing new here lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *luezuluMan
over a year ago

Suffolk


"Holy fuck this is a thread n half!

I was at the NEC bike show at the weekend and bought a Smart E-Bike (saving £800)!

I think I'm gonna invest in a video camera for my helmet at the weekend...

Ps I own a motor cycle and car and, thus, pay a fair bit of VED

Just trying to keep fit

Hope I don't meet some of the anti-cycle thread posters on my travels

X"

Whey hey, went out on my bike earlier after I took the tassels off the handle bars, and I didn't get called a twat once.

I'm a happy cyclist now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The thing that some people really seem to struggle to grasp is that a selfish/dangerous/inconsiderate road user will be exactly that regardless of their chosen mode of transport

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The thing that some people really seem to struggle to grasp is that a selfish/dangerous/inconsiderate road user will be exactly that regardless of their chosen mode of transport"

Amen to that. The trouble is, if you are a more vulnerable road user, the odds of you dying are higher.

For cyclists - think horse...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"Do we know what percentage of 'cyclists' are also 'tax paying' car/motorcycle users?

Because I am willing to bet its in the high 90%+

In my office there are lots of cyclists who commute to work....100% of the ones I know have a car too, so the ranty throbing blood vessel types above are IMHO talking utter utter bollocks although nothing new here lol"

Sorry I seem to have received your abuse but missed your point ....

Not once have I said cyclists should pay Tax !!!

And talking bollox is I privilege that not I alone enjoy it would appear

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do we know what percentage of 'cyclists' are also 'tax paying' car/motorcycle users?

Because I am willing to bet its in the high 90%+

In my office there are lots of cyclists who commute to work....100% of the ones I know have a car too, so the ranty throbing blood vessel types above are IMHO talking utter utter bollocks although nothing new here lol"

And an awful lot will also have insurance but again people won't acknowledge that. Because in doing so and conceding that many cyclists pay tax, that many cyclists have insurance, that not all cyclists ride like dicks etc etc, the argument fallls apart and it becomes apparant that the hatred and anger shown by some boils down to nothing more than a selfish disregard for others (ironically the very behaviour that is claimed to being criticised) and a selfish belief that they own the roads

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rnycpl2705Couple
over a year ago

Killin

A few weeks ago there was a massive cycling event, Ride Across Britain, that event was cancelled due to a cyclist dying after being involved in an accident. I don't know who was at fault, driver or cyclist and I don't care but a family is now without their daughter, mother, wife, etc and the driver now has to live with the fact that he killed someone, maybe through no fault of his own. There are idiots on the road, there always has been and there always will be. Can't all road users not be courteous to each other and make it safer for everyone!!!!

Slow moving traffic ( cyclists, caravans, cars, bikes, buses, HGV ) pull over when safe and you have a tailback behind you.

Cars, HGV, buses, caravans....look out for cyclists and bikers.

Motorbikes.... Don't take risks that you don't need to.....most bikes only need a short distance to overtake.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We're all pretty liberal on here, easy go kinds folksy stuff.

But the roads are like the Wild West- should start a seperate thread just for the bonkers stuff we see each day on our roads + pavements.

Where's da sheriff when we needs him?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ar now this is annoying! Was on a country lane and let a car come down otherway! Car came passed and a nobhead cyclist over took me as I waited and went up in middle of road the ignorant....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do we know what percentage of 'cyclists' are also 'tax paying' car/motorcycle users?

Because I am willing to bet its in the high 90%+

In my office there are lots of cyclists who commute to work....100% of the ones I know have a car too, so the ranty throbing blood vessel types above are IMHO talking utter utter bollocks although nothing new here lol

Sorry I seem to have received your abuse but missed your point ....

Not once have I said cyclists should pay Tax !!!

And talking bollox is I privilege that not I alone enjoy it would appear "

Erm nope

Were you a ranter?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos

It would appear that some people just can't be arsed to read the original posts but will just blast away regardless pulling the bits they can get their teeth into out of a post... Ok let your children out onto the road untrained but when you have seen a young lad under the wheels of an article less than a mile away from your home remember he didn't need training, he didn't know not to go on the inside of a truck below the visibility of the drivers mirrors on a roundabout.....oh and maybe the fact that the driver was shaking and crying didn't matter it must have been his fault after all he was in the metal monster.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Being a motorist as well as a cyclist, I confirm they're all cockheads.

What pisses me off in a car is when they stay in the middle of the road in a narrow lane so I can't get past.

When I'm on my bike I move to the far left, slow down the idiot car driver insists on staying behind despite only needing to blip his throttle to pass.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

Surely one cannot take kids off their bikes and restrict them from using them till some arbatry age. All that will do is create a generation of older kids, presumably teanagers, who have no experience of the road at all and even less time to develop any road sense before they then start using motorised transport.

Sorry but wouldn't it be better if lorries remembered that when they hit a car it will come off worse, car drivers remember that the cyclist they hit will suffer more, and cyclists remember that pedestrians are just as valerable if not more than themselves.

There is an arguement that says in the event of an accident the x tonnes of a car will be less effected than a cyclist or pedestrian. That may be true but surely that extra mass simply means that it is more important for the user to pay attention to those more valnerable.

There will always be idiots who abuse the rules or are neglegant about their own safety (and those around them), but that does not give the rest of us an excuse to behave badly or victimise enyone else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a pedestrian most of the time, I can safely say twats on bikes piss me off just as much as twats in cars, twats in vans and twats in lorries. "

Hear that MrDLT?

That's aimed at you in your stobart truck lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I drive a car , I ride a motorbike and I cycle and I can honestly say all road users are twats ........

Just get the fuck out of my way !!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It would appear that some people just can't be arsed to read the original posts but will just blast away regardless pulling the bits they can get their teeth into out of a post... Ok let your children out onto the road untrained but when you have seen a young lad under the wheels of an article less than a mile away from your home remember he didn't need training, he didn't know not to go on the inside of a truck below the visibility of the drivers mirrors on a roundabout.....oh and maybe the fact that the driver was shaking and crying didn't matter it must have been his fault after all he was in the metal monster.....

"

I agree with you re training

Personally I have a lot of motorcycle advanced training although it's been 40 years since my cycling proficiency test, on the cycle front! It's amazing how poor the general standard of driving/riding/cycling is, coupled with little knowledge of the Highway Code

When I venture out on the cycle I think I'll adopt the 'cunts are out to get you' methodology...I.e totally defensive. Plus head cam for any evidence.

Re driving:- It's a bit more civilised where I work (oxford) as opposed to my weekend haunt (brum/cov)....won't be cycling there for sure.

/carry on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"It would appear that some people just can't be arsed to read the original posts but will just blast away regardless pulling the bits they can get their teeth into out of a post... Ok let your children out onto the road untrained but when you have seen a young lad under the wheels of an article less than a mile away from your home remember he didn't need training, he didn't know not to go on the inside of a truck below the visibility of the drivers mirrors on a roundabout.....oh and maybe the fact that the driver was shaking and crying didn't matter it must have been his fault after all he was in the metal monster.....

I agree with you re training

Personally I have a lot of motorcycle advanced training although it's been 40 years since my cycling proficiency test, on the cycle front! It's amazing how poor the general standard of driving/riding/cycling is, coupled with little knowledge of the Highway Code

When I venture out on the cycle I think I'll adopt the 'cunts are out to get you' methodology...I.e totally defensive. Plus head cam for any evidence.

Re driving:- It's a bit more civilised where I work (oxford) as opposed to my weekend haunt (brum/cov)....won't be cycling there for sure.

/carry on

"

Oxford is a city of cyclists and good ones I must say ...if I had to get on a bike again that would be where I would do it.....I certainly would never ride a bike in London scare me to death....

I did actually pass my cycling proficiency test ...errr a little while ago .....but things hav changed just a little since then ...they don't have the man with the red flag walking in front of cars now

And sincere apologies misunderstood the 'above' bit ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It would appear that some people just can't be arsed to read the original posts but will just blast away regardless pulling the bits they can get their teeth into out of a post... Ok let your children out onto the road untrained but when you have seen a young lad under the wheels of an article less than a mile away from your home remember he didn't need training, he didn't know not to go on the inside of a truck below the visibility of the drivers mirrors on a roundabout.....oh and maybe the fact that the driver was shaking and crying didn't matter it must have been his fault after all he was in the metal monster.....

I agree with you re training

Personally I have a lot of motorcycle advanced training although it's been 40 years since my cycling proficiency test, on the cycle front! It's amazing how poor the general standard of driving/riding/cycling is, coupled with little knowledge of the Highway Code

When I venture out on the cycle I think I'll adopt the 'cunts are out to get you' methodology...I.e totally defensive. Plus head cam for any evidence.

Re driving:- It's a bit more civilised where I work (oxford) as opposed to my weekend haunt (brum/cov)....won't be cycling there for sure.

/carry on

Oxford is a city of cyclists and good ones I must say ...if I had to get on a bike again that would be where I would do it.....I certainly would never ride a bike in London scare me to death....

I did actually pass my cycling proficiency test ...errr a little while ago .....but things hav changed just a little since then ...they don't have the man with the red flag walking in front of cars now

And sincere apologies misunderstood the 'above' bit ...."

On what exactly are you basing your assessment of Oxford's cyclists?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos

They wear cloaks and square hats ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can someone explain how we are supposed to tax and insure all bicycles and their riders? Who is going to insure a twelve year old cycling to school? Who is going to police it all? I never thought I would say this, but, WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos


"Can someone explain how we are supposed to tax and insure all bicycles and their riders? Who is going to insure a twelve year old cycling to school? Who is going to police it all? I never thought I would say this, but, WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???"

After what I have seen I would never let a 12 yr old out alone in school traffic....the worst time ...everyone in a hurry... The lad I talked about earlier was 13 and heading for school he was just a mile away too ..... WE ARE THINKING OF THE CHILDREN NOT THE ADULTS THAT SHOULD HAVE MORE SENSE

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

what a sad world where kids cant ride bikes

instead of removing one of the best forms of activity for children why cant we educate all road users (kids and adults) to take care of each other?

some of the best memories i have as a child involve riding my bike round where i lived with my friends.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

Of course it is not possible to win as a cyclist, as whatever one does someone will take offence to it.

Some muppet tried to tell me to turn my lights off this evening. Not lilkely, as they were on a black bike, in black clothing and without by nice wee light they would have been swimming in the canal as there is no way I would have seen them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lots of them round here. mainly on the pavements

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lots of them round here. mainly on the pavements "

Wrong emoticon

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adystephanieTV/TS
over a year ago

glos

My sincere apologies to anyone I may have upset on this thread, unfortunately it just brought back a memory I would rather have forgotten ....

Just hope there's a way of keeping our young cyclists safe.

I have been driving for 35 yrs and never had an accident I passed my advanced driving test at 21 and my cycling proficiency at 9....I think

And I have always had fast cars not corsa's with a tractor exhaust . Oh and just one speeding ticket in 1979.... Not an authority on motoring or road safety ...but I know enough to get by

Because I have been trained how to survive the dangers of the black stuff......

And because my parents were sensible enough to make sure I was trained properly.....from a young age .

God bless them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Bit disappointed , this is not what I was expecting from the title

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently its against the Law to ride with no lights on your bike at night.

The same for riding on the pavement.

A friend has had a £60 fine for doing both.

But that's Cambridge for you."

Trouble is with the Pavement quote...Cambridge and the surrounding areas have painted cycle logo's on paths and designated them as cycleways ....

Cheap way of not providing infrastructure and they wonder why cyclists are on the roads...here the policy is to force cyclists on the road to hold back traffic...as a moving road block to help the congestion....and increase road rage... which is policy from Cambs county council & police...ejits

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is not road tax, it is vehicle excise duty. The amount you pay is based on how much crap comes out of your exhaust.

Number plate on a bike, where?

I got knocked off a flourescent orange motorcycle in daylight with my headlight on, the driver said he didn't see me. If you are not looking for sone thing you won't see it, regardless of the amount of dayglow clothing they wear.

As for teaching go and read the highway code, pleaee read rules 162, 163, 211, 212 and 213. All very clear in how to drive near a cyclist.

I have been driving cars for 23 years, sports motorcycles for 20 years, LGV for 12 years and a bicycle for 36 years. It does seem that in all those modes of transport the most incidents I have been involved in is 2 wheels. It seems that 4 wheel road users don't see them, or hate to let us pas

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top