Stupid Cyclist

[platinum87]

I hate cyclists. They don't pay road tax and they think traffic lights/road signs don't apply to them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12334486

The guy above is clearly looking for trouble with his head cam. It looks to me he deliberately tries to collide with the white van. No high vis clothing also.

1) No need for high vis clothing it was daylight, you mad?

2) There was plenty of space on the left, so im a bit confused?

I've been to the point where the handlebars have a 1cm gap on each side between two buses, its pretty much "ohhh **** wtf wtf wtf".. I was contemplating grabbing the open window and holding on while my bike falls to its death, but they moved apart.

Why should i stop at a traffic light on a 3-way junction when im not turning? you mad? There's a huge amount of times, when actually stopping on a red light is a silly waste of time.

 

[RDM]

Erm, not even close.

The total revenue raised from VED in 2007/08 was £5.4bn:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10306.htm

Total expenditure on roads 2007/08 was £9.348bn:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10305.htm

Neither is VED ring fenced for roads, but is put into general coffers along with income tax and VAT (including that generated from buying bikes).

Road tax as a direct contributor to road building and maintenance was abolished in 1936 at Winston Churchill's suggestion in order to disabuse motor vehicle users of any impression that they had more right to use the road than any other user. Churchill's words, not mine.

The figures stack up more in the motorists favour if you include fuel duty too.

Right... I thought as a bicycle shop owner you were referring to a pedal cycle.

Now though I'm not even sure what kind of shop it is you own.

Crossed wires here, I know the owner of a cycle shop really well, not I am the owner of a cycle shop.

 

[Russinating]

Surely putting it on petrol would be so much easier to manage and would also mean any non UK drivers would also pay? The more fuel you use, the more emissions you make. No need for complex caluclations and additional red tape with VED or MOTs.

Not really, because a 2L Jaguar will output higher emissions from a 50L fill up than a 1.1L Fiesta.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

Try cycling in Glasgow. Designated cycle lanes on busy roads are used by car drivers as parking areas. Move out to go around a parked car and get shouted at by another muppet car driver for not being in the cycle lane. You couldn't make it up.

 

[Sp00n]

1) No need for high vis clothing it was daylight, you mad?

2) There was plenty of space on the left, so im a bit confused?

I've been to the point where the handlebars have a 1cm gap on each side between two buses, its pretty much "ohhh **** wtf wtf wtf".. I was contemplating grabbing the open window and holding on while my bike falls to its death, but they moved apart.

Why should i stop at a traffic light on a 3-way junction when im not turning? you mad?

Go back to 4chan.

 

[theNude]

I cycle to work. Most drivers are ok but i'd say once a week i get a tool like this van driver.

Was threatend with being stabbed for knocking on a cars window as it drove so close to me it nearly took me off.

on the other hand there are a bunch of knobs that ride bikes too. I dislike everyone.

 

[Nexus]

There are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists, however at the end of the day the car driver wont be the one dying or getting hurt.

Until we have better cycle lanes and stuff it is the way it is so move out of the way or end up dead.

As a car driver I do my best to give them room but **** happens.

I don't think better cycle lanes is the answer, certainly not ones that necessarily segregate them.

I think attitudes of some drivers in this country just need to change... as this thread is more than evidence of that.

If you compare us to other countries in Europe you will see that in general drivers have more respect for cyclists because so many of them use it as means of transport. Here the attitude just tends to be that the cyclist doesn't have the right to be on the road, they should be cycling in the gutter and letting all drivers pass, which isn't what the law states.

With the cost of petrol going up further and further, it's only to be expected that more people will switch to commuting by bike if it's reasonable to do so. Then there has been a cycling boom after the Olympics which has further spurred the growth in the number of people cycling.

The number of cyclists on the roads is going to continue to increase.

 

[platinum87]

Go back to 4chan.

Why don't you, over there they make small rubbish statements without any proper response.

 

[Sp00n]

Why don't you, over there they make small rubbish statements without any proper response.

You mad?

 

[Aedus]

The cyclist was in the wrong firstly, but as soon as the Van driver got out and started going off on 1, he turned into being in the wrong.

Pretty simple.

 

[Nexus]

The cyclist was in the wrong firstly, but as soon as the Van driver got out and started going off on 1, he turned into being in the wrong.

Pretty simple.

*Yawn* How many times have we been over this now?

That's not how the courts saw it.
The van driver was punished for reckless driving through a fine and five points on his license. He got a public order offense for getting out and confronting him, but the finding of the court implies all the blame is with the driver.

pretty simple

 

[Stretch]

While the driver ends up in a court of law for dangerous driving for having knocked somebody off.

Cyclists riding two abreast is no different to a motorist passing a tractor

Yes it is. To pass a tractor (or any other motor vehicle) requires you to drive on the wrong side of the road. It therefore needs to done safely and in good time. Cycling two abreast can be easily achieved without venturing out of the designated lane.

pretty simple

+1

 

[scorza]

*Yawn* How many times have we been over this now?

That's not how the courts saw it.
The van driver was punished for reckless driving through a fine and five points on his license. He got a public order offense for getting out and confronting him, but the finding of the court implies all the blame is with the driver.

pretty simple

The elephant in the room here is that there's a political element to all this as well in that it is politically unacceptable to prosecute cyclists while it is very politically acceptable to prosecute motorists.

The court found that the van driver was guilty of driving without due care and attention, fair enough no one disputes that he was in the wrong for the brake test and subsequent confrontation. What is in dispute is whether the overtake was wrong, that imo is less clear cut. At best I would say it was 50/50 blame but guess what? cyclists and motorists are all human and humans make mistakes - you don't always have to be guilty of a crime if you make a mistake.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

...snip There's a huge amount of times, when actually stopping on a red light is a silly waste of time.

Indeed but the rest of us have to!

I've not read the entire thread but we were talking about this at work yesterday.

I hit you and mash up your bike... You'd claim off me Im sure.
You hit me and scratch/bash up side of my car... I claim off who?

Yes I understand there are SOME responsible cyclists that would help out and pay but Im also sure theres a lot of them that would just ignore all and any contact. Friend of mine also said that due to the cost of his mates bike he has a seperate insuarance policy on it, no idea wether this would cover just the bike or damage also caused by bike.

What narks me is the amount of cyclists Ive seen in newcastle with no hi-vis gear on, no lights and no helmet skipping back and forth from road to path when they see fit. Aren't you meant to have a helmet on in order to use the roads?

I agree with many others I think if cyclists want to use the roads they should be paying tax be required to have a specific level of visibility (ie mininmum level of lights/stuff) and insurance in case they actually bash something.

You can argue that on a cycle "hey im only small I wont hit anything" I know people that have like 8 years ncb, they had to pay insurance even tho they didnt hit anything.

On top of which the blatant disregard for lights because " I can fit thru that gap" an the random path/road hopping because "cba to wait on lights" will make you Im sure at least a little more likely to have an accident

 

[neocon]

the driver is an animal

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

The elephant in the room here is that there's a political element to all this as well in that it is politically unacceptable to prosecute cyclists while it is very politically acceptable to prosecute motorists.

Excuse me? I guess you buy into the Daily Fail 'War on Motorists' myth.

A barrister, Martin Porter, did some analysis on proscutions and outcomes of drivers and cyclists and found that cyclists involved in accidents were more likely to be prosecuted than drivers and that sentences for cyclists who kill pedestrians tend to be in the region of one year's detention whilst car drivers who kill cyclists tend to be limited to fines less than £1000 and driving bans.

I think you'll find that drivers are looked after extremely well by UK courts.

The figures stack up more in the motorists favour if you include fuel duty too. .

Whereas bike ownership and usage is much higher in upper and middle income households meaning these people provide more VAT and income tax.

 

[bloodiedathame]

It doesn't matter if your tax disc says 'Bicycle' as it presumably says 'motor' in front of that.

Nope.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I think the fact it has a VED disc kind of gives away that it should be in the ASL reservoir regardless of what it says...

 

[bloodiedathame]

I would argue that for motorcyclists and cyclists, being at the front of the lights is the safest (most visible) place to be, regardless of wether or not they are* crossing an ASL or not.

We all know there is a difference between jumping a light (getting to the other side of a junction) or stopping over a line. It's wholly pedantic to think otherwise.

 

[Nexus]

Indeed but the rest of us have to!

I've not read the entire thread but we were talking about this at work yesterday.

I hit you and mash up your bike... You'd claim off me Im sure.
You hit me and scratch/bash up side of my car... I claim off who?

Personally I insure my bike as I don't want to have it nicked, it also covers me for £3 million in public liability insurance and assistance if involved in an accident and such. So in that case, I'd have somebody to help pay.

Many people are also members of cycle clubs and the CTC which again covers you automatically as part of the membership. The people unlikely to have this though are people who don't cycle as a hobby and don't have a bike they consider worth insuring. Whether another general insurance policy covers for such events I'm unsure.

The trouble though with asking this question though is that it's rarely the other way around where a cyclist damages a vehicle. The cyclist and the push bike are always going to be the items that come off worse in any kind of collision.

Secondly the other point I always see brought up in these threads (here on OCUK) is that cyclists scrape their cars. Personally in two years commuting I've knocked the wing mirror of a van driver who was too far into the cycle lane once with my backpack. Didn't do any damage of course. There seems to be this assumption from what I've seen on here that all cyclists getting close to vehicles are going to scrape it like they've got James Bond style retractable spikes on their wheels.

In three years commuting in London I've seen a fair share of accidents, but never anyone scrapping the side of a car.