Stupid Cyclist

[DOD]Asprilla · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:16

bloodiedathame said:
You haven't actually posed a counter argument, more just spewed opinion... What would you like me to say? Respond to your trolling opinion? Or will you offer some sort of formed counter response to mine?

I would also like to point out that from your lurid statements it seems you are talking from the opinion of someone sat in a nice safe car and as such you don't have to really think about trying to stay away potentially dozy or agressive road users.

Maybe get on a bicycle or motorbike in London and see what I mean? You'll soon be hopping to the front trying to avoid idiots changing lanes without looking or people stepping out between stopped cars.

Ha!. Yes, I never, ever cycle. I don't own 5 bikes and my log of 6,500 commuting and training miles in and around London are just a fantasy.

I'm actually talking as someone who cycles more than they drive (although i still did about 5,000 miles) and know about agressive road users including the disdain motorcyclists have for facilities that are provided for the safety of cyclists.

I'd like you to justfiy why motorcyclists should be allowed ASLs that are placed to provide a safe haven for cyclists when this blatently puts cyclists at greater risk.

scorza · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:17

[DOD]Asprilla;18373659 said:
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.

Well it certainly wouldn't be like a lawyer to distort facts to support their arguments...

VeNT · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:19

hahaha
white van man got owned
good for cyclist,
tempted to get cam and a bike now just so I can call the police EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.
this is why I stopped cycling to work all the time. buses passing too close, drivers not looking etc etc etc

[DOD]Asprilla · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:21

scorza said:
Well it certainly wouldn't be like a lawyer to distort facts to support their arguments...

As opposed to pressure groups and the press? I assure you the pro-motoring lobby is much bigger and has greater sway than the cycling lobby (or any other road useage related lobby) and that is reflected in how road users are treated in all aspects of UK society.

mrk · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:22

Before you get those keyring cams, while they are good quality, the battery only lasts about an hour.

bloodiedathame · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:29

[DOD]Asprilla;18374323 said:
Ha!. Yes, I never, ever cycle. I don't own 5 bikes and my log of 6,500 commuting and training miles in and around London are just a fantasy.

I'm actually talking as someone who cycles more than they drive (although i still did about 5,000 miles) and know about agressive road users including the disdain motorcyclists have for facilities that are provided for the safety of cyclists.

I'd like you to justfiy why motorcyclists should be allowed ASLs that are placed to provide a safe haven for cyclists when this blatently puts cyclists at greater risk.

Ok fair enough, I'll take your internet word for it.

As a cyclist then, you should have an idea why these boxes are a haven not only for vulnerable road users such as yourself, but also for motorcycle riders? I have already stated the safety reasons for why I think bikes should be in them, and also that these 'bicycle boxes' just so happen to correspond with the word 'bicycle' on our tax discs (not 'motorcycle').

I'll also add that motorcycles tend to accelerate faster than cars and as such can pull away from lights faster, which helps ease the flow of traffic on a given road. Another point is that it is legal for motorcycles to filter, and after filtering though traffic motorcycles need somewhere to go. Yes they could stop on the line with cars, but then they block cyclists and where is the logic in that?

[DOD]Asprilla · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:35

So you think that the ASL should cater for both the slowest and the fastest accelerating at the same time? Given motorbikes are bigger and quicker all that happens is that the cyclists are bullied and put in danger again so that motorcyclists gan get away from the lights a bit quicker.

It doesn't take many motorbikes to fill an ASL and where does that leave the cyclists they are supposed to protect?

LordSplodge · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:49

RDM said:
Isn't this another one of those trite little sayings that have no actual basis in law? Where exactly is your "right" to cycle enshrined? Also the driving licence is the licence to drive a car, it isn't a licence for the car to be on the road.

You need to be licensed (I.e have the appropriate driving license) and have a valid tax disc to use the road. Thus vehicle owners/drivers use the road by license. Quod erat demonstrandum.

What has a wild animal got to do with it? If you damage someone elses property surely it is only fair that you should pay for the repairs to it? Would it be OK for a pedestrian to come along and kick your wheel in? Does the frankly bizarre "wild animal" clause fit in there too?

So if you hit a pedestrian and they damage your car they should pay? The same as if you come round a corner to find a herd of sheep crossing the road and you can't stop in time it's the sheep fault?

Follow that logic and you can see why a cyclist does not need insurance.

Now a cyclist that causes criminal damage (like the pedestrian in your post) is a different matter altogether and should be dealt with via the appropriate legal channel.

grudas · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:49

lol.. so much hate here

so.

i do go over the redlights on crossings

booho me!

but i always let people pass and when the crossing is CLEAR i don't wait till amber/green so i can ride whats the point of it for me anyway.

i don't go over junctions when its red so its a plus for me

i do try to let cars past and at the same time keeping my position on the road i rarely get a beep from a driver so i guess i ride quite safely.

i do jump on the pavements sometimes but thats mainly because of the London traffic.. i don't feel like getting squeezed between a bus and a lorry both of who have little to no visibility of me so i do prefer to ride on the pavement even if its on the walking pace.

i do see a lot of cyclist who ride at ~6pm with no lights, dark clothing and all over the road.. i really have to shake my head.. i guess if you don't drive you don't understand? this works for drivers who don't cycle.

crossing red lights for the sake of 10s wait..

cars over taking a bike should give the same space as they do for a car.. you see on the sides of the road there's potholes that can pretty much "eat" my front wheel(i ride bmx 20" wheels) or i would flip over so if a driver passes close to me i have no choice just to stop or jump on the pavement... im not saying they are everywhere... but it happens at least 2x a day and i only commute 12 miles a day.

so the basic idea is if you respect other road users they will respect you.. cyclist/bikers/cars/trucks can all use the road, road is not owned by any of you to scream "stupid cyclist, ban them, kill them, road tax(wtf like cycle damages the road?)" and so on.

LordSplodge · 2 Feb 2011 at 15:54

RDM said:
Surely for someone that gets so irate with the trite "Well you should pay road tax" from those that argue against cyclists you should also be as against trite statements such as the above?

Pedestrians et al have the right to use roads by default of not being required to be taxed or licensed to use them.

Of course there are examples where the law specifically denies that right (e.g motorways) but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Sp00n · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:01

grudas said:
lol.. so much hate here

so.

i do go over the redlights on crossings booho me! but i always let people pass and when the crossing is CLEAR i don't wait till amber/green so i can ride whats the point of it for me anyway.

i don't go over junctions when its red so its a plus for me

i do try to let cars past and at the same time keeping my position on the road i rarely get a beep from a driver so i guess i ride quite safely.

i do jump on the pavements sometimes but thats mainly because of the London traffic.. i don't feel like getting squeezed between a bus and a lorry both of who have little to no visibility of me so i do prefer to ride on the pavement even if its on the walking pace.

i do see a lot of cyclist who ride at ~6pm with no lights, dark clothing and all over the road.. i really have to shake my head.. i guess if you don't drive you don't understand? this works for drivers who don't cycle.

crossing red lights for the sake of 10s wait..

cars over taking a bike should give the same space as they do for a car.. you see on the sides of the road there's potholes that can pretty much "eat" my front wheel(i ride bmx 20" wheels) or i would flip over so if a driver passes close to me i have no choice just to stop or jump on the pavement... im not saying they are everywhere... but it happens at least 2x a day and i only commute 12 miles a day.

so the basic idea is if you respect other road users they will respect you.. cyclist/bikers/cars/trucks can all use the road, road is not owned by any of you to scream "stupid cyclist, ban them, kill them, road tax(wtf like cycle damages the road?)" and so on.

Is english your first language?

Nexus · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:02

iamTakeo said:
The van man's actions were out of line, but I think the cyclist triggered it just by yelling.

This happened to me when I was walking on a pedestrian 'lane' in a car park, a car started reversing into me without looking, I slapped the car with my hand to make noise and shouted 'hey', otherwise he would have pushed me over.

I think that in general is just the response that most people give when you touch their property.

I was once sat in an ASL, as it happens, waiting for the lights to change. A large woman in a Merc pulled up at the line behind me. She was busy talking on her phone and looking out the window to the side, completely oblivious to the fact she was slowly creeping into the ASL. She got closer and closer to me to the point where she clearly wasn't going to stop, so I had to pull my bike from under me and away to the side, I then tapped her bonnet so that she saw me and then stopped.

The fact that she was going to knock me over, that she wasn't paying attention to the road and using her mobile phoned didn't matter... the fact I'd even touched her car sent her into a crazy rage and she wouldn't even listen to why I'd done it in the first place.

grudas · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:03

Sp00n said:
Is english your first language?

3rd language..

Sp00n · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:04

Ah ok

FYI... follow the rules.

Russinating · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:07

Slightly off subject, but kind of on, what's a cheapish head cam for this? I've got a GoPro but that's far too big for this kind of activity.

grudas · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:16

Russinating said:
Slightly off subject, but kind of on, what's a cheapish head cam for this? I've got a GoPro but that's far too big for this kind of activity.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18124534&page=19

if you find a way to attach it your helmet

RDM · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:22

LordSplodge said:
You need to be licensed (I.e have the appropriate driving license) and have a valid tax disc to use the road. Thus vehicle owners/drivers use the road by license. Quod erat demonstrandum.

So in other words, made up rubbish...

LordSplodge said:
So if you hit a pedestrian and they damage your car they should pay?

No, because they are not at fault. However if a cyclist is at fault and damages a car surely they should pay? However what tends to happen is they cycle off and you can do bugger all about it.

LordSplodge said:
The same as if you come round a corner to find a herd of sheep crossing the road and you can't stop in time it's the sheep fault?

No, drivers fault, you should always approach a blind bend cautiously, this is pretty basic HWC stuff...

LordSplodge said:
Follow that logic and you can see why a cyclist does not need insurance.

The bit you are missing in your "logic" is the bit where the cyclist is at fault in the event of an accident.

LordSplodge said:
Now a cyclist that causes criminal damage (like the pedestrian in your post) is a different matter altogether and should be dealt with via the appropriate legal channel.

However because they are not registered, you have no way of tracing them when they cycle off. Unlike a car, which has a registration plate.

Judgeneo · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:26

RDM said:
However because they are not registered, you have no way of tracing them when they cycle off. Unlike a car, which has a registration plate.

You can generally see their face, or see it on CCTV, catching them in the same way as any other crime.

I cycle to uni everyday. Wouldn't do it if I had to buy a license and insurance, may as well get the bus in that case

RDM · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:30

Judgeneo said:
You can generally see their face, or see it on CCTV, catching them in the same way as any other crime.

Good luck in getting the police interested though!

Judgeneo said:
I cycle to uni everyday. Wouldn't do it if I had to buy a license and insurance, may as well get the bus in that case

Surely that would depend on how expensive it was? It is still cheaper for me to use my motorcycle to get to Uni than take the bus!

LordSplodge · 2 Feb 2011 at 16:33

RDM said:
So in other words, made up rubbish...

So anybody can just get in a motor vehicle and use the roads?

No, because they are not at fault. However if a cyclist is at fault and damages a car surely they should pay? However what tends to happen is they cycle off and you can do bugger all about it.

However because they are not registered, you have no way of tracing them when they cycle off. Unlike a car, which has a registration plate.

The same way you'd go about reporting any other act of criminal damage.

I'm not saying that a cyclist should not be held accountable for damage the have caused if they are at fault it is just simply unworkable to expect them to be registered and display some kind of plates.

However from my personal experience it is mostly not the cyclists fault. Oh and I do drive as well so this is not the view of some rabid cyclist.