If it was in a rural area than why is the cyclist behaving like hes behaving? If hes having to use this track to get to an area because its the only route to this area, than whats the problem with the HGV using it? You can certainly tell which ones on this forum are cyclists!
Cyclist Assaults Lorry Driver
- Thread starter Dr Who
- Start date
If it was in a rural area than why is the cyclist behaving like hes behaving? If hes having to use this track to get to an area because its the only route to this area, than whats the problem with the HGV using it? You can certainly tell which ones on this forum are cyclists!
Damn I messed up earlier.
Really.
I'm sure the Romans didn't have cars.
I think you mean Motorways and dual carriageways.. And bicycles aren't allowed on those anyway
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
so you think bike's should pay VED? even tho, if they were judged with the same criteria as other vehicles, they wouldn't pay anything?
Tremendous argument
Tremendous argument
I'm not a cyclist, your're just making yourself look silly.
By having an opinion? Yeah okay. Cyclists should either contribute to use the road or at least take a test (just like any other motorist) Half of these ridiculous incidents wouldn't occur if they could actually use the roads correctly, and also got rid of their "the roads are designed for me" attitude.
But bicycles were using roads long before cars came along.
....and horses before bicycles
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
99% of tests that you are required to take to use a piece of machinery (motorbike, car, plane, helicopter etc) is because you'd be a risk to OTHER people if you used that machinery without proper training. A cyclist is a risk to no one other than their selves - I can count on the fingers of one hand where a cyclist has injured someone else on the road (zerbra crossings seem an achilles heel) and I can't find one single instance where a cyclist has caused the death of a person in a car.
Or are you proposing that pedestrians and horse riders using the roads are also tested and insured?
Last edited by a moderator:
And pedestrians before that
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,976
- Location
- Essex
Exactly.
The majority of roads quite clearly weren't designed for motor vehicles. Otherwise, HGVs wouldn't have problems negotiating rural roads and this whole situation might never have come about.
The guy acted like a ********. But he was probably a ******** anyway; it didn't happen because he got on a bike, and it doesn't mean everyone who uses a bike is a ********.
The story here really is that one road user assaulted another with very little reason; NOT that he was a cyclist.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
And goats before that.
Just going back to that... another incident of a cyclist. Maybe the driver never looked in his mirror before opening the door, maybe he did. Why wasn't the cyclist paying attention, If it was a genuine accident, you would be very apologetic and do everything you can to help the cyclist and make sure they're okay. Another prime example of cyclists erratic behavior.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13647541
Last edited:
I've heard of worse from car drivers, bikers and pedestrians.Fixed. And yes.
If you pay nearly £500 VED a year there should be marshals every 400m on every single road, who wave blue flags at people in front going slower, forcing them to move over to let the £500 VED payer through. If the lower VED driver ignores 3 blue flags, they should receive a penalty, like in Formula 1. The penalty should be something like forcing the lower VED driver to pay £500 VED for the rest of their life.
This is all just IMO...
Quite agree. Low VED payers (<£225 should be a good level) are clearly cheap scum who should be removed from the road entirely (and probably shot) if they dare to get in the way. How do you deal with higher rate VED payers who also happen to ride a bike though
High 5 for common sense, which isn't so common anymore!