Punishment for cyclists?

estebanrey said:
Maybe because they don't?

The old "It's actually called VED" argument cyclists use is a weasel argument. The point is, anyone can get on a bike without having to a penny in tests, 'excise duty', insurance, petrol etc etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Tax for vehicles is done on emissions these days. I believe there are cars that do not have to pay any tax either. Maybe these shoulnd't be allowed on the roads?

You are right though, you can get on a bike without having to spend a penny and ride on the roads. If people choose to do that rather than get a car and pay through the nose for everything required to get it on the road and drive it then that is their choice. No one made you purchase your car after all did they? You had the free choice to use a bike too however you chose a car.

I myself choose both. I have a 6.5mile commute each way to work which keeps me fit and my fuel bills down and I have a car for things like the weekly shop and longer journeys.

You are just trying to find excuses as to why cyclists shouldnt be on the road so you can have it all to yourself. Back to my point and other peoples in this thread that people are becoming more selfish.
 
Gixer said:
Tax for vehicles is done on emissions these days. I believe there are cars that do not have to pay any tax either. Maybe these shoulnd't be allowed on the roads?
Click to expand...

Strawman, I never claimed cyclists shouldn't be on the roads at all.

I just get annoyed by some of the holier than thou attitudes you get from SOME cyclists (see the guy who in his first post referred to car drivers as 'polluters'). It's the attitude that roads should be built to accommodate cyclists first and the worry about cars later (how often do you hear cycle groups bleating about wanting more cycle lanes for example).

As for VED, the emissions thing's a smokescreen (no pun intended) because being green is fashionable. It just so happens that at this point in time the government can make enough money by charging by emissions levels. But if you believe for one second that when petrol driven cars become the minority they won't shift the goal posts and start basing it on something else you are naive. After all the idea to charge by emissions is relatively new thing as soon as it becomes less profitable they'll start basing it on something else.
 
Gixer said:
You are right though, you can get on a bike without having to spend a penny and ride on the roads.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you're homeless otherwise you'll be paying tax out of your wages, VAT and other such tax.
We all pay for the roads even if some never use them.
 
Im just saying :o

C6eqp.gif
 
Personally I don't mind the vast majority of cyclists doing their thing. Most are cool..We get a lot of them round my area and its fine...

Its just the small minority that think its ok for them to ignore the rules of the road when it suits them..I know that there are car drivers who do the same, but car drivers are far more likely to be caught and punished for it whereas cyclists almost always get away with it and are actually smug about it. I think thats what annoys people.
 
Balddog said:
I know that there are car drivers who do the same, but car drivers are far more likely to be caught and punished for it whereas cyclists almost always get away with it and are actually smug about it. I think thats what annoys people.
Click to expand...

indeed.

NorthSeaWarrior said:
I am a cyclist purely for fitness. I go through red lights, when it's safe. I cut confront of cars, when it's safe. If i fall off doing it and my bike is rideable I'm not paying for ****. If I'm on a narrow road and your getting to close to me trying to pass I'll ride just close enough to the middle that you can't pass and slow down. I have a go pro in mounted on my helmet and seat post. Good luck claiming.
Click to expand...

this is what ****es people off and it quickly becomes a case of "well **** them all then" just like with many things, you've just got to look at any thread on, benefits, Muslims, protesters.

the smug approach the trouble makers have and the lack of repercussions just make people think "right then since nothing is done about them we'll just hate them all equally".
 
The Dutch system is amazing for cyclists, we had our own set of traffic lights, own cycling pathway. Cycling was safe, governed and controlled. Unlike the UK where the greedy Politicians eat your "highway" money.
 
Tefal said:
indeed.



this is what ****es people off and it quickly becomes a case of "well **** them all then" just like with many things, you've just got to look at any thread on, benefits, Muslims, protesters.

the smug approach the trouble makers have and the lack of repercussions just make people think "right then since nothing is done about them we'll just hate them all equally".
Click to expand...

That is why because of *****s like NorthSeaWarior I have mounted a covert camera in my car. Shall we start an anti-cycle campaign where we collate all video footage of cyclists breaking the law in a bid to get the Government how much of a danger to society and road safety they are?
 
teulk said:
Yes cyclist should be fined for committing traffic offenses, after all why not. The problem is catching them. Im a keen cyclist and i also drive. When i cycle i have more problems with drivers nearly killing me - i class my self as a good cyclist, i dont take risks and im considerate and try and reduce me being on the road impacting on drivers as much as i can. I can honestly say i have never had any problems with cyclsist when i drive, perhaps i anticipate their actions more than a non cyclist. The point being if everyone is truely honest i bet they have more problems with other drivers than cyclists when driving.
Where are all the threads about being cut up by an idoit driver etc.........
Click to expand...

+1 for most of those points. In fact I've been an advocate of forcing learner drivers to cycle on the road for a set number of hours before they are allowed to take their test. It gives them more road hours, makes them more observant and gives them more awareness of other road users (like cyclists) when they get into the front of a two tonne piece of metal.
 
Dimple said:
Wow just wow.
Is that real?
Click to expand...

Yes...Its at the 'Critical Mass' event in brazil a few years back. Critical mass is a worldwide event where cyclists, in a protest to take back the streets from cars, ride together in a huge group which essentially shuts down the road system for several hours.

The driver was a banker and had his kid in the car with him. He claimed he did it because the cyclists were banging on his car and threatening to flip it and his actions were self defense :o

I believe he was charged with attempted murder at the end of it. I don't know if he was found guilty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-ploughs-through-Critical-Mass-cyclists.html
 
Bobcat said:
I parked my car after returning home from work, it was dark, opened my car door to find a cyclist run into my car door, no lights or florescent gear on, which is why I didn't see him when I checked my door mirror prior to opening my door.

My car door was buckled from the impact and the cyclist was hurt, it was classed as an RTA despite me being stationary, plus the cyclist braking the law by cycling with no lights etc.

The first thing the cyclist mentioned was claiming againts my insurance, for the damage to his bike and also for loss of earnings for being out of work whilst his hand mended....

I was interviewed by the police and when it was clear that this was the cyclists fault, the police agreed, I asked about claiming against his insurance fir the damage to my car, loan car whilst mine is being repaired, the cyclist soon changed his tune and quickly dropped all motion of possible claims against my insurance, just goes to show in my case it was a one way insurance claim, cyclist against me, no care for wanting to repair the damage he caused to my car, as he had no insurance cover, but was more than willing to claim against me.

I am in favor of compulsory insurance for ANY thing using the public highway, so that any eventually is covered, after all why should the motorists be liable for claims from cyclists but not the other way around.

I'm also in favor of compulsory identification for cyclists, like all other highway vehicles have to comply with, why one rule for one, but not another, you want to use the road, you follow the rules that the rest of us have no option in following, which is identification and insurance at a minimum.
Click to expand...

A cyclist hitting an opening door is actually one of the major incidents cyclists get when cycling on the road. You had one of those rare incidents where it wasn't actually entirely the door openers fault. It happens way too often that someone opens a car door without even looking and hits a cyclist. It's one of the big reasons so many cyclists don't use cycle lanes on on many roads!

As for compulsory insurance, as you suggest it should extend to ANY thing using the public highway it has to extend to pedestrians as well? In which case I assume you're doing what you preach and have some form of personal insurance? ;)

EDIT: I do agree with some of your points though, however it would basically be unworkable and makes it seem more like the car has right of way over everything else, whereas in fact it is/should be the other way round, that was the whole point of a licence to start with. We need less trips by cars and other large motorised vehicles, more by smaller/no vehicles and public transport in this country. Luckily that is being put in place with more pedestrianisation of town/city centres and stricter rules on when bigger vehicles can enter them. We now need to start banning larger vehicles altogether on many streets and allowing small electric vehicles (like segways) onto our streets.
 
Last edited:
Balddog said:
Personally I don't mind the vast majority of cyclists doing their thing. Most are cool..We get a lot of them round my area and its fine...

Its just the small minority that think its ok for them to ignore the rules of the road when it suits them..I know that there are car drivers who do the same, but car drivers are far more likely to be caught and punished for it whereas cyclists almost always get away with it and are actually smug about it. I think thats what annoys people.
Click to expand...

Like this idiot who thinks he can run red lights and use technicalities in the law to justify it. How smug do you have to be to film this and put it on Youtube?

 
Amp34 said:
+1 for most of those points. In fact I've been an advocate of forcing learner drivers to cycle on the road for a set number of hours before they are allowed to take their test. It gives them more road hours, makes them more observant and gives them more awareness of other road users (like cyclists) when they get into the front of a two tonne piece of metal.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. But only if you have the opposite system as well whereby cyclists have to go and ride a car simulator which features cyclists pulling on them willy nilly, zig zagging all over the road and not signalling. ;)
 
estebanrey said:
Not a bad idea. But only if you have the opposite system as well whereby cyclists have to go and ride a car simulator with cyclists pulling on them willy nilly, zig zagging all over the road and not signalling. ;)
Click to expand...

Fine... I'm sure that could be added to the cycling proficiency training most kids do at around 11.

However if you have actually ridden a bike you may understand that some of the "pulling on them willy nilly, zig zagging all over the road and not signalling" is done for a reason. On the other hand some cyclists are bad cyclists and some car drivers are bad drivers...
 
estebanrey said:
Like this idiot who thinks he can run red lights and use technicalities in the law to justify it. How smug do you have to be to film this and put it on Youtube?

Click to expand...

Sadly the police officer not knowing his stuff allowed that guy to get away with running the red. :/
 
A thread on Civinfo with cyclist woe's, in a nutshell: Cyclist hits stationery car, cyclist refuses to pay for the damage and is now making a claim against driver for injuries she has caused to herself.
Police confirm she was not taken to hospital as she has no injuries in accident report after driver tells them she's trying to sue, making her claim fraudulent.
Awaiting the next part. I'm not on the anti cyclist bandwagon, just sharing a little anecdote.
 
platypus said:
Not only can you get points on your driving licence whilst cycling, you can lose your driving licence.

I'd rolleyes if I could be bothered. Lack of regard for the highway code and road standards is far from a cyclist's bailiwick.
Click to expand...

You agree that its fine to ignore the fact that any damage caused by a cyclist where the cyclist was at fault should be ignored and not paid, leaving the "victim" to pay out of their own pocket?

badcompany said:
friend last week was cut up by car on his bike he was going very slow but has managed to break arm bone went right threw skin and has smashed elbow joint the car never even stopped!
Click to expand...

And if in a car and the car had went straight into the back of him the person that got cut up would probably be deemed at fault :( It works both ways.

Its's reasons like this and a recent thread where someone got stitched up on an accident that wasn't their fault that I have my galaxy s3 performing dashcam duties now. Decent video quality and it means I don't have to pay for a proper dashcam :p

NorthSeaWarrior said:
I am a cyclist purely for fitness. I go through red lights, when it's safe. I cut confront of cars, when it's safe. If i fall off doing it and my bike is rideable I'm not paying for ****. If I'm on a narrow road and your getting to close to me trying to pass I'll ride just close enough to the middle that you can't pass and slow down. I have a go pro in mounted on my helmet and seat post. Good luck claiming.
Click to expand...

Lets say just for example then, you misjudge something adn go into the side of a car, very much your own fault. Do you have insurance? Are you going to pay from your own pocket for the damage caused to a vehicle?


majnu said:
That is why because of *****s like NorthSeaWarior I have mounted a covert camera in my car. Shall we start an anti-cycle campaign where we collate all video footage of cyclists breaking the law in a bid to get the Government how much of a danger to society and road safety they are?
Click to expand...

why covert?


Noxia said:
A thread on Civinfo with cyclist woe's, in a nutshell: Cyclist hits stationery car, cyclist refuses to pay for the damage and is now making a claim against driver for injuries she has caused to herself.
Police confirm she was not taken to hospital as she has no injuries in accident report after driver tells them she's trying to sue, making her claim fraudulent.
Awaiting the next part. I'm not on the anti cyclist bandwagon, just sharing a little anecdote.
Click to expand...

Bet she doesn't have insurance.
It's things like this that just annoy me :/
Why should the car owner be out of pocket due to someone elses actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom