They have more right to be there than you do. Anyone can ride a bike on the road. You have to be licensed for a car. I can't remember the last time I was held up for more than a few seconds by a cyclist round here, coffin dodgers and grockles are a much bigger hinderance to making reasonable progress.
Stupid Cyclist!
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
They have more right to be there than you do. Anyone can ride a bike on the road. You have to be licensed for a car. I can't remember the last time I was held up for more than a few seconds by a cyclist round here, coffin dodgers and grockles are a much bigger hinderance to making reasonable progress.
Taking your obtusely antagonistic approach, perhaps it's because they're not too lazy to drive?
Thats nice. As has been discussed its not really legal to ride on pavements, and if I want speed I'll simply cycle quickly thanks.
Oh dear. Just about sums up your point of view doesn't it.
Perhaps we should start a thread every time an idiot driver did something within view, though they'd get banned for spam before long.
I'm going with the general consensus - you were both at fault. No harm done and you'll both probably stew on it for a while and not do it again. But yeah, it would have come down on your head had anything happened unfortunately.
I'm always very wary of bikes - my method it to just assume they're going to do something stupid. My dad (may he RIP) drove for 60 years and only got in trouble with the police once in all that time. Similar situation to the OP actually, but they did collide (no injuries, fortunately) and there happened to be a police car coming the other way. Policeman told my dad the biker was totally at fault, but my dad didn't check his blind spot....and as the car driver it was ultimately his responsibility and so the accident was HIS fault. They both got a ticking off and went on their way. This was in the 60's I believe. back then, copper probably gave them both a clip around the ear and a mouthful as well
I'm always very wary of bikes - my method it to just assume they're going to do something stupid. My dad (may he RIP) drove for 60 years and only got in trouble with the police once in all that time. Similar situation to the OP actually, but they did collide (no injuries, fortunately) and there happened to be a police car coming the other way. Policeman told my dad the biker was totally at fault, but my dad didn't check his blind spot....and as the car driver it was ultimately his responsibility and so the accident was HIS fault. They both got a ticking off and went on their way. This was in the 60's I believe. back then, copper probably gave them both a clip around the ear and a mouthful as well
There are 2 things that really bug me about some cyclists.
1. Riding side by side and not riding single file.
2. What happened in OP, undertaking a car (or any vehicle) that is turning. I wouldn't do that on a motorbike, why would a cyclist try that?
1. Riding side by side and not riding single file.
2. What happened in OP, undertaking a car (or any vehicle) that is turning. I wouldn't do that on a motorbike, why would a cyclist try that?
Last edited:
. Edited.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
Did you mean "not lazy enough"?
What's worse, a half-***ed talking to by a policeman who's probably very busy, or dodging thousands of tons of high speed metal, driven by people you're infuriating? Putting your life into the hands of, in your words, "idiot drivers", many of whom despise you, or dodging the occasional granny? Giving way to the odd pedestrian? That would involve YOU being slowed down though, wouldn't it, and we can't have that, even though you expect me to be overjoyed to have to slow down to wait for a chance to safely overtake you.
It's also "not really legal" to go through a red light.
It might....if you're in the habit of jumping to conclusions.
Last edited:
Either way really, I prefer the exercise I get from commuting by bike.
"What is worse" doesn't really come into it. I can't do 25mph on the pavement safely, nor would I want too. I can quite happily on the road, again when conditions allow it safely.
The fact that you'd despise another road user, again says a lot about your character. I don't mind being slowed down, and I've enough control of my temper that it doesn't enrage me. As a road user, I'll slow down when needed too, and overtake when safe where possible.
Indeed. I don't go through red lights. Next?
You provided the conclusion to be made by referencing the facile argument about road tax.
Sometimes its necessary but yes, cyclists that don't make way for traffic are *****.
An idiot not paying attention probably.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
Well, speeding up again costs you nothing other than emitting slightly more BO.
Must be one of those "other people" things I suppose.
I asked a question. I don't think I even got an answer. Everything after that was in your head.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
If you're going to get all pedantic and mr. logic about it, maybe it's not a great idea starting your second sentence with a conjunction. We can all get piddly, but we usually don't because it just slows the thread to a crawl, much like a cyclist does to following traffic on a busy two lane road.
Type road tax into google. Google knows what it means.
Type road tax into google. Google knows what it means.
Last edited:
Indeed, which is why I'll continue to do it on the roads, where I'm legally allowed and it's safer to do so. Presumably you're from somewhere where the pavements are five feet wide and have little pedestrian traffic? Here it is certainly not safe to ride on any of the pavements. I'd petition the council to do something about it, but as there are roads I'll just use those instead.,
Indeed.
You didn't ask a question, you spouted the age old nonsense about road tax.
What slows threads to a crawl is people making the same old tired arguments about all cyclists being bad and not belonging on the roads. It did take a while for some old joker to throw in the road tax thing though. I guess at some point you were 5 minutes late because a cyclist got in your way. Tough luck, eh?
Does Google know that paying it doesn't give you increased priority to use the roads, or exclusive access to them? Because I assume that's why you were asking.
Your whole argument seems to boil down to the fact that cyclists slow you down a bit, so they need to be removed from the roads. And you seem to claim this is a universal annoyance; it isn't. As I said before, most people just accept that the road space is shared by other vehicles and pass by safely with barely any hindrance to their journey.
I take it you want horse riders treated in the same fashion?
Last edited:
While it's not called road tax, being pedantic, it is a tax you generally have to pay to use your vehicle on the road.
Wikipedia (while not the last word in 100% factual information) says:
Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) (also known as vehicle tax or car tax) is a vehicle road use tax levied as an excise duty which must be paid for most types of vehicle which are to be used (or parked) on the public roads in the United Kingdom.
Just saying
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
Whereas no cyclist wants to go on the pavement, because....it would slow them down.
I also have a gripe with the fact that I am responsible for their safety. No license required for a bicycle....any moron can just fling themselves down the road with their eyes shut and not killing them is MY liability. Maybe if you had to get a license, which required passing a "not trying to get yourself killed" test, I would get less irritated about cyclists.
I'd be happy to discuss that in a thread entitled "Stupid horses!".
We do of course know this. Evildreams main gripe seems to be that he can't bear to share the road with other people, especially those who don't pay tax to be on the roads. Where in a lot of case cyclists will of course pay VED on one or multiple cars, and council tax for upkeep of the roads.While it's not called road tax, being pedantic, it is a tax you generally have to pay to use your vehicle on the road.
Wikipedia (while not the last word in 100% factual information) says:
Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) (also known as vehicle tax or car tax) is a vehicle road use tax levied as an excise duty which must be paid for most types of vehicle which are to be used (or parked) on the public roads in the United Kingdom.
Just saying
It's not really a valid argument for claiming that cyclists should be off the roads, and its been done to death and is tired, and helps bring threads to a crawl. Pointless, essentially.
You're being intentionally obtuse, though why am I surprised. It isn't safe to cycle on the pavements in most areas, certainly well trafficked ones.
You're responsible for every other road users' safety, as is everyone else on the road. Get over it.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
It isn't safe for who? The road gets crowded too. When that happens, we have to wait. You could just as easily be "responsible for every other pavement user's safety", surely, just as you have just informed me is the case on the road that I am responsible for every other road user's safety....but no, what it comes down to is that you don't want me to be annoyed that you slow me down, while at the same time you don't want to go on the pavement because it would slow you down, and you would have to wait. You want motorists to be liable for you doing whatever the hell you like and not ending up under a car. You want us to slow down and wait for you, but you wouldn't slow down and wait for anyone else.
Last edited: