Stupid Cyclist!

As a road user, I'll slow down as and when the conditions require it, regardless of what mode of transport I'm using. Why can you not get that?

Talking about the pavement is facile, and pointless. However, since you're so upset at having to share the roads with cyclists, horses, etc, have you complained about this to your MP?
 
Last edited:
Anyone can use the road as it is the public highway where anyone has the right to use it at anytime. But because you want to use your car on it, you must be licensed, taxed and insured because you are operating a potential killing machine. So basically you are paying to be legally allowed to use your vehicle on the road which is a privilege.

Why on earth would a cyclist use the path when they have the right to use the road? so what if it inconveniences the car drivers, they have no more priority than anyone else.
 
EvilDreams said:
....in your head maybe.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. Do you even remember or read the drivel you post? Even worse you seem to believe it.

mufc802 said:
so what if it inconveniences the car drivers, they have no more priority than anyone else.
Click to expand...
They have less priority than a cyclist, less than a pedestrian and less than a horse or whatever. Essentially, less than anything that is on the road that is more vulnerable. Regardless of this, anyone should be making way when it's safe to do so.
 
Last edited:
Do you have the ability to see question marks? <--- there's one there.

What's 2 plus 2? Is the answer a) 4? or b) Cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they don't pay VED?

How many question marks were in this post?
 
Your question is antagonistic and obtuse. Is your attitude to everything else this bad?

The correct phrase would be that cyclists are entitled to use the road without paying VED. Again, if you don't like it you know who to contact.
 
Last edited:
EvilDreams said:
b) Cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they don't pay VED?
Click to expand...

If cycles gave emissions they would be due to pay VED as they don't , they don't so they are not eligible for VED same as certain other vehicles don't as their emissions are below the threshold set by the powers that be.

Hope that clears that up if it hasn't been earlier in this thread:)
 
Some cars are zero rated for VED, but they're still allowed on the road. I fail to see why the point about VED is even raised. If bicycles had to be registered and considered for VED, under the current system they'd be zero rated so cyclists would still pay zero. Many cyclists pay council tax, income tax etc. and so pay for the roads. End of.
 
EvilDreams said:
You want us to slow down and wait for you, but you wouldn't slow down and wait for anyone else.
Click to expand...

It's like you seriously believe that cyclists think like this; that they want to slow you down. They don't! If anything, they want you to get past them as quickly and safely as possible!

Most drivers seem to be fine with this. I really cant fathom why you think it's such a big problem. Surely getting stuck behind a slow driver, or a lorry, or a bus is even more annoying?

Would you rather come up behind a lorry lumbering along at 20mph, who you can't get past at all, or a cyclist who may be going slower, but can be passed quickly, safely and easily? I know which I'd rather choose.

I really don't understand how it can be such a huge issue that you'd advocate the removal of all cyclists from the roadway. From the way you describe it, each time you happen across a cyclist, you end up stuck behind them for rest of you entire journey. In which case, either every cyclist in your area is deliberately riding in the middle of your lane, or you are simply refusing to overtake, because I really can't fathom your vehement refusal to share roadspace with them.
 
platypus said:
Where in a lot of case cyclists will of course pay VED on one or multiple cars.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I ride a bicycle, motorcycle and drive a car, and have no real problem with other road users* (apart from the ones that try and kill me/get themselves killed near me :))

*Edit: And bus drivers. Dithering gits that hold up traffic just because they're too early getting to the next stop. Here's a thought, pull over at the bus stop and wait and get out of my way, or tell you bosses to fix their damn timetables :p

PS, apologies if there's any bus drivers on here, but you really do get on my moobs! :)
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
Your question is antagonistic and obtuse. Is your attitude to everything else this bad?

The correct phrase would be that cyclists are entitled to use the road without paying VED. Again, if you don't like it you know who to contact.
Click to expand...

Way to completely miss the point.

I also hate buses.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much 50-50 I'd say as a cyclist and road-user, as a cyclist it is common sense not to drive up the inside of someone turning into your path, likewise in an area where there are normally cyclists it's always worth a quick glance just in case.

As either a cyclist or motorist operating as though everyone else on the road is on a mission to act like a retard and smash into you has its benefits - I've lost track of how many times I've thought 'bet he's going to [insert idiot/blind manoeuvre]' and then promptly watched it happen right in front of my nose while being thankful for easing off/changing lanes a few seconds earlier :p
 
divaboy said:
If cycles gave emissions they would be due to pay VED as they don't , they don't so they are not eligible for VED same as certain other vehicles don't as their emissions are below the threshold set by the powers that be.

Hope that clears that up if it hasn't been earlier in this thread:)
Click to expand...


Cyclists DO produce emissions. In some cases rather more than one might think!

Consider A NSL SC road with traffic traveling in both directions.

Consider an HGV traveling at 40 coming up behind a cyclist.

The HGV will require a gap in the oncoming traffic in order to pass the cyclist. Sometimes there is one, sometimes one can plan for one, but if the road is busy more often than not one will not be available when it is needed so the truck will have to slow down and wait for one,

Slowing from 40 to (say) 12 and then accelerating back up to speed will consume around half a litre of fuel that would not otherwise have been consumed!

If in the course of (say) a 7 mile cycle ride this scenario is repeated more than a couple of times our cyclist would have produced less "Emissions" by leaving his bike at home and driving a Range Rover Sport instead!

The same scenario also applies to cars. though the overall effect on lighter vehicles is less dramatic individually. overall the effect is quite large owing to the large numbers of such vehicles. Though it would be difficult to quantify I suspect that only a small increase in the use of cycles on extra urban highways, unless proper segregated cycle lanes are provided, will actually significantly increase national emissions and fuel consumption.
 
Orionaut said:
Cyclists DO produce emissions. In some cases rather more than one might think!

Consider A NSL SC road with traffic traveling in both directions.

Consider an HGV traveling at 40 coming up behind a cyclist.

The HGV will require a gap in the oncoming traffic in order to pass the cyclist. Sometimes there is one, sometimes one can plan for one, but if the road is busy more often than not one will not be available when it is needed so the truck will have to slow down and wait for one,

Slowing from 40 to (say) 12 and then accelerating back up to speed will consume around half a litre of fuel that would not otherwise have been consumed!

If in the course of (say) a 7 mile cycle ride this scenario is repeated more than a couple of times our cyclist would have produced less "Emissions" by leaving his bike at home and driving a Range Rover Sport instead!

The same scenario also applies to cars. though the overall effect on lighter vehicles is less dramatic individually. overall the effect is quite large owing to the large numbers of such vehicles. Though it would be difficult to quantify I suspect that only a small increase in the use of cycles on extra urban highways, unless proper segregated cycle lanes are provided, will actually significantly increase national emissions and fuel consumption.
Click to expand...
It's a good point but half a litre? Really? It's also akin to the one that if motorways were limited to ~58mph, considerably less fuel would be used. I don't really see a way around it. Of course if so many HGVs weren't allowed on the roads, they'd be in a damned sight better condition..

Properly segragated cycle lanes would be great, they do of course have problems though, and sadly we have neither the money nor space to put them in in the majority of places.
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
It's a good point but half a litre? Really? .
Click to expand...

The KE of a 44 ton truck between 12-40 MPH is about 2KWhr. Assuming around 25% efficiency from tank to tyres this represents about half a litre of diesel!

In fact I suspect I am being generous! I know HGV manufacturers and operators take fuel efficiency very seriously but I would be surprised if they can achieve 25% tank to tyre, especially under "Acceleration" conditions (The power train will be optimised for cruise conditions with a very narrow power band RPM wise). A full Litre might well be nearer the mark!
 
THE COUNCIL IS AT FAULT - IT should have PROVIDED A CYCLE LANE

I WAS A CYCLIST UNTIL I CHOSE TO AVOID A DANGEROUS JUNCTION BY TAKING THE UNDERPASS INSTEAD - WHEREUPON THE BIKE SKIDDED ON WET CONCRETE AND BROKE MY WRIST!

OUR ROADS ARE TOO CONJESTED AND DANGEROUS FOR ALL EXCEPT THOSE WRAPPED IN STEEL BOXES
 
P0sP704.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom