Why shouldn't cyclists be able to use the motorway?

[nick.lidgett]

You're clearly not grasping the simple point being made. That he is grouping a collective of people together and applying negative and unproven statements to all of them as a whole.

If this was done to black people, it would be racism.

To teenagers; ageism.

To women; sexism.

OcUK forums users: Trollism

 

[bobbyspangles]

If I have to swerve to avoid a weaving cyclist, or one who runs a red light (happened before, will happen again) and I have a head on collision with another motor vehicle traveling at 30-40 mph, that right there is a combined 60-80mph impact.

No, no it's not.

 

[Burnsy2023]

No, no it's not.

Indeed. Physics fail there.

 

[Tute]

It really isn't

It really is.

If the amount of income tax halved overnight, would the government continue to pay the same amount towards maintaining the nation's roads?

What about VAT? etc?

I think you'll find the answer to that is "no"

Also yes, upto a point. VED is the dictating factor in the road budget. The "giant pot" is completely moot.

Says who? I'd love to see some figures to back up your claim...

Says basic economics? If half the money is available from VED, half will be spent.

 

[Amp34]

Exactly - a law unto themselves. The attitude of the majority of them (especially 'experienced' cyclists in all their fancy gear) is disgraceful; aggressive and inflammatory. Half the time I'm apprehensive to overtake them in case they attempt or gesture to kick the car or shout verbal profanities at me or my fellow passengers, or something else to that effect. It's about give and take, and as far as I can see (and have experience with) all they do is take.

Keep them away from motorways at all costs. In fact, it should be mandatory that all cyclists who wish to use public roads have to partake in some form of education and training. They need to get rid of their superiority complex, realise that they're not invincible and learn that applying rules specifically intended for vehicles to them, is ridiculous (and instead, abide by rules specifically tailored to them). Maybe then we'd have less cycling-related road deaths.

Out of interest, when was the last time you broke the law while driving your car? At a guess the last time you drove it. Speeding.... Which the majority of car drivers do, along with all the things mentioned above. It's called hypocrisy, as long as you know you're a hypocrite then fine. At least cyclists don't kill people when they disobey the rules...

It's ok though, soon you won't have to worry as much about having to drive on the sameroads as cyclists... Because cars/large motorised vehicles are increasingly being banned from inner town and city roads. The increase in pedestrianisation/non motorised vehicle conversion is only going to increase, especially if the EU do manage to fine (in the impending court case) the British government for not reducing the particulates in several large cities (London, Manchester, etc.)...

 

[Burnsy2023]

VED is the dictating factor in the road budget.

Source?

 

[jumpy]

....blabber....

I notice you fail to address any of the points I raised about road use, common sense and courtesy.






@ Burnsy / bobbyspangles

To clarify - relative speed each car has to the other. Impact speed is zero, however crash velocity would still be 60-80mph. I am not talking about 'force generated' from the mass of two colliding objects.
Christ, sometimes I'm convinced this forum is populated by autistic idiot savants who only ever see absolute meaning in the written words of others.
If you want to read a physics paper on vehicle crashes go someplace else instead of picking out minute bits of information of forum users to endlessly chew and pick over.

 

[nick.lidgett]

I notice you fail to address any of the points I raised about road use, common sense and courtesy.






@ Burnsy / bobbyspangles

To clarify - relative speed each car has to the other. Impact speed is zero, however crash velocity would still be 60-80mph. I am not talking about 'force generated' from the mass of two colliding objects.
Christ, sometimes I'm convinced this forum is populated by autistic idiot savants who only ever see absolute meaning in the written words of others.
If you want to read a physics paper on vehicle crashes go someplace else instead of picking out minute bits of information of forum users to endlessly chew and pick over.

 

[uv]

I drive 200 miles a week

Wowzers. An average of <29 miles a day, you hero.

With a crazy yearly average of... ~10,000 whole miles, we should all regard your opinion as fact.

 

[Haggisman]

It really is.



Also yes, upto a point. VED is the dictating factor in the road budget. The "giant pot" is completely moot.



Says basic economics? If half the money is available from VED, half will be spent.

That makes no sense at all. If you're going to try and make outlandish claims, at least make the slightest effort to back them up with some kind of evidence

 

[dan958]

The motorway isn't a place for cycling, I wouldn't think about going down there, strong winds could easily blow you into the path of a car/truck.

This. When I had my little bubble car, It would constantly get blown around when it was windy on the motorway. I hated it.

 

[Burnsy2023]

@ Burnsy / bobbyspangles

To clarify - relative speed each car has to the other. Impact speed is zero, however crash velocity would still be 60-80mph. I am not talking about 'force generated' from the mass of two colliding objects.
Christ, sometimes I'm convinced this forum is populated by autistic idiot savants who only ever see absolute meaning in the written words of others.
If you want to read a physics paper on vehicle crashes go someplace else instead of picking out minute bits of information of forum users to endlessly chew and pick over.

Wind your neck in and stop the personal attacks.

 

[Black Dynamite]

£50 is ridiculous to be honest, could easily cause a serious and possibly life threatening multi-vehicle crash.

A lorry doing about 60mph in the left lane, sees a cyclist late, swerves into the middle lane, taking out a car which in turn takes out more vehicles .....

Yes excellent idea allowing cyclists on the motorway. Should receive a much larger fine in my opinion.

 

[SkodaMart]

Stupid thread needs closing.

VED has nothing to do for paying for the roads - It is now an emissions tax and can be avoided by anyone by selecting a small economical engine.

It has no relevance to cyclists.

 

[thedoc46]

How do people like you get along in the world ? Serious question !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-26336618

So I read this article and it got me thinking; was it fair that the cyclist got a £50 for cycling on the M25 at rush hour? I mean, most cyclists pay road fund licence as they're also car owners, and motorways already have in-built cycle lanes called the hard shoulder. The only problem I see is that cyclists might not like to use the hard shoulder as it's full of crap that might pop their tyres, so they may want to use the left-hand lane instead. I don't get these arguments about safety - it's the motorists responsibility to overtake safely, leaving the same amount of room as you'd leave a car. I'm glad it took that woman 90 minutes to do her normal 40 minute journey (bet that's about one junction on the M25 lol) - she should switch to a more environmentally friendly method of transport and go on a cyclist awareness course - she might lose a bit of weight too!