School Run People in a Morning [Archive]

ptigga

14-02-2005, 14:52

Originally posted by f_g
exept they dont have to pay to use the road

What's your point? As a car user you pay road tax to help the government deal with the congestion and polution that your car causes.

Cyclists, pedestrians, etc. who cause neither congestion nor pollution do not have to pay any road tax.

The amount of road tax you pay is only a contribution, and the money collected from road tax does not provide enough money for all new road building projects or all road maintenance.

Money for road building and maintenance comes from the central treasury and from the council taxes collected by the local councils.

So road tax is not "the right to use the road". Cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders (and indeed anyone else who pays VAT, income tax or council tax) have just as much right to use the roads as you car drivers. It's just that you car drivers have to pay extra because you cause more problems for the rest of us.

MuteWitness

14-02-2005, 14:54

i never said i was a car driver, in fact i hate cars but how many cyclists read the highway code?

robS35

14-02-2005, 14:54

Originally posted by f_g
exept they dont have to pay to use the road

But you dont really pay to use the road there is no such thing as road tax. Its called vehicle excise duty ( a tax on vehicle ownership ) which goes into a big pot down at Gordan Brown's house and is spent as the present goverment sees fit, be it hospitals, schools, wars on tin pot dictators or a million other things. Like i said its a tax on vehicle ownership not a tax to use the roads. Although if a vehicle is used on private land ect you dont have to pay this tax. So most people just think its a tax to use public roads when really it isnt. Apart from Major trunk roads and motorways which are looked after the highways agency, all other roads are the responsibility of the local authority Sheffield city council in my case, and with my council tax im sure i got a bit of paper that told me how much is spent on maintaining roads. So either way i still pay for the up keep of roads with my council tax.

algy

14-02-2005, 15:00

Originally posted by 2fat2run
its the same type of person that insists on moving people out of train seats to one of the 100 free seats nearby just because they reserved it - rather than just sitting in one of the free ones themselves.
Slightly off topic perhaps, but if there are 100 free seats nearby, what are you doing in one reserved by someone else who's had the forethought to reserve one?:confused:

muddycoffee

14-02-2005, 15:04

Originally posted by poppins
Whats a schol runner ? is it a school bus ?
Poppins,
We don't have any such thing as a school bus in sheffield. Because most children have a school just a few streets away. When the're old enough to go to the Comprehensive school, which can be a mile or 2 away, they get a lift from their parent or use the public busses, or some just walk.

Andy78

14-02-2005, 15:04

Originally posted by f_g
i never said i was a car driver, in fact i hate cars but how many cyclists read the highway code?

If a cyclist is at fault then that's fair enough. However, that wasn't really the point. I haven't used a cycle for a long time, but I know that when I did, I followed the rules given to me during my cycle training at school.

foo_fighter

14-02-2005, 15:08

Originally posted by ptigga
The amount of road tax you pay is only a contribution, and the money collected from road tax does not provide enough money for all new road building projects or all road maintenance.

Money for road building and maintenance comes from the central treasury and from the council taxes collected by the local councils.

"Road Tax" + "Fuel Tax" (80%+ of the cost of fuel at the pump) + "Insurance Tax" are all general taxes, not just to pay for the roads.

BUT

Add them all up, and they come to a LOT more than the Gov't pay out on road construction and maintenance.

nick2

14-02-2005, 15:18

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Poppins,
We don't have any such thing as a school bus in sheffield. Because most children have a school just a few streets away. When the're old enough to go to the Comprehensive school, which can be a mile or 2 away, they get a lift from their parent or use the public busses, or some just walk.

I'm sure I've seen some school busses only a couple of times.

poppins

14-02-2005, 15:59

Originally posted by nick2
I'm sure I've seen some school busses only a couple of times.

Between 7am to 8am theres more school buses on the road than regular buses here, a hassel trying to get to work in a morning but not for those people who have school age kids.

incognito

14-02-2005, 17:49

Originally posted by poppins
Between 7am to 8am theres more school buses on the road than regular buses here, a hassel trying to get to work in a morning but not for those people who have school age kids.

do you mean those big green and red death-mobiles??? with the kids sat on the front windows?
christ....those bus drivers go far too fast - accident just waiting to happen!

my daughter used to go to school at broomhill infants......now that was a 4x4/jag/merc nightmare parking!!!

robbie

14-02-2005, 18:04

what is it with parents. Why can't kids walked to school ? I know there are hundreds of pedophiles on the streets waiting to attack little darling but let's be honest:

a. Little darling isn't very little anymore. They are a round fat mound who never walk anywhere.

b. round darling is overly shy and cannot do basic things because s/he has had their bottom wiped for them fince they were born.

Are there any responsible intellegent parents out there?

muddycoffee

14-02-2005, 18:33

There was a stastistical fact in the media a couple of years ago, as far as I remember,

stating that,

" children being driven to school were more likely to be injured in a crash, than children walking to school."

And when you bear in mind that children who are driven everywhere are likely to get less excercise, and in some cases exposed to tobacco smoke on the way to school. From their stressed out angry parent.

It doesn't look good for some of them.

tara

14-02-2005, 18:53

Yes and not only do they take the road up when they park,
They also have the car door flung open right across the pavement when they let the little darlings out, so no one can get past.
And as for driving their kids to comprehensive schools, thats just babyish.
no one gets picked on more at school, than a mollicoddled teenager.
they should be finding their own way to school at their age.
2 miles or not let them get on a bus.
what they gonna do when they start work, still have mommy driving them there.

saxon51

14-02-2005, 19:24

Originally posted by robbie

Are there any responsible intellegent parents out there?

Er, yes robbie. We're the ones doing the complaining.

noseyrosie

14-02-2005, 20:33

Originally posted by robbie
what is it with parents. Why can't kids walked to school ? I know there are hundreds of pedophiles on the streets waiting to attack little darling but let's be honest:

a. Little darling isn't very little anymore. They are a round fat mound who never walk anywhere.

b. round darling is overly shy and cannot do basic things because s/he has had their bottom wiped for them fince they were born.

Are there any responsible intellegent parents out there?

Ok I may not be the perfect example....being an almost 18 year old 6th former, but this problem has been the bane of my life for the last 2 years.

My 6th form is over an hours walk from my house, so I have to get 2 buses, in and out of town in the mornings.

The Fulwood Mothers make it impossible for a person to get a number 60 bus up Fulwood road from town in less than 40 minutes.

The traffic's also terrible in the Hunter's Bar/Eccy Road area.

And I tell you what - the worst culprits of this morning congestion are not the long taloned, highlighted, permed designer mums, they are all of you lot, driving to work each morning with just the one person in a car. I', sorry, but seeing a half mile long queue along Rustlings Rd with every single car containing just the one person makes me sick to the stomach.

I appreciate that some people feel they have to drive to work, but to be honest it's mostly a really crap excuse. I get two buses to school, and god damn it most of you could too, if it's too far to walk. And the bus services are very frequent in that area. And we all know that the main business sector is in the city centre, and that most of the inhabitants of that region are business people or professionals.

And frankly I think car-pooling like in America is the answer.

mega_monty

14-02-2005, 21:19

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I', sorry, but seeing a half mile long queue along Rustlings Rd with every single car containing just the one person makes me sick to the stomach.

I appreciate that some people feel they have to drive to work, but to be honest it's mostly a really crap excuse. I get two buses to school, and god damn it most of you could too, if it's too far to walk.

Some people actually require their cars / vehicles inorder to carry out their jobs such as service engineers, utility companies, Builders / Construction engineers, Do you expect them to carry their tools, ladders, spare parts etc on public transport ? How would you feel if on public transport you had to share a seat with a tonne of bricks or cement mixer or a pile of boxes ? How about someone trying to get on a bus with a set of ladders ?

Finally of all the single occupant cars you see, how do you know if the car isn't on its way to pick up passengers enroute or hasn't already dropped some off?

DannyBoy

14-02-2005, 22:17

Originally posted by robbie
what is it with parents. Why can't kids walked to school ?

Because, thanks to the class size limits set by this wonderful government and their implementation by this equally wonderful Local Education Authority, not all children get a place in their local school. Some, like mine, have to travel up to 4 miles a day just to get to school. I'd love to walk my daughter to school. Unfortunately, it's been decreed that I'm not allowed to. :(

Having said that, there are too many school-run cars on the roads, though, and not all of them are necessary.

noseyrosie

14-02-2005, 22:47

Originally posted by mega_monty
Some people actually require their cars / vehicles inorder to carry out their jobs such as service engineers, utility companies, Builders / Construction engineers, Do you expect them to carry their tools, ladders, spare parts etc on public transport ? How would you feel if on public transport you had to share a seat with a tonne of bricks or cement mixer or a pile of boxes ? How about someone trying to get on a bus with a set of ladders ?

Finally of all the single occupant cars you see, how do you know if the car isn't on its way to pick up passengers enroute or hasn't already dropped some off?

fair enough....except I didn't see any ladders in those thousands of Landrovers/BMWs/Mercs.....

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 07:19

Just to make a point, not to argue.

Has everyone noticed how quiet the roads are this week (it's half term).

scoop

15-02-2005, 07:46

Originally posted by f_g
i never said i was a car driver, in fact i hate cars but how many cyclists read the highway code?
How many drivers read the highway code?
I'm a driver I havn't read the highway code since I passed my test 14 years ago, and I dont think I'm unusual.

15-02-2005, 08:06

Originally posted by DannyBoy
Because, thanks to the class size limits set by this wonderful government and their implementation by this equally wonderful Local Education Authority, not all children get a place in their local school. .

Much as I dislike this government and council I would have thought that everybody would have thought that limiting class size was a good idea.....no more of those classes of 45 children that I experienced :clap:

This only refers to Keystage 1 and foundation year BTW. There is no such limit when KS2 is reached.

Ousetunes

15-02-2005, 08:07

The motorist contributes a figure of £40 billion to the chancellor through 'Road Tax'. I'd presume this gives the motorist some right to use the roads he pays for.

It's quite surprising how this initial thread seems to have turned a section of contributors into a snarling mass of little jealous boys and girls. Can't afford a 4x4? Ah, so no one else should have one then, should they?

I agree on a number of points, that most adults who take their kids to school in these huge vehicles simply aren't qualified to drive them - thus, they cannot park them, turn them round or reverse them; that maybe more children should be expected to walk to school or use public transport.

However, what is noticeable to this thread is that the contributor's anger is not directed to the facts I've outlined above, but, I believe, the fact that these 'Little Darlings' are being escorted to schools in vehicles whose prices are out of the range of Joe Average.

The example of Fulwood Road perfectly illustrates this. Let's see what comments come forth regarding the school run in Tinsley, eh?

And blokes driving executive cars, yes, him who churns your stomach because he has the audacity to only wish to escort himself in his own car. Do you think he goes to work and stays there all day till 5pm before driving home? How do you know this person hasn't got to travel to meetings all over the country?!

And finally, I don't need any advice off any cyclists, thank you. The amount of cyclists who have squeezed past my car, knocking wing mirrors, whilst I'm sat at lights is staggering. (With no apology, naturally.)

See, they're not perfect either (contrary to their own lofty opinions). We all have responsibilities on the roads.

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 08:37

I can afford a 4*4, but they should still be banned.
Or at least banned for school runs.

Some people have a reasonable reason for owning them. Large families, pets to transport, a caravan to tow or driving up ben nevis every other day.
If they are used for the school run though they should be towed away and crushed.

As to why people drive to work rather than take public transport, it's been covered before, but it's quicker, more pleasant, reliable, hastle free etc... Just because you have to get 2 buses to go to school doesn't mean everyone should have to suffer Rosie.

I can count on one hand the number of times I was driven to school in my entire life.
The rest of the time I walked, or ocassionally got the bus.
And school buses do still exist, certainly for comprehensive schools.
Mostly I walked, 1.5 miles each way 5 days a week. I had friends who had most of another mile on top of that each day. It doesn't take that long to walk 2.5 miles, 30 - 45 mins.

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 09:04

Originally posted by Cyclone
I can afford a 4*4, but they should still be banned.
Or at least banned for school runs.

Some people have a reasonable reason for owning them. Large families, pets to transport, a caravan to tow or driving up ben nevis every other day.
If they are used for the school run though they should be towed away and crushed.

Does this tirade apply equally to Audi (Quatro variants), Subarus, Skoda Octavia (4x4s), Fiat Panda (4x4s), Suzuki Swift (4x4), Renualt...

...etc, etc...

...and if so why are they worse than driving a big Jaguar, Lexus, Mondeo 220, Aston Martin, etc, etc, ANY big engined prestige/perormance car...

...just wondered.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 09:13

Originally posted by f_g
and can cyclists over take on the outside in future then if the traffic is moving slow, like you are ment to

So when all the traffic is queuing up, hugging the central line and leaving 7 foot on the inside, I should use the opposite carraigeway and head straight for the oncoming traffic?!?

Us cyclists also shouldn't overtake on the inside even though most of our roads have either a cycle or bus lane for our use during rush hours?

Funnily enough, the only place I get to overtake on the outside is along Abbeydale Road South heading into town before the Beauchief. There is normally a queue of cars about 300-400 meters long most morning... all in the bus lane!

I think you'll also find that most cyclist (myself included) are also car owners and therefore do pay to use the roads.

I'm sick of people thinking I'm "fair game", coming out with **** excuses for poor driving and then getting all mouthy because they feel nice and safe in their metal box. Be nice to cyclists... some of us are mean ******** and have even been know to give chase to offending motorists!!

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 09:38

IIRC it is acceptable to "filter" through traffic, if the speed differential is not too great.

So it would be reasonable for a cycle to move through standing (or near standing) traffic on whichever side was most appropriate at the time.

I'm obviously not condoning mirrors being knocked off, or those who then hold up the flow of traffic by moving out unneccessarily wide once they are at the front (neither of which I see very often I'll add), but making good progress is to be expected I would have thought.

C'mon, lets all do like the H*nda advert, and learn to live together. :D

DannyBoy

15-02-2005, 09:50

Originally posted by Mo
Much as I dislike this government and council I would have thought that everybody would have thought that limiting class size was a good idea.....no more of those classes of 45 children that I experienced :clap:

Fine, but you wouldn't be clapping if it was YOUR child who had been refused a place at the LOCAL school. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that is a little insensitive.

Some people, of course, choose to go out of catchment and they add to the school-run traffic. Broomhill is especially bad, given the proliferation of schools in a very small area.

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 09:51

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Does this tirade apply equally to Audi (Quatro variants), Subarus, Skoda Octavia (4x4s), Fiat Panda (4x4s), Suzuki Swift (4x4), Renualt...

...etc, etc...

...and if so why are they worse than driving a big Jaguar, Lexus, Mondeo 220, Aston Martin, etc, etc, ANY big engined prestige/perormance car...

...just wondered.

no, everyone else was using 4*4, i presume we are talking about SUV's and Jeep style vehicles, not strictly all 4 wheel drive vehicles.

nick2

15-02-2005, 10:07

In the process of driving your kids to school you are increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses and poluton in the atmosphere (short journeys being the worst for polution) which will increase their chances of having asthma and generally make the planet less habitable in the future.

So if you realy cared about their wellbeing (as opposed to your own convenience) you would walk them to school.

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 10:09

Originally posted by nick2
In the process of driving your kids to school you are increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses and poluton in the atmosphere (short journeys being the worst for polution) which will increase their chances of having asthma and generally make the planet less habitable in the future.

So if you realy cared about their wellbeing (as opposed to your own convenience) you would walk them to school.

who are you telling, there's not really anyone here representing the 'other side'.

nick2

15-02-2005, 10:14

Originally posted by Cyclone
who are you telling, there's not really anyone here representing the 'other side'.

Sorry, I wasn't telling anyone, I was just giving another reason not to do it.

ptigga

15-02-2005, 10:15

Originally posted by Ousetunes
The motorist contributes a figure of £40 billion to the chancellor through 'Road Tax'. I'd presume this gives the motorist some right to use the roads he pays for.

It is this arrogance that causes all the problems in the first place. Listen to yourself "I've paid a lot of money to clog up the roads with my big car so I'm damn well going to do it. I've paid lots of money to be allowed to spew pollution everywhere so I'm damn well going to do it."

It's quite surprising how this initial thread seems to have turned a section of contributors into a snarling mass of little jealous boys and girls. Can't afford a 4x4? Ah, so no one else should have one then, should they?

It's not that I can't afford one, it's just that I have no need for one. I have a natural aversion to gluttony and wastage. I can't imagine many situations where I would actually find a 4 x 4 worthwhile. I would far rather drive a small car that was fuel efficeint, and gave pedestrians a better chance of survival in accidents. The fact that it uses less petrol and costs less to run is also attractive to me.

I can afford to be an antisocial polluting and congesting ******* but that doesn't automatically give me the right to do so. We share this world with everyone else on it. Why do so many of us have to be so arrogant about it and demand all the resources, and cause all the polution? The excuse that "I can afford it, therefore I will do it" is absolutely disgusting.

What I find disturbing about the people driving a 4 x 4 for the school run is that they are using a vehicle which is totally unappropriate for that use, and they are driving a distance which could so easily be walked.

In fact everyone (including the kids and the driver) would be better off if they walked to school.

Granted, there are some people who have a genuine need for a 4 x 4 vehicle, and I have no wish to tar them with the same brush that is reserved for the people in the above paragraphs. There are also plenty of parents who have to drive their kids a fair way to school - distances that are not feasible to walk. They are not the object of my anger either.

However, what is noticeable to this thread is that the contributor's anger is not directed to the facts I've outlined above, but, I believe, the fact that these 'Little Darlings' are being escorted to schools in vehicles whose prices are out of the range of Joe Average.

Again, it's not the price of the vehicles that offends me. The fact is that these vehicles make the road less safe for other road users (especially pedestrians), they are far less fuel effieceint than smaller cars and they take up more room on the road. This coupled with the fact that many of the drivers are not skilled enough to manouvre them properly make the roads a less pleasant place for everyone else that they have to share them with.

And blokes driving executive cars, yes, him who churns your stomach because he has the audacity to only wish to escort himself in his own car. Do you think he goes to work and stays there all day till 5pm before driving home? How do you know this person hasn't got to travel to meetings all over the country?!

Obviously I can't tell how much driving a person has done in a day from just looking at them. However I know that a great number of people who drive into work (regardless of the size of their car) could easily switch to public transport. This thread is about the school run and I don't think it's appropriate to include other drivers at this point.

And finally, I don't need any advice off any cyclists, thank you. The amount of cyclists who have squeezed past my car, knocking wing mirrors, whilst I'm sat at lights is staggering. (With no apology, naturally.)

Touché! I've lost count of the number of motorists who have cut me up with no apology. That includes the two who knocked me off my bike by driving too close. But that's another discussion; there are bad motorists and bad cyclists on the road. Not all motorists are bad, and not all cyclists are bad. Stereotypes are childish, you should avoid them in grown up arguments.

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 10:19

is there anyone who would like to offer a defence for driving an SUV or Jeep with no identifiable need, or a defence for driving there children <2 miles to school?

Otherwise we are just all agreeing and whilst it's nice to know that we aren't the only ones who feel this way, it gets pretty pointless to carry on the thread.

nick2

15-02-2005, 10:23

It is half term most ofl the culprits will currently be forming a huge traffic jam somewhere near Bakewell or Castleton or fighting for a parking spot as near as possible to the gates of Endciffe or Millhouses park.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 10:23

Originally posted by Cyclone
no, everyone else was using 4*4, i presume we are talking about SUV's and Jeep style vehicles, not strictly all 4 wheel drive vehicles.

That's exactly where I'm coming from Cyclone:thumbsup:

Subaru Imprezas, Fiat Pandas and Audi Quatros are in effect 'normal' sized cars. It's the 'battlewagons' driven by numpties who haven't a clue how to drive/park them that cause the hazards.

I've seen 7.5 tonne trucks fly through gaps and get into spaces when 'Mrs Cristabel Hamilton Smythe' is hesitating in her Toyota SUV. She then decides, "Sod it, I'll leave it where it is in the middle of the road. The peasants/buses will have to wait."

But then again, I suppose she's under the impression that she pays more road tax, fuel tax and insurance than Fred in his Ford Fiesta so that's okay then. :mad:

Ousetunes

15-02-2005, 10:52

ptigga - all my comments, with the exception of the last one re cyclists hitting wing mirrors - were in reply to earlier comments posted on this very thread. My intention was not to move away from this thread. If I have done so, then I am sorry.

I happen to agree with a lot what you say! I travel along Fulwood Road every day - sometimes up to four times - and I too wonder if parents really need these huge 4 x 4s just to pick their kids up. With incredibly restricted parking they take up an awful lot of room and as I said, most drivers seem to have trouble controlling their vehicle.

My comment about the revenue raised by 'Road Tax' wasn't a way of saying contributing towards it should give us free license to go where we want and do as we wish! I gave the information simply to inform readers of the gross amount of money motorists contribute of which a tiny fraction goes on road improvements etc. I am aware that we cannot go on building roads to get ourselves out of traffic jams, but moreover, it would be better if some of that £40 billion went to improve - and I mean totally overhaul - public transport including, at the top of the list of priorities, rail transport. Let's get freight back on the railways!

Finally, I had no intention to stereotype anybody. That does discussion on here no good. Like you say, there is good and bad motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. That's called Live and Let Live. Thus, parents wishing to do the school run in their 4 x 4s should be allowed to do as they wish, even though I personally wish they would use smaller cars, public transport or even walk.

alchemist

15-02-2005, 11:02

could a case be made for reclassing such vehicles so that you need a seperate license (obtainable after a short driving/parking skill test) to drive them?

dave

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 11:26

Originally posted by alchemist
could a case be made for reclassing such vehicles so that you need a seperate license (obtainable after a short driving/parking skill test) to drive them?

dave

it probably could yes.

Ousetounes - live and let live only applies where the actions of a minority are not impacting adversely on everyone else. When that happens the situation needs some investigation and moderation.

poppins

15-02-2005, 11:31

We have two large SUVs, i feel much safer in a larger car, also i wouldn't let any invironmentalist tell me what i can and cannot drive.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 11:43

Originally posted by poppins
We have two large SUVs, i feel much safer in a larger car, also i wouldn't let any invironmentalist tell me what i can and cannot drive.

Environmental issues aside...

There is plenty of evidence that indicates it is a misconception that you are safe in a larger car. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that SUV drivers have a higher rate of death per kilometre travelled than drivers of conventional cars. No doubt because they turn over so much easier.

If you are hit by one then you are also twice as likely to die then if hit by a convential car because they are higher and squarer (in general).

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 11:43

Originally posted by poppins
We have two large SUVs, i feel much safer in a larger car, also i wouldn't let any invironmentalist tell me what i can and cannot drive.

i like the attitude, screw the environment, I feel much safer.

The fact is that you probably aren't any safer, SUV's kill more drivers in accidents than saloons. Mainly because they have a high centre of gravity and tend to roll.
They also kill more pedestrians when they hit them, because of the shape of the front.
They cost you more to run because of their inefficiency, they harm the environment (but your president doesn't care, so why should you) and they annoy other drivers (although that's the way you drive it and not the vehicle itself).

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 11:44

Originally posted by alchemist
could a case be made for reclassing such vehicles so that you need a seperate license (obtainable after a short driving/parking skill test) to drive them?

On my licence (full car) I can drive vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes, even the biggest SUV ain't that big, why should they be clasified differently...

...and while I'm on, back to the earlier post, why is a 2.5 litre diesel SUV worse than a 4.2 litre petrol Jag'?

I don't think using any of these vehicles is appropriate for a sub 2 mile school run, but then, no vehicle is really, as has been said, walk instead.

I guess what I'm saying is it's Mrs Fortescue-Smythe who's a bad driver/inconsiderate person, why pick on the vehicle in the stereotype? If she needs another test to drive a "whatever" she's got the money to go and do it, and will, because then it'll be even more of a status symbol.

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 11:51

Originally posted by foo_fighter
On my licence (full car) I can drive vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes, even the biggest SUV ain't that big, why should they be clasified differently...

...and while I'm on, back to the earlier post, why is a 2.5 litre diesel SUV worse than a 4.2 litre petrol Jag'?

I don't think using any of these vehicles is appropriate for a sub 2 mile school run, but then, no vehicle is really, as has been said, walk instead.

I guess what I'm saying is it's Mrs Fortescue-Smythe who's a bad driver/inconsiderate person, why pick on the vehicle in the stereotype? If she needs another test to drive a "whatever" she's got the money to go and do it, and will, because then it'll be even more of a status symbol.

good point, although i've not seen many 7.5tonne lorries being used for the school run.
The jag, whilst having a bigger engine, is physically not as big and probably driven by someone that can park. It's probably about the same fuel efficiency as well.

at least the seperate test would ensure that she was capable of parking and manuevoring the thing.

alchresearch

15-02-2005, 11:58

Originally posted by poppins
We have two large SUVs, i feel much safer in a larger car, also i wouldn't let any invironmentalist tell me what i can and cannot drive.

And that's the problem with Americans in a nutshell. Kyoto anyone?

alchemist

15-02-2005, 12:01

then it should equally stand that to drive a large or even medium size van you should be appropriatly qualified.

If that results in it becoming more of a status symbol than it already is then so be it, at least they will know how to drive it

i also think that SUV's should also be in a higher road tax bracket and if i end up being pilloried for such views then tough, i dont subscribe to the validity of "you are only jealous" arguments which i find tend to only hide the lack of validity in the argument

it has been asked already in this thread and i shall ask it again, what are the reasons apart from status for having an oversized 4x4 in town conditions? i know the roads are rough but not that bad!!

dave

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 12:02

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 12:31

Originally posted by alchemist
then it should equally stand that to drive a large or even medium size van you should be appropriatly qualified.

If that results in it becoming more of a status symbol than it already is then so be it, at least they will know how to drive it

i also think that SUV's should also be in a higher road tax bracket and if i end up being pilloried for such views then tough, i dont subscribe to the validity of "you are only jealous" arguments which i find tend to only hide the lack of validity in the argument

it has been asked already in this thread and i shall ask it again, what are the reasons apart from status for having an oversized 4x4 in town conditions? i know the roads are rough but not that bad!!
Although there are possible merits to the idea of graduated testing, the problem with all these different tests is where do you stop?

Do you have one test for x litre cars less than y metres long, another for v litre cars z metres long? Could the testing infrastructure cope, it seems stretched at the moment.

As it stands we are tested on our ability to drive "roughly" similar vehicles on the roads safely. It's the ability to drive safely bit that's important, not the exact specification of the vehicle.

Personally I don't think there should be ANY road tax, put it all on fuel, that way you are not penalised for leaving your car at home (already paid for the road space argument).

If we pay everything on fuel tax, there is an inbuilt incentive to drive less, and with more efficient vehicles, whatever type of vehicle it happens to be.

There is also an incentive to, say, have a scooter, and leave the gas-guzzler at home whenever possible. At the moment there isn't, because you just have to fork out yet another set of road tax.

So, onto the final point, since we are financially encouraged to have just the one vehicle, we must pick one that suits the most extreme demands we place on it, and then drive it everywhere. Your road tax idea would worsen this situation, not help.

Before you ask, I own a 4x4, I need it for work. Sometimes (but very rarely) I drive it in town. The kids are (almost) never taken to school in it. Whenever possible I use a motorcycle to get into/out of town (it makes more sense). I also cycle, and walk a lot (but the road tax is still being paid on vehicles which are sat idle).

saxon51

15-02-2005, 12:53

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Before you ask, I own a 4x4, I need it for work.

Difference being foo_fighter, YOU can probably drive it properly.

It's not just the inability of these drivers to park and control these vehicles that gets my goat, its the meeting them head on in Derbyshire that rattles me.

Narrow road, me in my two wheel drive Renault - with family -, Inbred-Smythe on their own in his/her 4x4. Who always ends up on the grass/in the ditch? You've guessed it! After all, why should they get their 4x4 mucky? Its not supposed to go off-road is it!:loopy:

Funny thing is, Jaguar/BMW/ Merc drivers seem happy to pull over a bit in my experience.

And when these 4x4ers park up on these narrow roads, why don't they EVER place the thing fully off the road like the two wheel drivers seem to be able to do.

White van man has had a hard time of late.......but they are veritable gentlemen compared to 'Mr & Mrs Toyota with bull bars'.:rant:

Colorado

15-02-2005, 12:58

I own a 4 x 4. I am a ... woman, and yes I take my little darlings to school in it.

Reasons:
a) Bought one 'cos I like em !!!
b) Took a full 4 x 4 driving course - so I can drive it
c) Paid a fair bit to buy it
d) Pay a fair bit to insure it
e) Drop my darlings at school on my way to work where I go
and earn my money to put fuel in it, tax it and insure it.

For people against them:
a) Do you go on your holidays on your push bike's or do you
take a polloution route i.e. Aircraft, Coach, Train, Taxi etc?
b) Why should anyone justify the reasons for owning whatever
they have be it a 4X4, Jag, BMW, Saxo, Mini, Micra etc, is this
no longer a free country and if you pay your cash you can
have what you want?
c) Do you push bikers pay Insurance yet.

For the record I think push bikers should be made to pay Insurance. I see a lot in town that come down the inside of you, regardless of whether you have your indicator on to turn left. They set off wibbly wobbling nearly hitting ME, and half of them don't even bother to wear the hat. But should HE run into ME who pay's for it??

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 12:59

Originally posted by saxon51
White van man has had a hard time of late.......but they are veritable gentlemen compared to 'Mr & Mrs Toyota with bull bars'.:rant:
Just to clarify, I DO NOT have bull bars, or any similar nonsense...

...and people who don't drive in a courteous manner, pull over, etc, get my goat just as much as the next persons.

I said it earlier, I'll say it again, cars should be left at home wherever possible...

...but then, I think we all pretty much agree on that one.

:)

saxon51

15-02-2005, 13:06

Wasn't accusing you of having bull bars foo_:(

Most of the country 4x4s have though and its those vehicles/drivers(?) I'm refering to:thumbsup:

saxon51

15-02-2005, 13:10

Originally posted by Colorado
I own a 4 x 4. I am a ... woman, and yes I take my little darlings to school in it.

Reasons:
a) Bought one 'cos I like em !!!
b) Took a full 4 x 4 driving course - so I can drive it
c) Paid a fair bit to buy it
d) Pay a fair bit to insure it
e) Drop my darlings at school on my way to work where I go
and earn my money to put fuel in it, tax it and insure it.

For people against them:
a) Do you go on your holidays on your push bike's or do you
take a polloution route i.e. Aircraft, Coach, Train, Taxi etc?
b) Why should anyone justify the reasons for owning whatever
they have be it a 4X4, Jag, BMW, Saxo, Mini, Micra etc, is this
no longer a free country and if you pay your cash you can
have what you want?
c) Do you push bikers pay Insurance yet.

For the record I think push bikers should be made to pay Insurance. I see a lot in town that come down the inside of you, regardless of whether you have your indicator on to turn left. They set off wibbly wobbling nearly hitting ME, and half of them don't even bother to wear the hat. But should HE run into ME who pay's for it??

If you can drive it, park it, are considerate with it and are wary of other road user (car, bike, pedestrian) then we are not refering to you Colorado.

Colorado

15-02-2005, 13:17

I certainly like to think so Saxon51, so I will but out now.

p.s. I don't have bull bars either.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 13:29

I used to be of this persuasion in thinking 4x4's should be run off the road for taking up so much space, charges added for producing so much more pollution etc.

However, since having to increase the size of my car from a Punto to a Focus simply because the speed bumps used to push the tracking out constantly. I can understand more and more why it would be a good idea to get a 4x4. No more worrying about speed bumps, the ability to get up any road in Sheffield at any time of the year (even if it IS the one and only day it snows heavily enough!), and having a better view of the road from higher up is always a bonus.

Even in my Focus the tracking has to be realigned every few weeks... and before anyone says it, I always slow down for speed bumps and stick to speed limits in built up areas... makes no difference to the tracking though!

Zamo

15-02-2005, 13:31

Originally posted by Colorado
For the record I think push bikers should be made to pay Insurance. I see a lot in town that come down the inside of you, regardless of whether you have your indicator on to turn left. They set off wibbly wobbling nearly hitting ME, and half of them don't even bother to wear the hat. But should HE run into ME who pay's for it??

The say offense is the best form of defence but your argument is plain silly!

I assume you do not spend your entire life sitting in your 4x4? Therefore you must occasionally venture onto the pavement and become a pedestrian. Can you tell us what insurance you have taken out in order to compensate a driver in the event that you step out in front of them and dent their car?

Cars are different. They cause death and major damage when they are involved in accidents and therefore insurance is a sensible requirement. Cyclist do not. Get it?

Colorado

15-02-2005, 13:43

No I don't get it actually. A cyclist is not stepping out to cross
a road is he? he is actually using the road on which to travel,
like erm.., a car, a bus, a scooter, a motorbike, a van, a lorry, etc etc, but what do they all have in common? they pay Insurance, so that if they cause damage to someone else or their vehicle whilst on the highway then the other person is compensated. Unlike the cyclist who runs into your wing, door, mirror etc and pedals off into the sunset.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 13:47

Originally posted by Colorado
No I don't get it actually. A cyclist is not stepping out to cross
a road is he? he is actually using the road on which to travel,
like erm.., a car, a bus, a scooter, a motorbike, a van, a lorry, etc etc, but what do they all have in common? they pay Insurance, so that if they cause damage to someone else or their vehicle whilst on the highway then the other person is compensated. Unlike the cyclist who runs into your wing, door, mirror etc and pedals off into the sunset.

So your basic answer Colorado is to never stop right next to the kerb unless you are forced to do so, and always give cyclists plenty of room when overtaking...

I'm not saying you do it Colorado, but I can't believe the number of drivers I see stop at lights/give way signs etc and stop on the red markings laid out for cyclists. It's not difficult to see them and stop in your own area!!

saxon51

15-02-2005, 13:52

Got to agree with Colorado on this one Zamo.

If I hit a cyclist and cause a hundred quids worth of damage (no injury) then I have to pay via the car's insurance, and my premiums go up. Call it punishment for being careless.

If that same cyclist hits my car (his fault) and leaves me needing a spray job and wing mirror, a hundred quids worth again, I have to pay out of my own pocket.

Is that fair??

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 13:58

Originally posted by saxon51
Got to agree with Colorado on this one Zamo.

If I hit a cyclist and cause a hundred quids worth of damage (no injury) then I have to pay via the car's insurance, and my premiums go up. Call it punishment for being careless.

If that same cyclist hits my car (his fault) and leaves me needing a spray job and wing mirror, a hundred quids worth again, I have to pay out of my own pocket.

Is that fair??

But why would a cyclist hit your car unless you haven't given him/her enough room in the first place!
It is also stated in the Highway code that you as the driver of a vehicle should be aware of other road users and ensure you leave enough room for accidents like this not to happen.

And that's before stating your insurance would pay for any damage of your vehicle (exlcuding any excess)....

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:05

Okay Briano..

I'm at a set of traffic lights, waiting patiently, when some clown on a bike squeezes up the inside. There isn't really enough room for him, but he doesn't care, he just goes for it and in doing so his handlebars or pedals carve his initials along the side. I'm static, obeying the highway code and sensibly sited. He is moving, being impatient and stupid. I'm right....he's wrong. I claim off my insurance, my NCB goes up. He doesn't pay a penny.

:loopy:

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:06

Originally posted by Colorado
No I don't get it actually. A cyclist is not stepping out to cross
a road is he? he is actually using the road on which to travel,
like erm.., a car, a bus, a scooter, a motorbike, a van, a lorry, etc etc, but what do they all have in common? they pay Insurance, so that if they cause damage to someone else or their vehicle whilst on the highway then the other person is compensated. Unlike the cyclist who runs into your wing, door, mirror etc and pedals off into the sunset.

What they all have in common is they are big, heavy and go fast... except bicycles! Cyclists, like pedestrians, go slower and cause minimal damage when involved in an accident, therefore negating the need for insurance.

Motor vehicles on the other hand generally cause a lot of damage when involved in accidents, even when relatively low speeds are involved. Because most people don't have enough money to pay out in such circumstances it is a requirement that they have insurance. Simple aint it!

Colorado

15-02-2005, 14:07

Briano, as I previously said you do see some cylcists who are very wibbly wobbly, and escpecically in town some, (ok not all)dart in and out of traffic changing lanes and they become very
difficult to see when there is plenty of other insurance paying traffic on the road that you are watching out for.

I for one think that sometimes these people are taking their
own life into their hands, and you can see them peddaling
hell for leather often without protective gear on trying to beat the traffic.

And as for Insurance... that one has been covered by Saxon51

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 14:13

Originally posted by saxon51
Okay Briano..

I'm at a set of traffic lights, waiting patiently, when some clown on a bike squeezes up the inside. There isn't really enough room for him, but he doesn't care, he just goes for it and in doing so his handlebars or pedals carve his initials along the side. I'm static, obeying the highway code and sensibly sited. He is moving, being impatient and stupid. I'm right....he's wrong. I claim off my insurance, my NCB goes up. He doesn't pay a penny.

:loopy:

Has this every actually happened to you Saxon51??

Because in my 12 years of driving (and I drive a lot), I have never been touched by a cyclist hitting or falling on my car.

Also to be honest you aren't particularly 'sensibly sited' if there is only enough room for a cyclist to 'squeeze' alongside you, are you!
Either you leave enough room for a cyclist to fit through comfortably or you don't have enough room and you stop close to the kerb with no room for a cyclist to 'squeeze' past. Meaning the cyclist will either wait behind you or use the pavement to get past you before getting back on the road in front of you again...

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 14:15

Originally posted by Colorado
Briano, as I previously said you do see some cylcists who are very wibbly wobbly, and escpecically in town some, (ok not all)dart in and out of traffic changing lanes and they become very
difficult to see when there is plenty of other insurance paying traffic on the road that you are watching out for.

I for one think that sometimes these people are taking their
own life into their hands, and you can see them peddaling
hell for leather often without protective gear on trying to beat the traffic.

I agree with all this however it doesn't change the fact that YOU are in charge of ensuring the safety of yourself AND those around you... however those around you act!

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:17

Originally posted by saxon51
Got to agree with Colorado on this one Zamo.

If I hit a cyclist and cause a hundred quids worth of damage (no injury) then I have to pay via the car's insurance, and my premiums go up. Call it punishment for being careless.

If that same cyclist hits my car (his fault) and leaves me needing a spray job and wing mirror, a hundred quids worth again, I have to pay out of my own pocket.

Is that fair??

I find most cyclist are careful not to hit cars because it tends to hurt.

Most contact with cars is usually no more than the clipping of a wing mirror, which rarely does any damage as they are design to withstand minor hits from other cars.

If a cyclist does damage to your vehicle, and won't compensate you, then there is always the small claims court. I'd be more worried about the un-insured drivers on our roads (estimated at one in ten) rather than the u-insured cyclists if I was you!

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 14:19

Originally posted by saxon51
Wasn't accusing you of having bull bars foo_:(
Sorry about my response there, read my post, I didn't mean it to come across that way, I realise you didn't mean me, clumsy repost on my part.

All I meant to say was, I don't agree with that "macho" B S either.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:19

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:22

Originally posted by Zamo
What they all have in common is they are big, heavy and go fast... except bicycles! Cyclists, like pedestrians, go slower and cause minimal damage when involved in an accident, therefore negating the need for insurance.

Motor vehicles on the other hand generally cause a lot of damage when involved in accidents, even when relatively low speeds are involved. Because most people don't have enough money to pay out in such circumstances it is a requirement that they have insurance. Simple aint it!

But damage is damage, whether it is done by a gentle tap from a car, or full-on impact from a push bike.

The innocent party shouldn't EVER have to pay.

I'm not anti cyclist, I afford them every courtesy when I see them, but some I have seen are downright suicidal.

A few weeks back, on the road between Botanical Gardens and the drop to Hunters Bar. Cyclist in proper gear (helmet and reflective top) passes the static traffic on the left. Okay so far. Arrives at the zebra crossing and mounts the kerb nearly hitting a schoolgirl. Rides along the pavement, swings right and straight across the zebra crossing - without looking! (2 offences on the trot). Traffic coming up from Hunters Bar had already started to drive over a clear crossing. He nearly hit a car which was part way across. He gestured to the driver and carried on along the pavement on the other side.

This bloke was clearly an inconsiderate plonker!! Why should any car driver have to pay out when a clown like this hits their car. (even if its only £20 for a new wing mirror)?

Andy78

15-02-2005, 14:26

Originally posted by Colorado
I own a 4 x 4. I am a ... woman, and yes I take my little darlings to school in it.

Reasons:
a) Bought one 'cos I like em !!!
b) Took a full 4 x 4 driving course - so I can drive it
c) Paid a fair bit to buy it
d) Pay a fair bit to insure it
e) Drop my darlings at school on my way to work where I go
and earn my money to put fuel in it, tax it and insure it.

For people against them:
a) Do you go on your holidays on your push bike's or do you
take a polloution route i.e. Aircraft, Coach, Train, Taxi etc?
b) Why should anyone justify the reasons for owning whatever
they have be it a 4X4, Jag, BMW, Saxo, Mini, Micra etc, is this
no longer a free country and if you pay your cash you can
have what you want?
c) Do you push bikers pay Insurance yet.

For the record I think push bikers should be made to pay Insurance. I see a lot in town that come down the inside of you, regardless of whether you have your indicator on to turn left. They set off wibbly wobbling nearly hitting ME, and half of them don't even bother to wear the hat. But should HE run into ME who pay's for it??

The issue I have with so many people driving something unnecessarily big is the risk to human life. You are obviously more likely to cause a fatality in a collision than a smaller vehicle. Also if another driver of such a vehicle comes into contact with you or your family, they're more likely to cause a fatality. But that's ok because they like their 4x4, paid for it and have insurance.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:29

Originally posted by Zamo
I also drive a car, as do all my friends and family. That has never happen to me or anyone I know! I little perspective might not go amiss!

And the perspective being that this has NEVER happened to anyone, and NEVER will I suppose?

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:32

Originally posted by Zamo
I find most cyclist are careful not to hit cars because it tends to hurt.

And I find most cars are careful not to hit cyclists cos it costs lives.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:33

Originally posted by saxon51
But damage is damage, whether it is done by a gentle tap from a car, or full-on impact from a push bike.

The innocent party shouldn't EVER have to pay.

I'm not anti cyclist, I afford them every courtesy when I see them, but some I have seen are downright suicidal.

A few weeks back, on the road between Botanical Gardens and the drop to Hunters Bar. Cyclist in proper gear (helmet and reflective top) passes the static traffic on the left. Okay so far. Arrives at the zebra crossing and mounts the kerb nearly hitting a schoolgirl. Rides along the pavement, swings right and straight across the zebra crossing - without looking! (2 offences on the trot). Traffic coming up from Hunters Bar had already started to drive over a clear crossing. He nearly hit a car which was part way across. He gestured to the driver and carried on along the pavement on the other side.

This bloke was clearly an inconsiderate plonker!! Why should any car driver have to pay out when a clown like this hits their car. (even if its only £20 for a new wing mirror)?

No argument... you get fcukwit cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.

As a cyclist and a driver I can say with confidence that I have far more near misses with pedestrians than with cyclists. In the interest of fairness do you want to call for compulsary insurance for pedestrians too? Like I said before, a sense of perspective is required.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 14:34

Originally posted by saxon51
And the perspective being that this has NEVER happened to anyone, and NEVER will I suppose?

Geez, let's all live in make-believe land shall we saxon51!! :loopy:

The perspective is that it rarely happens and is even less likely to happen if you conduct yourself as per the Highway Code.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:36

Originally posted by saxon51
And I find most cars are careful not to hot cyclists cos it costs lives.

I do a 14 mile round trip to work each day through town. Every day at least one driver will pull out in front of me or cut me up. It doesn't feel like most drivers are careful!

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 14:39

Whoah there people, H*nda advert,

"Why can't we all just get along together"

:)

ptigga

15-02-2005, 14:41

Originally posted by saxon51
And I find most cars are careful not to hot cyclists cos it costs lives.

Car drivers are mostly isolated from the consequences of their bad driving and many do not seem to care that their driving costs lives. If I cycled like an idiot and crashed into a car then I would likely end up dead. If I drove like an idiot and crashed then I would likely be unharmed.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:41

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Whoah there people, H*nda advert,

"Why can't we all just get allong together"

:)

Would make life too dull. ;)

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:42

Originally posted by Briano
Geez, let's all live in make-believe land shall we saxon51!! :loopy:

The perspective is that it rarely happens and is even less likely to happen if you conduct yourself as per the Highway Code.

What part of the post I made showed the driver of the car to be breaking the highway code?

And as far perspective is concerned, I am rarely likely to hit another car/pedestrian/cyclist through my own fault, but in case it does happen - in case - I have to have insurance and am financially responsible for any damage caused.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 14:43

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Whoah there people, H*nda advert,

"Why can't we all just get along together"

:)

Booooooorrring!! :hihi:

poppins

15-02-2005, 14:43

Originally posted by Zamo
Environmental issues aside...

If you are hit by one then you are also twice as likely to die then if hit by a convential car because they are higher and squarer (in general).

So they do sound safer to be in one ? anyhow i just said i FEEL safer being in one.

Colorado

15-02-2005, 14:43

Ok Andy78, this has highlighted what this thread is all about.
Opinions. I have my opinion on other cars. I would HATE to drive a small car. I don't like them for many reasons.

I thought that I would post as a 4x4 driving mum who does a school run, with my reasons. I expected people to argue against me as there are so many 4x4 haters out there now, but some people buy them because they want them.

You will be seriously injured if you are in a collision with a bus, coach, lorry, transit van, etc etc therefore they are no more scary on the roads than any of these vehicles.

People buy and have what they want, providing you are qualified to drive it (which I am) and providing you abide by laws and are a considerate driver, and pay all of your taxes and duties why the hell should you be told what you should and shouldn't be driving????

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:45

Originally posted by Zamo
I do a 14 mile round trip to work each day through town. Every day at least one driver will pull out in front of me or cut me up. It doesn't feel like most drivers are careful!

Read my post about the idiot cyclist and the zebra crossing.

I think I only saw a couple of cyclists that day. So by your reckoning, 50% of cyclists are riding like idiots.

Let's all be pedantic shall we!!

saxon51

15-02-2005, 14:49

Originally posted by Colorado
Ok Andy78, this has highlighted what this thread is all about.
Opinions. I have my opinion on other cars. I would HATE to drive a small car. I don't like them for many reasons.

I thought that I would post as a 4x4 driving mum who does a school run, with my reasons. I expected people to argue against me as there are so many 4x4 haters out there now, but some people buy them because they want them.

You will be seriously injured if you are in a collision with a bus, coach, lorry, transit van, etc etc therefore they are no more scary on the roads than any of these vehicles.

People buy and have what they want, providing you are qualified to drive it (which I am) and providing you abide by laws and are a considerate driver, and pay all of your taxes and duties why the hell should you be told what you should and shouldn't be driving????

Fair comments Colorado.

Its not the actual concept of the 4x4 that gets my back up. Its the ones driven by people who wouldn't even be safe in an Austin Metro that rile me.;)

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 14:50

Originally posted by Zamo
Would make life too dull. ;)
Originally posted by Briano
Booooooorrring!! :hihi:
OK, I'll get back in mi hole. :cry:

;)

Zamo

15-02-2005, 14:52

Originally posted by saxon51
What part of the post I made showed the driver of the car to be breaking the highway code?

And as far perspective is concerned, I am rarely likely to hit another car/pedestrian/cyclist through my own fault, but in case it does happen - in case - I have to have insurance and am financially responsible for any damage caused.

Here's some perspective for you...

In 2002 there were 221,751 road accidents reported resulting in 3,431 fatalities. [There are no figures to show what percentage of these were due to cyclist error because it is so low it is not even worth measuring!]

According to the DETR, 2,580 pedal cyclists were killed or seriously injured as a result of road accidents in Great Britain in the year 2002.

Drivers need to be aware that cyclists are vulnerable, in fact for every kilometre traveled they are 14 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car drivers.

Source (http://www.roadsafetyuk.co.uk/DrivAdlt.htm)

ptigga

15-02-2005, 14:53

Originally posted by Colorado

People buy and have what they want, providing you are qualified to drive it (which I am) and providing you abide by laws and are a considerate driver, and pay all of your taxes and duties why the hell should you be told what you should and shouldn't be driving????

No one is telling you, they are just expressing their opinions. As you can from the activity on this thread this is a heated subject and many people have expressed the opinions, as is their right.

In this world you have got to accept that what you do can have an effect on other people's lives and you have to be prepared for that.

You cannot deny that driving your kids to school in a big 4 x 4 causes inconvenience to others. Regardless of what taxes and duties you have paid - you have not negated that inconvenience. You say that you are a considerate driver and that's commendable.

In short no-one is telling you what you can and can't drive. Instead they are discussing the inconvenience caused by 4 x 4s on the school run. Can you accept that these people have valid points? Can you accept that the fact that you've paid all your taxes does not negate the inconvenience caused?

Drive what you like. Just don't expect everyone to cheer for you.

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 14:54

I Have a solution to this Problem

DONT RIDE YOUR BIKE ON THE ROAD

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 14:56

Originally posted by saxon51
What part of the post I made showed the driver of the car to be breaking the highway code?

I never said the driver WAS breaking the highway code!? Simply that if this is followed closely there would be less chance of an accident...

Originally posted by saxon51
And as far perspective is concerned, I am rarely likely to hit another car/pedestrian/cyclist through my own fault, but in case it does happen - in case - I have to have insurance and am financially responsible for any damage caused.

You drive a car/jeep etc. It is faster than a push-bike. It is heavier than a push-bike. It has a much longer stopping distance than a push-bike and it kills far more easily than a push-bike.
When you buy this vehicle and drive it on the road you accept that it is your responsibility to ensure you drive it safely in accordance with every other road and pavement user.
The reason 'you' as a driver are required to have insurance/financial responsibility etc is because you are far more likely to injury someone and are far less in control of your vehicle than a cyclist would be of their bike. This is simply due to speed and weight and power of the car/push-bike in use.

(In this instance I am assuming the car driver and cycle rider are of average ability and use the roads in a correct manner). :thumbsup:

ptigga

15-02-2005, 14:57

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
I Have a solution to this Problem

DONT RIDE YOUR BIKE ON THE ROAD

Um, why not? Are you trolling us?

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:00

Originally posted by ptigga
Um, why not? Are you trolling us?

Well heres some pointers

*you wont get knocked over
*you dont pay insurence (so shouldent be on the road)
*you dont pay tax (so shouldent be on the road)
*you dont have a licence (so shouldent be on the road)

nick2

15-02-2005, 15:02

Wouldn't more cycle lanes sort this out for everyone ?

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:03

Originally posted by nick2
Wouldn't more cycle lanes sort this out for everyone ?

Not at all because cycle lanes are usualy empty and the person on the bike usualy does somthing stupid and then blames the owner of the normal road veichale

*edit* the roads are small enuff with out puting a f**king lane on for idiots

Zamo

15-02-2005, 15:05

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
I Have a solution to this Problem

DONT RIDE YOUR BIKE ON THE ROAD

It's what makes this country great... even the most intellectually challenged are entitle to express an opinion.

Any more gems of wisdom to share?

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:06

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
Well heres some pointers

*you wont get knocked over
*you dont pay insurence (so shouldent be on the road)
*you dont pay tax (so shouldent be on the road)
*you dont have a licence (so shouldent be on the road)

I haven't got the patience to explain all this to you because I suspect that you wouldn't listen if I did, but if you're seriously suggesting that cyclists should not be allowed on the roads then I think you need to educate yourself a lot more about the laws and customs of this country.

Should pedestrians be allowed on the roads? Should we drive door to door on every single journey? Pedestrians meet all four points of your ill thought out criteria.

By the way. That's not the way that you spell "don't" or "shouldn't" or "insurance".

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:06

Originally posted by Zamo
It's what makes this country great... even the most intellectually challenged are entitle to express an opinion.

Any more gems of wisdom to share?

how about you disscuss this insted of trying to insult me or Am i so right you dont have a defence

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:07

Originally posted by ToxicFlames

*edit* the roads are small enuff with out puting a f**king lane on for idiots

You don't deserve your own lane.

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 15:08

Originally posted by ptigga
You cannot deny that driving your kids to school in a big 4 x 4 causes inconvenience to others. Regardless of what taxes and duties you have paid - you have not negated that inconvenience. You say that you are a considerate driver and that's commendable.

In short no-one is telling you what you can and can't drive. Instead they are discussing the inconvenience caused by 4 x 4s on the school run. Can you accept that these people have valid points? Can you accept that the fact that you've paid all your taxes does not negate the inconvenience caused?

Drive what you like. Just don't expect everyone to cheer for you.
Can I just alter what you wrote a little and see if what I wrote instead is really that silly:

"You cannot deny that driving your kids to school causes inconvenience to others. Regardless of what taxes and duties you have paid - you have not negated that inconvenience. You say that you are a considerate driver and that's commendable.

In short no-one is telling you what you can and can't drive. Instead they are discussing the inconvenience caused by the school run. Can you accept that these people have valid points? Can you accept that the fact that you've paid all your taxes does not negate the inconvenience caused?"

I still don't understand why you want to pick on just one type of vehicle. Sorry, but I don't.

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:09

Originally posted by ptigga
I haven't got the patience to explain all this to you because I suspect that you wouldn't listen if I did, but if you're seriously suggesting that cyclists should not be allowed on the roads then I think you need to educate yourself a lot more about the laws and customs of this country.

Should pedestrians be allowed on the roads? Should we drive door to door on every single journey? Pedestrians meet all four points of your ill thought out criteria.

By the way. That's not the way that you spell "don't" or "shouldn't" or "insurance".

so your gonna gimmie a grammer lesson now i dont care if i cant spell

pedestrians dont walk on the road thay dont travle to work walking on the road thay have a pavment witch im sure thay would love to share with push bikes

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:10

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
Well heres some pointers

*you wont get knocked over
*you dont pay insurence (so shouldent be on the road)
*you dont pay tax (so shouldent be on the road)
*you dont have a licence (so shouldent be on the road)

you are a treasure aren't you?

Please read previous posts about being able to use the road. The law says cyclists can use the road. So your opinion about insurance means nothing in the eyes of the law.

Regarding Tax, see above and read the rest of the thread about this matter. Again your opinion is wrong regarding tax and is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Who doesn't have a license? How do you know this?

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:10

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
how about you disscuss this insted of trying to insult me or Am i so right you dont have a defence

i dont need my own lane because im a carefull road user and i get on with overyone else on the road with a licence and tax and an motor

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:13

Originally posted by Andy78
you are a treasure aren't you?

Please read previous posts about being able to use the road. The law says cyclists can use the road. So your opinion about insurance means nothing in the eyes of the law.

Regarding Tax, see above and read the rest of the thread about this matter. Again your opinion is wrong regarding tax and is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Who doesn't have a license? How do you know this?

the laws should be changed

saxon51

15-02-2005, 15:13

Here we go again Zamo.

We are talking about damage caused by careless cyclists in safe conditions here. Not full head on smashes.

I am aware that if a car hits a cyclist at even the slowest of speeds the cyclist will be crippled or dead. That's not what we're on about here. The point about all this is that a cycle is a road going vehicle. As such it comes into close contact with other vehicles which are insured to cover any damage - to anything - that they may cause through their own fault. Bicycles which MAY - and I'm sure this HAS happened - cause damage to other road user or pedestrians do not seem liable for any damage caused.

Its as simple as that.

I hit a cyclist......I pay.

A cyclist hits me.......I pay.

I know they can't advocate compulsory insurance for pushbikes, but it would be right if cyclists were made to pay for any damage they may cause. (to pedestrians on pavements for instance)

Zamo

15-02-2005, 15:14

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
how about you disscuss this insted of trying to insult me or Am i so right you dont have a defence

Yeah, that must be it. May as well close the thread as there is no coming back from your devastating arguments.

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:14

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
the laws should be changed

When are you planning on running for parliment then? Which political party will you join?

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:15

Originally posted by Colorado
Ok Andy78, this has highlighted what this thread is all about.
Opinions. I have my opinion on other cars. I would HATE to drive a small car. I don't like them for many reasons.

I thought that I would post as a 4x4 driving mum who does a school run, with my reasons. I expected people to argue against me as there are so many 4x4 haters out there now, but some people buy them because they want them.

You will be seriously injured if you are in a collision with a bus, coach, lorry, transit van, etc etc therefore they are no more scary on the roads than any of these vehicles.

People buy and have what they want, providing you are qualified to drive it (which I am) and providing you abide by laws and are a considerate driver, and pay all of your taxes and duties why the hell should you be told what you should and shouldn't be driving????

Firstly I can assure you that you do not pay all of my taxes and duties.

Secondly, I'm not telling you what to drive, just pointing out my opinion that you are selfish and have little regard for life. Quite Possibly other people in your situation have little regard for the lives of those that you care about.

Yes there are other dangerous, large vehicles on the road, but some of them are there out of necessity. Busses and trucks aren't usually purchased because the owner thinks that they're cool.

robS35

15-02-2005, 15:16

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToxicFlames
[B]Well heres some pointers

)
*you dont pay tax (so shouldent be on the road)

There is no such thing as road tax. Its called vehicle excise duty a tax on the vehicle not a tax to use the road.

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:17

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
the laws should be changed

Nice answer, but completely moot as you have little power in changing the law.

Colorado

15-02-2005, 15:17

Thanks for that last line foo_fighter I obviously fully agree.

Ptigga - most 'BIG' scary 4x4's are no wider than your average family saloon and no longer - they are just taller. Watch Top Gear or buy a car magazine and get a bit of background on these things, you will then understand that I cause no more problems doing my school run than the average 'mum' in the Mondeo - or should we target them as well?????

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 15:18

Originally posted by Andy78
Busses and trucks aren't usually purchased because the owner thinks that they're cool.
I'd ask Chris Eubank about that one. ;)

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:21

Originally posted by foo_fighter
I'd ask Chris Eubank about that one. ;)

Agreed, but a rare example.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 15:22

Originally posted by Colorado
Thanks for that last line foo_fighter I obviously fully agree.

Ptigga - most 'BIG' scary 4x4's are no wider than your average family saloon and no longer - they are just taller. Watch Top Gear or buy a car magazine and get a bit of background on these things, you will then understand that I cause no more problems doing my school run than the average 'mum' in the Mondeo - or should we target them as well?????

Colorado, lol you make me laugh... :hihi:

That is a load of crap and you know it, 4x4's are generally wider AND longer than your average car. Unless you're talking about the little Suzuki 4x4's...
However most 'mothers with kids' I see on the road in the morning driving a 4x4 have Chrysler Jeeps / land rovers / Mitsubishi's etc...
Maybe you should take a look at Top Gear and read some car magazines yourself! :thumbsup:

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:22

Originally posted by Colorado
Thanks for that last line foo_fighter I obviously fully agree.

Ptigga - most 'BIG' scary 4x4's are no wider than your average family saloon and no longer - they are just taller. Watch Top Gear or buy a car magazine and get a bit of background on these things, you will then understand that I cause no more problems doing my school run than the average 'mum' in the Mondeo - or should we target them as well?????

But they are heavier and have less crumple zone, which is what matters when you hit a pedestrian. Being higher they also make it more difficult for other road users to see past. Plus, they ride higher which means that in a collision with a smaller car - the smaller car will be crushed and yours will survive - hardly fair on the driver of the smaller car.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 15:22

Originally posted by Briano

(In this instance I am assuming the car driver and cycle rider are of average ability and use the roads in a correct manner). :thumbsup:

OK Braino:thumbsup:

Now where were we? Oh yes, 4x4s driven by blind dwarves.:D

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:22

Originally posted by ptigga
When are you planning on running for parliment then? Which political party will you join?

im not im just saying it would sort this problem out if there was a road tax an insurence Or thay wear banned from the roads

i nearly lost my licence last year because of a tw*t who came round the corner with his head down looking at the road as i was pulling in to work. it was ******* it down and his breaks didnt work coz of the rain he told me this after he pushed me up against my car and was shouting his mouth of about riping my head off

i had looked in my mirrors signald and check my mirrors again i got half way in and bang hits the Back side of my Car

he tryed to sue my for damages to his bike whiplash and a dislocated shoulder (after he was quite capable of pushing my against my car) it was ruled out of court and everything was fine But i still have a dint in my Car and no money to fix it

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 15:24

Originally posted by saxon51
OK Braino:thumbsup:

Now where were we? Oh yes, 4x4s driven by blind dwarves.:D

lol :thumbsup: :hihi:

I just knew that if I didn't write that last line you or someone would jump on the bandwagon of .... but what if...... :heyhey:

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 15:29

Originally posted by saxon51
Now where were we? Oh yes, 4x4s driven by blind dwarves.:D
LOL

Am I right in assuming that SUVs were designed by a committee which included Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Attila the Hun (amongst others).

Sounds like it from what some of you are saying.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 15:29

But Braino, what if you hadn't typed that last line.....what then?:heyhey: :)

robS35

15-02-2005, 15:30

Colorado

15-02-2005, 15:30

Gosh I feel really bad now - between Briano and Ptigga I think that I should spend my cash on a little Micra. I would be scared of being squashed by a nasty 4x4 though because they must have lots more accidents than other cars, and when they do they make a nasty mess.......

Whatever I drive and wherever I go I will NOT drive any differently, therefore if an accident happens it happens, maybe a big bin lorry may come along and hit me, if that happened I would be glad I was in my 4x4 and not a Nissan Micra.....

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:32

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
im not im just saying it would sort this problem out if there was a road tax an insurence Or thay wear banned from the roads

i nearly lost my licence last year because of a tw*t who came round the corner with his head down looking at the road as i was pulling in to work. it was ******* it down and his breaks didnt work coz of the rain he told me this after he pushed me up against my car and was shouting his mouth of about riping my head off

i had looked in my mirrors signald and check my mirrors again i got half way in and bang hits the Back side of my Car

he tryed to sue my for damages to his bike whiplash and a dislocated shoulder (after he was quite capable of pushing my against my car) it was ruled out of court and everything was fine But i still have a dint in my Car and no money to fix it

Quite honestly Toxic, I don't have any sympathy with you. You've just described how you pulled across the road in the path of a cyclist. Of course I've only heard your side of it and not his, but at the end of the day you're complaining about a dint in your car and he could have been killed. Have some sense of persepctive. You're not hurt, the cyclist was.

I do agree by the way that it's a good idea for cyclists to have third party insurance. It's not mandatory, but that's because cyclists don't generally kill people when they hit them.

There's a lot more money to be paid out in medical bills when a pedestrian is involved in a car accident and that's why you have to have 3rd party insurance.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 15:33

Originally posted by saxon51
Here we go again Zamo.

We are talking about damage caused by careless cyclists in safe conditions here. Not full head on smashes.

I am aware that if a car hits a cyclist at even the slowest of speeds the cyclist will be crippled or dead. That's not what we're on about here. The point about all this is that a cycle is a road going vehicle. As such it comes into close contact with other vehicles which are insured to cover any damage - to anything - that they may cause through their own fault. Bicycles which MAY - and I'm sure this HAS happened - cause damage to other road user or pedestrians do not seem liable for any damage caused.

Its as simple as that.

I hit a cyclist......I pay.

A cyclist hits me.......I pay.

I know they can't advocate compulsory insurance for pushbikes, but it would be right if cyclists were made to pay for any damage they may cause. (to pedestrians on pavements for instance)

Agreed, ideally, if a cyclist damages your car then it is right that he should pay. However, my point is that this is such a tiny problem that you could never justify the cost involved in changing legislation and trying to enforce it. Simple economics.

You still didn't say whether you think pedestrians should also be forced to take out insurance in case they damage a car... which I am sure happens just as often as cyclists!

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:34

Originally posted by robS35
Im riding my bike boom man walks out into road. I cant avoid him i write off my £3000 carbon fiber bike.

Should pedastrains then have insurance?????

no but if you had insurence the insurence would pay for it

and if you wear on the pavement you wouldent have hit him

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 15:36

Originally posted by Colorado
Gosh I feel really bad now - between Briano and Ptigga I think that I should spend my cash on a little Micra. I would be scared of being squashed by a nasty 4x4 though because they must have lots more accidents than other cars, and when they do they make a nasty mess.......

Whatever I drive and wherever I go I will NOT drive any differently, therefore if an accident happens it happens, maybe a big bin lorry may come along and hit me, if that happened I would be glad I was in my 4x4 and not a Nissan Micra.....

Lol, I think you get me wrong Colorado, I totally agree that you are perfectly entitled to your 4x4. Just as any other person is entitled to swap their small car for a 4x4 if they don't feel safe enough.
But the point you made regarding 4x4's taking up the same area as a car was completely incorrect.

I just hope you don't drive your 4x4 whilst thinking this! :heyhey:

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:36

Originally posted by ptigga
Quite honestly Toxic, I don't have any sympathy with you. You've just described how you pulled across the road in the path of a cyclist. Of course I've only heard your side of it and not his, but at the end of the day you're complaining about a dint in your car and he could have been killed. Have some sense of persepctive. You're not hurt, the cyclist was.

I do agree by the way that it's a good idea for cyclists to have third party insurance. It's not mandatory, but that's because cyclists don't generally kill people when they hit them.

There's a lot more money to be paid out in medical bills when a pedestrian is involved in a car accident and that's why you have to have 3rd party insurance.

if you would like to explain to me how it way my fault when he wasnt there and when i was in the car park he hits the back of me

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:37

Originally posted by Colorado
Gosh I feel really bad now - between Briano and Ptigga I think that I should spend my cash on a little Micra. I would be scared of being squashed by a nasty 4x4 though because they must have lots more accidents than other cars, and when they do they make a nasty mess.......

Whatever I drive and wherever I go I will NOT drive any differently, therefore if an accident happens it happens, maybe a big bin lorry may come along and hit me, if that happened I would be glad I was in my 4x4 and not a Nissan Micra.....

Yes, we get the picture. Me, Me, Me.....yadda yadda yadda. Have you thought about starting your own forum so you could chat to yourself all day? You couldn't have to consider anyone else then.

Zamo

15-02-2005, 15:38

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
no but if you had insurence the insurence would pay for it

and if you wear on the pavement you wouldent have hit him

It's illegal to ride on the pavement.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 15:40

Originally posted by foo_fighter
LOL

Am I right in assuming that SUVs were designed by a committee which included Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Attila the Hun (amongst others).

Sounds like it from what some of you are saying.

But I love 4x4s. They serve a useful purpose, and when driven capably they are as un obtrusive as any other private vehicle.

This feeling soon goes down the pan though when there is a one-in-a-million 'Reginald Molehusband (or his wife)' behind the wheel. Or on that rare occasion when you are unfortunate enough to come face to face with the 'I am bigger than you so therefore I am coming through' brigade.

Funny thing is though, Landrover Defender drivers always seem to be a bit more considerate and capable in my experience.

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:40

Originally posted by Zamo
It's illegal to ride on the pavement.

then it should be made legal

i allways used to ride on the pavment as a kid and i never got stoped. it safer and i dont think thats a law that police concernt themselfs with (if it is actully illigal)

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:41

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
no but if you had insurence the insurence would pay for it

and if you wear on the pavement you wouldent have hit him

It's against the law for cyclists to ride on the pavement.

Please can you learn to spell.

Colorado

15-02-2005, 15:44

Briano I am fully aware of the size of my vehicle, length width and height, as a 4x4 driver has to be when they have to know if they can fit under certain restrictions, or in certain gaps.

The 'school run mum' can be a problem I admit - I see them as well - in many different types of vehicle.

As for size comparisons I was comparing some of them to a larger family car on length and width, check them out next time you are out and about.

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:44

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
then it should be made legal

i allways used to ride on the pavment as a kid and i never got stoped. it safer and i dont think thats a law that police concernt themselfs with (if it is actully illigal)

Yes it's illegal. As I said regardless of your opinion, the law stands as it is and is unlikely to change.

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:44

Originally posted by ptigga
It's against the law for cyclists to ride on the pavement.

Please can you learn to spell.

this isnt about spelling but since you wanna try to insult me id like to say im dislexic and i am actully taking education to try to concer this problem now as you people have said HAVE SOME CONCIDERATION

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:45

Originally posted by Colorado
Briano I am fully aware of the size of my vehicle, length width and height, as a 4x4 driver has to be when they have to know if they can fit under certain restrictions, or in certain gaps.

The 'school run mum' can be a problem I admit - I see them as well - in many different types of vehicle.

As for size comparisons I was comparing some of them to a larger family car on length and width, check them out next time you are out and about.

OK. Lets have a laugh. What model of 4x4 do you drive Colorado?

I'm suspecting that it's not going to be a Toyota Rav 4.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 15:45

I'll never forget riding a bike on the pavement in Germany when I was younger. A police car stopped me and started telling me off... that was until I said "I am English".
They then wished me a good day and let me ride off.... still on the pavement. :hihi:

(Doesn't seem to work over here thought for some reason.. :hihi: )

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:46

Originally posted by Andy78
Yes it's illegal. As I said regardless of your opinion, the law stands as it is and is unlikely to change.

tell me a down side to riding on the pavment

its safer for one

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:47

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
this isnt about spelling but since you wanna try to insult me id like to say im dislexic and i am actully taking education to try to concer this problem now as you people have said HAVE SOME CONCIDERATION

I suggest that you use a spell checker.

Colorado

15-02-2005, 15:47

Ptigga - Golly gosh how fast are you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:48

Originally posted by ptigga
I suggest that you use a spell checker.

i suggest you mind ya bussness

why should i do something for you

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 15:49

Originally posted by Colorado
As for size comparisons I was comparing some of them to a larger family car on length and width, check them out next time you are out and about.

Lol, oh so now it's a 'larger family car'.... and pray, what do you define as a 'larger family car'!? :loopy:

The bus? :clap: :heyhey:

Andy78

15-02-2005, 15:50

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
tell me a down side to riding on the pavment

its safer for one

More likely to cause harm to a pedestrian. Cycles travel too fast for a pavement and would end up weaving in and out of people.

robS35

15-02-2005, 15:51

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
no but if you had insurence the insurence would pay for it

and if you wear on the pavement you wouldent have hit him

But if the pedestrain had insurance i could claim off them.

And yes i do have insurance for my bike theft crash damage and 3rd party, and i think maybe some sort of compulsory insurance for cyclist would be a good idea but how would it work. Would you have to insure the kids when there out on there MTBs or BMXs. Its just wouldnt work.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 15:52

Originally posted by Briano
A police car stopped me and started telling me off.......

Bloody hell Briano......can BMWs do that as well now?:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :confused:

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:53

Originally posted by Andy78
More likely to cause harm to a pedestrian. Cycles travel too fast for a pavement and would end up weaving in and out of people.

Then slow down set off earlyer to your destination and be carefull

your more likly to get hurt on the road than on the pavment rather hit soft skin and bone that shiny hard Metal

robS35

15-02-2005, 15:55

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToxicFlames
[B]Then slow down set off earlyer to your destination and be carefull

If only vehicle drivers did that.

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:55

Originally posted by robS35
But if the pedestrain had insurance i could claim off them.

And yes i do have insurance for my bike theft crash damage and 3rd party, and i think maybe some sort of compulsory insurance for cyclist would be a good idea but how would it work. Would you have to insure the kids when there out on there MTBs or BMXs. Its just wouldnt work.

course it would work

robS35

15-02-2005, 15:56

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
course it would work

Go on then explain ?

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 15:56

Originally posted by saxon51
Bloody hell Briano......can BMWs do that as well now?:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :confused:

:hihi: Yeah it's amazing, but what's more amazing was that it wasn't a BMW... it was a VW!!?? :o

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:57

Originally posted by robS35
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToxicFlames
[B]Then slow down set off earlyer to your destination and be carefull

If only vehicle drivers did that.

i dont disagree drivers shouldnt speed but how menny people do you know that speed in morning traffici never get over the speed limit dont even do that some days mostly jams

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 15:58

Originally posted by robS35
Go on then explain ?

explain how insurence policys work?

Zamo

15-02-2005, 15:58

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
Then slow down set off earlyer to your destination and be carefull

your more likly to get hurt on the road than on the pavment rather hit soft skin and bone that shiny hard Metal

Why do you drive to work?

ptigga

15-02-2005, 15:58

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
tell me a down side to riding on the pavment

its safer for one

It's not safer. You encounter more junctions with side roads and you have to negotiate the traffic with no right of way. You risk hitting pedestrians and wheelchair users and their dogs.

You will find it difficult to mantain a decent speed on the pavement. 20 MPH may be a safe speed on the road, but it's lethal on a pavement - especially where you can't see round corners.

Roads are more continous than pavements and you have the same right of way as the other road traffic. This means that you will be treated like other traffic. i.e. cars will give you the same priorty at roundabouts and junctions as they do to other cars.

The downside of riding on the roads is that you do occasionally get stuck behind other traffic, but heh, if you don't like that then you can always dismount and walk on the pavement.

Just to drive this point home: Riding on the pavement is more likely to cause you to have an accident with a car than riding on the roads. Most such accidents happen at turnings into side roads.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 15:58

So, why don't pedestrians have compulsory insurance for the damage they may cause to cars?

SIMPLE......we are all natural pedestrians, and as such don't have any choice in the matter. A vehicle however is an additional danger and obstruction placed in the way of pedestrians. And as such has to compensate for this added danger.

Do you like that? I just made it up.:D

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 16:00

Originally posted by Zamo
Why do you drive to work?

coz i have a car and its paid for and im less likly to die im my little blue box

* i can listen to music
* i can take my ecuipment home with me so it dont get nicked
* i i enjoy driving

saxon51

15-02-2005, 16:01

Originally posted by Briano
:hihi: Yeah it's amazing, but what's more amazing was that it wasn't a BMW... it was a VW!!?? :o

Ahh!...The one with the arab accent. VW Tuareg(sp?):thumbsup:

beckyaa

15-02-2005, 16:02

Originally posted by Cyclone
is there anyone who would like to offer a defence for driving an SUV or Jeep with no identifiable need, or a defence for driving there children <2 miles to school?

Otherwise we are just all agreeing and whilst it's nice to know that we aren't the only ones who feel this way, it gets pretty pointless to carry on the thread.

My mum used to walk 2 miles with me and my brother to our primary school, twice a day. When my older brother went to secondary school, he walked on his own, I carried on walking with my mum.

After the second time my brother was mugged and beaten up on his way home during his first term at school, my mum decided she had no choice but to drive us. To walk would have meant a 6 mile round trip, and she worked part time as well.

But that was not in a 4x4, it was a little Polo.

As for cyclists and 4x4's....

When I lived in the Middle East, my friends mum had an accident in her 4x4 (which she needed since there was no road to their house, only a sand track). She hit a cyclist (she was on the main road at the time), an Indian man. She phoned emergency services, and the police turned up (no ambulance, despite the fact that the Indian man was lying in the road and it turned ou he had a broken leg) and arrested HIM!!! She was protesting and kept telling them it was her fault, not his, but apparently his 'crime' of "willfull damage to private property" was more serious than his broken leg. I am not joking, this really did happen! :loopy:

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 16:03

Originally posted by ptigga
wheelchair users and their dogs.

.

so everyone with a wheelchair has a dog

walk then dont ride your bike
take the bus
get a cab
train
hellicopter
plain
tractor

or buy a scooter or motor bike

or heres a great idea

BUY A CAR!

robS35

15-02-2005, 16:04

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
i dont disagree drivers shouldnt speed but how menny people do you know that speed in morning traffici never get over the speed limit dont even do that some days mostly jams

Yes traffic in a morning on the way into town isnt all that fast but if you set off say 20 / 30 mins earlier you might not be in such a rush and less likely to take un-necessary risks like cutting me up, pulling out in front of me ect

Zamo

15-02-2005, 16:04

Originally posted by Zamo
Why do you drive to work?

Sorry, I was baiting in order to comeback with a **** taking response but there's no point. There is no fun in trying to win an argument with someone who is clearly ESN.

I'm off home. All users of the A621 beware of fired up cyclist for the next 30 minutes!

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 16:06

Originally posted by robS35
Yes traffic in a morning on the way into town isnt all that fast but if you set off say 20 / 30 mins earlier you might not be in such a rush and less likely to take un-necessary risks like cutting me up, pulling out in front of me ect

I Dont need to et out earlyer i can get to work what ever time i want as long as i do my 8 hours im fine so im never in a rush

robS35

15-02-2005, 16:07

Originally posted by Zamo
Sorry, I was baiting in order to comeback with a **** taking response but there's no point. There is no fun in trying to win an argument with someone who is clearly ESN.

I'm off home. All users of the A621 beware of fired up cyclist for the next 30 minutes!

I will be amazed if you get home without at least 1 or 2 near misses involving the rush hour traffic

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 16:08

saxon51

15-02-2005, 16:09

Hi Zamo, glad you got home okay:thumbsup:

That was a close shave near Dore Station wasn't it?

Get ya next time:heyhey:

ptigga

15-02-2005, 16:11

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
I Dont need to et out earlyer i can get to work what ever time i want as long as i do my 8 hours im fine so im never in a rush

Good for you. By the way your spelling and typing is getting worse as this thread progresses.

beansfeast

15-02-2005, 16:11

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 16:12

Originally posted by ptigga
Good for you. By the way your spelling and typing is getting worse as this thread progresses.

Thunks glab to heaere it mate

algy

15-02-2005, 16:19

Originally posted by Zamo
I also drive a car, as do all my friends and family. That has never happen to me or anyone I know! I little perspective might not go amiss!
Well it happened to me on Fulwood Road. I was stationary in traffic when a middle-aged cyclist tried to get down the nearside when there obviously wasn't enough room. Having scraped along the side of the car he stopped, glared at me through the windscreen and cycled off before I could get out or say anything. If bikes had to be registered like other vehicles at least I'd have had a number to trace. Cyclists know they can't be identified or traced so they don't give a damn.:rant:

ToxicFlames

15-02-2005, 16:21

15-02-2005, 16:51

Originally posted by tara
Yes and not only do they take the road up when they park,
They also have the car door flung open right across the pavement when they let the little darlings out, so no one can get past.
And as for driving their kids to comprehensive schools, thats just babyish.
no one gets picked on more at school, than a mollicoddled teenager.
they should be finding their own way to school at their age.
2 miles or not let them get on a bus.
what they gonna do when they start work, still have mommy driving them there.

Short of having an ejector seat fitted perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on how you exit a car without opening the door.:confused:

saxon51

15-02-2005, 16:57

Originally posted by Mo
Short of having an ejector seat fitted perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on how you exit a car without opening the door.:confused:

Hold it partially open and be aware of pedestrians so they can close it a little when they want to get past.

Imagine it.

4x4 driver noticing pedestrian approaching and moving door, "Sorry about that."

Pedestrian continuing on their way, "That's okay. Thanks."

Possible drawback = Trapping kid's head in door.:gag:

15-02-2005, 16:59

Originally posted by DannyBoy
Fine, but you wouldn't be clapping if it was YOUR child who had been refused a place at the LOCAL school. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that is a little insensitive.

Some people, of course, choose to go out of catchment and they add to the school-run traffic. Broomhill is especially bad, given the proliferation of schools in a very small area.

Are you so small minded that you can't see that I wasn't clapping at you?

If I was to move to a new area I would first of all have made sure that there was a place for my child in the local school. If there wasn't then I would have had to question whether or not it was worth moving. I wouldn't move and then start bleating that I couldn't get in.

foo_fighter

15-02-2005, 17:32

saxon51: sorry, did it again, the LOL was aimed at your previous post, the rest to others.

All: Does anybody know where this thread is going anymore?

sccsux

15-02-2005, 17:54

Originally posted by Zamo
The say offense is the best form of defence but your argument is plain silly!

Cars are different. They cause death and major damage when they are involved in accidents and therefore insurance is a sensible requirement. Cyclist do not. Get it?

As a pedestrian.......

I have been knocked over twice by motor vehicles -

Once on the crossing near Bassets (before the widening of Penistone Road) where the driver failed to see the lights had changed. He stopped and offered me his details, which I declined (stupid I know, but I was only 13 @ the time;))

The other time was when I walked out in front of a bus (rather than waiting till it had moved off) whilst crossing the road and I didn't see the car that was over taking the bus I had just alighted from. My fault. Again ,the driver of the car stopped, the bus driver radioed for an ambulance.

I have been knocked over twice by cyclists in Hillsborough (Middlewood Road - when Hillsborough baths was a swimming baths) on the crossing that was @ the bottom of Forbes Road (they didn't stop for the RED light).

The 1st one simply carried on speeding down Middlewood Road.

The second one stopped when I kicked his back wheel as he tried to continue!

I have not (as yet) been knocked over by a 4X4.

I have, however, had one inconsiderat 4X4 drive, use my car as a Tank Park!

I just hope the insurance on these things make it economically unviable for people to use these things.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 19:28

Originally posted by foo_fighter

All: Does anybody know where this thread is going anymore?

Down the pan by the looks of it.

Anyone heard from Zamo yet?

He left work ages ago for his 30 min cycle ride home. Hope he kept his knees in and signalled before overtaking all the 4x4s parked up on Abbeydale Road.:heyhey:

Cyclone

15-02-2005, 20:54

my god, this thread has gone insane.

Just to continue the thread.

I have never been in an accident as a pedestrian.
I have hit another car which was stationary (parked) as a car driver.

As a cyclist I have been forced off the road by a lorry once and run into by a woman looking the wrong way as she entered the roundabout i was using. I have never hit another vehicle or to my recollection a pedestrian or other bike.

If I damaged a car by scraping down the inside, i'd most likely offer to pay for the damage to be repaired.
Insurance is not required as the law exists to enforce my payment for damage caused by negligence. The only point of insurance would be if the likely amount of damage would exceed my available means, which is unlikely as I my bike isn't going to write anyones car off.

As to ToxicFlames posts, they are most amusing, I presume they are just intended to make people laugh?

People have already addressed all your points, but i think i'll summarise for you.

Riding on the pavement is a) illegal, b) far more dangerous than the road.
Insurance for cyclists is not required, see my rationale in previous paragraph.
Road tax does not exist, you pay vehicle excise tax for owning a car, I pay it as well, but sometimes I choose to use a pushbike.
As to why we should use bikes, it's healthier, it's more environmentally friendly, it gets us through the congestion more easily and if more of us did it, those left on the road would have less congestion to contend with.
Given your attitude towards bikes i'm not sure you should be allowed on the road in your blue box.

Slightly off topic (and don't take this personally) recent studies have shown that (on average) a dsylexic persons reaction time is equivalent to a non dsylexic person who's had 2 pints of beer! Interesting, no?

The argument about the 4*4, which is what started this, is related somewhat to social conscience really.
You understand that you pollute more, and that you are more likely to kill other people if an accident happens.
Some people justify this to themselves, basically with the reasoning that they like it, so stuff everyone else.
Everyone else thinks, goddamn, that's very selfish.

As long as you're happy that most people consider you selfish, carry on driving your unneccesary SUV's.

saxon51

15-02-2005, 21:00

That's right Cyclone mate, don't pull your punches.:thumbsup:

DannyBoy

15-02-2005, 21:07

Originally posted by Mo
Are you so small minded that you can't see that I wasn't clapping at you?

If I was to move to a new area I would first of all have made sure that there was a place for my child in the local school. If there wasn't then I would have had to question whether or not it was worth moving. I wouldn't move and then start bleating that I couldn't get in.

*Sigh*. I know you weren't clapping "at" me as such. You were clapping at the fact that classes no longer have 45 in. Fine in theory. But I don't find that something to rejoice about if it means children from the catchment are being turned away.

You make it sound so easy. I wish it was. "I would first of all have made sure that there was a place for my child in the local school." I don't know if you are a parent, so you may not be aware of how the applications system works. We had to apply for the school in March; we couldn't complete on our house until July. There would have been little point applying for a place in the school in a new area if we couldn't get the house. We didn't risk it. We were led to believe - wrongly - that if we went on the waiting-list, a place would be likely to come up. It didn't. And it's not as if houses in our chosen area come on the market all the time.

People using words like "bleating" does not do wonders for my blood-pressure, especially after the humiliating process we have been through over the last few months. Anyone who has been through the experience of having their child turn down and then having to appeal will tell you that it's no picnic. I assume from your reaction that it's never happened to you; I hope it never does.

To get back on topic, :) I cannot drive for a medical reason which I don't particularly want to go into at length here. My daughter and I get the bus every morning and the traffic on the roads slows everything to a crawl. Pretty much every car only has one person in, as well. I'd also agree with the obsservation that some people drive their children to school from two or three streets away, which just seems daft if they are they not going on to work.

ptigga

15-02-2005, 23:15

Originally posted by Cyclone
my god, this thread has gone insane.

[Lots of good points]

Agree with everything you've said Cyclone. Very well said.

foo_fighter

16-02-2005, 07:37

Originally posted by Cyclone
my god, this thread has gone insane.

The argument about the 4*4, which is what started this, is related somewhat to social conscience really.

Point 1, agreed

Point 2, Being (a little) pedantic here, but I think if you check back the original point was about inconsiderate/rubish drivers. The fact they were in "Chelsea tractors" was coincidental. It then degenerated into a SUV bashing, and car vs cycle thread, as so many do.

To paraphrase Hill Street Blues (god I'm old), "Let's just be safe out there people." :)

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 07:59

quite true. But it still comes back to social conscience.

To drive 200 m in whatever vehicle to school to drop off a child is selfish, and damaging their and everyone elses health.

foo_fighter

16-02-2005, 08:09

Originally posted by Cyclone
quite true. But it still comes back to social conscience.

To drive 200 m in whatever vehicle to school to drop off a child is selfish, and damaging their and everyone elses health.
Quite true, I agree 100% with that, always have.

As you say, it's all about consideration, if the driver in the original case had any, there wouldn't be a problem, because

a) they wouldn't be there (unless really neccessary), or

b) they wouldn't pull out on people in a dangerous manner

As has been said, if people think a little, there are valid alternatives, and we should all use them, whenever possible.

16-02-2005, 08:14

Originally posted by Cyclone
quite true. But it still comes back to social conscience.

To drive 200 m in whatever vehicle to school to drop off a child is selfish, and damaging their and everyone elses health.

Cyclone forgive me if I'm repeating what has already been said but I'm not up for dredging thro' 14 pages......... is it really fair to blame the school run on increase traffic congestion and pollution?
What about the fact that we used to have corner/local shops and we now have to take the car to the supermarket? We used to have suburban cinemas whereas we now have to travel miles to Warners etc?
We used to be closer to our places of work but now our jobs are centralised to some distant place?
We used to have a public transport system second to none in terms of effiency and cheapness in South Yorkshire but now we don't.

There are many contributing factors to increased traffic on our roads so don't lay all the blame on the school run.

PS People who drive 200m to school are not the norm.

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 08:18

just because there are other factors that also cause these problems doesn't exonerate the school runners.

anyone who drives during both school holidays and school time can clearly see the difference getting rid of all those mums makes, it's amazing.

16-02-2005, 08:24

Originally posted by DannyBoy
*Sigh*. I know you weren't clapping "at" me as such. You were clapping at the fact that classes no longer have 45 in. Fine in theory. But I don't find that something to rejoice about if it means children from the catchment are being turned away.

You make it sound so easy. I wish it was. "I would first of all have made sure that there was a place for my child in the local school." I don't know if you are a parent, so you may not be aware of how the applications system works. We had to apply for the school in March; we couldn't complete on our house until July. There would have been little point applying for a place in the school in a new area if we couldn't get the house. We didn't risk it. We were led to believe - wrongly - that if we went on the waiting-list, a place would be likely to come up. It didn't. And it's not as if houses in our chosen area come on the market all the time.

People using words like "bleating" does not do wonders for my blood-pressure, especially after the humiliating process we have been through over the last few months. Anyone who has been through the experience of having their child turn down and then having to appeal will tell you that it's no picnic. I assume from your reaction that it's never happened to you; I hope it never does.

To get back on topic, :) I cannot drive for a medical reason which I don't particularly want to go into at length here. My daughter and I get the bus every morning and the traffic on the roads slows everything to a crawl. Pretty much every car only has one person in, as well. I'd also agree with the obsservation that some people drive their children to school from two or three streets away, which just seems daft if they are they not going on to work.

Yes I am a parent.

Yes I have applied to a school and been refused.

Yes I have been through the appeal procedure albeit in Derbyshire.

I am not insensitive to your problem at all but I still think that you have to take some responsibility yourself.

I know that there are areas in Sheffied where people buy houses thinking that they will be sure of a place in (shall we say) one the the 'better' more popular schools in catchment. They move and then throw their hands up in horror when there is no place for them, when a little homework beforehand in the form of an informal phone call to the school would have put them clearly in the picture.

I wouldn'y buy a house without a drive if I had a car. I wouldn't buy a house not on a bus route if I didn't have a car and I wouldn't move to an area whose local school didn't have places unless I was prepared to travel.

16-02-2005, 08:53

Originally posted by robbie
what is it with parents. Why can't kids walked to school ?

Mums go to work these days you see robbie and so they tend to drop their children off on the way there.

:rolleyes:

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 08:56

Originally posted by Mo
Mums go to work these days you see robbie and so they tend to drop their children off on the way there.

:rolleyes:

which doesn't actually answer the question. Just because they can be dropped off doesn't mean they should be.

16-02-2005, 08:58

Originally posted by Cyclone
which doesn't actually answer the question. Just because they can be dropped off doesn't mean they should be.

What should mum do then? Should she walk the children to school and then walk home and then possibly pass the school on her way driving to work? I think you are being ridiculous now.

DannyBoy

16-02-2005, 10:10

Originally posted by Mo
Yes I am a parent.
Yes I have applied to a school and been refused.
Yes I have been through the appeal procedure albeit in Derbyshire.

You know what it's like, then, although I don't know how the situation with school places in Derbyshire compares with Sheffield. Cities tend to be more competitive, but I don't want to generalise; I'm sure it depends where you live in the county.

I am not insensitive to your problem at all but I still think that you have to take some responsibility yourself. I know that there are areas in Sheffied where people buy houses thinking that they will be sure of a place in (shall we say) one the the 'better' more popular schools in catchment. They move and then throw their hands up in horror when there is no place for them, when a little homework beforehand in the form of an informal phone call to the school would have put them clearly in the picture.

We were in the picture. We took plenty of responsibility ourselves, including phoning the LEA up - more than once. As I thought my previous post made clear, we did all the research by the book. We didn't move thinking we would be sure of a place, but we were first on the waiting-list and were told that last year places had come up. Not unreasonable to work on that assumption. All I can do is reiterate that houses don't come up all the time round here, and so not to have moved when we could would have been daft. When we didn't get the place, we appealed, as the 30 limit can be exceeded in "exceptional" circumstances. I'm not quite sure what you have to do to be more exceptional, but there you are. We're going to keep trying.

Now we have a 4-mile round trip every day. We didn't move for a "better" school, in fact - there is nothing, in results terms, to choose between the primary we go to and the one we want. I just happen to believe that children should go to their LOCAL primary school, and that nobody, either by choice or otherwise, should drive their kids across town or have to get the bus with them (certainly before the age of 11, anyway) in order to take them to school.

There is far too much catchment-crossing in Sheffield, all of which adds to the traffic being discussed here, and some of it could be avoided. I used to walk to infants' school and so did all of my friends - we all lived locally. (Yes, some of the classes had over 30 pupils in, but I don't consider that to have blighted my education irreparably.)

Sometimes, of course, a parent will be taking one child to a primary school and another to a secondary, and the buses provided may not always be conveniently timed or located for this, so that's one set of circumstances in which it's understandable for them to do the school-run in the car.

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 10:33

Originally posted by Mo
What should mum do then? Should she walk the children to school and then walk home and then possibly pass the school on her way driving to work? I think you are being ridiculous now.

she should put her children out of the house 5 minutes earlier and tell them to walk. Probably as a group with all the other children doing the same thing (thus no safety issue).

She can then take an extra 5 mins at home herself secure in the knowledge that she doesn't have to detour past the school, and that overall less traffic will be on the road (as all the other mums are doing the same).

incognito

16-02-2005, 11:02

Some people, of course, choose to go out of catchment and they add to the school-run traffic. Broomhill is especially bad, given the proliferation of schools in a very small area. [/B]

We chose to go out of catchment, but we are good boys and girls and get the 2 buses/bus+tram to school :D :clap: :hihi:

Zamo

16-02-2005, 12:19

Originally posted by algy
Well it happened to me on Fulwood Road. I was stationary in traffic when a middle-aged cyclist tried to get down the nearside when there obviously wasn't enough room. Having scraped along the side of the car he stopped, glared at me through the windscreen and cycled off before I could get out or say anything. If bikes had to be registered like other vehicles at least I'd have had a number to trace. Cyclists know they can't be identified or traced so they don't give a damn.:rant:

You want number plates on bicycles? Be realistic, the cost of licensing bikes and making insurance compulsary could not be justified when you take an objective and perspective view of the "problem" it would be solving.

Face it. Every time someone gets on a bike instead of using their car they are helping to protect the environment, they are less likely to kill someone, they are less likely to cause damage to someone's property and they reduce traffic on the roads making journey times quicker for all. On that basis do you not think Government should be doing more to encourage people to use bikes rather than make it more difficult and more expensive?

rinty

16-02-2005, 12:59

Originally posted by Cyclone
she should put her children out of the house 5 minutes earlier and tell them to walk. Probably as a group with all the other children doing the same thing (thus no safety issue).

She can then take an extra 5 mins at home herself secure in the knowledge that she doesn't have to detour past the school, and that overall less traffic will be on the road (as all the other mums are doing the same).

What a load of crap!

You are as arrogant as the drivers you are ranting against.

Clearly you have no kids, therefore you are not qualified to talk about it. Putting a 5 or 6 year old 'out' to go to school is gross negligence.

re the comment earlier in this thread regarding lighter traffic during school holidays - it has nothing to do with the 'school run'. Many working parents have to take time off work to look after their kids and it's that that reduces traffic.

Besides, there's very little less traffic this week than normal.

rinty

16-02-2005, 13:01

BTW, when I don't have to ferry the kids around, I cycle to work.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to do it as much as I like over the last few years.

foxy27

16-02-2005, 13:02

Its alright at the moment with it being half term i find doing my early morning deliverys so much easier without hesitant female 4x4's slowing me down!

alchresearch

16-02-2005, 13:06

Originally posted by Briano
Even in my Focus the tracking has to be realigned every few weeks... and before anyone says it, I always slow down for speed bumps and stick to speed limits in built up areas... makes no difference to the tracking though!

If you're driving carefully there is no way you should need to have your tracking done every few weeks. That sounds like a fault with the car - or you're bumping the kerb far too much!

foo_fighter

16-02-2005, 13:40

Originally posted by rinty
Besides, there's very little less traffic this week than normal.
Pantomime moment: "Ohh yes there is !"

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 14:14

Originally posted by rinty
What a load of crap!

You are as arrogant as the drivers you are ranting against.

Clearly you have no kids, therefore you are not qualified to talk about it. Putting a 5 or 6 year old 'out' to go to school is gross negligence.

re the comment earlier in this thread regarding lighter traffic during school holidays - it has nothing to do with the 'school run'. Many working parents have to take time off work to look after their kids and it's that that reduces traffic.

Besides, there's very little less traffic this week than normal.

yes, groups of 5 and 6 year olds are completely incapable of walking a few hundred metres to school.

I may not have children, but you won't be surprised to learn that I was one once, and at the time knew a few others. We all have experience of being children to draw on.

ToxicFlames

16-02-2005, 15:18

Originally posted by Cyclone

*As to why we should use bikes, it's healthier, it's more environmentally friendly, it gets us through the congestion more easily and if more of us did it, those left on the road would have less congestion to contend with.

*Given your attitude towards bikes i'm not sure you should be allowed on the road in your blue box.

*Slightly off topic (and don't take this personally) recent studies have shown that (on average) a dsylexic persons reaction time is equivalent to a non dsylexic person who's had 2 pints of beer! Interesting, no?

im quite healthy driving to Football and basketball every week
the congestion would be worse couse we would have 1000s of t**ts i mean cyclists on the left hand side of us and we wouldent be able to turn left as much so holding up other trafic

and the only reson bikes get in front is for some reson most push bike users seem to think that thay dont need to take any notice of traffic lights and just **** off through them (ive seen loads of people do it ) and im not talking pushing on the pavment and round the lights stright through the red

And could you explain more why I Shouldent be on the road

also whats my dsylexia got to do with the price of fish
inface whats the price of fish got to do with anything other than the actual price of fish

ptigga

16-02-2005, 15:21

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
im quite healthy driving to Football and basketball every week
the congestion would be worse couse we would have 1000s of t**ts i mean cyclists on the left hand side of us and we wouldent be able to turn left as much so holding up other trafic

and the only reson bikes get in front is for some reson most push bike users seem to think that thay dont need to take any notice of traffic lights and just **** off through them (ive seen loads of people do it ) and im not talking pushing on the pavment and round the lights stright through the red

And could you explain more why I Shouldent be on the road

also whats my dsylexia got to do with the price of fish
inface whats the price of fish got to do with anything other than the actual price of fish

Give up. You're not making any sense. You're spouting rubbish and there's no need to mention your dyslexia so much.

I call you a troll, i.e these are not your real opinions - you're just voicing them to get an angry response from the rest of us. Your username is Toxicflames afer all.

saxon51

16-02-2005, 15:25

Originally posted by ptigga
Give up. You're not making any sense. You're spouting rubbish and there's no need to mention your dyslexia so much.

Seems a bit intermittent as well.:suspect:

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 15:35

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
im quite healthy driving to Football and basketball every week
the congestion would be worse couse we would have 1000s of t**ts i mean cyclists on the left hand side of us and we wouldent be able to turn left as much so holding up other trafic

and the only reson bikes get in front is for some reson most push bike users seem to think that thay dont need to take any notice of traffic lights and just **** off through them (ive seen loads of people do it ) and im not talking pushing on the pavment and round the lights stright through the red

And could you explain more why I Shouldent be on the road

also whats my dsylexia got to do with the price of fish
inface whats the price of fish got to do with anything other than the actual price of fish

you'd be healthier if you used your bike to get there wouldn't you. That's not so hard to understand is it?

Cyclist don't stop you turning left, at least not if you're driving properly.

I agree cyclists shouldn't shoot the lights.

Because you appear to lack respect for other valid road users and probably pose a danger to them with the attitude your expressing.

You kept bringing it up, it just reminded me of the study that says you are a more dangerous driver than an equivalent non dsylexic you.

ToxicFlames

16-02-2005, 15:36

Originally posted by ptigga
Give up. You're not making any sense. You're spouting rubbish and there's no need to mention your dyslexia so much.

I call you a troll, i.e these are not your real opinions - you're just voicing them to get an angry response from the rest of us. Your username is Toxicflames afer all.

Im not trying to rile anyone up the name is there coz its my band name and my opinions about bike is real thay shouldent be on the road

ToxicFlames

16-02-2005, 15:41

Originally posted by Cyclone
you'd be healthier if you used your bike to get there wouldn't you. That's not so hard to understand is it?

Cyclist don't stop you turning left, at least not if you're driving properly.

I agree cyclists shouldn't shoot the lights.

Because you appear to lack respect for other valid road users and probably pose a danger to them with the attitude your expressing.

You kept bringing it up, it just reminded me of the study that says you are a more dangerous driver than an equivalent non dsylexic you.

there nothing wrong with my reactions its my spelling and i dont keep bringing it up i mentioned it once to put a point across why my spelling is poor i have respect for everyone on the road with a motor and if i wanna turn left and ive signals and theres a 100 cyclists going down the left hand side of me like thay do i would have to wait for then to go b4 i could pull in to the car park entance

and how would i get our kit from my house and pick up my mates on a bike

Draggletail

16-02-2005, 15:47

Originally posted by pb1977
Yes but why do people that have not reserved a seat still want to sit in a reserved seat.
'Cos they like to take the ****? It annoys me, too:nono:

Andy78

16-02-2005, 15:52

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
...if i wanna turn left and ive signals and theres a 100 cyclists going down the left hand side of me like thay do i would have to wait for then to go b4 i could pull in to the car park entance

Erm yes you would. that's the rules of the road.

...i have respect for everyone on the road with a motor...

You see, now that sounds like a bit of a worrying statement to me. Say for example, you've got a kid on a bike following the rules of the road taught to them in their cycling proficiency test. Would you have no respect for them or their safety as a road user? What about really dangerous drivers, do you respect them just because they have an engine?

Cyclone

16-02-2005, 15:53

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
there nothing wrong with my reactions its my spelling and i dont keep bringing it up i mentioned it once to put a point across why my spelling is poor i have respect for everyone on the road with a motor and if i wanna turn left and ive signals and theres a 100 cyclists going down the left hand side of me like thay do i would have to wait for then to go b4 i could pull in to the car park entance

and how would i get our kit from my house and pick up my mates on a bike

scientific fact, dsylexic people have slower reactions (on average).

That's my point. You respect only a portion of road users, thus you are a danger to others and shouldn't be on the road yourself.

Unless you are driving at about 5 miles per hour there won't be many cyclists undertaking you on the left will there. Try to construct arguments that at least make sense.

If you were passing the cyclists then yes, you would have to slow down a litle in order to turn left.

You'd carry your kit in a rucksack. Your mates could all get on bikes as well.

You've conviently ignored the fact that riding a bike on the pavement is far more dangerous to the cyclist, pedestrians and to people turning into side roads than it is if the bike is ridden on the road.

Nor have you actually provided any good reason that only motor vehicles should be on the road. Afterall, roads were around long before cars...

ToxicFlames

16-02-2005, 16:07

scientific fact, dsylexic people have slower reactions (on average).

ive done tests my reations are fine

That's my point. You respect only a portion of road users, thus you are a danger to others and shouldn't be on the road yourself.

i treat everyone the same what ever is on the road coz i dont wanna kill anyone i just dont respect push bike riders

Unless you are driving at about 5 miles per hour there won't be many cyclists undertaking you on the left will there. Try to construct arguments that at least make sense.

im stoped in the left hand lane waiting for all the bikes to pass as thay just go past on the left

You'd carry your kit in a rucksack.
Your mates could all get on bikes as well.

my mates live to far away from the place we play and a car would get us there quicker

You've conviently ignored the fact that riding a bike on the pavement is far more dangerous to the cyclist, pedestrians and to people turning into side roads than it is if the bike is ridden on the road.

i dont see how it is i used to ride my bike on the pavment all the time and nothing ever went wrong no one was ****** of with me on the pavment and i wanst annyong drivers on the road

Nor have you actually provided any good reason that only motor vehicles should be on the road. Afterall, roads were around long before cars

because i feel cyclists are to slow to be on the road and are a danger to them selfs

Andy78

16-02-2005, 16:46

Alright toxic.i don't think anyone can argue sensibly with your logic. Unfortunately for you, the way things stand, cyclists are free to use the roads. That's not going to change regardless of your opinion. You were taught how to deal with cyclists when you took your driving lessons, so you shouldn't have a problem. If you're getting stressed about turning left and having to wait, then maybe you are too impatient to drive.

Regarding the pavement thing: It is illegal to ride on the pavement for obvious reasons. If you can't see the dangers in this, then I doubt you can see the dangers in driving either and may be you shouldn't be on the road.

robbie

16-02-2005, 17:52

This thread shows why cyclist and motorists should be banned from the roads in the city:suspect: :loopy:

cyclists should have to have insurance. As someone who used to work in Motor insurance claims it was very difficult to recover money from cyclists (often not cost-effective to sue (as they never paid)

Household insurance does cover it though (under public liability)

Cyclone

17-02-2005, 09:17

how have you tested your reactions then? And what is your average reaction speed?

If you are stopped in the left hand lane, you can't turn left anyway. Unless you stopped blocking a junction, which you wouldn't do i'm sure.

If you are moving then it's almost certain that you are moving faster than bikes, so turning left shouldn't pose a difficulty for you.

If you tried to ride a bike on a pavement that had pedestrians on it then you'd see that it's clearly dangerous. Pedestrians aren't restricted to lanes and don't move in straight lines. You'd also have to stop every time you reached a side road, instead of having the right of way and continuing straight on.

The road is for vehicles, a bike is a vehicle. The pavement is for pedestrians, that means people on foot.

travelling slowly on the road (compared to cars) is not a problem, unless you are incapable of overtaking.
And cyclists are not a danger to themselves, you are a danger to them and people like you. So the sensible solution is to remove you from the road.

Originally posted by ToxicFlames
scientific fact, dsylexic people have slower reactions (on average).

ive done tests my reations are fine

That's my point. You respect only a portion of road users, thus you are a danger to others and shouldn't be on the road yourself.

i treat everyone the same what ever is on the road coz i dont wanna kill anyone i just dont respect push bike riders

Unless you are driving at about 5 miles per hour there won't be many cyclists undertaking you on the left will there. Try to construct arguments that at least make sense.

im stoped in the left hand lane waiting for all the bikes to pass as thay just go past on the left

You'd carry your kit in a rucksack.
Your mates could all get on bikes as well.

my mates live to far away from the place we play and a car would get us there quicker

You've conviently ignored the fact that riding a bike on the pavement is far more dangerous to the cyclist, pedestrians and to people turning into side roads than it is if the bike is ridden on the road.

i dont see how it is i used to ride my bike on the pavment all the time and nothing ever went wrong no one was ****** of with me on the pavment and i wanst annyong drivers on the road

Nor have you actually provided any good reason that only motor vehicles should be on the road. Afterall, roads were around long before cars

because i feel cyclists are to slow to be on the road and are a danger to them selfs

noseyrosie

18-02-2005, 22:26

Woooaaaah there Nelly, seems I've left this thread alone for too long.

All this 'environmental issues aside' stuff is bullsh*t I'm afraid. You can't ignore the fact that oil is goign to run out in a few short years for long, and these gas guzzling SUVs are the biggest fuel wasters of the lot.

There's a campaign going called 'Stop Urban 4 x 4s' and you can email stopurban4x4s@hotmail.com for some leaflets to tuck under windscreen wipers with some useful facts on. I've taken the liberty to do so in a few S10 carparks myself. Frankly I have very, VERY little sympathy for anyone living in a city to own one of these beasts. Just by owning one you are in my bad books.

Snook

18-02-2005, 22:47

Well, for one thing there is a difference between an SUV and a 4x4... and one is much worse for consumption than the other. It also depends on the vehicle... before you go and put a leaflet on the car, do you check what the engine size is, if it is an automatic or a manual, if it is petrol or diesel... or do you just target any car you don't like the look of because you are on some misguided cause?

foo_fighter

19-02-2005, 07:56

Originally posted by noseyrosie
All this 'environmental issues aside' stuff is bullsh*t I'm afraid. You can't ignore the fact that oil is goign to run out in a few short years for long, and these gas guzzling SUVs are the biggest fuel wasters of the lot.

There's a campaign going called 'Stop Urban 4 x 4s' and you can email stopurban4x4s@hotmail.com for some leaflets to tuck under windscreen wipers with some useful facts on. I've taken the liberty to do so in a few S10 carparks myself. Frankly I have very, VERY little sympathy for anyone living in a city to own one of these beasts. Just by owning one you are in my bad books.
Well said Snook,

noseyrosie, what about non 4x4s with bigger engines, or don't they count on planet bigoted?

Edit to add
Oh, and nearly forgot, don't touch my car, I won't appreciate it, OK.

Cyclone

19-02-2005, 08:14

I don't see how it's bigotry to be concerned that some people care more about themselves than they do about the environment.

foo_fighter

19-02-2005, 08:40

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't see how it's bigotry to be concerned that some people care more about themselves than they do about the environment.
Sorry, maybe the point came across wrong.

It's bigoted to solely dislike a 4x4 on the grounds of its potential for polution, whilst ignoring any other car with a similar sized (or bigger) engine that is not a 4x4.

Again sorry, but I thought I'd got that point across, hopefully I have now.

It appears to me that noseyrosie cares more about being anti 4x4 than pro environment, again I may be wrong, I'll wait for her next post for clarification.

JBee

19-02-2005, 08:42

Have only just picked up this thread, but I CAN'T STAND urban 4x4s and their drivers.

The majority of peaople who drive them an frankly incapable, and because they're so huge they have complete disregard for other road users. I drive a little Ford KA and I feel unsafe when I'm around them, so I have huge sympathy for the poor cyclists who are nearly run off the road by them.

Why do people need them in the city? It's just snobbery, keeping up with the Jones' and such. Make the F*****g kids walk to school. I did, I managed to cross two busy roads, and I'm fine! I'm also slim (but that's another topic - don't get me started on fat kids, it's child abuse to let your kids get overweight!).

foo_fighter

19-02-2005, 08:45

Originally posted by JBee
Have only just picked up this thread, but I CAN'T STAND urban 4x4s and their drivers.

So try reading the thread before posting, your arguments have been made. Read through it now, it is interesting (in places).

Snook

19-02-2005, 09:52

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't see how it's bigotry to be concerned that some people care more about themselves than they do about the environment.

I don't think its bigoted, but very misguided. The kind of people who go around putting leaflets on SUV's are the kind who always need a cause, and don't care to do any research into the actual facts.

I am all for cutting down pollution, and I think car manufacturers should be made to develop more efficient engines, but to blame SUV's and 4x4's for our pollution problems is just insane, and it is nowhere near fair to their drivers for a group to be getting ill-informed kids to be littering in their name.

I think that people with an agenda see SUV drivers as an easy target, and often they embody everything that they hate. Maybe they should start putting leaflets on black cabs, or buses, on on prestige cars that have a 4 ltr engine and do 12 miles to the gallon... but I doubt they will.

(and no, I don't have a 4x4 pr SUV, I walk most places)

Cyclone

19-02-2005, 13:21

agreed.
Although black cabs are actually quite efficient.

It's not just engine size that makes SUV's inefficient, the large wind blocking shape doesn't help the aerodynamics.

Snook

19-02-2005, 14:13

Originally posted by Cyclone
agreed.
Although black cabs are actually quite efficient.

It's not just engine size that makes SUV's inefficient, the large wind blocking shape doesn't help the aerodynamics.

Yeah, but obviously a 2.4 ltr manual Jeep Cherokee doesn't create as much pollution as XJ6 automatic 4.2 litre car, or use as much petrol... but will they both get a leaflet? Like I said, I'm all for cutting down pollution, but the anti-SUV thing seems petty and misguided. They should use their time to get the government to fun electric buses, as buses at the moment produce more pollution than SUV's.

noseyrosie

19-02-2005, 14:15

It's the uneccessary use of an off-road car in suburbia that I'm against - it causes uneccessary over consumption of fuel, and congestion on the roads. What I said about car-pooling still stands - my main dig is that people just don't have enough regard for the environment - be that the local, Fulwood Road environment, or the atmospheric definition of the word. Of course, if our bus services were better, I bet we'd all take public transport, wouldn't we....;)

Snook

19-02-2005, 14:27

Originally posted by noseyrosie
It's the uneccessary use of an off-road car in suburbia that I'm against - it causes uneccessary over consumption of fuel, and congestion on the roads. What I said about car-pooling still stands - my main dig is that people just don't have enough regard for the environment - be that the local, Fulwood Road environment, or the atmospheric definition of the word. Of course, if our bus services were better, I bet we'd all take public transport, wouldn't we....;)

But most of these vehicles are not really designed for off-road use, it's just an image. As I said, they use more fuel compared with a ford fiesta, but there are many cars, people carriers, and vans that use as much (buses too, of course).

As you said that you put leaflets (a wasteful use of paper and not helping the litter situation... very environmental) on these cars... how do you choose them? Do you look at engine size and if they are manual or automatic? Is it just on looks? Do you also post them on cars that use excessive fuel?

I think carpools are a very good idea.

algy

19-02-2005, 15:27

Since this now seems to be a 4x4/SUV debate, here's my two pennorth. I shop at Sainsbury's and Tesco at Abbeydale. No matter where I park in the carpark in my little Cleo, I invariably get back to find either a HumVee or Personnel Carrier on either side, which makes getting out of the space like driving with your eyes shut until you're clear of the neighbours. So how about banishing these great vehicles to their own section of the carpark, preferably as far from the shop as possible, (they've got to get their exercise somehow!) . As for the 4x4 school run, it's mostly Mums involved, which probably means Dad's taken the other car to work, adding to the congestion and pollution.:rant:
...I'll get me coat... and tin hat.

Snook

19-02-2005, 15:31

Originally posted by algy
Since this now seems to be a 4x4/SUV debate, here's my two pennorth. I shop at Sainsbury's and Tesco at Abbeydale. No matter where I park in the carpark in my little Cleo, I invariably get back to find either a HumVee or Personnel Carrier on either side, which makes getting out of the space like driving with your eyes shut until you're clear of the neighbours. So how about banishing these great vehicles to their own section of the carpark, preferably as far from the shop as possible, (they've got to get their exercise somehow!) . As for the 4x4 school run, it's mostly Mums involved, which probably means Dad's taken the other car to work, adding to the congestion and pollution.:rant:
...I'll get me coat... and tin hat.

Agree with the carpark thing. It should be like in America where you have compact car only spaces close to the store... spaces need to be made slightly larger now too, for the larger cars.