The absolutely huge 'moan about cyclists' megathread

[depoix]

Of course I think I'm right. I wouldn't post something I thought was wrong would I.

Very slowly I suppose.

But why do you think cyclists have no assets.

I think that most city centre cyclists have jobs, cars and house insurance (which normally covers then for legal costs such as being sued for damaging a car).

 

Sorry, you're using the fact that a motorist had no insurance to argue that cyclists have no assets...

No, I said your attitude was stupid, not you, and now I'll say that your argument is stupid, what's a motorcyclist with no insurance got to do with cyclists?

No, you pay to use a car on the road, VED is dependant on emmissions. Buy the right car and your VED will be free.

That's not true, I would suggest that most city centre cyclists own cars and pay the same as you (if not more).

 

 

You're going to have to translate that bit in bold, I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually say anything.

 

Unless you're saying that you have to emit gas to use a road... Which is certainly a novel argument.

I could get on my bike, instead I'll leave in my car, having already paid the VED.

you can suggest what you want, you live in walkley,an area predominant with students,so you are telling me that students have home insurance and road liability insurance to ride a bike? i very much doubt it,and as for the roads,they were put there for vehicles not cyclists,im sure,other wise why have two lanes ? a bike can manage on three feet of path,if meeting an oncoming bike they can quite easily pass each other,roads are for motorised transport,paid for by motorists,if you know different of course,put up a link to the contrary.

[garryn]

Please don't think I am anti cycling, I ride a motorcycle so know only too well the dangers from car drivers more interested in whats for tea or changing a cd than concentrating on the road, however every group has good and bad members.

 

By the way my source:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/25/ncycle25.xml

 

Interesting article, bells are fine for pedestrians. Not much use against cars.....

Thats why I'm getting an Airzound 120db airhorn.

 

Pedantic, but thats 10+1 years ago? I'll not stand by the actual figure (can't be a**ed to go check it) but I will the gist of the argument about incidents getting coverage.

 

I agree entirely, every groups got its good and bad members. How many drivers realise its 3 points and a fine for crossing the advance stop line and encroaching on the advance box for cyclists? Also makes you wonder about whether its wise to allow in car entertainment, when concentration should be on the road.

 

When you think about cycles jumping red lights - How many times have you been in your car, shot thro the lights on the last bit of amber and then looked in your rear view mirror. 3 or 4 seconds later another car (or 2 ) come thro and you think "No way that wasn't on red!"?

[garryn]

as for the roads,they were put there for vehicles not cyclists,im sure,other wise why have two lanes ? a bike can manage on three feet of path,if meeting an oncoming bike they can quite easily pass each other,roads are for motorised transport,paid for by motorists,if you know different of course,put up a link to the contrary.

 

The roads were there before cars....

 

Bikes are illegal on paths...

 

Roads are paid for out of council tax, which may also be paid by motorists, but not all motorists pay council tax.....

 

Put up a link to support your assertions

[Cyclone]

you can suggest what you want, you live in walkley,an area predominant with students,so you are telling me that students have home insurance and road liability insurance to ride a bike? i very much doubt it,and as for the roads,they were put there for vehicles not cyclists,im sure,other wise why have two lanes ? a bike can manage on three feet of path,if meeting an oncoming bike they can quite easily pass each other,roads are for motorised transport,paid for by motorists,if you know different of course,put up a link to the contrary.

 

I don't live in upper Walkley, so not many students down here really.

But yes, most students have contents insurance, which does cover them for legal expenses, either that or they pay for an extension on their parents cover, which is cheaper and more comprehensive.

Roads were originally tracks, how do you think people got around before cars were invented. They didn't fly.

Why do I need a link, as already stated many cyclists are car owners, myself included in that group. I pay my VED, I don't need to pay anything extra to use the road on a bike and I have just as much right to do that as I do when I drive my car.

Roads are not just there for the convenience of the car owner, they are there for all forms of road transport. Maybe you need to read the highway code again as I think it mentions this a few times.

[garryn]

Depoix, so far can't find my reference. But found this. 9 people a day killed on the roads?

 

We've got people here arguing about a cyclist. But road deaths due to motorists are such a big truth that people don't notice it is happening all around them. (Except the few who get directly involved of course). It is so obvious that it gets totally overlooked.

 

Anyone read the third of Douglas Adam's Hitchiker's Guide series (Life, the Universe and Everything)? The Somebody Else's Problem field? A sort of spell which can be cast over some object, which makes some anomaly so glaringly obvious that people just totally fail to notice it's there: their eyes simply skate over it? My view is that this is based on fact. Albeit a purely imaginary concept, in the middle of a hilariously satirical SF novel, there really is such a thing. And road deaths are a glaring example: at least to your average person.

[depoix]

[quote

Roads are not just there for the convenience of the car owner, they are there for all forms of road transport. Maybe you need to read the highway code again as I think it mentions this a few times.

im glad you mentioned convenience for all forms of transport,maybe the biker who got a slap should have considered this,which has been my point all along

[rbos123]

If the cyclist had been female, would she have deserved a punch in the face?

A female would not behave in such a stupid fashion.

[00Soul]

The roads were there before cars....

 

Bikes are illegal on paths...

 

Roads are paid for out of council tax, which may also be paid by motorists, but not all motorists pay council tax.....

 

Put up a link to support your assertions

 

Ah, I have to pay for cycle lanes Garryn, but I don't use 'em.

[garryn]

A female would not behave in such a stupid fashion.

 

Hmmm, much as I'd like to support the female cyclist....

 

A couple of months back, putting the kids into the back of the car. Female cyclist on the pavement, I had to close the car door quickly and grab the handlebars.

 

Only 1 brake lever and the cable wasn't even connected.

 

Luckily I'd spotted this a couple of seconds before.

 

So, not the same stupidity, but stupid nevertheless

[garryn]

Ah, I have to pay for cycle lanes Garryn, but I don't use 'em.

 

You have the right to.

 

They're actually paid for out of central govt as opposed to locally. Nice little earner for councils.

 

Cyclists don't have to use them either and generally we're better off not. Did you know the better ones are only designed for a top speed of 18mph? I cruise well above that on the flat.