Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885291)

Arthur, this has been done to death to the extent that the real OFFENCE is yet another thread about cyclists :sleep:.

There must be something else that interests you?

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35885354)

Buy a bike, get on the road. No instruction no practice, no test, no insurance. And then blame other road users for all your accidents.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35885306)

If you have nothing to contribute to this thread then maybe abstaining might be a solution.No one is forcing you to even read it let alone post in it.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35885351)

As for pollution, scrap bus lanes, cycle lanes and stupid speed limits everywhere and notice how long queues are reduced, and pollution levels nose dive.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885411)

A cyclist ran into me after ignoring a red light in London. He then jumped off his bike and started screaming and shoving me as he claimed it was my fault? I was just about to lamp him one, when a police officer stepped in and told us that he had seen everything. He was given a £30 spot fine.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885415)

My word how awful that must have been. I have a similar anecdote:

A young German cyclist was flattened by a lorry in London. She had open heart surgery at the scene. You drive a truck you have a duty of care imo. She was awarded on the spot death.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885415)

You drive a truck you have a duty of care imo.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885467)

Whereas if you ride a bike you have none, no responsibility whatsoever

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885467)

people like myself are literally driving ourselves to an early grave trying not to hit them

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885467)

We've all got anecdotes such as yours so why won't the vast majority of cyclists take heed and moderate their behaviour

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885467)

whilst they flit about

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885467)

Whereas if you ride a bike you have none, no responsibility whatsoever, people like myself are literally driving ourselves to an early grave trying not to hit them whilst they flit about without a care in the world. We've all got anecdotes such as yours so why won't the vast majority of cyclists take heed and moderate their behaviour

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35885485)

Because many of these cyclists are so arrogant and self important they think the roads are for them while car drivers who are fully qualified and licensed to be on the road are regarded as basic nobody's who are simply in the way of these unqualified and unlicensed cyclists and yet at the end of the day its the car driver who gets the blame for everything.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885488)

And breathe :erm:.

So, you're proposing that every child who has a bike should be qualified and licensed? Well that'll help with the child obesity and clean air problems :rolleyes:.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885480)

The responsibility of a cyclist is one of staying alive in the chaos of motorised ineptitude.


You seem ill-equipped to cope with the responsibility of driving. Get a job at B&Q for a calmer life at your age; the world is too hectic for you.



The andecdotes of cycling deaths caused by poor drivers such as yourself will far outweigh those of cyclists causing the deaths of motorists:rolleyes:.


That which you describe as flitting is cyclists trying to make best use of a number of 'bolt-on' fixes in a transport system designed for motor vehicles.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35885498)

Like the idiot I nearly hit one night riding on a dark part of road at a roundabout wearing hi-vis black on black, black helmet, thin black bike with black lights and reflectors. He did have priority but that really wouldn't have helped if I hadn't seen him. "My right of way" famous last words.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35885501)

As usual you try to obfuscate the thread with little relevance to what we are actually talking about as we ain't talking about children here but grown adults on the roads.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35885512)

A new(ish) phenomenon has arrived in our city. Buses were being held up by slow moving traffic, so whole lanes were marked for bus use only. These "bus lanes" started to breed rapidly, allowing buses to whizz around much faster than the rest of the traffic. Then taxis were allowed to use them.

Then bicycles.

And it all went wrong.

Held up by slow-moving bicycles in their lanes, buses and taxis started to leave their sacred space and join the files of slow moving traffic. But now, of course, there were fewer lanes for all this traffic, so major jams developed.

The council reacted in many locations, by adding another lane.... the p̶s̶y̶c̶o̶p̶a̶t̶h̶ cycle path, between the kerb and the bus lane Some cyclists started to use them, whizzing around, often faster than the speed limit.

And then the carnage started.

People stepping off and on buses via the cycle path. Would the cyclists give way? Not often.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885525)

I take it that you are an advocate of cyclists riding through red lights, seeing as you responded to my post with something not remotely similar?

Originally Posted by weenie (Post 35885532)

I think you get good and bad just as you get good and bad drivers. I don't usually say anything to cyclists however annoying they can be they deserve to use the road if they want but just last week at a set of traffic lights, I got out my car and asked one very kindly to stop using my car as a leaning post honestly that is what he did honestly I could not believe that he thought it was okay to stop along side the back of my car and put his hand on my car while waiting for the lights to change. I must say he was very polite and said sorry to me but then again I asked him nicely if he would be so kind and remove his hand from my car.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885529)

So, let me get this right: a cyclist displaying lights and reflectors with right of way is an idiot because you didn't see him? Were you wearing hi-vis and a helmet at the time? The famous last words would be "you are guilty of manslaughter".



How is it obfuscation to discuss cyclists; that's what the thread is about? I know it would better serve your feeble argument to limit the discussion to the 'louts' but hey ho.



'Bus lane' is a misnomer. These can be used by taxis, emergency vehicles, bicycles, motorcycles and buses. It is advisable to be observant when alighting any form of transport.



My, one is in a little tizzy-wizzy today.



I did not respond to your latest post at all.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885480)

The responsibility of a cyclist is one of staying alive in the chaos of motorised ineptitude.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885529)

So, let me get this right: a cyclist displaying lights and reflectors with right of way is an idiot because you didn't see him? Were you wearing hi-vis and a helmet at the time? The famous last words would be "you are guilty of manslaughter".

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35885551)

Did you not read?
Low light area
Black hi vis on black
Black reflectors
Black lights
Thin black bike

In other words he had no visibility aid at all. About all I could see was his face between the black helmet and black cycling gear.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885542)

If it was motorist ineptitude more would be dead.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885542)

Ill equipped because I haven't killed someone because of the care I take, no thanks to them, if they showed the same level of responsibility as me we'd all get on fine.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885542)

And anecdotes of poor cycling causing their own death far outweigh anything else still I'm sure you'll continue to peddle out excuses for their behaviour

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885565)

If we were ever to go down the route of making cyclists pass tests and and get insurance at what age should that start ?

If we were ever to go down the route of making cyclists pass tests and get insurance how many would just say "sod this "and go and buy a car or a motorbike thus increasing the congestion .

Drivers and cyclists need educating it really is as simple as that

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35885574)

It might be nice if cyclists would stop riding on pavements/footpaths that are pedestrian only..Getting sick of being nearly mowed down by cyclists on the sea front promenade despite all the signs and 12 inch high no cycling signs painted in white on the footpath.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35885575)

I have a street that I walk down to get the morning paper. It's one way east bound yet cyclists without lights and black clothing use it the wrong way on either side and then when the rat runners come hurtling down they veer onto the footpath. Madness! It's only a matter of time before one gets totalled.

Not a copper to be seen of course.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885559)

Over 120 in 2016. A trifling figure eh?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885585)

It's a tragic figure

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885585)

More like skill, hazard perception and awareness don't just happen and I am nervous around cyclists, no matter how much you slow down or how much room you give them its not enough and you just can't legislate for what they'll do next

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885585)

Clever eh :dunce:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885578)

Cyclists have insurance; we are covered by (your) vehicle insurance.

I agree drivers need educating; their education is underway.


Better get used to sharing pavement space Maggy.


Even so, I'd bet the main highway is a lot more dangerous than the odd oncoming rat runner.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885578)

Cyclists have insurance; we are covered by (your) vehicle insurance.

I agree drivers need educating; their education is underway.


Better get used to sharing pavement space Maggy.


Even so, I'd bet the main highway is a lot more dangerous than the odd oncoming rat runner.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885439)

Did the lorry jump a red iight and then claim it was the girls fault?

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885525)

I take it that you are an advocate of cyclists riding through red lights

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885534)

Hence my question, do you think its ok for cyclists to jump red lights?

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885593)

Looks like you do condone riding through red lights then.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35885615)

Cyclists already have a cycle-way along the seafront..and they are breaking the by-laws by riding on the seafront promenade...but of course there is never anyone around to do anything about them.:mad:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885625)

10/10 for persistence :D.



Similarly I suppose, there is never anyone around to stop pedestrians walking on the cycle-way. But then, cyclists are happy to share 'their' space.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885625)

Similarly I suppose, there is never anyone around to stop pedestrians walking on the cycle-way. But then, cyclists are happy to share 'their' space.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885578)

Even so, I'd bet the main highway is a lot more dangerous than the odd oncoming rat runner.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885632)

I am but don't worry, now I know what you see where you stand on the cyclist front

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885632)

you will not see another response to any of your posts from me

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35885632)

Btw, expect a smack in the gob, if you ever jump a red light when I am crossing the road.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885633)

The onus is on cyclists to avoid pedestrians since there is no restriction to stop pedestrians walking in 'cycle ways' .A marked out track on a footpath does not mean it is solely for cyclists

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35885637)

Well here the signs on the shared pavement cycle-ways are designated into two with a white dotted line or the two are completely separate where possible...and the appropriate signage.But not every pavement is a cycle way which some cyclists refuse to acknowledge.

And Kursk before you get all hoity toity I am a cyclist too but I obey the bylaws..

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35885640)

So you obviously think it's fine for those cyclists to break the law either going the wrong way on a one way street and/or cycling on the FOOT path. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35885690)

Thank you, but we don't need advice from white van man (who are a danger to just about everyone on the roads).

Originally Posted by EnglishMan (Post 35885734)

The roads were built for cars

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885739)

Clearly you do

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35885742)

no helmets and wearing black.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35885742)

forcing a car to break

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35885745)

Dash cam is your friend where these loonies are involved.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35885943)

Speaking from my experiences as a 'cager' and also from riding a motorbike.

When riding the motorbike.I ensure that I'm in fully armoured clothing, that could be two piece textiles or leather jacket + armoured kevlar jeans, gloves, helmet etc. I'm acutely aware that if i get hit by or I hit something that there is a very good chance of me becoming an organ donor. and I therefore ride as defensively as possible. I will where possible however filter to make progress etc.

It's the defensive riding that seems to be missing from most cyclists thought patterns. That they have priority over all other traffic

Why isn't there a minimum standard for bikes to be on the road? some of the ones in York resemble death traps!
Why isn't the wearing of armour/protective equipment compulsory on roads?
Why should cyclists who use the road system not have some sort of insurance in place?

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886015)

As regards insurance, the third party insurance of motorists covers cyclists. Some might want to take out optional cycling insurance but that's personal choice.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886015)

You know that I too am a motorcyclist and it is true that defensive riding has taught us much about roadcraft, what to wear, where to position, road camber, anticipation etc. These skills are absent in some cyclists but also absent in some motorists. The latter might have no experience of real vulnerability on the roads and this can lead to an unintentionally cavalier attitude to other road users and, for that matter, pedestrians.

As regards minimum standards, this is left to the rider; the check being an unfit machine puts you in obvious danger.

As regards protective clothing, bicycles are self propelled; too much equipment is impractical and would probably discourage use. That would be a disaster health wise and impending gridlock would quickly become imminent. I'm not sure that motorists appreciate that cyclists take pressure off the transport system. If we all take to cars nobody will be going anywhere.

As regards insurance, the third party insurance of motorists covers cyclists. Some might want to take out optional cycling insurance but that's personal choice.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35886028)

So if a cyclist ignores a red light on a pelican crossing and ploughs into a pedestrian causing injury which results in them being unfit for work, which motorists insurance do they claim from?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886034)

Hey Kursk :)

I agree that the skills we have learnt and developed whilst riding motorbikes are missing in other motorists. However I don't believe you can use the fact to justify it missing from the large proportion (that i have seen) of cyclists.

Surely a basic compulsory form of training, (think CBT but for pushbikes and without a need to renew) could only be a good thing ? Lets face it at the moment you can get on a pushbike and ride on most roads in the country (some of them being exceptionally lethal) without any form of road craft whatsoever.

Back onto the subject of protective clothing, whilst I'm not suggesting for one second that the level of protection is required is the same as we wear it again would make sense to have some basics. e.g. armoured gloves, a helmet & perhaps something like a back protector. CE1 approved armour whilst not great for motorbike riders would allow a reasonable degree of freedom whilst offering protection to the push bike rider. Clothing should be abrasive resistant to some degree possibly through the use of Aramid fibres.

regarding the point you made earlier in the thread (I think it was about general taxation paying for the roads and cyclists contribute to that. If cyclists are sharing our roads then they need to ensure that their bikes are in road worthy condition I dont think it should be left to the rider to make that call. Perhaps a push bike MOT which checks things like bearings, gears, brakes and tyres and introduces a minimum standard needs to be considered.

Finally, insurance. Whilst the vast majority of incidents involving cyclists are with them as the non fault party there are still times when a cyclist is liable and therefore they should hold their own insurance.

I have no issues with the majority of cyclists who ride in a safe manner. I guess the above post is a long winded way of saying that as with driving a car, or riding a motorbike there should be minimum standards which are required to be met both for people as the rider and the equipment that they use.
Ride safe ! :)

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886083)

It's possible to hypothesise ad infinitum.

What happens if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who is simply riding along? Should all pedestrians have insurance too as the potential perpetrator of accidents?

What about the lethal buggy owner who bashes your ankles and causes you to trip? Insurance?

What about wheelchair users? Are they insured? What if when crossing the road they cause an accident because they move less freely than the ambulant?

Do we need to insure all our kids who are the most unpredictable users of just about everything?

Does my neighbour need insurance in case he drops a paint pot on my head when he's up a ladder?

Insurance benefits the money men. Do you want them to be creaming in policy payments for occurences that seldom happen? We don't do things that way in the UK but we'll end up that way if we're stupid enough.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886092)

Injuries aren't seldom at all

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece

I'd have thought you'd be very keen to protect other more vulnerable road users, regardless of if their stupid, reckless, thoughtless, irresponsible behaviour causes collisions with cyclists

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886093)

Fair play, a cracking idea:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886083)

It's possible to hypothesise ad infinitum.

What happens if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who is simply riding along? Should all pedestrians have insurance too as the potential perpetrator of accidents?

What about the lethal buggy owner who bashes your ankles and causes you to trip? Insurance?

What about wheelchair users? Are they insured? What if when crossing the road they cause an accident because they move less freely than the ambulant?

Do we need to insure all our kids who are the most unpredictable users of just about everything?

Does my neighbour need insurance in case he drops a paint pot on my head when he's up a ladder?

Insurance benefits the money men. Do you want them to be creaming in policy payments for occurences that seldom happen? We don't do things that way in the UK but we'll end up that way if we're stupid enough.



Most people learn to ride at a young age and get parental training in safety (not just for cycling!). It works. Anyone taking up cycling later will know roads are dangerous and it will be part of their decision as to whether they choose to cycle or not.

What is the stopping distance at 50 mph on a wet road and in potentially icy conditions?

No-one reading this post will know the answer because all that theory is forgotten and because all road conditions cannot be predicted (it won't stop some members scurrying off to the highway code to try and find a smartass answer though!). Cycle training is real-time road experience which is why we need other road users to take special care of our safety. Learning a few metronomic hand signalling skills in a classroom won't protect us nor will it make good cyclists out of bad ones.

Protective clothing will protect you if you fall off your motorbike at speed. Protective clothing will not protect a cyclist hit by a car, lorry or van. Especially those little plastic helmets that can cause rotational neck injury; the jury is still out on that one.

Bike MOT - bicycles are simple machines, easily maintained. Do you remember the first time you had a bike for christmas or whatever? Was the occasion ruined because your Dad forgot its MOT, or rider insurance, or its pedal tax, or because he forgot your kevlar body restraint, helmet, gauntlets, shinguards, chest brace and condom? Cycling is supposed to be fun and healthy. We need people to cycle so let's not make it harder.

See above re insurance but, also, did you ever ride someone's else's bike to the shops? Would you have preferred to walk because you didn't have the required insurance? Would you like to miss out on riding in deserted country lanes because you don't have insurance and all the other paraphernalia? All that stuff will discourage cycling and that is crazy.

I know bikes and cars don't mix but I wish someone (and this is not aimed at you) would come up with workable alternatives instead of bleating that "bikes get in my way" all the time. Besides, you ride a motorbike...who most endangers you, cyclists or car drivers? I know the answer to that one: extra training for motorists. :D

I'm throttling back; ride safe mate!:)

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886100)

i understand your points BUT if you look back to when you learnt to ride a motorbike (not sure if you had to go the CBT/MOD1/MOD2 route as i did?) it was about positioning, shoulder checks, life savers, major to minor junctions and minor to major, hazard avoidance etc. ) I see no harm in a cyclist who particularly could be using the bike in an urban high transport volume area spending half a day learning this sort of information. If only to give themselves a better chance against inconsiderate motorists.

I'm struggling (i'm tired!!) to see the difference in terms of speed and danger levels between a cyclist and a 50cc ped rider...... yet ped riders still in most cases have to do at least a CBT

Back to the protective gear thing, to me it's about minimising risk of injury. Taking cars etc out of the equation you still have things like oil/fuel spills which could cause an accident at a not inconsiderate speed.

Yup, cars endanger me most, but thats why we have combat filtering ;) to get our own back :D

I think the only option is for cycles to be segregated where possible in cycle lanes that are properly maintained (not full of crud as they are now) and for cagers to understand just how exposed people on two wheels are how that be achieved I don't know

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886099)

.....the construction of dedicated facilities to keep cyclists out of conflict with other road users.
Prison :shrug:

Originally Posted by MarieOHMarie (Post 35886115)

I actually had to give the police cam footage of a cyclist and car in a accident together. Basically a Skoda car was approaching a junction and a cyclist was approaching the same junction from a different approach.

For some reason the cyclist decided to speed up and approached the junction shouting Oi Oi OI Oiiii and got hit by the car. The cyclist is now in a wheel chair and will never walk again. Yet from my dashcam footage and and witness accounts no one could understand why the cyclist decided to speed up and basically ride into an on coming vehicle. The courts found "inconclusive" and I didn't have to appear in court.

I can never post the footage online, but it literally looks like the cyclist deliberately wanted create a dangerous situation. Had the cyclist maintained their safe and current speed they would still be walking today.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------




So should the car driving test be optional? You think training and education would stop people buying a motorbike? Please explain why you think this...

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886119)

I could be wrong mind.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35886207)

Yes this is why we have pavements, to segregate slow traffic from fast, what we really need is something like that for bicyclists.... Now what could we call it...

hmmm

Oh I know!

A Cycle lane

And to show we're really serious the Govt of the day will spend millions in creating these dedicated bicyclist places for them.

And then we'll make it mandatory for cyclists to use them where they exist - for their safety of course, segregation remember.
---------------------------------------------

Oops we seem to have forgotten to action that last bit.

Bicyclists and lemmings seem to occupy a similar evolutionary niche - ah well Darwin rules supreme there.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886209)

You only have to visit the pollution riddled gridlock that is Brighton to see where that policy leads. If you halve the road capacity in an already busy city....

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35886219)

Sorry Pal can't see.
:rofl:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886212)

And there's been record sales of new cars year upon year in the U.K. You do the math.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886231)

But if the solution to the housing crisis is to build more houses why isn't the solution to the traffic crisis to build more road capacity? :shrug:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886231)

But if the solution to the housing crisis is to build more houses why isn't the solution to the traffic crisis to build more road capacity? :shrug:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886234)

Because a house is a necessity and a car isn't. Also, houses don't continuously pollute. :shrug:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886234)

Because a house is a necessity and a car isn't. Also, houses don't continuously pollute. :shrug:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886247)

For many a car is an absolute necessity......

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886254)

Central heating, water, sewage, electricity. The list of pollutants due to buildings and the building of buildings is almost endless.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886083)

It's possible to hypothesise ad infinitum.

What happens if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who is simply riding along? Should all pedestrians have insurance too as the potential perpetrator of accidents?

What about the lethal buggy owner who bashes your ankles and causes you to trip? Insurance?

What about wheelchair users? Are they insured? What if when crossing the road they cause an accident because they move less freely than the ambulant?

Do we need to insure all our kids who are the most unpredictable users of just about everything?

Does my neighbour need insurance in case he drops a paint pot on my head when he's up a ladder?

Insurance benefits the money men. Do you want them to be creaming in policy payments for occurences that seldom happen? We don't do things that way in the UK but we'll end up that way if we're stupid enough.



Most people learn to ride at a young age and get parental training in safety (not just for cycling!). It works. Anyone taking up cycling later will know roads are dangerous and it will be part of their decision as to whether they choose to cycle or not.

What is the stopping distance at 50 mph on a wet road and in potentially icy conditions?

No-one reading this post will know the answer because all that theory is forgotten and because all road conditions cannot be predicted (it won't stop some members scurrying off to the highway code to try and find a smartass answer though!). Cycle training is real-time road experience which is why we need other road users to take special care of our safety. Learning a few metronomic hand signalling skills in a classroom won't protect us nor will it make good cyclists out of bad ones.

Protective clothing will protect you if you fall off your motorbike at speed. Protective clothing will not protect a cyclist hit by a car, lorry or van. Especially those little plastic helmets that can cause rotational neck injury; the jury is still out on that one.

Bike MOT - bicycles are simple machines, easily maintained. Do you remember the first time you had a bike for christmas or whatever? Was the occasion ruined because your Dad forgot its MOT, or rider insurance, or its pedal tax, or because he forgot your kevlar body restraint, helmet, gauntlets, shinguards, chest brace and condom? Cycling is supposed to be fun and healthy. We need people to cycle so let's not make it harder.

See above re insurance but, also, did you ever ride someone's else's bike to the shops? Would you have preferred to walk because you didn't have the required insurance? Would you like to miss out on riding in deserted country lanes because you don't have insurance and all the other paraphernalia? All that stuff will discourage cycling and that is crazy.

I know bikes and cars don't mix but I wish someone (and this is not aimed at you) would come up with workable alternatives instead of bleating that "bikes get in my way" all the time. Besides, you ride a motorbike...who most endangers you, cyclists or car drivers? I know the answer to that one: extra training for motorists. :D

I'm throttling back; ride safe mate!:)

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

Wheelchair users don't ride in the road without lights nor do they jump red lights.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

Plus cyclist pay nothing to drive on the roads.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

Personally any cyclist that break the law of the road should be treated as car drivers, which should include points on any driving licence and hit 12 point like driver bye bye licence.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

After all when a cyclists starts a argument with a car he will lose every single time.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886377)

Cyclists do pay to use the roads; roads are maintained through general taxation. In fact, there is no road tax paid by anyone as such, there is a tax on vehicle emissions and bicycles don't emit anything toxic (the riders might!) so cyclists contribute in the same way as motorists. How many times...

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886394)

ouch

Shocking moment a cyclist riding OUTSIDE a bike lane is sent flying after ploughing into a trailer as driver turns across his path - so who is in the right?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Dee-Why.html

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886386)

You know the only person that calls it vehicle emissions tax is the chancellor a couple of times a year in the budget, the rest of the time the treasury call it car tax, the dvla call it car tax, the aa call it car tax as do most other organisations, that being the case it's not unfair for other vehicles to pay to use the facility of roads, as for insurance, do horsey types pay insurance? You are right about the road tax though, abolished in 1937, I doubt there's many that remember paying it and if there are I'd question whether they should still be on the road

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886394)

ouch

Shocking moment a cyclist riding OUTSIDE a bike lane is sent flying after ploughing into a trailer as driver turns across his path - so who is in the right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Dee-Why.html

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886398)

The 'car tax' for small cars is £0. How much do you think cyclists should pay?


Use of Cycle lanes is not mandatory (nor is the use of pavements by pedestrians for that matter) especially those full of parked cars.
It's clear the car has misjudged crossing the main thoroughfare with that trailer thing attached.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886399)

£140 min from April

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886401)

Based on emissions and bikes don't emit papa titchy:)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886403)

no but but cyclists blow out some hot air ;)

there should be a Lycra tax that would sort it .

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886404)

It was only a matter of time before frustrated fellow posters sought that refuge:D

A Lycra tax will ruin your cross-dressing weekends.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886405)

you know i'm leather chaps at the weekends

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35886407)

Actually all VED tax from March will actually not go into general taxation but will be specifically used for Roads, so guess what, it is Road Tax again just like pre 1937, bicyclists freeloaders :P

http://road.cc/content/news/156795-r...will-see-money

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886398)

The 'car tax' for small cars is £0. How much do you think cyclists should pay?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886480)

It won't be zero forever, as soon as revenues fall due to older cars just falling to bits they'll have to pay, same with electric cars, as soon as we've all got them charging points won't be free anymore but you'll still be demanding something for nothing

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886505)

Something for nothing:shocked:?

I pay Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel tax, Income tax, Council Tax, stamp duty, national insurance, VAT etc etc and I receive no handouts from the public purse whatsoever. I sometimes ride a bike (which I buy and maintain myself - no handouts for bikes) on roads (but not motorways or pedestrianised areas) built and designed for motor vehicles and which are laced with all manner of dangers for bikes. The only something I get for free is the possibility of premature death because driving standards are so poor.

Let he/she who is without handouts cast the first stone when it comes to something for nothing.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886509)

Silly me, I didn't realise you could cover multiple vehicles with one car tax, I thought it was only valid for the vehicle it was registered to.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886523)

Your self proclaimed silliness is understood. Let me simplify for you:

1. There will be no specific bicycle road tax. Ever.

2. Cyclist safety will improve as gridlock makes motor vehicles static.

Get a bike if you want to get ahead :p:.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886621)

Let me get this straight, we've got no cash to repair the roads or pot holes, no cash for the health service and can't even scrape some pennies together to keep a poxy library open but we've got tens of millions to tear up half of the capital cities main roads, cause untold congestion and air pollution for something people don't use and won't use because it's in the wrong place and yet I'm the simpleton

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886649)

A harshly self-critical statement if I might say so; be kinder to yourself.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886656)

Its true I am my biggest critic, it's my worst trait, that and I give to much

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I agree with arthur, cyclists cannot have it all their own way.......