Cyclists

[snakey1]

sounds like theres a lot of anti-cyclist feelings out there 90%of cyclists victims of road rage

[Cranfield]

I think the main "image" problem that cyclists have, is that they project a "God given right" aura.

 

That is a "God given right" to do anything they want and **** anyone else.

 

Pedestrians get off their bikes and walk across a pedestrian crossing, or stop rather than slalom round pedestrains on a pavement, or pedestrian precinct ?......................you have got to be joking.

 

Traffic lights, road signs, only apply to ordinary people, not the "God given right" cyclist.

 

The majority of cyclists act like an ignorant, selfish, anti social bunch of morons.

 

Just mention tax and insurance for bicycles and listen to their whines.

 

I ride a bicycle and treat it as a road vehicle and obey the laws of the road accordingly.

Its not that hard actually, but then I don't think I have got a "God given right".

[snakey1]

Can we have compulsory tests, VED and insurance on horse riders as well then, oh yes and of course 3 foot number plates stapled to their ***** and on pedestrians as well as they often encroach onto the roads where only motorists have a god given right to be, and while we are at it can we have a complete ban on mobility scooters as they're the worst of the lot, the mad *******.

By the way Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a British excise duty, which has to be paid to acquire a vehicle licence for most types of motor vehicle. A vehicle licence is usually required if a vehicle is to be legally used on the public roads. The tax, which is also commonly known as the road tax, is not hypothecated for spending on roads, the entire proceeds contributing to central government revenues. Before 1936 the licence was known as the road fund licence, and the proceeds went into the Government's road fund, and used entirely for road expenditure. The tax is collected and enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). So basically VED isn't really a road tax and hasn't been since it was wound up by the finance act of 1936 and anyone who pays tax in general contributes to the funding of the roads ipso facto most cyclists do pay for there use of the highways already. Insurance to use one on the road is a good idea though.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Si...

[Cranfield]

Having once owned horses, I can say that ours were insured for a number of things, including public liability, which covered any damage they may have caused on the highway.

Taking into account the litigious society we have lived in for many years, I suspect most horse owners have the same cover.

 

The prattle that cyclists pay for the roads through other taxation is nonsense.

Motorists that pay excise duty then pay twice, using that logic.

 

I make no excuse for careless pedestrians, but they are very much the minority in my experience, but I agree that mobility scooters/vehicles do need some better control and should at least be insured.

[greg long]

:bicycle:

I say let the cyclists knock down the pedestrians, just keep them off my roads.

 

Edited May 1, 2009 by greg long

[snakey1]

OK Cranfleld as you don't like the fact that your paying twice to use the roads(and yes you are as VED is paid directly into the Exchequer i.e the treasury and isn't therefore ringfenced to soley fund the roads) and you still think cyclists should be paying VED OK most cyclists put out less than 100gm of CO2 per km which would put them into band A in the VED table and so would be exempt and pay nothing anyway.

[Steve Walker]

The tax, which is also commonly known as the road tax, is not hypothecated for spending on roads

 

More is the pity

 

On the other hand, if I eat an Indian meal with some friends, and we split the bill and throw our cash into the kitty, my money is not hypothecated for spending on Kingfisher, samosas, nan and a jalfrezi, it gets mixed up with the money for pilau, korma, Carling and Vindaloo. If I paid a bit extra because I was the only one having a starter, just because all the food got paid for together it doesn't mean that everybody else paid for my samosas.

[snakey1]

Don't forget your also paying tax/duty on your fuel and in certain areas a congestion charge too so your actually paying quite a few times to use the roads.

[Vagabond]

But a bicycle cannot come to an immediate halt, anymore than can a car.

Since the age of eight, I have ridden/driven bicycles, motor cycles, tractors, vans, lorries, minibuses, and cars, either on their own or towing a caravan or trailer. I have even driven steam locomotives, which very definitely "cannot come to an immediate halt" That is a total of over 67 years driving in different conditions and in different countries.

 

In that time I have long lost count of the number of times someone has stepped, staggered, fallen or driven into my path at very short notice. Each time I have been able to stop.

Part of the skill of being in control of any vehicle, be it car, bicycle or wheelbarrow is to recognise the potential of these things happening, and control your speed accordingly - and being prepared to stop.

 

I wasn't travelling at a great speed.

Then why not stop ?

 

The lights were in my favour.

Absolutely irrelevant - even if someone is standing in the middle of the road the onus is still on the driver of the vehicle to stop rather than hit them.

 

 

My mistake was to ring the bell instead of swerving past her

 

So even with hindsight, you still want to replace one mistake with another (possibly with graver consequences) - your ONLY option was to stop. Your mistake was to ring the bell instead of applying both brakes.

 

 

when a pedestrian unexpectedly and illegally steps into your path

 

"Illegally" ? Foolishly, certainly, but what crime was she committing ?

 

I can't see that my attitude has anything to do with it.

No? Perhaps that's the problem with cyclists, too obsessed with their "rights" to reflect on their responsibilities to other road users.

 

 

I really don't understand your response, unless it's simply that whatever a cyclist is involved in, in your view (attitude) it is de facto always the cyclist at fault.

No, I am saying that in the particular case you describe, if we read carefully your own account, YOU were at fault. You had time to ring a bell, and swerve to and fro. That time would have been better spent in braking with both hands.

 

ANECDOTE. I once witnessed an accident, and was contacted by some lawyers for a statement.

Very unwisely they asked "Who in your opinion was to blame?"

 

My reply - "Your client was to blame - before the accident he used the horn instead of the brakes - after the accident he used his voice instead of his intelligence, so I suppose it is consistent that I am replying to his solicitors rather than his insurance company"

[Leon Roskilly]

Vagabond, It seems that you really have no idea!

 

FWIW, my bell is positioned so that my thumb is always resting against the lever.

 

Ringing the bell, braking and steering are not mutually exclusive operations.

 

But it seems that you have your mind set, trying to construct a scenario of twisted facts and events from tidbits of information to suit your prejudiced and sanctimonious view.

 

Go fishing and enjoy.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Leon Roskilly