- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Messages
- 4,877
- Reaction score
- 5
Shades said:
HAHAHA!!
Shades said:
smitch said:****** should be.
I wouldn't take the risk if i was a cyclist, i don't think it would do my car much damage if i hit one but i don't think Lycra would fair too well against tarmac.
Selfish, self important, ignorant tossers.
nivagh said:Gotta say that owning a racer myself a certain amount of weaving is indeed a requirement on many roads due to the state of the potholes, drains, manhole covers and other general detritis lying in the road.
Give a cyclist an extra metre and they will probably be grateful - if you pass a cyclist at 60mph the air pressure between the car and the cyclist is low enough to pull them in towards the car - have had a couple of iffy moments due to inconsiderate drivers.
Yes I'm opening myself up to getting flamed here, but I will generally pootle along at about 25 on my bike - even if you have to ease off a little to manage passing me at a safer point in the road, is it really going to ruin your day more than having to stop when you knock somebody into the gutter?
(That said, if you spot somebody cycling on a pavement / jumping a red light / failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing / going the wrong way up a one way street, feel free to hurl abuse, apple cores, etc.)
IDUA3 said:I see the point you are making but, with respect, it's aload of crap!
Why should people who pay road tax give any room, never mind an extra metre, to anyone that doesn't?! If you use the road, with whatever medium, you should pay tax! Also why don't cyclists need insurance? Is it not possible that a cyclist may cause an accident and damage your car?
****** me off when you see cyclists who get to a red light, then jump up onto the curb, across the pedestrian walkway, then back onto the road on the other side of the traffic lights!
And while we are at it, MOPEDS! AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH! It's just the sound - so annoying!
jcs356 said:I agree with your latter points but I think you're the one talking crap on the first one.
I tax and insure three cars. Does that entitle me to all three lanes of the M1 when I'm on it 'As I've paid three times to use it?' I think not.
Don't you think that most people over the age of 17 who have a bike also have a car so already paying to use the road? And the journey they are making could have been made using a car instead leading to more town centre congestion and pollution?
You are also being very unfair on the under 17s. I can remember the amount of freedom I felt when I got my first proper bike and my parents were happy for me to ride off with my mates. Remember as a kid you are reliant on 'mum and dads taxi' or public transport (which is almost non-existent away from town centres) to get anywhere. Having just a simple bike allows so much freedom and is all part of the growing up process.
Anyway, I agree with you that:
Cyclists should have third party insurance (and if you are a member of any club or organisation, chances are you'll have it as part of your membership)
People should be given fines for riding on the pavement and through red lights. That is my biggest hate in London - I've only ever seen one person stopped by the police for doing it.
Mopeds are evil
And one of my own - wearing of cycle helmets should be mandatory like it is in Australia.
I agree, I'd be doing well to drive all three at the same timeIDUA3 said:ok you insure 3 cars, so does that give you the entitlement to use all 3 lanes of the M1 as you have paid 3 times to use it? - errr well yes it does, you could only insure one car and have that entitlement.Everyone does! Also you can't drive 3 at once can you?!
OK, so how to you propose to tax bicycles? Given that a 'conservative' estimate is that 10% of powered vehicles - something like 3million - aren't taxed or insured. And that is working with what is supposed to be a database of every vehicle and every driver, and a system that sees untaxed and uninsured vehicles crushed.IDUA3 said:people who ride bikes most probably insure/tax there car so should be allowed to ride bikes on the road without tax? - ok, maybe they do, but we tax the vehicles not people, a bike is a vehicle isn't it? So in my eyes, it should require tax and insurance!
bloke of pistonheads said:Given the number of near misses I used to Witness around Bank caused by cyclists rolling through red lights and attempting to run over pedestrians, I am not surprised that more are not killed (if only by irate pedestrians, a few months ago I saw a cyclist chased down the road, pulled off his bike and punched and kicked, after said cyclist actually aimed for the bloke who was crossing under a green man, then swerved round and missed him at the last second, but he almost hit a pregnant woman in the process. Bloke who chased and hit I don't think even knew the pregnant woman, but I wished him well kicking seven shades out of the lycra clad loon).
IDUA3 said:I see the point you are making but, with respect, it's aload of crap!
Why should people who pay road tax give any room, never mind an extra metre, to anyone that doesn't?! If you use the road, with whatever medium, you should pay tax! Also why don't cyclists need insurance? Is it not possible that a cyclist may cause an accident and damage your car?
****** me off when you see cyclists who get to a red light, then jump up onto the curb, across the pedestrian walkway, then back onto the road on the other side of the traffic lights!
And while we are at it, MOPEDS! AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH! It's just the sound - so annoying!