Grrrrr - Cyclists
Discussion
I recently read (and then later saw on the evening news) that there is a proposal that all incidents involving cyclists are to be the fault of the motorist. This is apparently so we can follow suit with the existing European laws. I could hardly catch my breath. I've been driving into the City recently for work. I've yet to see a cyclist that actually stops at a read light or signals before changing lanes. This proposal just takes the biscuit. Has anyone else heard about or read about this?
Steve
Steve
This is also being discussed at In the News > INSURANCE PRICES TO GO UP TO COVER CYCLISTS
Clarkson descibes them as "lycra nazis" and he damn right. Seen three instances of loonies on bikes in the "smoke" already.... only been working here for a month!
Usual situation, crossroads at the end of Moorgate and Finsbury Pavement. The number of cyclists that go through the traffic lights on red is totally amazing. Do they not think that the lights are for cyclists? Well wake up and smell the fumes, but they seem to be taken into account by all of the buses, taxis, cars, vans, trucks, three-wheelers, mopeds, motorbikes and strange electric things.....
The worst was the other day - green man is flashing (ooeerr) and everyone crossing the road. Cyclist shouting an swearing at everyone as they cross - he wants priority and promptly nearly hits around 4 - 5 people. Still swearing he then starts to flail around trying to hit them - what a moron..... and he thinks that he is in the right?????
The funny thing is that it doesnt seem to be the bike couriers though. They seem to stick to the Highway Code and are actually quite reasonable..... though that might all change.
Oooo, and while I am on a rant - what really bugs me is when a cyclist is turning right at a junction or roundabout and you are behind them. Then they cut the lanes and prevent you from over taking them - and they complain at us drivers!!!!!
And finally, a quick question - whats the deal with riding two / three abreast down the road. I always thought that was against the Highway Code. Is this correct or am I imagining things again????
Cheers,
Paul
Usual situation, crossroads at the end of Moorgate and Finsbury Pavement. The number of cyclists that go through the traffic lights on red is totally amazing. Do they not think that the lights are for cyclists? Well wake up and smell the fumes, but they seem to be taken into account by all of the buses, taxis, cars, vans, trucks, three-wheelers, mopeds, motorbikes and strange electric things.....
The worst was the other day - green man is flashing (ooeerr) and everyone crossing the road. Cyclist shouting an swearing at everyone as they cross - he wants priority and promptly nearly hits around 4 - 5 people. Still swearing he then starts to flail around trying to hit them - what a moron..... and he thinks that he is in the right?????
The funny thing is that it doesnt seem to be the bike couriers though. They seem to stick to the Highway Code and are actually quite reasonable..... though that might all change.
Oooo, and while I am on a rant - what really bugs me is when a cyclist is turning right at a junction or roundabout and you are behind them. Then they cut the lanes and prevent you from over taking them - and they complain at us drivers!!!!!
And finally, a quick question - whats the deal with riding two / three abreast down the road. I always thought that was against the Highway Code. Is this correct or am I imagining things again????
Cheers,
Paul
quote:
...what really bugs me is when a cyclist is turning right at a junction or roundabout and you are behind them. Then they cut the lanes and prevent you from over taking them - and they complain at us drivers!!!!!
I do this too. Its self-preservation - I don't want drivers overtaking me as I'm going round a roundabout, its hazardous enough.
quote:
And finally, a quick question - whats the deal with riding two / three abreast down the road. I always thought that was against the Highway Code. Is this correct or am I imagining things again????
Cycling more than one abreast is fine on an open road, but not in traffic, its just annoying to everyone else, and is also against the highway code:
www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/hc/03.shtml
51 - you should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
although thats a 'should' rule rather than a 'must' rul, so its advisory.
>> Edited by Neil Menzies on Tuesday 6th August 13:48
Just a thought regarding the 'car drivers insurance must pay'.
Suppose you hit a cyclist, and it's their fault, but they claim on your insurance, as they will be able to. All above board and legal.
But, since it's their fault, and you have suffered a material loss - namely your no-claims bonus, and increased premiums, surely you can make a claim for liability against them for your losses, since the accident was their fault? Or are they going to change the whole law on personal liability?
So they get a payout on your insurance, and you get to claim all your losses back from them... Hmmm can smell a few rackets brewing here...
Suppose you hit a cyclist, and it's their fault, but they claim on your insurance, as they will be able to. All above board and legal.
But, since it's their fault, and you have suffered a material loss - namely your no-claims bonus, and increased premiums, surely you can make a claim for liability against them for your losses, since the accident was their fault? Or are they going to change the whole law on personal liability?
So they get a payout on your insurance, and you get to claim all your losses back from them... Hmmm can smell a few rackets brewing here...
quote:
Clarkson descibes them as "lycra nazis" and he damn right. Seen three instances of loonies on bikes in the "smoke" already.... only been working here for a month!
I've been here 2 years now, and I'm still amazed at the sheer arrogance of London cyclists. I'd say it's actually the majority of them who habitually commit traffic offences, particularly jumping red lights, ignoring pedestrian crossings and riding on the pavement, often at speed and with a mobile clutched to their ear. It's apparently OK for them to put pedestrians' lives at risk, but come anywhere near them in a car and they're the first to bleat.
ing hypocritical cowards. Worst one I saw was a Swampy lookalike who tried to force himself and his bike onto an absolutely packed rush-hour train, then when the platform attendant pointed out this was against the rules, the soap-dodging moron stood between the carriage doors to prevent them from closing, so the train couldn't set off. Result - a 10-minute delay for hundreds of commuters till the police arrived and hauled him away. But hey, he's an eco-warrior, saving the planet from the evil motorist, so he's above the rules, right?
quote:
Just a thought regarding the 'car drivers insurance must pay'.
Suppose you hit a cyclist, and it's their fault, but they claim on your insurance, as they will be able to. All above board and legal.
But, since it's their fault, and you have suffered a material loss - namely your no-claims bonus, and increased premiums, surely you can make a claim for liability against them for your losses, since the accident was their fault? Or are they going to change the whole law on personal liability?
So they get a payout on your insurance, and you get to claim all your losses back from them... Hmmm can smell a few rackets brewing here...
/sarcasm=on
Ah hah - I can see a change of career to solicitor and some serious money rolling in if this comes off. Suggest the same for anyone else wishing to fill the gap in the market and make a killing at everyone elses expense (namely insurance)
/sarcasm=off
Frightening though though....
Cheers,
Paul
And finally, a quick question - whats the deal with riding two / three abreast down the road. I always thought that was against the Highway Code. Is this correct or am I imagining things again????
No actually it is perfectly legal to ride two abreast in most circumsances and IMO encourages motorists to overtake properly rather than squeeze past and force cyclists into the gutter.
No actually it is perfectly legal to ride two abreast in most circumsances and IMO encourages motorists to overtake properly rather than squeeze past and force cyclists into the gutter.
quote:
No actually it is perfectly legal to ride two abreast in most circumsances and IMO encourages motorists to overtake properly rather than squeeze past and force cyclists into the gutter.
Yes, in some situations perfectly acceptable. However, on NSL roads where they are going slower than tractors holding up a massive queue of traffice behind them - now thats daft.... and it has happened many times. For the Northerns among us, they will know the road from the A19 / A172 to Middlesbrough via Stokesley.....
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Why do road racer bikes like to have their road races on very dangerous roads? Like the A14 or A1...? Is it the element of danger, or are they the only roads that the Police let them on (and have a laugh at the same time)?
quote:
And finally, a quick question - whats the deal with riding two / three abreast down the road. I always thought that was against the Highway Code. Is this correct or am I imagining things again????
No actually it is perfectly legal to ride two abreast in most circumsances and IMO encourages motorists to overtake properly rather than squeeze past and force cyclists into the gutter.
err ... there are very few times when this is sensible ... on NSL roads closing speeds are far too great for this and almost everywhere else is too narrow.
Cyclists stand a better chance of being treated with respect if the majority of them treated other road users with equal respect. Make themselves visible, fit lights, indicate, obey traffic lights, don't hop up and down the curbs, blah, blah, blah
It all went to sh1t when we started getting mountain bikes...
Does anyone remember the 'Cycling Proficiency Test'?
Whatever happened to that?
When I were a lad folk were proud to display the little red sticker on their mudguard (mudguards? - whatever happened to them?) and it was cool to have the latest lighting accessories fitted.
Couple of days ago a cyclist gave a hand-signal for my benefit (no, a proper one) and I was so surprised I nearly ran him over.
Whatever happened to that?
When I were a lad folk were proud to display the little red sticker on their mudguard (mudguards? - whatever happened to them?) and it was cool to have the latest lighting accessories fitted.
Couple of days ago a cyclist gave a hand-signal for my benefit (no, a proper one) and I was so surprised I nearly ran him over.
quote:
quote:
Clarkson descibes them as "lycra nazis" and he damn right. Seen three instances of loonies on bikes in the "smoke" already.... only been working here for a month!
I've been here 2 years now, and I'm still amazed at the sheer arrogance of London cyclists. I'd say it's actually the majority of them who habitually commit traffic offences, particularly jumping red lights, ignoring pedestrian crossings and riding on the pavement, often at speed and with a mobile clutched to their ear. It's apparently OK for them to put pedestrians' lives at risk, but come anywhere near them in a car and they're the first to bleat.
Last summer in Knightsbridge one of these lentil crunchers had the audacity to ring his bell while riding on the pavement outside Harrods expecting my wife and I to jump into the traffic. Needless to say he got a well aimed kick at his back axle which caused him to spectacularly crash into the barrier. All others on the pavement gave a hearty cheer and applauded the kicker (me). Felt rather good at that moment. He sheepishly took his bike back into traffic..... Thats the way to sort those beggers
Good work, JMGS4! 
There's been a series of letters in the Metro and London Evening Standard these past few days expressing pro-cyclist and anti-motorist views, including such rational comments as "motorists - tax
them till they bleed", and some prat claiming that in the vast majority of accidents between a car and a cyclist or pedestrian, it's the car driver that's to blame. Anyone care to write a well-argued reply,
quoting statistics and sources (which, strangely, none of the car-haters seem able to do)? CarZee?
There's been a series of letters in the Metro and London Evening Standard these past few days expressing pro-cyclist and anti-motorist views, including such rational comments as "motorists - tax
them till they bleed", and some prat claiming that in the vast majority of accidents between a car and a cyclist or pedestrian, it's the car driver that's to blame. Anyone care to write a well-argued reply,
quoting statistics and sources (which, strangely, none of the car-haters seem able to do)? CarZee?
Show me a verbatim copy of letters/articles to which I might respond & I'll see what I can (be arsed to) do.
It's sad that one of the only ways to battle these morons for the attention of the dreadful public is by playing them at their own game, regurgitating the same tired old facts and arguments time & time again.. I get kind of tired composing letters on the same theme week after week...
Nonetheless, the challenge of getting a letter published in the Standard holds more allure than getting published in any other local paper..
Still, violence is starting to look like the answer
It's sad that one of the only ways to battle these morons for the attention of the dreadful public is by playing them at their own game, regurgitating the same tired old facts and arguments time & time again.. I get kind of tired composing letters on the same theme week after week...
Nonetheless, the challenge of getting a letter published in the Standard holds more allure than getting published in any other local paper..
Still, violence is starting to look like the answer
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff