Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Some Cyclists !
#11

Maybe I have missed it, but where is the link with slot cars in this topic?
[+] 4 members Like rallyhub's post
Quote
#12

. . . there isn't any - this is the 'Off Topic' section.
[+] 2 members Like HiFi's post
Quote
#13

If it is illegal to use a mobile phone when driving, why do so many cyclists think it is okay to use one when cycling with both hands off the handlebars? Tappingfoot
Quote
#14

So the OP says he and his group do the "right thing" when riding and complains about cyclists who do not. Do you also get on motorist forums and complain about motorists who do not do the right thing, but idolise yourself because you do the "right thing" in your car?

Slippery slope there.

As for cycling in general:

www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

Drawing a line, we have roads because cyclists wanted them.

As for people complaining about cyclists not paying "road tax". If motorists were required to pay the actual real cost of using a motor vehicle, unsubsidised by general taxation revenue from other sources, then motoring would be completely unaffordable for almost all of us. And the world would have less conflict without countries fighting over oil. Refer to the picture linked below.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4RJYk3jeDzy4H5N58

My final observation is that motorists are a selfish bunch (and I am a motorist). They cannot play nice with their toys, so as a result, we have a whole section of law dedicated to regulating them, that only exists because of motorists. Prior to cars, and the road network being there because of cyclists, there were no road regulations. Cyclists, pedestrians, and horse/carriage all got along fine. Then there were motorists, so we needed rules, because they could not play nice with others, we have parking meters to stop motorists leaving the cars around for too long, we have traffic lights because they cannot be courteous at intersections, speed limits because they lack good judgement not to speed, rules so they will not run into other users and keep to one side of the road, drink driving laws because they want to control a lethal weapon while drunk, and a whole division of a police force to make sure they do the right thing. So yeah cyclists are such a selfish lot.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qRShBH8sckLT8oAKA
[+] 3 members Like ThatOtherGuy's post
Quote
#15

i might write a book 'roads were not made for cyclists ' and talk about roman roads ( how far back are we going )
as for motorists paying road tax ... at least they pay something 
as a motorist myself i realize that almost all the rules imposed help towards that taxation ( alot ) 

i am not ANTI cyclist ( having repaired a few punctures in my time ), but  looking at the previous posts , it has already been established there are good and bad on both sides
just as im not motorcycle-ist ,or motorist-ist or truck-ist ( are those real words lol ) or any other kind of -ist because i have used them all 
admittedly as a 60's child , sometimes recklessly

i think the root ( route ) of the problem is cyclists are on a jolly ,,, and other road users ... have somewhere to go 
so its obviously not the cyclist who gets infuriated   

not posting on this subject again ( hopefully )

kev
Quote
#16

(1st-May-21, 07:45 PM)OXO cube Wrote:  .....

i think the root ( route ) of the problem is cyclists are on a jolly ,,, and other road users ... have somewhere to go 
so its obviously not the cyclist who gets infuriated   

......
Wow, oh wow, so every trip a motorist makes is for some "purpose" that is more legitimate than a cyclists?

Ever drive to the movies, to the beach, for a day out, for any "jolly" purpose? You are what they call peak traffic contributing to peak traffic in your quest for a "jolly" day out in your motor vehicle. You must have a utilitarian purpose for every drive you embark on lest you are doing a "jolly" in your motor vehicle.

Not all cyclists are on a "jolly", some are commuters, some are shoppers, some are riding for fitness, and guess what, fit people are less of a tax burden on health systems, so should cyclists get a rebate on taxes for their health? They also often wear clothing fit for purpose, so you see cyclists on a "jolly" that could be something entirely different.

Not sure about other countries, but in Australia, road registration actually makes a loss for the government, yep that's right, registering a motor vehicle is a subsidised activity, everyone including those who do not have a vehicle pays for vehicles. If you really wanted to tax motor vehicles at registration time to truly subsidise the cost of roads, it would be astronomical. And like in many countries, all levels of government pay for the roads, local government, state government and federal government (yes I know the UK only has a local and national government). So when you travel to another local council area, do you pay for the roads there, no, the citizens of that council do, so you are driving on a subsidised local council road. Your not paying for it. So spare me the tripe about motorists paying their way, they don't, we all do.

While we're at it, should couples who decide not to have children get a tax rebate, after all, they are subsidizing an education system they don't use? The list goes on. I've heard it all before blah blah blah, I own a vehicle, I pay taxes, blah blah blah. It gets very tiresome.

As for your comment about Roman roads, they did not extend everywhere, only where the Roman's wanted them, and I think anyone would agree the current road building technology we have today, pioneered by cyclists, is a little more advanced than what the Romans had. So yes Romans had roads, but only what suited the Romans, and in particular their military, they were not for built for commoners to use at their leisure, let alone to "jolly" on.

Oh and "I'm not anti-cyclist but".... Sorry, you cannot say that and then rant. Its like saying "I'm not racist". Its disingenuous, and frankly insulting to anyone reading your comments.
[+] 2 members Like ThatOtherGuy's post
Quote
#17

Here in the Netherlands cyclists are legally entitled to do anything they want, well almost.

If you hit an under 12 (or 16) the insurance will not pay your damage at all. In all other cases you have to prove that the accident could not be avoided, almost impossible. So you would end up with 50% of the damage. 

All to protect the cyclists from getting hurt. While you only have a dent in the car, the cyclist could end up in hospital.
[+] 2 members Like Henk's post
Quote
#18

(1st-May-21, 06:56 PM)ThatOtherGuy Wrote:  So the OP says he and his group do the "right thing" when riding and complains about cyclists who do not. Do you also get on motorist forums and complain about motorists who do not do the right thing, but idolise yourself because you do the "right thing" in your car?

TBH no, I only frequent car forums relative to the vehicle I own and only then for the purpose of keeping updated on the vehicle and its systems.
I would never idolise myself, I have my faults and I know what they are, but I do give other road users of all vehicle types consideration whatever vehicle I am in/on, and yes, as I already said there are bad apples in all camps.

Lets keep it calm and productive, it was not my intention to start a this vs that argument.
What I did hope to discover is was there a reason for the non single file behaviour when roads or traffic would, (in my mind logically), indicate otherwise.

What doesn't help is the UK highway code is fairly open to interpretation the actual wording is: 

Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

Parents with kids, I can understand. Larger groups I can see the logic in making a shorter "train" to get past, but 4 or less would be better dropping into single file IMO.
[+] 2 members Like Savage GT's post
Quote
#19

(3rd-May-21, 08:04 AM)Savage GT Wrote:  What I did hope to discover is was there a reason for the non single file behaviour when roads or traffic would, (in my mind logically), indicate otherwise.

What doesn't help is the UK highway code is fairly open to interpretation the actual wording is: 

Yes there is a logic for not riding single file, its very simple. If you ride single file you almost inherently invite either a "punishment pass" form a driver, or a poorly thought pass.  Riding 2 abreast which is in almost every jurisdiction on the world totally legal. Otherwise how could cyclists pass each other legally? Riding wide or 2 abreast makes you a forethought in a motorists mind rather than an after thought. It forces the motorist to actually take a moment to think about their actions rather than just "slip by" and then when they realise they have made a mistake, they take out the cyclist as the "easy" option rather than have the head on collision from their ill thought maneuver.

You're right, Australian road laws are no better, in fact I enjoy taking on the jack boots if I am ever pulled over. I keep a copy of the road regulations on my phone and force them to elocute exactly what they think they are going to ticket me for, and then read them the law, even happy to take it to court, and then spank them in front of the magistrate which I have done a number of times. That threat alone leaves most of them walking away tail between their legs.

If you hadn't guessed, I am very passionate about road safety, and having achieved changes in road rules in my own country that protect vulnerable road users, I truly despise the ignorant masses who want to be road bullies.
[+] 1 member Likes ThatOtherGuy's post
Quote


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)