Look at these cunts

[Lamp]

The most skilled urban cyclists in the world? LOL...yeah right. The only reason half of them are still alive is other road-users doing the thinking for them.

 

[Raven]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUnwynwZvE


Cyclist going the wrong way down the street - Shifts blame to the Man

Man not using a crossing - Accepts he was in the wrong

Who's in the wrong? from all PoVs.

They were both wrong. Dick going the wrong way and dick not looking both ways before stepping out from behind a van.

 

[Gwadien]

Zede, your arguements are a bit daft...

There's LOADS more cars than bikes, so there will be more accidents, it's just natural, and as said before - how many of the 'bad driving' by the car drivers is due to another factor? - such as a cyclist playing god?

 

[Gwadien]

They were both wrong. Dick going the wrong way and dick not looking both ways before stepping out from behind a van.

Why should he check? - It's a one way road...

 

[Access Denied]

They were both wrong. Dick going the wrong way and dick not looking both ways before stepping out from behind a van.

Why is the pedestrian in the wrong? He was crossing a one way street. Therefore he was looking the way of incoming traffic. I wouldn't think to look the other way because I wouldn't expect some arrogant cunt to be coming the wrong way up the street. Cyclists are bound by the same laws as car drivers and if there had been a cop around I would fully expect the cyclist to get a ticket and a fine.

Zede, you seem to be making out that cyclists are Angels and drivers are cunts. Well fuck you. There are good and bad on both sides so your holier than though attitude won't wash.

 

[Aoami]

who doesn't automatically look both ways when crossing the road?

 

[Gwadien]

who doesn't automatically look both ways when crossing the road?

Meh, I do.. but when you've lived in a City for a number of years, you don't know, that bloke could've made that crossing every day and never needed to check both ways before..

 

[Raven]

who doesn't automatically look both ways when crossing the road?

Stupid people, that's who.

 

[Lamp]

Why should he check? - It's a one way road...

Precisely because bikes do whatever they want. And not just those bastards. Could be a perfectly acceptable reason: a paramedic on a bike rushing to attend a nearby emergency.

Maybe its because I ride a motorcycle I've learnt to ride defensively. Lifesavers. Or maybe its a London thing. Years of experience has developped an almost sixth sense when it comes to road awareness. Checking both ways regardless of the traffic flow. Always indicate. And check your bloody side mirrors! etc

There are too many idiots in London NOT to be over-cautious.

 

[Tom]

The thing that pisses me off the most, is when there's a clear cycle path but they still ride in the road.

The path is there for a reason, for the cyclists safety.

Cycle lanes are almost exclusively shit. They are badly laid out, full of hazards, and more often than not do not go where the cyclist wants to go.

No competent cyclist I know uses cycle lanes, because I know of no competent cyclist that want to die. The road is much, much safer than a cycle lane.

 

[Punishment]

Buy a car hippies

 

[Appollo]

Until cyclists pay insurance and road tax #nocare.

 

[Tom]

Until cyclists pay insurance and road tax #nocare.

Since when have motorists paid road tax?

 

[old.Tohtori]

who doesn't automatically look both ways when crossing the road?

Agreed. I think of it this way; sure, i might be in the right if i get hit by a 2 ton vehicle, but i'll get hit by a 2 f*cking ton vehicle

 

[Jeros]

I was put off cycling after almost being wiped out in the cycle lane a few times buy twats behind me who think its part of the drivable road.

A evenings cycle in London did not change my mind.

I no longer own a bicycle.

 

[Raven]

Since when have motorists paid road tax?

er... Vehicle excise duty...commonly known as road tax.

You take pedanticism to a whole new level of tedium.

 

[Ono]

Don't get me wrong. I drive in London every week and always treat cylists like cars and give them proper space when overtaking but they don't do themselves any favours with the whole shouting and whistling at pedestrians who are crossing. If I was in a car and saw a bike or, indeed, anything happening, from a distance I would slow down in case - these pricks don't have the same care when it comes to pedestrians. I think it is because the don't want to lose their momentum and make it more hard work to get up the speed again.

 

[Deebs]

Since when have motorists paid road tax?

The £240 a year I pay to DVLA for the privilege of allowing a car on the road says I pay a road tax, plus the MOT costs, plus the insurance costs.

Tell me again how much a cyclist has to pay....

 

[DaGaffer]

On my way home last week a car pulled out from a side street onto the main road. I had to slam my breaks on to avoid him as the bus coming the other way meant i could not go round the cunt. The car plowed into the bus, killing 4 people, badly injuring 3 predestrians and closing the road for half a day.

But it's ok, take your anger out on cyclists, as they are by far the biggest cause of road accidents.

And he didn't kill you? Unlucky. Of course as this story comes from Madeupland, your survival isn't surprising.

 

[Tom]

er... Vehicle excise duty...commonly known as road tax.

You take pedanticism to a whole new level of tedium.

The £240 a year I pay to DVLA for the privilege of allowing a car on the road says I pay a road tax, plus the MOT costs, plus the insurance costs.

Tell me again how much a cyclist has to pay....

But this is not a road tax, it is an engine size or co2 emissions tax. It has not paid for "the roads" since 1937 (Winston Churchill, recognising it would give motorists a sense of entitlement, removed it). Any revenue raised from it goes into the pot, just like Income Tax, National Insurance, VAT, Insurance Premium Tax, etc. You can buy quite a few cars that won't require you to pay VED. The Audi A1, BMW 1 series, Fiat Panda, Toyota Yaris, Vauxhall Corsa, Astra, VW Polo, Golf, etc - all cars that don't require you to pay VED.

So going on the government's own rules for VED, a bicycle without an engine and emitting 0 grams of co2 would pay VED of....£0.00

So now that the non-existent "road tax" has been dealt with, tell me why cyclists should pay for insurance? And at what age should they start paying - a three-year-old child on a tricycle, how much insurance should they pay?

 

[DaGaffer]

Are they riding that tricycle on the public road? Then I'd say...a lot.

 

[Deebs]

But this is not a road tax, it is an engine size or co2 emissions tax. It has not paid for "the roads" since 1937 (Winston Churchill, recognising it would give motorists a sense of entitlement, removed it). Any revenue raised from it goes into the pot, just like Income Tax, National Insurance, VAT, Insurance Premium Tax, etc. You can buy quite a few cars that won't require you to pay VED. The Audi A1, BMW 1 series, Fiat Panda, Toyota Yaris, Vauxhall Corsa, Astra, VW Polo, Golf, etc - all cars that don't require you to pay VED.

So going on the government's own rules for VED, a bicycle without an engine and emitting 0 grams of co2 would pay VED of....£0.00

So now that the non-existent "road tax" has been dealt with, tell me why cyclists should pay for insurance? And at what age should they start paying - a three-year-old child on a tricycle, how much insurance should they pay?

From DVLA:

Every vehicle registered in the United Kingdom (UK) must be taxed if used or kept on a public road. If the vehicle is kept off-road it must either be taxed or have a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) in force. If not it could be wheel clamped or removed.

That to me reads as a tax to keep a car on a public road, ie road tax. Some cars might be exempt, but they are still taxed, just at a zero rate. Insurance should be mandatory for cycles, if a cyclist hits my car then they should pay for it, ie I should be able to make a claim for damages.

I have nothing against the majority of cyclists but when they are on the road they have a liability to the safety of others, the same as car owners.

 

[Tom]

From DVLA:


That to me reads as a tax to keep a car on a public road, ie road tax. Some cars might be exempt, but they are still taxed, just at a zero rate. Insurance should be mandatory for cycles, if a cyclist hits my car then they should pay for it, ie I should be able to make a claim for damages.

I have nothing against the majority of cyclists but when they are on the road they have a liability to the safety of others, the same as car owners.

But that tax doesn't pay for the roads, does it? Most roads in the UK are maintained by your local council, which is funded by a mixture of government grants, council tax, business rates, etc. A tiny fraction of the revenue collected might go into the roads, but then again it might go to your local library, or your new wheelie bin. Or it might pay for a lightbulb on that new aircraft carrier.

Do you really want a huge new bureaucracy created, just to ensure that cyclists are riding around with a little paper disc they pay nothing for (btw, if you're zero-rated for tax then you're not taxed). Furthermore, it wouldn't stop at cyclists. Equestrians, they'd have to have a tax disc too. Then there's joggers and other pedestrians - the pavement is part of the highway, it's funded and maintained by the same bodies, so they'd need taxing too. Do you want to pay "road tax" when you walk in the road? What about that country lane you're taking a stroll on, the one that doesn't have a pavement - you're getting in the way of people who pay road tax, shame on you! What about your kids, walking to the park - walking on the roads that you think you're more entitled to use. Cheeky sods, gtfo!

What if you're being followed by a newer car with a large engine, someone paying £400 a year in VED. Should you pull over and get the fuck out of their way? They're more entitled than you, they pay more. MOVE OVER!

As for insurance, many cyclists are already insured through their household insurance policies. Many others (certainly the ones with expensive equipment) are insured through organisations like the CTC. But insurance isn't really necessary for a cyclist. If a motorist hits another vehicle, or a pedestrian, the costs...well, it isn't going to be cheap. In fact the costs can run into millions. But for a cyclist, the cost of a bruised pedestrian or a scratched/dented car panel is negligible. A few hundred pounds at most. That's why cyclists aren't required to be insured - because the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

What next Deebs? A good old whinge about how cyclists don't need driving licences? Or how about the old "they don't use cycle lanes" bollocks? I'm surprised at you. Roads are for people.

 

[Deebs]

But that tax doesn't pay for the roads, does it? Most roads in the UK are maintained by your local council, which is funded by a mixture of government grants, council tax, business rates, etc. A tiny fraction of the revenue collected might go into the roads, but then again it might go to your local library, or your new wheelie bin. Or it might pay for a lightbulb on that new aircraft carrier.

Do you really want a huge new bureaucracy created, just to ensure that cyclists are riding around with a little paper disc they pay nothing for (btw, if you're zero-rated for tax then you're not taxed). Furthermore, it wouldn't stop at cyclists. Equestrians, they'd have to have a tax disc too. Then there's joggers and other pedestrians - the pavement is part of the highway, it's funded and maintained by the same bodies, so they'd need taxing too. Do you want to pay "road tax" when you walk in the road? What about that country lane you're taking a stroll on, the one that doesn't have a pavement - you're getting in the way of people who pay road tax, shame on you! What about your kids, walking to the park - walking on the roads that you think you're more entitled to use. Cheeky sods, gtfo!

As for insurance, many cyclists are already insured through their household insurance policies. Many others (certainly the ones with expensive equipment) are insured through organisations like the CTC. But insurance isn't really necessary for a cyclist. If a motorist hits another vehicle, or a pedestrian, the costs...well, it isn't going to be cheap. In fact the costs can run into millions. But for a cyclist, the cost of a bruised pedestrian or a scratched/dented car panel is negligible. A few hundred pounds at most. That's why cyclists aren't required to be insured - because the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

What next Deebs? A good old whinge about how cyclists don't need driving licences? Or how about the old "they don't use cycle lanes" bollocks? I'm surprised at you. Roads are for people.

Not at all, what about the cyclist/jogger/pedestrian that causes a car to swerve and then cause a pileup/death? It does happen. Everyone using the public highway HAS a responsibility to use it properly. Personally I would prefer to see stricter punishment dished out.

Prime example, this morning as I was waiting to cross the road from Liverpool St Station, the ped crossing turned red. As the throng of people started to cross a cyclist shot straight through the red light.

 

[- English -]

Not sure if its the same in the UK but in Denmark if you get caught jumping a red light on a bike you now get a hefty fine.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not sure if its the same in the UK but in Denmark if you get caught jumping a red light on a bike you now get a hefty fine.

Same in Finland, you can even get a speeding ticket

 

[Embattle]

Not sure if its the same in the UK but in Denmark if you get caught jumping a red light on a bike you now get a hefty fine.

It is creeping in but then it will be about as useless as fines/points for motorists using a phone while driving, unlikely to have a cop there at the time.

Look at this http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332 and ask yourself how often people break these rules in all forms of transport from legs to wheels.

As for road tax it doesn't paid for roads as drivers full well know, this is often in the form of moaning about the revenue taken via road tax and the amount spent by the government on roads.

 

[Tom]

Not at all, what about the cyclist/jogger/pedestrian that causes a car to swerve and then cause a pileup/death? It does happen. Everyone using the public highway HAS a responsibility to use it properly. Personally I would prefer to see stricter punishment dished out.

Prime example, this morning as I was waiting to cross the road from Liverpool St Station, the ped crossing turned red. As the throng of people started to cross a cyclist shot straight through the red light.

If it happens then you'll surely be able to cite an example. I agree that punishments should be more severe though. We should certainly be imposing lifetime bans on people who habitually drive in a manner that places other road users at risk, and not simply issuing them with points and 12-month bans. And we all know some cyclists jump red lights, just as we all know some motorists jump red lights. Thing is, which do you think is the more dangerous?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ23odw2-To

 

[Deebs]

If it happens then you'll surely be able to cite an example. I agree that punishments should be more severe though. We should certainly be imposing lifetime bans on people who habitually drive in a manner that places other road users at risk, and not simply issuing them with points and 12-month bans. And we all know some cyclists jump red lights, just as we all know some motorists jump red lights. Thing is, which do you think is the more dangerous?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ23odw2-To

They are both equally dangerous. Red lights are there for a purpose. Drivers do get banned, how many cyclists get points/banned for dangerous behaviour on roads? Motorcycles are subject to the same restriction as a car, even those poxy little mopeds which are speed limited (some cyclists can reach higher speeds than them).

 

[old.Tohtori]

Question for those who are against these scourges of humanity; do you jaywalk or wait for the green light?