Look at these cunts

[soze]

The difference is one is already punishable and policed by red light cameras and the like. Also for the amount of cars you see on the road I would also suggest a higher portion of cyclists find it acceptable to ignore a red light than drivers. And again if a cyclist runs a red light causing a car to crash when they avoid the cyclist that counts as a car crash but the fault lies with the cyclist.

 

[Tom]

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).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that 1.7 tonnes of metal and plastic running a red light is no more dangerous than 230lbs of flesh, blood and metal travelling at about half or two thirds the speed?

Seriously?

 

[soze]

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

Jaywalking is not a crime in the UK as far as I know. In 29 years I have never heard of someone arrested for crossing a road on a red light. I know a few people who have been run over but the blame has always landed on them never the driver.

 

[Deebs]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that 1.7 tonnes of metal and plastic running a red light is no more dangerous than 230lbs of flesh, blood and metal travelling at about half or two thirds the speed?

Seriously?

What about when the 230lbs of flesh, blood and metal CAUSE a 1.7 tonne beast to swerve and crash?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

What a stupid argument to be having. Running a red light in inherently dangerous. The subjective arbitrary assignment of what is "more" dangerous is completely irrelevant.

 

[Raven]

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.

blah blah blah.

It's refereed to as the road tax.

Do you colour code your pants for different days?

 

[Tom]

Stop avoiding the questions. You've made several assertions now and I've answered all of them. You said that a cyclist ignoring a red light was equally as dangerous as a motorist ignoring a red light. Which is obviously complete bollocks. As was your point about "road tax". As was your point about insurance.

Instead of raising nonsense points, how about you justify your position with some facts?

 

[Tom]

blah blah blah.

It's refereed to as the road tax.

Do you colour code your pants for different days?

I couldn't care less what it's called, it doesn't pay for the roads. Anyone who claims that, because they pay "road tax", they have more "rights" to use the roads than those who don't, is a first-order bumbling fuckwit.

 

[Scouse]

They are both equally dangerous.

That's not really true tho, is it Deebs...

 

[Raven]

I couldn't care less what it's called, it doesn't pay for the roads. Anyone who claims that, because they pay "road tax", they have more "rights" to use the roads than those who don't, is a first-order bumbling fuckwit.

Without it you aren't allowed to drive on the road, you aren't even allowed to park on the road.

 

[Fweddy]

A cyclist going through a red light could well be considered more dangerous. They don't have 1.7 tonnes of metal and plastic protecting them like a motorist does.

 

[old.user4556]

Cuntingwell top at a red light no matter who or what. Fuck sake.

 

[Tom]

Without it you aren't allowed to drive on the road, you aren't even allowed to park on the road.

Unless you own a band-A rated car, a list of which I have already provided. Or anything registered before 1973, for that matter.

 

[Raven]

Regardless, that's not my point. I couldn't care less about it myself.

My point is that you said nobody paid road tax, when people actually do (though it is technically known as something else) but you were just being a pedantic anal retentive about it.

 

[Tom]

Pedantry is useful when you're confronted by the kind of moron who justifies his dangerous driving with a comment like "I pay road tax, cyclists don't pay road tax, cyclists get out of the fucking way".

 

[Raven]

Er, they didn't say that though did they? (or anything like that)

I don't actually think cyclists should pay road tax, they should have insurance though. Who is going to pay when some dick takes my mirror or scrapes my paint? How about when some clown jumps the lights because he thinks he can do as he likes because he is on a pushbike. Who is going to pay for the hospital treatment/damages etc when someone on a pushbike hits someone?

And ffs, if cyclists are going to ride on the road at least try and keep up with the speed of traffic and stop wobbling about all over the place so that people can actually get past safely!

 

[DaGaffer]

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.

You do in Ireland too, if they spot you. That's the main problem, cyclists flout red lights so often without penalty that its become the norm, and unlike cars and motorcycles, cameras aren't a solution.

Stuff.

Whether you like it or not Tom, there's an imbalance between the dangers cyclists cause to themselves and others and the responsibility cyclists take for that. Arguing about the lack of hypothocecation of VED means its "not road tax" is missing the point; as Road Users, motorists are taxed for the use of their vehicle (how that is calculated is irrelevant, its C02 now, it was value before), cyclists are not. As road users, motorists face compulsory insurance, cyclists do not. As road users, motorists are tested and subject to a raft of legal penalties, the bar for cyclists is far lower. If a motorist kills someone, they can expect prison and various other penalties, there's no such legislation for cyclists, even though they can and do kill and injure people regularly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12816829). Just because cyclists can't cause as much damage as a car, doesn't mean there shoudn't be legislative efforts at improving standards of cycling, just as there are efforts at improving standards of driving

 

[PLightstar]

why oh why motorists think they have divine right to the road, and everyone else has to pader to them is beyond me. Car users are far, far, far, far, x 10000 more dangerous than cyclists. Buy your MEN in a big car, and boy changing that gear stick feeeells goood.

Mainly because drivers pay Road Tax and the Roads are built for Cars. Personally I see most cyclists cycling by the highway code, but ones especially in bigger cities tend to ignore the most basic of road rules, like Red means stop. People get nervous driving behind bikes as they tend to be unpredictable. 8/10 you know what the car in front will do, you can not make the same assumption of cyclists.

 

[Scouse]

OK. Lets get some facts. From an article on a study commissioned by the UK Department of Transport.

It seems that cyclists are, in the vast majority of cases, not to blame:

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time

...more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions

If you take away the "youth" (i.e 16-24 year olds, who are also responsible for a lot of car crashes) - it's more than two-to-one the sole responsibility of the car/van driver. Only one time in four it's solely the cyclists fault.


It's drivers and thier shitty road rage and hating of cyclists and the way they ride that are the real issue here. Being a recent (last couple of years) cycling convert I can admit to feeling that way myself until I actually got out onto the bike.

When you're out on a bike you know you're naked. You haven't got a cage around you and there's all these fucking hewuge metal objects flying about taking no care whatsoever. 90% of your concentration is taken up avoiding obstacles (cars, pedestrians, potholes, broken glass). That, and the fact that you're not in a box and can therefore hear the other traffic correctly, makes the vast majority of cyclists hugely more aware of their surroundings than drivers.

Cars and drivers and their sense of entitlement is the problem. Sure there are cunt cyclists - but no more than the same percentage of cunt car drivers - the percentage of cunt in the population doesn't discriminate based on vehicle usage...

 

[Tom]

Er, they didn't say that though did they? (or anything like that)

Never said they did.

I don't actually think cyclists should pay road tax, they should have insurance though. Who is going to pay when some dick takes my mirror or scrapes my paint? How about when some clown jumps the lights because he thinks he can do as he likes because he is on a pushbike. Who is going to pay for the hospital treatment/damages etc when someone on a pushbike hits someone?

The cyclist can pay for damaging your car. Whether he has insurance or not is irrelevant, you make a claim against him. If he doesn't carry insurance then you have the option to sue him in court, or contact your insurance company and ask them to do it for you.

But the cost of a mirror or a bit of paint is a few hundred quid, so why on earth would you want to make it a legal requirement for all cyclists (there are millions of them) to carry insurance in this unlikely event? Remember, if a cyclist hits a car it's a few hundred quid. If a car hits a car it's a few thousand quid. If a car causes a multi-vehicle accident on the motorway, it's millions of pounds. That's why motorists are required to have insurance - because it's unlikely that in a serious accident they could cover the costs of the accident. It's extremely unlikely that a cyclist, at fault or not, would ever be in that position.

And ffs, if cyclists are going to ride on the road at least try and keep up with the speed of traffic and stop wobbling about all over the place so that people can actually get past safely!

Average speed of motor vehicles in London is 10mph, about the same as a chicken running. When I used to commute the 8 miles from college to home I could often annihilate the motorists doing the same route.

And if you can't pass a cyclist safely then don't pass at all.

 

[Tom]

Whether you like it or not Tom, there's an imbalance between the dangers cyclists cause to themselves and others and the responsibility cyclists take for that. Arguing about the lack of hypothocecation of VED means its "not road tax" is missing the point; as Road Users, motorists are taxed for the use of their vehicle (how that is calculated is irrelevant, its C02 now, it was value before), cyclists are not. As road users, motorists face compulsory insurance, cyclists do not. As road users, motorists are tested and subject to a raft of legal penalties, the bar for cyclists is far lower. If a motorist kills someone, they can expect prison and various other penalties, there's no such legislation for cyclists, even though they can and do kill and injure people regularly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12816829). Just because cyclists can't cause as much damage as a car, doesn't mean there shoudn't be legislative efforts at improving standards of cycling, just as there are efforts at improving standards of driving

Wat. Councils maintain roads. Councils are funded by, amongst other things, council tax. Cyclists pay council tax. Therefore cyclists contribute toward the roads. Cyclists don't wear the roads out either. And get this - most cyclists DO pay VED, because most cyclists own and operate a car.

And really, finding the one dubious example of a cyclist killing a pedestrian and using that to justify the argument "they can and do kill and injure people regularly" - what a load of bollocks. Last time I looked, thousands of people were killed annually in road traffic accidents, and almost all of them involved motorised vehicles.

I love all this "but motorists pay soooooo much" nonsense that's used to justify these complaints. The simple fact is, cyclists are healthier and therefore cost the NHS less. So they're saving you money there. Also, the more cyclists there are, the fewer cars there are, so you'll spend less time in traffic jams. Saving you money there, too. And cyclists don't require training in the same way as motorists do, because poor-quality cyclists are far less likely to cause anywhere near the level of damage that poor-quality motorists do. Think about that, the next time you're stuck on the motorway because some dozy cunt decided to crash and die in a fire.

 

[Zede]

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?

ownedbyscouse.com

 

[Zede]

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

Steven Quirk, brother of Neil Quirk, died 1991. Him dead, 2 mates crippled for life. Buried in St Michaels Church, Ormskirk, Lancs. Phone up the church if you like, http://www.aughtonstmichael.org.uk/

Fuck you, FOAD is to kind.

 

[Raven]

1991 isn't exactly "last week" though is it?

 

[Deebs]

Wat. Councils maintain roads. Councils are funded by, amongst other things, council tax. Cyclists pay council tax. Therefore cyclists contribute toward the roads. Cyclists don't wear the roads out either. And get this - most cyclists DO pay VED, because most cyclists own and operate a car.

And really, finding the one dubious example of a cyclist killing a pedestrian and using that to justify the argument "they can and do kill and injure people regularly" - what a load of bollocks. Last time I looked, thousands of people were killed annually in road traffic accidents, and almost all of them involved motorised vehicles.

I love all this "but motorists pay soooooo much" nonsense that's used to justify these complaints. The simple fact is, cyclists are healthier and therefore cost the NHS less. So they're saving you money there. Also, the more cyclists there are, the fewer cars there are, so you'll spend less time in traffic jams. Saving you money there, too. And cyclists don't require training in the same way as motorists do, because poor-quality cyclists are far less likely to cause anywhere near the level of damage that poor-quality motorists do. Think about that, the next time you're stuck on the motorway because some dozy cunt decided to crash and die in a fire.

Tom, for me it is not about the costs, its the "Cyclists are angels" mentality when it comes to road usage. Bottom line is that everyone who uses a public highway CAN AND DOES cause accidents. Period. Cyclists are no more of a saint than a car driver.

 

[Scouse]

Whilst I agree in principle with most of your post Deebs, I do disagree on one very important point:

Cyclists are no more of a saint than a car driver.

Yes they are*. Government figures show this to be true.

The reason is that cyclists know that if they have an accident that it's likely to be their only one - so they take more care than other road users in general.


*of course, I don't mean "saints" at all. There's still a fair amount of cunts - but you can't accuse either me or Tom of having an attitude that cyclists are saints in a thread entitled "look at these cunts" where a cyclist posted a video of cyclists he thinks are irresponsible twats...

 

[Deebs]

Whilst I agree in principle with most of your post Deebs, I do disagree on one very important point:



Yes they are. Government figures show this to be true.

The reason is that cyclists know that if they have an accident that it's likely to be their only one - so they take more care than other road users in general.

Fair enough, but still, they are not saints. Far from it.

 

[soze]

Yes they are*. Government figures show this to be true.

But.... so only 17% of those accidents are caused by the cyclist and 75% by drivers. If that is 100 accidents 17 cyclists are cunts but 75 drivers are cunts. Now the tricky bit, is that 17 a larger % of cyclists than the 75 is of road users. This will tell us who is truly the bigger group of cunts.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It's extremely unlikely that a cyclist, at fault or not, would ever be in that position.

Isn't that what insurance is for? The insurance against an UNLIKELY event. Otherwise why do people insure their homes against burglary? You're extremely unlikely to be the victim of it...

Also the value thing you mention holds no ground either. If a cyclist can cause hundreds of pounds of damage and injure people, why shouldn't they be insured? Just because it's worth a few hundred/thousands instead of multiples? What utter nonsense.

 

[Tom]

No, to determine which group represents the largest danger you need only look at the fact that less than a handful of people are killed by cyclists.

Tell you what, I'm about to go out and do 35 miles. I'm confident I'll encounter several dipshit motorists on that ride (I usually do), so if it happens, I'll post footage to prove it.