Look at these cunts

[Tom]

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.

It's extremely unlikely that you'll negligently walk into a road and cause a multiple vehicle pileup. But by your reasoning, because it's unlikely it doesn't mean it can't happen, and you should therefore carry insurance to protect you against such claims.

By the way, contents insurance isn't a legal requirement, because being burgled doesn't really impact a third party, so you've kind of shot yourself in the foot there.

Do you have pedestrian insurance which covers you in the event you cause such an accident?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

...and similarly anyone could put a camera in their car and film shit cyclists. It'd be fucking easy around here. I don't see what point you're making there with that post?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It's extremely unlikely that you'll negligently walk into a road and cause a multiple vehicle pileup. But by your reasoning, because it's unlikely it doesn't mean it can't happen, and you should therefore carry insurance to protect you against such claims.

Do you have pedestrian insurance which covers you in the event you cause such an accident?

No because pedestrians don't walk in the road you utter idiot.

 

[- English -]

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.

Is that entirely true though?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...sportsmen-fuelling-rise-in-knee-surgery.html#

 

[Tom]

...and similarly anyone could put a camera in their car and film shit cyclists. It'd be fucking easy around here. I don't see what point you're making there with that post?

Shit cyclist = injured cyclist and maybe lightly damaged car.

Shit motorist = dead or seriously injured people and major accident damage.

 

[Tom]

No because pedestrians don't walk in the road you utter idiot.

Well, it didn't take long for the sagacious image to slip and the blithering idiot to reveal himself, did it?

 

[Embattle]

No because pedestrians don't walk in the road you utter idiot.

They don't often walk lengthways on a road but it does happen.

 

[Tom]

Is that entirely true though?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...sportsmen-fuelling-rise-in-knee-surgery.html#

Yes, it is true.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Coronary-heart-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

[Wazzerphuk]

So insuring yourself against said damages and injuries is a joke and a complete waste of time?

And all shit motoring results in major damage and seriously injured people now? You're arguing bad points with even worse arguments that fail to consider anything but "car accident = DEATH! DOOM! PANIC!"

 

[- English -]

Yes, it is true.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Coronary-heart-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Oh sorry I forgot cyclists where immune to this disease

 

[Wazzerphuk]

They don't often walk lengthways on a road but it does happen.

Cars and cycles main domain is the road: that is where they legally have to be (excluding cycle paths). Pedestrians don't walk in the road unless they are forced to by a lack of paving. Crossing the road is not the same as walking in it.

That is why pedestrians shouldn't have insurance and Tom's argument is completely invalid.

 

[Embattle]

Is that entirely true though?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...sportsmen-fuelling-rise-in-knee-surgery.html#

It should be pointed out cycling doesn't tend to be in the same league due to the general non impact nature of cycling.

 

[- English -]

It should be pointed out cycling doesn't tend to be in the same league due to the general non impact nature of cycling.

Debatable? BMX or whatever its called surely involves impact of the knees. It could be argued thats not "road cycling" or whatever but there must be some element of damage to the knees.

 

[Embattle]

Cars and cycles main domain is the road: that is where they legally have to be (excluding cycle paths). Pedestrians don't walk in the road unless they are forced to by a lack of paving. Crossing the road is not the same as walking in it.

That is why pedestrians shouldn't have insurance and Tom's argument is completely invalid.

Hence why I said length and not across the road, also there is plenty of pavement round my way yet some people still walk in the road due to believing the pavement is dangerous. Personally neither cyclists or pedestrians need any form of insurance in my opinion.

 

[Embattle]

Debatable? BMX or whatever its called surely involves impact of the knees. It could be argued thats not "road cycling" or whatever but there must be some element of damage to the knees.

I did say it wasn't in the same league but I didn't say none, although I would also state that BMX jumping isn't really something you'll find those in the age range mentioned in the article doing.

 

[DaGaffer]

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.

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.

Wow, so what is it, you're a time traveller, or you witnessed a ghooost being run over?

 

[Gwadien]

ownedbyscouse.com

Not at all, he was referring to accidents between cyclists and cars, I'm talking about incidents separate to that.

I'm not even talking about the effect that they have on the road, I'm on about the effect they have on pedestrians, and their lack of following rules - as you saw in that video, they nearly ran over people like 15-16 times, in my 18 years, I've crossed at red lights, 0 cars have jumped red, whilst atleast hmm, 40-50 bikes have jumped red, and gave me a look for crossing, when I had the right to do so, that's my point.

Cars don't jump red, Cyclists think they have the right to do so. This is from personal experience, anyway.

same for Zebra crossings etc.

 

[PLightstar]

Agree with some of your points Tom, but I think Cyclists need to take a legal requirement test before being allowed out on a main road. Otherwise they put themselves and others at risk of injury. I took the cycling proficiency test as a kid, it isn't a legal requirement, my mum made me do it so I could ride to school safely.

 

[sayward]

Just read the whole of this. Going back a bit:
1. If you don't look both ways in a one way street in either Paris or Madrid you are wilfully commiting suicide!

2. Red lights in both cities are obviously there to be driven through especially by young males who have always been allowed to do what they like and therefore don't think the lights apply to them. ( drvers and cyclists)

3. In Paris there are many large clear cycle lanes. And stepping into one is also like commiting suicide. No cyclist is going to stop for a pedestrian. They are silent killers, at least you can hear a car coming. They do not stop for anything, red lights or greenmen for crossing. And they wouldn't dream of giving a warning even tho they all have bells.

4. When I passed my test the amount of space you had to leave when overtaking a cyclist was enough so that if he fell off you wouldn't run over his head! As you all know it's impossible to do this in the uk because the oncoming drvers are not aware and usually make sure you haven't got enough room to pass. As the majority of drivers have no idea how wide their car is and so drive on the central line. (outside town I mean)

5.I've just left England for a while. And my car tax is due. So I couldn't leave my car on the road. To me that means my car tax is paying for me to use the road. Whatever is in the small print. That's what most people think too, those who pay it anyway.

6. Personally after driving many thousands of miles around Europe I think that the majority of drvers and cyclists are cretinous.

 

[DaGaffer]

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.

You're missing the point. Again. Or rather you're trying to have your cake and eat it frankly by claiming cyclists are motorists anyway (despite dismissing motorists' views that they're paying "road tax" in the first place). Its not about VED, its not about taxation at all, but it is about insurance and it is about an even playing field for policing and rules of the road. As for "cyclists need less training because they can do less damage"; what a load of bollocks. Cyclists can actually do far MORE damage to one particular individual, themselves, but if a motorist runs over some dozy prick riding in the dark without lights, or two abreast around a blind corner (which I see every fucking day on my way to the train station), the cyclist doesn't get blamed. Of course motorists cause more accidents and more injuries to cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists do, that's just physics, but, as the number of cyclists increases because of economics and emissions, they will be sharing the roadspace more and more with other groups. Frankly I'd suggest cyclists need MORE safety training than motorists because they have more personally to lose (make that argument to any motorcyclist and they'd agree, but cyclists seem to think they have special superpowers).

That was one link I found in two seconds of looking, because funnily enough, its difficult to find accurate stats on injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists because cyclists, unlike motorists, aren't licenced or insured. However I can throw you a New York study (1000 injuries to pedestrians a year).

 

[Zarjazz]

Damn. The topic was misleading.

Actually I now think the topic was spot on. This thread is full of them.

 

[Deebs]

Actually I now think the topic was spot on. This thread is full of them.

You are so funneh!

 

[sayward]

Well I don't like the title cos I'm old fashioned enough to hate that word. I once had to explain to a 10 year old pupil who said it in front of me what it really meant. He was mortified as he had no idea. And from some of the drivel that gets written here I wonder if some of you do either!

 

[Deebs]

Well I don't like the title cos I'm old fashioned enough to hate that word. I once had to explain to a 10 year old pupil who said it in front of me what it really meant. He was mortified as he had no idea. And from some of the drivel that gets written here I wonder if some of you do either!

Drivel?!?!? This is the place to be for the best quality discussions! How dare ye...

So, what did you say to the 10year old?

 

[soze]

1. The female genital organs.
2. Sexual intercourse with a woman.
3.
a. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a woman.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable.


3b seems to fit with how most people are using it in this tread.

 

[old.user4556]

This thread needs some relaxation, so here's some Bon Iver set to peaceful images.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxA25Tj1Ks&feature=relmfu


You may now proceed.

 

[Tom]

As for "cyclists need less training because they can do less damage"; what a load of bollocks. Cyclists can actually do far MORE damage to one particular individual, themselves, but if a motorist runs over some dozy prick riding in the dark without lights, or two abreast around a blind corner (which I see every fucking day on my way to the train station), the cyclist doesn't get blamed.

No mate, you're the one talking bollocks. A motorist hitting a cyclist without lights might be considered at fault, but to be honest I've never had any trouble spotting unlit cyclists at night, just as I've never had trouble spotting unlit pedestrians either. Not that I'm excusing either but for any observant motorist, both are piss easy to see.

And cycling two abreast around a blind corner is exactly how cyclists should use the roads. Anyone complaining otherwise simply doesn't understand the risk posed by motorists who think they can just "squeeze past".

Of course motorists cause more accidents and more injuries to cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists do, that's just physics, but, as the number of cyclists increases because of economics and emissions, they will be sharing the roadspace more and more with other groups. Frankly I'd suggest cyclists need MORE safety training than motorists because they have more personally to lose (make that argument to any motorcyclist and they'd agree, but cyclists seem to think they have special superpowers).

The law doesn't back you up here. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users around and require zero training to use the roads. The drivers of the heaviest, most dangerous vehicles on the road - HGVs - require the most training.

If you think that cyclists need more training than HGV drivers, you want your head examining.

That was one link I found in two seconds of looking, because funnily enough, its difficult to find accurate stats on injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists because cyclists, unlike motorists, aren't licenced or insured. However I can throw you a New York study (1000 injuries to pedestrians a year).

Different country, different culture, different rules.

 

[Gwadien]

And cycling two abreast around a blind corner is exactly how cyclists should use the roads.

lol, no.

Cars should always be able to over-take a bike, obviously, if it's a not majorly busy road.

This is like saying you should be two abreast up escalators, and not allow people who want to be somewhere get past.

I remember practising my cycling thingy when I was like 9, I always remember them saying the car takes priority over you, you should always allow them to take over, if it's safe.

 

[DaGaffer]

No mate, you're the one talking bollocks. A motorist hitting a cyclist without lights might be considered at fault, but to be honest I've never had any trouble spotting unlit cyclists at night, just as I've never had trouble spotting unlit pedestrians either. Not that I'm excusing either but for any observant motorist, both are piss easy to see.

And cycling two abreast around a blind corner is exactly how cyclists should use the roads. Anyone complaining otherwise simply doesn't understand the risk posed by motorists who think they can just "squeeze past".



The law doesn't back you up here. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users around and require zero training to use the roads. The drivers of the heaviest, most dangerous vehicles on the road - HGVs - require the most training.

If you think that cyclists need more training than HGV drivers, you want your head examining.



Different country, different culture, different rules.

Jesus. Talk about defending the indefensible. From the Highway Code:

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

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

 

[Fweddy]

And cycling two abreast around a blind corner is exactly how cyclists should use the roads.

From the Highway Code:

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

(emphasis mine)