Look at these cunts

[Embattle]

Ah I never realised that, I have always ridden in the gutter and fucking hate it, I keep finding myself worrying that my pedal could clip the curb. See one good thing has come out of this thread, I have learnt something new and important!

I only really push out a bit in one place when cycling to work and that is an uphill section where the tarmac has receded to expose some cobblestones at the edge of the road, which as everyone knows are fucking awful to ride on.

 

[Deebs]

I only really push out a bit in one place when cycling to work and that is an uphill section where the tarmac has receded to expose some cobblestones at the edge of the road, which as everyone knows are fucking awful to ride on.

As I said I've always ridden in the gutter to allow cars to pass easily but hated it as I was worrying too much about the kerb and it has distracted me. From now on I will not. I've always shown respect to motorists and will continue to do so as it helps with my safety, I always indicate my change of direction with plenty of time to spare, do not do any rash changes of direction, use lights and wear a helmet!

 

[DaGaffer]

bother to read what i was quoting, fool.

read it, quoted it back to you. Gibberish.

 

[pez]

As I said I've always ridden in the gutter to allow cars to pass easily but hated it as I was worrying too much about the kerb and it has distracted me. From now on I will not. I've always shown respect to motorists and will continue to do so as it helps with my safety, I always indicate my change of direction with plenty of time to spare, do not do any rash changes of direction, use lights and wear a helmet!

I'm with you.

I couldnt give a shit about the politics, I just want to minimise the chance of serious injury.

 

[pez]

Personally if I cannot overtake a cyclist by being in the other lane I wait until I can. Simple.

Whilst thats nice in theory, I live in North Bristol, its rammed with cyclists. If everyone did that then Gloucester Road (one of the busiest and steepest in the city) would slow to a permenant 5mph.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It must be because it's so hard to hold back a second, before depressing your right foot slightly to enable you to propel your two-ton metal lump at astonishing speeds past the aluminium-framed leg-powered meat-sacks

Picture this scenario: 2 lane country road, plenty of width to the road. Long sweeping blind corner. National speed limit. Two cyclists riding side by side round the corner at 25-30mph. Driver going 45-50, potentially more.

That is why that advice is correct: it'll save your life. There are thousands of bends like this in this country so I really don't buy for one minute that's it's safer to ride side by side.

No, the crux of the argument is that a lot of people here have obviously never cycled in their life, or at least haven't cycled since they were in short trousers. It follows that they have not the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about, and I include you in that group. In fact, going from some of the tripe you've posted in here, I think I'll include you in that group a great deal more often now.

...and here we hit the nail on the head. Where have I said I don't ride? I grew up riding bikes and only stopped riding regularly a couple of years ago. I've ridden around the whole fucking country and ridden around central London a shitload.

The point is I do understand the cyclist's viewpoint. I've even been smashed off my bike by a van driver as I was overtaking him as he decided to not look and not indicate that he wanted to go right. So please, spare me your cretinous high horse "don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about" presumptions because frankly they show you up to be the idiotic, selfish prick that thinks a cyclist is divine. Give over yourself you fucking ginger peado-looking tit.

 

[ECA]

Shit just got real.

 

[Gwadien]

Wazz i went on your companies website arent you ginger?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Dear lord you must be fucking blind.

 

[Tom]

Picture this scenario: 2 lane country road, plenty of width to the road. Long sweeping blind corner. National speed limit. Two cyclists riding side by side round the corner at 25-30mph. Driver going 45-50, potentially more.

That is why that advice is correct: it'll save your life. There are thousands of bends like this in this country so I really don't buy for one minute that's it's safer to ride side by side.

You simply demonstrate your ignorance. Riding closer to the centre of the road gives one a better view around the corner. This is advice given to advanced drivers and it works just as well for cyclists, who will also have the benefit of ears unencumbered by the shielding a car offers.

...and here we hit the nail on the head. Where have I said I don't ride? I grew up riding bikes and only stopped riding regularly a couple of years ago. I've ridden around the whole fucking country and ridden around central London a shitload.

And learnt nothing in all that time.

 

[old.user4556]

Here's what I think.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

What haven't I learnt exactly? Pretty much all I've said in this thread is that cyclists should be accountable for their actions and have relevant insurance. And then you start jumping at me saying I don't have a fucking clue? Because I think a suitable system should be in place to cover the potential injuries and damages? All I get from you is condescending bullshit because you don't agree and don't think cyclists should be held to account for their actions, which would suit you down to the ground since you've admitted regularly breaking speed limit and other road SAFETY laws because you think you know better and that's all that counts to you.

 

[Raven]

You know its a good thread when Zede gets himself all excited. You can almost see the spittle all over his screen, petulant little fuckwit.

 

[Tom]

What haven't I learnt exactly? Pretty much all I've said in this thread is that cyclists should be accountable for their actions and have relevant insurance. And then you start jumping at me saying I don't have a fucking clue? Because I think a suitable system should be in place to cover the potential injuries and damages? All I get from you is condescending bullshit because you don't agree and don't think cyclists should be held to account for their actions, which would suit you down to the ground since you've admitted regularly breaking speed limit and other road SAFETY laws because you think you know better and that's all that counts to you.

Lawl at anyone who thinks mandating insurance for road users subject to low-cost accidents and rare injuries would be a good idea.

How's your pedestrian insurance coming along? Maybe you should consider heart-attack insurance, it looks as though you're close to one. Wouldn't want to incur the cost of a new front door now, would we? And that policeman's boot might get scuffed! How selfish of you not to have insurance for that!

 

[DaGaffer]

You know its a good thread when Zede gets himself all excited. You can almost see the spittle all over his screen, petulant little fuckwit.

I thought it was quite sweet that they're giving special needs kids access to the internet these days. Care in the Community and all that.

 

[Scouse]

What I like is this:

I think this post sort of shows why people dislike cyclists, thinking they're above the rules.

Because it allowed me to turn two sentences around in a quote to show what Gwadien really should be thinking before judging:

I don't drive myself... I just don't understand...

You don't drive. You clearly aren't a cyclist. Why the fuck do you think you understand any of what's going on here?


In my life I've driven approximately 300,000 miles or 12 times round the world.

It took me to get off my lazy lardy ass and get on a bike and do a couple of thousand miles in the last two years before I understood what cyclists have to put up with.


Why do you think you can offer any meaningful argument on this subject Gwad?

 

[Scouse]

Are cyclists allowed to legally drive in the middle of the road interrupting the flow of traffic?

When you're stuck behind a tractor, it's annoying. When you're stuck behind a cyclist it's rage-inducing.

Both have an equal right to safe journey on the road as any other road-user.

Cyclists aren't "interrupting the flow of traffic" - they're part of that flow - and drivers of powered motor-vehicles need to learn to live with that fact.

But I bet Tom already covered this...

Edit: Yep. Don't gutter hug. Same goes for motorcycles. Make yourself seen and make the other road users wait for you - as you've just as much right to be there as they have...

Edit edit: Gah, can see that Gwad cycles - but feels guilty for "holding cars up"... so same thing as not cycling

 

[DaGaffer]

Too many entrenched positions on here. I ride a bike often enough to know what cyclists go through, but the breathtaking arrogance shown by certain zealots on here makes me want to run you over with a 4x4 repeatedly. 2 abreast. On a blind bend.

 

[Deebs]

Picture this scenario: 2 lane country road, plenty of width to the road. Long sweeping blind corner. National speed limit. Two cyclists riding side by side round the corner at 25-30mph. Driver going 45-50, potentially more.

That is why that advice is correct: it'll save your life. There are thousands of bends like this in this country so I really don't buy for one minute that's it's safer to ride side by side.



...and here we hit the nail on the head. Where have I said I don't ride? I grew up riding bikes and only stopped riding regularly a couple of years ago. I've ridden around the whole fucking country and ridden around central London a shitload.

The point is I do understand the cyclist's viewpoint. I've even been smashed off my bike by a van driver as I was overtaking him as he decided to not look and not indicate that he wanted to go right. So please, spare me your cretinous high horse "don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about" presumptions because frankly they show you up to be the idiotic, selfish prick that thinks a cyclist is divine. Give over yourself you fucking ginger peado-looking tit.

Wazzerphuk you are crossing over the line. Stop it please. Do not infer people look like paedo's. Warning given.

 

[Deebs]

Can we all just try and get on? For the sake of the motorists and cyclists on here?

 

[soze]

Lawl at anyone who thinks mandating insurance for road users subject to low-cost accidents and rare injuries would be a good idea.

How's your pedestrian insurance coming along? Maybe you should consider heart-attack insurance, it looks as though you're close to one. Wouldn't want to incur the cost of a new front door now, would we? And that policeman's boot might get scuffed! How selfish of you not to have insurance for that!

What about accidents where two cars crash because a cyclist swerves or runs a red or just pulls onto the road. You seem to refuse to accept thar cyclist actions can results in large and expensive accidents.

I am not saying this is the norm but I have never had an accident but have paid for insurance for 8 years.

 

[old.Tohtori]

 

[Tom]

What about accidents where two cars crash because a cyclist swerves or runs a red or just pulls onto the road. You seem to refuse to accept thar cyclist actions can results in large and expensive accidents.

I am not saying this is the norm but I have never had an accident but have paid for insurance for 8 years.

Pedestrians also wander into the road without first looking. Hundreds of them are killed every year, doubtless some of them are entirely to blame.

Should pedestrians carry insurance?

 

[soze]

Pedestrians also wander into the road without first looking. Hundreds of them are killed every year, doubtless some of them are entirely to blame.

Should pedestrians carry insurance?

No one here is arguing that pedestrians should be walking 1 meter away from the kerb side by side round blind bends. Pedestrians are just a deflection, cyclists want equal rights and respect on the road and poor riding can cause serious and expensive accidents. So saying they do not need insurance as the worst they can do is scuff a police officer’s boots is bullshit.

 

[caLLous]

Cyclists aren't "interrupting the flow of traffic" - they're part of that flow - and drivers of powered motor-vehicles need to learn to live with that fact.

I don't have much to offer this thread (and why anyone willingly enters into a discussion with Tom that involves cycling is beyond me ) but I would say on this point that, until cycles travel at the same speeds as powered motor-vehicles, they're not part of the "flow of traffic".

 

[Tom]

No one here is arguing that pedestrians should be walking 1 meter away from the kerb side by side round blind bends. Pedestrians are just a deflection, cyclists want equal rights and respect on the road and poor riding can cause serious and expensive accidents. So saying they do not need insurance as the worst they can do is scuff a police officer’s boots is bullshit.

Cyclists don't want "equal rights", cyclists already enjoy more rights than motorists. In fact, motorists have no right whatsoever to use the highway, they have only a legal entitlement granted by a licence. Cyclists have a common law right to use the highway.

And you still haven't explained why cyclists need compulsory insurance when pedestrians, who are responsible for a great deal more carnage on the road, do not.

 

[soze]

Cyclists don't want "equal rights", cyclists already enjoy more rights than motorists. In fact, motorists have no right whatsoever to use the highway, they have only a legal entitlement granted by a licence. Cyclists have a common law right to use the highway.

And you still haven't explained why cyclists need compulsory insurance when pedestrians, who are responsible for a great deal more carnage on the road, do not.

OK one last try. Bikes = Road Users, unless there is a cycle lane they have to be on the road mingling with traffic. Pedestrians = Pavement Users, they only use the road to cross it and they should do that at crossings. Give up on this argument you are coming off as blinkered.

Tom Bogdanowicz, from the London Cycling Campaign, says many think they are fully covered by their household contents policies but these do not always go far enough.
re available for cyclists
"Household insurance policies are general insurance. They do not provide specialist cover that you might need whether it's for theft or for third party," he says.
"So if you go to a specialist insurer or to a cycling organisation to get that sort of cover specifically aimed at cycling, that is what the policy is designed for and you benefit from that."
Although cyclists may be more vulnerable on the roads, statistically they are less likely to be responsible for an accident than a motorist - and that is reflected in the premiums.
A specialist policy can cost £30 to £40 a year. This typically provides third-party or public liability cover - the costs of causing accidents to other road-users and their property.
It also usually covers damage to the bicycle following an accident and the cost of a replacement bicycle if it is stolen or damaged.

 

[Tom]

OK one last try. Bikes = Road Users, unless there is a cycle lane they have to be on the road mingling with traffic. Pedestrians = Pavement Users, they only use the road to cross it and they should do that at crossings. Give up on this argument you are coming off as blinkered.

Your last try failed. Cyclists are under no obligation whatsoever to use any cycle lane, and cyclists are part of the traffic.

Pedestrians have a common law right to use the road. Many of the roads where I live have no pavements, in fact there are thousands of miles of roads around me that have no pavements anywhere. Where do pedestrians walk on those roads?

 

[old.user4556]

The wild side.

 

[old.user4556]

In serious though, I see what you're saying there Tom re the lack of pavements.