Stupid cyclists

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
2,676
Location
Trowbridge
Lesjordans; real motorist :D Do you also drive towards the edge of the road, turn off the engine, get out and leave your car in the way for hours on end?

I'd recommend parking on the pavement, out of the way of other motorists and with the added advantage of restricting the progress of cyclists who might be on the pavement illegally.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I hardly think its endangering the lives of pedestrians, a 40mph crash because you're swerving to avoid some cyclist that could be on the pavement is a TAD more dangerous. I am quite a good driver I think, and i drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions
If you're having to swerve for a cyclist, obviously you're not, because you're not planning ahead at all.

but it can be quite trickly when everyone is in the right lane and you're stuck in the left, with NOBODY at all flashing you in.
Then what you do is be patient and keep waiting for someone to let you out.

It is about me when im driving...seeing as theres nobody else in the car
So other road users don't matter at all then?

at the end of the day I want to get to where im going safely and as quick as possible (NOT Speeding btw - driving at the optimum speed).
Judging by the way you comment on swerving around cyclists, then apparently not that safely.

Its definately true that some cyclists could easily be on the pavement and save me a small headache,
Ah, so a selfish road user then.

honestly some roads up here the pavement next to is empty, whereas they're blocking a lane and swerving all over the place, so it's not even as if you can creep by them you have to go into the other lane!
Then wait until there's a gap and go into the other lane, it's really not that difficult.
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
I don't think you're getting what im on about :( this is soul destroying to explain, but a road with a curve, cyclist far left with me in left lane (in other words, unseeable cyclist!) and traffic bumper to bumper not letting me in. there is nothing i can physically do other than crash into them or wait behind the cyclist. All this when the cyclist could just be up on the pavement going at the same speed. I dont 'swerve' around cyclists. Do you drive?? And at the end of the day it's not selfish wanting to drive and get somewhere at a decent speed, especially when you pay through the nose for it!
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I don't think you're getting what im on about :( this is soul destroying to explain, but a road with a curve, cyclist far left with me in left lane (in other words, unseeable cyclist!) and traffic bumper to bumper not letting me in. there is nothing i can physically do other than crash into them or wait behind the cyclist.
Then wait!
Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp?
Or is patience something that is beyond you?

All this when the cyclist could just be up on the pavement going at the same speed.
So, you'd be quite happy for a cyclist doing 20-30mph to crash into a pedestrian causing a potentially fatal accident just because you can't be patient?

Do you drive??!
Yes, I do, and I love driving.
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
Im sure the cyclist would see them, + they can stop a lot quicker than us anyway. The point is i should be able to be going at 40-50 or so without going oh crap a cyclist hogging a whole lane :( thank god they're not on the motorway is all I can say
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,543
Location
Yorkshire
Lmao oh I love heated debates! I hardly think its endangering the lives of pedestrians, a 40mph crash because you're swerving to avoid some cyclist that could be on the pavement is a TAD more dangerous.
So don't do that then?!
I am quite a good driver I think, and i drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions, but it can be quite trickly when everyone is in the right lane and you're stuck in the left, with NOBODY at all flashing you in. It is about me when im driving...seeing as theres nobody else in the car, at the end of the day I want to get to where im going safely and as quick as possible (NOT Speeding btw - driving at the optimum speed).
Which is more important - safety for other road users or you getting there ASAP?
Its definately true that some cyclists could easily be on the pavement and save me a small headache,
What causes you headaches?
honestly some roads up here the pavement next to is empty, whereas they're blocking a lane and swerving all over the place, so it's not even as if you can creep by them you have to go into the other lane!
Yes, you should go in the other lane. Read the highway code. Give cyclists as much room as you would any other vehicle.
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,563
Location
London
Lmao oh I love heated debates! I hardly think its endangering the lives of pedestrians, a 40mph crash because you're swerving to avoid some cyclist that could be on the pavement is a TAD more dangerous. I am quite a good driver I think, and i drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions, but it can be quite trickly when everyone is in the right lane and you're stuck in the left, with NOBODY at all flashing you in. It is about me when im driving...seeing as theres nobody else in the car, at the end of the day I want to get to where im going safely and as quick as possible (NOT Speeding btw - driving at the optimum speed). Its definately true that some cyclists could easily be on the pavement and save me a small headache, honestly some roads up here the pavement next to is empty, whereas they're blocking a lane and swerving all over the place, so it's not even as if you can creep by them you have to go into the other lane!
How is it any more dangerous out of interest? If you are driving safely, you shouldn't be endangering any other road users. Bikes included. When I cycle on the roads I'm normally do 20mph wind permitting. And when in the car, leave plenty of room and only overtake where safe.

Simple.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,543
Location
Yorkshire
I don't think you're getting what im on about :( this is soul destroying to explain, but a road with a curve, cyclist far left with me in left lane (in other words, unseeable cyclist!) and traffic bumper to bumper not letting me in. there is nothing i can physically do other than crash into them or wait behind the cyclist.
Then WAIT!
All this when the cyclist could just be up on the pavement going at the same speed. I dont 'swerve' around cyclists. Do you drive?? And at the end of the day it's not selfish wanting to drive and get somewhere at a decent speed, especially when you pay through the nose for it!
Yes it is!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Im sure the cyclist would see them, + they can stop a lot quicker than us anyway. The point is i should be able to be going at 40-50 or so without going oh crap a cyclist hogging a whole lane :( thank god they're not on the motorway is all I can say
By the same argument I could easily say I should be doing 20mph or so without cars doing about 5-10mph hogging the whole lane in the city centre? ;) Thanks to those selfish cars all going nowhere fast hogging the lane, rush hour travel is slow for cyclists. I trust you will agree it is selfish of the car drivers, yes? ;):lol:
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,509
I've got a theory about Edinburgh, that they have a certain number of holes in the road that they just move around the city every now and again. :P
What about that massive big pothole called "Princes Street"?
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I am quite a good driver I think, and i drive at speeds that are safe for the conditions
Hmm. I disagree with your other comments about cycling more than this point, but . . . . I'm picking up this one 'cos it illustrates the problem very well.
"Self-assessment" by drivers like this doesn't help when the statistics tell us that the thousands of road deaths and more injuries can be correllated with specific driving actions or conditions (eg high speed, alcohol, distance between vehicles, use of lights/indications/belts/handbrake etc.). Its easy for a single motorist to assess themselves as "safe" because hey have not experienced a collission, but that same motorist may actually be in one of the high risk categories on account of their driving style. Sure, they may complete their life without an accident, but the impact of a road death is so severe that any driver whose style is in one of the high-risk categories is NOT a good driver - by statistical analysis (based on actual deaths & injurues) , not by self assessment (based on time before a death or injury).
Sorry! But I can't accept any claim that a driver is safe if its not independently verified. I wouldn't make the claim myself - I'm a very high mileage driver (poss 400,000miles) - I have had accidents. And I'm very, very vigilant, not fast, etc. etc.
But road vehicles are inherently unsafe.
All of them.
And their drivers.

I cycle in cities often - my style is distinctive, where there is questionable width, then I "take the road" (move into the centre of a lane) in my hi-viz top and keep up a high speed. No one tries to overtake. Similarly, I respect traffic signals. I keep off the pavements and wait for a green. Vehicle drivers seem to treat me as one of their own rather than an obstacle (and of course I am one of them, too!)

BTW I pay over £500 "road tax" p.a. 'cos I have 4 vehicles. Sadly, I can only drive one at a time (and none when I'm on the bike!)
So if any of us has a "claim" on the roads, then perhaps you'd want to nominate me, rather than yourself!
(no. thought not)

I've got a theory about Edinburgh, that they have a certain number of holes in the road that they just move around the city every now and again. :P
But Edinburgh is a special case. The City makes strategic decisions where to make holes. Currently, the Council is planning several miles of new holes, in the form of very long, straight, narrow slots in the road formed by steel. (as a school kid I used to fear getting by bike "stuck" in a tram track. I thought we'd got over that). In fact this is the ONLY justification I can agree with for taking a bike off the road, and I'm still not persuaded that the tram will definitely appear. (including it travelling along the west Edin cycle-way from Haymarket to Blackhall and beyond)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think you're getting what im on about :( this is soul destroying to explain, but a road with a curve, cyclist far left with me in left lane (in other words, unseeable cyclist!) and traffic bumper to bumper not letting me in. there is nothing i can physically do other than crash into them or wait behind the cyclist.

What do you mean by "wait"? If it was a car in front, do you descriube your use of the car's pedals' as "waiting" for them? If it was a bus, truck or JCB, do you tell us "there is nothing i can physically do other than crash into them or wait" as an intelligent analysis of the options?
'couse not. As a vehicle driver its very simple, you don't use the fuel pedal to the extent that the metal box its connected to will touch the metal box ahead of you. Simple.
Call it waiting if you like.
If I am walking towards a brick wall, I stop.
If I'm driving towards a cyclist, I stop.
If I'm driving towards a bus, another car, a red light, a patrol officer or even a badger. I stop.
If I'm driving towards a pedestrian, or a lake, or a tree. I stop.
And I'm pleased to do so.
(whether I'm driving a car, van, truck or bike)
Why don't you?
What's the problem with stopping or waiting?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
But Edinburgh is a special case. The City makes strategic decisions where to make holes. Currently, the Council is planning several miles of new holes, in the form of very long, straight, narrow slots in the road formed by steel. (as a school kid I used to fear getting by bike "stuck" in a tram track. I thought we'd got over that)
There's still the ones down near ocean terminal, along the car parking area. I ride along them because it's the smoothest bit, but there is the danger of literally tramlining on them, because in places where soil hasn't filled them in, the tracks are still pretty deep.
I'm gonna get wider slicks back on my bike when I can because of them :P
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
There's still the ones down near ocean terminal, along the car parking area. I ride along them because it's the smoothest bit, but there is the danger of literally tramlining on them, because in places where soil hasn't filled them in, the tracks are still pretty deep.
I'm gonna get wider slicks back on my bike when I can because of them :P
I know that stretch well.
Its nice to come across old lines from a heritage point of view, but they ARE a hazard.
What do you think of the plans to run trams down the west cycle route though? (Haymarket, Roseburn, Ravelston, Craigleith)
That'll really annoy cyclists! and there's lots of them.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
It's a very stupid plan.
The path is currently wide enough for two bikes to pass with plenty of space, when they put the tram line in, it is going to halve the width of the path, meaning that cyclists will have trouble passing at any speed at all, and I don't know about others, but I wouldn't want to take my dog for a walk along a path with an active tram line running down one side.
 

The Snap

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
3,116
Its definately true that some cyclists could easily be on the pavement and save me a small headache, honestly some roads up here the pavement next to is empty, whereas they're blocking a lane and swerving all over the place, so it's not even as if you can creep by them you have to go into the other lane!
Exactly the point I was making earlier. :)

Yorkie, all road vehicles should have the same right to use the roads as others. Whether its a 4x4 or an electric car, they're still vehicles and should be entitled to use the roads as and when they want. Pollution problems are beyond human control and the damage is already done, so people who harp on about protecting the air (not necessarily you, I'm talking generally) are wasting their time (and in-turn polluting the air with the carp that comes out of their mouths, and their breath which warms up the atmosphere further!)

These are the things that annoy me most about so-called democracy. Democratic societies inherently provide freedom for all inhabitants. However, modern democracies such as the one we have in Britain do not provide the freedom that is promised…we get told what we can and can’t do on certain things because of small groups of moaners who are selfish and are only thinking of themselves. You can’t smoke anywhere anymore because people moan, you can’t drive big cars without getting taxed more than everyone else, you can’t get on a plane without someone telling you it’s damaging the earth…it’s a joke! How is that freedom? Anyway, I’m going off topic a bit…:)
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
You can’t smoke anywhere anymore because people moan
No, you can't smoke inside in public places or places of work. And one of the main reasons is because of the carcinogens emitted, which can be extremely harmful.

Nobody's forcing you to smoke.
 

BlythPower

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
789
Location
Kenilworth
These are the things that annoy me most about so-called democracy. Democratic societies inherently provide freedom for all inhabitants. However, modern democracies such as the one we have in Britain do not provide the freedom that is promised…
It's impossible for everyone to have absolute freedom. For example, my 'freedom' to smash your kneecaps with a sledgehammer* would seriously impinge upon your freedom to walk. :D

* Not that I in any way wish any harm upon you - this is just a particularly extreme example of why we can't all be 'free' to do as we please.
 

The Snap

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
3,116
Why should I be exposed to a plume of smoke when in a public place?

I'm happy without cancer!
Why should I not be able to smoke in a public place? I'm a member of the public, as are you...

No, you can't smoke inside in public places or places of work. And one of the main reasons is because of the carcinogens emitted, which can be extremely harmful.

Nobody's forcing you to smoke.
I know, I do it out of choice. I understand it can have a health impact on others, yet in certain circumstances this can be avoided if people didn't stand next to you and moan about it. Maybe if they buggered off then it would be OK for everyone?

It's impossible for everyone to have absolute freedom. For example, my 'freedom' to smash your kneecaps with a sledgehammer* would seriously impinge upon your freedom to walk.

* Not that I in any way wish any harm upon you - this is just a particularly extreme example of why we can't all be 'free' to do as we please.
I see your point. I look forward to it! :D
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
Why should I not be able to smoke in a public place? I'm a member of the public, as are you...
Because you can choose whether to smoke or not. I can't choose whether to breathe in your smoke or not.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I know, I do it out of choice. I understand it can have a health impact on others, yet in certain circumstances this can be avoided if people didn't stand next to you and moan about it. Maybe if they buggered off then it would be OK for everyone?
If you do it out of choice, then be prepared to put up with the consequences of your decision.
It could be as easily avoided if you didn't do it in a public space, as Mojo says, we can't choose whether or not we breathe it in, but you can choose if you smoke or not.
It would be better for everyone if you buggered off or didn't smoke.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,543
Location
Yorkshire
Exactly the point I was making earlier. :)

Yorkie, all road vehicles should have the same right to use the roads as others.
The 'point' is utterly daft and was that the more people pay for their VED the more right they have to be on the road and therefore cyclists should be on pavements, so if you agree with that how on earth can you then say "all road vehicles should have the same right to use the roads as others", as that is completely the opposite view. So what is your view?
Whether its a 4x4 or an electric car, they're still vehicles and should be entitled to use the roads as and when they want.
So you don't agree with the "I pay VED therefore I have more right" argument that Les Jordans was making?
Pollution problems are beyond human control
Erm, no! :lol:
and the damage is already done,
But future damage isn't done yet!
so people who harp on about protecting the air (not necessarily you, I'm talking generally) are wasting their time (and in-turn polluting the air with the carp that comes out of their mouths, and their breath which warms up the atmosphere further!)
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you should visit a 3rd would country that suffers flooding as a result of selfish people here, and see if you have the same view then.
These are the things that annoy me most about so-called democracy. Democratic societies inherently provide freedom for all inhabitants. However, modern democracies such as the one we have in Britain do not provide the freedom that is promised…we get told what we can and can’t do on certain things because of small groups of moaners who are selfish and are only thinking of themselves. You can’t smoke anywhere anymore because people moan,
Utterly bizarre! You are saying that smokers are not selfish, but people who don't want to inhale smoke are? That's absolutely crazy. We all should have the right to breath clean air. Any other 'rights' such as the right to kill yourself smoking should be secondary to that, ie do it in your own home if you want but not near others!
you can’t drive big cars without getting taxed more than everyone else,
Quite right too!
you can’t get on a plane without someone telling you it’s damaging the earth…
Are you saying plane travel doesn't damage the Earth?
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
I think it was more you should be able to go on planes if you want without having people moan at you. Ditto with big cars. And I wasn't saying that more road tax = more right to use the road, rather the fact of paying it at all. It should definately be cheaper though £120 is ridiculous! £50 for everyone would be delicious.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,539
Location
0035
£120 is far too cheap though - we've already uncovered elsewhere that road users don't pay their full share of costs attributed to the use of cars.

If you don't want to pay that though, why not change your car? My old car (now my Mum's) costs £35 per year and is adequate for both city and Motorway driving.
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
Lmao that card has already been played ;)
I know my old one was £35 then i upgraded , would quite like a C1 VTR though :D
£120 is not far too cheap my god you should be able to drive without it draining you! petrol is already ridiculously high!
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,563
Location
London
£120 is far too cheap though - we've already uncovered elsewhere that road users don't pay their full share of costs attributed to the use of cars.

If you don't want to pay that though, why not change your car? My old car (now my Mum's) costs £35 per year and is adequate for both city and Motorway driving.


I tell you what is unfair. My 998cc costing £125 tax just because it is 1 year too old for XX51!!

Because it's a massive polluter and causes chaos on the roads due to the sheer damage it causes ;)

Then again, the government has got to get it's money from somewhere, it doesn't seem content ****ing it up the wall!!!!!
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
Spare a thought for me - I pay £215 for road tax!! Actually, nobody is going to have any sympathy because my car is a 2.5 litre turbo that does about 25 mpg tops! But, I only do 5,000 miles a year now - which is considerably less than when I drove loads and had a diesel. So, what was worse - 20,000 miles with a diesel or 5,000 miles with a gas guzzling sportscar?
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
You pay for it so you should have a right to use it if you want :) £215 is ridiculous! Petrol prices are like a tax in themselves and you cant go without it for obvious reasons :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top