Discussion
I think the guy that got kicked off his bike had mentally convinced himself that he was a "better cyclist" than the guy on the bmx, and so wanted to assert his "beter cyclist" capabilities by giving him a close fly by or not moving over for the bmx which he might have considered lower down the food chain. This is - in my mind- further reinforced by the text on the video saying that we was looking right to check for traffic.
The point is that the crashing cyclist should have already seen the bmx, either slowed, or given more room, instead of shutting the door on the bmx and almost forcing him into the rear of the coach.
The revenge kick from the bmx is brilliantly timed, if a little harsh.
The point is that the crashing cyclist should have already seen the bmx, either slowed, or given more room, instead of shutting the door on the bmx and almost forcing him into the rear of the coach.
The revenge kick from the bmx is brilliantly timed, if a little harsh.
to3m said:
AC43 said:
SteveSteveson said:
there is nothing more annoying that having to overtake some wobbly red light jumper and having to put myself at greater risk by moving out in to traffic for the third time as they keep passing me stopped at lights yet cycle so slowly I catch them time and again.
Boils my p*ss that does. lord trumpton said:
I have also been about to overtake a cyclist, giving plenty of room only to find they didn't fancy the look of a pothole and swerve out in front just as I am trying to pass.
The point I'm making here is that it always seems to be reported that the drivers of cars are the ones at fault
The point I'm making here is that it always seems to be reported that the drivers of cars are the ones at fault
Highway code rule 213 said:
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
It is a source of constant amusement how keen people on a motoring enthusiast website are to advertise what sMotorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
t drivers they are 
Urban Sports said:
This shouldn't be happening putting road tax paying motorists in harms way with this kind of stupidity, if they were taxed then issues like cyclist on cyclist attacks wouldn't happen and the roads would be a safer place.
In harms way? How many motorists have been killed through the actions of a cyclist in, say, the last 10 years?And your "road tax" comment just shows you up to be either ignorant, a troll, or both.
wolves_wanderer said:
lord trumpton said:
I have also been about to overtake a cyclist, giving plenty of room only to find they didn't fancy the look of a pothole and swerve out in front just as I am trying to pass.
The point I'm making here is that it always seems to be reported that the drivers of cars are the ones at fault
The point I'm making here is that it always seems to be reported that the drivers of cars are the ones at fault
Highway code rule 213 said:
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
It is a source of constant amusement how keen people on a motoring enthusiast website are to advertise what sMotorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
t drivers they are I honestly think this is one of the big problems, people who don't cycle not realizing how much room is needed or how s
t the roads actually are. Education is the answer. Unfortunately there is too many people who "know" the rules of the road who would rather rant than be constructive (See Road.cc or any car driver who rants that cyclists should be in the cycle lane).hora said:
I'm not sure I paid tax on my new cycling shoes or new helmet this month though? (Are they tax-payable?).
Helmet no, cycling shoes, yes, unless you have freakishly small feat or are a child.Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 11:11
hora said:
I'm not sure I paid tax on my new cycling shoes or new helmet this month though? (Are they tax-payable?).
It doesn't matter. You paid using your taxable income didn't you? 
I pay almost £500 a year taxing my ST220. It's not used everyday as I use my bike. Can I offset some of this tax?
sanguinary said:
It doesn't matter. You paid using your taxable income didn't you?
I pay almost £500 a year taxing my ST220. It's not used everyday as I use my bike. Can I offset some of this tax?
That brings up a good point. I pay almost £300 a year tax on my MX5. Surely that means people paying £30 car tax should get out of my way for 10.8 months of the year as I'm paying more road tax than them, even when I am on my bike and my car is on my drive.I pay almost £500 a year taxing my ST220. It's not used everyday as I use my bike. Can I offset some of this tax?
wolves_wanderer said:
J4CKO said:
What comes across from these threads is that some drivers seem to perceive cyclists as a different species, one lower down the food chain and then make statements that further seem to dehumanize anybody who may be on a bike.
Probably the same type as the prick who nearly took me out the other day the fat lazy retard.BrassMan said:
wolves_wanderer said:
J4CKO said:
What comes across from these threads is that some drivers seem to perceive cyclists as a different species, one lower down the food chain and then make statements that further seem to dehumanize anybody who may be on a bike.
Probably the same type as the prick who nearly took me out the other day the fat lazy retard.hora said:
sanguinary said:
SteveSteveson said:
That brings up a good point. I pay almost £300 a year tax on my MX5. Surely that means people paying £30 car tax should get out of my way for 10.8 months of the year as I'm paying more road tax than them, even when I am on my bike and my car is on my drive.
Yup. 
t. 
hora said:
I'm not sure I paid tax on my new cycling shoes or new helmet this month though? (Are they tax-payable?).
You will have paid tax (VAT) at the standard rate on your shoes, if they were bought in UK/EU. Online purchases from outside the EU are, I believe, dealt with by means of Import Tax to 'level the playing field' and remove tax rate advantages from offshore suppliers.If your new cycle helmet was/is 'CE marked' then you will not have paid any VAT on it, as it is a zero-rated item...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-not...
...as far as I am aware, CE marked cycle helmets are the only item of cycle-specific equipment on which VAT is not payable at the standard rate. You can, of course, legally avoid paying income tax on the price of a new bicycle under HM Government's very own "Cycle to Work" scheme if you have access to it through your employer. Ironic, isn't it, with all this anti-cyclist rhetoric going on, that central government is so keen to get commuters out of cars and onto bikes that they administer a scheme which reduces your tax burden? Suck that one up, bike haters
wolves_wanderer said:
lord trumpton said:
I have also been about to overtake a cyclist, giving plenty of room only to find they didn't fancy the look of a pothole and swerve out in front just as I am trying to pass.
The point I'm making here is that it always seems to be reported that the drivers of cars are the ones at fault
The point I'm making here is that it always seems to be reported that the drivers of cars are the ones at fault
Highway code rule 213 said:
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
It is a source of constant amusement how keen people on a motoring enthusiast website are to advertise what sMotorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
t drivers they are General rules said:
Overview
techniques and advice for all drivers and riders
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
techniques and advice for all drivers and riders
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
Signals said:
103
Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians of your intended actions. You should always
•give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
•use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
•cancel them after use
•make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
•use an arm signal to emphasise or reinforce your signal if necessary. Remember that signalling does not give you priority.
Oh!! for a world where all cyclists and motorists at least attempted to indicate.Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians of your intended actions. You should always
•give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
•use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
•cancel them after use
•make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
•use an arm signal to emphasise or reinforce your signal if necessary. Remember that signalling does not give you priority.
Hol said:
Oh!! for a world where all cyclists and motorists at least attempted to indicate.
Not the same thing. Those rules you have quoted don't apply to sudden movement needed to avoid an obstacle. Do you expect all cars to indicate when swerving to avoid an animal or a pot hole? It's not telling you to indicate before you move in the road at all... Trying to apply Rule 103 to Rule 213 is just stupid.Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 12:06
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
Oh!! for a world where all cyclists and motorists at least attempted to indicate.
Not the same thing. Those rules you have quoted don't apply to sudden movement needed to avoid an obstacle. Do you expect all cars to indicate when swerving to avoid an animal or a pot hole? It's not telling you to indicate before you move in the road at all... Trying to apply Rule 103 to Rule 213 is just stupid.Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 12:06
yellowjack said:
My solution? Ban anyone from even taking a driving lesson until they've first undertaken a mandatory minimum observed period of training on the roads on a bicycle. Even the bigfatfatties of this world. At a stroke we could rid the roads of the terminally selfish who cannot imagine how it feels to ride a bicycle in traffic, with the added bonus of (possibly) making a dent in the growing obesity crisis. Nobody who was too much of a massive girl-pants would be forced to ride with all the nasty cars, of course. They would be given an alternative, commonly known as 'public transport'. Within a generation there should be no-one driving a motor vehicle who hasn't experienced riding a bike, so there'd be more understanding of the space and speed differential issues faced by each group. Exceptions (simulations or theory training) would be needed for genuinely disabled potential drivers, but EVERYONE else would have to undertake the mandatory 'cycling log book' training before being let loose in a car.
v12Legs said:
I posted this link on another thread, but also relevant here. "Risky" cycling is only responsible for a small % of cycling injuries/fatalities. (as noted above, the driver is at sole fault in 70%+ of driver-cyclist collisions)
So even if cyclists magically started behaving perfectly, it wouldn't make that much difference.
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casua...
It seems to me that bad driving has been normalised, yet bad cycling is endlessly picked over and criticised.
I don't condone bad cycling, but at the end of the day they are a vanishingly small danger to anyone but themselves, and with finite resources we should be concentrating on where the majority of the danger comes from.
Replace "Cyclist" with "Motorcyclist" in the above and it's what bikers have been saying for decades, and yet the gubbermint just put extra hurdles in the way of getting a motorcycle license and constantly try introduce more anti-bike legislation.....So even if cyclists magically started behaving perfectly, it wouldn't make that much difference.
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casua...
It seems to me that bad driving has been normalised, yet bad cycling is endlessly picked over and criticised.
I don't condone bad cycling, but at the end of the day they are a vanishingly small danger to anyone but themselves, and with finite resources we should be concentrating on where the majority of the danger comes from.
Urban Sports said:
This shouldn't be happening putting road tax paying motorists in harms way with this kind of stupidity, if they were taxed then issues like cyclist on cyclist attacks wouldn't happen and the roads would be a safer place.
You mouth breathing mong, how much tax is there on a low emissions vehicle?None... But you already know this.
Oh, and you're not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic
yellowjack said:
My solution? Ban anyone from even taking a driving lesson until they've first undertaken a mandatory minimum observed period of training on the roads on a bicycle. Even the bigfatfatties of this world. At a stroke we could rid the roads of the terminally selfish who cannot imagine how it feels to ride a bicycle in traffic, with the added bonus of (possibly) making a dent in the growing obesity crisis. Nobody who was too much of a massive girl-pants would be forced to ride with all the nasty cars, of course. They would be given an alternative, commonly known as 'public transport'. Within a generation there should be no-one driving a motor vehicle who hasn't experienced riding a bike, so there'd be more understanding of the space and speed differential issues faced by each group. Exceptions (simulations or theory training) would be needed for genuinely disabled potential drivers, but EVERYONE else would have to undertake the mandatory 'cycling log book' training before being let loose in a car.
What are you going to do with people who are paraplegic or suffer from one of may other disabilities which allow them to drive but not cycle? Perhaps everyone who wishes to cycle on the road should be forced to spend an enforced observed period of training in a wheelchair to appreciate that it's a good thing they have working legs.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff