That's it, I'm f**king done with cyclists...
Discussion
Negative Creep said:
NoNeed said:
Mave said:
NoNeed said:
The roads are policed for dangerous drivers and policed rather well.
Bullocks they are. The large number of reported incidents on this forum, dashcammed or not, suggests quite the opposite.Yet every single one 100% of these gathering is illegal and has illegal and dangerous activity.
The first chart I find using google from 2008 says it better.
Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 30th August 17:05
Conscript said:
Heaveho said:
Maybe you should try thinking it through.........most other forms of road users don't do what the op is describing, i.e., block the roads for no other reason that that they feel like it. The fact that some idiot has decreed it legal is neither here nor there, that just displays a lack of basic common sense, it's allowing a minority to disrupt the majority, and for no good reason.
I don't agree with the actions of this "Critical Mass" bunch of morons, so don't really have anything to say here. In the specific example of the OP, I'd be annoyed too; it seems like pissing off other road users for the sake of it. But in general...Heaveho said:
I find it ridiculous that it's legal for a vehicle to be travelling at 15mph on a 40 limit road, with a massive queue of traffic behind it, and the rider either oblivious or uncaring as to the issues he or she is causing. If you were to drive in a car on a motorway in that manner, you'd be stopped and questioned as to what the hell you thought you were doing.
That you find it ridiculous is your own problem. You've mistakenly assumed that the use of the roads is purely for motorists, or those that can be as fast as motorists. I was made fully aware during my driver tuition that the road is to be shared by different vehicles of different speeds and abilities and to act accordingly. I'm happy with that, and in my opinion, if you can't deal with that, then you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, because your arrogance and frustration could well cause a serious accident one day.Also, please don't use hyperbole to back up your point; these "massive queues of traffic" you claim simply do not happen because the majority of motorists are capable and confident enough to be able to overtake a cyclist, especially on a road with a 40MPH limit. If you think that a cyclist doing 15MPH in a 40MPH limit is such a massive impingement, then again, I would say look to your own ability as a driver. I don't think I've ever been held up by a cyclist for more than 15 seconds or so whilst attempting to pass, and as I said above, you should be mature and humble enough to accept that they have every right to use the roads and you have an obligation to accept that and act accordingly.
From the perspective of a cyclist, I was out riding myself today. I was doing about that speed along a 40MPH road myself, that was fairly busy. And I was passed multiple times by multiple vehicles with absolutely no drama whatsoever, and with no tailbacks forming.
Heaveho said:
If a vehicle can't make progress without impinging on others, it's unfit for purpose. Edited to add, I get held up by tractors on occasion, but at least the drivers of these are courteous enough to understand what they're doing, and pull over to help when they can.
See above. Cyclists rarely impinge on others in reality. And your argument using tractors holds no water whatsoever; I've lost count of the amount of times I've sat in a tailback caused by a tractor crawling at 15-20MPH along a dual carriageway. I've also been stuck behind tractors stubbornly refusing to pull in and let faster traffic past on smaller ruler roads. In comparison, cyclists can be passed safely with ease, and where they can't, in my experience, I find that they are happy to quickly find space to pull in to let me past.
Heaveho said:
If a vehicle can't make progress without impinging on others, it's unfit for purpose.
I see. So if your car can't overtake a cyclist with "impinging" on it or other road users, it's not fit for purpose.
That doesn't make much sense does it?
Perhaps it's the driver who's not fit to be on the road.
And if you can overtake cyclists, WTF are you complaint about in the first place?
NoNeed said:
Mave said:
NoNeed said:
The roads are policed for dangerous drivers and policed rather well.
Bullocks they are. The large number of reported incidents on this forum, dashcammed or not, suggests quite the opposite.Yet every single one 100% of these gathering is illegal and has illegal and dangerous activity.
You claim the roads are well policed for dangerous drivers, yet my personal experience, backed up by all the posts on this forum, is that bad and dangerous driving occurs regularly and is unchecked by the police.
Compared to the number of dangerous driving incidents we all see every day on the roads, how often do these people doing their stupid protests actually cause a danger to innocent third parties? The fact that so few people living in London are even aware of these events, let alone been personally affected by them, implies that whilst annoying and frustrating for those unwittingly and unfortunately caught up in them, they are in the scheme of things an irritation rather than a significant problem.
I expect that for many people, the time wasted every month queing on motorways due to shunts resulting from impatient, aggressive, and inattentive driving is more than the time toxicnerve wasted getting caught up in this stupid event.
Should cyclists follow laws like everyone else? Yes.
Do cyclists sometimes break laws like everyone else? Yes.
Do cyclists sometimes get away with breaking laws like everyone else? Yes.
NoNeed said:
Negative Creep said:
NoNeed said:
Mave said:
NoNeed said:
The roads are policed for dangerous drivers and policed rather well.
Bullocks they are. The large number of reported incidents on this forum, dashcammed or not, suggests quite the opposite.Yet every single one 100% of these gathering is illegal and has illegal and dangerous activity.
The first chart I find using google from 2008 says it better.
Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 30th August 17:05
Negative Creep said:
NoNeed said:
Negative Creep said:
NoNeed said:
Mave said:
NoNeed said:
The roads are policed for dangerous drivers and policed rather well.
Bullocks they are. The large number of reported incidents on this forum, dashcammed or not, suggests quite the opposite.Yet every single one 100% of these gathering is illegal and has illegal and dangerous activity.
The first chart I find using google from 2008 says it better.
Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 30th August 17:05
The road are well police for dangerous drivers we see very little of it ourselves even if the internet has a few clips added each day.
It isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things and compared to safe journeys made it is so tiny you would need a few decimal places to arrive at a percentage.
Mave said:
You can't have it both ways.
You claim the roads are well policed for dangerous drivers, yet my personal experience, backed up by all the posts on this forum, is that bad and dangerous driving occurs regularly and is unchecked by the police.
Compared to the number of dangerous driving incidents we all see every day on the roads, how often do these people doing their stupid protests actually cause a danger to innocent third parties? The fact that so few people living in London are even aware of these events, let alone been personally affected by them, implies that whilst annoying and frustrating for those unwittingly and unfortunately caught up in them, they are in the scheme of things an irritation rather than a significant problem.
I expect that for many people, the time wasted every month queing on motorways due to shunts resulting from impatient, aggressive, and inattentive driving is more than the time toxicnerve wasted getting caught up in this stupid event.
Should cyclists follow laws like everyone else? Yes.
Do cyclists sometimes break laws like everyone else? Yes.
Do cyclists sometimes get away with breaking laws like everyone else? Yes.
I'm not sure what you think I want both ways as you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying, well I think you post is mostly agreeable.You claim the roads are well policed for dangerous drivers, yet my personal experience, backed up by all the posts on this forum, is that bad and dangerous driving occurs regularly and is unchecked by the police.
Compared to the number of dangerous driving incidents we all see every day on the roads, how often do these people doing their stupid protests actually cause a danger to innocent third parties? The fact that so few people living in London are even aware of these events, let alone been personally affected by them, implies that whilst annoying and frustrating for those unwittingly and unfortunately caught up in them, they are in the scheme of things an irritation rather than a significant problem.
I expect that for many people, the time wasted every month queing on motorways due to shunts resulting from impatient, aggressive, and inattentive driving is more than the time toxicnerve wasted getting caught up in this stupid event.
Should cyclists follow laws like everyone else? Yes.
Do cyclists sometimes break laws like everyone else? Yes.
Do cyclists sometimes get away with breaking laws like everyone else? Yes.
NoNeed said:
'm not sure what you think I want both ways as you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying, well I think you post is mostly agreeable.
Well, you seem to think that the level of policing is adequate for motorists (even though motoring related incidents affect most people regularly) yet you want more policing for these cycling events (even though they affect few people not very often).I'd rather put any extra policing effort into the areas that affect most people most often with the most severe consequences.
Mave said:
NoNeed said:
'm not sure what you think I want both ways as you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying, well I think you post is mostly agreeable.
Well, you seem to think that the level of policing is adequate for motorists (even though motoring related incidents affect most people regularly) yet you want more policing for these cycling events (even though they affect few people not very often).I'd rather put any extra policing effort into the areas that affect most people most often with the most severe consequences.
and like I said I found your last post agreeable I'm not sure where it wasn't.
That is why I posted that stats on road deaths, we have one of the safest road systems in the world and while we know there are idots out there, they are very few and far between becasue of the countires legal system.
I don't know if that has worded my thoughts much better for you, but in short I have no problem/reservation nor fear about jumping on my bike and cycling in accordance with that highway code as I feel perfectly safe when I do. That said I do live in birmingham not London
Mave said:
I'd rather put any extra policing effort into the areas that affect most people most often with the most severe consequences.
But all the motoring a
holes aren't in one place at one time, so not very easy to catch or police. The Critical Massholes are all conveniently in one place, so not a massive effort to identify the worst offenders. Strawman said:
Mave said:
I'd rather put any extra policing effort into the areas that affect most people most often with the most severe consequences.
But all the motoring aholes aren't in one place at one time, so not very easy to catch or police. The Critical Massholes are all conveniently in one place, so not a massive effort to identify the worst offenders. NoNeed said:
Mave said:
NoNeed said:
'm not sure what you think I want both ways as you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying, well I think you post is mostly agreeable.
Well, you seem to think that the level of policing is adequate for motorists (even though motoring related incidents affect most people regularly) yet you want more policing for these cycling events (even though they affect few people not very often).I'd rather put any extra policing effort into the areas that affect most people most often with the most severe consequences.
and like I said I found your last post agreeable I'm not sure where it wasn't.
"The roads are policed for dangerous drivers and policed rather well. They are rarely policed for stroppy obstructive cyclists illegally preventing normal law abiding citizens for going about their legal business.
I want cyclist to be treated exactly the same as everybody else is and have laws to follow and training where necessary"
Which I thought implied that driving standards are good and have adequate policing; whilst cycling standards are not good and need more policing"; and I disagree with that view if it was you meant. If that's not what you meant, sorry for the misunderstanding
swerni said:
grumpy52 said:
Until cyclists ride in a safe and considerate manner on safe bikes why should I as a car and truck driver and sometimes motorcycle rider treat them with anything other than disdain ?
When you lot stop driving while on the phone, reading porn and murdering prostitutes, i as a rational road user will avoid you like the plague.
This trolling attempt doesn't even make sense to me
And I'm a 'friend' of yours. ....
NB inverted commas on friend as I refuse to be your friend when you're wearing lycra, being ridiculous about cycling/people's cars/people's weight or generally trolling
Boshly said:
swerni said:
grumpy52 said:
Until cyclists ride in a safe and considerate manner on safe bikes why should I as a car and truck driver and sometimes motorcycle rider treat them with anything other than disdain ?
When you lot stop driving while on the phone, reading porn and murdering prostitutes, i as a rational road user will avoid you like the plague.
This trolling attempt doesn't even make sense to me
And I'm a 'friend' of yours. ....
NB inverted commas on friend as I refuse to be your friend when you're wearing lycra, being ridiculous about cycling/people's cars/people's weight or generally trolling
....except I dont because I recognize each trucker as an individual and don't tarnish them all by the actions of one.
It's a simple concept yet I'm staggered by how many people can't grasp it. When I'm cycling my life depends on people like Boshly treating me on the basis of MY riding and no one else's....
Greg66 said:
I see.
So if your car can't overtake a cyclist with "impinging" on it or other road users, it's not fit for purpose.
That doesn't make much sense does it?
Perhaps it's the driver who's not fit to be on the road.
And if you can overtake cyclists, WTF are you complaint about in the first place?
Can you read? The cyclist is impinging on other road users by being unable to keep up with other road users. What can't you understand in this sentence?So if your car can't overtake a cyclist with "impinging" on it or other road users, it's not fit for purpose.
That doesn't make much sense does it?
Perhaps it's the driver who's not fit to be on the road.
And if you can overtake cyclists, WTF are you complaint about in the first place?
vikingaero said:
There's no way Plod will stop them. If you have say 500 protesters, then Plod will not send 500 to arrest them. They will need to send 3-4 times that number.
You have a lot more people that that at football matches yet they manage to police them. Obviously sending two to arrest a lone cyclist in a swarm of 100 or so if a waste of time as the YouTube clip showed, but 100 or so works, as the kettling video showed.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff