What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
captain_cynic said:
Disastrous said:
Why can’t it just be left as it is?
Cycling cannot be left as is because too many people are doing it.Cyclists are still operating under the rules and laws established when cycling was just a hobby practised by a few on the weekend. These rules and laws do not scale when cycling is used as a regular mode of transportation.
There are two truths that need to be accepted:
1. Drivers, cyclists are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Get used to it.
2. Cyclists, you are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Because of this you will be required to be licensed and registered like any other vehicle and driver on the road. Get used to it.
it'll never happen.I've got my cycling proficiency and everything so you can just sod off
fatboy18 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
paulguitar said:
I don't feel as if I 'desperately' want to do anything. However, I would like the idea that all road users including cyclists have a decent idea of how the roads work and what the signs mean.
Fewer dead children would be a big bonus too.
Don't know about kids but you'll kill cycling.Fewer dead children would be a big bonus too.
Was I misguided in my belief in relation to the cyclists and insurance/liability then?
I am of the understanding that if a cyclist was to be at fault, and cause damage to your car, you could well take them to court for the cost of the damages. The "£5 million pound" Ferrari has been mentioned as a possibility though the reality is more likely to be a £5,000 Fiat getting a dink on its front wing/door if a cyclist clips a red light, causing £500 worth of damage which the car driver shouldn't have to pay - if you can identify the driver, you can get them to pay up.
But I was also of the understanding, that many of the organised cycling clubs operate with members paying fees to be part of that club, which is under British Cycling (or similar) which has some insurance as part of that for its members to claim against if necessary?
I am of the understanding that if a cyclist was to be at fault, and cause damage to your car, you could well take them to court for the cost of the damages. The "£5 million pound" Ferrari has been mentioned as a possibility though the reality is more likely to be a £5,000 Fiat getting a dink on its front wing/door if a cyclist clips a red light, causing £500 worth of damage which the car driver shouldn't have to pay - if you can identify the driver, you can get them to pay up.
But I was also of the understanding, that many of the organised cycling clubs operate with members paying fees to be part of that club, which is under British Cycling (or similar) which has some insurance as part of that for its members to claim against if necessary?
captain_cynic said:
Disastrous said:
Agreed. Why do some people so desperately want to over-regulate everything??
Just leave it as it is and accept that some cyclists will ignore red lights. Most will suffer no ill effects. Some will be in accidents. Those who are will come off worse. The end.
Its not over-regulating, cyclists are a law unto themselves and need to be taken to heel. However all we want are for cyclists to accept the same level of responsibility as other road users.Just leave it as it is and accept that some cyclists will ignore red lights. Most will suffer no ill effects. Some will be in accidents. Those who are will come off worse. The end.
The problem is, cyclists really don't want to be able to be held accountable as they'll have to stop running red lights and holding up traffic.
“Need to be taken to heel”...
They’re cyclists, not Jacobite rebels ffs!BrassMan said:
There is no war on the motorist. The detection rates on offences like speeding, driving without due care, careless driving and so on are vanishingly small.
Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
There are stricter rules for motorists than cyclists, they are also enforced 'more' (there must be a better word) in comparison to cyclists.Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
What I find unbelievable is that many of the camera wearing cyclists are more than happy to put themselves in danger because technically they are in the right rather than actually engage their brain and brakes and avoid a situation completely!
I note that its great to see large trucks now have warning stickers and sound alerts that warn when turning left a safety measure that makes sense and probably saves lives!
captain_cynic said:
Cycling cannot be left as is because too many people are doing it.
Cyclists are still operating under the rules and laws established when cycling was just a hobby practised by a few on the weekend. These rules and laws do not scale when cycling is used as a regular mode of transportation.
There are two truths that need to be accepted:
1. Drivers, cyclists are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Get used to it.
2. Cyclists, you are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Because of this you will be required to be licensed and registered like any other vehicle and driver on the road. Get used to it.
There is a reason that drivers and cars are licensed and registered. Driving incurs huge costs.Cyclists are still operating under the rules and laws established when cycling was just a hobby practised by a few on the weekend. These rules and laws do not scale when cycling is used as a regular mode of transportation.
There are two truths that need to be accepted:
1. Drivers, cyclists are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Get used to it.
2. Cyclists, you are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Because of this you will be required to be licensed and registered like any other vehicle and driver on the road. Get used to it.
Cycling does not.
The legions of cyclists causing untold damage to everyone's pride and joy are a fantasy in the mind of the over entitled motorist.
We need to encourage cycling, and discourage driving, then we'd have far fewer fatties.
BrassMan said:
There is no war on the motorist. The detection rates on offences like speeding, driving without due care, careless driving and so on are vanishingly small.
Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
The 'war on the motorist' doesn't really come from the Police. It's a governmental function of targeting the honest, driving community with additional charges and taxes in order to pay for non-motoring public services. Easy target etc.Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
V8mate said:
BrassMan said:
There is no war on the motorist. The detection rates on offences like speeding, driving without due care, careless driving and so on are vanishingly small.
Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
The 'war on the motorist' doesn't really come from the Police. It's a governmental function of targeting the honest, driving community with additional charges and taxes in order to pay for non-motoring public services. Easy target etc.Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
V8mate said:
BrassMan said:
There is no war on the motorist. The detection rates on offences like speeding, driving without due care, careless driving and so on are vanishingly small.
Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
The 'war on the motorist' doesn't really come from the Police. It's a governmental function of targeting the honest, driving community with additional charges and taxes in order to pay for non-motoring public services. Easy target etc.Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
singlecoil said:
V8mate said:
BrassMan said:
There is no war on the motorist. The detection rates on offences like speeding, driving without due care, careless driving and so on are vanishingly small.
Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
The 'war on the motorist' doesn't really come from the Police. It's a governmental function of targeting the honest, driving community with additional charges and taxes in order to pay for non-motoring public services. Easy target etc.Two at-fault (or three no-fault) accidents in a year should mean an automatic re-test.
Funkycoldribena said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Indeed. There's no "war" on the motorist. At the most, there is a mild dislike, but no more than that.
Certainly feels like it though,bus lane fines,yellow box fines,lower and lower speed limits, speed humps and on and on..aaron_2000 said:
I 100% think there is, smart motorways that they know full well don't work, they want us to hate driving so when auto driven cars come out we'll all flock to them. They know driving is a chore now, that's how they've mad it. You pay road tax so the roads that we drive on are in a horrible state, we have average speed cameras that are placed without signs to trap people, police that won't come to your house in a break in, but will pull you for going 56 in a 50, speed bumps everywhere, variable speed limits, hidden police cameras to trap people. I agree it isn't a war, in a war you get to fight back. It's simply an attack, and they know nobody will say or do a thing about it.
secret is just to ignore them..............work out as much information as you can to beat the system, and do your best to beat it.I generally drive the way I enjoy - and i'm on zero points.............
Helps having a bike for central London tho - then you can avoid all the front facing stuff and yellow boxes are easy to get through.
Plus you can ignore all the Nazi parking s
t. (Not that I care too much about parking tickets as there are no points attached)Bring back the Death Penalty, for Terrorists that have caused multiple killings and for child pedophiles and Murderers.
Radically change the Benefit system so that People could go to work on a low income and not be better off by not working.
Remove traffic calming speed bumps and stupid painted tarmac, and resurface roads to a high standard.
Any utility service that then dig up road will have a continuous duty to keep there road repair in top order until such time as road is resurfaced again(this could be years), so in other words, if the road repair breaks apart or subsides it is their duty to repair it, Not the taxpayer.
Introduce Law breaking Yobs (the type often seen on Police camera action videos) to do hours of community service, litter picking, clearing up verges ect.
That's a start!
Radically change the Benefit system so that People could go to work on a low income and not be better off by not working.
Remove traffic calming speed bumps and stupid painted tarmac, and resurface roads to a high standard.
Any utility service that then dig up road will have a continuous duty to keep there road repair in top order until such time as road is resurfaced again(this could be years), so in other words, if the road repair breaks apart or subsides it is their duty to repair it, Not the taxpayer.
Introduce Law breaking Yobs (the type often seen on Police camera action videos) to do hours of community service, litter picking, clearing up verges ect.
That's a start!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff