What are your unpopular opinions?

[fatboy18]

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.

GOOD!

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

The Selfish Gene said:

also pushbikes.........in fact anything on the road...........should have 3rd party insurance for when they fly too fast down a cycle lane and expect a motorist has Yoda levels of awareness to stop the cycling idiot from smashing into the side of ones car.

Why are you driving in the cycle lane?

It;s clear that he is referring to situations where a driver is turning into a side street and a cyclist that has been hammering down the nearside without looking then crashes into the side of the car.

Would said driver simply go across the carriageway and hope traffic using that lane had Yoda levels of awareness to stop the idiots from smashing into the side of one's car if he was turning right instead of left too?

Your question makes no sense.

It does. What I'm asking is if apparently it's OK to turn left across a traffic lane and hope any traffic in that lane has the awareness to stop in time, is it also OK to turn right across a traffic lane and hope any traffic in that lane has the awareness to stop in time.

[Antony Moxey]

paulguitar said:

The Selfish Gene said:

Cyclists should me made to have a test, and have insurance. Simple as that.

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

You think passing a test makes you a competent driver??

[Funkycoldribena]

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.

GOOD!

A bit harsh

[The Selfish Gene]

Antony Moxey said:

paulguitar said:

The Selfish Gene said:

Cyclists should me made to have a test, and have insurance. Simple as that.

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

You think passing a test makes you a competent driver??

more competent than not passing one, yes.

They have no skin in the game (assuming they don't get binned by doing something stupid).

Points, bans, fines, insurance. Why not? It wasn't long ago some retard killed a woman with no front brake.

I AM A CYCLIST.

I AM A MOTORCYCLIST

I AM A CAR DRIVER

The most chance I have of any accident commuting daily (Central London) is another cyclist.

Think of it another way...........let's allow Car drivers no insurance and no licence..........................how would you feel about that?

[Antony Moxey]

The Selfish Gene said:

Antony Moxey said:

Would said driver simply go across the carriageway and hope traffic using that lane had Yoda levels of awareness to stop the idiots from smashing into the side of one's car if he was turning right instead of left too?

missing the point - cyclists should have insurance............simple as that. Debating an individual scenario (which I obtained from the thread with the idiot cyclist crashing into the side of the car) is irrelevant to be honest.

You're on the road, you could hit a person, a dog, a man carrying a expensive painting.

Cyclists should me made to have a test, and have insurance. Simple as that.

It's not missing the point - you're assuming it was the cyclist's fault. And why are those people with their paintings out in the road and why is it assumed to be my fault if they step out in front of me? Hopefully, if I have to have insurance, they all will too in case I need to claim off them for damage to my bike.

[The Selfish Gene]

Antony Moxey said:

It's not missing the point - you're assuming it was the cyclist's fault. And why are those people with their paintings out in the road and why is it assumed to be my fault if they step out in front of me? Hopefully, if I have to have insurance, they all will too in case I need to claim off them for damage to my bike.

I grant you, the cycle lane is a little bit st in the example provided.

However, I see, daily, people crossing the road with all sorts of things........and cyclists flying through too fast, with no penalty until they hit something or someone. I think you'll find that pedestrians have right of way.

Why argue with the need for insurance or a test? For what reason? To continue ignoring laws?

it was 100% the cyclist fault. End of Chat.

[Funkycoldribena]

The Selfish Gene said:

more competent than not passing one, yes.

They have no skin in the game (assuming they don't get binned by doing something stupid).

Points, bans, fines, insurance. Why not? It wasn't long ago some retard killed a woman with no front brake.

I AM A CYCLIST.

I AM A MOTORCYCLIST

I AM A CAR DRIVER

The most chance I have of any accident commuting daily (Central London) is another cyclist.

Think of it another way...........let's allow Car drivers no insurance and no licence..........................how would you feel about that?

At the risk of you sounding like a Manic Street Preachers fan again, its not quite the same is it?

[Antony Moxey]

The Selfish Gene said:

Antony Moxey said:

You think passing a test makes you a competent driver??

more competent than not passing one, yes.

They have no skin in the game (assuming they don't get binned by doing something stupid).

Points, bans, fines, insurance. Why not? It wasn't long ago some retard killed a woman with no front brake.

I AM A CYCLIST.

I AM A MOTORCYCLIST

I AM A CAR DRIVER

The most chance I have of any accident commuting daily (Central London) is another cyclist.

Think of it another way...........let's allow Car drivers no insurance and no licence..........................how would you feel about that?

You and I have both seen plenty of genuinely terrible drivers, do you honestly think they could be any worse if they hadn't passed a test? The insurance thing for cyclists is a red herring anyway - I'm sure I read it somewhere, possibly even on these boards, that uninsured drivers on the roads today actually outnumber cyclists.

[The Selfish Gene]

Funkycoldribena said:

At the risk of you sounding like a Manic Street Preachers fan again, its not quite the same is it?

why not Funky? Cyclist hitting pedestrians have killed recently? The damage to the million quid Ferrari is very real to that owner, even from a cycle.

Is it not the same as the cycle is light?

What about the cyclist that kills some toddler that he doesn't see (think of the children!)?

Or the Old lady because she is fragile?

I don't genuinely see any difference for anyone on the road. If you are risking lives and property you should be insured (including your own).

As for it killing off cycling for kids - they should be in the park, not on the road until they are 17 anyway.

[Antony Moxey]

The Selfish Gene said:

However, I see, daily, people crossing the road with all sorts of things........and cyclists flying through too fast, with no penalty until they hit something or someone. I think you'll find that pedestrians have right of way.

Why argue with the need for insurance or a test? For what reason? To continue ignoring laws?

it was 100% the cyclist fault. End of Chat.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. If a pedestrian steps out from, say, the front of a bus without looking just as you arrive in whatever mode of transport you chose that day and you hit them, is it really 100% your fault every time?

And as for ignoring laws, I would think I ignore more laws cycling than I do driving (and even then it's just the odd bit of speeding and maybe stopping on a double yellow once in a while) so I'm not sure what difference having insurance and passing a test has made in that instance.

[The Selfish Gene]

Antony Moxey said:

You and I have both seen plenty of genuinely terrible drivers, do you honestly think they could be any worse if they hadn't passed a test? The insurance thing for cyclists is a red herring anyway - I'm sure I read it somewhere, possibly even on these boards, that uninsured drivers on the roads today actually outnumber cyclists.

Of course - I see terrible drivers literally daily. The fact they are st and have passed a test, doesn't really condone another entire road group from not sitting a test does it?

Cliché alert - but two wrongs don't make a right!

Genuinely, if a cyclist hit my car and damaged it, i'd be going for damages. Insurance is a must.

[Antony Moxey]

The Selfish Gene said:

Antony Moxey said:

You and I have both seen plenty of genuinely terrible drivers, do you honestly think they could be any worse if they hadn't passed a test? The insurance thing for cyclists is a red herring anyway - I'm sure I read it somewhere, possibly even on these boards, that uninsured drivers on the roads today actually outnumber cyclists.

Of course - I see terrible drivers literally daily. The fact they are st and have passed a test, doesn't really condone another entire road group from not sitting a test does it?

Cliché alert - but two wrongs don't make a right!

Genuinely, if a cyclist hit my car and damaged it, i'd be going for damages. Insurance is a must.

If cycling tests become mandatory at what age do they become mandatory and what do the people below that age do? Cycle on the pavement and upset the pedestrians, dog walkers, mums with pushchairs and all the other footpath users? Perhaps they don't cycle at all - great, the school run's bad enough without even more people taking to their cars to drive their kids to school because they can't cycle. And then how many will take up cycling as soon as they reach test age - not a huge amount, so again they'll all be in their cars going to work instead, as if our cities aren't congested enough.

As for seeking damages, you can do that anyway, insured or not.

[Funkycoldribena]

The Selfish Gene said:

why not Funky? Cyclist hitting pedestrians have killed recently? The damage to the million quid Ferrari is very real to that owner, even from a cycle.

Is it not the same as the cycle is light?

What about the cyclist that kills some toddler that he doesn't see (think of the children!)?

Or the Old lady because she is fragile?

I don't genuinely see any difference for anyone on the road. If you are risking lives and property you should be insured (including your own).

As for it killing off cycling for kids - they should be in the park, not on the road until they are 17 anyway.

Which leads to number plates on bikes,then a database, then road tax....

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

The Selfish Gene said:

also pushbikes.........in fact anything on the road...........should have 3rd party insurance for when they fly too fast down a cycle lane and expect a motorist has Yoda levels of awareness to stop the cycling idiot from smashing into the side of ones car.

Why are you driving in the cycle lane?

It;s clear that he is referring to situations where a driver is turning into a side street and a cyclist that has been hammering down the nearside without looking then crashes into the side of the car.

Would said driver simply go across the carriageway and hope traffic using that lane had Yoda levels of awareness to stop the idiots from smashing into the side of one's car if he was turning right instead of left too?

Your question makes no sense.

It does. What I'm asking is if apparently it's OK to turn left across a traffic lane and hope any traffic in that lane has the awareness to stop in time, is it also OK to turn right across a traffic lane and hope any traffic in that lane has the awareness to stop in time.

I'm not making myself clear (to you at any rate). In a situation where there is a stream of cars and other vehicles moving along a road stop start fashion and a driver coming the other way wants to turn to the right. The oncoming cars stop again and the drivers leave the entrance to the side road clear. The driver that wishes to turn looks, sees the traffic has stopped, sees nothing else pertinent and starts his turn. He can't see the idiot cyclist with his head down going for a personal best steaming up the inside of the stopped vehicles at the best part of 25mph.

That's the sort of accident I am referring to. I guess your solution would be to prevent drivers making right turns. My solution would be to encourage some cyclists not to behave like dangerous idiots.

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

The Selfish Gene said:

also pushbikes.........in fact anything on the road...........should have 3rd party insurance for when they fly too fast down a cycle lane and expect a motorist has Yoda levels of awareness to stop the cycling idiot from smashing into the side of ones car.

Why are you driving in the cycle lane?

It;s clear that he is referring to situations where a driver is turning into a side street and a cyclist that has been hammering down the nearside without looking then crashes into the side of the car.

Would said driver simply go across the carriageway and hope traffic using that lane had Yoda levels of awareness to stop the idiots from smashing into the side of one's car if he was turning right instead of left too?

Your question makes no sense.

It does. What I'm asking is if apparently it's OK to turn left across a traffic lane and hope any traffic in that lane has the awareness to stop in time, is it also OK to turn right across a traffic lane and hope any traffic in that lane has the awareness to stop in time.

I'm not making myself clear (to you at any rate). In a situation where there is a stream of cars and other vehicles moving along a road stop start fashion and a driver coming the other way wants to turn to the right. The oncoming cars stop again and the drivers leave the entrance to the side road clear. The driver that wishes to turn looks, sees the traffic has stopped, sees nothing else pertinent and starts his turn. He can't see the idiot cyclist with his head down going for a personal best steaming up the inside of the stopped vehicles at the best part of 25mph.

That's the sort of accident I am referring to. I guess your solution would be to prevent drivers making right turns. My solution would be to encourage some cyclists not to behave like dangerous idiots.

Why do you guess that, I've made no indication to that end whatsoever. If a driver is able to see whether traffic in the lane to his right has stopped or there is a gap large enough for him to cross that lane safely, why can't he do the same if he wishes to turn left?

[davhill]

IMO, drifting is very spectacular but is it anything more than supercharged showing off?

I say so having followed Gerry Marshall on screen and having seen him in action at Oulton Park. Seeing him drifting all four wheels was hugely impressive - and faster.

[Disastrous]

paulguitar said:

Disastrous said:

Funkycoldribena said:

paulguitar said:

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

How to get kids really not bothering to cycle...

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.

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.

Why can’t it just be left as it is?

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you guess that, I've made no indication to that end whatsoever. If a driver is able to see whether traffic in the lane to his right has stopped or there is a gap large enough for him to cross that lane safely, why can't he do the same if he wishes to turn left?

I can't be arsed to draw a diagram, and it's clear that you are unable to see what I am getting at, so there's no point in continuing this.

[paulguitar]

Disastrous said:

paulguitar said:

Disastrous said:

Funkycoldribena said:

paulguitar said:

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

How to get kids really not bothering to cycle...

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.

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.

Why can’t it just be left as it is?

It can be left as it is. In my opinion though having more cyclists able to understand how a traffic light works and able to read a road sign would almost certainly result in a decrease in their deaths and injuries on the roads. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?