A cyclist got my goat...

pablo128

Max Headroom wrote: »

When cyclists start paying insurance and road tax then AND ONLY THEN will i have respect for them..( not all bad i know blah blah )....:)

I'm not fond of cyclists in general, but its 'motor' tax. And the last time I checked, bicycles didn't have a motor........

Borderfox

I have insurance when on my bicycle

hobochris

I agree they should pay some sort of insurance to cover liability. I have seen on a fair few occasions, cyclists running red lights and ploughing into an unsuspecting pedestrian, getting up and then cycling off leaving the pedestrian injured.

rat_race

hobochris wrote: »

I agree they should pay some sort of insurance to cover liability. I have seen on a fair few occasions, cyclists running red lights and ploughing into an unsuspecting pedestrian, getting up and then cycling off leaving the pedestrian injured.

Emmm, "fair few occasions"...yeah, sure. And even if they had "insurance" (whatever that actually means), how would that magically make these evil cyclists stop on these "fair few occasions"?

Anyway, you're talking sh*te trying to suggest cyclists should pay insurance. Why should they? Then people crossing the road should get insurance too. In fact, everyone everywhere should get insurance just in case anything happens ever, anywhere.

I've said this before: anyone who would prefer a cyclist to instead be in a car, contributing to pollution, traffic congestion, noise, road damage, overcrowded hospitals (for being a fat lazy unhealthy person), etc., is an idiot.

Your world will not be better, it will be worse. The more pedestrians you see than cyclists, the better for you. The more cyclists you see than motorcyclists, the better for you. The more motorcyclists you see than car drivers, the better for you. Irrationally and ignorantly moaning about other road users is not better for anyone.

Hotblack Desiato

rat_race wrote: »

Anyway, you're talking sh*te trying to suggest cyclists should pay insurance. Why should they? Then people crossing the road should get insurance too. In fact, everyone everywhere should get insurance just in case anything happens ever, anywhere.

How many times does a pedestrian cause a loss to a cyclist?

Fact is, under the law if you cause an accident you're liable, cyclists do cause accidents but are rarely if ever held liable. I know two motorcyclists who suffered four-figure losses due to reckless and illegal cycling and just had to suck it up, in the real world unless the person who caused you a loss either owns a property or is insured you can forget about suing them.

I've said this before: anyone who would prefer a cyclist to instead be in a car, contributing to pollution, traffic congestion, noise, road damage, overcrowded hospitals (for being a fat lazy unhealthy person), etc., is an idiot.

Yeah because the only alternative to having totally irresponsible and unaccountable cyclists is to put them in cars :rolleyes: there is a middle ground, one where they at least try to not put other road users recklessly at risk and are held liable for losses they cause just like motor vehicle drivers are.

rat_race

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How many times does a pedestrian cause a loss to a cyclist?

Fact is, under the law if you cause an accident you're liable, cyclists do cause accidents but are rarely if ever held liable. I know two motorcyclists who suffered four-figure losses due to reckless and illegal cycling and just had to suck it up, in the real world unless the person who caused you a loss either owns a property or is insured you can forget about suing them.



Yeah because the only alternative to having totally irresponsible and unaccountable cyclists is to put them in cars :rolleyes: there is a middle ground, one where they at least try to not put other road users recklessly at risk and are held liable for losses they cause just like motor vehicle drivers are.

We all have sob stories about a friend who had to pay X to Y, etc. I cycle, ride, and drive, in equal measure, *a lot*. There are morons in all types of vehicles. I could talk about the two times I was knocked off my bike and the motorist kept driving on, or the countless times I was half an inch from being crushed to death, but these sorts of personal accounts are pointless.

Also, absence of insurance isn't the reason the judge favours the pedestrian or the cyclist. The size, weight, and killing power of the lump of metal you drive is. What is insurance gonna do if the judge favours the cyclist anyway? Retarded. Also, if a cyclist blatantly causes an accident, they are eligible to pay for it. As are pedestrians. Just because their "motor" (wtf) insurance isn't compulsory by law, that doesn't matter.

The thing is, is that our sensible society, at some point in the past, decided that insurance for simply being outside isn't compulsory, because, uh, well it's not driving high-speed 1 tonne blocks of explosive steal around the place.

The bottom line is -- and this is something that any rational clear thinking person can surely comprehend (right?) -- is that a good percentage of people are twats who will push the boundaries of what they can get away with. In a car, it might be speeding or breaking a red light after 2 seconds. On a bicycle it might be breaking a red light, or riding on a path, for example.

If a cyclist is acting the twat, he will act the twat in a car too. He's a twat in the pub, and the workplace too, etc. It's nothing to do with the device he is sitting on. My original point still stands: it's better to have a twat on a bicycle, than a twat on a motorcycle, than a twat in a car, for the rest of our sakes.

anto3473

rowanh wrote: »

How exactly does a bell enforces a cyclist's sense of entitlement? I had one on my first adult bike and found it was completely useless.

It has nothing to do with entitlement, it like the way a car horn is to signal to anyone in hearing range there is danger on the road.

I usually use it at pedestrian crossings when the lights are in my favor, if a pedestrian is looking like they are going to cross just because there are no cars. (I don't break lights). I also use it on shared pedestrian/cycle tracks when going around bends and over hills where a person walking or even someone with a pram can materialize out of nowhere.

Its the law to have one on your bike just like a car legally needs a horn. You don't use it often but it needs to be there just in case.

anto3473

Also I think the cyclist was wrong on this one but I wouldn't take his shouting or bell ringing personally. Its a normal reaction when someone gets a bad fright to lash out - an adrenaline thing or something, same way everyone swears when they stub their toe or hit their finger with a hammer. One time I was doing around 35k/h down a cycle lane and 2 lads were loading a big mirror into a van parked on the footpath and damn near blinded me with the reflection. I think I involuntary let out tens of swear words at them in about a second - before cycling away quickly because there were 2 of them and they were bigger than me

Zascar

I saw a cyclist the other day speeding towards a red light - I assumed he was going to break it, but he stopped right on the line, jumped off his bike, threw it over his shoulder and ran through the junction, then jumped back on it and went on his way!

Hotblack Desiato

rat_race wrote: »

I could talk about the two times I was knocked off my bike and the motorist kept driving on,

Yeah but it's much easier to trace a motorist, and even if you can't trace them you are still entitled to be compensated.

Also, absence of insurance isn't the reason the judge favours the pedestrian or the cyclist.

This idea helps explain the attitude some cyclists have, that they can never be in the wrong no matter what. It's just not true though.

The size, weight, and killing power of the lump of metal you drive is. What is insurance gonna do if the judge favours the cyclist anyway? Retarded.

Who or what is retarded?

Also, if a cyclist blatantly causes an accident, they are eligible to pay for it.

That's exactly what I said. They just very rarely do, they are hard to trace and there's no point suing anyone who doesn't have assets even if you do identify them.

The thing is, is that our sensible society, at some point in the past, decided that insurance for simply being outside isn't compulsory, because, uh, well it's not driving high-speed 1 tonne blocks of explosive steal around the place.

Wow, explosive you say? :rolleyes:

The bottom line is -- and this is something that any rational clear thinking person can surely comprehend (right?)

Common but worthless rhetorical device. Someone is not unclear thinking or irrational if they disagree with you.

If a cyclist is acting the twat, he will act the twat in a car too. He's a twat in the pub, and the workplace too, etc. It's nothing to do with the device he is sitting on. My original point still stands: it's better to have a twat on a bicycle, than a twat on a motorcycle, than a twat in a car, for the rest of our sakes.

If they tried one tenth of the things on a motorbike that they regularly do on a bicycle, they'd rapidly be dead.

Max Headroom

[QUOTE=rat_race;94068690If a cyclist is acting the twat, he will act the twat in a car too. He's a twat in the pub, and the workplace too, etc. It's nothing to do with the device he is sitting on. My original point still stands: it's better to have a twat on a bicycle, than a twat on a motorcycle, than a twat in a car, for the rest of our sakes.[/QUOTE]


Not true....you dont see a herd of drivers or bikers deliberately holding up traffic because of some TV ad crap about respect....in conclusion ,theyre ALL (lets say Bray wheelers for example ) twats....btw i'm just picking on the lycrist brigade here not the commuters..;)

beauf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...If they tried one tenth of the things on a motorbike that they regularly do on a bicycle, they'd rapidly be dead.

You don't have to do the exact same things to be a twat.

beauf

Max Headroom wrote: »

Not true....you dont see a herd of drivers or bikers deliberately holding up traffic ...

What started this epic was a biker holding up traffic (re: cyclist).

beauf

Cyclist insurance has been tried and they dropped it.

Bike insurance sticker
The vignette (insurance sticker) for bicycles was phased out at the beginning of 2012. Cover against damage caused to third parties in an accident involving a bicycle can be provided by your personal liability insurance. If you ride a pedal-assisted e-bike with a speed of over 25 km/h, you need a motor-assisted bicycle authorisation and an annually-renewable vignette (read how to get one below).

Most insurance companies automatically include cover for cycling accidents in personal liability insurance. You should ask your insurer to be sure you have this cover. If you do not have liability insurance you are no longer insured if you cause damage to third parties in a cycling accident.

https://www.ch.ch/en/cycling-switzerland/
http://www.knowitall.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=732:new-laws-for-bicycle-owners-in-switzerland-no-more-vignettes&catid=47

Perhaps personal liability insurance is more common in Europe.

BKtje

Most people have personal liability insurance (and even legal insurance) in Switzerland. It usually is an optional extra on home/ motor insurance and isn't that expensive.

Max Headroom

beauf wrote: »

What started this epic was a biker holding up traffic (re: cyclist).

Last sunday on the r755 at the top of the long hill at kilmacanogue we came upon a tailback....after (gingerly) passing at least thirty cars we came across the blockage...yeah thats right, at least 10 of them huddled in a group like colourful sheep ,only slower,all the way out to the white line....90% of that stretch is solid white line.....when i requested them to leave a bit of room they hurled abuse at us the likes you wouldnt hear on the Jeremy Kyle show...safety in numbers and fcuk the rest of you ....:rolleyes:

rat_race

*yawn*

Mesrine65

rat_race

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Yep. And there are people out there, actual real people with working brains and eyes and stuff, who claim that that is the cyclists fault.

goodlad

Given the tread title I was expecting this...

beauf

Max Headroom wrote: »

....90% of that stretch is solid white line.......

Curious how a solid white line only seems to be obeyed where's there's a bunch of cyclists to be passed.

Max Headroom

beauf wrote: »

Curious how a solid white line only seems to be obeyed where's there's a bunch of cyclists to be passed.

Seriously..???....do you know the stretch of narrow twisty road....:rolleyes:

Max Headroom

rat_race wrote: »

*yawn*

I agree......cyclists should be gassed..lets leave it at that....:p

rat_race

Max Headroom wrote: »

Seriously..???....do you know the stretch of narrow twisty road....:rolleyes:

If it's that narrow, there's a high chance it's too dangerous to even overtake a single cyclist safely ...

Mr Sheen!

rat_race wrote: »

If it's that narrow, there's a high chance it's too dangerous to even overtake a single cyclist safely ...

Not safe for who?? The motorway paying motorist overtaking or the Lycra clad pedalist??

rat_race

leppla wrote: »

Not safe for who?? The motorway paying motorist overtaking or the Lycra clad pedalist??

The cyclist. If you need to ask that question, you shouldn't be allowed on the road.

What is "motorway paying" and what is its relevance?

Mr Sheen!

rat_race wrote: »

The cyclist. If you need to ask that question, you shouldn't be allowed on the road.

What is "motorway paying" and what is its relevance?

My apologies rat_face I'm on the mobile so predictive text must have corrected it.

I meant motortax paying.

beauf

Max Headroom wrote: »

Seriously..???....do you know the stretch of narrow twisty road....:rolleyes:

I'm taking you at your word. The reason to take the lane is to block unsafe overtaking. Whereas you've asked them to move over to facilitate overtaking on a "narrow twisty road" with "solid white line"

leppla wrote: »

Not safe for who?? The motorway paying motorist overtaking or the Lycra clad pedalist??

That would be overtaking on same road as above the "narrow twisty road" with the "solid white line"...

beauf

leppla wrote: »

...I meant motortax paying.

Motortax may not do what you think it does.

Mr Sheen!

beauf wrote: »

Motortax may not do what you think it does.

I know what it does. It comes out of my bank account!!