View Full Version : What is it with cyclists ?
hifi_dave
02-09-2017, 15:42
Just had a couple of pleasant days away in Great Yarmouth, taking the 8 year old Grandkids for a British beach holiday. Stepping out of the hotel, this morning, onto the pavement, we were nearly mown down by a Lycra wearing lad on a cycle, who shouted a load of abuse because we dared to be on the pavement.
I have almost been hit on a couple of occasions in Cambridge by cyclists going the wrong way and up a pedestrian only street. When did it become normal for cyclists to use pavements as they do roads and pay no attention to pedestrians ?
Audio Al
02-09-2017, 16:35
Easy answer , most are :wanker:ers
Except me of course Al ?. No, lots of cycling behaviour is awful and thats coming from a cyclist, you see it all the time in London. Just today
2 cyclist s coming through camden market going the wrong way down a one way street, with about a million pedestrians passing close by
any of whom could step out at any moment and get mown down by these clowns, what can you do ?
Audio Al
02-09-2017, 19:19
Except me of course Al ?. No, lots of cycling behaviour is awful and thats coming from a cyclist, you see it all the time in London. Just today
2 cyclist s coming through camden market going the wrong way down a one way street, with about a million pedestrians passing close by
any of whom could step out at any moment and get mown down by these clowns, what can you do ?
As said " most " ;)
Licence all push bikes and make them pay a nominal road tax.
walpurgis
02-09-2017, 21:38
Licence all push bikes and make them pay a nominal road tax.
That would be a shame. Cycling is one of the last unimpeded liberties we have.
That would be a shame. Cycling is one of the last unimpeded liberties we have.
I wasn't being entirely serious - but as a fellow road users, cyclists do not contribute anything to the cost of road maintenance, cycle lanes etc.
walpurgis
02-09-2017, 21:45
cyclists do not contribute anything to the cost of road maintenance
Nor do pedestrians and footways are larger and more expensive than cycle lanes.
Nor do pedestrians and footways are larger and more expensive than cycle lanes.
The only time I, as a pedestrian, am a road user is when I cross the road.
montesquieu
02-09-2017, 22:26
The arrogance of the Lycra brigade is breathtaking. Ordinary cyclists - mountain bikers or just people out for a ride - tend to be courteous road users. It's the road racers I can't stomach, the minute the Lycra goes on and they get the pedal clips attached they turn into compete tossers, in their heads is some nonsense about being in the TDF and they act like they are in a time trial, riding in packs that are impossible to safely pass even on a fast road, and refusing to slow down or stop where common sense and the Highway Code would demand it.
Riding on the pavements is only a tiny bit of it. It's not just in the city either I was walking with the family in Oxfordshire a while back, in a very quiet lane that's not much more than a car wide, heading towards some woodland after visiting an ancient church. Cars take it very slowly and carefully there and you can generally hear them, some yellow clad idiot emerged from nowhere yelling and screaming to get the f**** out of his way, making no attempt to brake and missing me by inches. A firing squad is too good for these prats I'm for slow poison myself.
That would be a shame. Cycling is one of the last unimpeded liberties we have.
Your not supposed to cycle on the pavement though. I can understand doing it on a busy road if the pavement is unused, but if you are in a place with a lot of pedestrians either take your chances on the road, or dismount.
It used to be that the only people you would see on a pushbike were children or old men, maybe the odd student. Now you've got all these overweight blokes in their Forties who think they are getting fit wobbling along at 2 miles an hour. You're not getting fit, mate, you're killing yourself; if a lorry doesn't do it quicker.
walpurgis
02-09-2017, 22:50
I saw one right tit today. Riding quickly along the footway with no hands. Mobile in his left and shouting into it, right had gesticulating. I was hoping he'd fall off. Arsehole!!
What gets me is that round here it is all up hill and down dale. I mean Holland, flat places, it sort of makes some sense (if you disregard the weather and the danger from traffic) but here you won't go 600 yards before you encounter the next step incline.
Don't get me started. So often I'll stop at a zebra crossing for pedestrians and wonder why they haven't started to cross. It's because they are wise to the fact that 50%+ of cyclpaths don't stop for them, or they've seen one bearing down at speed. The fact they've expended a load of energy to achieve their speed makes them loathe to slow down, ever, for whatever reason. Then they moan when they get crushed to death!
Don't get me started. So often I'll stop at a zebra crossing for pedestrians and wonder why they haven't started to cross. It's because they are wise to the fact that 50%+ of cyclpaths don't stop for them, or they've seen one bearing down at speed. The fact they've expended a load of energy to achieve their speed makes them loathe to slow down, ever, for whatever reason. Then they moan when they get crushed to death!
I noticed that about 10 years ago when I went to London for the first time in years. Even motorbikes and mopeds were jumping the light. Not seen it anywhere else though, not even in Rome, where otherwise it seems to be a free for all.
That's one of the reasons why I hate London, and life in general in the busy and most congested parts of southern England...
Don't get me wrong, London is a wonderful city in many, many ways, but it's also a mecca for today's 'rat race', showcasing all that's wrong with our 'me first at all costs', selfish and materialistic society, with people going around cocooned in their own little 'bubbles', completely oblivious to and unconcerned with others, who are entitled to share the same space.
And, as has been described, one of the ways that selfish 'I'm only interested in what's happening in MY world' attitude, with ZERO consideration for others, manifests itself most, is in how people behave on the streets, whether driving, cycling or even walking: 'it's MY road (or path), asshole, so get the fuck out of my way!' :rolleyes:
No-one has any manners or consideration anymore, often because they're too busy running around like headless chickens, and don't have any time to relax. It's the same in any big city, but I think that London has a particular problem, simply due to how massively overpopulated and congested it is - and that situation is only likely to get worse!
To answer Dave's question: "What is it with cyclists?" Well, nothing really... It's not cycling, or owning a bicycle (or a car) that's the problem - let's not forget that drivers can be just as bad; it's the attitude of the person in charge of their mode of transport, and crucially, how they're responding to their environment and lifestyle.
The fact is, stress breeds aggression.
Decrease the stress of the cyclist and put them into a less congested environment, and the whole situation changes (for example, cyclists in general don't behave as described where I live), so the problem lies not in the mode of transport used, but how the cyclist (or driver) responds to his or her environment and lifestyle.
Of course, there will always be selfish and inconsiderate people around, no matter what, but I do believe that what Dave describes is symptomatic of the type of society we now live in - and the more demands put on people, from all angles (both in their work and personal life), especially with folk working longer and longer hours, and consequently having even less time to themselves, the worse things will get.
Marco.
dantheman91
03-09-2017, 09:09
I agree with Barry on licencing them only this morning driving on a main road from nowhere a cyclist road straight out in front of me without even looking left and right or even stopping to look to see if anyone was around..:scratch:.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 09:19
I agree with Barry on licencing them only this morning driving on a main road from nowhere a cyclist road straight out in front of me without even looking left and right or even stopping to look to see if anyone was around..:scratch:.
A licence won't improve that guy's riding.
Licensing might be possible on new bikes, but how could that be applied to the millions of older bikes in circulation? Would it be the bike or rider that is licensed? And would all the young kiddies that potter about on their little bikes, often accompanied by a parent and on the footway need licences too?
When I hear calls for licensing of bikes, I immediately think it's a jealousy reaction (maybe subconciously) from non-riders who resent the freedom of folk getting about and not being tied down by loads of legislation, paperwork and expense like car drivers.
When I hear calls for licensing of bikes, I immediately think it's a jealousy reaction (maybe subconciously) from non-riders who resent the freedom of folk getting about and not being tied down by loads of legislation, paperwork and expense like car drivers.
I don't see how that can be true as anyone can become a cyclist if they want to, push bikes are not expensive anymore.
I think it is more a reaction to the significant minority of cyclists who seem to think the world owes them for their trouble. The Gov is partly to blame by promoting cycling as being environmentally friendly and 'green', giving some cyclists a smug sense of moral superiority over motorised road users, as with leccy car drivers who can also be prone to exhibiting the same delusion.
When I hear calls for licensing of bikes, I immediately think it's a jealousy reaction (maybe subconciously) from non-riders who resent the freedom of folk getting about and not being tied down by loads of legislation, paperwork and expense like car drivers.
Indeed, but cyclists could still be made to sit some form of proficiency test, before being allowed out onto public highways. That won't happen though, because it all comes down to cost!
Also as I said in my previous post, much of this problem is to do with how we've become now, compared with how we used to be, when the world was a rather different (and in many ways better) place.
Marco.
I think you are harking back to a golden age that never actually existed, Marco.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 09:34
I don't see how that can be true as anyone can become a cyclist if they want to, push bikes are not expensive anymore.
Because the average person is too lazy and out of shape to consider riding a bike.
You can't just buy a bike and use it as transport, as many seem to think. If you're unfit, you won't get far. It could even kill you (I've seen it happen.....bloke dropping dead whilst riding along).
I don't see how that can be true as anyone can become a cyclist if they want to, push bikes are not expensive anymore.
Depends on the "push bike" in question - some specialist ones, for enthusiasts, can cost tens of thousands of pounds. I appreciate though, that those aren't used by the average person.
Out with of that, however, the point Geoff made I think was valid. No doubt some car drivers would think that way.
Marco.
hifi_dave
03-09-2017, 09:39
Indeed, but cyclists could still be made to sit some form of proficiency test, before being allowed out onto public highways. That won't happen though, because it all comes down to cost!
Also as I said in my previous post, much of this problem is to do with how we've become now, compared with how we used to be, when the world was a rather different (and in many ways better) place.
Marco.
That seems like a very sensible idea. Maybe they would then have a better idea of the Highway Code and safety.
Far as I know, riding a bike on a pavement, unless it's been specifically marked out, is not allowed and nor is riding up a one way street the wrong way but it now seems to have become normalised. It used to be that the Pedestrian took priority but it now appears that the cyclist can do what he/she likes, even if it endangers pedestrians.
I think you are harking back to a golden age that never actually existed, Marco.
Not at all, mate. I see the difference every day from how life is where I live, compared with when I was in Glasgow, and compared with any time I venture down south to London!
A real eye-opener, for any car driver, going from North Wales, down south, is when you leave the relatively 'serene' M54, and join the M6 at Birmingham - and things progressively become worse the nearer you get to London - and I'm not just talking about traffic congestion, but driving attitudes in general, which become progressively more selfish and aggressive.
You don't drive, so you may not be so aware of this, but I can assure you it's reality. An interesting experiment, in that respect, would be to take someone used to the 'rat race' of London, and the style of driving needed there to 'survive', and put them on roads around rural North Wales for a week, then monitor their driving behaviour...
I guarantee that it would take the person concerned some time to adjust! And the same would apply the other way round, if a rural North Wales driver were taken down to London. Trust me, both drivers would be forced to respond to their environment, and with it their driving attitudes and overall behaviour would quickly change! ;)
Marco.
A stout walking stick inserted 'accidentally' into the spokes of the offending cyclist would be quite effective. Might try that next time I go to The Smoke.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 09:45
it now appears that the cyclist can do what he/she likes, even if it endangers pedestrians.
Sweeping generalisation there Dave. It's the riders that won't abide by rules or use common sense that stand out and give cyclists a (perceived) bad reputation. They are the minority.
I commuted by cycle in town traffic until I was 58 and observed the rules, as did most other riders around me. Like car and motorbike users, there will be those that take liberties with disregard to others.
.
You don't drive, so you won't see this, but I can assure you it's reality.
Marco.
I hear that a lot and it is a really odd comment. What do drivers think their passengers are looking at whilst they are driving? if anything the passenger has more ability to notice bad driving as he's not doing anything else.
I agree you have a point about down south, it is a much worse problem there.
I think you are harking back to a golden age that never actually existed, Marco.
Well, there were certainly far fewer cars around when I was a nipper, so less need for cyclists to ride on the pavement for self-preservation reasons. And there were plenty of cyclists around in those days; my father rode a bike to work most of his working life, even after buying a car.
In my experience there are idiots on bikes, idiots on foot and idiots driving cars. My own 'near miss' was on a pedestrian crossing a few days ago; several cars were approaching, but at some distance, and were visibly slowing down as I began to cross. To my horror, the leading car suddenly accelerated towards me. He slammed on his brakes and came screeching to a halt a few millimetres from my legs. If the road had been wet, I'd have been a goner. He acknowledged his fault (I can only assume his foot slipped or something; he was a middle-aged bloke with his family on board, not a boy-racer) and drove off.
I hear that a lot and it is a really odd comment. What do drivers think their passengers are looking at whilst they are driving? if anything the passenger has more ability to notice bad driving as he's not doing anything else.
Yes, but that's not the same as driving. As a passenger, you can sit there and relax - you're not having to continually concentrate and sometimes make split-second decisions. Your mood alters when you become stressed, which is when your attitude changes, and not for the better.
One day, if you ever get a diving licence, you'll understand ;)
Marco.
P.S See my edit (re: the experiment) to the post you quoted.
Yes, but that's not the same as driving. As a passenger, you can sit there and relax - you're not having to continually concentrate and sometimes make split-second decisions. Your mood alters when you become stressed, which is when your attitude changes, and not for the better.
One day, if you ever get a diving licence, you'll understand ;)
Marco.
P.S See my edit (re: the experiment) to the post you quoted.
Yes, I see the point you are making now. Absolutely no chance of me going back to driving btw, way too much hassle and aggravation.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 10:14
Have we finished bashing cyclists yet, or is anyone else up for a pop? :lol:
Lots of bad road users, cyclists included. Latest craze around here is folk out road skiing. Dont fancy there survival chances with the state of our roads mind.
Was a guy did a trip down the A9 on them..crazy barsteward. Thats probably the most dangerous rd in country.
Anthony K
03-09-2017, 11:45
In work on High St Ken and have never seen so many wanker cyclists in one place.
So many do not bother to wear helmets as it imposes on their street cred.
Red lights seem to mean f**kall to them , and a load of em think the pavement was made for their use. Alot of cunny like scooter users here too.
Well, there were certainly far fewer cars around when I was a nipper, so less need for cyclists to ride on the pavement for self-preservation reasons.
Too true. Cars were once considered as a luxury item, generally bought and paid for upfront, and driven by the few who could genuinely afford to run them.
Now, every Tom, Dick and Harry has a car (often one for each old enough member of a household), usually purchased on credit, whether they can genuinely afford it or not, and often with little consideration for the running costs and potential upkeep of the vehicle concerned.
It's just another material possession that folks today think that they're 'entitled to', or ought to have to 'keep up with others', but often don't *really* need - and that's one of the reasons why the roads are the way they are!
The government is also at fault for not providing us with a decent public transport system, especially a proper underground network in other major UK cities, outside of London, but even if that wasn't the case, and we had the best transport system in the world, some folks would still want to own a car, purely as a faux-status symbol.
I say bring back trams! They existed before my time, but from what I can see in cities abroad where they're used, they work very well indeed and considerably reduce inner city traffic congestion.
Marco.
montesquieu
03-09-2017, 12:11
Have we finished bashing cyclists yet, or is anyone else up for a pop? :lol:
Im game. I recall another incident, in Bristol this time, at a roundabout: two lanes of stopped traffic to my left, I'm on the right heading for the third exit this is moving ok. Bike - mountain bike this time - held together by sticky tape, shoots out attempting to cross the road (on a red as far as the crossing is concerned). Straight into the side of my Jag. Bike scrapes a deep scratch in the bonnet, rider goes flying. Dopehead crusty picks himself up and wheels the bike away, I'm out £500 for a dented wing and scratched bonnet. No comeback at all for the crusty.
last place I remember trams was up in Aberdeen. they were good. Edinburgh has reintroduced some at huge cost. no idea if its a success tho. not been in the city really for years. Blackpool always had them, and they work well there but its mostly for tourists.
Hamburg has them and bendybus jobs and it integrates with an excellent underground.
Too true. Cars were once considered as a luxury item, generally bought and paid for upfront, and driven by the few who could genuinely afford to run them.
Now, every Tom, Dick and Harry has a car (often one for each old enough member of a household), usually purchased on credit, whether they can genuinely afford it or not, and often with little consideration for the running costs and potential upkeep of the vehicle concerned.
It's just another material possession that folks today think that they're 'entitled to', or ought to have to 'keep up with others', but often don't *really* need - and that's one of the reasons why the roads are the way they are!
The government is also at fault for not providing us with a decent public transport system, especially a proper underground network in other major UK cities, outside of London, but even if that wasn't the case, and we had the best transport system in the world, some folks would still want to own a car, purely as a faux-status symbol.
I say bring back trams! They existed before my time, but from what I can see in cities abroad where they're used, they work very well indeed and considerably reduce inner city traffic congestion.
Marco.
When I was young very few had a car and no-one had 2 cars
.
Hamburg has them and bendybus jobs and it integrates with an excellent underground.
The Germans did have the advantage that with their entire transport infrastructure in ruins in 1945 they could start from scratch with a boatload of American money.
If they'd done as good a job bombing us as we did bombing them then we could have done the same, although not sure anyone would have wanted that.
Public transport will never be the answer because it involves mixing with the public and a lot of people understandably don't want to do that. It's also impractical for transporting a weeks shopping or any large, heavy or bulky item.
The Germans did have the advantage that with their entire transport infrastructure in ruins in 1945 they could start from scratch with a boatload of American money.
If they'd done as good a job bombing us as we did bombing them then we could have done the same, although not sure anyone would have wanted that.
Lol!
Public transport will never be the answer because it involves mixing with the public and a lot of people understandably don't want to do that.
That's just pure snobbery then, and a valid example of the 'only my little world and I matter' selfish attitude I outlined earlier. The reason why I don't use public transport is primarily because I have no need to, and also because I like the freedom of doing what I want, when I want. Plus I ABHOR queues and excessive 'busyness'.
However, much of that could be alleviated if trains and buses ran frequently, and on time, from and to every major city in the UK, but the infrastructure simply isn't there to do that - and it'd cost too much money to implement it...
Although if we spent less on weapons, wars and nuclear submarines, we might be able to afford to build a decent public transport system!! ;)
Marco.
That's just pure snobbery then, and a valid example of the 'only my little world and I matter' selfish attitude I outlined earlier. The reason why I don't use public transport is primarily because I have no need to, and also because I like the freedom of doing what I want, when I want. Plus I ABHOR queues and excessive 'busyness'..
I expect those are the same reasons most people have for not using public transport. It's (usually) fine for getting from major city A to major city B, but factor in the time it takes to get from your own house to the railway station, and the time from the railway station at the other end of your journey to your actual destination, and the car is a usually no-brainer in both time and money terms, especially if there are several of you travelling together. Plus of course you can travel when you want without worrying about missing connections. All the investment in the world in public transport won't change that.
Lol!
That's just pure snobbery then, and a valid example of the 'only my little world and I matter' selfish attitude I outlined earlier. The reason why I don't use public transport is primarily because I have no need to, and also because I like the freedom of doing what I want, when I want. Plus I ABHOR queues and 'busyness' of any nature.
However, much of that could be alleviated if trains and buses ran frequently, and on time, from and to every major city in the UK, but the infrastructure simply isn't there to do that - and it'd cost too much money to implement it...
Although if we spent less on weapons, wars and nuclear submarines, we might be able to afford to build a decent public transport system!! ;)
Marco.
Well they are spending a shitload on Crossrail in London at the moment, about £20 billion so far. Then we've got HS2 starting soon as well. The idea that we don't spend anything on infrastructure in this country is wishful thinking at best. Of course there is no limit to how much you could spend but you would still have the same issues that you list: 'I like the freedom of doing what I want, when I want. Plus I ABHOR queues and 'busyness' of any nature', regardless of how much is spent.
People want to step out of the door, get in their car and go directly where they need to go. That's never going to change because it is clearly a superior system of getting about.
sq225917
03-09-2017, 12:53
Licence all push bikes and make them pay a nominal road tax.
I pay a nominal road tax already, its called general taxation, and I pay vehicle excise duty on two cars, given that I ride a bicycle most days surely I should be getting a refund ? Seems like I contribute more and damage less than your average road user.
Well they are spending a shitload on Crossrail in London at the moment, about £20 billion so far. Then we've got HS2 starting soon as well. The idea that we don't spend anything on infrastructure in this country is wishful thinking at best.
Yes, but the world (or the UK, for that matter) doesn't revolve around London! People living in other areas, especially in the north, deserve to be *equally* catered for!!
You went to Inverness on holiday this year. What were the roads like north of Perth? ;)
Where is the motorway network linking the likes of Aberdeen to the south, North Wales to South Wales, and all the other parts of the country, cut off from motorway networks, where little to no investment has been made in the existing road or rail networks, compared with what's been spent on bloody London and the south? :rolleyes:
And you wonder why many others and I want to divorce ourselves from biased London-centric, English Westminster control??
The English NEED to understand and ACCEPT that people living elsewhere in the UK want (demand) to have their needs catered for too, and for there to exist far greater equality, in terms of how much is spent on public transport services and motorway networks, out with of fecking London and the south.
We're always the 'poor relations', and that shit makes me seethe! :steam:
People want to step out of the door, get in their car and go directly where they need to go. That's never going to change because it is clearly a superior system of getting about.
Fair enough, but as I've said, that's one of the reasons why traffic congestion is how it is. Eventually, something will need to give, as there just isn't enough room on our roads for every dweeb who thinks that they're 'entitled' to have a car!
Marco.
Stratmangler
03-09-2017, 13:37
Where is the motorway network linking the likes of Aberdeen to the south, North Wales to South Wales, and all the other parts of the country, cut off from motorway networks, where little to no investment has been made in the road or rail networks, compared with what's been spent on bloody London and the south? :rolleyes:
Where do you propose the motorway link between North and South Wales to be built?
Arkless Electronics
03-09-2017, 13:37
This thread reads like the rantings of a load of Daily Heil reading wankers to me. I expected better.
A cyclist and "crusty".
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 13:45
Where do you propose the motorway link between North and South Wales to be built?
Cardiff to Colwyn Bay of course. Straight through the Brecons and edge of Snowdonia. Just the job! ;)
montesquieu
03-09-2017, 13:46
This thread reads like the rantings of a load of Daily Heil reading wankers to me. I expected better.
A cyclist and "crusty".
In Bristol it's an official description like 'ned' in Glasgow ie 'two neds were seen running away from the scene of the crime'.
Eventually, something will need to give, as there just isn't enough room on our roads for every dweeb who thinks that they're entitled to have a car!
Marco.
Do you think you're entitled to have a car? Is your need for a car greater than the 'dweebs' (whoever they may be)?
This is what's known as 'the tragedy of the commons':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
'The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.'
So, all car drivers individually believe they are entitled to own a car. Eventually the roads become congested, the air becomes polluted, etc etc. But none of those individual car owners believe their own car ownership is part of the problem.
Is there an answer? I can only think of rationing car ownership by making it prohibitively expensive (much as has been done with cigarettes), but a) the car industry employs a lot of people, and b) rationing via cost would disproportionally disadvantage the (relatively) poor.
In Bristol it's an official description like 'ned' in Glasgow ie 'two neds were seen running away from the scene of the crime'.
To be fair, it's a while since I've heard the term being used. It usually implied the ownership of a scruffy mongrel, or 'meal on a string'.
Where do you propose the motorway link between North and South Wales to be built?
We'll tackle that one when (pigs will fly) the government provides the required funds to be spent on such a project. As they say, 'where's there's a will, there's a way' - but first there has to be a will ;)
I expect that the denizens of Westminster [the fuckheads that they are] expect 'us northerners' to be commuting by horse and cart!
Marco.
Yes, but the world (or the UK, for that matter) doesn't revolve around London! People living in other areas, especially in the north, deserve to be *equally* catered for!!
You went to Inverness on holiday this year. What were the roads like north of Perth? ;)
.
They are a bit limited north of Glasgow. But at the same time you build a motorway to the Highlands and pretty soon the place is spoiled as you can't move for people and traffic. Ever been to the Lake District in the Summer? Massive crowds everywhere. Bet it wasn't like that before they built the M6. Sometime places are better because they require more effort to get to.
Do you think you're entitled to have a car? Is your need for a car greater than the 'dweebs' (whoever they may be)?
This is what's known as 'the tragedy of the commons':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
'The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.'
So, all car drivers individually believe they are entitled to own a car. Eventually the roads become congested, the air becomes polluted, etc etc. But none of those individual car owners believe their own car ownership is part of the problem.
Is there an answer? I can only think of rationing car ownership by making it prohibitively expensive (much as has been done with cigarettes), but a) the car industry employs a lot of people, and b) rationing via cost would disproportionally disadvantage the (relatively) poor.
well, i need a vehicle or i go nowhere period. i did all of 1600 miles last year, but couldnt do one without it. for the taxes i have to pay for that, i might be able to eat and heat, or actually buy clothes. its ok for you lot to speculate of peoples needs when you dont have them yourself.
rant nowhere near over :eyebrows:
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 13:58
Sometime places are better because they require more effort to get to.
Yup! :)
Do you think you're entitled to have a car? Is your need for a car greater than the 'dweebs' (whoever they may be)?
Read "dweebs" as being TAKERS who put feck all into this country (idle benefits scroungers, for example), yet expect to lead the same lifestyle as those who've paid their taxes and put something back, and also the selfish, narrow-minded gits, with more money than sense, who think it's justifiable for every one of their kids of legal age to drive a car of their own, thus adding to traffic congestion and creating parking chaos in your average suburban street, which was never designed as a public car park!! ;)
Oh but no, 'little Johnny' must have a car of his own, 'cos all his mates have one, and we can't have our kids feeling 'deprived'!! :doh:
Marco.
Reminds me of Alan Partridge saying that Joni Mitchell was ill informed when she complained about them paving over paradise and building a parking lot because she is not taking into account the fact that the parking lot would reduce congestion on the outskirts of paradise.
They are a bit limited north of Glasgow. But at the same time you build a motorway to the Highlands and pretty soon the place is spoiled as you can't move for people and traffic. Ever been to the Lake District in the Summer? Massive crowds everywhere. Bet it wasn't like that before they built the M6. Sometime places are better because they require more effort to get to.
Here is John Ruskin on that very subject:
'There was a rocky valley between Buxton and Bakewell, once upon a time, divine as the Vale of Tempe... You Enterprised a Railroad through the valley – you blasted its rocks away, heaped thousands of tons of shale into its lovely stream. The valley is gone, and the Gods with it; and now, every fool in Buxton can be in Bakewell in half an hour, and every fool in Bakewell at Buxton; which you think a lucrative process of exchange – you Fools everywhere'.
They are a bit limited north of Glasgow. But at the same time you build a motorway to the Highlands and pretty soon the place is spoiled as you can't move for people and traffic. Ever been to the Lake District in the Summer? Massive crowds everywhere. Bet it wasn't like that before they built the M6. Sometime places are better because they require more effort to get to.
I totally agree, but that doesn't address the issue of inequality or your point about how much the government has spent on HS2 and in public transport in London. They should be diverting MUCH MORE of those funds up north, where it is very badly needed!
It's great that places of natural beauty remain that way because they're largely 'off grid', but it doesn't mean that folks living in highly populated areas of the UK, out with of London and the south should have to endure grossly inferior rail and road links, whilst simply trying to function adequately in their everyday lives.
Do you know that it takes just as long for me to drive down to visit Anthony, in South Wales (120 miles), as it does to go to Glasgow (263 miles)? And it's a similar scenario, going from, say, Stirling to Inverness. It's bloody ridiculous!
Just look at a motorway map of the UK, and where the government bias lies, and the inequality in spending is there for all to see....
Marco.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 14:17
Ah. This must be one of those 'entitled' motorists: http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-09-03/man-arrested-after-car-crashes-into-house-in-york/
Car was obviously too powerful for this idiot to cope with. You can see what he's done. Going way too fast for the bend.
And what the hell was a 20 year old doing with a 300 horsepower car anyway? :rolleyes:
I suppose London gets priority as the problem is much worse there. Ever been on the Tube in rush hour? if you transported livestock in those conditions you would be prosecuted.
And in any case there are lots of infrastructure projects outside London. For example in Liverpool they are building another road bridge parallel to the existing 'Runcorn Bridge', bet that has cost a fair bit when you add in all the connecting roads.
Ah. This must be one of those 'entitled' motorists: http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-09-03/man-arrested-after-car-crashes-into-house-in-york/
Car was obviously too powerful for this idiot to cope with. You can see what he's done. Going way too fast for the bend.
And what the hell was a 20 year old doing with a 300 horsepower car anyway? :rolleyes:
Clearly what has happened there is that he was taking part in Wacky Races and another competitor has painted a tunnel entrance on the side of the house and put up a 'Diversion' sign.
I suppose London gets priority as the problem is much worse there. Ever been on the Tube in rush hour? if you transported livestock in those conditions you would be prosecuted.
And in any case there are lots of infrastructure projects outside London. For example in Liverpool they are building another road bridge parallel to the existing 'Runcorn Bridge', bet that has cost a fair bit when you add in all the connecting roads.
Yes, but that's ENGLAND again, and not helping anyone living in Scotland or Wales - and you wonder how I feel the way I do about independence? ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 14:25
Clearly what has happened there is that he was taking part in Wacky Races and another competitor has painted a tunnel entrance on the side of the house and put up a 'Diversion' sign.
I'd love to see his insurance quote for next year. He'll be driving a G-Wiz!
Yes, but that's ENGLAND again, and not helping anyone living in Scotland or Wales - and you wonder how I feel the way I do about independence? ;)
Marco.
Loads of infrastructure projects in Scotland, too. Here's a list http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2013/nr_130621_transport_projects.pdf
The Forth Bridge replacement is 1.5 billion alone. And don't forget there are more people living in Greater London than in the whole of Scotland.
Loads of infrastructure projects in Scotland, too. Here's a list http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2013/nr_130621_transport_projects.pdf
The Forth Bridge replacement is 1.5 billion alone. And don't forget there are more people living in Greater London than in the whole of Scotland.
To be fair, a lot of them are refugees from Scotland.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 14:42
To be fair, a lot of them are refugees from Scotland.
That's true. I know a few. :D
well, i need a vehicle or i go nowhere period. i did all of 1600 miles last year, but couldnt do one without it. for the taxes i have to pay for that, i might be able to eat and heat, or actually buy clothes. its ok for you lot to speculate of peoples needs when you dont have them yourself.
rant nowhere near over :eyebrows:
I was, I thought obviously, speaking in general terms rather than about individual cases. Obviously, some people need to have a car. Others could manage without a car, though at great cost/inconvenience, others still could manage perfectly easily without one. The problem is, it would be extremely difficult, even if it was desirable, for government to determine who came into which category, with the aim of reducing the number of cars on the road.
Martin, examine the motorway network alone, in the UK (regardless of anything else), and you'll see that London and the south (and England in general) enjoys rather more connectivity to other parts of the UK than is available to people living in mainland Scotland and Wales.
Equal and fair distribution of funds? I think not!
The fact is, the focus of any English-biased Westminster government is ALWAYS going to be on what's best for England, especially the bits of England nearest Westminster.
The rest of the UK will always be unfairly neglected, which is why so many Scots and Welsh people have an innate resentment of forever being treated as second-class citizens, by a supposedly BRITISH government!!
Marco.
I was, I thought obviously, speaking in general terms rather than about individual cases. Obviously, some people need to have a car. Others could manage without a car, though at great cost/inconvenience, others still could manage perfectly easily without one. The problem is, it would be extremely difficult, even if it was desirable, for government to determine who came into which category, with the aim of reducing the number of cars on the road.
Nope. It would be dead easy... If you're a non-earning, waste of space dole scrounger, then you're ineligible for car ownership, until that situation changes. Then simply restrict each household in large towns and cities to ownership of a maximum of three cars. Job done!!
Marco.
Martin, examine the motorway network alone, in the UK (regardless of anything else), and you'll see that London and the south (and England in general) enjoys rather more connectivity to other parts of the UK than is available to people living in mainland Scotland and Wales.
Equal and fair distribution of funds? I think not!
The fact is, the focus of any English-biased Westminster government is ALWAYS going to be on what's best for England, especially the bits of England nearest Westminster.
The rest of the UK will always be unfairly neglected, which is why so many Scots and Welsh people have an innate resentment of forever being treated as second-class citizens.
Marco.
There are 5.2 million people in Scotland and 4 million of them of them live in Glasgow, Edinburgh and the area in between. All of which is served by motorways. As for Wales, as Chris has pointed out, the topography makes knocking a motorway down the centre of the country a little tricky. Cardiff and Swansea are served by motorways, and there is a very good dual carrigeway road along the north coast now. Hardly anyone lives in the centre of Wales in any case.
MikeMusic
03-09-2017, 14:54
I cycle my 25 mile loop on weekdays.
Never on a weekend as there are too many cyclists 'owning the road'.
Tees me right off to see 2 cycling 2 abreast and blocking traffic. Occasionally 1 on his own 2 or more metres out from the kerb !
Whether walking, cyclist, motorist, van driver or truck driver - there are good ones, mediocre and idiots.
Nope. It would be dead easy... If you're a non-earning dole scrounger, then you're ineligible for car ownership, until that situation changes. Then simply restrict each household to ownership of a maximum of three cars. Job done!!
Marco.
I'd be surprised if that made even the tiniest dent in the problem, especially in areas where the congestion is worst, which is the relatively affluent London/South East.
walpurgis
03-09-2017, 14:58
I'd be surprised if that made even the tiniest dent in the problem, especially in areas where the congestion is worst, which is the relatively affluent London/South East.
Quite right. The scumbags don't own cars anyway. They just steal one when they want to get about. :eek:
I cycle my 25 mile loop on weekdays.
Never on a weekend as there are too many cyclists 'owning the road'.
Tees me right off to see 2 cycling 2 abreast and blocking traffic. Occasionally 1 on his own 2 or more metres out from the kerb !
Whether walking, cyclist, motorist, van driver or truck driver - there are good ones, mediocre and idiots.
you are allowed to, in fact you can do more than 2 but it depends on type of road and dangers you may cause by doing it. A fair bit of highway code(and law) is a bit ambiguous re non powered vehicles. Even the police get it wrong. PS you can have your car licence withdrawn if you get caught cycling while incapable(in officers opinion)although you wont get any points
Haselsh1
03-09-2017, 14:59
LOL, was out on the Harley last weekend and passed around eight of these people who then caught up with me as we got to a junction in a small village on the outside of Grimsby. Just as I was letting out the clutch on the bike,
one of them passed me on the inside almost colliding with the left hand grip. Must've been my fault of course because these wankers are never in the wrong are they...?
Nope. It would be dead easy... If you're a non-earning dole scrounger, then you're ineligible for car ownership, until that situation changes. Then simply restrict each household to ownership of a maximum of three cars. Job done!!
Marco.
If only Governments were that sensible, not to mention fair. Instead they will do what they always do: Tax the shit out of everybody until it deters enough users to give them a few stats to wave around.
I'd be surprised if that made even the tiniest dent in the problem, especially in areas where the congestion is worst, which is the relatively affluent London/South East.
I'm referring to this bit you wrote earlier:
The problem is, it would be extremely difficult, even if it was desirable, for government to determine who came into which category, with the aim of reducing the number of cars on the road.
I've simply suggested *some* criteria I'd impose on car ownership, and in certain areas it'd definitely have a positive effect.
Trust me, there's plenty more I'd do to limit the amount of traffic congestion on our (already vastly overcrowded) roads, including preventing idiots (mainly women on school runs) who think that they're 'entitled' to drive a huge 4x4, simply because it makes them 'feel safer', when they never take it near conditions where the vehicle will be used for what it was designed for!
Therefore, no 4x4s would be allowed anywhere near town centre schools, to collect children - as that shit is responsible for so much traffic chaos in towns and cities.
I'd also ban very slow-moving vehicles, such as tractors, etc, from travelling on main urban roads during rush hour, similarly learner drivers from using the roads during that time. Their driving instructors can take them around industrial estates instead. It is unnecessary for either to clog up main roads during the hours of 8am-9am, or 4pm to 6pm, especially in very busy towns and cities.
Plus, ban people from driving, who lazily take their cars onto the roads without having been serviced for years, then break down on motorways and cause traffic chaos, or idiots who run out of fuel, with the same result! There's a fuel gauge on the instrument panel, so FFS, open your eyes and use it!!
Total and utter idiocy. They'd be off the road for a year minimum, to learn their lesson. Knowing the basics of how to properly maintain a car, should also be a prerequisite of ownership. I doubt that some folk these days could even find where the oil goes!! Therefore, car maintenance would become part of the driving test.
And there's plenty more I'd do, too! ;)
Marco.
I'd also ban very slow-moving vehicles, such as tractors, etc, from travelling on urban roads during rush hour, similarly learner drivers from using the roads during that time. Their driving instructor can take them around industrial estates instead. Neither has to clog up our roads during the hours of 8am-9am, or 4pm to 6pm.
Plus, ban people from driving, who lazily take their cars onto the roads without having been serviced for years, then break down on motorways and cause traffic chaos, or idiots who run out of petrol, with the same result! They'd be off the road for year minimum, to learn their lesson.
.
These I agree with. Also keep those little Scarab kerb cleaners off the road in rush hour. They've got all day to do that. Likewise the bin men and the 'recycling' trucks.
Arkless Electronics
03-09-2017, 15:32
I'd ban Daily Hail reading, Range Rover owning, Tory voting, golf club member types.... In fact I'd have them taken outside and shot:D
If tin box owners had to get out and do 20 press-ups every time someone halted their momentum for the sake of "It's my right of way and I won't wait for 5 seconds and let you pass" they would soon understand the "attitude" of cyclists.
I'd ban Daily Hail reading, Range Rover owning, Tory voting, golf club member types.... In fact I'd have them taken outside and shot:D
If tin box owners had to get out and do 20 press-ups every time someone halted their momentum for the sake of "It's my right of way and I won't wait for 5 seconds and let you pass" they would soon understand the "attitude" of cyclists.
'Daily Hail reading, Range Rover owning, Tory voting, golf club member types' is a bit too specific. What if they read the Mail, vote Tory, play golf but drive, say, a Mercedes GLS? is that okay? :D
What if they also 'believe' in mains leads? Does that elevate them to death in a less painless, straightforward way? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Minstrel SE
03-09-2017, 17:50
Its an unfair title because you cant class anyone the finds two wheels and mows down pedestrians as anything more than a dangerous idiot.
You cant broaden it as all cyclists anymore than I could say whats up with car drivers
Theres are careless idiots everywhere and they also jump onto motorbikes or into cars.
The other side of this is that motor vehicles can turn a 7 minute bike ride into a half an hour trip. There is no effective transport policy and little provision for safe and progressive cycling.
Now it has to be said that pavement nipping does happen because the alternative can be standing there for twenty minutes as a bottleneck develops. Have I done it...I wouldnt like to say :)
However I agree that riding on the pavement is not acceptable but I dont think you will find many responsible people who class themselves as keen cyclists doing it.
I suppose enforcement and heavy spot fines might help. I dont want a registration scheme for cyclists. There are now many people who realise that a car especially in urban areas is not a ticket to freedom. The way forward is a proper transport policy that actually restricts the use of cars and separates pedestrians from cycle paths.
I timed a traffic jam the other week and who in their right mind pays car expenses to take 25 minutes to cover a quarter of a mile in peak periods. Its utter madness and we all know it
Its not all cyclists so lets just clamp down on the idiots without tarring everyone.
Ninanina
03-09-2017, 18:17
I'm a cyclist and I know exactly what you mean Dave there really are some terrible riders out there
I would never dream of cycling on the pavement as that's for pedestrians only
I have also found that when cycling in a group motorists are just fantastic and very often giveway to the group and I always thank them for it as they don't have to do that
Colin comes from Cambridge so we visit it on many occasions and the cycling behaviour there is simply horrendous
Missed this post earlier...
Ah. This must be one of those 'entitled' motorists: http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-09-03/man-arrested-after-car-crashes-into-house-in-york/
Car was obviously too powerful for this idiot to cope with. You can see what he's done. Going way too fast for the bend.
And what the hell was a 20 year old doing with a 300 horsepower car anyway? :rolleyes:
Indeed, it's utterly ridiculous. Firstly, I'd increase the driving age for males to 21, because before then most are still immature daft boys. Some are still daft after that, but you need a cut-off point. Girls are mostly different, in that respect, and generally make less competitive/more sensible drivers.
Secondly, I'd restrict the size of engine ALL (male and female) new drivers can buy, to 1.5L (and limit the BHP allowed), until such times as they've gained some road sense and proven that they're good drivers/can handle a car (say two years on the road with no convictions or accidents, which were their fault). Then at that point, remove the restriction.
Thirdly, seriously fast cars (say 300+ BHP) should only be sold to those who've passed an advanced driving test.
That would sort out a lot of the current problems, prevent accidents and no doubt save many lives!
Marco.
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 09:33
Firstly, I'd increase the driving age for males to 21, because before then most are still immature daft boys.
Oh yeah, I so agree with that but I would also ban the riding of motorcycles for anyone under the age of 25. The power to weight ratio of these new sports machines is absolutely deadly.
walpurgis
04-09-2017, 09:56
The power to weight ratio of these new sports machines is absolutely deadly.
Overall, with a few exceptions the power to weight ratio of bikes seems to have gone down I reckon. Compact sports bikes like the Aprillia RS250 with 72 bhp and the Kwaka ZZR400 with around 63 bhp, that were light, compact and seriously quick, are long gone. Most middleweight bikes seem to struggle to produce much more than 30 bhp these days.
The top sports bikes like the Kwaka H2 and new BMW's have monstrous poke, but you don't see many. They are just too expensive.
600's seem to have more or less levelled off in performance for the last twenty years or so. Probably just as well, they are compact rockets that have more poke than anybody can fully employ for (sane) road use. No real world car can keep up, that's for sure.
Oh yeah, I so agree with that but I would also ban the riding of motorcycles for anyone under the age of 25. The power to weight ratio of these new sports machines is absolutely deadly.
Yup, defo agreed on that, too!
Marco.
What I know about cycling could be written on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer, but here's a rant from Nigel Blackwell of HMHB fame:
http://www.coneysloft.com/magazine/2017/8/16/interview-half-man-half-biscuit
'Q: What’s vexing you right now?
Mrs Brown's Boys is FUCKING GASH no matter what anyone says by the way. "Oh but you should give it a chance, it's all done live." I have given it a chance and it's SHITE.
See also: New cycling fans who got into it all by way of the 'Wiggo ' factor ('quirky, mildly rebellious Brad, he likes Paul Weller y'know!) and bought themselves a SKY replica jersey and only watch the Tour de France and have no knowledge of the April Classics. Their first bike purchase for twenty years was a Boardman Hybrid on the 'cycle to work' scheme and then they got serious and thought that they too could be just like 'Froome Dog' (kill me now) so they upgraded to a carbon framed Pinarello and ordered Rapha polo shirts online.'
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 11:05
Overall, with a few exceptions the power to weight ratio of bikes seems to have gone down I reckon. Compact sports bikes like the Aprillia RS250 with 72 bhp and the Kwaka ZZR400 with around 63 bhp, that were light, compact and seriously quick, are long gone. Most middleweight bikes seem to struggle to produce much more than 30 bhp these days.
The top sports bikes like the Kwaka H2 and new BMW's have monstrous poke, but you don't see many. They are just too expensive.
600's seem to have more or less levelled off in performance for the last twenty years or so. Probably just as well, they are compact rockets that have more poke than anybody can fully employ for (sane) road use. No real world car can keep up, that's for sure.
In 1983 when I bought my then Kawasaki GPz750 sports bike it had a maximum of 86 hp and weighed around 230 kgs. An absolute joke by modern standards. After that I bought a Kawasaki GPz1000RX which had around 125 hp and weighed 250 kgs. This gave it around 500 hp/tonne. At that time I was around 28 years old. These days, a normal bike of comparable size would be a Suzuki Hyabusa with 173 hp and a weight of 266 kgs. I think that in my life so far, things have really moved on into the almost irresponsible.
I certainly agree that very few cars are ever going to compete.
walpurgis
04-09-2017, 11:22
Here, on youtube (the bike in front). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23d50vT2RyA Aprilia RS250 doing 240 kph (150mph). There is no middleweight bike that comes remotely close these days, let alone a 250! And this model is over twenty years old.
My biggest grip is most, but not all cyclists, just ignore the highway code and put themselves and others at risk.
Bikes, and mobility scooters on pavements are a pet hate, some of the mobility scooters are as big as a Harley and will do a lot of damage to any pedestrian they hit. Its a grey area, as some of these scooters are larger than others, have lights/indicators and some don't, some use them on the road, some the pavement. Like bikes, I don't think any of them are compelled to have insurance, so if your injured by them, your goosed, as I wouldn't like to try and take an injury claim through the courts. I think insurance is more important than registration.
As for the idiots that race around walkways timing themselves, just push em over, if they are that close, they are too close.
P.S. I use a bicycle, I would like to think, responsibly.
only class 3 invalid carriages can be used on road (except in exceptional circumstances, when class 2 can) and must use lights like a car. they have a max speed of 8mph(on Rd only) or 4 mph on pavement as per class2
martian sunrise
04-09-2017, 12:23
This thread reads like the rantings of a load of Daily Heil reading wankers to me. I expected better.
indeed. it's breathtaking. imagine what it would be like if they let these cyclist fuckwits use cars - imagine what would happen!!!
oh, wait...
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 12:30
Ken I could not agree more. No insurance at all even given the damage they could do. Serious injury or death and that leaves you or your family having to chase a court action for two years or more with no real guarantee of any outcome but in the meantime, this idiot would be completely free to do it all over again to someone else.
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 12:32
Here, on youtube (the bike in front). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23d50vT2RyA Aprilia RS250 doing 240 kph (150mph). There is no middleweight bike that comes remotely close these days, let alone a 250! And this model is over twenty years old.
Yes I remember the Kawasaki KR1S when it first came out way, way back when. Fantastic machine but knackered after about 10k miles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_KR-1/KR-1S
only class 3 invalid carriages can be used on road (except in exceptional circumstances, when class 2 can) and must use lights like a car. they have a max speed of 8mph(on Rd only) or 4 mph on pavement as per class2
Cars do not have to have lights, but where fitted have to work (age related).
I don't know if the mobility scooters are classed as invalid carriages, would have thought not.
There is no restriction of the use of the roads. For classes of vehicle listed, they have to stick to the regulations applicable to them. Unclassified vehicles or uses have no rules as they fall outside the qualifying descriptions.
Arkless Electronics
04-09-2017, 13:27
We just need to ban cars and that's nearly all the safety issues sorted. Proper road users like bikers and cyclists can then have the road to themselves as they should do of course:ner:
martian sunrise
04-09-2017, 13:37
Or just not cast blanket aspersions on groups of people based on one linking factor. swap 'cyclist' with some other group of people and see if they would be comfortable spouting the bile.
ie: "most, but not all [insert: women/black people/homosexuals/etc] totally ignore all [XXXX] and cause [XXXX], fucking it up for everyone..."
extreme, I know, but the point stands.
I reckon people just need to rant and blame.
Cars do not have to have lights, but where fitted have to work (age related).
I don't know if the mobility scooters are classed as invalid carriages, would have thought not.
There is no restriction of the use of the roads. For classes of vehicle listed, they have to stick to the regulations applicable to them. Unclassified vehicles or uses have no rules as they fall outside the qualifying descriptions.
Yes they are classified as invalid carriages for legal purposes. Class 2 are only allowed to do 4mph and only allowed to use the road if no pavement is available and then must have lights if they do in non daylight conditions..ie outwith dawn to dusk, which is the legal time that headlamps must be used by everyone. class 3 can use both but only at their respective speed limits(4 on pavement, 8 on rd). class 3 have to be registered with dvla and have road tax(which is free)and lights etc. both must be careful etc to pedestrians.
Or just not cast blanket aspersions on groups of people based on one linking factor. swap 'cyclist' with some other group of people and see if they would be comfortable spouting the bile.
ie: "most, but not all [insert: women/black people/homosexuals/etc] totally ignore all [XXXX] and cause [XXXX], fucking it up for everyone..."
extreme, I know, but the point stands.
I reckon people just need to rant and blame.
Better to do that here, and harmlessly let off some steam, than give someone on the road, who pisses you right off, a damed good slap! ;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 14:28
Better to do that here, and harmlessly let off some steam, than give someone on the road who pisses you right off a damed good slap! ;)
Marco.
Or a fucking good smack around the ankles with 400kg of Harley Davidson.
;)
Odd thing about many drivers is they think they never make any errors of judgement, so go nuts if anyone does one in front of them. I see this much more now, almost road rage and often for little. Its a strange one, and i guess they get so stressed they just snap at anything.
walpurgis
04-09-2017, 14:40
You have to admit though, there are some truly crap drivers about these days. People who clearly should not have licences (and maybe don't). Around here the driving is quite startlingly bad.
You have to admit though, there are some truly crap drivers about these days. People who clearly should not have licences (and maybe don't). Around here the driving is quite startlingly bad.
Yes, i think the, making cars too easy to drive hasnt helped in this. There used to be a bit of work involved in driving, but a kid could do it now.(often think they are) lol.
Govt has failed in its duty to provide proper transport infrastructure for most outwith major cities, but these folk get no subsidy for having to use a car. The bus into town(about a mile) is well over a pound now. Each way. Takes 45 secs. That is if it comes. Disabled cant get on and if they did manage the drive sets off before people are seated. Heard plenty old folk say theyve been badly shaken around etc. After 6 pm youve no chance. Taxi for same journey is £5 . You can see how you need a car
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 15:06
Taxi for same journey is £5 . You can see how you need a car
I now have severe osteoarthritis in my left knee and ankle and so am currently quite restricted as to where and how far I can walk. For me to get into our town centre is seven quid, three of which is on the meter before I even get in. I would be even more disabled without a car. The Harley is purely a hobby and won't last long before I have to give it all up.
walpurgis
04-09-2017, 15:30
The Harley is purely a hobby and won't last long before I have to give it all up.
If the Harley gets too much for you, there are some excellent 'twist 'n go' scooters these days. Dirt cheap to run as well. I've been eyeing up the Honda SH-300, it's a good tool.
I now have severe osteoarthritis in my left knee and ankle and so am currently quite restricted as to where and how far I can walk. For me to get into our town centre is seven quid, three of which is on the meter before I even get in. I would be even more disabled without a car. The Harley is purely a hobby and won't last long before I have to give it all up.
yeah, I cant walk without a stick and not far. got crutches for any further. Can still use a clutch at moment fortunately or I'd be screwed.
MikeMusic
04-09-2017, 16:43
you are allowed to, in fact you can do more than 2 but it depends on type of road and dangers you may cause by doing it. A fair bit of highway code(and law) is a bit ambiguous re non powered vehicles. Even the police get it wrong. PS you can have your car licence withdrawn if you get caught cycling while incapable(in officers opinion)although you wont get any points
When I'm with another cyclist we are 2 abreast and single file it to allow cars to pass. The right thing to do for me.
montesquieu
04-09-2017, 19:52
Yes, i think the, making cars too easy to drive hasnt helped in this. There used to be a bit of work involved in driving, but a kid could do it now.(often think they are) lol.
Govt has failed in its duty to provide proper transport infrastructure for most outwith major cities, but these folk get no subsidy for having to use a car. The bus into town(about a mile) is well over a pound now. Each way. Takes 45 secs. That is if it comes. Disabled cant get on and if they did manage the drive sets off before people are seated. Heard plenty old folk say theyve been badly shaken around etc. After 6 pm youve no chance. Taxi for same journey is £5 . You can see how you need a car
£2.80 here minimum fare in the soft south, to the next village 1.5 miles away. My wife - who doesn't drive but takes a taxi 13 miles to work and back every day in term time (the logic being it's cheaper than running her own car) was a bit shocked the one time she used it. There is a cycle path but it vanishes in thevillages themselves for some inexplicable reason
My lad lives with his mum and stepdad about 15 miles in Bristol out in the wops. He is learning to drive as there is no serious alternative to get him to college - there's a bus every two hours that stops at every lamp post and takes an hour and a half to get to the city centre. No cycle path and it's far too dangerous to encourage him to cycle.
There's a train station in my Berkshire village but with one train an hour at peak time (two hours off peak) it's not really a service that can be relied on and I generally drive to a better option if I'm going to London. If they electrified it we could have two trains an hour making it a far better bet. But the govt would rather pour the money down the drain of HS2.
Anyway we all know London gets far too much spent on it, the main gripe here is idiot cyclists (a mix of recreational types and arrogant commuters) who love a bit of fancy dress and on a daily basis imagine themselves in the TdF where they don't have to slow down for such mundane things as zebra crossings or junctions, where the Highway Code doesn't apply (to them anyway). I think most of us have a special word for them.
Haselsh1
04-09-2017, 20:20
yeah, I cant walk without a stick and not far. got crutches for any further. Can still use a clutch at moment fortunately or I'd be screwed.
Yes Grant I have to drive an automatic car these days but only because it is much easier on the knee. I can see by next year I shall need to walk with a stick. Getting out of bed first thing in the morning is my big problem. The bloody knee just won't function for a half hour or so.
Minstrel SE
06-09-2017, 21:56
We've been using the park and ride scheme with the Manchester trams. However that does rely on a car getting us a long way to the outskirts of the city. The trams are very good and they seem to run very often.
I would like to see good public transport with public educated to use it with consideration for others. I know why people like their cars as using public transport can take you out of your bubble.
We went to the bridgewater hall and I dont particularly want groups of rowdy kids on the tram or a last student bus feel. The last student bus could be a right laugh at the time but only if you are in the mood for the drunken singing and mostly friendly shenanigans. Most people are fine but a good clean public transport system (perhaps serving coffee and snacks) would be great
The problem is that the buses and trains dont run often enough round here. They cant be relied on for a good night out. The bus is expensive for just a few stops and it doesnt run often enough. Tha catch 22 is that if people dont use them they dont feel obliged to provide anything decent. It should all be subsidised and provided for the public good in freeing up the roads
I cycle to town but I couldnt actually recommend anybody take up cycling on the roads. Ive been cycling for 50 years but think cyclists get a rough deal on Britains roads
I pay road tax but cycle whenever possible, I think that's fair enough, I take up less room than a car and cause less wear and tear on the road. I'm sure there are many like me so bear that in mind as you canvass for a cycling tax.
Also some pavements are meant to be shared (considerately) between cyclists and pedestrians, but many pedestrians seem unaware of this. Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier.
On the other hand it's utterly inconsiderate to cycle 3 abreast whilst having a chat in 15 metre peloton.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.