JoeG:
Look deary, your wrong with MOST things you say. You dont seem to be capable of reading correctly. Your now going to rtry and ignore me as i have proved your wrong and you are a t…
But nevermind, ill just sit here and laugh at you
What is worrying is you drive a lorry(maybe, do you really? Or do you just wish you did, or pretend you do?)
I certainly will never ignore your comments Joe, as long as they are respectful and pertinent. I await any reasoned argument you may put forward.
Tramper:
JoeG:
Look deary, your wrong with MOST things you say. You dont seem to be capable of reading correctly. Your now going to rtry and ignore me as i have proved your wrong and you are a t…
But nevermind, ill just sit here and laugh at you
What is worrying is you drive a lorry(maybe, do you really? Or do you just wish you did, or pretend you do?)I certainly will never ignore your comments Joe, as long as they are respectful and pertinent. I wait any reasoned argument you may put forward.
I wait for a reasoned arguement to come from you, besides your stereotyping, and naivety.
Cars have registration plates and are also meant to have tax and insurance. Many don’t and get away with it.
Maybe your spare time would be put to better use thinking of a way to stop this happening?
waynedl:
My comment about kids was aimed at your comment that bikes should pay tax, have number plates etc.
I have mates who (patiently) ride with me who can regularly break speed limits on the road, they don’t, but on a national speed limit road, they’re regularly topping 40+mph and then waiting for me later on - this gives them the ability to break a 30mph speed limit.
I don’t think I’m the minority of law abiding cyclists, I just think that they’re noticible (like busses, trucks, taxi’s etc) so when 1 does something wrong, it’s always BLOODY CYCLISTS / TRUCK DRIVERS / BUS DRIVERS / TAXI DRIVERS etc… Hmm stereotyping, lovely and so close to other bigotry such as racism, sexism etc
A system somewhat like this might work well. Cyclists who have paid a contribution would be issued plates, those who don’t display a plate would run the risk of legal prosecution, those found to be under age would of course be exempt. Where’s the problem?
Being able to ride at 40mph is quite frankly terrifying, imagine how much damage could be caused to a third party in the event of an accident!
I have no figures to support the statement of you being in the minority of law abiding cyclists, but through personal experience, I stand by the sentiment.
JoeG:
I wait for a reasoned arguement to come from you, besides your stereotyping, and naivety.
Cars have registration plates and are also meant to have tax and insurance. Many don’t and get away with it.
Maybe your spare time would be put to better use thinking of a way to stop this happening?
Law enforcement is sadly not part of my remit, however I beleive that the Police Service has a handle on it, however inadequately they perform thier duties.
Tramper:
waynedl:
My comment about kids was aimed at your comment that bikes should pay tax, have number plates etc.
I have mates who (patiently) ride with me who can regularly break speed limits on the road, they don’t, but on a national speed limit road, they’re regularly topping 40+mph and then waiting for me later on - this gives them the ability to break a 30mph speed limit.
I don’t think I’m the minority of law abiding cyclists, I just think that they’re noticible (like busses, trucks, taxi’s etc) so when 1 does something wrong, it’s always BLOODY CYCLISTS / TRUCK DRIVERS / BUS DRIVERS / TAXI DRIVERS etc… Hmm stereotyping, lovely and so close to other bigotry such as racism, sexism etcA system somewhat like this might work well. Cyclists who have paid a contribution would be issued plates, those who don’t display a plate would run the risk of legal prosecution, those found to be under age would of course be exempt. Where’s the problem?
Being able to ride at 40mph is quite frankly terrifying, imagine how much damage could be caused to a third party in the event of an accident!
I have no figures to support the statement of you being in the minority of law abiding cyclists, but through personal experience, I stand by the sentiment.
Being able to ride at 40mph isnt scary. Its the same as a car doing 40mph. Whats the difference? Ive done 48mph before on my bike down a long hill, it was safe to do so. The speed limit on that road was 60mph.
If the bike hit a car at that speed i doubt the car would be that damaged. The cyclists however will be in a bad way.
If the bike hit the person, the outcome of a car hitting that person would be much worse. Dont you think?
Im a law abiding cyclist. I try not to break any laws, wait at red lights like one should do. I know many people like this. Feel free to come on a ride one day. Thats, if your able to ride a bike at a speed above 5mph 
Tramper:
waynedl:
My comment about kids was aimed at your comment that bikes should pay tax, have number plates etc.
I have mates who (patiently) ride with me who can regularly break speed limits on the road, they don’t, but on a national speed limit road, they’re regularly topping 40+mph and then waiting for me later on - this gives them the ability to break a 30mph speed limit.
I don’t think I’m the minority of law abiding cyclists, I just think that they’re noticible (like busses, trucks, taxi’s etc) so when 1 does something wrong, it’s always BLOODY CYCLISTS / TRUCK DRIVERS / BUS DRIVERS / TAXI DRIVERS etc… Hmm stereotyping, lovely and so close to other bigotry such as racism, sexism etcA system somewhat like this might work well. Cyclists who have paid a contribution would be issued plates, those who don’t display a plate would run the risk of legal prosecution, those found to be under age would of course be exempt. Where’s the problem?
Being able to ride at 40mph is quite frankly terrifying, imagine how much damage could be caused to a third party in the event of an accident!
I have no figures to support the statement of you being in the minority of law abiding cyclists, but through personal experience, I stand by the sentiment.
Can’t find any figures myself, seems they don’t want to publish them, but since, as you say, cycling is pretty much tax free (other than the items we’re required to buy) they don’t want us to look good do they…
ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/po … pdown.html that link has some figures about actual accidents / incidents based in London. Cyclists were to blame for 28% of collisions involving a cycle, don’t think that’s too bad considering - as u said - you can cycle at 4 or 5yrs old. - 72% other peoples fault
Able to ride at 40mph + is actually pretty average for most cyclists that do it daily, I average around 10mph +/- on a 20 mile ride including hills, so must go over 10mph and under 10mph, but I don’t have a speedo.
A lot of cyclists have insurance, what damage would your truck / car (jeep?) cause at 40mph??
JoeG:
Being able to ride at 40mph isnt scary. Its the same as a car doing 40mph. Whats the difference? Ive done 48mph before on my bike down a long hill, it was safe to do so. The speed limit on that road was 60mph.
If the bike hit a car at that speed i doubt the car would be that damaged. The cyclists however will be in a bad way.
If the bike hit the person, the outcome of a car hitting that person would be much worse. Dont you think?
Im a law abiding cyclist. I try not to break any laws, wait at red lights like one should do. I know many people like this. Feel free to come on a ride one day. Thats, if your able to ride a bike at a speed above 5mph
I’m sure your correct, and riding a bike at those speeds may not seem scary, but should the worst happen, the outcome would be horrific. I very much doubt that the rider would survive such an impact, and if he did, the financial burden it would impose on the states coffers would be quite considerable.
Your assumption that a car hit at those speeds would not be badly damaged shows an unwarranted belief in the motor cars build quaility. How about the thorny issue of insurance? Who would pay for the repairs, however slight? As I sad to the other correspondent, I commend your sence of fair play when abiding to the law, but you are few and far between.
As for riding a bicycle, I stated previously that I regard the machine as a childs plaything, and I have enough money to contribute to the countries well being and drive a car, but thanks for the offer.
waynedl:
Can’t find any figures myself, seems they don’t want to publish them, but since, as you say, cycling is pretty much tax free (other than the items we’re required to buy) they don’t want us to look good do they…ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/po … pdown.html that link has some figures about actual accidents / incidents based in London. Cyclists were to blame for 28% of collisions involving a cycle, don’t think that’s too bad considering - as u said - you can cycle at 4 or 5yrs old. - 72% other peoples fault
Able to ride at 40mph + is actually pretty average for most cyclists that do it daily, I average around 10mph +/- on a 20 mile ride including hills, so must go over 10mph and under 10mph, but I don’t have a speedo.
A lot of cyclists have insurance, what damage would your truck / car (jeep?) cause at 40mph??
Indeed, any vehicle causes damage when involved in a colision. Whether cyclists are to blame in a collision or not is somewhat irrelevant as if the cyclist hasd nt been wobbling around in the gutter at the time of the accident…no accident.
Got to go, it’s getting late.
Best wishes.
bobthedog:
I am inclined about the sabotage by councils. Look at all the roundabouts in the UK. So many of them have botanical gardens in the middle which cuts your visability and ability to judge traffic to zero. And the stupid positioning of signs and other clutter make it really difficult.I really cannot imagine that the driver deliberately drove across in front of the cyclist. You can see how fast the cyclist is going and the tanker wasn’t hanging about. It would have been obvious to any driver that an impact was inevitable if both kept going and I will not accept that any driver would do that on purpose.
The tanker could see the roundabout was clear, I imagine, because he couldn’t, or didn’t see the cyclist. In that position we would all keep going, wouldn’t we?
I stand by my initial comment, a very nasty accident was avoided. It could have been avoided sooner had the cyclist judged that the tanker either couldn’t see him or was, God forbid, ignoring his presence, but that wouldn’t have made for a good video which may well get ads put on it and net the cyclist a few quid to buy his next camera.
Just as a point of interest, some people, and this cyclist strikes me as one of these, go out of their way to put themselves in risky situations because they have the camera stuck to their helmets. The cyclist (I will not use his name as I think he is a dork) has ads on his videos and is paid per click. If you play with fire, be prepared to singe your fingers.
Fully agree with you.If you look through some of this guys 110 other clips on YT,he does seem to put himself in danger quite a lot.Is it done deliberately to goad other road users into a reaction of some kind or does he just not think? Or is he just very unlucky with the type of driver he meets? He seems to ride fairly aggressively.You get the feeling the epitaph on his headstone will read"I was in the right".
As the cyclist was riding up to the r/a,he turned his head to the right quite clearly a couple of times.Was he checking the junctions on the right or what was behind him in readiness to “straight-line” the r/a? At the r/a,he does not move his head at all,yet he reckons he had full eye contact with the tanker driver.If this was the case then surely he could see that the tanker was probably not going to be able to stop in time and so slow down himself to avoid any collision.Seems he doesn’t “do” defensive.
Tramper:
JoeG:
Being able to ride at 40mph isnt scary. Its the same as a car doing 40mph. Whats the difference? Ive done 48mph before on my bike down a long hill, it was safe to do so. The speed limit on that road was 60mph.
If the bike hit a car at that speed i doubt the car would be that damaged. The cyclists however will be in a bad way.
If the bike hit the person, the outcome of a car hitting that person would be much worse. Dont you think?
Im a law abiding cyclist. I try not to break any laws, wait at red lights like one should do. I know many people like this. Feel free to come on a ride one day. Thats, if your able to ride a bike at a speed above 5mphI’m sure your correct, and riding a bike at those speeds may not seem scary, but should the worst happen, the outcome would be horrific. I very much doubt that the rider would survive such an impact, and if he did, the financial burden it would impose on the states coffers would be quite considerable.
Your assumption that a car hit at those speeds would not be badly damaged shows an unwarranted belief in the motor cars build quaility. How about the thorny issue of insurance? Who would pay for the repairs, however slight? As I sad to the other correspondent, I commend your sence of fair play when abiding to the law, but you are few and far between.
As for riding a bicycle, I stated previously that I regard the machine as a childs plaything, and I have enough money to contribute to the countries well being and drive a car, but thanks for the offer.
Tell you what, if you could get on my TT bike and turn the pedals on it with your legs you can call it a childs toy.
OR is what your really saying if you cant ride a bike, so is a childs toy?
If i crashed, your insurance would contact the CTC(someone should inform the car driver im in the CTC if im not with it) then it gets sorted from there.
Im sorry, but a person wacking a car will dent it, but not as much damage as it would go on to a person. Face it, you know it.
You also have a low opinion of cyclists. Calling them freeloaders as if they dont pay tax.
They do, many have a car so pay VED etc. Infact, most people that i cycle with work in the local hospital, as Drs, nurses, in care homes, or doing maintenance in the hospital.
Going by most bikes cost quite a bit for a decent one. You will normally have a commuter, summer bike, winter bike, it gets expensive.
I have:
Track bike
TT(that time trial) bike(worth ALOT)
Fixed wheeled training bike
Fixed wheeled bike for commuting
Geared road bike
The cost of all of these and what i will spend on them will be more then most peoples cars
Tramper:
waynedl:
Can’t find any figures myself, seems they don’t want to publish them, but since, as you say, cycling is pretty much tax free (other than the items we’re required to buy) they don’t want us to look good do they…ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/po … pdown.html that link has some figures about actual accidents / incidents based in London. Cyclists were to blame for 28% of collisions involving a cycle, don’t think that’s too bad considering - as u said - you can cycle at 4 or 5yrs old. - 72% other peoples fault
Able to ride at 40mph + is actually pretty average for most cyclists that do it daily, I average around 10mph +/- on a 20 mile ride including hills, so must go over 10mph and under 10mph, but I don’t have a speedo.
A lot of cyclists have insurance, what damage would your truck / car (jeep?) cause at 40mph??
Indeed, any vehicle causes damage when involved in a colision. Whether cyclists are to blame in a collision or not is somewhat irrelevant as if the cyclist hasd nt been wobbling around in the gutter at the time of the accident…no accident.
Got to go, it’s getting late.
Best wishes.
So, facts and figures that go against you.
I bet you wont be back in this thread
Night, sleep well. Im sure you will be thinking of us
Highlander:
bobthedog:
I am inclined about the sabotage by councils. Look at all the roundabouts in the UK. So many of them have botanical gardens in the middle which cuts your visability and ability to judge traffic to zero. And the stupid positioning of signs and other clutter make it really difficult.I really cannot imagine that the driver deliberately drove across in front of the cyclist. You can see how fast the cyclist is going and the tanker wasn’t hanging about. It would have been obvious to any driver that an impact was inevitable if both kept going and I will not accept that any driver would do that on purpose.
The tanker could see the roundabout was clear, I imagine, because he couldn’t, or didn’t see the cyclist. In that position we would all keep going, wouldn’t we?
I stand by my initial comment, a very nasty accident was avoided. It could have been avoided sooner had the cyclist judged that the tanker either couldn’t see him or was, God forbid, ignoring his presence, but that wouldn’t have made for a good video which may well get ads put on it and net the cyclist a few quid to buy his next camera.
Just as a point of interest, some people, and this cyclist strikes me as one of these, go out of their way to put themselves in risky situations because they have the camera stuck to their helmets. The cyclist (I will not use his name as I think he is a dork) has ads on his videos and is paid per click. If you play with fire, be prepared to singe your fingers.
Fully agree with you.If you look through some of this guys 110 other clips on YT,he does seem to put himself in danger quite a lot.Is it done deliberately to goad other road users into a reaction of some kind or does he just not think? Or is he just very unlucky with the type of driver he meets? He seems to ride fairly aggressively.You get the feeling the epitaph on his headstone will read"I was in the right".
As the cyclist was riding up to the r/a,he turned his head to the right quite clearly a couple of times.Was he checking the junctions on the right or what was behind him in readiness to “straight-line” the r/a? At the r/a,he does not move his head at all,yet he reckons he had full eye contact with the tanker driver.If this was the case then surely he could see that the tanker was probably not going to be able to stop in time and so slow down himself to avoid any collision.Seems he doesn’t “do” defensive.
Exactly the point i made earlier.
You can see the tanker coming from the left quite early, and if he had been looking there at that junction he would have seen the speed in which it was going.
Any half wit would be able to tell if that would have been able to stop or not.
I still think he could have been able to brake sooner. He says he was doing 15/16mph. You can come down from this speed quite quickly on a bike if you need to.
He wasnt looking around enough was and is my views, and could have avoided it.
Tanker still in the wrong, but he could have made those 20cm to death be alot more.
As I’ve pointed out, I also have a motorcycle and a car, it’s not about being able to afford a car or even to use it - most of my cars costs are whilst it’s sat there tbh.
And I did point out that cycle insurance is quite common now, so that’s the expense should the worst happen covered.
Your argument that a cycle is a childs play thing, try beating 1 across London at 8.30 am lol.
I use mine for excercise / fitness as stated, I use it as an alternative to sitting in a gym looking at the same 4 walls blah blah, or swimming the same 25m. It’s good excercise, gets fresh air into my lungs, allows amazing pictures from some of the locations we get to.
I must admit though, due to my limited cycling time and how far behind my friends I am on fitness, I usually stick to trails / cycle tracks. Did 20 miles of mostly road riding yesterday though and it was mostly incident free and a VERY enjoyable ride with amazing scenery and pictures.
Actual route of yesterdays ride except up near New Mills coming out of Strines, we took the Goyt Walk / Millenium Walkway into New Mills.
Talk about stereotyping…
Joe, you said “if a car hit a bike” I bet it is just as likely to be the other way round. Bottom line is that there are many cyclists who ought to have a hefty insurance tab because they are reckless and have no regard for others. You may be different, I don’t know, but you do have a chip on your shoulder a yard wide about it and are all too keen to blame everyone else whenever there is a close call, but there are countless close calls between all manner of vehicles every day and blame is usually cast in both directions.
You cannot deny that cyclists pose threats when they are riding aggressively or with no respect for others. Like the ones who ride down the inside of trucks at a set of lights just to be at the front of the queue and then hold the truck up through the junction. Like the ones who consider traffic lights as advisory, like the ones who weave in and out of traffic then expect people to yield to them. If you think this is fair enough then go find a new place to cast aspersions.
The original question was who was in the wrong. The bottom line is that although the tanker was not in the right for not stopping and that makes him legally responsible, the cyclist had decided he was in the right and that gave him a divine right to keep going. He didn’t give any room for error on anyones part. That makes him just as wrong morally.
bobthedog:
Talk about stereotyping…Joe, you said “if a car hit a bike” I bet it is just as likely to be the other way round. Bottom line is that there are many cyclists who ought to have a hefty insurance tab because they are reckless and have no regard for others. You may be different, I don’t know, but you do have a chip on your shoulder a yard wide about it and are all too keen to blame everyone else whenever there is a close call, but there are countless close calls between all manner of vehicles every day and blame is usually cast in both directions.
You cannot deny that cyclists pose threats when they are riding aggressively or with no respect for others. Like the ones who ride down the inside of trucks at a set of lights just to be at the front of the queue and then hold the truck up through the junction. Like the ones who consider traffic lights as advisory, like the ones who weave in and out of traffic then expect people to yield to them. If you think this is fair enough then go find a new place to cast aspersions.
The original question was who was in the wrong. The bottom line is that although the tanker was not in the right for not stopping and that makes him legally responsible, the cyclist had decided he was in the right and that gave him a divine right to keep going. He didn’t give any room for error on anyones part. That makes him just as wrong morally.
I didnt exactly mean it wouldnt be the other way around. It has been. Some ■■■■ on a bike road into the back of my brothers GF’s car for some strange reason.
If a bike goes down the left of you, i think you should be allowed to flatten them, its there fault.
So yes, i do agree with you. However the talk of, “Everything cyclist is a menace” is rubbish. Would you not agree?
bobthedog:
The original question was who was in the wrong. The bottom line is that although the tanker was not in the right for not stopping and that makes him legally responsible, the cyclist had decided he was in the right and that gave him a divine right to keep going. He didn’t give any room for error on anyones part. That makes him just as wrong morally.
A friend of a motorbike forum is also a driving instructor, and 1 day, going up a hill with cars parked on the opposite side of the road, a truck coming down towards the parked cars at a great rate of knots, the learner decides to carry on going at which point my mate took the controls and stopped the car.
The learner said “it’s my right of way” to which the reply was simple, to the point and brilliant “yes it is, will that matter if we’re both dead??”
Looks like the thread has been spyed by cyclechat.
They all love me on there
Especially that Magnatom, Mr Paul and Arch.
Im sure most people from there that has read this will have their heads popping with the lack of grammer, spelling not quite right and other stuff
JoeG:
Looks like the thread has been spyed by cyclechat.
They all love me on there
Especially that Magnatom, Mr Paul and Arch.
Im sure most people from there that has read this will have their heads popping with the lack of grammer, spelling not quite right and other stuff
Think you mean grammar
I have been tempted to pick up on it a few times if I’m honest 
waynedl:
JoeG:
Looks like the thread has been spyed by cyclechat.
They all love me on there
Especially that Magnatom, Mr Paul and Arch.
Im sure most people from there that has read this will have their heads popping with the lack of grammer, spelling not quite right and other stuff
Think you mean grammar
I have been tempted to pick up on it a few times if I’m honest
Your worried about mine? [zb]ing hell!!! Have you read some of these posts!!!
Maybe it will be best to just go no grammer becauase then there will be no grammer to pick on would be much easier
I only pick on grammar and punctuation if I feel like being a pedant, or when there is a good reason. You are no angel when it comes to it, and I doubt anyone gets it right all the time. It is entirely irrelevant anyway.
I hope it has been noticed by them, and I hope they join here so we can hear their points of view. I would, in particular, like to hear the subject of this thread explain how he felt he could challenge a 44 tonne vehicle, regardless of the right of way issue. You see, his ego may be monumental but it is still going to lose against a truck.
He was lucky not to be squished, that much is true, but he is a drama queen and that is equally undisputed. I will not watch his clips so he doesn’t get the penny from my click.
I would never agree that you should be able to squish anyone, but every time someone does get caught by a left turning truck at a set of lights it becomes something else for the bike brigade to mash truck drivers about, and that sceanario is entirely the cyclists fault. While this one wasn’t, neither was it entirely the truck drivers fault, either.
While some are battering all cyclists, cyclists invariably bash all truck drivers. There is an imbalance in the whole argument. Personally, I think cyclists should be forced to sit a test for hazard perception and for road law, and they should have a sticker or plate attached to their cycles to show they have sat the test. In modern road travel, whatever mode is used, there is simply too much traffic to allow particularly vulnerable people to ride as if they either have superpowers or that God is on their side. A real, recognisable test would help, and it would educate cyclists in the art of road use. Many lack that particular ability or talent.