Diversion2:
They survived thousands of years without a bike too.
Yeah, but cyclists don’t have groups on social media claiming without trucks we can’t survive ! And that sort of nonsense.
Without trucks mankind would adapt and overcome. Like as stated we have lived thousands of years without them.
Until cyclists claim that without them society can’t survive, then your argument is null and void.
Without power station workers we wouldn’t survive
Without NHS we wouldn’t survive
Without water authority’s we wouldn’t survive
And etc etc
Slackbladder:
Are you serious? You think this guy got off lightly but you’re happy to do something similar? I’d like to see you try to get away with the defence of “he didn’t put his foot on the crossing so I thought it would be ok to run him over”
I’ve read some drivel on here before but this is priceless.
Yes and No! (In that order, presuming that was aimed at me) I’ll explain. It’s a PEDESTRIAN crossing. The law AIUI (legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 … on/25/made) states that once the pedestrian has set foot on the crossing then they have precedence. The wrongdoing of cycling on the footway, then just blithely expecting law-abiding road traffic to stop for their offence is not to be encouraged IMO! It has been debated whether it is legal to even wheel a bike across a zebra crossing. I sure know it’s wrong and dangerous to cycle right off the pavement into traffic. And yes I always prepare to stop if I could see they didn’t look like doing so, but that doesn’t make their actions right. The cyclist was obviously wrong in the above incident and a cyclist would be in the wrong in my putative scenario above.
From reading this last piece you should have put “yes & yes”. The law actually states that a pedestrian has priority when within the limits of the crossing, this is the lined area, not just the crossing, they dont have to have a foot on the crossing. Once again you are saying that you would run a cyclist over if they went onto a crossing as a way of discouraging them. Where has it been debated that walking a bike over a crossing is illegal? I’ve never seen that, I have seen it stated on this forum that a cyclist is just a pedestrian on a bike though.
Diversion2:
They survived thousands of years without a bike too.
Yeah, but cyclists don’t have groups on social media claiming without trucks we can’t survive ! And that sort of nonsense.
Without trucks mankind would adapt and overcome. Like as stated we have lived thousands of years without them.
Until cyclists claim that without them society can’t survive, then your argument is null and void.
Without power station workers we wouldn’t survive
Without NHS we wouldn’t survive
Without water authority’s we wouldn’t survive
And etc etc
So presumably you will only wear what is manufactured locally, consume what is grown locally or wait for it to be delivered by horse and cart. Until you’re no longer a consumer of anything except what you grow or slaughter in your own garden you’re lifestyle and that of many others is dependant on goods vehicles. All the services you quote use HGVs and are unlikely to change in the near future as our infrastructure is geared to HGVs. Deliveries by lorry allow resources to be flexible and for people to live where they would like to live rather than have the factory at the end of the road. Rail, aircraft, horse and cart and bicycle cannot provide the flexibility society demands of it’s goods and services as they are at the moment. Mankind won’t take a backwards step away from luxuries and convenience unless our whole infrastructure is broken down.
Slackbladder:
From reading this last piece you should have put “yes & yes”. The law actually states that a pedestrian has priority when within the limits of the crossing, this is the lined area, not just the crossing, they dont have to have a foot on the crossing. Once again you are saying that you would run a cyclist over if they went onto a crossing as a way of discouraging them. Where has it been debated that walking a bike over a crossing is illegal? I’ve never seen that, I have seen it stated on this forum that a cyclist is just a pedestrian on a bike though.
FYI, one debate of the case known cyclingly appropriate as “Crank v Brooks” is here :- forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58598 in which, as far as I can tell, wheeling a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing counts as being a “foot passenger” whereas “scooting” along does not. Cycling across is presumably not being a pedestrian, therefore not according precedence. And if a so-called pedestrian doesn’t have a foot on the crossing (or its environs) then surely they are not on it, unless you think walking on their hands or sliding or maybe even swimming across it in certain circumstances count as being a pedestrian! Not sure what you’re getting at with the “pedestrian on a bike” thing, is not an astronaut a pedestrian on a rocket? A bicycle is a vehicle.
As for your attempt to claim that I have ever stated I would run anyone over on a crossing, that’s just outrageous. I haven’t yet nor do I intend to. To clarify, “trying not to stop for an illegal cyclist” means that I would stop if I had to, even if they were in the wrong; I just would prefer not to as they would not have precedence: there would be no reason for me to give way. It is akin to someone jumping out right in front of you IMO. Their actions are not to be encouraged not just because they’re illegal, but dangerous should others not stop for them.
Having said all that, I will continue to safely cycle along pavements where appropriate, e.g. one near me is about 20 ft wide with no-one on it so, though technically illegal, no harm is done, but I will not cycle across a zebra crossing expecting road traffic to stop for me as that is, as stated, wrong and reckless.
Snudger:
Though a keen cyclist myself, I will try not to stop (when driving) for someone who is about to cycle off a pavement across a zebra crossing unless a foot goes to ground; it is they who were and are in the wrong.
I don’t care how you try to dress it up, this looks like you would be happy to drive into a cyclist on a zebra crossing. If you take the time to read the regulations you posted it clearly states you don’t have to have a foot on the crossing, merely be in the limits, that’s designated by the zig zag lines, not just the zebra crossing itself.
As a matter of interest, what do you want to do with your precious umbrella when a motor vehicle goes through a red light, or heaven forbid, a zebra crossing while you have a foot on it?
I think it would be better all around if you stay within the law when cycling, you admit you don’t by using the pavement, then there is no problem when approaching a crossing.
Diversion2:
So presumably you will only wear what is manufactured locally, consume what is grown locally or wait for it to be delivered by horse and cart. Until you’re no longer a consumer of anything except what you grow or slaughter in your own garden you’re lifestyle and that of many others is dependant on goods vehicles. All the services you quote use HGVs and are unlikely to change in the near future as our infrastructure is geared to HGVs. Deliveries by lorry allow resources to be flexible and for people to live where they would like to live rather than have the factory at the end of the road. Rail, aircraft, horse and cart and bicycle cannot provide the flexibility society demands of it’s goods and services as they are at the moment. Mankind won’t take a backwards step away from luxuries and convenience unless our whole infrastructure is broken down.
To a answer the all of the above : YES
Iam not disagreeing with any of the reasons you claim we need HGVs/LGVs
I have only stated Mankind ie Me can live without them
Man kind can live without trucks - yes - and your dinner is ten times the price.
What you going to campaign for on that day? Because the ten vans which replace the one truck will still be killing reckless cyclists who have no regard for the law or their own safety.
Ian G:
Man kind can live without trucks - yes - and your dinner is ten times the price.
What you going to campaign for on that day? Because the ten vans which replace the one truck will still be killing reckless cyclists who have no regard for the law or their own safety.
Why do you think Iam a campaigner?
In fact show me where I have actually said trucks should be off the road?
Or
Are you just reading one post, looking at my avatar and jumping to massive conclusions?
Diversion2:
So presumably you will only wear what is manufactured locally, consume what is grown locally or wait for it to be delivered by horse and cart. Until you’re no longer a consumer of anything except what you grow or slaughter in your own garden you’re lifestyle and that of many others is dependant on goods vehicles. All the services you quote use HGVs and are unlikely to change in the near future as our infrastructure is geared to HGVs. Deliveries by lorry allow resources to be flexible and for people to live where they would like to live rather than have the factory at the end of the road. Rail, aircraft, horse and cart and bicycle cannot provide the flexibility society demands of it’s goods and services as they are at the moment. Mankind won’t take a backwards step away from luxuries and convenience unless our whole infrastructure is broken down.
To a answer the all of the above : YES
Iam not disagreeing with any of the reasons you claim we need HGVs/LGVs
I have only stated Mankind ie Me can live without them
So you have stated that because you could live without them then the rest mankind could! I’ll counter with my own statement that mankind i.e. Me can do without bikes because I can live without them.
Diversion2:
So presumably you will only wear what is manufactured locally, consume what is grown locally or wait for it to be delivered by horse and cart. Until you’re no longer a consumer of anything except what you grow or slaughter in your own garden you’re lifestyle and that of many others is dependant on goods vehicles. All the services you quote use HGVs and are unlikely to change in the near future as our infrastructure is geared to HGVs. Deliveries by lorry allow resources to be flexible and for people to live where they would like to live rather than have the factory at the end of the road. Rail, aircraft, horse and cart and bicycle cannot provide the flexibility society demands of it’s goods and services as they are at the moment. Mankind won’t take a backwards step away from luxuries and convenience unless our whole infrastructure is broken down.
To a answer the all of the above : YES
Iam not disagreeing with any of the reasons you claim we need HGVs/LGVs
I have only stated Mankind ie Me can live without them
So you have stated that because you could live without them then the rest mankind could! I’ll counter with my own statement that mankind i.e. Me can do without bikes because I can live without them.
I shall repeat again
Not one person would disagree with your point that you could live without a bike.
The point I was making is about truck drivers claiming without them we can’t survive when it clearly isn’t true.
I can post various groups on social media to this effect.
As of yet, cyclists are not making this laughable claim that they are solely responsible for the survival of the human race.
If all trucks ceased to operate from tomorrow our current lifestyle, infrastructure and possibly rule of law would be compromised considerably. If there was no food in the shops by the end of the week what system could replace HGVs in a short space of time to allow a transition to our new way of life?
chester:
If avatars are true reflections on actual posters then we have actual dancing bears, smoking monkeys and tramps on park benches posting on TNUK.
The dancing bear left a few weeks ago to travel the world.
The little girl is making a good recovery but still has some way to go.
This cycling idiot rode thru a red light as the victim and her au pair were crossing and after the collision he merely picked up his machine and walked off into a nearby park - he subsequently handed himself in to a local nick.
And Chester, a reminder, this is a forum for professional drivers, the vast majority being involved driving trucks.
Why don’t you concentrate your efforts on cycling forums where your avatar will be very much appreciated.
You wouldn’t see a soldiers forum with poster using an avatar of a gun with a line thru it.
Rant over,
Happy New Year, one and all, lets all have a fab 2014.
Socketset:
The little girl is making a good recovery but still has some way to go.
This cycling idiot rode thru a red light as the victim and her au pair were crossing and after the collision he merely picked up his machine and walked off into a nearby park - he subsequently handed himself in to a local nick.
And Chester, a reminder, this is a forum for professional drivers, the vast majority being involved driving trucks.
Why don’t you concentrate your efforts on cycling forums where your avatar will be very much appreciated.
You wouldn’t see a soldiers forum with poster using an avatar of a gun with a line thru it.
Rant over,
Happy New Year, one and all, lets all have a fab 2014.
You are correct it is a truckers forum, makes you wonder why this topic appeared on here in the first place, it’s nothing to do with trucking whatsoever. That said it is a public forum, I’ve said this many times, so people can post what they want.
I don’t see why anyone is getting so uptight about an avatar but, if the idea was to get people annoyed or talking about it, job done.
