BillyHunt:
I suppose, in a perfect world, the scrote driving their motor with no tax & insurance, not wearing a seatbelt, while texting, should run into the cyclist, with no lights or hi vis, going through a red light. Would that be karma?
I thought you better than that Billy
[emoji897]
The-Snowman:
BillyHunt:
You must have been on here too long my friend, nothing thrown out there by me, not intentionally anyway. I’ve read it many times & still don’t see what you mean, maybe time for me to hang up the iPad.Well if that is the case and you think going through red lights is ok as long as its nice and quiet then im not getting into a debate with you. Its illegal regardless of mode of transport or how busy or quiet it is. What you choose to do is up to you.
I will say one thing for you though, at least you’ve admitted it. Your not banging on about getting more protection for cyclists while denying its a common occurence, along with all the other illegal and reckless manouveres we all see every day.
What’s the point in denying it? I do it, regularly, to the point now where its second nature, after a quick look for motor vehicles. As I said, there’s no way I’m sitting at a red light for ages as my small frame won’t trip the sensor, ok maybe not so small but it still doesn’t work. I’m not bothered what anyone thinks of it, it’s just what I do to get along.
Bluey Circles:
roaduser66:
Law- breaking by people on bikes is wrong.Law-breaking by people on bikes is not what’s killing them.
My guess at why cyclists are being injured and killed is a disappointing mix of poor road skills and lack of experience on behalf of the cyclist, and poor road skills and an uncaring attitude by those in motorised vehicles. So what is causing this uncaring attitude by drivers ? probably a number of reasons but I would guess high on that list will be astonishing level of law breaking by cyclists, so just may be law-breaking by people on bikes does contribute heavily towards these accidents, and as sods law goes I hazard a guess that it will be the innocent ones that are trying to do every thing right that are paying the ferry man.
Law-breaking by cyclists is not endemic. Cyclists are people, the same as drivers, the law-breaking is the same in percentage terms and ratio.
In the vast majority of cases when a motor vehicle and cyclist collide it is the driver’s fault. In London two riders have been killed by drivers on mobiles, two others were killed by drunk drivers. Alan Neve was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured driver. Catriona Patel was killed by a drunk driver. Twice a rider has been waiting at the lights, doing everything correctly, and a lorry driver has come up from behind and crushed them to death. Sebastien Lukowmski and Mary Bowers.
The-Snowman:
BillyHunt:
I suppose, in a perfect world, the scrote driving their motor with no tax & insurance, not wearing a seatbelt, while texting, should run into the cyclist, with no lights or hi vis, going through a red light. Would that be karma?I thought you better than that Billy
Why’s that? It always seems to be the law abiding cyclist getting hit & killed by a motorist driving illegally while the suicide jockey on a bike usually runs into a decent drivers car or pedestrian.
Look, nobody wants to see people getting killed or injured, but I cannot see any way things will change from both drivers or cyclists. Given the fact that approximately 85% of cyclists are drivers you’d think it would be better than it is, but as I’ve said its human nature to try & gain an advantage.
LIBERTY_GUY:
boredwivdrivin:
this perfectly illustrates why fat truckers should have to spend 1 day/ year riding a bike in towns or cities (Quantocks or Afan Forest wont work) …Sadly I don’t fit the profile of a fat trucker, being slim fit and healthy, so guess I really shouldn’t comment on this thread. I do however own mountain bikes, but am not dumb enough to ride them on the roads, preferring to put them on my towbar mounted carrier and ride them in the relative safety of forest trails and disused railway tracks etc.
I can sit on the fence on this issue and whilst I can see the attraction of riding in country lanes etc, I truly cannot see what the attraction of riding cycles is in busy town centres, or on fast moving main roads. When I look at the more sensible YouTube videos that some cyclists post (not the ranting loonies), it becomes obvious it is a high risk venture riding in busy town centres, not helped by bad traffic layouts, poor road surfaces, sheer traffic volumes and yes even a sprinkling of thoughtless drivers.
the reason you SHOULD is for every bike on the road is 1 less car .
this would have huge benefits for transport industry , the environment , business and the NHS
youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
such as Holland where 30% commute by bike overall , and as as much as 70% in big city centers .
on a personal note i ride quite a bit of city centers ( despite no longer living in city anymore) and i admit i am a bstard who believes attack is the best form of defence in our urban war zones .
but i dont use road bikes anymore , just a gently modded Anthem X1 . gives me better view of road ,better traction , better ability to deal with hazards and is pretty unbreakable ( ive not bent a wheel yet )
of course i lose some speed and acceleration and its much heavier than my road bikes were …
but it is fun . go for it
roaduser66:
Law- breaking by people on bikes is wrong.Law-breaking by people on bikes is not what’s killing them.
you wont get very far on here talking good sense
the old teeth swallowing grannies will just ask dumb questions , refuse to accept the answer and misquote you forever .
you have been warned
ive been knocked over by an uninsured cyclist, i should have sued the CXXT
Law-breaking by people on bikes is not what’s killing them.
so if a bike comes up my inside and i run him/her over isnt that breaking the law and not my fault as they are under taking
the thing that is killing a lot of them is not using there brain 
, no lights/under taking/pushing through gaps in slow moving traffic/riding with blinkers on/not wearing a helmet the list goes on
and its about time they had some sort of 3rd party insurance by law
If the cyclist is uninsured why didn’t you claim directly from him instead of the insurer?
Filtering is entirely legal, unlit riders feature in just 2% of KSI stats. Risky or illegal behaviour by cyclists is not usually what kills them, most have insurance, wearing a helmet is not mandatory and there is evidence that helmets encourage close passes and exacerbate rotational injuries that could snap your spine.
“/under taking/pushing through gaps in slow moving traffic” Is called filtering and is completely legal. Did you seriously not know this?
boredwivdrivin:
you wont get very far on here talking good sense
[emoji106]
roaduser66:
“/under taking/pushing through gaps in slow moving traffic” Is called filtering and is completely legal. Did you seriously not know this?
Absolutely correct, its completely legal, and im sure most on here would acknowledge that to be so. But that doesnt mean the way that some cyclists or moped riders do it is smart or safe.
As ever, the militant attitude of some (on both sides) spoil the reputations of the many. Respect all around is only way things can ever improve.
boredwivdrivin:
refuse to accept the answer
How the hell would you know? You never answer anything.
Im still waiting to hear your reasons for being so pushy of cyclists rights and more protection while claiming to hold on to the back of lorries on dual carriageways. What gives you the right to lecture everyone else about cyclist safety after claiming this?
roaduser66:
If the cyclist is uninsured why didn’t you claim directly from him instead of the insurer?
And do you know how expensive that can be? And even if you DO go to court and win, it can take years to get any money. Or the guilty party can claim bankruptcy, refuse to pay or any number of different ways to avoid paying.
If I said to you that I thought cyclists should be required to have insurance by law before using the road, what would you say? I dont see why it cant be a legal requirement. MAybe you can also explain why it cant be implimented for cycles to have number plates as a way of recognition as well. It works on motorbikes,why not pedal bikes?
roaduser66:
Risky or illegal behaviour by cyclists is not usually what kills them,
As I said to you yesterday, in 2013 there were 19,430 incidents involving cyclists. Of that, there were 109 deaths. Thats less than 1%. Every death is tragic but unfortunately it happens. And of that half percent of death, around half of those drivers are convicted. Could the other half not just be contributed to an unfortunate lapse of concentration? Rather than what you are implying of total disregard for the person on the bike? To use phrases like “thats whats killing cyclists” is a very provocative way of saying things and looks to me liek your trying to twist things to suit your own agenda
roaduser66:
Filtering is entirely legal,“/under taking/pushing through gaps in slow moving traffic” Is called filtering and is completely legal. Did you seriously not know this?
So because its legal that makes it safe? Doesnt work like that. Just because something doesnt have a law to make it illegal does not mean its ok to charge on and do it. Its legal for me to walk into a pub in Salford, Manchester and tell everyone I detest Mancs and that Liverpool is a far superior city but its hardly a good idea is it?
Whether you like to admit it or not there are bad elements who cycle like there are no laws for them and THESE are the ones causing the problems
F-reds:
Respect all around is only way things can ever improve.
+1
The-Snowman:
Im still waiting to hear your reasons for being so pushy of cyclists rights and more protection while claiming to hold on to the back of lorries on dual carriageways. What gives you the right to lecture everyone else about cyclist safety after claiming this?
Are you sure this incident you keep on about isnt YOU READING it WRONG …
Again !!
The only time i recall saying that is after i said 3 times i cant view the video , cause of ‘plugins’…
But you still kept moaning on like an old man wiv erectile dysfunction on the brain , so i said ’ yes i did it , it was me , i love it ’ to wind you up .
Find the thread dopey
boredwivdrivin:
But you still kept moaning on like an old man wiv erectile dysfunction on the brain , so i said ’ yes i did it , it was me , i love it ’ to wind you up .
To wind me up? Yeah right
First of all, that failed. Secondly, I know full well it wasnt you (check back,I said umpteen times I didn’t believe you) and I know full well you only said it to avoid having to answer. Its not my fault you then made a rod for your own back.
So having admitted lying, why should we believe you about anything else you say?
And now you claim that it WASNT you, what are your thoughts on said video? You dont need to see it,ive told you what it is and I dont need to find the thread because I know what you said.
boredwivdrivin:
The-Snowman:
Im still waiting to hear your reasons for being so pushy of cyclists rights and more protection while claiming to hold on to the back of lorries on dual carriageways. What gives you the right to lecture everyone else about cyclist safety after claiming this?Are you sure this incident you keep on about isnt YOU READING it WRONG …
Again !!
The only time i recall saying that is after i said 3 times i cant view the video , cause of ‘plugins’…
But you still kept moaning on like an old man wiv erectile dysfunction on the brain , so i said ’ yes i did it , it was me , i love it ’ to wind you up .
Find the thread dopey
You’ve been rumbled in this little vd … I’m more worried about you pony tail than the hanging on though.
youtube.com/watch?v=A8c-CdrR2tk
Ok guys; whether you’re professional drivers, cyclists or both we know that we should respect all road users…and I’d like to add that after my initial post about the driver not being that close (although it is difficult from one perspective [cyclist’s headcam] to draw a final conclusion ) for the sake of safety, the driver was in fact wrong by cutting-in too close after the overtake. Since he had traffic lights ahead, for the sake of a few seconds he should have waited to see whether the lights would change. I accept I was wrong in my initial judgement. 
I will stick to my point about the cycle paths though because cyclists should really be using them instead of the road, even if it is not law to do so.
We’re all arguing on here, but we all know the pressure of the job to get on and deliver; but no one will forgive us if someone gets hurt, even though we may not be in the wrong. 