Thread: Proof the lunatics are running the UK today

^Did you bother to look at the link I provided?

It showed a picture of a left lane filter and the cycle lane was on the nearside. Why would that be? Perhaps that is the normal position for a cyclist at a junction...on the left irrespective of the lane markings for vehicle traffic. It is the safest place to be on the road (although I think they should be off the road altogether).

They were actually in a safer position than the cyclist that took the video, if that cyclist was not turning left. This is because the lorry is stopped at the time and must give way to the cyclists before starting his turn. The cyclist videoing will be trying to cross the junction with traffic that is already moving and therefore less likely to see him . They do, of course, have to give way to him but the chances are they are a duffer like you....

Originally Posted by Troy

^Did you bother to look at the link I provided?

It showed a picture of a left lane filter and the cycle lane was on the nearside. Why would that be? Perhaps that is the normal position for a cyclist at a junction...on the left irrespective of the lane markings for vehicle traffic. It is the safest place to be on the road (although I think they should be off the road altogether).

They were actually in a safer position than the cyclist that took the video, if that cyclist was not turning left. This is because the lorry is stopped at the time and must give way to the cyclists before starting his turn. The cyclist videoing will be trying to cross the junction with traffic that is already moving and therefore less likely to see him . They do, of course, have to give way to him but the chances are they are a duffer like you....

Yeah OK "moped man" anything you say.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Whatever you say or any one else says for that matter the road marking were quite plain for all to see, it was a turn left only lane, any one going straight ahead should not be in it, so therefore THEY are in the wrong and responsible should an accident happen.

Absolutely correct and what if you replace the cyclist with a motor bike Troy ?

Still wish to make the same argument ?

No , then you are arguing for special rights for cyclists .

Bring in the Strict Liability Law aka the rest of Europe (almost)...

...that'll teach yer....

Originally Posted by Mid

Absolutely correct and what if you replace the cyclist with a motor bike Troy ?

Apples and Oranges....

Originally Posted by Mid

No , then you are arguing for special rights for cyclists .

Yes, where there is no cycle track on the road then it should be assumed it exists, width 2 metres, on the nearside.

All accidents are the motorised vehicle drivers fault unless proven otherwise.

Should cut down the accidents involving cyclists...worked in Europe....

^

garbage from a two face

Well Mid, thanks for the Red....nice to find out what one is...

Arguing from either side of the fence is less to do with being "two-faced" than being able to understand both sides of the argument. Since the all powerful lorry driver view seems to be the adopted one here then I see no reason why the vulnerable bicycle viewpoint should not be put across in stronger terms. (There is some irony there if you bother to think about it).

Perhaps you and others are supporters of Emma Way?
BBC News - Emma Way: Cyclist tweet 'my biggest mistake'

Having given up cycling to work in the late 70's due to the unreasonable dangers, I took it up again for a short while during my Uni days. However, the reason was more to do with lack of money overriding the dangers. Even with cycle lanes and a reasonable network of cycle paths it was still a matter of depending where I was going and always dismounting when crossing roads.

Thirty years later, I can ride on a whole network of cycle paths without having to worry about roads outside residential areas. The Bavarians have a great network of routes that are probably on a par with the Dutch. So why have the UK fallen behind? Why have some young people got the mentality of Emma Way?

One of the things that bugs me more than the "school run" in the UK is the short distance work and grocery commute . A car being used to drive a mile or so to work or the local grocery to get a loaf of bread and a pint of milk.

The UK Government go on about how they want to promote "Green" by putting a staggering amount of tax on fuel but this just looks like an excuse for raking in more money. If they really wanted to go "Green" then they would actively promote walking and cycling to work. I mean being able to claim (say) 20p/mile for every cycle commute to work from 1 - 10 miles. Imagine the incentive of a 5-mile ride into work becoming £2/day ... £480 off your yearly taxable income...with an added possible incentive of linking it to a car tax reduction? If the figures don't look inviting then up them until they do and link them with train->bicycle commute for big cities.
I believe more than one EU Country have already adopted a scheme similar to this.

Thing is...this won't work without the cyclist feeling safe on the roads and he sure as hell doesn't feel safe with a few of you lot around. Hard to fucking see indeed...almost as much bollox as Mid accusing me of being two-faced.

The Dutch cycle because strict liability made everybody drive safely and play nice | Cycling Embassy of Great Britain

“The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.”

Having said all this, there are some idiot cyclists around. If they are in possession of a driving licence then they should get points on that licence for any offence in a similar manner to anyone else driving on the road. Again, this is the system in other parts of the Continent (and includes riding bike/horse under the influence). I also like the "instant" month ban adopted by several countries that make you realise the advantage of going by car....

After a hard days work and commute home (slightly too long for a bike ride) I have found the experience of walking/cycling to the shops with the wife to be just what the doctor ordered. Not only does it slow me down, whilst exercising (far better than the G&T of earlier times) it gives me time to see things clearly and appreciate life more...but best of all is looking at all those people in cars screaming around as if their life depended on it...when it doesn't.

simple really , if cyclists wish to be treated as equal road users then they need to behave as such .

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by reddog

i think you need to jump in a lorry to see the dickheads ,both car and cyclists who do the most stupid things in traffic, really comes down to ,do not put your self in a dangerous position, so , stay back from a truck at the lights.
does not matter how many mirrors he has,cyclists are hard to see.

I don't need to jump in a lorry to see them thank-you.

This comment, and others like it, that try to turn advisories into rules does nothing but reduce the rights of other road users rather than enforcing them. Horses pedestrians and cyclists have rights to cross roads and vehicles should be looking out for them and giving way to them. This excuse of "they're hard to see" is nothing more than an excuse and a pathetic one at that. It won't get you very far in Court, that's for sure.

The introduction of more and more "Toucan Crossings" in order to enforce the rights of the cyclist and pedestrian is required as per the Continent. There can be no excuses then and every vehicle driver will be forced to stop and give way before turning into a nearside junction.

Quite simply the modern driver has lost the plot and forgotten the essential rights of others.

Absolutely right. The basic rule is to look out for the most vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Mid

simple really , if cyclists wish to be treated as equal road users then they need to behave as such .

Tell me Mid, what is the lower age limit for cycling on the road in the UK?

Young kid panics, makes a mistake...run him over...is that really your answer?

Cycling gets £94m push in England

BBC News - Cycling gets £94m push in England

Too little, too late and lacks imagination....no wonder the UK is so far behind the rest of Europe.

Throw in some carrots to make more consider being cyclists.

Gets madder and madder, but proudly so...

Serial thieves, pickpockets and fraudsters should never be jailed, a former Government sentencing adviser declared last night.

Professor Andrew Ashworth claimed even repeat offenders with dozens of convictions should be spared the ‘pain’ of a prison term.

Thieves and fraudsters must NEVER be jailed: That's the advice from Labour's ex crime adviser who says prison terms are an 'abuse of State power' | Mail Online

Caution, Lefties at work!

Originally Posted by leemo

Gets madder and madder, but proudly so...

Serial thieves, pickpockets and fraudsters should never be jailed, a former Government sentencing adviser declared last night.

Professor Andrew Ashworth claimed even repeat offenders with dozens of convictions should be spared the ‘pain’ of a prison term.

Thieves and fraudsters must NEVER be jailed: That's the advice from Labour's ex crime adviser who says prison terms are an 'abuse of State power' | Mail Online

Caution, Lefties at work!

Yeah Leemo, And of course road markings as laid down in the UK Highway code should be completely ignored by Cyclists simply because they fit the lefty "image" of being "clean N green" ,and if a cyclist has an accident with an HGV whilst disobeying a road marker or sign, naturally its always those evil HGV drivers at fault for blasting out all those CO2 poison fumes out adding to "global warming"

Looks like a new lunatic has come out of the closet.

Give axe murderers the vote, says judge: Britain's man in Strasbourg tells MPs to back down | Mail Online

Soon they'll start sending victims to jail for provoking crims by having enough money that's worth stealing, like the weekly pension.

Originally Posted by leemo

Looks like a new lunatic has come out of the closet.

The idea that prisoners should be allowed to vote is not new and not something that only loonies would think.

Many countries restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. For example, convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, prisoners are only entitled to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than three years. Eighteen European states, including Spain, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, place no formal prohibition on prisoners voting. In practice, however, it is often difficult for prisoners in some of these countries to vote: in the Republic of Ireland, prisoners have the right to be registered to vote in their home constituency, but have no right to either a postal vote or to be released to cast a vote at a ballot box.

The issue is particularly controversial in the United Kingdom and the USA. In April 2001, the British High Court rejected a case brought by John Hirst (a man serving a life sentence for manslaughter), who argued that the ban on prisoners voting was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Court's Grand Chamber rejected the British government's appeal in October 2005. Proponents argue this is proof that the right to vote is an unalienable right that cannot be taken from a prisoner, regardless of the severity of his crime. Opponents maintain that disenfranchisement is a suitable punishment for those who have proven unable to adhere to society's laws and will act as a deterrent against re-offending. As a result, in the United States, one in forty Americans of voting age are ineligible to vote because they are, or have been, in prison. The arguments below relate directly to whether those currently serving prison sentences should be allowed to vote.

This house would allow prisoners to vote | idebate.org

The highway Code and the Road Traffic Acts apply to all road users. That includes cyclists.

The problem is often that cyclists are not obliged to take any form of test involving knowledge of said Code and occasionally think they have "rights" outside the Code.

They don't

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

The highway Code and the Road Traffic Acts apply to all road users. That includes cyclists.

The problem is often that cyclists are not obliged to take any form of test involving knowledge of said Code and occasionally think they have "rights" outside the Code.

They don't

the window licking lycra wearers should be fined just as harshly as motorists
when they stuff up,and in real world should only ride in a bike lane when it is provided,
and if not,wear it.

Is piwanoi back in the UK?.....

Camberwell crash death: Sixth cyclist killed in two weeks

BBC News - Camberwell crash death: Sixth cyclist killed in two weeks