I've seen videos like that before.... some of the time the video justified.... but a lot of the time they cyclists are being dicks to start with...
from my experience:
when I'm driving, cyclists and pedestrians are suicidal idiots. Other motorists give me dirty looks for only passing cyclists where it's safe to do so.
when I'm on my bike, pedestrians are suicidal idiots and motorists aim at me. Other cyclists give me dirty looks for daring to stop at red lights
when I'm walking, cyclists and motorists aim at me and other peds hold me up by walking slowly and erratically.
in short, all three classes contain plenty of idiots
Quote from: Mongoose on May 26, 2011, 08:20:17 AM
from my experience:
when I'm driving, cyclists and pedestrians are suicidal idiots. Other motorists give me dirty looks for only passing cyclists where it's safe to do so.
when I'm on my bike, pedestrians are suicidal idiots and motorists aim at me. Other cyclists give me dirty looks for daring to stop at red lights
when I'm walking, cyclists and motorists aim at me and other peds hold me up by walking slowly and erratically.
in short, all three classes contain plenty of idiots
I think Mongoose has summed it up quite nicely there.
With regards to the videos I'm in two minds about them. Some of the drivers he is having issues with admittedly are driving like idiots and should have the book thrown at them. But then the cyclists arrogance and smug, self satisfied attitude makes me loathe and detest every fibre of his being. I'll bet he goes out on his little patrols looking for people he can put up on Youtube, and subconsciously he probably causes a lot of confrontations.
the only one thats a bit wrong is the overtaking at night time by some roadworks.
No sympathy. He's on a rec**tbant.
Second one's not too bad. Plenty of room.
Same on the third. His lane positioning is very poor.
What a dick.
The first one fair enough, but he just dilutes any sympathy with the rest of that utter shize, and as soopah pointed out his road positioning looks odd, no way near the side :dunno:
Quote from: matt5cott on May 26, 2011, 12:36:12 PM
The first one fair enough, but he just dilutes any sympathy with the rest of that utter shize, and as soopah pointed out his road positioning looks odd, no way near the side :dunno:
I think he rides a trike - look at his feet peddling
Here's another knobber doing the whole "angry shouty shouty headcam I'm awesome" thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIyG5BqjM10
I have a strong suspicion that no normal well adjusted person wears a head-cam while on their bike and then posts a comentary on youtube
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 26, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Mongoose on May 26, 2011, 08:20:17 AM
from my experience:
when I'm driving, cyclists and pedestrians are suicidal idiots. Other motorists give me dirty looks for only passing cyclists where it's safe to do so.
when I'm on my bike, pedestrians are suicidal idiots and motorists aim at me. Other cyclists give me dirty looks for daring to stop at red lights
when I'm walking, cyclists and motorists aim at me and other peds hold me up by walking slowly and erratically.
in short, all three classes contain plenty of idiots
I think Mongoose has summed it up quite nicely there.
With regards to the videos I'm in two minds about them. Some of the drivers he is having issues with admittedly are driving like idiots and should have the book thrown at them. But then the cyclists arrogance and smug, self satisfied attitude makes me loathe and detest every fibre of his being. I'll bet he goes out on his little patrols looking for people he can put up on Youtube, and subconsciously he probably causes a lot of confrontations.
I think you summed it up nicely, he seems to go looking for trouble.
Quote from: Eggtastico on May 26, 2011, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: matt5cott on May 26, 2011, 12:36:12 PM
The first one fair enough, but he just dilutes any sympathy with the rest of that utter shize, and as soopah pointed out his road positioning looks odd, no way near the side :dunno:
I think he rides a trike - look at his feet peddling
(http://imageshack.us/m/34/5410/optimabaronattack.jpg)
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 26, 2011, 12:49:40 PM
Here's another knobber doing the whole "angry shouty shouty headcam I'm awesome" thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIyG5BqjM10
The cyclist went over the line as well, shocking he thinks that worthy of a Youtube post, he has fingered himself as well.
What i don't understand is why he is reporting both registrations of the accident, surely one person is at fault (it looks like the Audi shunted the Mondeo) yet he thinks its right to report both their registrations on Youtube?
Quote from: Bacon on May 26, 2011, 13:07:46 PM
What i don't understand is why he is reporting both registrations of the accident, surely one person is at fault (it looks like the Audi shunted the Mondeo) yet he thinks its right to report both their registrations on Youtube?
look at the other video you will see the accident happened after he passed, guy got out & twatted the other guy + a few people got out the car & legged it.
Quote from: Bacon on May 26, 2011, 13:07:46 PM
(http://imageshack.us/m/34/5410/optimabaronattack.jpg)
wtf is that!
I dislike smug arrogant cyclists, they're the ones that piss me off. They think they own the goddamn road and intentionally do twatty things to wind people up. And the worst thing about them? They don't even pay f**king road tax. THAT'S the kicker.
As for pedestrians and motorists. some of them can't act like twats too, just like cyclists. I'm sure 80-90% of cyclists are good riders and don't cause any problem, just like 80-90% of drivers are "good" drivers and don't intentionally go around driving like twats............just accidentally ;)
The main issue for me though is toad tax and insurance. When they have to pay those 2, maybe they'll get more respect.
Is there any evidence that cyclists damage the road to any notable extent? I've always argued the point that they should pay road tax without really knowing why, obviously it's obvious why they really should have to pay insurance but I'm not clear on the road tax issue now that I think about it. Have their been any studies done demonstrating that they actually contribute substantially to wear and tear?
It's not paying for wear and tear though, it's paying to use the road 'as a vehicle' which is how they are/should be treated according to the Highway Code.
Personally I think the road is no place for cyclists and they should all get on the track/pavements as even when there are cycle lanes the buggers never use them or veer in and out wildly with gay abandon. Most streets are not that busy with pedestrians except in town centres, it would be far more sensible for cyclists to use the pavements (young children have to after all).
If I was a cyclist I would hate using the road, I'd be counting the days until some raging bellend in a car knocks me off the bike.
Quote from: Quixoticish on June 04, 2011, 01:51:28 AM
Is there any evidence that cyclists damage the road to any notable extent? I've always argued the point that they should pay road tax without really knowing why, obviously it's obvious why they really should have to pay insurance but I'm not clear on the road tax issue now that I think about it. Have their been any studies done demonstrating that they actually contribute substantially to wear and tear?
In the United Kingdom owners are required to pay Vehicle Excise Duty, commonly known as "car tax", "vehicle tax" or "road tax", which is paid to the government for a vehicle licence, which must be displayed on most motor vehicles used on public roads.[3]
Since 1937 there has been no direct relationship between the tax and government expenditure on public roads. The registered keeper of a vehicle that is not used or kept on public roads must complete a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN).[4]
Bikes don't pollute or cause any noticeable wear and tear. There should be a competence test though and some sort of "MOT".
Usually people that haven't got a f**king clue how to ride their bikes are the ones who's bikes are hanging on by a thread.
Interesting information, thanks guys.
Not using the cycle lane is tactical.
They are usually by the kerb, filled with broken glass and other crap. You get iBlind pedestrians stepping out in front of you and illegally parked cars.
If you are outside the cycle lane, you are forcing car drivers to slow down behind you and pass when it's appropriate as opposed to squeezing through.
You also have more chance to avoid the iSuicidal pedestrians who aren't paying attention.
You are an intelligent, well-reasoned cyclist though, most do not seem to share your understanding of the roads or your ability to breathe without your mouth open.
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on June 04, 2011, 11:37:34 AM
You are an intelligent, well-reasoned cyclist though, most do not seem to share your understanding of the roads or your ability to breathe without your mouth open.
(http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/al-murray-243x332.jpg)
Quote from: soopahfly on June 04, 2011, 11:14:23 AM
Not using the cycle lane is tactical.
They are usually by the kerb, filled with broken glass and other crap. You get iBlind pedestrians stepping out in front of you and illegally parked cars.
If you are outside the cycle lane, you are forcing car drivers to slow down behind you and pass when it's appropriate as opposed to squeezing through.
You also have more chance to avoid the iSuicidal pedestrians who aren't paying attention.
alas this doesn't explain the likes of the idiot I passed on my way home on Friday. The road I drive down has a full on cycle path running parallel to it, not a lane, a path. He was on the road anyway, slowing traffic and endangering himself and others while the cycle path stood empty. IMHO, I should be legally entitled to knock the idiot off. I still wouldn't of course, he might damage the front of my car!
Quote from: Eggtastico on May 26, 2011, 11:45:02 AM
the only one thats a bit wrong is the overtaking at night time by some roadworks.
I'd say the one of the van pulling out slowly infront of him was wrong also. That happened to me also last week, though it was a dithering woman in a 4x4. You wouldn't pull out on a car, so why a bike?
I'd say the van would have had plenty of room, if he didn't dawdle when coming out of the junction.
van driver probably didn't realise how fast the guy on the gay bike thing was going.... that and the van is overloaded by the looks of it... back end is pretty low :o
I'm amazed that there are so many of these sanctimonious angry shouty cyclist types about.
http://www.youtube.com/user/sh4rkybloke
Can someone elaborate further on what the problem is with this one? Bear in mind I don't drive so I'm not really sure what I'm seeing; I was under the impression that since the obstructions are on the left hand side then the cyclist should give way, and that if the obstruction is on your side of the road you give way to oncoming traffic?
http://www.youtube.com/user/sh4rkybloke#p/u/1/c91e58MyakY
The cyclist had right of way, the van had crossed the Give Way marker.
Quote from: Walrusbonzo on June 06, 2011, 22:02:57 PM
Quote from: Eggtastico on May 26, 2011, 11:45:02 AM
the only one thats a bit wrong is the overtaking at night time by some roadworks.
I'd say the one of the van pulling out slowly infront of him was wrong also. That happened to me also last week, though it was a dithering woman in a 4x4. You wouldn't pull out on a car, so why a bike?
I get it all the time (every night to be precise) cars/vans that pull out like that.
The worst i had tonight was a woman in a mondeo tailgating me, the funny thing was she was too busy looking in the mirror at the mini that was tailgating her.... Get off the road lol.
Quote from: Bacon on May 26, 2011, 00:22:08 AM
[videos of knob on bike]
Discuss
This type of cyclist pisses me off no end.
Yesterday a cyclist nearly hit me when I was crossing a pedestrian crossing. Earlier in the week a car nearly hit me when I was crossing a pedestrian crossing. Only reason they didn't was I expected them both to be dicks...
Dicky cyclists soon learn with a shove.
Everynight just travelling 5 or so miles from here to work, i go up a one way street and 9/10 times there will always be cyclists coming down it the wrong way, and the Traffic lights right near the campus the cyclists ignore the red light everytime.
I followed one lastnight who failed to hand signal at 4 or 5 turns and went through 3 red lights, its just plain stupidity, you learn this basic stuff when you first start riding a bike, a helmet is not going to protect you if you run a red light and a truck plows into you.
I lived in Cambridge for a year and came to realise very quickly that if you pull up to a junction in Cambridge, look left, look right and can't see a cyclist, that's because it's nighttime and he's got no lights on. It was almost never because there wasn't one there. Only place in the world I've ever been caught in a traffic jam composed entirely of bikes.
Heh only just caught this thread (I generally avoid Speakers Corner :P) but I thought I would throw my 2p in.
As someone who spent a few years commuting in central London on a motorbike I'm hated (and hate) by all sides! It does seem to be much worse in the City and where there are few Cyclists that are OK I see 100's of f**king idiots every single day who think they are above all forms of road rules... They bitch and moan about not having some rights but then never stop for a red light? They moan that cars are getting close so then do the same to predestrians (its one thing to cycle on the pavement in a town but central london you have to be joking).
Why do majority of cyclists I pass everyday believe they have the right to follow some rules but ignore others and then blame everyone else?! but on the flip side I completely understand that cycle lanes are dangerous due to the crap in the gutters, bus lanes are terrifying and both cars and motorbikes on the road will quite happily ignore their existance.
About the road tax for bikes issue... True they don't really use much ware but surely it costs money to supply them with cycle lanes? If they offered more of them, kept them managed and maintained (free of glass basically) would you be willing to pay a tax, there will be plenty of people who think its their given right with no reasoning ;)
Quote from: Leon on June 17, 2011, 08:34:14 AM
About the road tax for bikes issue... True they don't really use much ware but surely it costs money to supply them with cycle lanes? If they offered more of them, kept them managed and maintained (free of glass basically) would you be willing to pay a tax, there will be plenty of people who think its their given right with no reasoning ;)
If there were cycle lanes that covered my route to and from work and were enforced to prevent people from parking their cars in them, I'd consider selling my car, and would cycle in in a flash.
As it is my options are busy narrow windey roads, or dual carriageway, both with sh*tloads of roundabouts, to get to work on bike.
I'm probably one of those cyclists that can annoy people.
I ride in a prominent position on the road, and I'm selective about which red lights I obey.
Just because a red light is on doesn't instantly make a situation dangerous. If there are no cars coming on the side with the green light and there is good visibility, I'll ignore it.
I give myself plenty of room round parked cars and have no qualms in forcing cars to not overtake me by leaving no space.
I see it more as self preservation than anything else, and will bend the rules to stay alive.
Quote from: soopahfly on June 17, 2011, 14:39:29 PM
have no qualms in forcing cars to not overtake me by leaving no space.
I see it more as self preservation than anything else, and will bend the rules to stay alive.
That kind of behaviour is more likely to get you killed. By hogging the road and not allowing room to overtake you're forcing the obligatory angry knobhead in a BMW to swerve into oncoming traffic to get past you, because you know he's going to do it anyway. Even worse you're forcing angry BMW driver to get right up the arse of the driver who may be following you and who is sticking to the rules and not overtaking. Sounds like you're an accident waiting to happen to be honest.
I think my track record of cycling on the road speaks for itself. No incidents in road cycling in over 20 years.
In reality, what you're describing doesn't happen. I might get a couple of angry beeps on a horn, but I don't care.
You see more dangerous manoeuvres when people are too far over to the left, making ignorant motorists think they can squeeze through.
I usually am over to the left when appropriate, but I make my intentions on the road very clear.
Hang on guys, I drove a Skoda now, not a Beemer ::)
Quote from: soopahfly on June 17, 2011, 14:39:29 PM
I ride in a prominent position on the road, and I'm selective about which red lights I obey.
Just because a red light is on doesn't instantly make a situation dangerous. If there are no cars coming on the side with the green light and there is good visibility, I'll ignore it.
not dangerous necessarily no, but it does make it illegal for you to pass.
Nevertheless I don't have a problem with your attitude, you give thought to the situation and act accordingly, the ones who annoy me are those who blindly continue without a second thought to WHY that light is red. After all, in the situation you describe there's probably no-one there to even see you run the red let alone be inconvenienced by it
If only cars could choose which red lights to actually pay attention to...
Quote from: zpyder on June 23, 2011, 08:32:27 AM
If only cars could choose which red lights to actually pay attention to...
Most car drivers are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Hence the introduction of ABS, Traction Control, Radar Guided seat heaters etc.
Talking about Red Lights and Car Drivers.... :heehaw:
Ok, question.....
Why should cyclists pay road tax when even some cars are tax free?
Quote from: Walrusbonzo on October 22, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
Ok, question.....
Why should cyclists pay road tax when even some cars are tax free?
Any vehicle that uses the road should pay road tax, be it a cycle or a low emission-mobile.
Bicycle wear on the road are minimal so they should pay less road tax IMHO
Quote from: Quixoticish on October 22, 2011, 15:14:05 PM
Quote from: Walrusbonzo on October 22, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
Ok, question.....
Why should cyclists pay road tax when even some cars are tax free?
Any vehicle that uses the road should pay road tax, be it a cycle or a low emission-mobile.
Road tax was abolished in 1937. It's now a tax on the car.
QuoteThe Road Fund was never fully utilised, returning a surplus each year, and it became notorious for being used for other government purposes.[3] Winston Churchill opposed the Road Fund, saying: "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created".[5] In 1926 as Chancellor of the Exchequer Churchill sought, successfully, to redirect a third of payments as taxation on luxury and pleasure uses with the stated aim of putting competition between road and rail on a fair basis.
http://ipayroadtax.com/category/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/
http://ipayroadtax.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/WhoPaysForRoads.jpg
Quote from: soopahfly on October 22, 2011, 18:48:35 PM
Quote from: Quixoticish on October 22, 2011, 15:14:05 PM
Quote from: Walrusbonzo on October 22, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
Ok, question.....
Why should cyclists pay road tax when even some cars are tax free?
Any vehicle that uses the road should pay road tax, be it a cycle or a low emission-mobile.
Road tax was abolished in 1937. It's now a tax on the car.
QuoteThe Road Fund was never fully utilised, returning a surplus each year, and it became notorious for being used for other government purposes.[3] Winston Churchill opposed the Road Fund, saying: "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created".[5] In 1926 as Chancellor of the Exchequer Churchill sought, successfully, to redirect a third of payments as taxation on luxury and pleasure uses with the stated aim of putting competition between road and rail on a fair basis.
http://ipayroadtax.com/category/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/ (http://ipayroadtax.com/category/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/)
http://ipayroadtax.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/WhoPaysForRoads.jpg (http://ipayroadtax.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/WhoPaysForRoads.jpg)
It's still colloquially known as a road tax, but if you want to rename it a "vehicle tax" then be my guest, it's still perfectly relevant.
But you're still referring to it as if it gave you a sense of entitlement on the road.
Just because you pay a token amount to use your car doesn't give you any rights whatsoever.
I pay to keep three cars on the road, two with large engines. Does that give me more entitlement than you?
You could pay nothing, or £1m and you still would have equal rights.
You could say black people are still colloquially known as N*****s, doesn't make that any more relevant.
I don't see why they should pay to use the road if they want to make a choice to take the cheaper, greener option.
Hybrids should still pay though. They aren't as economical as they'd like you to believe and the owners are generally smug f*ckers.
Just like the cyclists who wear that "One Less Car" hi-viz.
As a cyclist and a driver, I'd like to smack them.
Quote from: soopahfly on October 24, 2011, 20:10:29 PM
But you're still referring to it as if it gave you a sense of entitlement on the road.
Just because you pay a token amount to use your car doesn't give you any rights whatsoever.
I pay to keep three cars on the road, two with large engines. Does that give me more entitlement than you?
You could pay nothing, or £1m and you still would have equal rights.
You could say black people are still colloquially known as N*****s, doesn't make that any more relevant.
I don't see why they should pay to use the road if they want to make a choice to take the cheaper, greener option.
Hybrids should still pay though. They aren't as economical as they'd like you to believe and the owners are generally smug f*ckers.
Just like the cyclists who wear that "One Less Car" hi-viz.
As a cyclist and a driver, I'd like to smack them.
I've no idea what you mean by "you're still referring to it as if it gave you a sense of entitlement on the road." I don't drive.
Quote from: Quixoticish on October 24, 2011, 20:53:45 PM
Quote from: soopahfly on October 24, 2011, 20:10:29 PM
But you're still referring to it as if it gave you a sense of entitlement on the road.
Just because you pay a token amount to use your car doesn't give you any rights whatsoever.
I pay to keep three cars on the road, two with large engines. Does that give me more entitlement than you?
You could pay nothing, or £1m and you still would have equal rights.
You could say black people are still colloquially known as N*****s, doesn't make that any more relevant.
I don't see why they should pay to use the road if they want to make a choice to take the cheaper, greener option.
Hybrids should still pay though. They aren't as economical as they'd like you to believe and the owners are generally smug f*ckers.
Just like the cyclists who wear that "One Less Car" hi-viz.
As a cyclist and a driver, I'd like to smack them.
I've no idea what you mean by "you're still referring to it as if it gave you a sense of entitlement on the road." I don't drive.
Not referring to you directly. A general you if you like :D
Maybe I should have said "you're still referring to it as if it gave a sense of entitlement on the road.