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.

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

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.