?? it makes it a hell of a lot better than cyclists, who haven't necessarily got any idea how to ride safely/considerately.
Hows that then ? Surley the driver or person who knows what they should be doing but chooses not too is far worse.
?? it makes it a hell of a lot better than cyclists, who haven't necessarily got any idea how to ride safely/considerately.
When I'm biking the cars that bother me the most are the ones who give me too much space. The drivers are usually being considerate but I wish they'd just get on with it and pass me even if they do get a bit close to my right arm, motorists seem to get this feeling that we're randomly going to ride across the lane into their path, I won't do this as I don't like being crushed.
I agree that perhaps there should be some kind of formal test for cyclists, as not everyone has good road sense and that goes for drivers. I think what is being over looked tho' is that as a cyclist your are a lot more vunerable (for obvious reasons) than if you were in a car, yes you could still argue that again that there should be some formal test to pass before riding on the road. For for me though being vunerable makes be more careful and i never take chances.
When I'm biking the cars that bother me the most are the ones who give me too much space. The drivers are usually being considerate but I wish they'd just get on with it and pass me even if they do get a bit close to my right arm, motorists seem to get this feeling that we're randomly going to ride across the lane into their path, I won't do this as I don't like being crushed.
I'd love to be allowed to cycle on the pavement so I could avoid having my elbow smashed by moronic car drivers' mirrors (has happened to me several times) as they try to pass me while traffic is coming the other way. Would it really hurt to wait a few seconds to pass?
I think OAPs in motorised chairs shouldnt be allowed on the footpaths, they contantly hold me up and often pull out in front of me when im walking along. If it wasnt for them i would be at work at least 3 seconds earlier !
Whats more they get free bus passes so another reason to get these HELLS OAPS of the streets. I kid you not i take my life in my own hands every time i step foot out of my door, they just fly around and have very little footpath sense and i bet they dont have any insurance either - even more so i bet they didnt take anykind of formal test before being let loose to terrorise members of the public.
When I use my bike I generally ride on the pavement, deferring to pedestrians where appropriate.
But he most annoying thing observed whilst driving was on the Hinckley bypass to the A5 - long stretch of road between a few roundabouts, with a pavement and a cycle path on the side of the road... what did I see? Some fool on a bike with his shorts up his backside, riding (wobbling) all over the road when 2 feet next to him off the road is a rather expensive cycle path.
I treated him to a blast of the horn followed by enveloping him in a large cloud of diesel fumes as I overtook him.
miniyazz said:Neither skateboard nor rollerblade users do so on the road - that's what makes cyclists different. And tbh, if some idiot cyclist rides into me through no fault of my own, I couldn't give a rat's bum if he's injured himself more than me, if he's dented/scratched my car, I'll be ****ed and as many (not all) cyclists have no insurance, especially those who can't ride safely, unless he's willing to sort out repairs amicably I'll be forced to either go through small claims or front the cost myself.. or pay the excess/lose NCB on my own insurance, all because *he* didn't learn how to ride properly before cycling on the road, and because *he* didn't get any insurance.
That's fair enough but any decent cyclist would stop and sort out damages through home insurance or out of their own pocket. You still get drivers who don't stop after an accident and the damage that they cause is far worse and more costly. Some drivers are also not insured, they are cracking down on these but they are still around. So basically your argument there is flawed.
I assume that's aimed at me. Your point?
No it wasn't - why should it be