# Why I hate RLJ, pavement cyclists etc



## magnatom (24 Sep 2007)

Hi Folks,

As you probably know I have been having a 'discussion' with some bus drivers on another forum. I gave up a while back as they didn't want to listen to reasoned argument. I've been keeping an eye on the thread though and this was just posted:

_Magnatom. Your representations to bus companies RE: operation "show cyclists more respect" is admirable, but flawed. If you are the type of cyclist who rides a well maintained vehicle, wears reflective clothing, abides by the highway code etc. You have every right to flag up the errors of motorists round about you who don't.

However, MOST cyclists that we bus drivers see on the road every day have downright contempt for the highway code, and therefore, it is very difficult for the "good" cyclist to demand greater respect from us on the road. If more cyclists show that they are making an effort, then those around them may do likewise.

This makes for some interesting reading:
http://www.yes-but.net/cycling_is_1dangerous.html_

Oh dear. We have no chance with attitudes like this. It would appear that this confirms that we do all get tarred with the same brush and that RLJ's etc do have an effect on us all. Is there a way to counter this attitude? Why should I have to suffer because of idiots who don't obey the rules. 

Of course it is a misrepresentation as cyclists are probably no more likely to flout the rules of the road than any other road user. For example how many cars keep to the speed limit? (I can't claim the high ground here!) How many jump red lights, drive without insurance etc. Yet cyclists still get the most stick. I think the CTC need to hire some serious PR agents!!

And I am not even going to mention anything about the web site he has directed me too


----------



## magnatom (24 Sep 2007)

Admin,

I realise that this thread might be better elsewhere i.e. soapbox, however, the people that would be interested in this frequent commuting and it is related to a few other threads here. However, if you want to move it I would understand


----------



## Tynan (24 Sep 2007)

if it's red lights then cyclists are far far worse, I see a dozen cyclists all roll through the safer big crossroads at junctions like Nags Head every day, and they're very very visible to a lot of people when it happens

that's why it gets so much irritation I think, it's just a blatant and calculated breaking of the law highway code in a way that speeding isn't

everyone speeds a bit, very very very few drivers jump a red light in cold blood, bombing through on the end of the yellow doesn't count


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

Tynan said:


> everyone speeds a bit, very very very few drivers jump a red light in cold blood, bombing through on the end of the yellow doesn't count



It absolutely does count - in the last couple of years I've twice observed an amber gambler car almost wipe out another cyclist who pedalled off without looking when our lights turned green. It is fcukwittery of the first degree, and sadly buses seem to do more RLJing even than cyclists on my commute.


----------



## Twenty Inch (24 Sep 2007)

Tynan said:


> if it's red lights then cyclists are far far worse, I see a dozen cyclists all roll through the safer big crossroads at junctions like Nags Head every day, and they're very very visible to a lot of people when it happens
> 
> that's why it gets so much irritation I think, it's just a blatant and calculated breaking of the law highway code in a way that speeding isn't



Another cager apologist. Speeding is every bit as blatant and usually as calculating, as well as being far more likely to cause serious damage to others. Or is it OK when only really experienced drivers who are fully in control of their cars do it?



> everyone speeds a bit, very very very few drivers jump a red light in cold blood, bombing through on the end of the yellow doesn't count




Yes it does count. A yellow is to tell you to prepare to stop, not blat through. I've seen too many near-accidents at yellows with pricks thinking that they are different and special.

Back to the OP.

Magnatom, cyclists are the outgroup on the roads. We can behave as well as we like - we'll still get accused of poisoning the wells, putting a murrain on the cattle, casting the evil eye at pregnant women and stealing babies to use in our secret cycling rituals. If it comes to a daily decision about my safety at a dangerous junction, and how "cyclists" are perceived by "motorists", I'll go through the red.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

Twenty Inch said:


> If it comes to a daily decision about my safety at a dangerous junction, and how "cyclists" are perceived by "motorists", I'll go through the red.



You're not another stegers are you? Because that logic is screwed up and wrong.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

Its frustrating, but for some people 'some cyclists are bad so I can treat them all badly' is viewed as a valid statement. Its quite inflamatory to point this out, but if you replace 'cyclist' in that statement with a racial group of your choice then the statement would be almost universally viewed as abhorrent, yet thats the kind of mentality we're dealing with.

As for that website posted there... Words fail me. So much wrong with that. It isn't a parody, is it?


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2007)

Twenty Inch said:


> Yes it does count. A yellow is to tell you to prepare to stop, not blat through. I've seen too many near-accidents at yellows with pricks thinking that they are different and special.




I went through one (amber) on the second day of my bike commute - at the start of a hill, without enough speed to clear the junction quickly :/ Fortunately I only injured my pride, as the driver waiting to turn right ahead of me was alert and waited for me to huff my way through... Never doing that again though .

With cars, my impression is that it tends to be the thing of them following each other regardless - if one goes through, it must be alright for the next two or three. You see it quite often in overtaking too, particularly going around slow/stationary vehicles.


----------



## spindrift (24 Sep 2007)

_very very very few drivers jump a red light in cold blood, bombing through on the end of the yellow doesn't count_ 

Sadly misinformed:

the M1 than as a result of some poor old dear on a bike with a basket. 
A survey by the RAC found that, yes, a lot of cyclists run red lights. 


It also found that one in ten drivers in Manchester and London crossed traffic lights more than three seconds after the lights turned red, and one in five bus drivers ran red lights. 


There are ten thousand traffic light camera prosecutions annually in London alone, a small part of the 1.5 million prosecutions annually based on camera evidence (I don't know what proportion are speed versus red lights), in turn the tip of the iceberg of twelve million prosecutions and cautions for motoring offences by UK police forces in 2002. 


Lawbreaking, then, is not restricted to bikes. 


Motorists break the law in vast numbers. 

Speeding, in particular , is rife, and despite the evidence that the faster you go the more likely you are to kill or be killed if you crash, when speed cameras are erected we don't laugh at the idiots who get caught, we rail against the "stealth tax" on motorists. Gatsos are a stealth tax on motorists in the same way that city centre video cameras are a stealth tax on muggers and DNA testing is a stealth tax on rapists. People will brake to 20mph when they see a Gatso in a 60 limit, because they haven't a clue what the limit is - they simply don't care enough to know. I drive a car, and I drive within the speed limit, which means for a start knowing what the limit is. I haven't always, and I've driven when too tired, and while talking on the phone, but I don't do that stuff any more because it's too bloody dangerous. When you wake up as you hit the rumble strips on the M3 at 135mph at 3am after a 44 hour shift you realise that life's too short for that kind of stupidity. The plain and obvious fact is that, however illegal the cyclists' behaviour may be, the likely consequences are trivial compared with the daily consequences of illegal behaviour we claim as a right as drivers. 
Drivers also park illegally, causing danger and inconvenience. And they fail to observe box junctions (many drivers haven't a clue what these are anyway), they overtake on the inside, they hog the middle lane on motorways, they drive on the pavement and damage it, they use fog lights when it's not foggy or raining, they drive while drunk or stoned or smoking or talking on the phone, they drive with the stereo turned up too loud, they drive looking over their shoulders at screaming children, and they kill and injure over a quarter of a million people a year. And they seem to think that an annual payment of a hundred and fifty quid gives them a right to do this. 


So on the matter of cyclists and illegal behaviour, I quote the well known words of John 8:7 - let he who is without sin cast the first stone. 


http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bloody_cyclists


----------



## magnatom (24 Sep 2007)

spindrift said:


> _very very very few drivers jump a red light in cold blood, bombing through on the end of the yellow doesn't count_
> 
> Sadly misinformed:
> 
> ...



Maybe you should post that on the bus forum


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (24 Sep 2007)

That article has rendered me speechless. I will finish posting when I have got some metal capacity back!


----------



## magnatom (24 Sep 2007)

Actually. I'll post the link myself. Good link!


----------



## Twenty Inch (24 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You're not another stegers are you? Because that logic is screwed up and wrong.



I don't know who stegers is.

I appreciate your efforts to make links with drivers and to educate the wider world. I also think that you have far more patience than I do. 

However, what I said is not "logic". It's a daily choice that I face at a couple of junctions on my route every day. Not all of them and not all the time, but at one or two I am safer going through on a red light than I am waiting to mix it with the late, aggressive, lanechanging roadhogs that I share the road with. I choose to prioritise my safety over what other people think that other people may think of us.


----------



## skwerl (24 Sep 2007)

> Go and spend some time at a busy junction. You'll be surprised.



far more cyclists than cars run reds though. My daily straw poll for my route through london runs at about 80% of cyclists jump reds. It's difficult to generate an average as some lights get jumped more than others. The junctions where there's heavy traffic get jumped lsss, obviously, so I use crossings and minor junctions for my poll. In those cases it's purely about calculated "phuck the lights" jumping and it's about 80%.
Of course it's harder for cars to jump reds if the car at the front of the queue stops so I can't really count those that stop vs those that don't. I s'pose that means the mechanics of light jumping is different for cars and bikes though. However, in 4 years I've probably seen <50 cars/buses deliberately pull away through, or just not stop for, a red light (it's mainly buses that do this) on an empty crossing/junction. I've seen hundereds of cyclists do just that though.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

skwerl said:


> far more cyclists than cars run reds though. My daily straw poll for my route through london runs at about 80% of cyclists jump reds.



I'll wager that 80% of road users break rules that they perceive they will cause no harm in breaking and can get away with breaking. For cyclists its running red lights. What proportion of motorists would you think speed? Or dash through lights that they could otherwise stop at because they can just get through on yellow/red? Or park on double yellow lines 'just for a minute'? I'll bet you its more than 80%.


----------



## skwerl (24 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> I'll wager that 80% of road users break rules that they perceive they will cause no harm in breaking and can get away with breaking. For cyclists its running red lights. What proportion of motorists would you think speed? Or dash through lights that they could otherwise stop at because they can just get through on yellow/red? Or park on double yellow lines 'just for a minute'? I'll bet you its more than 80%.



you're probably right, how many cyclists would break those rules too, if they could or if they applied? Certainly all the roadies that use Richmond Park break the 20MPH limit.

This thread isn't so much concerned with the lawful/less-ness of the action but what it stirs up amongst the non-cyclists of the road.
The simple truth is that motorists get p1ssed off because they can't jump reds easily and without (nearly, anyway) risk of prosecution. If they could, most would.


----------



## mikeitup (24 Sep 2007)

I see loads of RLJS and pavement riders on my commute. They piss me off. 
People do tend to tar us all with the same brush I am afraid. 
A friend of mine made me smile when she informed me that her car was in
for repair cos it was hit by an rlj at a busy junction and he wasn't wearing a helmet. Oh and his bag of lager he had on his bars rolled in the road. What a twat. Car in garage rlj in a&e.


----------



## Twenty Inch (24 Sep 2007)

I was asked at work "Why don't cyclists have insurance? One of them nearly scratched my bumper at the junction the other day!". I replied "What you really mean is that you nearly put someone in hospital when you narrowly avoided hitting them with your car". My response wasn't well received.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

Twenty Inch said:


> I don't know who stegers is.
> 
> I appreciate your efforts to make links with drivers and to educate the wider world. I also think that you have far more patience than I do.
> 
> However, what I said is not "logic". It's a daily choice that I face at a couple of junctions on my route every day. Not all of them and not all the time, but at one or two I am safer going through on a red light than I am waiting to mix it with the late, aggressive, lanechanging roadhogs that I share the road with. I choose to prioritise my safety over what other people think that other people may think of us.



OK, are you in London, and would you take up my challenge to video your cycling through these junctions? I'll ride out to meet you if it's possible.

My belief is that your safety issue is only because you haven't applied the necessary cyclecraft, rather than there being a real problem that requires you to jump reds in order to be safe. I'm open to persuasion though, and we can get to debate the video on here.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

skwerl said:


> you're probably right, how many cyclists would break those rules too, if they could or if they applied? Certainly all the roadies that use Richmond Park break the 20MPH limit.



What of it? So cyclists are the same as any anyone else.


----------



## fossyant (24 Sep 2007)

There are plenty of idiot POB's about - like those you nearly ride over because they don't have lights, or the one that misses you by millimeters by bunny hopping over a kerb and flying off in front of you down a wrong way street - didn't half wake me up whilst relaxing at a set of lights......


----------



## mikeitup (24 Sep 2007)

fossyant said:


> There are plenty of idiot POB's about - like those you nearly ride over because they don't have lights, or the one that misses you by millimeters by bunny hopping over a kerb and flying off in front of you down a wrong way street - didn't half wake me up whilst relaxing at a set of lights......




They should let us shoot them. Have a loyalty card system. 10 POBS shot = Giro Helmet etc..


----------



## gambatte (24 Sep 2007)

skwerl said:


> all the roadies that use Richmond Park break the 20MPH limit.



Does it apply?
Is there a speed limit for bikes?

As far as I know exceeding 20mph wouldn't actually be illegal and punishable?


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

It does apply in the Royal Parks - byelaw.


----------



## skwerl (24 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> Does it apply?
> Is there a speed limit for bikes?
> 
> As far as I know exceeding 20mph wouldn't actually be illegal and punishable?



of course there's a speed limit for bikes. all vehicles have to adhere to the traffic laws.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2007)

skwerl said:


> of course there's a speed limit for bikes. all vehicles have to adhere to the traffic laws.



Not quite correct. Speed limits specifically apply to motor vehicles in the RTA, not bicycles. You could still be done for another offence, but not speeding, at least on the general public highway. Richmond Park is one of the exceptions, because of a specific bye-law covering bicycles as well.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Sep 2007)

You get morons in every walk of life. It's admirable to try to teach them the error of their ways but don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone who sits at the wheel of a bus shares this view of cyclists.

I still say I have encountered absolutely zero cases of this attitude towards cyclists on the road and as a result I don't feel that I am in an "outgroup" on the road.

If I were thinking of beginning a cycle commute, and decided to read some of the stuff on here first, I'd have the fear of God put in me. I simply don't think that the attitude Mag has come across is indicative of what most motorists think.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2007)

skwerl said:


> of course there's a speed limit for bikes. all vehicles have to adhere to the traffic laws.



Wrong. Cycles, horses etc. are not covered by speeding laws unless there is a specific byelaw. Look it up if you don't believe me.


----------



## RANDOM (24 Sep 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> You get morons in every walk of life. It's admirable to try to teach them the error of their ways but don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone who sits at the wheel of a bus shares this view of cyclists.
> 
> I still say I have encountered absolutely zero cases of this attitude towards cyclists on the road and as a result I don't feel that I am in an "outgroup" on the road.
> 
> If I were thinking of beginning a cycle commute, and decided to read some of the stuff on here first, I'd have the fear of God put in me. I simply don't think that the attitude Mag has come across is indicative of what most motorists think.



Trust me would all rather pass a cyclist safely rather than injure one.Some cyclist find that hard to believe


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Trust me would all rather pass a cyclist safely rather than injure one.Some cyclist find that hard to believe



I believe you. I just don't believe you're willing to accept a cyclists right to choose the safest road position if that inconveniences you.

But lets put it to the test.

Cyclist going down a straight road, he's doing 18mph, the speed limit is 30mph. Normal width road, parked cars all down the left hand side. You're behind him.

Where on the road should he be relative to, say, the parked cars? Where should he be relative to, say, the centre line? Where should he be relative to the right kerb?


----------



## col (25 Sep 2007)

Where ever is safest for the cyclist,and a bus,well normal bus,wouldnt pass unless its safe.Lets put you to the test,do you seriously think that all bus drivers are as you seem to believe?because it looks like you have turned it into a head hunt here.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Sep 2007)

I'm quite respectful of Random here, he/she has come on here and is debating sensibly, even if I don't agree with some of the comments. Cheers!


----------



## gambatte (25 Sep 2007)

One thing I’ll give to random and the rest is that there are some ***king stupid cyclists out there. I’ll give them the term cyclist, because at the end of the day, they’re on bikes.

Due to the weather (& the snooze button) I was in the car yesterday. On my way home I observed plenty of cyclists. Loads of cyclists showing good road sense. Dual carriageways where the cyclist was in secondary, I moved into the outside lane to overtake etc.

But then theres the youth on the pavement, going in the opposite direction to the traffic and skirting round the pedestrians (if they’re lucky)

Last week I was on the bike when I saw a lad on a mountain bike shoot across the opposite carriageways into the central filter from the carriageways on my side and then cycle along it in the wrong direction, before crossing both lanes of oncoming traffic and proceeding to cycle up the nearside lane in the wrong direction.

Personally, as I’ve said before, we need better enforcement of road safety. Whether it be car, van, bus, wagon or bike.


----------



## Panter (25 Sep 2007)

I used to jump Red lights. I kind of saw it as my perk as a cyclist, for putting up with the traffic. obviously, I only did it to get a head start when I knew I wasn't in danger.

After reading this thread, and others, I'm not going to do it any more. Its easy to forget (for me as a newb anyway) the bigger picture and the irritation it must cause motorists.

Thanks for pointing it out,


A reformed RLJ'r


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

col said:


> Where ever is safest for the cyclist



In the scenario outlined where, specifically, is that?


----------



## BentMikey (25 Sep 2007)

Panter said:


> A reformed RLJ'r




You're not alone, me too. Funnily enough I'm listening to ATB at the moment, song by the same name.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (25 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You're not alone, me too. Funnily enough I'm listening to ATB at the moment, song by the same name.



I didn't used to RLJ but as with Mikey and Panter, this forum and C+ before it, and Magna in particular, has caused me to change my opinion of some aspects of cycling.

But my own experiences on the road are very different to the majority of stuff that gets posted here on treatment by motorists and on how we are viewed and despised.

Although today I did have a hellish commute, but that will be posted seperately, as no-one was to blame for it but me.


----------



## Terminator (25 Sep 2007)

Agree with Cab and BentMikey.


----------



## Twenty Inch (25 Sep 2007)

BentMikey said:


> OK, are you in London, and would you take up my challenge to video your cycling through these junctions? I'll ride out to meet you if it's possible.
> 
> My belief is that your safety issue is only because you haven't applied the necessary cyclecraft, rather than there being a real problem that requires you to jump reds in order to be safe. I'm open to persuasion though, and we can get to debate the video on here.




shoot. He's called my bluff. And I cycle through Bromley too.

If you look at the junction from Bromley High Street to the A21 London Road, it's a very good example. Go through on a red, the road is clear. GO through with the traffic on the green, they're jostling past trying to get ahead of you before the next set of lights. Same at the A21 Kentish Way right to Masons Hill for the station. Same off Westmoreland Road turning left to the station.

Happy to meet you at the station one day and we can have a look. Won't be soon though as paternity leave starts any day now.


----------



## Terminator (25 Sep 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Trust me would all rather pass a cyclist safely rather than injure one.Some cyclist find that hard to believe




As I have been cycling for a very long time I can actually agree with that statement.It's very rare for motorists to want to do it deliberately.


----------



## magnatom (25 Sep 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I simply don't think that the attitude Mag has come across is indicative of what most motorists think.




Maybe its just personal and it is only aimed at me then


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2007)

Terminator said:


> As I have been cycling for a very long time I can actually agree to that statement.It's very rare for motorists to want to do it deliberately.



Depends where you are I think. If you cycle in secondary position (or even closer to the kerb) then a very large proportion of motorists will pass too close. They don't _have_ to, they _choose_ to. 

If you cycle predominantly in primary, very few will pass too close. But I get, on average, two or three threats of violence per month from motorists for doing that, and the occasional inentional squeeze too.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Sep 2007)

Twenty Inch said:


> shoot. He's called my bluff. And I cycle through Bromley too.
> 
> If you look at the junction from Bromley High Street to the A21 London Road, it's a very good example. Go through on a red, the road is clear. GO through with the traffic on the green, they're jostling past trying to get ahead of you before the next set of lights. Same at the A21 Kentish Way right to Masons Hill for the station. Same off Westmoreland Road turning left to the station.
> 
> Happy to meet you at the station one day and we can have a look.



I don't find I need to jump reds for those junctions, although I do tend to take primary. I've not yet felt in danger there, but I'm happy to see how you handle the junctions, not least because I might learn something.

Which way do you go along the Bromley High Street (I think you mean Widmore Road?) to the A21? I normally turn right, coming from Bromley Bikes down the A21. I'll admit burning down the A21 dual from Widmore Rd to Mason's Hill is *exciting*, but it's not a RLJ issue, and since I can get up to 30-35mph down there fairly easily, it's not so much of a problem.

Oh, I can meet up daytimes if that suits you better, and I'll stand you a coffee. 



Twenty Inch said:


> Won't be soon though as paternity leave starts any day now.


Congratulations, btw!


----------



## CotterPin (27 Sep 2007)

In discussions about motorists' perceptions of cyclists, I find this document a good read. Some of you may be aware of it. It was commissioned by TRL a few years back.

It's main conclusion was that motorists don't actively hate cyclists - in fact we barely register for them. We're the lowest of the low - even lower than pedestrians. 

When the issues of cyclists were raised in the research motorists tend to have negative views about us, seeing us as "an out group". I think someone used that phrase in this thread earlier.

Motorists' key concerns regarding cyclists, the report indicates, are about the cyclist's vulnerability which leads to stress on the part of the motorist, and their unpredictability.

Anyway, it is worth a read. It does say it costs 50 squid but you can download it as a pdf for nowt.


----------



## cupoftea (27 Sep 2007)

Only 3 % of journeys are made by bicycle, so get over it.
For motorists to say we can break the law, or abuse another group because they don't stick the law themselves is wrong.
If you talk to motorist and if you ask the right questions you find that in fact they are just angry with almost everyone else on the road. 
They don't like paying tax, or having speed limits, the list goes on, "it's against their liberty’s” “why shouldn’t we be able to speed” “I can drive at 80 safely”, and their biggest grip, traffic jams “I’m in a hurry” “get out of my way”
Against all of this along comes some numpty (us) in silly cloths riding a bicycle, look at him, pushing in up front, not paying tax. It’s a disgrace, us motorists pay for the roads, oh and look he’s now in the way, holding me up. 

As him how he feels about WVM, or taxi’s.


----------



## Terminator (28 Sep 2007)

Haven't come across a set of lights that I would have to ignore although there must be many as I see them ignored every day.


----------



## Tynan (28 Sep 2007)

never seen lights either that have to be jumped for he sake of safety, there's always a way to deal with them safely, even if it's an alternative route


----------



## nethalus (29 Sep 2007)

magnatom said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> As you probably know I have been having a 'discussion' with some bus drivers on another forum. I gave up a while back as they didn't want to listen to reasoned argument. I've been keeping an eye on the thread though and this was just posted:
> 
> ...



I don't think that what The Driver said was unreasonable. I think it's a case with a lot of things, good cyclists are let down by bad ones. Unfortuntely there is no way of stopping any idiot getting a bike and riding it how they damn well like (I suppose you could argue the same with a car, but a car being driven badly or erratically is easier to spot than a cycle.) 
I don't think it's a case that people didn't listen to you on the bus drivers forum, I think some probably did and were perhaps even influenced by what you said (there are a lot of non posters on there). The trouble with that forum is it's very much like a bus driver's canteen (don't know if you've ever been in one!) A place where they sort of let their hair down, rant, chat or act daft. Trying to get a work related topic through is a bit like, in a way, a clergyman trying to preach in a pub!


----------



## domtyler (29 Sep 2007)

nethalus said:


> Unfortuntely there is no way of stopping any idiot getting a bike and riding it how they damn well like (I suppose you could argue the same with a car, but a car being driven badly or erratically is easier to spot than a cycle.)



Having spent quite a few hours on the roads today in London I can say with conviction that there are far more terrible drivers out there than cyclists. Mind you the only cyclists I saw were total idiots too, but they only numbered about two or three.


----------



## nethalus (29 Sep 2007)

I've been on the recieving end of bad driving when cycling, many moons ago I might add. Was coming round a bend on a oneway system and car came so close to me that the back wheel of his car actually rubbed against the front wheel of my bike. He left me absolutely no room what so ever, as I was squeezed right up against the kerb. Not sure if it was just pure thoughtlessness on the car drivers behalf or he was just being a nasty b*st*rd!


----------



## Terminator (30 Sep 2007)

How ironic tonight after finishing work in South West London at about a quarter past one am and leaving for home at half past one am,apart from having a horrific ride back as I got nearer home I became aware of gangs of people all over the place.On approaching a set of lights as well as a gang of about ten people with beer cans in their hands I decided that it was probably not safe to stop at those lights under those circumstances.

I never thought I would find a reason.

That was not a nice ride back and for the first time I felt very uneasy about being on Britains streets.

Nice one the goverment.


----------



## col (30 Sep 2007)

Terminator said:


> How ironic tonight after finishing work in South West London at about a quarter past one am and leaving for home at half past one am,apart from having a horrific ride back as I got nearer home I became aware of gangs of people all over the place.On approaching a set of lights as well as a gang of about ten people with beer cans in their hands I decided that it was probably not safe to stop at those lights under those circumstances.
> 
> I never thought I would find a reason.
> 
> ...




Its a bad sign of how things are isnt it?Its an all too familiar feeling now i think,feeling uneasy on the streets.


----------



## P.H (30 Sep 2007)

All this seems to follow the usual perceptions, cyclist as their own worse enemy, giving motorists all the ammunition...and then you visit somewhere where cycling is far more popular and you realise its all complete nonsense.
Probably the most undisciplined cycling I've seen in Europe is in Amsterdam, RLJ, pavement riding, riding against the flow of traffic. You don't have to strand long on a street corner to see it all, yet you don't see the same irritation and abuse from motorists, and cyclists have a lower accident rate.
The car is such a status symbol in British culture and the bike seen as so inferior that it's an affront to a motorist when you make better progress, regardless of whether that's by legal means or otherwise - try shouldering your bike and running through a red light (perfectly legal) - I'll bet you'll get just as much abuse as if you'd ridden through. I got shouted at for overtaking a line of stationery cars and pulling in when they started moving, what's wrong with that?
The difference in Amsterdam is that todays motorist is likely to be a cyclist tomorrow, tolerance comes form understanding. The only way cycling conditions will improve is by getting more people to cycle. This is what we should spend our time and effort on rather than beating each other up over minor infringements of the Highway Code.


----------



## Terminator (30 Sep 2007)

With my shift work I know that won't be the last time I have to encounter that although I will have a better idea of what I will have to encounter.I stopped at a set of traffic lights beforehand and was aware of three people looking at me from across the street.I thought sod this for a game of soldiers.


----------



## Cab (30 Sep 2007)

nethalus said:


> I don't think that what The Driver said was unreasonable. I think it's a case with a lot of things, good cyclists are let down by bad ones.



While this is true, that doesn't excuse _anyone_ who generalises about cyclists based on the behaviour of the bad minority. No excuse for that at all. That we're even having a discussion like this is testament to how utterly bad many motorists are in this respect. Yet you don't find us here saying that _all_ motorists are bad. Not even in jest.



> Unfortuntely there is no way of stopping any idiot getting a bike and riding it how they damn well like (I suppose you could argue the same with a car, but a car being driven badly or erratically is easier to spot than a cycle.)



Yes, there is. We're bound by laws too, and a cyclist endangering others will get nicked (thats if they don't get killed). Something that doesn't happen with cyclists though is that no one says 'you passed, you're now okay to go out on your own', which means that you _don't_ have a bit of paper to give you the false impression you're not a danger to others.

I take issue with the claim that a bad motorist is easier to spot. Look out at a motorway one day, with everyone doing 80mph plus. _Everyone_ is breaking the law, _everyone_ is increasing risk for others, increasing the amount of noise and pollution produced, they're _all_ bad motorists. Yet, strangely, we seem to have a blind spot for that... Odd, isn't it?



> I don't think it's a case that people didn't listen to you on the bus drivers forum, I think some probably did and were perhaps even influenced by what you said (there are a lot of non posters on there). The trouble with that forum is it's very much like a bus driver's canteen (don't know if you've ever been in one!) A place where they sort of let their hair down, rant, chat or act daft. Trying to get a work related topic through is a bit like, in a way, a clergyman trying to preach in a pub!



Oh, cut it out. Joking about trying to kill cyclists in a public forum is inexcusable and utterly abhorrent. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Its sick, and if you're part of that sickness then you should be treated with the same contempt.


----------



## bianco (30 Sep 2007)

While this arguement will go on I think everybody hates other kinds of people who do the same things as them.

When I get on a bus (very rarely I admit) I get so annoyed by the chav sitting at the back listening to his phone music tssk boom tssk tssk boom etc, or the elderly lady staring at me disgustingly for having a shaven head without fear of looking nosey.

When I'm walking as a ped, I get annoyed by those who drink cans of lager on the street and those who let the dog poop without cleaning.

When I'm a passenger in a car (medically not allowed to operate heavy machinery) I get annoyed how close others drive and the relaxation of speed limits amongst drivers only slowing for police or cameras.


What I'm trying to say very poorly is that scum/idiots/selfish people infiltrate everything and every mode of transport, job sector, whatever so because this is a cycle forum I think magnatom as a bloody good right to moan.

If there was a dog walkers forum I'm sure they'd be complaining about other dog walkers not cleaning up giving them a bad name, and I'm sure older people moan about the younger generation being a let down to them etc.....

I think this post will be fantastic to discourage other cyclists/POBs from being stupid, ignorant, unlawful and dangerous, but drivers etc won't bother reading it.


----------



## nethalus (30 Sep 2007)

Oh, cut it out. Joking about trying to kill cyclists in a public forum is inexcusable and utterly abhorrent. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Its sick, and if you're part of that sickness then you should be treated with the same contempt.[/quote]

Oh come off it, only one person made such a joke and you assume we all think like that? I think with a lot of you cyclists you go a bit OTT when it comes to anyone criticising you or disagreeing with you. Notice you ignored my other coment compleatly, the one about being done wrong to when cycling.
I mean there were around 5 pages on this forum of people saying nasty personal things about me, suggesting that I should be sacked from my job and being rude about my videos on YouTube (which I know are enjoyed by my friends, aquaintences and fellow enthusiasts) before I came on here. When I talked about Magnatom's video initially on Bloodbus (before he joined), there were no insults directed at him personally, just genralisations. No one suggested I should find out who his employer is and report him to them, no one suggested that I should email him with my thoughts about his attitude!
A little fairness please!


----------



## nethalus (30 Sep 2007)

Cab said:


> Yes, there is. We're bound by laws too, and a cyclist endangering others will get nicked (thats if they don't get killed). Something that doesn't happen with cyclists though is that no one says 'you passed, you're now okay to go out on your own', which means that you _don't_ have a bit of paper to give you the false impression you're not a danger to others.
> 
> I take issue with the claim that a bad motorist is easier to spot. Look out at a motorway one day, with everyone doing 80mph plus. _Everyone_ is breaking the law, _everyone_ is increasing risk for others, increasing the amount of noise and pollution produced, they're _all_ bad motorists. Yet, strangely, we seem to have a blind spot for that... Odd, isn't it?



What I meant by bad car drivers being easier to spot is that someone speeding is more likely to be caught by a speed camera, or if they jump a red like they can be caught by a red light camera, or be spotted by a police patrol. Also the results of bad car driving are usually far more catastrophic than bad cycle riding, and thus more likely to appear in the news.
I have seen a cyclist get a telling off by a policeman for jumping a red light. The idiot did it at a pelican crossing. The copper was going in the opposite direction. The copper leaned out of his van and shouted: "Oi you, RED MEANS STOP!"
The cyclist very sheepisly appologised.
By the way I recently got put through the Smith System course at work, which is designed to improve drivers awarness and reduce the risk of accidents. It's a good system and I find it an enourmous help. It teaches you to keep your eyes moving and be aware of as much as possible, so you are less likely to miss cyclists sneaking up on your inside or you'll be able to predict a pedstrian is about to step off the pavement, or a taxi pulling out and prepare your actions in good time. It also has a few added perks, like paying less car insurance.


----------



## RANDOM (30 Sep 2007)

Up here it looks as if our drivers are going to advance driving which is something i have been keen to do for a long time.


----------



## RANDOM (30 Sep 2007)

I take issue with the claim that a bad motorist is easier to spot. Look out at a motorway one day, with everyone doing 80mph plus. _Everyone_ is breaking the law, _everyone_ is increasing risk for others, increasing the amount of noise and pollution produced, they're _all_ bad motorists. Yet, strangely, we seem to have a blind spot for that... Odd, isn't it?


Oh i see cab your just as bad as the rest who tar people with the same brush,i trust you have nothing better to do than stand over a motorway with a speed gun i may add because thier is no way you can know for sure every one is doing 80 plus.Get off your high horse there are a lot of safe drivers out thier.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Oh come off it, only one person made such a joke and you assume we all think like that?



No, I don't, but it is clear to me that no one stood up for what is right and held him to task for that. Anyone who took part in such a discussion without condemning something as sick as that is complicit.

It really is that simple. You _don't_ choose to condemn someone absolutely for that kind of behaviour, any reasonable person would. End of story.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> What I meant by bad car drivers being easier to spot is that someone speeding is more likely to be caught by a speed camera, or if they jump a red like they can be caught by a red light camera, or be spotted by a police patrol. Also the results of bad car driving are usually far more catastrophic than bad cycle riding, and thus more likely to appear in the news.



Yet the vast majority of motorists break all of those laws and get away with it; don't take my word for it, look at the surveys already quoted on this forum. You're speaking rubbish, the facts do not support your claims at all; its just another obvious chip on your shoulder.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Oh i see cab your just as bad as the rest who tar people with the same brush,i trust you have nothing better to do than stand over a motorway with a speed gun i may add because thier is no way you can know for sure every one is doing 80 plus.Get off your high horse there are a lot of safe drivers out thier.



Sometimes someone posts something daft and I can laugh with them. In your case, however, its just too tragic. 

What are you trying to achieve by posting here? Why are you even contributing to this forum?


----------



## spindrift (1 Oct 2007)

_What I meant by bad car drivers being easier to spot is that someone speeding is more likely to be caught by a speed camera, or if they jump a red like they can be caught by a red light camera, or be spotted by a police patrol._

I am afraid that this is not true.

Onlt 6000 speed cameras cover the whole of the UK, as has been pointed out here over and over and over and over again.

The chances of bad drivers getting caught, let alone charged with anything, are very slim indeed.


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Sometimes someone posts something daft and I can laugh with them. In your case, however, its just too tragic.
> 
> What are you trying to achieve by posting here? Why are you even contributing to this forum?



Come on Cab, settle down! They are more than welcome to post here and have just as much right as you have (it is a public forum after all). 

I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on here (go on Cab admit it).

We all agree that there are bad drivers, bad cyclists, bad people in every walk of life. Lets just leave it at that.

Much more can be achieved of we work together, than if we bicker and fight.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Come on Cab, settle down! They are more than welcome to post here and have just as much right as you have (it is a public forum after all).
> 
> I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on here (go on Cab admit it).
> 
> ...




Nope. Not hair splitting at all.

If someone made a comment like that on any moderated forum to which I post, and the comment not moderated, I'd leave. If I had opportunity to refute or criticise such a statement then on a forum that I'm a member, I would do so. 

The simple reality is that they're trolling here; they're representative of a bunch of cyclist hating nutters.

It would of course be easy for them to refute this claim; all they have to do is go back to their bus drivers forum and challenge some of those totally abhorrent statements. Hasn't happened, despite them being challenged to do so, and it won't happen. Fact is, the best evidence we have is that they don't have any problem with that kind of claim or that kind of behaviour.

There is _nothing_ to be gained by working 'together' with someone who behaves like that. They are opposed to us, our lifestyles and our chosen mode of transport, they're not interested in working together.


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

spindrift said:


> _What I meant by bad car drivers being easier to spot is that someone speeding is more likely to be caught by a speed camera, or if they jump a red like they can be caught by a red light camera, or be spotted by a police patrol._
> 
> I am afraid that this is not true.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I should explain with a hypothetical situation. A cylist rides on the pavement and is seen by a copper. But then some idiot in a car, either drunk, impatient or stupid decides to copy the cyclist and drive their car on the pavement too. Who is more likely to get nicked?


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Perhaps I should explain with a hypothetical situation. A cylist rides on the pavement and is seen by a copper. But then some idiot in a car, either drunk, impatient or stupid decides to copy the cyclist and drive their car on the pavement too. Who is more likely to get nicked?



If the policeman is following guidance from the Home Office, then it depends on why the cyclist is on the pavement. In most cases, the cyclist is more likely to get nicked. Don't believe me? Go walk down any back street and count the number of cars driven on the pavement to park so as not to interfere with traffic (often making passage of push chairs and wheelchairs impossible). How many people get nicked for that?

But more importantly, would you care to speculate on the comparative number of casualties caused by bikes and cars to pedestrians on the pavement?


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2007)

I must admit I'm also shocked that neither nethalus nor random chose to cry foul on those awful bus driver comments, and still refuse to do so. This is one of the few fair points I've seen from Cab lately, IMO.


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> No, I don't, but it is clear to me that no one stood up for what is right and held him to task for that. Anyone who took part in such a discussion without condemning something as sick as that is complicit.



And no one in their right mind took it seriously either, it was someone trying to be outrageous and start an argument! Do you really think that anyone would actually go out of their way and deliberately injure a cyclist whilst driving a bus? I certainly would not. If I was involved in a such an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian it'd probably be the end of me. 
I was involved in an accident last year in which an 82 year old man driving a mini pulled out 10ft in front of me while I was doing 30 mph (in a 40mph zone). At 30mph you need at least 75ft to stop a vehicle, plus the road was wet and so that distance should be doubled. The man just pulled straight out of a side road with out looking and I was unable to avoid a collision. One of the coppers, for some reason, decided to inform me that they didn't think the old boy would make it due to his age. I was absolutely horrified at the suggestion (the old boy did make though and I believe had his license removed for dangerous driving).
For days, even weeks afterwards I could not close my eyes without seeing that red mini pulling out in front of me, and feeling that same sicking sensation that I was going to hit it. I could still feel and hear that awful bang when my bus struck the car and see it being spun round and round. It was awful and no way do I want anything like that to happen again.


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Nope. Not hair splitting at all.
> 
> If someone made a comment like that on any moderated forum to which I post, and the comment not moderated, I'd leave. If I had opportunity to refute or criticise such a statement then on a forum that I'm a member, I would do so.
> 
> ...



Cab,

I think it is a stretch to say that because they didn't chastise him for his comments that they are complicit. Sure they should have said something, but going by the reactions of this guy to my comments, they may have already known that it wouldn't make a difference. He doesn't appear to care what others think, so whats the point in saying anything.

As I said before, nethalus and random might not have the same views as we have, but they are at least coming over and trying to talk to us. 

As I am sure you are aware, Cab, you have a very confrontational approach to your posts (which by the way is not a problem!), and nethalus and random probably aren't aware of that and probably feel they are being assassinated! Give them a break, let them settle in, they have both stated that they bear no grudge or bad will against good cyclists. In fact they probably get annoyed by the same cyclists that annoy us, the RLJ's, pavement cyclists etc.

Make love not war


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> If the policeman is following guidance from the Home Office, then it depends on why the cyclist is on the pavement. In most cases, the cyclist is more likely to get nicked. Don't believe me? Go walk down any back street and count the number of cars driven on the pavement to park so as not to interfere with traffic (often making passage of push chairs and wheelchairs impossible). How many people get nicked for that?
> 
> But more importantly, would you care to speculate on the comparative number of casualties caused by bikes and cars to pedestrians on the pavement?


It doesn't matter why the cyclist is on the pavement, or the car for that matter. The point I was making is that you are more likely to take notice of a car being driven along a pavement that a cycle. Which is what I meant originally, bad car driving sticks out more than bad cycling. That does not mean I condone bad driving, far from it but it is more noticable.
Unfotunately though not all bad drivers are caught, and far too many think that because they have got away with bad driving previously it's ok to carry on like that. Tragically many bad drivers carry on with bad driving until it results in death.


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> count the number of cars driven on the pavement to park so as not to interfere with traffic (often making passage of push chairs and wheelchairs impossible). How many people get nicked for that?



As I’ve previously said, I’m attempting to get the parking outside our local school policed more closely. It’s difficult that thanks to our local council the police no longer have powers over yellow lines and can only ticket for obstruction etc.

I actually got a copper say to me that “When the roads were built, we didn’t have that many cars. Parkings now more difficult, so we now use our discretion and turn a blind eye to cars parking on the pavement. So long as theres enough room to get a buggy past we won’t ticket the vehicle”

So whats the point in passing laws, putting up restrictions etc, if the police choose not to enforce them….

I had an even wetter response from the council enforcement team. It took a 2 year old getting hospitalised to kick start them into action.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> It doesn't matter why the cyclist is on the pavement, or the car for that matter.



Yes, it _is_ a matter of why the cyclist is on the pavement. 

I quote the Home Secretary from when fixed penalty notices for cycling on the pavement were introduced:

_'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle in the road... sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required'. _

Or, in other words, the copper is meant to use his judgement on whether or not to do a cyclist for being on the pavement.



> The point I was making is that you are more likely to take notice of a car being driven along a pavement that a cycle. Which is what I meant originally, bad car driving sticks out more than bad cycling.



And my counter point (which you have ignored) is that bad driving (in which I'm including pavement parking and speeding) can easily disappear into the background of bad driving. I give as evidence the sheer number of pavement parkers and endemic speeding on our roads. You are _less_ likely to notice bad driving than cycling.

Theres also some psychology going on here too of course; bad speeding motorists who don't see what they're doing as wrong form a large part of the road using public (see stats quoted elsewhere here). They're the ones who complain about cyclists... Which group gets more easily noticed, the one cyclist occasionally crossing a pavement or ten speeding motorists?


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> And no one in their right mind took it seriously either, it was someone trying to be outrageous and start an argument! Do you really think that anyone would actually go out of their way and deliberately injure a cyclist whilst driving a bus?



(further comments cut unread)

Then condemn him for making such an outrageous claim. Do I believe he would do that? Well, he said he has. Heavens forbid we judge someone on what they actually said...


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> As I am sure you are aware, Cab, you have a very confrontational approach to your posts (which by the way is not a problem!), and nethalus and random probably aren't aware of that and probably feel they are being assassinated! Give them a break, let them settle in, they have both stated that they bear no grudge or bad will against good cyclists.



Give them a break? Sure, just as soon as they outright condemn those who have boasted about assaulting cyclists using a bus. Thats a reasonable minimum to expect out of them, especially considering some of the comments they have made.


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Give them a break? Sure, just as soon as they outright condemn those who have boasted about assaulting cyclists using a bus. Thats a reasonable minimum to expect out of them, especially considering some of the comments they have made.



Cab,

I thought they had. Maybe this thread is too long or I am not getting enough sleep (I'm not )

Lets resolve this:

Nethalus, Random, if a bus driver says he has used his bus intentionally to knock a cyclists over, would you condem this action. Yes or no?


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> I thought they had. Maybe this thread is too long or I am not getting enough sleep (I'm not )
> 
> ...



Yes I would condem it.


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> (further comments cut unread)
> 
> Then condemn him for making such an outrageous claim. Do I believe he would do that? Well, he said he has. Heavens forbid we judge someone on what they actually said...



I notice you did not read the rest of what I said ie "Further coments cut unread". Perhaps if you had read it you would realise that I would condemn, or even disbelieve, anyone saying they'd deliberately knocked someone down.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Yes I would condem it.



Then why didn't you?


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> (further comments cut unread)
> 
> Then condemn him for making such an outrageous claim. Do I believe he would do that? Well, he said he has. Heavens forbid we judge someone on what they actually said...





Instead of trying to get other people to have a go at some one for saying something dissagreeable,why not go and say it to the person yourself.Not everyone wants to tell someone the error of their ways every time they say something unacceptable.


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Instead of trying to get other people to have a go at some one for saying something dissagreeable,why not go and say it to the person yourself.Not everyone wants to tell someone the error of their ways every time they say something unacceptable.



I'd actually love to meet sikpuppy face to face. He has threatened me (apparently, as a joke, according to others) on a number of occasion. Somehow I get the feeling he is all bark and no bite.....


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Instead of trying to get other people to have a go at some one for saying something dissagreeable,why not go and say it to the person yourself.Not everyone wants to tell someone the error of their ways every time they say something unacceptable.



What, join a forum where that kind of behaviour is acceptable? No thank you.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2007)

Come on Cab, chill out. I don't remember you being this militant on the old C+ forum. I can't see you improving random and nethalus's opinions of cyclists.


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Instead of trying to get other people to have a go at some one for saying something dissagreeable,why not go and say it to the person yourself.Not everyone wants to tell someone the error of their ways every time they say something unacceptable.



Aye it's like sometime ago Jeremy Clarkson suggested that Bus drivers are "jumped up little hitler B******ds that need shooting in the face!" Now one would hope that no one took Clarkson's words seriously. Bus drivers going about their daily business, being of no harm to anyone else, have been shot or shot at by mindless evil thugs, they have also been stabbed, punched and verbally threatened. Clarkson also said some rather derogartory things about cyclists, including the suggestion of running them over if they use those little cycle boxes at traffic lights to go in front of him, which just proves what an ignorant, selfish, narrow minded prat he really is. I would not take his coments any more seriously than what I took the coments on blood bus. It was someone saying something outrageous in order to cause shock and provoke others to get into a slanging match with them.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2007)

Clarkson is a James Blunt innit, but a funny one.


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> I'd actually love to meet sikpuppy face to face. He has threatened me (apparently, as a joke, according to others) on a number of occasion. Somehow I get the feeling he is all bark and no bite.....




Thats normally the way isnt it.The louder the bark


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Clarkson is a James Blunt innit, but a funny one.


LOL! I agree 100% with that


----------



## bonj2 (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Clarkson also said some rather derogartory things about cyclists, including the suggestion of running them over if they use those little cycle boxes at traffic lights to go in front of him, which just proves *what an ignorant, selfish, narrow minded prat he really is. I would not take his coments any more seriously* than what I took the coments on blood bus. It was someone saying something outrageous in order to cause shock and provoke others to get into a slanging match with them.



you obviously _do_ take it seriously, why else would you think he's a prat...


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> you obviously _do_ take it seriously, why else would you think he's a prat...


I think he's a prat for saying something stupid like that!


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Aye it's like sometime ago Jeremy Clarkson suggested that Bus drivers are "jumped up little hitler B******ds that need shooting in the face!" Now one would hope that no one took Clarkson's words seriously. Bus drivers going about their daily business, being of no harm to anyone else, have been shot or shot at by mindless evil thugs, they have also been stabbed, punched and verbally threatened. Clarkson also said some rather derogartory things about cyclists, including the suggestion of running them over if they use those little cycle boxes at traffic lights to go in front of him, which just proves what an ignorant, selfish, narrow minded prat he really is. I would not take his coments any more seriously than what I took the coments on blood bus. It was someone saying something outrageous in order to cause shock and provoke others to get into a slanging match with them.





Clarkson does call allsorts of people doesnt he,but i would see it as the intentioned way it was meant,a joke.Even after one of our drivers was attacked with a samurai sword a few weeks ago,i didnt for one second use that as an excuse to have a go at him for being stupid.Jokes are jokes,some find them funny,some dont.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Aye it's like sometime ago Jeremy Clarkson suggested that Bus drivers are "jumped up little hitler B******ds that need shooting in the face!" Now one would hope that no one took Clarkson's words seriously. Bus drivers going about their daily business, being of no harm to anyone else, have been shot or shot at by mindless evil thugs, they have also been stabbed, punched and verbally threatened. Clarkson also said some rather derogartory things about cyclists, including the suggestion of running them over if they use those little cycle boxes at traffic lights to go in front of him, which just proves *what an ignorant, selfish, narrow minded prat he really is. *I would not take his coments any more seriously than what I took the coments on blood bus. It was someone saying something outrageous in order to cause shock and provoke others to get into a slanging match with them.



So you appraised the other member in the same terms, but didn't say so. Oh well that's all right. I would not have had a problem with your position and lack of action if you had not been actively involved in a direct discussion with the bloke. Let's face it, Cab has not been able to condemn every thing that he disagrees with on this forum as there's too much going on. But the fact that you casually responded to the comments in question makes it extremely difficult to value anything you have to say.

Like it or not, in an internet forum you will be judged by what you say (there's not a whole lot else to go on).


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> .Even after one of our drivers was attacked with a samurai sword a few weeks ago,.




I take it he was ok? What happened?


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> What, join a forum where that kind of behaviour is acceptable? No thank you.




But its acceptable to go and read whats on the forum,then try to get others to say something about what you dislike?


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Clarkson does call allsorts of people doesnt he,but i would see it as the intentioned way it was meant,a joke.Even after one of our drivers was attacked with a samurai sword a few weeks ago,i didnt for one second use that as an excuse to have a go at him for being stupid.Jokes are jokes,some find them funny,some dont.



I wasn't suggesting that people actually went out and shot bus drivers becaue of what Clarkson said. I was using him as an example (in this case in a well known tabloid) that people say outrageous, even offensive things purely for their shock value.


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> I take it he was ok? What happened?




It was a lady driver,waiting her time on an estate terminus.Some guy,for reasons unknown,left the bus after travelling with it,then returned with a sword,and took a stab at her,she dodged it just,then he took off,its all on disk as far as i know.I was talking to one of her friends last night ,while i was working,and she said she is off work,still a nervous wreck.


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

A question for bus drivers: do you get put under pressure to keep to a timetable and do you think that could contribute to bad driving by some drivers?

I'm just curious about how much pressure drivers are pit under by bus companies. I expect that this could vary from company to company and could be a reason why one companies drivers could be worse than others. Just a thought....


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> It was a lady driver,waiting her time on an estate terminus.Some guy,for reasons unknown,left the bus after travelling with it,then returned with a sword,and took a stab at her,she dodged it just,then he took off,its all on disk as far as i know.I was talking to one of her friends last night ,while i was working,and she said she is off work,still a nervous wreck.



Understandable! I hope they catch him. Sounds like a right nutter


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2007)

I must admit I admire how bus drivers deal with the public, because there are some right twunts out there.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> It was a lady driver,waiting her time on an estate terminus.Some guy,for reasons unknown,left the bus after travelling with it,then returned with a sword,and took a stab at her,she dodged it just,then he took off,its all on disk as far as i know.I was talking to one of her friends last night ,while i was working,and she said she is off work,still a nervous wreck.



How do you dodge a samurai sword? In a bus? In the cab?

!!!!!!!!!


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> I wasn't suggesting that people actually went out and shot bus drivers becaue of what Clarkson said. I was using him as an example (in this case in a well known tabloid) that people say outrageous, even offensive things purely for their shock value.




I know, i was just pointing out that i wouldnt use him as a scapegoat,because of something bad happening in one of the jobs he jokes about.


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> A question for bus drivers: do you get put under pressure to keep to a timetable and do you think that could contribute to bad driving by some drivers?
> 
> I'm just curious about how much pressure drivers are pit under by bus companies. I expect that this could vary from company to company and could be a reason why one companies drivers could be worse than others. Just a thought....



While I think must bus companies would like buses to run on time, they accept that due to traffic, roadworks, awkward passengers etc there are going to be delays. So drivers aren't so much preasured over being late. It's actually the opposite that they take a dim view of. Running early is a serious disciplinary offence, and drivers can and have been sacked for it.


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> How do you dodge a samurai sword? In a bus? In the cab?
> 
> !!!!!!!!!




A sideways movement normaly does the trick there is some room for movement, even in the smallest cabs.

If i found myself in a similar spot,i think i would find somewhere to go,even a small window wouldnt stop me getting out of the way.


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> I take it he was ok? What happened?



Its happening a lot. The ‘Samurai sword’ has become a weapon of choice. Psychologically its got power, but it hasn’t got the penalties of a handgun.

Ignore the facts that in most situations they’re unwieldy and as most are made of stainless steel they’re as dangerous to whoever tries to cut something (too brittle they snap and fly apart)

In November the ‘Samurai Sword’ is going to be specifically named on the offensive weapons act. Despite the fact that theirs not really a specific ‘samurai sword’. What do they mean? Katana? Wakazishi? Daisho? Etc. Add into the equation the fact you’ll still be able to buy Claymores, sabres, rapiers, Klingon ‘Bak’leths’ and such as the Claws that were used in ‘Chronicles of Riddick’.

What they actually needed was more enforcement of current laws. The one that says its illegal to carry a fixed blade of more than 3” in public. There ‘Samurai swords’ are already illegal.

How do you dodge a samurai sword? In a bus? In the cab?


Usually better to move forward/in, if you can’t leg it


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> A sideways movement normaly does the trick there is some room for movement, even in the smallest cabs.
> 
> If i found myself in a similar spot,i think i would find somewhere to go,even a small window wouldnt stop me getting out of the way.



Or do what a bus driver in Wakefield did, a bloke was threatening him with a knife, so he accelerated the bus up to about 30mph then stopped it on the hand break (which on buses is either on or off with no inbetween). The knifeman was thrown into the windscreen and broke his neck. The police said the bus driver was acting in self defence, which he was.


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Understandable! I hope they catch him. Sounds like a right nutter




What was a little more worrying,is that this place isnt that far from where i live,and some realtives of mine are only a couple of hundred yards from the stop,so makes the happening in a far off place,obselete this time


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Its happening a lot. The ‘Samurai sword’ has become a weapon of choice. Psychologically its got power, but it hasn’t got the penalties of a handgun.
> 
> Ignore the facts that in most situations they’re unwieldy and as most are made of stainless steel they’re as dangerous to whoever tries to cut something (too brittle they snap and fly apart)
> 
> ...




Ah,here talks someone who is practiced by the sounds of it?Am i correct in guessing you are a member of something here?


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> ]In November the ‘Samurai Sword’ is going to be specifically named on the offensive weapons act.



I've actually got one at home. It was presented to me when an old judo club I went to was closing down, and as a member of a number of years, they bought me the sword as a thankyou. It stays hidden away (especially with kids in the house now), but how will the law stand with this? Is it time to dispose of it?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Oct 2007)

"Kitana sword cannot be stolen. Kitana sword must be earned."


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> I've actually got one at home. It was presented to me when an old judo club I went to was closing down, and as a member of a number of years, they bought me the sword as a thankyou. It stays hidden away (especially with kids in the house now), but how will the law stand with this? Is it time to dispose of it?




Im guessing that your gift will have been a semi sharp iaito possibly?As a live blade Katana would cost thousands,unless your friends are really appreciative.I have a semi sharp Katana,on my wall,from my iaito days,im hoping that disposing of it is not an option.


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Im guessing that your gift will have been a semi sharp iaito possibly?As a live blade Katana would cost thousands,unless your friends are really appreciative.I have a semi sharp Katana,on my wall,from my iaito days,im hoping that disposing of it is not an option.



Yes it is indeed. Still if you swing it at someone it could still cause a fair old injury!


----------



## magnatom (1 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> "Kitana sword cannot be stolen. Kitana sword must be earned."



How do the neds get hold of them then??


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

Not necessarily an iato. Genuine Paul Chen folded blades can be had for <£200.

The law will state its illegal to buy, sell etc. If you’ve already got one, I reckon you’re OK. I’ll be keeping mine anyway.

I did a bit, but mainly training with Bokkens/shinai etc. Under a system brought to the West by Masaaki Hatsumi, an official Japanese ‘Living treasure’. Changed its name after loads of westerners started trying to rip it off and run around in black Gis and tabi boots.

Liked the fact it wasn’t a sport.


If you want to know more "Ask a ninja!"


IGMC


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Come on Cab, chill out. I don't remember you being this militant on the old C+ forum. I can't see you improving random and nethalus's opinions of cyclists.



I can't remember someone being quite so disagreeable on te C+ forum on a discussion I was involved in. I don't typically frequent the nastier topics, and had I known that we'd have people here from a forum that openly allows such chilling things to be posted I wouldn't be in this discussion either 

I _am_ chilled.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> How do the neds get hold of them then??



I think they fold their own.


Bloodsport:

old wise master: Katana sword cannot be stolen, katana sword must be earned.

young Frank Dux: I was not going to steal it


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I think they fold their own.
> 
> 
> Bloodsport:
> ...



Frank Dux (hehe) he reckoned that film was true!!
One of the original 'rip off' westerners, as big a con as Ashida Kim.
A dangerously deluded individual


----------



## col (1 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Not necessarily an iato. Genuine Paul Chen folded blades can be had for <£200.
> 
> The law will state its illegal to buy, sell etc. If you’ve already got one, I reckon you’re OK. I’ll be keeping mine anyway.
> 
> ...




Im surprised they can be had that cheap,its been a while,about ten years,but my sword was made for me through a friend of a friend in japan,while he was there,it cost £400 then,but that was mates rates.


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Im surprised they can be had that cheap,its been a while,about ten years,but my sword was made for me through a friend of a friend in japan,while he was there,it cost £400 then,but that was mates rates.


Paul Chen, I think is a Chinese foundry. I know all the genuine Japanese katanas have to be officially certified, which possibly pushes the price up. Chen made the swords for the Matrix films. The one I have is a copy of the Paul Chen Fantasy Katana, designed for the Morpheus character. Definitely live and close enough to genuine for my needs. Its well out of the way for the next few years (6 & 4 year old and 1 more on the way!). Should I have need I’ve still got bokken, Jo, Bo or escrima sticks to try!

You can get some folded carbon blades from China for about £100, but there are a lot of rip offs out there. A common trick is to dip in etching acid and hang vertically. This gives lines along the blade, imitating the folded metal of a more expensive weapon..

I’ve seen one of these, where you look down towards the Tsuba and the ‘folding’ disappears! (didn’t like to point it out to the dealer)


----------



## RANDOM (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Sometimes someone posts something daft and I can laugh with them. In your case, however, its just too tragic.
> 
> What are you trying to achieve by posting here? Why are you even contributing to this forum?



Yes tragic postings just like yours,plus is that a no then.


----------



## Terminator (1 Oct 2007)

With the way this has jumped 8 pages in one day it looks like im the only one who actually does any work.


----------



## RANDOM (1 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> I thought they had. Maybe this thread is too long or I am not getting enough sleep (I'm not )
> 
> ...



Of course i would condem it, as i have said many times i don't not wish to injure any one,cyclist or pedestrian for that matter.But no doubt i will repeat it again and again.


----------



## nethalus (1 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> If the policeman is following guidance from the Home Office, then it depends on why the cyclist is on the pavement. In most cases, the cyclist is more likely to get nicked. Don't believe me? Go walk down any back street and count the number of cars driven on the pavement to park so as not to interfere with traffic (often making passage of push chairs and wheelchairs impossible). How many people get nicked for that?
> 
> But more importantly, would you care to speculate on the comparative number of casualties caused by bikes and cars to pedestrians on the pavement?



Quoting statistics etc is meaningless to my oringal point though, which was, good cylists are unfortunately let down by bad ones. Just as good motorists get let down by bad ones. But that point got lost somewhere with people taking exception to me suggesting that a car being driven erratically is more noticable than a cycle!!


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

RANDOM said:


> Of course i would condem it, as i have said many times i don't not wish to injure any one,cyclist or pedestrian for that matter.But no doubt i will repeat it again and again.



Then go back to where you're sharing space online with guys who say they're doing _precisely_ that and condemn that behaviour. Really, you need to do that or the claim that you _would_ condemn that kind of behaviour when you encounter is has no credibility whatsoever, because you're _not doing so_.


----------



## Cab (1 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> Quoting statistics etc is meaningless to my oringal point though, which was, good cylists are unfortunately let down by bad ones. Just as good motorists get let down by bad ones. But that point got lost somewhere with people taking exception to me suggesting that a car being driven erratically is more noticable than a cycle!!



No, this discussion stemmed from you saying:



> Unfortuntely there is no way of stopping any idiot getting a bike and riding it how they damn well like (I suppose you could argue the same with a car, but a car being driven badly or erratically is easier to spot than a cycle.)



To which I responded that yes, cyclists really are bound by the law too, and that cyclists get nicked for doing stupid things on the road. THEN you came up with the claim that motorists doing dangerous things on the roads are more likely to be stopped by a copper, and thats what I refuted. Further, you claimed that the reason why a bike might be, say, on the pavement doesn't matter, and again it was shown that you were incorrect.

Now you're trying to ignore all of the intervening discussion because you've been shown to be wrong and re-stating a simple starting point that a cyclist breaking the law reinforces the false stereotype that cyclists are law breakers... 'Fraid that I think most of us agreed on that before you posted to the discussion, and it doesn't rub out the other comments in the thread.

Oh, and have you gone back to the bus forum and condemned those who make cracks about nudging bus drivers off the road yet? Or those willing to threaten our members here with sending them home in a box? Or is such condemnation not for their ears?


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2007)

Please let it go mate?


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Please let it go mate?



Happy to, just as soon as the emperor dons some actual clothes.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (2 Oct 2007)

Argh! Are we going to have another bus related thread locked?!?!?!


----------



## magnatom (2 Oct 2007)

Cab,

Sure, they should have condemned it at the time, they didn't, but they do agree that it was wrong. There is nothing to be gained for them to go back and say anything to this guy. The guys a twerp and nothing is going to change that. 

This really could just go round and round in circles. Be the bigger man and say enough is enough, before this thread needs to be locked.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (2 Oct 2007)

I agree in principal with Cab on this one, which is a new feeling for me. But it's not going anywhere is it?


----------



## nethalus (2 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> No, this discussion stemmed from you saying:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never refuted that cyclists are bound by the law, what I said was that any idiot (ie a ned or dead head) can get a cycle and ride it how and where they like, thus letting down law abiding cyclists who get tarred with the same brush. The same is true with a car, perhaps I should have omitted the "suppose"!
My scenario was not based on an actuall event, it was just a hypothetical one. Yes people park on pavements and yes it's annoying but what I was saying was that if some mad git drove their car on the pavement, and I meant actually driving it, not parking it. One would hope they would get nicked by a copper, as they are far more potentially dangerous than the hypothetical cyclist. Why either of them are on the pavement is unimportant.
You also seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick and seemed to have been under the impression I was having a go at cyclists. Which is clearly not the case. I've been a cyclist in the past so I know what it's like when you are out there. Hope this clears this up and I hope you don't find anymore points to nit pick over!


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Argh! Are we going to have another bus related thread locked?!?!?!



Jacomus, you forgot to say "Please"


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2007)

Cab, the cycling equivalent of the Taliban?


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Cab, the cycling equivalent of the Taliban?



If he starts demanding female cyclists stop the lycra and wear Burqas, there's gonna be trouble!!


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> I never refuted that cyclists are bound by the law, what I said was that any idiot (ie a ned or dead head) can get a cycle and ride it how and where they like, thus letting down law abiding cyclists who get tarred with the same brush. The same is true with a car, perhaps I should have omitted the "suppose"!



Yes, you did say that, and you went on to say all manner of other things in defense of the claim that cyclists get away with more... _No one_ would disagree with the claim that an irresponsible cyclist gets us a bad name, that isn't a contentious claim, the claim you made that makes little sense was that cyclists are somehow less visible when they break the law.



> My scenario was not based on an actuall event, it was just a hypothetical one. Yes people park on pavements and yes it's annoying but what I was saying was that if some mad git drove their car on the pavement, and I meant actually driving it, not parking it. One would hope they would get nicked by a copper, as they are far more potentially dangerous than the hypothetical cyclist. *Why either of them are on the pavement is unimportant*.



Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Specific guidance for the police from the home secretary, guidance already quoted here, shows quite clearly that the cyclists reason for being on the pavement is of vital importance when a police officer decides whether or not to take action. Said guidance does not apply to cars; driving on to pavements to park there is illegal and can/should be punished accordingly, cycling on the pavement is usually illegal but should very often _not_ be punished, thats the guidance to which the police are meant to operate. As you rightly state, the car on a pavement is far more dangerous than a bicycle (even one just parking); you are not comparing like with like.

As for getting nicked for driving on the pavement... Frankly, no, your chances of getting nicked for it are approaching zero in most places. Same for speeding, same for running red lights on a car. It just isn't the case that motorists breaking the law are more visible, in fact because there are less cyclists around it is usually the case that cyclists infringing are way _more_ visible. Don't believe me? Go to the pub and mention cycling.



> You also seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick and seemed to have been under the impression I was having a go at cyclists. Which is clearly not the case. I've been a cyclist in the past so I know what it's like when you are out there. Hope this clears this up and I hope you don't find anymore points to nit pick over!



This isn't nit picking, its correcting you where you're factually incorrect.


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Sure, they should have condemned it at the time...



And thats the sum of it. If someone was ranting about harming people of a particular race, religion or gender, those comments would be borderline criminal. They're no less shocking because they're about cyclists.

Just laughing along with comments like that and then saying 'I didn't say it, I just went along with it and I would normally condemn it but I didn't' is totally unconvincing. They're not repentent, they're not serious about saying that they condemn that kind of behaviour because they didn't condemn it where it mattered, and they still haven't.

For the record, had those comments been about, say, Christian people, my response would be just as robust. Or if someone had joked about running over black people, I'd have been incensed too. I'm saddened that we're treating comments made about cyclists so very differently.


----------



## nethalus (2 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Yes, you did say that, and you went on to say all manner of other things in defense of the claim that cyclists get away with more... _No one_ would disagree with the claim that an irresponsible cyclist gets us a bad name, that isn't a contentious claim, the claim you made that makes little sense was that cyclists are somehow less visible when they break the law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What ever mate!


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> If he starts demanding female cyclists stop the lycra and wear Burqas, there's gonna be trouble!!



Ain't going to happen. I should think that you've got very limited vision cycling in a burqa


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

nethalus said:


> What ever mate!



And there you go, you raised a set of points, I disagreed with them, you repeated them, I pointed out why I disagreed with them, and you're not interested in discussion.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2007)

STFU already, you're really doing a GREAT job of promoting cycling and cyclists.

In fact forget about it. *plonk*


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2007)

Ahhh crap, you're a mod/admin so I can't even zarking ignore you.


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Ahhh crap, you're a mod/admin so I can't even zarking ignore you.



You can ignore me, you just can't easily plonk me.

You'd be more irritated by other people replying to me anyway.


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> driving on to pavements to park there is illegal and can/should be punished accordingly



I’ve actually been told by plod that so long as a car that is parked on the pavement,is not on a junction, or parked that far on the pavement that a buggy can’t get past, they won’t be ticketed.


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> I’ve actually been told by plod that so long as a car that is parked on the pavement,is not on a junction, or parked that far on the pavement that a buggy can’t get past, they won’t be ticketed.



Yep, because technically being _parked_ on the pavement isn't illegal. _Driving_ on the pavement is illegal though. And while you can get into silly legal arguments about whether being parked on the pavement means that you've driven there, the reality is that Plod don't want to enforce the law that stops people driving on the pavement (and in many areas where councils are now meant to be policing parking I believe they have no power to), so they don't. 

Its shameful, IMHO.


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

I’ve had this out many times with the local council. Local authorities have taken over as regards yellow lines etc. As regards the pavement parking the local authorities have no power. This is down to Plod to prosecute as obstruction.

As regards the yellows the police were looking into the possibility of informing the council that an offence had been committed and making themselves available as professional witnesses if refuted.


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

User said:


> I'll try and find the more up to date version.



Be interesting if you can. Think I posted before that its the situation around the local school I'm trying to sort out. Last year it took a 2 year old being hospitalised to get them out. New intake of parents this year means similar problems


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

Tried taking it to the local papers, Gambatte?


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Tried taking it to the local papers, Gambatte?



Been there last year. New intake of parents with the new year, same problem.

Councillor mentioned it was going to be a special interest area with enforcement officers there twice a week......(anyone smell cattle?)

Might be time to start jumping on peoples emails again. Probably be better to have regulators document tho'

Starting to think I'm turning into Victor Meldrew!!


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Starting to think I'm turning into Victor Meldrew!!



I think that this is a way more worthwhile hobby horse than any that Victor Meldrew came up with 

Have you talked with your local beat bobbies/PCSO's about this? They may not be able to enforce it directly, but I'll wager that if they happen to be walking past at dropping off/picking up time once in a while it'll dissuade people from being quite so stupid. I'll be they'd be willing to politely advise parents dropping kids off.


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

We did have a point late last year when the Police turned up and handed out £30 tickets, Then the council turned up and started handing out £60 tickets. Sorted it for a while. 
Although there were plenty of arguments going off between the ticketers and ticketed, when the parents came out with their pride and joys.

Considering the vast majority of the kids live in the catchment area (<1mile radius) I heard comments like: 
“Walk! that’s not what I passed my test for”
“The school should provide parking!” (?)

Now bearing in mind the school and road have been there for much longer than 5 year old ‘Johnny’ has even been alive, they knew the parking situation before they even applied for him to go there. Also assuming they have a licence (…?…) they should have glanced thro the highway code enough to know about parking restrictions.

Could be interesting doing a ‘name and shame’. One of the worst offenders is a school governer. 

True to stereotype, the worst offenders drive large 4x4s, people carriers and Beemers


----------



## Cab (2 Oct 2007)

Its the kind of thing that a good 'community police officer' (I prefer the old term 'beat bobby') could do a lot to solve. Wouldn't have to hand out fines and do paperwork, but could prevent a lot of trouble by being seen and being talkative.


----------



## stephenb (2 Oct 2007)

Starting to think I'm turning into Victor Meldrew!!:D[/QUOTE]

And what exactly is your problem?


----------



## gambatte (2 Oct 2007)

I don't believe it!


----------



## Terminator (2 Oct 2007)

I saw a RLJ'er tonight jump a traffic light at Stepney East and prang a car.What the hell was that all about?


----------



## Terminator (3 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Ahhh crap, you're a mod/admin so I can't even zarking ignore you.



Bloody hell mikey.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Oct 2007)

Yeah, sorry! And sorry to you Cab.


----------



## Cab (4 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> And sorry to you Cab.



What for?

I guess I should also not pull your tail so much...


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (4 Oct 2007)

Aww... thats why this place is so cool - everyone plays nice in the end.

Cups of tea and an assortment of scones and buscuits all round I feel.


----------



## Terminator (4 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, sorry! And sorry to you Cab.



No prob I was just surprised.


----------

