# I nearly ran over two cyclists today, and they'd have deserved it if it had happened....



## sabian92 (20 Mar 2013)

Let me explain.

I was driving home from college (I know, a sin on here but I had to post a parcel that wouldn't fit on my bike!) and I drove over a little hump-back bridge. I crested the bridge to find a man on his bicycle riding towards me. This wasn't the particularly alarming part, the part that alarmed me was HE WAS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. I slowed for the bridge before the hump, saw him, slowed more even though I was clear for the mini-roundabout that's after the bridge and beeped at him (again, another sin but he was a proper arse) to which he gave me a thumbs up, and carried on by riding between me and the kerb, over the bridge. Who does that? Who rides on the wrong side of the road? This isn't France!

The second one was later on, about 8pm this evening. I live on a road with terrible street lighting, so you have to be careful with kids running across the road at night. I got in, started the car and drove down the road at 15mph or so. I was greeted by a clear road, until I spotted two little pedal reflectors going up and down. I slowed down to let him get to the junction first, when all of a sudden I was surprised to find a lad of 15-16, riding a BLACK bike wearing BLACK clothes with no lights or reflectors apart from the pedal ones, riding TOWARDS ME. At night.

Is it "The International Day of Humans Acting Like Lemmings" today?

What the Hell goes through these people's (apparently tiny) brains?

No wonder car drivers give cyclists abuse if this is their experience of them.


----------



## Brandane (21 Mar 2013)

There are arses in all walks of life, including cyclists. No doubt someone will come along and tell you that you should be driving your "2 ton weapon" in such a way that you can always be in a position to slow down and stop for unlit cyclists on the wrong side of the road, on a dark rainy night, on a blind corner of a busy trunk road with a 60 mph limit.


----------



## MarkF (21 Mar 2013)

The thread title is poo.


----------



## Crankarm (21 Mar 2013)

Op chillax.

Having advised chillaxing to the OP, I was irated last night when I saw a cyclist with their front light on flashing which is one of my hates. The thing was that the cyclist wasn't getting closer to me as quickly as it should have been. Then I realised why. A chav on a BSO who was dressed in black head to toe had placed his white flashing front light rear wards ie on the seat pin facing back!!!! No front light. What a numptee which I told him as I passed by. He then turned off abruptly into the chav Arbury estate.


----------



## sidevalve (21 Mar 2013)

Brandane said:


> There are arses in all walks of life, including cyclists. No doubt someone will come along and tell you that you should be driving your "2 ton weapon" in such a way that you can always be in a position to slow down and stop for unlit cyclists on the wrong side of the road, on a dark rainy night, on a blind corner of a busy trunk road with a 60 mph limit.


 True,but the theory does [or should] hold the other way too, the cyclist should be able to stop when he / she sees something coming towards them, not just ride blindly onwards forcing other [law abiding] people to dodge them. After all it is they who are breaking the law which does state that lights must be carried at night and which side of the road should be used [believe it or not some laws do apply to cyclists].
Excuses will be trotted out for it and "blame shifting" will be tried but it all ends up with the usual "it's always somebody else's fault" bleating.
Yep there are crap drivers but there are also crap cyclists and the sooner people stop trying to find excuses for them the better.


----------



## Crackle (21 Mar 2013)

I have even read your thread but 'deserved' it, really.


----------



## Sara_H (21 Mar 2013)

sabian92 said:


> *I nearly ran over two cyclists today, and they'd have deserved it if it had happened....*


That's not nice.


----------



## sabian92 (21 Mar 2013)

Brandane said:


> There are arses in all walks of life, including cyclists. No doubt someone will come along and tell you that you should be driving your "2 ton weapon" in such a way that you can always be in a position to slow down and stop for unlit cyclists on the wrong side of the road, on a dark rainy night, on a blind corner of a busy trunk road with a 60 mph limit.


 
I know that and I wasn't driving like a dick, so is that still my fault? I was doing under the speed limit (30mph) even before I slowed down for the roundabout. As for the tosser at night, if I'd have driven into him head-on because he wasn't lit and therefore for all intents and purposes invisible, would that be my fault? Even if it wasn't my insurance would have had to pay out and considering I've got a £500 excess, I'd rather that didn't happen as I can't afford it.



sidevalve said:


> True,but the theory does [or should] hold the other way too, the cyclist should be able to stop when he / she sees something coming towards them, not just ride blindly onwards forcing other [law abiding] people to dodge them. After all it is they who are breaking the law which does state that lights must be carried at night and which side of the road should be used [believe it or not some laws do apply to cyclists].
> Excuses will be trotted out for it and "blame shifting" will be tried but it all ends up with the usual "it's always somebody else's fault" bleating.
> Yep there are crap drivers but there are also crap cyclists and the sooner people stop trying to find excuses for them the better.


I'm not blame shifting here but I agree, you can't expect people to take the blame just because they're driving a car. 



User13710 said:


> "I nearly ran over two cyclists today, and they'd have deserved it if it had happened"
> 
> *No they would not*. That's a disgraceful thread title for a cycling forum and should be taken down.


 
If somebody rides at you deliberately on the wrong side of the road, do you think "What a lovely chap riding his bicycle, more people should follow the example!" or "Wow, what a bellend, he's going to get himself killed"?

I know which I think.


Crackle said:


> I have even read your thread but 'deserved' it, really.


 
Deserved is the wrong word and I was annoyed about it, I apologise for the title.


----------



## Davidc (21 Mar 2013)

I don't agree with the title, but would comment that your driving was clearly safe. You'd slowed down and behaved in the right way for the road and conditions, so you were able to cope with the nimbskulls on those bikes. That's how everyone should drive, but not everyone does. Good for you.

I don't have a problem with your hooting either.

The worst I've seen recently was 2 11/12 year olds playing chicken on bikes, riding across a busy road from behind a parked van and making drivers do emergency stops. Another adult cyclist got to them before I did!


----------



## snorri (21 Mar 2013)

you should be driving your "2 ton weapon" in such a way that you can always be in a position to slow down and stop for unlit cyclists on the wrong side of the road, on a dark rainy night, on a blind corner of a busy trunk road with a 60 mph limit.


----------



## byegad (21 Mar 2013)

Some years ago I met a Ninja BMXer coming the wrong way around an overgrown roundabout, so I couldn't see him over the top of the shrubbery, at night. Quite how I missed him I'll never know, although I'm glad I did.


----------



## davefb (21 Mar 2013)

sabian92 said:


> I know that and I wasn't driving like a dick, so is that still my fault? I was doing under the speed limit (30mph) even before I slowed down for the roundabout. As for the tosser at night, if I'd have driven into him head-on because he wasn't lit and therefore for all intents and purposes invisible, would that be my fault? Even if it wasn't my insurance would have had to pay out and considering I've got a £500 excess, I'd rather that didn't happen as I can't afford it.
> 
> 
> I'm not blame shifting here but I agree, you can't expect people to take the blame just because they're driving a car.
> ...


 
he passed you on the wrong side, on the bridge?

so didn't that mean you had to move across to the wrong side then?

a work colleague was killed on his motorbike, because a car coming the other way passed some pedestrians who were walking in the road near the crest of a hill... yeah the car shouldnt have crossed the middle of the road, but the driver was put in a bad position by people walking in the road in a pack and not thinking about what the consequences of their actions would be..

riding on the wrong side is just *stupidity*,


----------



## sabian92 (21 Mar 2013)

davefb said:


> he passed you on the wrong side, on the bridge?
> 
> so didn't that mean you had to move across to the wrong side then?
> 
> ...


If only, there was a pinch point that I'd got to thinking he'd go on the other side but squeezed down the side of me. How he didn't take the paint off I'll never know.
http://goo.gl/maps/dn3XC
Shame your colleague was killed. Some people have no sense about what they're doing. 



User13710 said:


> It still wasn't the fault of the pedestrians though, was it. When driving we should always be able to stop in the area ahead that we can see to be clear. If you can't see clear road ahead, you slow down. If this driver came upon the pedestrians unexpectedly and could not stop, then he/she was driving too fast for the conditions. Likewise the OP should have stopped when confronted with the cyclist on the bridge.
> 
> There have been other threads where people have admitted their driving is sometimes less than perfect (which applies to us all I'm sure), and people respect them for admitting as much. The best thing is to learn from one's mistakes. The OP edited and extended the title of this thread when he realised the original version reflected badly on him. Unfortunately the new version, attempting to shift the blame onto the cyclist, makes him look much worse.


 
I did stop - I didn't carry on driving considering it's a narrow gap. How does it make ME look worse? I stopped before I ran him over, he was in the wrong - not me yet If I'd ran him over I'd have been the one in trouble. Sorry, but if you're on the wrong side of the road, the driver doesn't look at all bad because it isn't their fault. I'm not shifting blame on to anybody, I'm putting it on the arse on a bike because _I did nothing wrong. _

Also, I didn't edit it. Not sure where you got that from but I haven't touched the original post. I tell it like it is, if you think that I'm to blame for him not having two brain cells to rub together and knowing which side of the road we drive on in the UK then you're probably as daft as him.


----------



## green1 (21 Mar 2013)

User13710 said:


> It still wasn't the fault of the pedestrians though, was it.


Depends which way they are walking. Pedestrians are supposed to walk on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## lejogger (21 Mar 2013)

Crankarm said:


> ...I was irated last night when I saw a cyclist with their front light on flashing which is one of my hates...


 
Not a criticism or anything, and off topic a bit, but I was just wondering why a flashing front light irritates you...

Merely because I frequently flash at the front (so to speak) and was wondering what I'm doing wrong


----------



## HLaB (21 Mar 2013)

MarkF said:


> The thread title is poo.


 Indeed they might have been wrong (in fact they were) but nobody derserves to be run over


----------



## green1 (21 Mar 2013)

lejogger said:


> Not a criticism or anything, and off topic a bit, but I was just wondering why a flashing front light irritates you...
> 
> Merely because I frequently flash at the front (so to speak) and was wondering what I'm doing wrong


It makes it far harder to judge speed and distance, and if it's aimed too high and is a decent lamp it can dazzle more than a steady light.


----------



## davefb (21 Mar 2013)

User13710 said:


> It still wasn't the fault of the pedestrians though, was it. When driving we should always be able to stop in the area ahead that we can see to be clear. If you can't see clear road ahead, you slow down. If this driver came upon the pedestrians unexpectedly and could not stop, then he/she was driving too fast for the conditions. Likewise the OP should have stopped when confronted with the cyclist on the bridge.
> 
> There have been other threads where people have admitted their driving is sometimes less than perfect (which applies to us all I'm sure), and people respect them for admitting as much. The best thing is to learn from one's mistakes. The OP edited and extended the title of this thread when he realised the original version reflected badly on him. Unfortunately the new version, attempting to shift the blame onto the cyclist, makes him look much worse.


 
walk single file when approaching a blind crest might be an idea.. (not sure if they were on the right side, i could make the assumption because otherwise my mate would have had warning they were there, but i dont know either way). you're right, you should never cross the median on a crest (national speed limit, though I think its now 50), but the first mistake was someone giving someone that decision. don't be selfish, think first. think about what you're actions might have on other road users.

cycling on the wrong side of the road is selfish as it's making other people have to cope with your behaviour..


and for the 2nd one,, yeah pedal reflectors... amazing how much they say BIKE!


----------



## lejogger (21 Mar 2013)

green1 said:


> It makes it far harder to judge speed and distance, at if it's aimed too high and is a decent lamp it can dazzle more than a steady light.


Fair enough.

But playing devil's advocate, is a flashy light not more likely to be picked up than a steady beam, especially in a busy urban setting where there could be any number of other lights for it to blend into? Providing of course that it is not so bright as to be a danger to someone driving towards it.


----------



## 4F (21 Mar 2013)

IMHO I agree and think that a flashing front light for urban cycling is better than solid.


----------



## MisterStan (21 Mar 2013)

4F said:


> IMHO I agree and think that a flashing front light for urban cycling is better than solid.


Plus one - I tend to use flashing mode when I don't need full beam to see...


----------



## davefb (21 Mar 2013)

4F said:


> IMHO I agree and think that a flashing front light for urban cycling is better than solid.


 
flashing says "look here", but solid is easier to 'track'... which is the justification for 'one of both'..


----------



## 4F (21 Mar 2013)

davefb said:


> flashing says "look here", but solid is easier to 'track'... which is the justification for 'one of both'..


 
True but I am a cheapskate so it is one or the other.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Mar 2013)

One flashing light during the day, and one flashing, one fixed beam at night front and back. I know it's hard to get a decent ''fix'' on flashing lights amidst heavy traffic and poor ambient street lighting but using a combination makes it easier for all to see.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Mar 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> One flashing light during the day, and one flashing, one fixed beam at night front and back. I know it's hard to get a decent ''fix'' on flashing lights amidst heavy traffic and poor ambient street lighting but using a combination makes it easier for all to see.


 
totally agree


----------



## Cubist (21 Mar 2013)

green1 said:


> Depends which way they are walking. Pedestrians are supposed to walk on the wrong side of the road.


 I'm afraid there is no legislation anywhere which dictates how a pedestrian should use a highway. The driver should not have overtaken where they could not see it was safe to do so.
Legally there is no other argument.


----------



## Globalti (21 Mar 2013)

Just go on You Tube and find some Lucas Brunelle videos if you want to see idiot cyclists. I wonder how many outraged comments were posted on web fora after those alley cat races?


----------



## mickle (21 Mar 2013)

byegad said:


> Some years ago I met a Ninja BMXer coming the wrong way around an overgrown roundabout, so I couldn't see him over the top of the shrubbery, at night. Quite how I missed him I'll never know, although I'm glad I did.


You beat me to it!


----------



## snailracer (21 Mar 2013)

Cubist said:


> I'm afraid there is no legislation anywhere which dictates how a pedestrian should use a highway. The driver should not have overtaken where they could not see it was safe to do so.
> Legally there is no other argument.


Legally speaking, there is no "wrong" side of the road, for any road user. Otherwise, overtaking, driving along narrow roads, crossing junctions or roads, etc. would be illegal.
In the OP's example, the legal onus would be on the motorist to anticipate possible obstructions on the blind side of the humpback bridge, not on road users on the blind side of such a bridge to get out of the way.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Mar 2013)

sabian92 said:


> but I had to post a parcel that wouldn't fit on my bike!


 
N+1 time, you obviously don't have the right bike!


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Mar 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Op chillax.
> 
> Having advised chillaxing to the OP, I was irated last night when I saw a cyclist with their front light on flashing which is one of my hates. The thing was that the cyclist wasn't getting closer to me as quickly as it should have been. Then I realised why. A chav on a BSO who was dressed in black head to toe had placed his white flashing front light rear wards ie on the seat pin facing back!!!! No front light. What a numptee which I told him as I passed by. He then turned off abruptly into the chav Arbury estate.


 

I have done that deliberately!

Some little runt had tried to nick my back light off the rack, and merely managed to break it.

So took the backup flashing LED off the front and placed it on the back.

Got me home safely with lights front and back...far safer than riding with no rear light


----------



## Banjo (21 Mar 2013)

MarkF said:


> The thread title is poo.


 
The prats on bikes may be stupid but the "deserved" it bit in the title suggests that death is an appropriate punishment for acts of stupidity?

I


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Mar 2013)

None of this would have happened in my day.


----------



## Arjimlad (21 Mar 2013)

There appears to be a certain inner-city preponderance of mainly youths with trousers round their knees ambling along in baseball caps on BSO mountain bikes who


ride on the wrong side of the road often in the face of cyclists and cars
ignore red lights
don't bovver with getting lights
ride on the pavements at a whim
are cycling because they can't afford to buy or don't know how to steal a blinged-up lowered dark windowed pimp-mobile
generally annoy everyone else
But I'm not sure that they "give cyclists a bad name" because they're just chavs on bikes.

I wouldn't have all that much sympathy if they were hit by a normal careful driver but I don't think serious injury is merited for such shortcomings !


----------



## Dave 123 (21 Mar 2013)

Some people are getting upset by the choice of the word "deserved"....... I understand BOTH points of view.
Not many people deserve to die, I think we all agree. But as a cyclist and motorist I go about the centre of Cambridge morning, noon and night and see cycling standards and bike set ups that make me think "If you did come to grief, you only have yourself to blame" Put that way, nobody deserves anything.


----------



## Dan B (21 Mar 2013)

Arjimlad said:


> I wouldn't have all that much sympathy if they were hit by a normal careful driver


Is that a "normally careful" driver - as in, one who exhibits approximately average carefulness, or a "normal and careful" driver - as in, one who is both normal and careful? I'm only asking to keep the thread going, mind. I agree with you that they don't give cyclists in general a bad name, that's like claiming that Vauxhall Nova users give drivers a bad name


----------



## Cubist (21 Mar 2013)

snailracer said:


> *Legally speaking, there is no "wrong" side of the road, for any road user. Otherwise, overtaking, driving along narrow roads, crossing junctions or roads, etc. would be illegal.*
> In the OP's example, the legal onus would be on the motorist to anticipate possible obstructions on the blind side of the humpback bridge, not on road users on the blind side of such a bridge to get out of the way.


I'd agree up to a point, but Sec 36 RTA puts a driver firmly on the left hand side of the carriageway in a double white line system.

We both appear to agree on the second paragraph.


----------



## snailracer (21 Mar 2013)

Cubist said:


> I'd agree up to a point, but Sec 36 RTA puts a driver firmly on the left hand side of the carriageway in a double white line system.
> 
> We both appear to agree on the second paragraph.


Nice try, but I still think I'm right:

Highway Code Rule 129:
*"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.*_ This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less._
*Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"*


----------



## Cubist (21 Mar 2013)

snailracer said:


> Nice try, but I still think I'm right:
> 
> Highway Code Rule 129:
> *"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.*_ This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less._
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"*


I wasn't arguing with you.


----------



## DRHysted (21 Mar 2013)

snailracer said:


> Nice try, but I still think I'm right:
> 
> Highway Code Rule 129:
> *"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.*_ This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less._
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"*


 
This means they can't straddle or cross it to overtake me, as I'm normally above 10mph.
Something to look forward to


----------



## DRHysted (22 Mar 2013)

2373233 said:


> How would they be expected to accurately assess your speed?


I don't know, but it's in the highway code.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2013)

DRHysted said:


> I don't know, but it's in the highway code.





2373233 said:


> How would they be expected to accurately assess your speed?


Any driver that cannot assess the speed of a cyclist and react appropriately is a hazard!

It is only a matter of time before they kill or injure someone at a junction


----------



## Cyclist33 (22 Mar 2013)

snailracer said:


> Nice try, but I still think I'm right:
> 
> Highway Code Rule 129:
> *"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.*_ This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less._
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"*



doesnt include "to pass a pedestrian" though.

but anyway, in the motorcycle accident as described it isnt stated whether the road markings fitted into this category or not, nor whether said accident was centred around a humpback bridge. as i see it there were three parties, the driver, the biker and the pedestrians, and not enough circumstances were further set out by the poster to pass right judgment.

stu


----------



## snailracer (22 Mar 2013)

Cyclist33 said:


> doesnt include "to pass a pedestrian" though.
> 
> but anyway, in the motorcycle accident as described it isnt stated whether the road markings fitted into this category or not, nor whether said accident was centred around a humpback bridge. as i see it there were three parties, the driver, the biker and the pedestrians, and not enough circumstances were further set out by the poster to pass right judgment.
> 
> stu


Well my post was in response to a separate point about solid double-white lines, not the OP.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2013)

2373312 said:


> You don't assess another vehicle's speed in terms of numbers though.


what about the ones written on the cars speedometer?


----------



## vickster (22 Mar 2013)

byegad said:


> Some years ago I met a Ninja BMXer coming the wrong way around an overgrown roundabout, so I couldn't see him over the top of the shrubbery, at night. Quite how I missed him I'll never know, although I'm glad I did.


Indeed, may have dented the car!


----------



## DooDah (22 Mar 2013)

Maybe, just maybe he was French. The day I have had with French people I would say he probably did not "deserve" it, but a few bruises would have helped him think


----------



## Arch (23 Mar 2013)

Banjo said:


> The prats on bikes may be stupid but the "deserved" it bit in the title suggests that death is an appropriate punishment for acts of stupidity?


 
Well, if it happened more often, there might be less stupidity in the gene pool....

People acting like complete idiots seem to have some sort of aura of luck, because they seem to be killed, or even injured, remarkably infrequently. Alas. And yet, careful cyclists get wiped out.

NT and I saw a chap cycle on an MTB down a railway platform today (having come along the ballast alongside the track under the bridge), off down the ramp at the end, along the ballast a bit, cross the line, and ride back up the other side, onto the other platform. What the hell did he think he was doing? Putting aside the fact that it didn't get him anywhere that the road bridge wouldn't have, there was a train due (overdue, in fact, if it had come on time, he'd still have been crossing the tracks when it pulled in). But of course he's gone home safe and sound, and there'll probably be no comeback. For Darwin to work, that chap should be spread liberally over the tracks.... Although that would have delayed our train, which would be annoying.


----------



## sean8997 (24 Mar 2013)

From what I have read during this topic, it seems that many of the folks here are right up their own arse! especially User13710 geezer, seems that cyclists can do no wrong and its always the fault of the driver. *Wake up and smell the coffee*, many accidents are caused by cyclists and not just by car, van, bus, truck drivers. At least drivers have to pass a test to be let loose on the roads, there are the minority of bad drivers who let the side down but shoot happens!
Every day you see cyclists jumping red lights, weaving through traffic dangerously, riding without lights etc and then have the nerve to blame everyone but themselves when they have a close shave or heaven forbid are involved in a collision.
I'm a cyclist and enjoy it very much but what really gets my goat is the fact everyone blames the driver no matter what the circumstances are. The 2 guys in question in the original post would have no one to blame but themselves if they were involved in a collision.
Lets get our own house in order before blaming others, there is plenty room for all road users as long as we abide by the law.


----------



## theclaud (24 Mar 2013)

User13710 said:


>


Time to replace your "Über Member" tag and replace it with "Geezer", I reckon...


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Mar 2013)

sean8997 said:


> (Edited) ....
> Lets get our own house in order before blaming others, there is plenty room for all road users as long as we abide by the law.


 
I feel no obligation to get my own house in order in this regard or others.

I do not feel responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists, any more than I do for other motorists.

I'm not sure why the idea is put about that there is a house to be put in order, or why such an action is considered prerequisite to other actions.


----------



## akb (25 Mar 2013)

OP....all your fault for taking the car. Shame on you.


----------



## Brandane (25 Mar 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I feel no obligation to get my own house in order in this regard or others.
> 
> I do not feel responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists, any more than I do for other motorists.
> 
> I'm not sure why the idea is put about that there is a house to be put in order, or why such an action is considered prerequisite to other actions.


 
This ^ ^ ^ ^ times 100. I don't get this "giving other cyclists a bad name" either. Do you feel ashamed to be a human being every time another one does something wrong?


----------



## sabian92 (25 Mar 2013)

akb said:


> OP....all your fault for taking the car. Shame on you.



I know, how dare I use a car after spending a grand on learning to drive (!)  I wouldn't mind - it isn't even my bloody car!

Regardless of the opinions in this thread we are all entitled to them. I disagree with those who say cyclists can do no wrong as that automatically puts the blame on me (when I did bugger all wrong).

If somebody drove at you in a car if you were on bike, would it be your fault for being on a bike or the driver for being a moron?


----------



## Arch (25 Mar 2013)

Brandane said:


> This ^ ^ ^ ^ times 100. I don't get this "giving other cyclists a bad name" either. Do you feel ashamed to be a human being every time another one does something wrong?


 
I don't think the two are the same. I'm not ashamed of bad cyclists, but I'm aware that the behaviour of some affects the general perception of cyclists.

Plenty of people, as soon as cycling is mentioned, bang on about jumping red lights - so those who do it do give us a bad name. I don't do it and people who do annoy me, but I'm not ashamed to be a cyclist because of them.


----------



## DooDah (25 Mar 2013)

Arch said:


> I don't think the two are the same. I'm not ashamed of bad cyclists, but I'm aware that the behaviour of some affects the general perception of cyclists.
> 
> Plenty of people, as soon as cycling is mentioned, bang on about jumping red lights - so those who do it do give us a bad name. I don't do it and people who do annoy me, but I'm not ashamed to be a cyclist because of them.


Hey there Elmer, I 100% agree with you, there are bad drivers, mediocre drivers and good drivers. There are bad cyclists, mediocre cyclists and good cyclists. I would imagine that most of use have been all of those at some point in our lives.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Mar 2013)

2378977 said:


> Drivers jump red lights as well but no one routinely bangs on about it.


 
Fair point, but I think we should get our own house in order first....


----------



## snailracer (25 Mar 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Fair point, but I think we should get our own house in order first....


Get our own house in order before what? Before everyone can carry on not-banging-on-about-cars-jumping-red-lights?


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Mar 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I feel no obligation to get my own house in order in this regard or others.
> 
> I do not feel responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists, any more than I do for other motorists.
> 
> I'm not sure why the idea is put about that there is a house to be put in order, or why such an action is considered prerequisite to other actions.


 
Sorry, I've just realised that my exhortation to get our own house in order was completely at odds with my earlier post (quoted above).

I do apologise most sincerely for any disquiet this inconsistent line may have caused.


----------



## snorri (25 Mar 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do apologise most sincerely for any disquiet this inconsistent line may have caused.


----------



## Wobblers (25 Mar 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Sorry, I've just realised that my exhortation to get our own house in order was completely at odds with my earlier post (quoted above).
> 
> I do apologise most sincerely for any disquiet this inconsistent line may have caused.


 
That's it!!!

I'm *never* going to take you seriously ever again!!!


----------



## theclaud (26 Mar 2013)

McWobble said:


> That's it!!!
> 
> I'm *never* going to take you seriously ever again!!!


You've been taking him seriously? Srsly?


----------



## Dan B (26 Mar 2013)

2379240 said:


> I don't. Much as I hate all this us and them stuff, their house is the dangerous one.


Most accidents happen in the home ...


----------



## youngoldbloke (26 Mar 2013)




----------

