What annoys you the most ?

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by bp666

Interesting. There's a lot of angst here against cyclists. And yes some of them can be twats. There's a lot of call from car drivers about the need for bicycles to be registered. But for what really? Generally, if a cyclist breaks a law or even makes a stupid but legal move, who ends up getting impacted? Most of the time the cyclist themselves, sometimes a pedestrian or another cyclist, and very rarely a car driver and/or passenger. If a cyclist goes through a red light, how many times do they crash into and injure and kill the innocent people in a car travelling through the green light the other way. The majority cause of accidents on the roads are cars, trucks and motorbikes. All are registered. Cyclists and pedestrians are generally the victims, and very rarely the cause. They aren't registered. Even if they are the cause of an accident, it's almost zero chance they will abscond from the scene. Whether the cause or the victims of an accident, both cyclists and pedestrians are very high likelihood to be quite injured. I'd much prefer european style bike lanes totally separated from motorised traffic down here in the Antipodes. It's hysteria to call for cyclists to be registered - no value in doing it and would have almost zero impact on road tolls, and would cause significant bureaucracy increases.

I used to cycle to work and back a lot and thought myself a safe rider. The only time I almost got hurt was when an idiot passenger in a car thought it would be a good idea to hurl a can of drink at me as the car he was in drove past me riding in the cycle lane. Luckily he was an idiot as his aim was crap, and he didn't realise the car had to stop for a red light in the next 20 metres. So he got punched in the head for his trouble, as he left the window down while at said red light. Just once, and I rode home with no regrets about that.

Not all cyclists are total morons. Not all of them want to dress up and try their hand at dangerous inconsiderate time trials on the public highway. Not all of them think it's smart to ride three abreast on dangerous roads. Not all of them are thoughtless, smirking twats like Charlie Allison who killed Kim Briggs in London with his flashy bike that didn't have proper brakes.

Unfortunately, self-righteous cyclists weaving in and out of pedestrians do injure and kill people every year, while many cause traffic accidents and shouldn't be on the road, because they don't understand the Highway Code and have no consideration for others.

What's needed - IMHO, is a number plate on every bike, with the same number stamped on the frame. This makes riders more accountable and bicycle theft more difficult. All cyclists should by law wear a helmet and have insurance. Listening to music or using a phone while riding should be an offence and riding around at night without lights needs to be dealt with. Bikes must be suitable for use on the public highway, not designed for sporting events and finally, anyone riding a bike, must either have a full driving licence, or must pass some kind of cycling proficiency test.

Ours roads are now more dangerous than ever before. Motorists are just as guilty as cyclists of being selfish, inconsiderate and dangerous. Nobody seems to care much, until after something bad happens.

It really would be in everyone's interests to take a fresh look at the cycling issue and come up with some common sense suggestions.

[cuzzyman927]

I'll be the first one to admit that both motorists and bicyclists have their share of lawbreakers and dunderheads. Motorists are indeed guilty of running red lights and stop signs but bicyclists are as equally guilty. The fact that they have less protection than a motorist is all the more reason why they should exercise more care and alertness .
In a recent news report I saw where mishaps between motorists and "preoccupied" pedestrians and bicyclists texting and/or on cell phones has gone up some 53% over the past few years. So to allege that many of the mishaps are generally the motorists fault is unjust and unfair.

The paved bike path here is separate from the main road and pretty much runs parallel to it, but where the bike path crosses side streets which branch off of the main road is unavoidable. For the most part the bike path is used for recreational purposes, but there are a number of people who do use it as an alternative to get from point A to point B.
The bike path is only one part of the equation and is useless for those living a distance away from it in other pats of town having no alternative but to use the side and main streets to go here and there -- or even just getting to the bike path.

What really irritates me, which I think is ridiculous and unjust, is that over the years "mishaps" between motorists and bicyclists/pedestrians and even with other motorists are no longer being called/considered accidents but manslaughter charges, automatically considering the motorist guilty and at fault, and assuming he/she is under the influence of alcohol/drugs! Whatever happened to that little Constitutional thing of innocent until proven guilty?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Be brave and ride your bike!

It's missing 8 cylinders and a carburettor and a fuel tank full of leaded

[BigSwede]

My neighbour.

[rupertramjet]

A cyclist should in my opinion be required to have at least third party insurance, I was once hit by a cyclist and it caused serious damage to mt paintwork, his fault entirely he turned into me, he was unhurt, as was IU, but the bill came to £500, my no claims or my cash? Hardly fair or reasonable.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by BigSwede

My neighbour.

I did once read that the commonest answer by far to this question is the one you have given.

I suppose it makes sense in that, no matter what big issues and global problems there may be, it is the people closest to you who have the most immediate impact on your life.

[Roubignol]

To the people who "hate" cyclists, just speak with people who travelled to Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Two friendly bikes cities.

Watch this video as example. link

I went in both cities when I was a teenager.
That's far more enjoyable to move into those cities than into Paris or Milano.
You can't compare. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are peaceful, when Paris and Milano are agressive.

And in Amsterdam and Copenhagen women are beautiful and fit thanks to bicycle!

You have to ask to your authorities to promote cycling in your cities.
That will totally pacified the social atmosphere. Really.
And you will save a looooooot of money too.

[judy84]

Cyclists would be lucky to survive in Norfolk.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-festival.html

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

A cyclist should in my opinion be required to have at least third party insurance, I was once hit by a cyclist and it caused serious damage to mt paintwork, his fault entirely he turned into me, he was unhurt, as was IU, but the bill came to £500, my no claims or my cash? Hardly fair or reasonable.

it is compulsory in Switzerland.

[trailmaster]

I'm annoyed that everyone now calls bikes, cycles. In my youth every kid had a bike. They all had fat tires and just one speed. This was in the early 1950's. Then sometime in the early 1960's these bikes came out with narrow tires and three speeds, and soon after there were 5 speed and 10 speed bikes and they continued to be called just bikes thru the 1970's. Then sometime in the 1980's the term cycle replaced the term bikes. If a person mentioned he had a "bike" people thought he was saying he had a motor bike or motorcycle. If you look in any dictionary the term still means a two wheel cycle with either fat tires(for off road biking) or narrow tires for everyday street riding or racing.