Tuesday 5 April 2011

‘Unacceptable’…

Cyclists gathered in Boscombe on Friday to show solidarity with those seriously injured when a motorist rammed a protest ride in Brazil.
Eh..? I didn’t realise Bournemouth had such a strong connection with Brazil…
Tim Crawshaw, 42, a housing association worker from Kinson, said he had been inspired to take part in Bournemouth’s Critical Mass ride by footage of the attack in Brazil.

“I thought it would be good to come out and show solidarity for our Brazilian comrades. The footage was shocking – absolutely shocking,” he said.
Oh. A pressure group. Of course…
Protestors with the Critical Mass group gather in cities across the world on the first Friday of each month to raise awareness of a perceived lack of respect for cyclists by other road users.
By showing that same lack of respect right back at them by congregating in a pack and holding up traffic.

I think I begin to see that Brazilian driver’s point…
Lee Henderson, 39, who rides to work from Bournemouth’s Lansdowne area to Lower Parkstone each day, said: “I thought it was good to show support for the cyclists in Brazil.

“What happened is not acceptable, in the same way that it would be unacceptable to drive into pedestrians.”
Who thought it would be?

Really, isn’t it about time cyclists gave up this persecution complex, and accepted that they get to use the roads tax- (and in some cases, punishment-) free and they should just accept that a lot of people are going to be more than a little aggrieved with that?

After all, start screaming too loudly, and eyes might turn to a potential source of tax-revenue…

22 comments:

Parkylondon said...

It would help their "we're poor persecuted cyclists" cause if they ALL actually OBEYED The Highway Code and didn't treat red lights as advisory, didn't swear at you for having the temerity to use a crossing when the green man was lit and they ALL wore a crash helmet.

They believe themselves to be persecuted but they way some of them ride you'd think they owned the bloody roads - instead of paying NOTHING - no road tax, no insurance, no MOT... hatehatehate..

Anonymous said...

Check out the comments in the Evening Stannard whenever a dead cyclist story is run - woe betide anyone who has the temerity to ask why they constantly seem to want to undertake tipper lorries....Natural selection?

Mjolinir said...

Sorry I just couldn't resist this.

A council election candidate rang a phone-in on 'honesty in politics' - and 'by mistake' gave a false name & denied being a candidate...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12968538

Anonymouslemming said...

I enjoy watching the pedalphiles in London.

Today I watched an amazing thing - a pedalphile near Canary wharf jumped a red light... and ran into another pedalphile who was crossing on the Boris Cycle Highway (blue paint bit) right by Limehouse station.

I'm still surprised that they didn't find a reason to blame a car, but they way they stood looking at each other was just priceless.

Anonymous said...

a) Nobody has paid "road tax" since 1937.

b) Everybody pays tax which is spent by the county highways on the roads.

c) Most people on bicycles have a car too.

d) I love how the bell ends who wail about "if they ALL actually OBEYED The Highway Code" then moan about "the man" attacking their right to speed and talk on the phone as they drive along.

e) What's the air like way up their on your high horse?

Parkylondon said...

@Anonymous So I'm a bell end eh? Please tell me when I last "moan(ed) about "the man" attacking their right to speed and talk on the phone as they drive along."?

And if you're going to troll, at least have the cojones to not be Anon...

James said...

Actually, as a motorcyclist, I couldn't care less if someone is on the phone, or eating a sandwich, or smoking a cigarette, etc

I care if they are driving dangerously and that's all. Some people can use phones, others can't, so shouldn't.

As to the tax, as far as I was aware, council tax is supposed to be used for normal roads and road tax is used for motorways?

Anonymous said...

Parkylondon.

You're a bell end because you wheel out exactly the stuff that is lampooned on this website.

Example1: when was the last time all motorists obeyed the highway code? Never been speeding yourself? Cast out thy own beam etc etc.

Example2: did you know that the evidence on cycle helmets is decidedly mixed, with little evidence one way or the other that they are effective in a collision with a motor vehicle? Yet you appear to believe that if a cyclist doesn't wear one, well what do you believe? that they somehow "deserve "it""? That would be the inference from your comments. Why don't you wheel out another straw man and attack that?

Finally, no comment on the A, B, C points that "Anon" raised?

How about another point: of the ~3500 deaths on the roads last year, how many were caused by cyclists? How many were cyclists? Would these figures suggest (a) that cyclists and their ilk are a major purveyor of evil in the land or (b) that perhaps, *just perhaps* they're a vulnerable group of perfectly legal road users and that just perhaps your, ill-conceived clackson-esque, sterotype might be wide of the mark.

But why should I bother with you, when clearly your comments sterotype you as a bell-end. Is that not sauce for the goose?

Anon II. Just because I can.

Anonymous said...

*stereo* ffs....

Mike said...

anyone who claims to be persecuted as a cyclist should not be on the roads. It is quite simple to bully traffic while on a bike if needs be. After all to dismount and throw your lump of metal through a windscreen takes far less time than it does to get out of a car. This action will clearly do more damage to any motor vehicle than the bike. I cannot see how anyone who has a genuine case of being threatened with a motor vehicle whilst on a bike cannot use the defence of self defence in these cases.
Cyclists that claim to be pushed around by other road users are generally the timid type, difficult to see hiding in the gutter.
I cycle and make a point of standing my ground, after all no one realy wants dirty great scratches in their paintwork do they?
As for no road tax, insurance…….that’s the point of being a cyclist isn’t it? Oh, as well as the health factor…..
Fuck em, if you can’t hold your own on the road on a bike, drive, simples.

Mike said...

i do however have a right of way issue while riding a horse, because as much as you like to think you are in control of a horse it can and has in my experience made a fucking mess of a noisy convertible BMW by jumping on it. So slow down, give way and be quiet unless you want your precious car to become a horse shoe!

On yer bike said...

I understand cyclists are vulnerable, but so too are pedestrians when the green-loving sicklists ride down a crowded pavement instead of using the road. Given that they can get up to around twenty to thirty mph without much effort, it is a daunting sight for the terrified pedestrians.

Still, all in the name of saving the planet, hey? And as for high horses, nothing beats the built-in superiority of a sicklist hell-bent on avoiding the normal rules of the road.

I am against registration of all kinds, but maybe number plates on bikes might cool some of the "getoutofmyway" approach of the two wheeled menaces.

Mjolinir said...

@Anon - Example2.

What are 'cycle helmets' for?

//The foreword to BSI Standard
6863:1987 read as follows:
‘It (the standard) specifies
requirements for helmets
intended for use by pedal cyclists
on ordinary roads, particularly by
young riders in the 5 years to 14
years age group, but which may
also be suitable for off the road. It
is not intended for high-speed or
long distance cycling, or for riders
taking part in competitive events.
The level of protection offered is
less than that given by helmets for
motorcycle riders and is intended
to give protection in the kind
of accident in which the rider
falls onto the road without other
vehicles being involved.’//
[Brian Walker, of helmet-testing lab Head Protection Evaluations, in a (very) technical article 'Heads Up', published in "Cycle" magazine June/July 2005]

Reprint available -
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

blueknight said...

No one is saying that all car drivers obey the law highway code, but where does anon live?
In a town where cyclists don't ride on the footpath, or without lights at night, or run red lights?

There ain't such a place.

Mike said...

the highway code is bullshit, it is for retards, a guide, out of date before it is published, if you drove by it you would be a danger to other road users.

people need rules like this book of god that is the highway code to prove what they did wrong is right.

if your on a bike then a helmet is not going to save a truck on your head so look out. if your in a car, expect a cyclist to get fucking angry when you place your car too close to it because the rider feels exposed compared to you.

come close to me when i'm on my bike and your in your car and i will consider that a threat and act accordingly, go figure

JuliaM said...

"It would help their "we're poor persecuted cyclists" cause if they ALL actually OBEYED The Highway Code..."

No doubt, but even drivers don't do that. It would be nice if there was more enforcement of both.

"...woe betide anyone who has the temerity to ask why they constantly seem to want to undertake tipper lorries....Natural selection?"

Indeed! It's not as if enough haven't died that way that the others shouldn't have got the message, is it?

I don't even cycle, and I know it's a stupid risk to take!

"I'm still surprised that they didn't find a reason to blame a car, but they way they stood looking at each other was just priceless."

Ha ha ha!

"a) Nobody has paid "road tax" since 1937.

b) Everybody pays tax which is spent by the county highways on the roads.

c) Most people on bicycles have a car too.

d) I love how the bell ends who wail about "if they ALL actually OBEYED The Highway Code" then moan about "the man" attacking their right to speed and talk on the phone as they drive along.

e) What's the air like way up their on your high horse?"


*sigh*

a) I know it's vehicle excise duty, but 'road tax' is what it's known as, and what it was originally levied for.
b) Yes, but drivers pay more.
c) 'Most'? I think not.
d) Not me, I don't speed, I think drivers caught on the mobile should have it crushed in front of them.
e) With my unblemished driving record, it's just fine, thanks!

JuliaM said...

"Some people can use phones, others can't, so shouldn't."

It's ALWAYS safer to have a hand's free - the only people who could 'use a phone' are mutants with a third arm!

"I understand cyclists are vulnerable, but so too are pedestrians when the green-loving sicklists ride down a crowded pavement instead of using the road. "

Oooh, one of my pet hates! Oh, for a long, old fashioned umbrella to thrust into the spokes!

"...where does anon live?
In a town where cyclists don't ride on the footpath, or without lights at night, or run red lights?

There ain't such a place."


True enough! No more than all car drivers do.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Anonymous said...

c) Most people on bicycles have a car too. XX

So fucking WHAT?

If they have THREE cars, they don't get to "tax one and take two free".

Cycle riders. scum of the earth.

James said...

"It's ALWAYS safer to have a hand's free - the only people who could 'use a phone' are mutants with a third arm!"

Again. I don't care what people do as long as they are not driving dangerously.

We don't need more laws and rules. Just the ones we already have enforced. If they ban mobiles, then they will get round to banning smoking, then eating, then anything other than sitting bolt upright with both hands on the wheel and a camera trained on you.

You know how it works...

nightlurker said...

As a Bournemouth resident, what I want to know is why we spend millions in this area on bike lanes and special cycle paths and the cyclists STILL insist on riding on the roads and weaving in and out of traffic. They go sailing through red lights and risk accidents (that they have no insurance to pay for) when all they have to do is use the cycle paths that go around the lights. On the subject of lights I have lost count of the number of times I have nearly wiped out a cyclist without lights in dark clothes on an unlit road in this area. Lights for bikes must be very expensive, maybe they should get a gubmint grant for them.

Angry Exile said...

After all, start screaming too loudly, and eyes might turn to a potential source of tax-revenue…

No 'might' about it - in at least one place it's been suggested in seriousness, though the proposal has since been withdrawn. Still, the idea has been put about by other road users for long enough now that it's probably already in the political subconscious even before the pedal brigade started forming pressure groups and demanding their own lanes etc, sometimes because a suicyclist has been turned into pâté by their decision to pass a turning B-double on the inside. 'This costs money', the politician will think. 'We need someone new to tax in order to pay for it. Why not those who are asking for it?'

Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle, cyclists.

JuliaM said...

"We don't need more laws and rules. "

It's been decided that driving while using a non-handsfree IS 'driving dangerously'. Also eating, though it's true there's no specific law against that.

"...and the cyclists STILL insist on riding on the roads and weaving in and out of traffic. "

Me too :/

"...it's probably already in the political subconscious ..."

Oh, no doubt!