Driver deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike

Bournemouth Echo: Roof tiler and cyclist Stephen Roberts Roof tiler and cyclist Stephen Roberts

A MOTORIST deliberately knocked a Bournemouth cyclist off his bike, breaking his collarbone in three places.

The driver rammed 43-year-old Stephen Roberts on Burley Road just before the entry to the New Forest village of Brockenhurst.

He pulled level with Stephen, beeped his horn, then swerved into him sending the Iford resident tumbling on to a grass verge.

“Luckily I didn’t land on a kerb stone or anything like that,” said Stephen, a roof tiler.

Stephen is a member of New Forest Cycling Club and was out training on his Cannondale time trial bike at South Weir, just after 2pm on Sunday, September 11.

He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way.

He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car.

The driver turned around and about 90 seconds later knocked Stephen off and drove away without stopping.

Stephen said: “At first it was a numb feeling, then it got a lot more painful. For the first couple of minutes I lay face down just getting myself together because I couldn’t believe what had happened.

“Two or three cars stopped and the people came over to help me – I want to thank them.”

Stephen does not know yet how well his shoulder will heal and whether it will affect his work.

The vehicle involved is described as a black hatchback, possibly with tinted rear windows. It is believed there was a passenger in the car with the man.

A Hampshire Police spokesman said they wanted to talk to a female cyclist, adding that other drivers were in the area at the time.

You can contact PC David Woolfrey at Lymington police station on 101 or the Crimestoppers confidential hotline on 0800 555 111.

Comments (164)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:15am Sat 17 Sep 11

Bournehammer68 says...

Hope you're on the mend mate. I can't believe the way some scum drivers treat us cyclists. keep on rolling!
Hope you're on the mend mate. I can't believe the way some scum drivers treat us cyclists. keep on rolling! Bournehammer68

10:18am Sat 17 Sep 11

Huey says...

unbelievable. there are some right nutters out there.
get well soon
unbelievable. there are some right nutters out there. get well soon Huey

10:33am Sat 17 Sep 11

nigglygrilly says...

I have seen some very stupid cyclists with apparent death wishes this week - doing very silly things like going up the inside of a car turning left then shouting at the car because they had the audacity to turn left - the car was clearly indicating and was in the process of turning - the cyclist should have stopped - or overtaken on the outside - there was no cycle lane! Then there was one who was weaving in and out of three buses stopped and pulling out of bus stops in slow moving traffic near a busy junction - very silly behaviour - then there was a cyclist who pulled straight out of a turning into a cycle lane without looking and nearly knocked another cyclist off their bike - that cyclist had to swerve into the path of cars travelling along the road at the road speed of 30 mph to avoid being knocked off by a fellow cyclist who did not give way! Luyckily I had sort of anticipated what was happening and had been passing wiht plenty of room so he did not hit me!
I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am anti very silly cyclists who had no road sense or think that they have right of way all the time when they do not!
We all have ot use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be toleralnt of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured!
I have seen some very stupid cyclists with apparent death wishes this week - doing very silly things like going up the inside of a car turning left then shouting at the car because they had the audacity to turn left - the car was clearly indicating and was in the process of turning - the cyclist should have stopped - or overtaken on the outside - there was no cycle lane! Then there was one who was weaving in and out of three buses stopped and pulling out of bus stops in slow moving traffic near a busy junction - very silly behaviour - then there was a cyclist who pulled straight out of a turning into a cycle lane without looking and nearly knocked another cyclist off their bike - that cyclist had to swerve into the path of cars travelling along the road at the road speed of 30 mph to avoid being knocked off by a fellow cyclist who did not give way! Luyckily I had sort of anticipated what was happening and had been passing wiht plenty of room so he did not hit me! I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am anti very silly cyclists who had no road sense or think that they have right of way all the time when they do not! We all have ot use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be toleralnt of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured! nigglygrilly

11:14am Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

nigglygrilly wrote:
I have seen some very stupid cyclists with apparent death wishes this week - doing very silly things like going up the inside of a car turning left then shouting at the car because they had the audacity to turn left - the car was clearly indicating and was in the process of turning - the cyclist should have stopped - or overtaken on the outside - there was no cycle lane! Then there was one who was weaving in and out of three buses stopped and pulling out of bus stops in slow moving traffic near a busy junction - very silly behaviour - then there was a cyclist who pulled straight out of a turning into a cycle lane without looking and nearly knocked another cyclist off their bike - that cyclist had to swerve into the path of cars travelling along the road at the road speed of 30 mph to avoid being knocked off by a fellow cyclist who did not give way! Luyckily I had sort of anticipated what was happening and had been passing wiht plenty of room so he did not hit me! I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am anti very silly cyclists who had no road sense or think that they have right of way all the time when they do not! We all have ot use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be toleralnt of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured!
What exactly has that little rant got to do with this? Guilt by association?

The guy was hit deliberately because someone else percieved they had more right to the road than he instead of obeying the highway code.
[quote][p][bold]nigglygrilly[/bold] wrote: I have seen some very stupid cyclists with apparent death wishes this week - doing very silly things like going up the inside of a car turning left then shouting at the car because they had the audacity to turn left - the car was clearly indicating and was in the process of turning - the cyclist should have stopped - or overtaken on the outside - there was no cycle lane! Then there was one who was weaving in and out of three buses stopped and pulling out of bus stops in slow moving traffic near a busy junction - very silly behaviour - then there was a cyclist who pulled straight out of a turning into a cycle lane without looking and nearly knocked another cyclist off their bike - that cyclist had to swerve into the path of cars travelling along the road at the road speed of 30 mph to avoid being knocked off by a fellow cyclist who did not give way! Luyckily I had sort of anticipated what was happening and had been passing wiht plenty of room so he did not hit me! I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am anti very silly cyclists who had no road sense or think that they have right of way all the time when they do not! We all have ot use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be toleralnt of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured![/p][/quote]What exactly has that little rant got to do with this? Guilt by association? The guy was hit deliberately because someone else percieved they had more right to the road than he instead of obeying the highway code. downfader

11:20am Sat 17 Sep 11

Goldbar says...

another busy day at Echo towers then!!

Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days.

Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too.

Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up.

If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: -

Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads)
Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!!

Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about.

Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner

I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there.

How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ?

Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to Goldbar

11:32am Sat 17 Sep 11

Rich_Enduro says...

strange how this indecent could of quite easily of ended with a fatality but some of the above comments are more interested in criticising cyclists breaking minor highway codes than focusing on the maniac who could of killed someone.
when you look at the statistics, a huge number of drivers break the law and the focus needs to be on them, they are the ones who kill people, not cyclists. i agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours but this focus here is getting this driver off the road at the least.
strange how this indecent could of quite easily of ended with a fatality but some of the above comments are more interested in criticising cyclists breaking minor highway codes than focusing on the maniac who could of killed someone. when you look at the statistics, a huge number of drivers break the law and the focus needs to be on them, they are the ones who kill people, not cyclists. i agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours but this focus here is getting this driver off the road at the least. Rich_Enduro

11:39am Sat 17 Sep 11

BH10D says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
A bit of a non argument really... see http://www.chapmance
ntral.co.uk/wiki/Blo
ody_cyclists
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]A bit of a non argument really... see http://www.chapmance ntral.co.uk/wiki/Blo ody_cyclists BH10D

11:41am Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
Again - guilt by association.

I've had people spit at me, even throw stones at me whilst cycling. I havent gone and beaten someone up for it (although I did try and report it to Hants Plod).

Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why the press dont focus on cyclists in the way you in your fantasy world would like is just because it doesnt happen. I've seen the official figures, as have others on here

-an average of 200 serious incidents involving cyclists and other road users (pedestrians)

-an average of 1 death a year caused by ped v cyclist.

-13 million UK cyclists (according to the London School of Economics)

Now that makes us some of the safest road users simply by the figures.

Nobody deserves to be treated in the way cyclists like this guy have been. Cyclists are made into scapegoats by people like yourself.

(sw= find-hang wwhat the hell?)
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]Again - guilt by association. I've had people spit at me, even throw stones at me whilst cycling. I havent gone and beaten someone up for it (although I did try and report it to Hants Plod). Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why the press dont focus on cyclists in the way you in your fantasy world would like is just because it doesnt happen. I've seen the official figures, as have others on here -an average of 200 serious incidents involving cyclists and other road users (pedestrians) -an average of 1 death a year caused by ped v cyclist. -13 million UK cyclists (according to the London School of Economics) Now that makes us some of the safest road users simply by the figures. Nobody deserves to be treated in the way cyclists like this guy have been. Cyclists are made into scapegoats by people like yourself. (sw= find-hang wwhat the hell?) downfader

11:45am Sat 17 Sep 11

itsallaboutthebike says...

Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.
Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future. itsallaboutthebike

11:58am Sat 17 Sep 11

Brock_and_Roll says...

Obviously you cant condone the violence - hope the police catch the nutter. For correctness sake, neither the car nor the bike would have right of way at the Brockenhurst "pinch points" and there are no signs. The idea is that vehicles (and bikes) should slow until it is obvious which vehicle is either closer or one party gives way to the other.

It goes without saying that there are a lot of idiots driving cars, but I am getting increasingly annoyed by the kind of militant, ultra aggressive cycling that you see every day in London. Aside from completely ignoring road signals/signs, they will often ride two or more abreast and refuse to drop in line to allow cars past.

Where the accident occured, cyclists are now coming down the hill at 30mph+ on modern racing bikes. I dont know in this case which way the injured chap was going, but in a game of chicken between a car/horse/cow versus a bike there will only be one winner - and if you are going to throw hand gestures, make sure you are the one in the car!!!
Obviously you cant condone the violence - hope the police catch the nutter. For correctness sake, neither the car nor the bike would have right of way at the Brockenhurst "pinch points" and there are no signs. The idea is that vehicles (and bikes) should slow until it is obvious which vehicle is either closer or one party gives way to the other. It goes without saying that there are a lot of idiots driving cars, but I am getting increasingly annoyed by the kind of militant, ultra aggressive cycling that you see every day in London. Aside from completely ignoring road signals/signs, they will often ride two or more abreast and refuse to drop in line to allow cars past. Where the accident occured, cyclists are now coming down the hill at 30mph+ on modern racing bikes. I dont know in this case which way the injured chap was going, but in a game of chicken between a car/horse/cow versus a bike there will only be one winner - and if you are going to throw hand gestures, make sure you are the one in the car!!! Brock_and_Roll

11:58am Sat 17 Sep 11

rayc says...

downfader wrote:
nigglygrilly wrote: I have seen some very stupid cyclists with apparent death wishes this week - doing very silly things like going up the inside of a car turning left then shouting at the car because they had the audacity to turn left - the car was clearly indicating and was in the process of turning - the cyclist should have stopped - or overtaken on the outside - there was no cycle lane! Then there was one who was weaving in and out of three buses stopped and pulling out of bus stops in slow moving traffic near a busy junction - very silly behaviour - then there was a cyclist who pulled straight out of a turning into a cycle lane without looking and nearly knocked another cyclist off their bike - that cyclist had to swerve into the path of cars travelling along the road at the road speed of 30 mph to avoid being knocked off by a fellow cyclist who did not give way! Luyckily I had sort of anticipated what was happening and had been passing wiht plenty of room so he did not hit me! I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am anti very silly cyclists who had no road sense or think that they have right of way all the time when they do not! We all have ot use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be toleralnt of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured!
What exactly has that little rant got to do with this? Guilt by association? The guy was hit deliberately because someone else percieved they had more right to the road than he instead of obeying the highway code.
downfader wrote: "The guy was hit deliberately because someone else percieved they had more right to the road than he instead of obeying the highway code".

I would hazard a guess that he was hit because he gave a ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Not a very sensible thing to do as you never know how the other person will react, whether it is a vehicle related incident or not. I'm not saying it is right but in this day and age it is sensible to curb the natural tendancy to respond.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigglygrilly[/bold] wrote: I have seen some very stupid cyclists with apparent death wishes this week - doing very silly things like going up the inside of a car turning left then shouting at the car because they had the audacity to turn left - the car was clearly indicating and was in the process of turning - the cyclist should have stopped - or overtaken on the outside - there was no cycle lane! Then there was one who was weaving in and out of three buses stopped and pulling out of bus stops in slow moving traffic near a busy junction - very silly behaviour - then there was a cyclist who pulled straight out of a turning into a cycle lane without looking and nearly knocked another cyclist off their bike - that cyclist had to swerve into the path of cars travelling along the road at the road speed of 30 mph to avoid being knocked off by a fellow cyclist who did not give way! Luyckily I had sort of anticipated what was happening and had been passing wiht plenty of room so he did not hit me! I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am anti very silly cyclists who had no road sense or think that they have right of way all the time when they do not! We all have ot use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be toleralnt of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured![/p][/quote]What exactly has that little rant got to do with this? Guilt by association? The guy was hit deliberately because someone else percieved they had more right to the road than he instead of obeying the highway code.[/p][/quote]downfader wrote: "The guy was hit deliberately because someone else percieved they had more right to the road than he instead of obeying the highway code". I would hazard a guess that he was hit because he gave a ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Not a very sensible thing to do as you never know how the other person will react, whether it is a vehicle related incident or not. I'm not saying it is right but in this day and age it is sensible to curb the natural tendancy to respond. rayc

12:13pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Skyrah says...

Firstly let me say I wish mr Roberts a speedy recovery from this disgraceful incident. I suspect that as a member of a cycling club and regular cyclist he has a better understanding of the highway code than the idiots who get a cheap bike, ride in the middle of the road at midnight with a black hoodie and no lights! Probably has insurance too! Ok, acted in an inflammatory manner with te v sign, but I'm not aware of this carrying a potential death sentence!

I agree with much of what Goldbar has to say, and would just like to add that if cyclists had to pass a proficiency test and carry insurance the funds raised could go a long way toward policing those cycle idiots that have led to so much animosity against cyclists in general! Why should a cyclist be able to get away with causing accidents, injury and damage to property?

Bit more respect and tolerance all round is required, our roads continue to get busier and more dangerous for all users. With this in mind ALL road users (including pedestrians) should have the full force of the law upon them when they fail to respect other road users and put their own and others at risk.
Firstly let me say I wish mr Roberts a speedy recovery from this disgraceful incident. I suspect that as a member of a cycling club and regular cyclist he has a better understanding of the highway code than the idiots who get a cheap bike, ride in the middle of the road at midnight with a black hoodie and no lights! Probably has insurance too! Ok, acted in an inflammatory manner with te v sign, but I'm not aware of this carrying a potential death sentence! I agree with much of what Goldbar has to say, and would just like to add that if cyclists had to pass a proficiency test and carry insurance the funds raised could go a long way toward policing those cycle idiots that have led to so much animosity against cyclists in general! Why should a cyclist be able to get away with causing accidents, injury and damage to property? Bit more respect and tolerance all round is required, our roads continue to get busier and more dangerous for all users. With this in mind ALL road users (including pedestrians) should have the full force of the law upon them when they fail to respect other road users and put their own and others at risk. Skyrah

12:13pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Skyrah says...

Firstly let me say I wish mr Roberts a speedy recovery from this disgraceful incident. I suspect that as a member of a cycling club and regular cyclist he has a better understanding of the highway code than the idiots who get a cheap bike, ride in the middle of the road at midnight with a black hoodie and no lights! Probably has insurance too! Ok, acted in an inflammatory manner with te v sign, but I'm not aware of this carrying a potential death sentence!

I agree with much of what Goldbar has to say, and would just like to add that if cyclists had to pass a proficiency test and carry insurance the funds raised could go a long way toward policing those cycle idiots that have led to so much animosity against cyclists in general! Why should a cyclist be able to get away with causing accidents, injury and damage to property?

Bit more respect and tolerance all round is required, our roads continue to get busier and more dangerous for all users. With this in mind ALL road users (including pedestrians) should have the full force of the law upon them when they fail to respect other road users and put their own and others at risk.
Firstly let me say I wish mr Roberts a speedy recovery from this disgraceful incident. I suspect that as a member of a cycling club and regular cyclist he has a better understanding of the highway code than the idiots who get a cheap bike, ride in the middle of the road at midnight with a black hoodie and no lights! Probably has insurance too! Ok, acted in an inflammatory manner with te v sign, but I'm not aware of this carrying a potential death sentence! I agree with much of what Goldbar has to say, and would just like to add that if cyclists had to pass a proficiency test and carry insurance the funds raised could go a long way toward policing those cycle idiots that have led to so much animosity against cyclists in general! Why should a cyclist be able to get away with causing accidents, injury and damage to property? Bit more respect and tolerance all round is required, our roads continue to get busier and more dangerous for all users. With this in mind ALL road users (including pedestrians) should have the full force of the law upon them when they fail to respect other road users and put their own and others at risk. Skyrah

12:16pm Sat 17 Sep 11

bourne free says...

why has this taken 6 days to go public , if he was grockle he will be well gone by now ????????????
why has this taken 6 days to go public , if he was grockle he will be well gone by now ???????????? bourne free

12:16pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Bournefre says...

How is making obscene hand gestures in any way helpful? The same goes for motorists who honk their horn to show their displeasure at other road users; if you're going to deliberately antogonise people then you need to be prepared for their reaction. I'm not saying the motorist was 'right' to knock 43-year-old Stephen Roberts off his bike, but if he had swallowed his pride and written the incident off as a miscalculation of judgement or 'accident' then he wouldn't now have a broken collarbone.
How is making obscene hand gestures in any way helpful? The same goes for motorists who honk their horn to show their displeasure at other road users; if you're going to deliberately antogonise people then you need to be prepared for their reaction. I'm not saying the motorist was 'right' to knock 43-year-old Stephen Roberts off his bike, but if he had swallowed his pride and written the incident off as a miscalculation of judgement or 'accident' then he wouldn't now have a broken collarbone. Bournefre

12:17pm Sat 17 Sep 11

bourne free says...

why has this taken 6 days to go public , if he was grockle he will be well gone by now ????????????
why has this taken 6 days to go public , if he was grockle he will be well gone by now ???????????? bourne free

12:21pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Veryhappyincomer says...

I've got to confess that I get annoyed at these stories. The problem appears to be a general lack of acceptance of the other persons rights on one side exacerbated by a disregard for the rules of the road on the the other.
.
When I first arrived on the south coast I bought a bike to commute to work and I'll freely admit that I didn't particulaly enjoy it, buying a car at the first opportunity. However as a motorist and as a pedestrian my dislike of some cyclists doesn't come from my dislike of cycling - each to their own.
.
My late father was a professional driver for 40 years, HGV, PSV and for 30 years a driving instructor, yet his one motoring conviction was as a 14-year old in 1956 - speeding on a push bike. He was fined 10/- by a magistrate. My maternal grandfather never learned to drive, and for years used to cycle to work.
.
My point is that then cycling was considered to be normal, and that cyclists had to obey the rules of the road, or else the full force of the law came down onto them. Many cyclists today consider themselves to be virtuous for cycling, and that normal road rules don't apply to them, and that does appear to be the case as the police tend not to prosecute cyclists. Conversely I would suppose that many cyclists do obey the rules of the road, but motorists tend to remember the first and not the second.
.
Therefore in this case the cyclist giving a rude gesture to the motorist probably just reinforced the car driver's predjudices, resulting in him ramming the cyclist off the road. The cyclist may have been in the right, assuming that this has been reported correctly, but as far as the motorist is concerned this is probably irrelevant due to the cyclist's response. As far as the car driver is concerned, the cyclist "got what he deserved". As far as the rest of us are concerned, again assuming that this has been reported correctly, the car driver needs to be taken off the roads asap.
.
Going back to my earlier point, these sort of things will continue to happen whilst cyclists consider themselves to be "special" and they continue to get away with ignoring the rules of the road. Once cycling is considered to be "normal", with proper enforcement of the law against cyclists if they break it, then the resentment will disappear and these sort of incidents might not happen again.
.
Sadly I suspect that cycling might become more popular, or "normal", for the wrong reason - economic circumstances
I've got to confess that I get annoyed at these stories. The problem appears to be a general lack of acceptance of the other persons rights on one side exacerbated by a disregard for the rules of the road on the the other. . When I first arrived on the south coast I bought a bike to commute to work and I'll freely admit that I didn't particulaly enjoy it, buying a car at the first opportunity. However as a motorist and as a pedestrian my dislike of some cyclists doesn't come from my dislike of cycling - each to their own. . My late father was a professional driver for 40 years, HGV, PSV and for 30 years a driving instructor, yet his one motoring conviction was as a 14-year old in 1956 - speeding on a push bike. He was fined 10/- by a magistrate. My maternal grandfather never learned to drive, and for years used to cycle to work. . My point is that then cycling was considered to be normal, and that cyclists had to obey the rules of the road, or else the full force of the law came down onto them. Many cyclists today consider themselves to be virtuous for cycling, and that normal road rules don't apply to them, and that does appear to be the case as the police tend not to prosecute cyclists. Conversely I would suppose that many cyclists do obey the rules of the road, but motorists tend to remember the first and not the second. . Therefore in this case the cyclist giving a rude gesture to the motorist probably just reinforced the car driver's predjudices, resulting in him ramming the cyclist off the road. The cyclist may have been in the right, assuming that this has been reported correctly, but as far as the motorist is concerned this is probably irrelevant due to the cyclist's response. As far as the car driver is concerned, the cyclist "got what he deserved". As far as the rest of us are concerned, again assuming that this has been reported correctly, the car driver needs to be taken off the roads asap. . Going back to my earlier point, these sort of things will continue to happen whilst cyclists consider themselves to be "special" and they continue to get away with ignoring the rules of the road. Once cycling is considered to be "normal", with proper enforcement of the law against cyclists if they break it, then the resentment will disappear and these sort of incidents might not happen again. . Sadly I suspect that cycling might become more popular, or "normal", for the wrong reason - economic circumstances Veryhappyincomer

12:25pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Goldbar says...

Firstly I don't support any of the ridiculous goings on
"v" signs, being spat at , being knocked off your bike etc

lol @downfader

Really I think it might be you who lives in a fanstasy.

"Guilt by association" - total B.s.

The only thing I am guilty of is speaking my mind and drawing attention to actual events that other chose to shy away from mentioning in this politically correct world where the minority opinion rules

as for your figures - they are the reported figures - what next in your world a crime is only a crime if its reported -
Firstly I don't support any of the ridiculous goings on "v" signs, being spat at , being knocked off your bike etc lol @downfader Really I think it might be you who lives in a fanstasy. "Guilt by association" - total B.s. The only thing I am guilty of is speaking my mind and drawing attention to actual events that other chose to shy away from mentioning in this politically correct world where the minority opinion rules as for your figures - they are the reported figures - what next in your world a crime is only a crime if its reported - Goldbar

12:45pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Yes Sir says...

Let’s include Motability scooters in the proposal to tax, insure and MOT cycles.

These dangerous scooter drivers seem to think they can drive the wrong way on the road, in and out of traffic, no lights, bash into you in supermarkets etc etc and some use them because they’re just too lazy to walk. It’s about time the Highway Code was brought up to date and included these belligerent riders.

Phew that got that of my chest!

Hope you mend well Stephen and the alleged passenger in the car has a conscience and reports the driver and then you can claim loads of money off his insurance, and get this ignorant fool off the road. The only thing I would advise not to do though is to give a two finger gesture, it’s not worth it.
Let’s include Motability scooters in the proposal to tax, insure and MOT cycles. These dangerous scooter drivers seem to think they can drive the wrong way on the road, in and out of traffic, no lights, bash into you in supermarkets etc etc and some use them because they’re just too lazy to walk. It’s about time the Highway Code was brought up to date and included these belligerent riders. Phew that got that of my chest! Hope you mend well Stephen and the alleged passenger in the car has a conscience and reports the driver and then you can claim loads of money off his insurance, and get this ignorant fool off the road. The only thing I would advise not to do though is to give a two finger gesture, it’s not worth it. Yes Sir

12:48pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Bournehammer68 says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!!

Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days.

Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too.

Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up.

If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: -

Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads)
Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!!

Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about.

Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner

I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there.

How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ?

Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
wrong wrong wrong. you have the opportunity to drive without paying any road tax (vehicle excise licence) it's your choice to drive a car that incurs this tax. There are options such as the ones on this link:
www.roadtaxprices.co
.uk/Free_Road_Tax_Ca
rs.htm

@nigglygrilly. exactly how long ago did you pass your test? do the words Mirror, Signal Manouvere mean anything to you? it is part of proper driving to check your left wing mirror before even pulling away from a stationary position let alone turning left!
It really is a shame that so many drivers have indicators that don't work!
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]wrong wrong wrong. you have the opportunity to drive without paying any road tax (vehicle excise licence) it's your choice to drive a car that incurs this tax. There are options such as the ones on this link: www.roadtaxprices.co .uk/Free_Road_Tax_Ca rs.htm @nigglygrilly. exactly how long ago did you pass your test? do the words Mirror, Signal Manouvere mean anything to you? it is part of proper driving to check your left wing mirror before even pulling away from a stationary position let alone turning left! It really is a shame that so many drivers have indicators that don't work! Bournehammer68

12:48pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Goldbar says...

itsallaboutthebike wrote:
Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.
lol @ comment

Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it.

I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story


But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthebike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!!
[quote][p][bold]itsallaboutthebike[/bold] wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.[/p][/quote]lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthebike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!! Goldbar

1:28pm Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

OK lets use logic to assess testing - we'll take a previous example and apply it as a template to possible cycling tests shall we?

Motorists undertake a test. However the evidence shows quite clearly that mobile phone use has risen in the past few years

- in Oct 2010 the RAC found a rise by 20%
( http://media.rac.co.
uk/pdf/rac-rom-2010-
06-14.pdf )

- Speeding. 82% of drivers surveyed by the IAM admitted to willfully breaking the speed limit. Remember that speeding increases the chances of a KSI, even to said driver. It hinders the elderly, the disabled and the very young from crossing the road safely.

( http://news.sky.com/
home/uk-news/article
/15368914 )

The test has not rectified this. How will it rectify bad cycling? It is a strawman.

Goldbar suggests that these problems are not reported. If there indeed was a problem you would see a correlation in the numbers with a rise in KSIs and collisions, causality gets documented by the Police with stats19 reporting procedures.

This hasnt happened.

In reality this isnt antimotorist either. Data is impartial.
OK lets use logic to assess testing - we'll take a previous example and apply it as a template to possible cycling tests shall we? Motorists undertake a test. However the evidence shows quite clearly that mobile phone use has risen in the past few years - in Oct 2010 the RAC found a rise by 20% ( http://media.rac.co. uk/pdf/rac-rom-2010- 06-14.pdf ) - Speeding. 82% of drivers surveyed by the IAM admitted to willfully breaking the speed limit. Remember that speeding increases the chances of a KSI, even to said driver. It hinders the elderly, the disabled and the very young from crossing the road safely. ( http://news.sky.com/ home/uk-news/article /15368914 ) The test has not rectified this. How will it rectify bad cycling? It is a strawman. Goldbar suggests that these problems are not reported. If there indeed was a problem you would see a correlation in the numbers with a rise in KSIs and collisions, causality gets documented by the Police with stats19 reporting procedures. This hasnt happened. In reality this isnt antimotorist either. Data is impartial. downfader

2:36pm Sat 17 Sep 11

TheDistrict says...

Havinhg read the stories and comments above, in my opinion had the driver of the car had not driven too close to the cyclist, then the cyclist would probably have not made the V sign gesture, and then the car driver would not have returned and knock the gentleman off his bike.
.
However, what is obvious is that if one driver committs an offence all drivers are the same. If one cyclist committs a gesture, then all cyclists are the same. Of course this is a stupid comment.
.
Not all cyclists are the same, but there are a lot out there who do not have any regard for the use of roads, other roads users, or the highway code. As I have said before, I have seen cyclists riding with headphones on, attached to their ipods or telephones. This makes them oblivious as to what is happening on the roads. No regards for road signage or traffic control.
.
In my opinion if cyclists what to use the roads in the same way, then they need to be licenced as such, or at least carry out some sort of road test.
.
Havinhg read the stories and comments above, in my opinion had the driver of the car had not driven too close to the cyclist, then the cyclist would probably have not made the V sign gesture, and then the car driver would not have returned and knock the gentleman off his bike. . However, what is obvious is that if one driver committs an offence all drivers are the same. If one cyclist committs a gesture, then all cyclists are the same. Of course this is a stupid comment. . Not all cyclists are the same, but there are a lot out there who do not have any regard for the use of roads, other roads users, or the highway code. As I have said before, I have seen cyclists riding with headphones on, attached to their ipods or telephones. This makes them oblivious as to what is happening on the roads. No regards for road signage or traffic control. . In my opinion if cyclists what to use the roads in the same way, then they need to be licenced as such, or at least carry out some sort of road test. . TheDistrict

2:49pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Bournehammer68 says...

@ TheDistrict.
I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely.
Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?
@ TheDistrict. I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely. Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed? Bournehammer68

2:54pm Sat 17 Sep 11

madras says...

In no way do i condone the driver's actions, but there are two sides to every story:

'...he believed he had the right of way...'

'... give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car...'

Perhaps the car driver(s) believed he had the right of way, and wasn't best pleased at the cyclist's reaction

Seriously, some people (ie the car driver) have no concept of reasonable behaviour/ appropriate response and best not do anything to risk antagonising them, pond life that they are...
In no way do i condone the driver's actions, but there are two sides to every story: '...he believed he had the right of way...' '... give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car...' Perhaps the car driver(s) believed he had the right of way, and wasn't best pleased at the cyclist's reaction Seriously, some people (ie the car driver) have no concept of reasonable behaviour/ appropriate response and best not do anything to risk antagonising them, pond life that they are... madras

2:54pm Sat 17 Sep 11

madras says...

In no way do i condone the driver's actions, but there are two sides to every story:

'...he believed he had the right of way...'

'... give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car...'

Perhaps the car driver(s) believed he had the right of way, and wasn't best pleased at the cyclist's reaction

Seriously, some people (ie the car driver) have no concept of reasonable behaviour/ appropriate response and best not do anything to risk antagonising them, pond life that they are...
In no way do i condone the driver's actions, but there are two sides to every story: '...he believed he had the right of way...' '... give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car...' Perhaps the car driver(s) believed he had the right of way, and wasn't best pleased at the cyclist's reaction Seriously, some people (ie the car driver) have no concept of reasonable behaviour/ appropriate response and best not do anything to risk antagonising them, pond life that they are... madras

3:05pm Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Havinhg read the stories and comments above, in my opinion had the driver of the car had not driven too close to the cyclist, then the cyclist would probably have not made the V sign gesture, and then the car driver would not have returned and knock the gentleman off his bike. . However, what is obvious is that if one driver committs an offence all drivers are the same. If one cyclist committs a gesture, then all cyclists are the same. Of course this is a stupid comment. . Not all cyclists are the same, but there are a lot out there who do not have any regard for the use of roads, other roads users, or the highway code. As I have said before, I have seen cyclists riding with headphones on, attached to their ipods or telephones. This makes them oblivious as to what is happening on the roads. No regards for road signage or traffic control. . In my opinion if cyclists what to use the roads in the same way, then they need to be licenced as such, or at least carry out some sort of road test. .
See my comment immediately above yours. I've already answered the call for licensing/testing.

None of the cyclists here have suggested that all drivers are the same... but there has been suggestion that if cyclists want safety and respect that every one of us has to behave. This is never going to happen.

Why should the law-abiding suffer because of a minority?

We need more Police. Thats the simple fact. These Police also need better guidelines to follow (it would be good if Forces who respond to cycling related incidents had an in-house expert or officer to guide them). The CPS also needs to change and adapt, as do the sentencing guidelines - its a cumulative effect that has slowly eroded good road use in the UK.

I have read that in the States they have Traffic Courts specifically to deal with issues in some areas, with Judges that are specific to those laws. This could be a way to go here in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Havinhg read the stories and comments above, in my opinion had the driver of the car had not driven too close to the cyclist, then the cyclist would probably have not made the V sign gesture, and then the car driver would not have returned and knock the gentleman off his bike. . However, what is obvious is that if one driver committs an offence all drivers are the same. If one cyclist committs a gesture, then all cyclists are the same. Of course this is a stupid comment. . Not all cyclists are the same, but there are a lot out there who do not have any regard for the use of roads, other roads users, or the highway code. As I have said before, I have seen cyclists riding with headphones on, attached to their ipods or telephones. This makes them oblivious as to what is happening on the roads. No regards for road signage or traffic control. . In my opinion if cyclists what to use the roads in the same way, then they need to be licenced as such, or at least carry out some sort of road test. .[/p][/quote]See my comment immediately above yours. I've already answered the call for licensing/testing. None of the cyclists here have suggested that all drivers are the same... but there has been suggestion that if cyclists want safety and respect that every one of us has to behave. This is never going to happen. Why should the law-abiding suffer because of a minority? We need more Police. Thats the simple fact. These Police also need better guidelines to follow (it would be good if Forces who respond to cycling related incidents had an in-house expert or officer to guide them). The CPS also needs to change and adapt, as do the sentencing guidelines - its a cumulative effect that has slowly eroded good road use in the UK. I have read that in the States they have Traffic Courts specifically to deal with issues in some areas, with Judges that are specific to those laws. This could be a way to go here in the UK. downfader

3:50pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Jetwasher says...

If it helps , where theres a blame theres a claim ..
If it helps , where theres a blame theres a claim .. Jetwasher

5:08pm Sat 17 Sep 11

WIGGINSv says...

You want to try walking along the prom between Fishermans and Boscombe - especially now that it has narrowed in width due to the sand storms - some of the lycra clad buffoons seem to get a great thrill getting as close to pedestrians as they possibly can and heaven forfend that they should ride a little more cautiously in these restricted conditions.
You want to try walking along the prom between Fishermans and Boscombe - especially now that it has narrowed in width due to the sand storms - some of the lycra clad buffoons seem to get a great thrill getting as close to pedestrians as they possibly can and heaven forfend that they should ride a little more cautiously in these restricted conditions. WIGGINSv

5:10pm Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

WIGGINSv wrote:
You want to try walking along the prom between Fishermans and Boscombe - especially now that it has narrowed in width due to the sand storms - some of the lycra clad buffoons seem to get a great thrill getting as close to pedestrians as they possibly can and heaven forfend that they should ride a little more cautiously in these restricted conditions.
Again, what has that got to do with this?
[quote][p][bold]WIGGINSv[/bold] wrote: You want to try walking along the prom between Fishermans and Boscombe - especially now that it has narrowed in width due to the sand storms - some of the lycra clad buffoons seem to get a great thrill getting as close to pedestrians as they possibly can and heaven forfend that they should ride a little more cautiously in these restricted conditions.[/p][/quote]Again, what has that got to do with this? downfader

5:54pm Sat 17 Sep 11

bmb says...

Good grief even if the car driver did believe it was his right of way and didn't take kindly to having the v sign thrown his way that does not give him the right to deliberately knock the guy off his bike! He could have killed him, making it a serious assault imo.

I'm a driver, not a cyclist. Yes we've all seen bad cyclists but we have all seen bad drivers too. Whoever was right or wrong in the giving way stakes it does not change the fact that the driver crossed a line in this instance and used his car as a weapon. Let's hope those seemingly defending never cross him on the road...

Hope the cyclist makes a full recovery & that the driver does the decent thing and admits his disgraceful behaviour to the authorities.
Good grief even if the car driver did believe it was his right of way and didn't take kindly to having the v sign thrown his way that does not give him the right to deliberately knock the guy off his bike! He could have killed him, making it a serious assault imo. I'm a driver, not a cyclist. Yes we've all seen bad cyclists but we have all seen bad drivers too. Whoever was right or wrong in the giving way stakes it does not change the fact that the driver crossed a line in this instance and used his car as a weapon. Let's hope those seemingly defending never cross him on the road... Hope the cyclist makes a full recovery & that the driver does the decent thing and admits his disgraceful behaviour to the authorities. bmb

6:10pm Sat 17 Sep 11

nigglygrilly says...

@nigglygrilly. exactly how long ago did you pass your test? do the words Mirror, Signal Manouvere mean anything to you? it is part of proper driving to check your left wing mirror before even pulling away from a stationary position let alone turning left!
It really is a shame that so many drivers have indicators that don't work!


The car was already turning when the cyclist came up to go up his inside - the Car was moving - the cyclist should not go up the insde - the cyclist would not have been in his mirror as the car was 1/3 of the way round the corner!


As for previous comments about my "rant - it was by no means a rant - just trying to point out some of the idiots I have seen on cycles recently - none of us are perfect road users - we all make mistakes but these examples are of idiots who cuase problems by the way they cycle and probably wind some drivers up by doing so.
And if you read my post properly you'd have seen that I finished by saying that: We all have to use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be tolerant of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured! (Meaning both car and cycle users)
@nigglygrilly. exactly how long ago did you pass your test? do the words Mirror, Signal Manouvere mean anything to you? it is part of proper driving to check your left wing mirror before even pulling away from a stationary position let alone turning left! It really is a shame that so many drivers have indicators that don't work! The car was already turning when the cyclist came up to go up his inside - the Car was moving - the cyclist should not go up the insde - the cyclist would not have been in his mirror as the car was 1/3 of the way round the corner! As for previous comments about my "rant - it was by no means a rant - just trying to point out some of the idiots I have seen on cycles recently - none of us are perfect road users - we all make mistakes but these examples are of idiots who cuase problems by the way they cycle and probably wind some drivers up by doing so. And if you read my post properly you'd have seen that I finished by saying that: We all have to use the road and we all have to give way to each other and be tolerant of each other but silliness will get you killed or badly injured! (Meaning both car and cycle users) nigglygrilly

6:21pm Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

bmb wrote:
Good grief even if the car driver did believe it was his right of way and didn't take kindly to having the v sign thrown his way that does not give him the right to deliberately knock the guy off his bike! He could have killed him, making it a serious assault imo. I'm a driver, not a cyclist. Yes we've all seen bad cyclists but we have all seen bad drivers too. Whoever was right or wrong in the giving way stakes it does not change the fact that the driver crossed a line in this instance and used his car as a weapon. Let's hope those seemingly defending never cross him on the road... Hope the cyclist makes a full recovery & that the driver does the decent thing and admits his disgraceful behaviour to the authorities.
Well said!
[quote][p][bold]bmb[/bold] wrote: Good grief even if the car driver did believe it was his right of way and didn't take kindly to having the v sign thrown his way that does not give him the right to deliberately knock the guy off his bike! He could have killed him, making it a serious assault imo. I'm a driver, not a cyclist. Yes we've all seen bad cyclists but we have all seen bad drivers too. Whoever was right or wrong in the giving way stakes it does not change the fact that the driver crossed a line in this instance and used his car as a weapon. Let's hope those seemingly defending never cross him on the road... Hope the cyclist makes a full recovery & that the driver does the decent thing and admits his disgraceful behaviour to the authorities.[/p][/quote]Well said! downfader

6:58pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Was Charlie says...

Only a thug deliberately tries to harm another person. Anyone knows that if a car hits a cyclist, the cycle will probably be damaged and the cyclist could be be injured, possibly seriously, but the car driver won't have a scratch on him.
......
So whatever you think about cyclists, car drivers or anyone else using the road, this driver is a thug. Hope they catch him.
Only a thug deliberately tries to harm another person. Anyone knows that if a car hits a cyclist, the cycle will probably be damaged and the cyclist could be be injured, possibly seriously, but the car driver won't have a scratch on him. ...... So whatever you think about cyclists, car drivers or anyone else using the road, this driver is a thug. Hope they catch him. Was Charlie

7:07pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Brock_and_Roll says...

Can anyone help me with my problem....? I am a mild mannered middle aged guy who is totally comfortable with all races, religions and sexualities but for some reason I seem to have this deep seated and bizarre predjudice against men that goes out clad from head to toe in luminous ad-endorsed lycra.........! Just can't help myself...am I alone out there?
Can anyone help me with my problem....? I am a mild mannered middle aged guy who is totally comfortable with all races, religions and sexualities but for some reason I seem to have this deep seated and bizarre predjudice against men that goes out clad from head to toe in luminous ad-endorsed lycra.........! Just can't help myself...am I alone out there? Brock_and_Roll

7:11pm Sat 17 Sep 11

downfader says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Can anyone help me with my problem....? I am a mild mannered middle aged guy who is totally comfortable with all races, religions and sexualities but for some reason I seem to have this deep seated and bizarre predjudice against men that goes out clad from head to toe in luminous ad-endorsed lycra.........! Just can't help myself...am I alone out there?
I resisted lycra for nearly 20 years. After 3 years of wearing it I now see why others have done so.

Its comfortable, often bright, gets rid of sweat on longer rides.

Its also no different to anyone wearing a footie shirt.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Can anyone help me with my problem....? I am a mild mannered middle aged guy who is totally comfortable with all races, religions and sexualities but for some reason I seem to have this deep seated and bizarre predjudice against men that goes out clad from head to toe in luminous ad-endorsed lycra.........! Just can't help myself...am I alone out there?[/p][/quote]I resisted lycra for nearly 20 years. After 3 years of wearing it I now see why others have done so. Its comfortable, often bright, gets rid of sweat on longer rides. Its also no different to anyone wearing a footie shirt. downfader

7:15pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Brock_and_Roll says...

I think its a secret BDSM desire on my part!
I think its a secret BDSM desire on my part! Brock_and_Roll

8:12pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Ollieblog says...

When your life is threatened sometimes you react instinctively and swear, stick a finger up whatever. Whoever deliberately drove at a cyclist needs locking up - no decent person would react in that way.
When your life is threatened sometimes you react instinctively and swear, stick a finger up whatever. Whoever deliberately drove at a cyclist needs locking up - no decent person would react in that way. Ollieblog

8:18pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Vikki27 says...

As a frequent cyclist, I can honestly say that the way many drivers respond to a cyclist, even when they're obeying every road safety rule going, can be awful!! I have a beautiful pink bike, which I love, but I've had so much abuse shouted at me from drivers that it's difficult for me to cycle on main roads.

The last time I cycled along Ashley Road, I got yelled at by three different cars, even though I was cycling right up against the pavement. So I gave up in the end and went on the pavement (I know, I know, but if you ever tried cycling on Ashley Road in rush-hour traffic, you'd want to do the same, I'm afraid) and of course, got abuse from the only pedestrian on the pavement. Even when I cycle in a cycle lane on the pavement, a lot of pedestrians shout at me!

So I can't win! I now cycle a different route, taking all the back roads, so I avoid most of the cars.

The one thing I will say against other cyclists is that I've only once so far seen a cyclist stop at a red light. Every other cyclist I've EVER seen on the roads just cycles straight through it. Just because your transportation doesn't have a motor does NOT mean you can ignore basic road-safety rules. Traffic lights are there to stop you getting hurt, so why do you ignore them!?!?

Anyway, I completely agree with whoever it was who said that cyclists should have to take a test to legally cycle on the road hit the nail on the head. Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with doing it at all and it would give police more power to prevent people from cycling like numpties (and yes, occasionally myself included!).

I really hope that the poor cyclist makes a quick recovery. I don't care who this awful driver is or whatever else happened in his life, he had NO right to act as judge and jury for a cyclist flicking the v's at him. If he has a conscience then I hope it kicks in soon and he turns himself in because seriously, you need some serious anger therapy.
As a frequent cyclist, I can honestly say that the way many drivers respond to a cyclist, even when they're obeying every road safety rule going, can be awful!! I have a beautiful pink bike, which I love, but I've had so much abuse shouted at me from drivers that it's difficult for me to cycle on main roads. The last time I cycled along Ashley Road, I got yelled at by three different cars, even though I was cycling right up against the pavement. So I gave up in the end and went on the pavement (I know, I know, but if you ever tried cycling on Ashley Road in rush-hour traffic, you'd want to do the same, I'm afraid) and of course, got abuse from the only pedestrian on the pavement. Even when I cycle in a cycle lane on the pavement, a lot of pedestrians shout at me! So I can't win! I now cycle a different route, taking all the back roads, so I avoid most of the cars. The one thing I will say against other cyclists is that I've only once so far seen a cyclist stop at a red light. Every other cyclist I've EVER seen on the roads just cycles straight through it. Just because your transportation doesn't have a motor does NOT mean you can ignore basic road-safety rules. Traffic lights are there to stop you getting hurt, so why do you ignore them!?!? Anyway, I completely agree with whoever it was who said that cyclists should have to take a test to legally cycle on the road hit the nail on the head. Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with doing it at all and it would give police more power to prevent people from cycling like numpties (and yes, occasionally myself included!). I really hope that the poor cyclist makes a quick recovery. I don't care who this awful driver is or whatever else happened in his life, he had NO right to act as judge and jury for a cyclist flicking the v's at him. If he has a conscience then I hope it kicks in soon and he turns himself in because seriously, you need some serious anger therapy. Vikki27

8:22pm Sat 17 Sep 11

darren_55 says...

Rich_Enduro wrote:
strange how this indecent could of quite easily of ended with a fatality but some of the above comments are more interested in criticising cyclists breaking minor highway codes than focusing on the maniac who could of killed someone.
when you look at the statistics, a huge number of drivers break the law and the focus needs to be on them, they are the ones who kill people, not cyclists. i agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours but this focus here is getting this driver off the road at the least.
Spot on.

Drivers kill people. Cyclists do not. It really is that simple.

Research by Direct Line shows that reckless motorists drive through 12 million red lights a month, amounting to 278 every minute.

40 pedestrians are killed every year by car drivers that have crossed onto the pavement.
[quote][p][bold]Rich_Enduro[/bold] wrote: strange how this indecent could of quite easily of ended with a fatality but some of the above comments are more interested in criticising cyclists breaking minor highway codes than focusing on the maniac who could of killed someone. when you look at the statistics, a huge number of drivers break the law and the focus needs to be on them, they are the ones who kill people, not cyclists. i agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours but this focus here is getting this driver off the road at the least.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Drivers kill people. Cyclists do not. It really is that simple. Research by Direct Line shows that reckless motorists drive through 12 million red lights a month, amounting to 278 every minute. 40 pedestrians are killed every year by car drivers that have crossed onto the pavement. darren_55

9:28pm Sat 17 Sep 11

udaku says...

Cycling on the roads in this area is too dangerous, seems obvious.

Udakus rules of cyclist survival:

1. Avoid busy roads at all costs. Plan your journey well and with a little creativity car free routes can be found. We really are quite spoilt. Car drivers are human, they make mistakes. It ain't worth dying for.

2. Ignore abuse (expect it). Helps when trying to stay happy. Smile and say hello.Wearing headphones is good for this.

3. Remember your bloods up after exersize so avoid confrontation. Shameful behavior may result from adrenelin fueled anger. Breathe, ahh!

Unpleasant occurences on the roads can make a person feel perturbed, so why put yourself through them unnecessarily. Cycling can be far more enjoyable than driving, though it may seem hard to believe.

Give way to cars, humility. Some drivers/cyclists go out looking for trouble.
Cycling on the roads in this area is too dangerous, seems obvious. Udakus rules of cyclist survival: 1. Avoid busy roads at all costs. Plan your journey well and with a little creativity car free routes can be found. We really are quite spoilt. Car drivers are human, they make mistakes. It ain't worth dying for. 2. Ignore abuse (expect it). Helps when trying to stay happy. Smile and say hello.Wearing headphones is good for this. 3. Remember your bloods up after exersize so avoid confrontation. Shameful behavior may result from adrenelin fueled anger. Breathe, ahh! Unpleasant occurences on the roads can make a person feel perturbed, so why put yourself through them unnecessarily. Cycling can be far more enjoyable than driving, though it may seem hard to believe. Give way to cars, humility. Some drivers/cyclists go out looking for trouble. udaku

3:48am Sun 18 Sep 11

PigWhistle0709 says...

Nice to see the Echo getting onto a six-day old story on Saturday, now that it has been on the front of the (weekly) New Milton Advertiser on Friday.
Nice to see the Echo getting onto a six-day old story on Saturday, now that it has been on the front of the (weekly) New Milton Advertiser on Friday. PigWhistle0709

8:43am Sun 18 Sep 11

iampuzzled says...

Rich_Enduro says...
11:32am Sat 17 Sep 11
strange how this indecent could of quite easily of
Did Rich_Enduro really mean this or should it have been written in English - strange how this incident could have quite easily have - etc. I don't understand why 'of' is substituted for 'have' in the comment, is it taught like that in schools nowadays?
At the end of the day, whoever was 'in the right' in this incident, when a car and bike impact, is is 99% sure that the bike rider will come off worst.
I do not agree with the driver's action.
Rich_Enduro says... 11:32am Sat 17 Sep 11 strange how this indecent could of quite easily of Did Rich_Enduro really mean this or should it have been written in English - strange how this incident could have quite easily have - etc. I don't understand why 'of' is substituted for 'have' in the comment, is it taught like that in schools nowadays? At the end of the day, whoever was 'in the right' in this incident, when a car and bike impact, is is 99% sure that the bike rider will come off worst. I do not agree with the driver's action. iampuzzled

9:04am Sun 18 Sep 11

Micks49 says...

accidents do happen on the highway but when a driver turns that car around goes after another road user, the red-mist has come down, it is premediated and the vehicle becomes a weapon
That car driver has no place on the public highway
accidents do happen on the highway but when a driver turns that car around goes after another road user, the red-mist has come down, it is premediated and the vehicle becomes a weapon That car driver has no place on the public highway Micks49

9:26am Sun 18 Sep 11

rayc says...

darren_55 wrote:
Rich_Enduro wrote: strange how this indecent could of quite easily of ended with a fatality but some of the above comments are more interested in criticising cyclists breaking minor highway codes than focusing on the maniac who could of killed someone. when you look at the statistics, a huge number of drivers break the law and the focus needs to be on them, they are the ones who kill people, not cyclists. i agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours but this focus here is getting this driver off the road at the least.
Spot on. Drivers kill people. Cyclists do not. It really is that simple. Research by Direct Line shows that reckless motorists drive through 12 million red lights a month, amounting to 278 every minute. 40 pedestrians are killed every year by car drivers that have crossed onto the pavement.
darren_55 wrote "Research by Direct Line shows that reckless motorists drive through 12 million red lights a month, amounting to 278 every minute".

Direct Line came to that conclusion by interviewing a random sample of 2020 adults aged 18+.
If 12 million motorists a year are atually driving through red lights then we may as well do away with Red Light Cameras as tere appearsto be no corellation between jumping the lights and accidents.
[quote][p][bold]darren_55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rich_Enduro[/bold] wrote: strange how this indecent could of quite easily of ended with a fatality but some of the above comments are more interested in criticising cyclists breaking minor highway codes than focusing on the maniac who could of killed someone. when you look at the statistics, a huge number of drivers break the law and the focus needs to be on them, they are the ones who kill people, not cyclists. i agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours but this focus here is getting this driver off the road at the least.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Drivers kill people. Cyclists do not. It really is that simple. Research by Direct Line shows that reckless motorists drive through 12 million red lights a month, amounting to 278 every minute. 40 pedestrians are killed every year by car drivers that have crossed onto the pavement.[/p][/quote]darren_55 wrote "Research by Direct Line shows that reckless motorists drive through 12 million red lights a month, amounting to 278 every minute". Direct Line came to that conclusion by interviewing a random sample of 2020 adults aged 18+. If 12 million motorists a year are atually driving through red lights then we may as well do away with Red Light Cameras as tere appearsto be no corellation between jumping the lights and accidents. rayc

9:43am Sun 18 Sep 11

TheDistrict says...

Bournehammer68 wrote:
@ TheDistrict.
I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely.
Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?
I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones.
.
Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous.
.
Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen.
.
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: @ TheDistrict. I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely. Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?[/p][/quote]I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones. . Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous. . Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen. . TheDistrict

10:21am Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Bournehammer68 wrote: @ TheDistrict. I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely. Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?
I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones. . Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous. . Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen. .
Its not as clear cut as you'd imagine. They've done studies on music and distraction with drivers and if what the study proports is true then there is a large section of society that is distracted via sound.

Physical activity may actually hinder the concentration levels, we just don't know. Its not about hearing.

I wrote a letter to The Argus raising this a few weeks back:

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/archive/2011/0
7/14/Letters+to+the+
Editor+%28argus_lett
ers%29/9141151.Turn_
the_music_down_if_yo
u___re_using_the_roa
d_in_any_capacity/
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: @ TheDistrict. I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely. Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?[/p][/quote]I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones. . Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous. . Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen. .[/p][/quote]Its not as clear cut as you'd imagine. They've done studies on music and distraction with drivers and if what the study proports is true then there is a large section of society that is distracted via sound. Physical activity may actually hinder the concentration levels, we just don't know. Its not about hearing. I wrote a letter to The Argus raising this a few weeks back: http://www.theargus. co.uk/archive/2011/0 7/14/Letters+to+the+ Editor+%28argus_lett ers%29/9141151.Turn_ the_music_down_if_yo u___re_using_the_roa d_in_any_capacity/ downfader

11:29am Sun 18 Sep 11

martaaay2 says...

The driver is clearly a nutter, to be so bothered by someone sticking two fingers up to turn the car around, chase them down and knock them off (which could easily kill the cyclist), if they find the culprit he/she should be banged up and never be allowed to drive again
The driver is clearly a nutter, to be so bothered by someone sticking two fingers up to turn the car around, chase them down and knock them off (which could easily kill the cyclist), if they find the culprit he/she should be banged up and never be allowed to drive again martaaay2

11:29am Sun 18 Sep 11

fedupwithjobsworths says...

udaku wrote:
Cycling on the roads in this area is too dangerous, seems obvious.

Udakus rules of cyclist survival:

1. Avoid busy roads at all costs. Plan your journey well and with a little creativity car free routes can be found. We really are quite spoilt. Car drivers are human, they make mistakes. It ain't worth dying for.

2. Ignore abuse (expect it). Helps when trying to stay happy. Smile and say hello.Wearing headphones is good for this.

3. Remember your bloods up after exersize so avoid confrontation. Shameful behavior may result from adrenelin fueled anger. Breathe, ahh!

Unpleasant occurences on the roads can make a person feel perturbed, so why put yourself through them unnecessarily. Cycling can be far more enjoyable than driving, though it may seem hard to believe.

Give way to cars, humility. Some drivers/cyclists go out looking for trouble.
Two other rules which should be added:- Obey the Highway Code and cycle with lights on at night.
.
Getting back to the story though, I hope this lunatic driver is caught, fined and banned from driving.
[quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: Cycling on the roads in this area is too dangerous, seems obvious. Udakus rules of cyclist survival: 1. Avoid busy roads at all costs. Plan your journey well and with a little creativity car free routes can be found. We really are quite spoilt. Car drivers are human, they make mistakes. It ain't worth dying for. 2. Ignore abuse (expect it). Helps when trying to stay happy. Smile and say hello.Wearing headphones is good for this. 3. Remember your bloods up after exersize so avoid confrontation. Shameful behavior may result from adrenelin fueled anger. Breathe, ahh! Unpleasant occurences on the roads can make a person feel perturbed, so why put yourself through them unnecessarily. Cycling can be far more enjoyable than driving, though it may seem hard to believe. Give way to cars, humility. Some drivers/cyclists go out looking for trouble.[/p][/quote]Two other rules which should be added:- Obey the Highway Code and cycle with lights on at night. . Getting back to the story though, I hope this lunatic driver is caught, fined and banned from driving. fedupwithjobsworths

1:51pm Sun 18 Sep 11

Palantir says...

I have a lot of respect for cyclists as I used to cycle a lot to school and work when I was younger (and didn't have to get from Wimborne to Bournemouth most days) and can see the plight by cyclists each day. I can also see it from the motorist's side as I've seen some idiots out there (not looking before turning/pulling out, riding in dark clothes with no lights or reflectives in the dark, etc) but also a lot of more sensible people who have more respect.

Ok, so this guy shouldn't have flipped a V sign at the car, even though he was probably venting frustration at so many times before where motorists have been inconsiderate, but to then turn the car around and deliberately hit him? That should count as reckless driving, assault, dangerous driving and attempted murder (the results could well have been much worse).

Let's hope the police find this idiot driver, lock them up and ban them from driving when they come out.
I have a lot of respect for cyclists as I used to cycle a lot to school and work when I was younger (and didn't have to get from Wimborne to Bournemouth most days) and can see the plight by cyclists each day. I can also see it from the motorist's side as I've seen some idiots out there (not looking before turning/pulling out, riding in dark clothes with no lights or reflectives in the dark, etc) but also a lot of more sensible people who have more respect. Ok, so this guy shouldn't have flipped a V sign at the car, even though he was probably venting frustration at so many times before where motorists have been inconsiderate, but to then turn the car around and deliberately hit him? That should count as reckless driving, assault, dangerous driving and attempted murder (the results could well have been much worse). Let's hope the police find this idiot driver, lock them up and ban them from driving when they come out. Palantir

2:40pm Sun 18 Sep 11

redmay says...

Strange how all anti cycling drivers think cyclists do not drive, and hence pay no road tax. I know nearly 100 cyclists with the exception of two all drive a car and pay as much car tax as every one else. As for poor cycling, I am shocked at how many cars will over take on blind bends brows of hills etc, cut cyclists up etc. complain as much as you like, cycling numbers are increasing and the use of web cams will see many more motorists prosecuted for poor driving.
Strange how all anti cycling drivers think cyclists do not drive, and hence pay no road tax. I know nearly 100 cyclists with the exception of two all drive a car and pay as much car tax as every one else. As for poor cycling, I am shocked at how many cars will over take on blind bends brows of hills etc, cut cyclists up etc. complain as much as you like, cycling numbers are increasing and the use of web cams will see many more motorists prosecuted for poor driving. redmay

3:04pm Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

redmay wrote:
Strange how all anti cycling drivers think cyclists do not drive, and hence pay no road tax. I know nearly 100 cyclists with the exception of two all drive a car and pay as much car tax as every one else. As for poor cycling, I am shocked at how many cars will over take on blind bends brows of hills etc, cut cyclists up etc. complain as much as you like, cycling numbers are increasing and the use of web cams will see many more motorists prosecuted for poor driving.
I think we have to do away with the notion of "road tax" because it hasnt been taken since the 1930s. We also need people to accept that the motoring related taxation and duty taken is in no way covering the true costs motoring creates for society.

I too know many, many cyclists. You build up a network of contacts and speak to fellow cyclists at work and socially. I am the only one out of some 40+ that doesnt drive or own a car. I'm more than happy for motoring to continue, but it has been at the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists in recent years and new cultures and memes have popped up: one being "blame the victim!" (And this applies towards motorist victims as well as other modes.)

Camera Cyclists have been increasing (I and others get emails/messages through our blogs, twitter and youtube asking for advice quite often), as have motorcyclists and drivers who are also heavily wanting to see change. Drivers have been turning to products such as RoadHawk, and motorcyclists the ContourHD.

Youtube has become a document of bad road use that any insurer or officer of the law can dig into.
[quote][p][bold]redmay[/bold] wrote: Strange how all anti cycling drivers think cyclists do not drive, and hence pay no road tax. I know nearly 100 cyclists with the exception of two all drive a car and pay as much car tax as every one else. As for poor cycling, I am shocked at how many cars will over take on blind bends brows of hills etc, cut cyclists up etc. complain as much as you like, cycling numbers are increasing and the use of web cams will see many more motorists prosecuted for poor driving.[/p][/quote]I think we have to do away with the notion of "road tax" because it hasnt been taken since the 1930s. We also need people to accept that the motoring related taxation and duty taken is in no way covering the true costs motoring creates for society. I too know many, many cyclists. You build up a network of contacts and speak to fellow cyclists at work and socially. I am the only one out of some 40+ that doesnt drive or own a car. I'm more than happy for motoring to continue, but it has been at the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists in recent years and new cultures and memes have popped up: one being "blame the victim!" (And this applies towards motorist victims as well as other modes.) Camera Cyclists have been increasing (I and others get emails/messages through our blogs, twitter and youtube asking for advice quite often), as have motorcyclists and drivers who are also heavily wanting to see change. Drivers have been turning to products such as RoadHawk, and motorcyclists the ContourHD. Youtube has become a document of bad road use that any insurer or officer of the law can dig into. downfader

3:04pm Sun 18 Sep 11

ranger_bob says...

I strongly urge all cyclists to get a helmet cam or one mounted on their handle bars. They can be picked up for around £50. The more drivers who are prosecuted for anti-cycling behaviour and dangerous driving the safer our roads will become and more importantly the safer cyclists will become.
I strongly urge all cyclists to get a helmet cam or one mounted on their handle bars. They can be picked up for around £50. The more drivers who are prosecuted for anti-cycling behaviour and dangerous driving the safer our roads will become and more importantly the safer cyclists will become. ranger_bob

3:50pm Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

ranger_bob wrote:
I strongly urge all cyclists to get a helmet cam or one mounted on their handle bars. They can be picked up for around £50. The more drivers who are prosecuted for anti-cycling behaviour and dangerous driving the safer our roads will become and more importantly the safer cyclists will become.
Plus we ourselves can use the cameras to show the positive side to cycling (fitness, weightloss, money saved, time saved you name it)

Many of us also show the bad cyclists through youtube, some have been pubished/aired in news stories to raise their concerns.

The positives however far outweigh the negatives
[quote][p][bold]ranger_bob[/bold] wrote: I strongly urge all cyclists to get a helmet cam or one mounted on their handle bars. They can be picked up for around £50. The more drivers who are prosecuted for anti-cycling behaviour and dangerous driving the safer our roads will become and more importantly the safer cyclists will become.[/p][/quote]Plus we ourselves can use the cameras to show the positive side to cycling (fitness, weightloss, money saved, time saved you name it) Many of us also show the bad cyclists through youtube, some have been pubished/aired in news stories to raise their concerns. The positives however far outweigh the negatives downfader

3:59pm Sun 18 Sep 11

Palantir says...

What about investing in more cycle paths and cycle lanes where a path cannot be created? I agree that we need to see more acceptance between drivers and cyclists, but maybe part of the solution is to let cyclists have their own territory that drivers cannot use.

At least that way cyclists can have a place of their own, safe from motor traffic (both accidents and idiots) and that puts an end to the arguments about where cyclists should ride with no more accidents or violence.
What about investing in more cycle paths and cycle lanes where a path cannot be created? I agree that we need to see more acceptance between drivers and cyclists, but maybe part of the solution is to let cyclists have their own territory that drivers cannot use. At least that way cyclists can have a place of their own, safe from motor traffic (both accidents and idiots) and that puts an end to the arguments about where cyclists should ride with no more accidents or violence. Palantir

3:59pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way.

He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car.
Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?
He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off? twobigdogs

4:05pm Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

twobigdogs wrote:
He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?
You're endorsing violence.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?[/p][/quote]You're endorsing violence. downfader

4:22pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

No I am not!......just quoting what the echo has reported and asking a question!
No I am not!......just quoting what the echo has reported and asking a question! twobigdogs

4:25pm Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

twobigdogs wrote:
No I am not!......just quoting what the echo has reported and asking a question!
Yes you have, you have suggested that a V sign is reason for assault.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: No I am not!......just quoting what the echo has reported and asking a question![/p][/quote]Yes you have, you have suggested that a V sign is reason for assault. downfader

4:33pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

No thats your suggestion!
No thats your suggestion! twobigdogs

4:41pm Sun 18 Sep 11

ranger_bob says...

twobigdogs wrote:
He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way.

He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car.
Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?
If anyone thinks that having the Vs flicked at them is justification to deliberatly drive a ton of metal at another human being then they seriously need to seek professional help.
..
To turn the car around and deliberatly drive after the cyclist and then aim the car at them is a premeditated act and should be prosecuted so fiercely that no one ever thinks about doing it again.
..
Any one who thinks other wise needs to think long and hard about handing in their driving liscence.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?[/p][/quote]If anyone thinks that having the Vs flicked at them is justification to deliberatly drive a ton of metal at another human being then they seriously need to seek professional help. .. To turn the car around and deliberatly drive after the cyclist and then aim the car at them is a premeditated act and should be prosecuted so fiercely that no one ever thinks about doing it again. .. Any one who thinks other wise needs to think long and hard about handing in their driving liscence. ranger_bob

4:42pm Sun 18 Sep 11

ranger_bob says...

If anyone thinks that having the Vs flicked at them is justification to deliberatly drive a ton of metal at another human being then they seriously need to seek professional help.
..
To turn the car around and deliberatly drive after the cyclist and then aim the car at them is a premeditated act and should be prosecuted so fiercely that no one ever thinks about doing it again.
..
Any one who thinks other wise needs to think long and hard about handing in their driving liscence.
If anyone thinks that having the Vs flicked at them is justification to deliberatly drive a ton of metal at another human being then they seriously need to seek professional help. .. To turn the car around and deliberatly drive after the cyclist and then aim the car at them is a premeditated act and should be prosecuted so fiercely that no one ever thinks about doing it again. .. Any one who thinks other wise needs to think long and hard about handing in their driving liscence. ranger_bob

4:46pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

Again it was just a question........
Again it was just a question........ twobigdogs

4:57pm Sun 18 Sep 11

ranger_bob says...

twobigdogs wrote:
Again it was just a question........
A bloody stupid one!
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: Again it was just a question........[/p][/quote]A bloody stupid one! ranger_bob

5:11pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

Calm down........no need to swear!...
Calm down........no need to swear!... twobigdogs

5:21pm Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

twobigdogs wrote:
Calm down........no need to swear!...
He's right. Do you know what incitement means? Have some sense of broader social conduct.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: Calm down........no need to swear!...[/p][/quote]He's right. Do you know what incitement means? Have some sense of broader social conduct. downfader

5:35pm Sun 18 Sep 11

s-pb2 says...

downfader wrote:
twobigdogs wrote:
He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?
You're endorsing violence.
Or attemped murder
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?[/p][/quote]You're endorsing violence.[/p][/quote]Or attemped murder s-pb2

5:36pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

Thank you................
Thank you................ twobigdogs

5:40pm Sun 18 Sep 11

s-pb2 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Havinhg read the stories and comments above, in my opinion had the driver of the car had not driven too close to the cyclist, then the cyclist would probably have not made the V sign gesture, and then the car driver would not have returned and knock the gentleman off his bike.
.
However, what is obvious is that if one driver committs an offence all drivers are the same. If one cyclist committs a gesture, then all cyclists are the same. Of course this is a stupid comment.
.
Not all cyclists are the same, but there are a lot out there who do not have any regard for the use of roads, other roads users, or the highway code. As I have said before, I have seen cyclists riding with headphones on, attached to their ipods or telephones. This makes them oblivious as to what is happening on the roads. No regards for road signage or traffic control.
.
In my opinion if cyclists what to use the roads in the same way, then they need to be licenced as such, or at least carry out some sort of road test.
.
All cyclists to be licenced? So basically you will be banning all children from cycling! Now ive heard everything!!
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Havinhg read the stories and comments above, in my opinion had the driver of the car had not driven too close to the cyclist, then the cyclist would probably have not made the V sign gesture, and then the car driver would not have returned and knock the gentleman off his bike. . However, what is obvious is that if one driver committs an offence all drivers are the same. If one cyclist committs a gesture, then all cyclists are the same. Of course this is a stupid comment. . Not all cyclists are the same, but there are a lot out there who do not have any regard for the use of roads, other roads users, or the highway code. As I have said before, I have seen cyclists riding with headphones on, attached to their ipods or telephones. This makes them oblivious as to what is happening on the roads. No regards for road signage or traffic control. . In my opinion if cyclists what to use the roads in the same way, then they need to be licenced as such, or at least carry out some sort of road test. .[/p][/quote]All cyclists to be licenced? So basically you will be banning all children from cycling! Now ive heard everything!! s-pb2

5:50pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

Again, no indorsement of the drivers actions.....just a question!
Again, no indorsement of the drivers actions.....just a question! twobigdogs

6:00pm Sun 18 Sep 11

downfader says...

twobigdogs wrote:
Again, no indorsement of the drivers actions.....just a question!
What *exactly* did you intend to question? Your question was ambiguous

Nobody should condone the V sign, but the driving was orders of magnitude in excess of a normal response.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: Again, no indorsement of the drivers actions.....just a question![/p][/quote]What *exactly* did you intend to question? Your question was ambiguous Nobody should condone the V sign, but the driving was orders of magnitude in excess of a normal response. downfader

6:31pm Sun 18 Sep 11

not a fatty says...

In answer to your stupid question,he was knocked off because, like you,the driver was a nasty bully.
In answer to your stupid question,he was knocked off because, like you,the driver was a nasty bully. not a fatty

6:33pm Sun 18 Sep 11

not a fatty says...

In answer to your stupid question,he was knocked off because, like you,the driver was a nasty bully,hiding behind a weapon,in your case a keyboarsd or two stupid dogs,in his,a car.
In answer to your stupid question,he was knocked off because, like you,the driver was a nasty bully,hiding behind a weapon,in your case a keyboarsd or two stupid dogs,in his,a car. not a fatty

6:39pm Sun 18 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

All this anger from asking a question!
And why would I be likened to a nasty bully? I think there`s far to much anger in some of these replies and certain posters here need to relax a bit...............an
d in the words og "monty pythons life of brian" ......... your only making it worse for yourselves!........
All this anger from asking a question! And why would I be likened to a nasty bully? I think there`s far to much anger in some of these replies and certain posters here need to relax a bit...............an d in the words og "monty pythons life of brian" ......... your only making it worse for yourselves!........ twobigdogs

8:06pm Sun 18 Sep 11

hadleyac says...

Man attempts murder, Others with similar weapons attack potential victims for sharing the space.

Traffic buildouts are to slow overspeeding cars. Mostly badly designed for bikes which cannot go more than 40 mph.

I recently had 2 cars ignore the give-way at a roundabout to cut me up. It happens a lot.

I own two cars (taxed and insured). My wife walks to work, and when I can, I cycle. Poole to Ferndown, or via the train Dorchester. It is not pleasant sharing the road with motorised traffic. Most motorists are considerate, but it doesnt take many to make you feel very vulnerable.

And those calling for tests for cyclists are missing the point. Cars are potentially very dangerous to others.

The oil is getting scarce, we need to re-allocate public space away from the infernal combustion engine.

I do not condone rude gestures, but in impotent frustration, I understand why they are made.

Robbing someone of their ability to work, and potentially their life is not any sort of justifiable response.
Man attempts murder, Others with similar weapons attack potential victims for sharing the space. Traffic buildouts are to slow overspeeding cars. Mostly badly designed for bikes which cannot go more than 40 mph. I recently had 2 cars ignore the give-way at a roundabout to cut me up. It happens a lot. I own two cars (taxed and insured). My wife walks to work, and when I can, I cycle. Poole to Ferndown, or via the train Dorchester. It is not pleasant sharing the road with motorised traffic. Most motorists are considerate, but it doesnt take many to make you feel very vulnerable. And those calling for tests for cyclists are missing the point. Cars are potentially very dangerous to others. The oil is getting scarce, we need to re-allocate public space away from the infernal combustion engine. I do not condone rude gestures, but in impotent frustration, I understand why they are made. Robbing someone of their ability to work, and potentially their life is not any sort of justifiable response. hadleyac

8:44pm Sun 18 Sep 11

drayhorse says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
most cycles are drivers too, so we pay to use the road and we contribute a hugh amount to the economy with what we spend on our bikes.
so get your facts right before you write your long boring rants.
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]most cycles are drivers too, so we pay to use the road and we contribute a hugh amount to the economy with what we spend on our bikes. so get your facts right before you write your long boring rants. drayhorse

9:09pm Sun 18 Sep 11

udaku says...

Twobigdogs, the guy was assaulted because the fella in the car had such a fragile ego he couldn't handle the V sign.
Cars have become more than a form of transport, drivers get a little thrills when speeding, driving beyond their capabilities, putting themselves and others at risk. Their lives are so tame that it's probbably the only excitement they get beyond games consoles.
Cars have become an extension of their ego, which necessarily must be weak to be boosted by a lump of metal. So car lovers are such that confrontation on the roads is inevitable. To touch their precious, or impede it's progress is an affront to them, they will scream,stamp, swear and hit out if they don't get what they want.
Aaah Didums !
Twobigdogs, the guy was assaulted because the fella in the car had such a fragile ego he couldn't handle the V sign. Cars have become more than a form of transport, drivers get a little thrills when speeding, driving beyond their capabilities, putting themselves and others at risk. Their lives are so tame that it's probbably the only excitement they get beyond games consoles. Cars have become an extension of their ego, which necessarily must be weak to be boosted by a lump of metal. So car lovers are such that confrontation on the roads is inevitable. To touch their precious, or impede it's progress is an affront to them, they will scream,stamp, swear and hit out if they don't get what they want. Aaah Didums ! udaku

9:11pm Sun 18 Sep 11

udaku says...

Twobigdogs, the guy was assaulted because the fella in the car had such a fragile ego he couldn't handle the V sign.
Cars have become more than a form of transport, drivers get a little thrills when speeding, driving beyond their capabilities, putting themselves and others at risk. Their lives are so tame that it's probbably the only excitement they get beyond games consoles.
Cars have become an extension of their ego, which necessarily must be weak to be boosted by a lump of metal. So car lovers are such that confrontation on the roads is inevitable. To touch their precious, or impede it's progress is an affront to them, they will scream,stamp, swear and hit out if they don't get what they want.
Aaah Didums !
Twobigdogs, the guy was assaulted because the fella in the car had such a fragile ego he couldn't handle the V sign. Cars have become more than a form of transport, drivers get a little thrills when speeding, driving beyond their capabilities, putting themselves and others at risk. Their lives are so tame that it's probbably the only excitement they get beyond games consoles. Cars have become an extension of their ego, which necessarily must be weak to be boosted by a lump of metal. So car lovers are such that confrontation on the roads is inevitable. To touch their precious, or impede it's progress is an affront to them, they will scream,stamp, swear and hit out if they don't get what they want. Aaah Didums ! udaku

9:18pm Sun 18 Sep 11

tony.b says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Bournehammer68 wrote:
@ TheDistrict.
I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely.
Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?
I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones.
.
Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous.
.
Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen.
.
This is interesting, a good friend of mine is deaf and if you know of the contact details of this 'new miracle' cure for him so that he will be able to hear again that would be very nice!
Or do you just mean someone who is partailly deaf which is completely different!
Aside from that the aforementioned driver should be locked up & the key thrown away!
Tony
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: @ TheDistrict. I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely. Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?[/p][/quote]I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones. . Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous. . Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen. .[/p][/quote]This is interesting, a good friend of mine is deaf and if you know of the contact details of this 'new miracle' cure for him so that he will be able to hear again that would be very nice! Or do you just mean someone who is partailly deaf which is completely different! Aside from that the aforementioned driver should be locked up & the key thrown away! Tony tony.b

10:39pm Sun 18 Sep 11

gameon says...

Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.
Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me. gameon

11:53pm Sun 18 Sep 11

jobsworthwatch says...

gameon wrote:
Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.
It would have been 6 of one and half a dozen of the other had the car driver merely waved two fingers back at the cyclist. By turning his car round and pursuing the cyclist he was using his car as an offensive weapon and should be banged up for attempted murder.
[quote][p][bold]gameon[/bold] wrote: Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.[/p][/quote]It would have been 6 of one and half a dozen of the other had the car driver merely waved two fingers back at the cyclist. By turning his car round and pursuing the cyclist he was using his car as an offensive weapon and should be banged up for attempted murder. jobsworthwatch

11:55pm Sun 18 Sep 11

s-pb2 says...

gameon wrote:
Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.
Wow in your world giving someone the v sign is the same as attempted murder. Have i slipped into a parallel universe or something, the world of the insane!
[quote][p][bold]gameon[/bold] wrote: Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.[/p][/quote]Wow in your world giving someone the v sign is the same as attempted murder. Have i slipped into a parallel universe or something, the world of the insane! s-pb2

8:51am Mon 19 Sep 11

kate4 says...

Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............ kate4

8:55am Mon 19 Sep 11

hammer says...

Goldbar wrote:
itsallaboutthebike wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.
lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe
bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!!
Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments.

I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other!
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]itsallaboutthebike[/bold] wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.[/p][/quote]lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!![/p][/quote]Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments. I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other! hammer

9:44am Mon 19 Sep 11

Bournehammer68 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Bournehammer68 wrote:
@ TheDistrict.
I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely.
Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?
I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones.
.
Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous.
.
Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen.
.
Rubbish! clearly what is obvious to you is nothing other than nonsense.

Deaf: wholly lacking or deprived of the sense of hearing; unable to hear

not hard of hearing DEAF!

By your argument no-one should carry passengers in cars (they might be tempted to talk) and no car should have a stereo fitted either.
What a silly billy.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: @ TheDistrict. I fail to see what difference headphones make to my ability to ride safely. Would you say deaf people can't cycle? and how about the muppet boy racers who have their stereos blaring so loud it makes the driver of the next car's ears bleed?[/p][/quote]I thought it would be obvious. A deaf person will have an hearing aid which enhances his or her hearing. My father was deaf, and a keen cyclist, who could hear all that was going on around him, and of course paid particular attention to other road users. Someone using headphones for music or mobile telephones can only be distracted from what is happeninig on the roads, by sheer lack of concentration by listening to what is coming from said earphones. . Read my original comments again. I was not referring to all cyclists, as I was not referring to all car drivers. Both road users need to be more responsible when using the roads. Roads are dangerous. . Incidentally, there have been occasions when a cyclists has hit a pedestrian, resulting in death. Not as many as car accidents, but nevertheless, it does happen. .[/p][/quote]Rubbish! clearly what is obvious to you is nothing other than nonsense. Deaf: wholly lacking or deprived of the sense of hearing; unable to hear not hard of hearing DEAF! By your argument no-one should carry passengers in cars (they might be tempted to talk) and no car should have a stereo fitted either. What a silly billy. Bournehammer68

9:44am Mon 19 Sep 11

Bournehammer68 says...

Rubbish! clearly what is obvious to you is nothing other than nonsense.

Deaf: wholly lacking or deprived of the sense of hearing; unable to hear

not hard of hearing DEAF!

By your argument no-one should carry passengers in cars (they might be tempted to talk) and no car should have a stereo fitted either.
What a silly billy.
Rubbish! clearly what is obvious to you is nothing other than nonsense. Deaf: wholly lacking or deprived of the sense of hearing; unable to hear not hard of hearing DEAF! By your argument no-one should carry passengers in cars (they might be tempted to talk) and no car should have a stereo fitted either. What a silly billy. Bournehammer68

9:52am Mon 19 Sep 11

MandinVerwood says...

hammer wrote:
Goldbar wrote:
itsallaboutthebike wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.
lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe

bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!!
Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments.

I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other!
Like when the van driver that your son rode into the back of and was killed drove off without stopping - that must have been with in his rights as well?
.
I read the reports at the time - and you were not happy - so why change you tune now?
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]itsallaboutthebike[/bold] wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.[/p][/quote]lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!![/p][/quote]Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments. I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other![/p][/quote]Like when the van driver that your son rode into the back of and was killed drove off without stopping - that must have been with in his rights as well? . I read the reports at the time - and you were not happy - so why change you tune now? MandinVerwood

9:57am Mon 19 Sep 11

MandinVerwood says...

hammer wrote:
Goldbar wrote:
itsallaboutthebike wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.
lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe

bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!!
Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments.

I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other!
The issue here is that at a pinch point, 2 people belived they had the right of way and names/singals were called. One of those people decided to take it too far by deliberatly going back and using a car to deliberatly run someone off a road - which intent to endanger life. That is now pre-meditiated. The person needs tohelp and needs to be caught & prosicuted.
.
When I was bought up I was told two wrongs don't make a right - but I feel that I am in the minority for that belief.
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]itsallaboutthebike[/bold] wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.[/p][/quote]lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!![/p][/quote]Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments. I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other![/p][/quote]The issue here is that at a pinch point, 2 people belived they had the right of way and names/singals were called. One of those people decided to take it too far by deliberatly going back and using a car to deliberatly run someone off a road - which intent to endanger life. That is now pre-meditiated. The person needs tohelp and needs to be caught & prosicuted. . When I was bought up I was told two wrongs don't make a right - but I feel that I am in the minority for that belief. MandinVerwood

11:20am Mon 19 Sep 11

mikey2gorgeous says...

kate4 wrote:
Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000).

There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash).
The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence.
It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door.

If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
[quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police). mikey2gorgeous

11:39am Mon 19 Sep 11

hammer says...

MandinVerwood wrote:
hammer wrote:
Goldbar wrote:
itsallaboutthebike wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.
lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!!
Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments. I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other!
Like when the van driver that your son rode into the back of and was killed drove off without stopping - that must have been with in his rights as well? . I read the reports at the time - and you were not happy - so why change you tune now?
This is a completely different scenario and how dare you mention my son! This was not a fatal accident and the idiot that drove off and left my son was "well known to Police" a common criminal.........and I still see him parading around in the same van....... I would advise you to keep you stupid comments to yourself!
[quote][p][bold]MandinVerwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]itsallaboutthebike[/bold] wrote: Thank god someone said it.....I think goldbar is clearly a hardened vehicle driving cyclist hater. Each to there own. But I hope Stephen gets back on the bike soon and isn't too scared to hold his ground on the road in future.[/p][/quote]lol @ comment Hardened Cyclist hater lmfao!! - but do hate the way certain cyclists see themselves as a special case and can see use the roads and pavements in a way that is totally oblivious to rules that govern it. I have equal contempt for maniac idiot drivers such as the one in the story But if thats how you choose to view me "itsallaboutthe bike" so be it - Perhaps I 'll view you as Manic Motorist Hater in return haha!![/p][/quote]Totally agree with you. I have aired my views a few times regardng rogue cyclists and have met with a lot of nasty comments. I think that the cyclist and the car driver are as bad as each other![/p][/quote]Like when the van driver that your son rode into the back of and was killed drove off without stopping - that must have been with in his rights as well? . I read the reports at the time - and you were not happy - so why change you tune now?[/p][/quote]This is a completely different scenario and how dare you mention my son! This was not a fatal accident and the idiot that drove off and left my son was "well known to Police" a common criminal.........and I still see him parading around in the same van....... I would advise you to keep you stupid comments to yourself! hammer

12:03pm Mon 19 Sep 11

kate4 says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
kate4 wrote:
Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000).

There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash).
The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence.
It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door.

If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
Thanks for your advice - very interesting and I will note for future reference.
Meanwhile perhaps the police may be interested in getting penalty notices placed on the cars along Parley going towards airport.
Thanks again.....
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).[/p][/quote]Thanks for your advice - very interesting and I will note for future reference. Meanwhile perhaps the police may be interested in getting penalty notices placed on the cars along Parley going towards airport. Thanks again..... kate4

12:43pm Mon 19 Sep 11

cyclejim says...

Cyclists unaware of it, may want to read about riding in the 'primary position' to help improve their safety and also reduce the chances of being hit by a stray opening door. Every now and again it may cost the car behind a few seconds in reaching the back of the next traffic jam or traffic lights, but I feel a lot safer and also acknowledge good driving where possible even if it's just a raise of the hand. Eye contact and smiling also goes a long way to diffuse any potential situations
Cyclists unaware of it, may want to read about riding in the 'primary position' to help improve their safety and also reduce the chances of being hit by a stray opening door. Every now and again it may cost the car behind a few seconds in reaching the back of the next traffic jam or traffic lights, but I feel a lot safer and also acknowledge good driving where possible even if it's just a raise of the hand. Eye contact and smiling also goes a long way to diffuse any potential situations cyclejim

1:52pm Mon 19 Sep 11

Sunshine79 says...

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Goldbar wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
wrong wrong wrong. you have the opportunity to drive without paying any road tax (vehicle excise licence) it's your choice to drive a car that incurs this tax. There are options such as the ones on this link: www.roadtaxprices.co .uk/Free_Road_Tax_Ca rs.htm @nigglygrilly. exactly how long ago did you pass your test? do the words Mirror, Signal Manouvere mean anything to you? it is part of proper driving to check your left wing mirror before even pulling away from a stationary position let alone turning left! It really is a shame that so many drivers have indicators that don't work!
@ Bournehammer68
Sorry but I don’t normally comment but feel like the nerve of your comments I had to, trying to give the high morals to someone’s opinions is un real!! ……… so have some of mine………Normal good motorist do look, An example last week, I could see the cyclist diving in and out of traffic behind me, I indicated to go left and just as I thought, knew he was going to totally ignore that, Brakes on, slowing down to turn left, No cycle lane but always had him in my mirrors luckily for him, Nope carried straight on, I opened my window and said Excuse me and he came back as Had no helmet on so heard me, I advised him if I was going faster and didn’t check my mirror at that point as he was diving in and out so could of easily missed him I would of run him over and of course it would have been my fault in Police eyes!, If he wanted to cycle on the road then be careful! He was actually very pleasant and said how sorry he was and will be more careful. So NO Its not always the motorist fault like its not always the cyclist fault, It’s a small monitory of bad drivers and bad cyclists, Very simple! Poor person to be knocked off his bike but don’t swear at people, really not going to help It clearly winds people up like you are clearly wound up at peoples opinions!
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]wrong wrong wrong. you have the opportunity to drive without paying any road tax (vehicle excise licence) it's your choice to drive a car that incurs this tax. There are options such as the ones on this link: www.roadtaxprices.co .uk/Free_Road_Tax_Ca rs.htm @nigglygrilly. exactly how long ago did you pass your test? do the words Mirror, Signal Manouvere mean anything to you? it is part of proper driving to check your left wing mirror before even pulling away from a stationary position let alone turning left! It really is a shame that so many drivers have indicators that don't work![/p][/quote]@ Bournehammer68 Sorry but I don’t normally comment but feel like the nerve of your comments I had to, trying to give the high morals to someone’s opinions is un real!! ……… so have some of mine………Normal good motorist do look, An example last week, I could see the cyclist diving in and out of traffic behind me, I indicated to go left and just as I thought, knew he was going to totally ignore that, Brakes on, slowing down to turn left, No cycle lane but always had him in my mirrors luckily for him, Nope carried straight on, I opened my window and said Excuse me and he came back as Had no helmet on so heard me, I advised him if I was going faster and didn’t check my mirror at that point as he was diving in and out so could of easily missed him I would of run him over and of course it would have been my fault in Police eyes!, If he wanted to cycle on the road then be careful! He was actually very pleasant and said how sorry he was and will be more careful. So NO Its not always the motorist fault like its not always the cyclist fault, It’s a small monitory of bad drivers and bad cyclists, Very simple! Poor person to be knocked off his bike but don’t swear at people, really not going to help It clearly winds people up like you are clearly wound up at peoples opinions! Sunshine79

1:56pm Mon 19 Sep 11

tracy m says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
Goldbar I have suggested road tax etc before. Be warned some of the responses my comments received were very aggressive and rude! People who ride two-wheeled pedal driven vehicles whinge because motorists, pedestrians, dogs, mobility scooter drivers etc do not show them enough consideration or get in their way . Perhaps they should understand their vehicle was designed to be used on the road as a form of transport by people who respect the highway code.

I respect cyclists who behave properly on the road but there are too many giving the rest badf name.
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]Goldbar I have suggested road tax etc before. Be warned some of the responses my comments received were very aggressive and rude! People who ride two-wheeled pedal driven vehicles whinge because motorists, pedestrians, dogs, mobility scooter drivers etc do not show them enough consideration or get in their way . Perhaps they should understand their vehicle was designed to be used on the road as a form of transport by people who respect the highway code. I respect cyclists who behave properly on the road but there are too many giving the rest badf name. tracy m

2:04pm Mon 19 Sep 11

iNewForest says...

It is very interesting to read the polarised views here. I believe some urgent attention should be given to the design of the pinch points. I guess the idea is to slow vehicles down to try and protect the animals in the forest. Which is good. However I feel that cyclists in particular are put in needless danger.

In most cases the pinch points work well. Common sense amongst most courteous drivers/riders will ensure they give way to each other. But the pinch points are not there to stop the average driver. They are designed to slow speeding vehicles. But this makes this system very dangerous. No direction has right of way. So the pinch points become a game of "chicken". Vehicles speed up to try and make the gap before the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. The fact is the pinch points will slow the average driver, but for the speedsters it just makes high speed driving even more thrilling.

The pinch points also distract the driver from observing the animals, which kind of defeats their purpose. Also at night, when I suspect most animals are struck, vehicles can easily see vehicles coming in the opposite direction, so the pinch points will have zero effect on these speedsters.

In my opinion, let's replace the pinch points with speed cameras. This will be costly but what price do you put on human life? I would be very interested to see if the pinch points have had any effect on the rate of animal casualties since their introduction. I suspect not. However, if they are not replaced with another deterrent I suspect it will be only a matter of time before human fatalities will join the statistics of the unfortunate animals.
It is very interesting to read the polarised views here. I believe some urgent attention should be given to the design of the pinch points. I guess the idea is to slow vehicles down to try and protect the animals in the forest. Which is good. However I feel that cyclists in particular are put in needless danger. In most cases the pinch points work well. Common sense amongst most courteous drivers/riders will ensure they give way to each other. But the pinch points are not there to stop the average driver. They are designed to slow speeding vehicles. But this makes this system very dangerous. No direction has right of way. So the pinch points become a game of "chicken". Vehicles speed up to try and make the gap before the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. The fact is the pinch points will slow the average driver, but for the speedsters it just makes high speed driving even more thrilling. The pinch points also distract the driver from observing the animals, which kind of defeats their purpose. Also at night, when I suspect most animals are struck, vehicles can easily see vehicles coming in the opposite direction, so the pinch points will have zero effect on these speedsters. In my opinion, let's replace the pinch points with speed cameras. This will be costly but what price do you put on human life? I would be very interested to see if the pinch points have had any effect on the rate of animal casualties since their introduction. I suspect not. However, if they are not replaced with another deterrent I suspect it will be only a matter of time before human fatalities will join the statistics of the unfortunate animals. iNewForest

2:17pm Mon 19 Sep 11

madras says...

suggestion - make the 'pinch points' such that there is a cycle-wide opening on either side as this would then allow the cyclists to proceed without 'exposing' them to the greater danger. Horse riders too...
suggestion - make the 'pinch points' such that there is a cycle-wide opening on either side as this would then allow the cyclists to proceed without 'exposing' them to the greater danger. Horse riders too... madras

2:28pm Mon 19 Sep 11

iNewForest says...

madras wrote:
suggestion - make the 'pinch points' such that there is a cycle-wide opening on either side as this would then allow the cyclists to proceed without 'exposing' them to the greater danger. Horse riders too...
Madras - Yes, I agree totally with this suggestion.

But at the same time I still question the effectiveness of the pinch points in reducing speed and the accidents this causes in the forest.
[quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: suggestion - make the 'pinch points' such that there is a cycle-wide opening on either side as this would then allow the cyclists to proceed without 'exposing' them to the greater danger. Horse riders too...[/p][/quote]Madras - Yes, I agree totally with this suggestion. But at the same time I still question the effectiveness of the pinch points in reducing speed and the accidents this causes in the forest. iNewForest

2:32pm Mon 19 Sep 11

cyclejim says...

Tracy, although I've not often agreed with what you've said in the past, you usually put your comments across in a reasoned and polite manner.
.
madras, like on the b3078 near Fordingbridge, on the road that runs by Canford school and Iford Lane. They work quite well in my opinion and avoid sitations like on the Avon Causeway bridge where a car coming in the other direction will sometimes speed up and then move across the width of the road even though there is plenty of room for a bike and car to get through without bothering each other. Sometimes it is the infrastructure as much as a 'me first' culture that causes issues.
Tracy, although I've not often agreed with what you've said in the past, you usually put your comments across in a reasoned and polite manner. . madras, like on the b3078 near Fordingbridge, on the road that runs by Canford school and Iford Lane. They work quite well in my opinion and avoid sitations like on the Avon Causeway bridge where a car coming in the other direction will sometimes speed up and then move across the width of the road even though there is plenty of room for a bike and car to get through without bothering each other. Sometimes it is the infrastructure as much as a 'me first' culture that causes issues. cyclejim

2:45pm Mon 19 Sep 11

udaku says...

So according to hammer this cyclist deserved what he got because....... she is a cycle hating bigot. Go on, use this as another excuse to have a go at cyclists in general. These "rogue cyclists" that kill and maim thousands live in her parallel universe.
Pavement cyclists are a great concern to her, who never walks anywhere other that to let her dog run uncontrolled defacating(dogs mauled 3 kids in the area this summer). Not one incident this summer resulting from rogue pavement cyclists but these cyclists seem to freak her right out. MandinVerwood, don't concern yourself with hammer, she is a consummate nutter. It's ok to mention "the son" because she has used this incident on numerous occasions to gain sympathy for her failing arguments.
I am a rogue cyclist and have been for over 40 years, since I peddaled my trike to the local shop for mum on the pavement. I will do what I want where I want on my cycle, but treat others with courtesy. If the area is busy with people I will not put others at risk, and alight my cycle. For instance I will not ride my bike on the prom on sunny weekends because children need a safe area to play. I ride on pavements to avoid the danger from the 50%+ of drivers who have no regard for my safety or road laws. The police say 20% of drivers have no insurance, so what happens when they have an accident....... they drive away.
Rogue cyclists have adapted to the anarchy that car drivers demand on the roads and the lack of punishment they recieve for killing and maiming while in charge of the offensive weapon.
Viva the rogue cyclist, hero of the resistance. Breezing past the miserable hordes stuck in their little tin prisons.While others lie dead in the gutter he survives , happily leaping from one kerb to another, headphones on oblivious to the abuse. Like a breath of fresh air.
So according to hammer this cyclist deserved what he got because....... she is a cycle hating bigot. Go on, use this as another excuse to have a go at cyclists in general. These "rogue cyclists" that kill and maim thousands live in her parallel universe. Pavement cyclists are a great concern to her, who never walks anywhere other that to let her dog run uncontrolled defacating(dogs mauled 3 kids in the area this summer). Not one incident this summer resulting from rogue pavement cyclists but these cyclists seem to freak her right out. MandinVerwood, don't concern yourself with hammer, she is a consummate nutter. It's ok to mention "the son" because she has used this incident on numerous occasions to gain sympathy for her failing arguments. I am a rogue cyclist and have been for over 40 years, since I peddaled my trike to the local shop for mum on the pavement. I will do what I want where I want on my cycle, but treat others with courtesy. If the area is busy with people I will not put others at risk, and alight my cycle. For instance I will not ride my bike on the prom on sunny weekends because children need a safe area to play. I ride on pavements to avoid the danger from the 50%+ of drivers who have no regard for my safety or road laws. The police say 20% of drivers have no insurance, so what happens when they have an accident....... they drive away. Rogue cyclists have adapted to the anarchy that car drivers demand on the roads and the lack of punishment they recieve for killing and maiming while in charge of the offensive weapon. Viva the rogue cyclist, hero of the resistance. Breezing past the miserable hordes stuck in their little tin prisons.While others lie dead in the gutter he survives , happily leaping from one kerb to another, headphones on oblivious to the abuse. Like a breath of fresh air. udaku

3:21pm Mon 19 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

Cyclists are special. One little fall can kill them because they are not in a one-tonne metal box. They should be treated with kid gloves accordingly. Next time you drive past a cyclist, imagine they are your child. If every driver did that there'd be no problem.

Cyclists often appear aggressive and rude to motorists. I agree. What most motorists fail to understand when considering the reasons for this is that a cyclist's life is in danger, and when you drive like an idiot, or even carelessly, it is their life you are playing with - not your own. If I put a gun to your head you may react in a similarly obnoxious fashion once the gun was out of my possession.

Tailgating and carving up cyclists - as I experience so often - is the same thing. It is waving a weapon about agressively thinking its ok because you would never pull the trigger or because the other person is obnoxious.

Is obnoxious behaviour a justification to endanger another person's life? Certainly not.

Remember who is taking the risk, and drive accordingly. If getting to work 30 seconds earlier is more important to you than someone's life, then you should be locked up... for good.
Cyclists are special. One little fall can kill them because they are not in a one-tonne metal box. They should be treated with kid gloves accordingly. Next time you drive past a cyclist, imagine they are your child. If every driver did that there'd be no problem. Cyclists often appear aggressive and rude to motorists. I agree. What most motorists fail to understand when considering the reasons for this is that a cyclist's life is in danger, and when you drive like an idiot, or even carelessly, it is their life you are playing with - not your own. If I put a gun to your head you may react in a similarly obnoxious fashion once the gun was out of my possession. Tailgating and carving up cyclists - as I experience so often - is the same thing. It is waving a weapon about agressively thinking its ok because you would never pull the trigger or because the other person is obnoxious. Is obnoxious behaviour a justification to endanger another person's life? Certainly not. Remember who is taking the risk, and drive accordingly. If getting to work 30 seconds earlier is more important to you than someone's life, then you should be locked up... for good. bobvdmeulen

4:11pm Mon 19 Sep 11

Thepinkhouse says...

Appears that there is no 'news' today. However, I for spot a dog off his lead today.
Appears that there is no 'news' today. However, I for spot a dog off his lead today. Thepinkhouse

4:44pm Mon 19 Sep 11

hammer says...

udaku wrote:
So according to hammer this cyclist deserved what he got because....... she is a cycle hating bigot. Go on, use this as another excuse to have a go at cyclists in general. These "rogue cyclists" that kill and maim thousands live in her parallel universe. Pavement cyclists are a great concern to her, who never walks anywhere other that to let her dog run uncontrolled defacating(dogs mauled 3 kids in the area this summer). Not one incident this summer resulting from rogue pavement cyclists but these cyclists seem to freak her right out. MandinVerwood, don't concern yourself with hammer, she is a consummate nutter. It's ok to mention "the son" because she has used this incident on numerous occasions to gain sympathy for her failing arguments. I am a rogue cyclist and have been for over 40 years, since I peddaled my trike to the local shop for mum on the pavement. I will do what I want where I want on my cycle, but treat others with courtesy. If the area is busy with people I will not put others at risk, and alight my cycle. For instance I will not ride my bike on the prom on sunny weekends because children need a safe area to play. I ride on pavements to avoid the danger from the 50%+ of drivers who have no regard for my safety or road laws. The police say 20% of drivers have no insurance, so what happens when they have an accident....... they drive away. Rogue cyclists have adapted to the anarchy that car drivers demand on the roads and the lack of punishment they recieve for killing and maiming while in charge of the offensive weapon. Viva the rogue cyclist, hero of the resistance. Breezing past the miserable hordes stuck in their little tin prisons.While others lie dead in the gutter he survives , happily leaping from one kerb to another, headphones on oblivious to the abuse. Like a breath of fresh air.
I got bored with your gutter comments after the fourth line - twisting my words again - I only mentioned my son because the other idiot did. Have you got nothing better to do? It sounds like you still live with mummy - grow up and I hope one of your children (don't expect you have any living with mummy) don't ever die before you.......... You are archetypal of a rogue cyclist - I rest my case!
[quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: So according to hammer this cyclist deserved what he got because....... she is a cycle hating bigot. Go on, use this as another excuse to have a go at cyclists in general. These "rogue cyclists" that kill and maim thousands live in her parallel universe. Pavement cyclists are a great concern to her, who never walks anywhere other that to let her dog run uncontrolled defacating(dogs mauled 3 kids in the area this summer). Not one incident this summer resulting from rogue pavement cyclists but these cyclists seem to freak her right out. MandinVerwood, don't concern yourself with hammer, she is a consummate nutter. It's ok to mention "the son" because she has used this incident on numerous occasions to gain sympathy for her failing arguments. I am a rogue cyclist and have been for over 40 years, since I peddaled my trike to the local shop for mum on the pavement. I will do what I want where I want on my cycle, but treat others with courtesy. If the area is busy with people I will not put others at risk, and alight my cycle. For instance I will not ride my bike on the prom on sunny weekends because children need a safe area to play. I ride on pavements to avoid the danger from the 50%+ of drivers who have no regard for my safety or road laws. The police say 20% of drivers have no insurance, so what happens when they have an accident....... they drive away. Rogue cyclists have adapted to the anarchy that car drivers demand on the roads and the lack of punishment they recieve for killing and maiming while in charge of the offensive weapon. Viva the rogue cyclist, hero of the resistance. Breezing past the miserable hordes stuck in their little tin prisons.While others lie dead in the gutter he survives , happily leaping from one kerb to another, headphones on oblivious to the abuse. Like a breath of fresh air.[/p][/quote]I got bored with your gutter comments after the fourth line - twisting my words again - I only mentioned my son because the other idiot did. Have you got nothing better to do? It sounds like you still live with mummy - grow up and I hope one of your children (don't expect you have any living with mummy) don't ever die before you.......... You are archetypal of a rogue cyclist - I rest my case! hammer

5:52pm Mon 19 Sep 11

Jean-Pierre Blaireau says...

Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off".

Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party.

And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.
Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off". Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party. And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance. Jean-Pierre Blaireau

7:06pm Mon 19 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

Jean-Pierre Blaireau wrote:
Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off".

Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party.

And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.
"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance."

I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter:

"According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles."

In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007.

Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group.

You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion.

Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement.

Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise.

It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done.
[quote][p][bold]Jean-Pierre Blaireau[/bold] wrote: Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off". Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party. And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.[/p][/quote]"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance." I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter: "According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles." In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007. Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group. You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion. Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement. Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise. It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done. bobvdmeulen

7:07pm Mon 19 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance."

I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter:

"According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles."

In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007.

Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group.

You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion.

Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement.

Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise.

It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done.
"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance." I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter: "According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles." In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007. Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group. You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion. Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement. Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise. It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done. bobvdmeulen

7:08pm Mon 19 Sep 11

downfader says...

Jean-Pierre Blaireau wrote:
Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off". Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party. And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.
You know, I often think people are so vociferous towards testing, etc, because they want to see cycling die off in the UK.

Because that is what happens when Acts of compulsion come in (eg helmets in Aus/NZ/USA, or as with the licence plates in parts of the US).

It is also funny how many people realise the stupidity of this idea when they no longer have the money for fuel and start asking questions on the cycle forums about how/where/what to become a cyclist. Or when they lose their job and need free transport.
[quote][p][bold]Jean-Pierre Blaireau[/bold] wrote: Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off". Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party. And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.[/p][/quote]You know, I often think people are so vociferous towards testing, etc, because they want to see cycling die off in the UK. Because that is what happens when Acts of compulsion come in (eg helmets in Aus/NZ/USA, or as with the licence plates in parts of the US). It is also funny how many people realise the stupidity of this idea when they no longer have the money for fuel and start asking questions on the cycle forums about how/where/what to become a cyclist. Or when they lose their job and need free transport. downfader

8:24pm Mon 19 Sep 11

gonewindsurfing says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!!

Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days.

Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too.

Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up.

If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: -

Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads)
Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!!

Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about.

Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner

I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there.

How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ?

Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
road tax doesn't exist, roads are paid for out of council tax which everyone pays...
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]road tax doesn't exist, roads are paid for out of council tax which everyone pays... gonewindsurfing

8:42pm Mon 19 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
kate4 wrote:
Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000).

There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash).
The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence.
It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door.

If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh?

Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to?

If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident.
It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).[/p][/quote]At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence. eunoia6

9:04pm Mon 19 Sep 11

downfader says...

eunoia6 wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
kate4 wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.
You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine.

You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).[/p][/quote]At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.[/p][/quote]You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine. You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic. downfader

9:18pm Mon 19 Sep 11

spooki says...

Let's just say there are a LOT of bad drivers and bad cyclists out there. I am fed up of both causing near accidents and just pedalling/driving away. Some kind of license should be issued to cyclists and regular tests for drivers. Road markings and signs are not always clear and I frequently have to drive round a roundabout with confusing markings and get honked at for being in - apparently- the wrong lane. But who do you ask for such advice once you've passed your test?
However, cases like this are obviously awful and as a (hopefully) good car driver, I hope Mr Roberts makes a 'speedy' recovery (sorry!)
Let's just say there are a LOT of bad drivers and bad cyclists out there. I am fed up of both causing near accidents and just pedalling/driving away. Some kind of license should be issued to cyclists and regular tests for drivers. Road markings and signs are not always clear and I frequently have to drive round a roundabout with confusing markings and get honked at for being in - apparently- the wrong lane. But who do you ask for such advice once you've passed your test? However, cases like this are obviously awful and as a (hopefully) good car driver, I hope Mr Roberts makes a 'speedy' recovery (sorry!) spooki

9:20pm Mon 19 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

downfader wrote:
eunoia6 wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
kate4 wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.
You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine.

You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.
No.............sorry
, the quote I gave is from the EXACT same website Mikey used.
Of course there is no justification for opening a door into the path of anyone, and nowhere do I even come close to justifying it, so no need for the trolling comment.
All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate.
There is indeed an offence, and a fine. I didn't say there wasn't.
Here is the website Mikey quoted from.

http://ukcyclerules.
com/2011/01/18/the-l
aws-of-car-doors/

Thing is he only quoted some of it.............I quoted the rest to balance the misleading advice he gave. Always 2 sides to a story.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).[/p][/quote]At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.[/p][/quote]You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine. You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.[/p][/quote]No.............sorry , the quote I gave is from the EXACT same website Mikey used. Of course there is no justification for opening a door into the path of anyone, and nowhere do I even come close to justifying it, so no need for the trolling comment. All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate. There is indeed an offence, and a fine. I didn't say there wasn't. Here is the website Mikey quoted from. http://ukcyclerules. com/2011/01/18/the-l aws-of-car-doors/ Thing is he only quoted some of it.............I quoted the rest to balance the misleading advice he gave. Always 2 sides to a story. eunoia6

9:43pm Mon 19 Sep 11

downfader says...

eunoia6 wrote:
downfader wrote:
eunoia6 wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
kate4 wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.
You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine. You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.
No.............sorry , the quote I gave is from the EXACT same website Mikey used. Of course there is no justification for opening a door into the path of anyone, and nowhere do I even come close to justifying it, so no need for the trolling comment. All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate. There is indeed an offence, and a fine. I didn't say there wasn't. Here is the website Mikey quoted from. http://ukcyclerules. com/2011/01/18/the-l aws-of-car-doors/ Thing is he only quoted some of it.............I quoted the rest to balance the misleading advice he gave. Always 2 sides to a story.
It doesnt matter if its deliberate or not. Its still an offence. People should look, it aint hard to do (well for some, those who cant should be directed obviously)
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).[/p][/quote]At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.[/p][/quote]You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine. You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.[/p][/quote]No.............sorry , the quote I gave is from the EXACT same website Mikey used. Of course there is no justification for opening a door into the path of anyone, and nowhere do I even come close to justifying it, so no need for the trolling comment. All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate. There is indeed an offence, and a fine. I didn't say there wasn't. Here is the website Mikey quoted from. http://ukcyclerules. com/2011/01/18/the-l aws-of-car-doors/ Thing is he only quoted some of it.............I quoted the rest to balance the misleading advice he gave. Always 2 sides to a story.[/p][/quote]It doesnt matter if its deliberate or not. Its still an offence. People should look, it aint hard to do (well for some, those who cant should be directed obviously) downfader

10:48pm Mon 19 Sep 11

galadriel says...

I drive a car. I am always considerate to other road users, especially cyclists, but I despair at the dangerous behaviour of some of them, I've lost count of the number I've seen going through red lights. I've almost been knocked over twice by bikes whilst I've been walking across a pedestrian crossing! What about the darkly clad cyclists with no lights that loom out of the darkness on our roads? They should have insurance and some sort of test to ensure they have a basic knowledge of the highway code. The reason I'm so wary of cyclists is because in 1965 my brother went into the back of an illegally parked car which had run out of petrol and was killed instantly aged 23. I fear for the safety of every person on a bike, but some of them are dicing with death.
I drive a car. I am always considerate to other road users, especially cyclists, but I despair at the dangerous behaviour of some of them, I've lost count of the number I've seen going through red lights. I've almost been knocked over twice by bikes whilst I've been walking across a pedestrian crossing! What about the darkly clad cyclists with no lights that loom out of the darkness on our roads? They should have insurance and some sort of test to ensure they have a basic knowledge of the highway code. The reason I'm so wary of cyclists is because in 1965 my brother went into the back of an illegally parked car which had run out of petrol and was killed instantly aged 23. I fear for the safety of every person on a bike, but some of them are dicing with death. galadriel

11:25pm Mon 19 Sep 11

gameon says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
gameon wrote:
Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.
It would have been 6 of one and half a dozen of the other had the car driver merely waved two fingers back at the cyclist. By turning his car round and pursuing the cyclist he was using his car as an offensive weapon and should be banged up for attempted murder.
Yes i agree but as i commented it was the wrong person normal people dont react like that even when provoked with the cyclists V gestures as for SPB2s comments about an insane world he lives in its probably the same world as this road rage lunatic driver .
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gameon[/bold] wrote: Sorry but if stephen roberts felt it necessary to give the V sign and gestures to this driver then obviously he chose to vent his temper on the wrong person as always there would be two sides to this i dont condone either of these persons actions but 6 of one and half a dozen of the other seems about right to me.[/p][/quote]It would have been 6 of one and half a dozen of the other had the car driver merely waved two fingers back at the cyclist. By turning his car round and pursuing the cyclist he was using his car as an offensive weapon and should be banged up for attempted murder.[/p][/quote]Yes i agree but as i commented it was the wrong person normal people dont react like that even when provoked with the cyclists V gestures as for SPB2s comments about an insane world he lives in its probably the same world as this road rage lunatic driver . gameon

11:17am Tue 20 Sep 11

mikey2gorgeous says...

@eunioa: "All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate."

It doesn't have to be deliberate. And the comments you post merely relate to the fact that this law hasn't been tested in the courts - not that there is any excuse for opening a door dangerously. If someone doesn't see then they obviously haven't taken enough care. Same as the majority of fatal and serious accidents involving cyclists.

I fail to see how people are being mislead. Most people are completely unaware this is an offence in itself!
@eunioa: "All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate." It doesn't have to be deliberate. And the comments you post merely relate to the fact that this law hasn't been tested in the courts - not that there is any excuse for opening a door dangerously. If someone doesn't see then they obviously haven't taken enough care. Same as the majority of fatal and serious accidents involving cyclists. I fail to see how people are being mislead. Most people are completely unaware this is an offence in itself! mikey2gorgeous

11:48am Tue 20 Sep 11

hammer says...

galadriel wrote:
I drive a car. I am always considerate to other road users, especially cyclists, but I despair at the dangerous behaviour of some of them, I've lost count of the number I've seen going through red lights. I've almost been knocked over twice by bikes whilst I've been walking across a pedestrian crossing! What about the darkly clad cyclists with no lights that loom out of the darkness on our roads? They should have insurance and some sort of test to ensure they have a basic knowledge of the highway code. The reason I'm so wary of cyclists is because in 1965 my brother went into the back of an illegally parked car which had run out of petrol and was killed instantly aged 23. I fear for the safety of every person on a bike, but some of them are dicing with death.
I totally agree with you. I hope you are not called a "cycle hating bigot" like I am which could not be further from the truth............ I try to resist from answering the idiots involved..........as I am better than they are!
[quote][p][bold]galadriel[/bold] wrote: I drive a car. I am always considerate to other road users, especially cyclists, but I despair at the dangerous behaviour of some of them, I've lost count of the number I've seen going through red lights. I've almost been knocked over twice by bikes whilst I've been walking across a pedestrian crossing! What about the darkly clad cyclists with no lights that loom out of the darkness on our roads? They should have insurance and some sort of test to ensure they have a basic knowledge of the highway code. The reason I'm so wary of cyclists is because in 1965 my brother went into the back of an illegally parked car which had run out of petrol and was killed instantly aged 23. I fear for the safety of every person on a bike, but some of them are dicing with death.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with you. I hope you are not called a "cycle hating bigot" like I am which could not be further from the truth............ I try to resist from answering the idiots involved..........as I am better than they are! hammer

12:11pm Tue 20 Sep 11

udaku says...

An arrest has been made after a man gave himself up to Lyndhurst police.

We shall see what the charges are, attempted murder?

Should make an example of him so others think twice about using their car as a weapon (no chance).
Get a bit carried away during a riot and steal a bottle of water and get a substantial prison sentence. Attempt to kill a cyclist maiming him in the process, well, we shall see.
I expect the culprit will be out on bail and driving again within a few hours.

Carry on pavement cycling folks.
An arrest has been made after a man gave himself up to Lyndhurst police. We shall see what the charges are, attempted murder? Should make an example of him so others think twice about using their car as a weapon (no chance). Get a bit carried away during a riot and steal a bottle of water and get a substantial prison sentence. Attempt to kill a cyclist maiming him in the process, well, we shall see. I expect the culprit will be out on bail and driving again within a few hours. Carry on pavement cycling folks. udaku

12:35pm Tue 20 Sep 11

udaku says...

I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle.
You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it.
Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?
I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you? udaku

1:37pm Tue 20 Sep 11

hammer says...

udaku wrote:
I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?
I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger.

Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy!
[quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?[/p][/quote]I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger. Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy! hammer

2:09pm Tue 20 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

downfader wrote:
eunoia6 wrote:
downfader wrote:
eunoia6 wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
kate4 wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............
It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).
At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.
You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine. You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.
No.............sorry , the quote I gave is from the EXACT same website Mikey used. Of course there is no justification for opening a door into the path of anyone, and nowhere do I even come close to justifying it, so no need for the trolling comment. All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate. There is indeed an offence, and a fine. I didn't say there wasn't. Here is the website Mikey quoted from. http://ukcyclerules. com/2011/01/18/the-l aws-of-car-doors/ Thing is he only quoted some of it.............I quoted the rest to balance the misleading advice he gave. Always 2 sides to a story.
It doesnt matter if its deliberate or not. Its still an offence. People should look, it aint hard to do (well for some, those who cant should be directed obviously)
Don't be daft. Of course in law it matters a great deal if something is deliberate or not. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter for a start!
It's what we used to call accidents before ambulance chasers entered the fray.
Anyway..............
......off topic.
The guy who knocked the man off his cycle should be hunted down and done for attempted murder.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kate4[/bold] wrote: Went cycling yesterday with a friend. Car - soft top, expensive. Parked on pavement which also doubles as a cycling path (yes, signs up to confirm). Opened door - I had to swerve, friend came off bike along with chain of bike. Man (use the word losely) shouts, using the f word in front of his young grandson. Refuses to help friend but stands there laughing. But undoubtedly it MUST be our fault - of course, because we are cyclists. I am sure that when the road is full, it is only fair to use the pavement as a car park. That is, shared pavement and cycle path. Nice behaviour - don't expect any sympathy or empathy though from Echo readers -no doubt someone will find some extreme reason as to why the driver of the car should behave like this............[/p][/quote]It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash). The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence. It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door. If you crash into a car door on your bike, the driver of the car has to give his name and address if you ask for it (as well as the car’s registration number). If he refuses he will commit an additional offence, which is more straightforward and more serious than the car door offence (and may therefore be of more interest to the police).[/p][/quote]At least copy and paste the ENTIRE details from the website Mikey and then you wont be misleading people eh? Could you please detail the "offences" and quote the law they relate to? If someone does open their car door and injures or endangers you on your bike, they won’t automatically have committed an offence – it will depend on the circumstances. For example, it might depend on whether their actions caused the injury or danger, or whether there was some other cause. They might say that you were riding too close, or weren’t paying attention, and that’s what caused the accident. It also might depend on whether the person who opened the door looked behind them properly first. If they did check for cyclists, they might argue that they weren’t at fault. At the moment it’s not actually clear whether fault is required for the offence.[/p][/quote]You have a habit of trying to throw misinformation - there is indeed an offence and a fine. You appear to be trying to justify a dooring. There is no justification for throwing a door open into traffic.[/p][/quote]No.............sorry , the quote I gave is from the EXACT same website Mikey used. Of course there is no justification for opening a door into the path of anyone, and nowhere do I even come close to justifying it, so no need for the trolling comment. All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate. There is indeed an offence, and a fine. I didn't say there wasn't. Here is the website Mikey quoted from. http://ukcyclerules. com/2011/01/18/the-l aws-of-car-doors/ Thing is he only quoted some of it.............I quoted the rest to balance the misleading advice he gave. Always 2 sides to a story.[/p][/quote]It doesnt matter if its deliberate or not. Its still an offence. People should look, it aint hard to do (well for some, those who cant should be directed obviously)[/p][/quote]Don't be daft. Of course in law it matters a great deal if something is deliberate or not. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter for a start! It's what we used to call accidents before ambulance chasers entered the fray. Anyway.............. ......off topic. The guy who knocked the man off his cycle should be hunted down and done for attempted murder. eunoia6

2:21pm Tue 20 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
@eunioa: "All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate."

It doesn't have to be deliberate. And the comments you post merely relate to the fact that this law hasn't been tested in the courts - not that there is any excuse for opening a door dangerously. If someone doesn't see then they obviously haven't taken enough care. Same as the majority of fatal and serious accidents involving cyclists.

I fail to see how people are being mislead. Most people are completely unaware this is an offence in itself!
You were misleading in the sense that you cheery-picked what parts of the website you pasted as advice to the person.
I entirely agree that there is no excuse for deliberate attempts to harm anyone, whatever the circumstances.
There may be various and many REASONS for things happening and we are all "offenders" in the context that we all make mistakes, and accidents happen.
Most people are probably unaware of the offence you mentioned.
My point was that you were using it as yet another excuse to bash the motorist but mis-led in not pasting the whole situation regarding offence and law.
Of course more motorists cause most damage because there are more of them, and they are bigger than bikes. I agree that there are a lot of motorists that simply can't drive properly, leading to accidents, and the number is increasing, let alone those with anger problems.
You mention serious and fatal "accidents".........
...EXACTLY my point in that they were NOT deliberate, but you advocate that if an offence is committed it MUST follow it was deliberate, which is nonsense.
Back on topic, I feel the person who knocked the man off his bike should be prosecuted for attempted murder. In this case it IS a deliberate act, pre meditated to cause extreme harm.
Sadly, we can't all be as perfect as you Mikey......... :)
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: @eunioa: "All I am saying is that it may not be obviously and automatically deliberate." It doesn't have to be deliberate. And the comments you post merely relate to the fact that this law hasn't been tested in the courts - not that there is any excuse for opening a door dangerously. If someone doesn't see then they obviously haven't taken enough care. Same as the majority of fatal and serious accidents involving cyclists. I fail to see how people are being mislead. Most people are completely unaware this is an offence in itself![/p][/quote]You were misleading in the sense that you cheery-picked what parts of the website you pasted as advice to the person. I entirely agree that there is no excuse for deliberate attempts to harm anyone, whatever the circumstances. There may be various and many REASONS for things happening and we are all "offenders" in the context that we all make mistakes, and accidents happen. Most people are probably unaware of the offence you mentioned. My point was that you were using it as yet another excuse to bash the motorist but mis-led in not pasting the whole situation regarding offence and law. Of course more motorists cause most damage because there are more of them, and they are bigger than bikes. I agree that there are a lot of motorists that simply can't drive properly, leading to accidents, and the number is increasing, let alone those with anger problems. You mention serious and fatal "accidents"......... ...EXACTLY my point in that they were NOT deliberate, but you advocate that if an offence is committed it MUST follow it was deliberate, which is nonsense. Back on topic, I feel the person who knocked the man off his bike should be prosecuted for attempted murder. In this case it IS a deliberate act, pre meditated to cause extreme harm. Sadly, we can't all be as perfect as you Mikey......... :) eunoia6

2:28pm Tue 20 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

hammer wrote:
udaku wrote:
I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?
I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger.

Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy!
Utter rubbish Hammer.
It is not over dramatic at all.
Exchanging a bit of effing and jeffing or a v sign is something that sadly happens all the time.
There is no such thing as a "rogue cyclist" There is NO blame on the part of the cyclist, and no excuse for the car driver. NONE
However, going back in a pre-meditated manner, and deliberately aiming a 1 ton weapon at a cyclist to force him off the road at the least is attempted murder.
Your sort of attitude in this regard, along with stating a rioter and thief "got a bit carried away" is part of the problem!
Theft is theft. Attempting to hit someone with a car is attempted murder. End of.
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?[/p][/quote]I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger. Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy![/p][/quote]Utter rubbish Hammer. It is not over dramatic at all. Exchanging a bit of effing and jeffing or a v sign is something that sadly happens all the time. There is no such thing as a "rogue cyclist" There is NO blame on the part of the cyclist, and no excuse for the car driver. NONE However, going back in a pre-meditated manner, and deliberately aiming a 1 ton weapon at a cyclist to force him off the road at the least is attempted murder. Your sort of attitude in this regard, along with stating a rioter and thief "got a bit carried away" is part of the problem! Theft is theft. Attempting to hit someone with a car is attempted murder. End of. eunoia6

3:01pm Tue 20 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

hammer wrote:
udaku wrote:
I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?
I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger.

Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy!
@hammer
You say... " As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here."

Dramatic? Honestly that takes the biscuit. Perhaps someone should drive at you with a car, deliberately, and we'll see what you call it?

Used in that way a car is a weapon, and it's a lethal one. A fall from a bike on its own can be lethal, the human body is simply not designed to withstand impacts at 30 mph. Never mind maniacs trying to teach cyclists a lesson with their cars.

Yes there are two sides to this story. On one side of the story we have a car and on the other a bicycle. Normal rules of escalation do not apply as they might with two combatants standing outside a pub, because the risk is totally lopsided in the case of cyclist vs driver.

Look at it this way, if you are trying to harm someone, you wouldn't ram their car with your bicycle would you? Turn it the other way round and it's extremely likely to cause serious damage to them. This is why tit-for-tat does not apply to motorists. If you are in a car you have a greater responsibility to behave sensibly, due to the sheer potential for damage to others that you control.

You are conflating causation with justification.

Yes the two fingered insult may have caused a roadrage attack, but it does not justify it. It's not the cyclists fault as the response was so out of proportion to the provocation. Saying otherwise is the same kind of warped and fallacious logic that sees people blaming rape victims for their awful situation.
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?[/p][/quote]I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger. Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy![/p][/quote]@hammer You say... " As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here." Dramatic? Honestly that takes the biscuit. Perhaps someone should drive at you with a car, deliberately, and we'll see what you call it? Used in that way a car is a weapon, and it's a lethal one. A fall from a bike on its own can be lethal, the human body is simply not designed to withstand impacts at 30 mph. Never mind maniacs trying to teach cyclists a lesson with their cars. Yes there are two sides to this story. On one side of the story we have a car and on the other a bicycle. Normal rules of escalation do not apply as they might with two combatants standing outside a pub, because the risk is totally lopsided in the case of cyclist vs driver. Look at it this way, if you are trying to harm someone, you wouldn't ram their car with your bicycle would you? Turn it the other way round and it's extremely likely to cause serious damage to them. This is why tit-for-tat does not apply to motorists. If you are in a car you have a greater responsibility to behave sensibly, due to the sheer potential for damage to others that you control. You are conflating causation with justification. Yes the two fingered insult may have caused a roadrage attack, but it does not justify it. It's not the cyclists fault as the response was so out of proportion to the provocation. Saying otherwise is the same kind of warped and fallacious logic that sees people blaming rape victims for their awful situation. bobvdmeulen

3:14pm Tue 20 Sep 11

Gooby says...

hammer wrote:
udaku wrote:
I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?
I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger.

Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy!
You attract people who are unpleasant to you because you are a nasty intolerant racist bigot.

You are saying that the cyclist deserved to be knocked off his bike by over a ton of fast moving metal. That is because he has seen "rogue cyclists"?

You are for real? Once again we are back to trying to establish some facts. You have proved you are a racist, now we have to differentiate between nasty hate filled troll or idiot.

I have had the misfortune to meet a few racists but no matter how much I would like to, it does not give me the right to run you over.

If I were to drive a car at you with not only the intention of scaring you but of actually making contact, where is the fine line between intending to injure and intending to kill? Can you "surgically strike" with a car? I dont think so.
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: I think you've lost the plot hammer, you are too willing to give advice to us cyclists. But don't cycle. You seem to go out looking for trouble, out for a walk with your dogs you get abuse from some 6ft tattooed nutter or get your dog run over by a cyclist ,out in your car you are the victim of road rage. Be honest, do you go out looking for trouble? Or are you just a magnet for it. Is it the smug delusion that you are better than other people that is causing the alarming number of disasters that befalll you?[/p][/quote]I think the term is "unfortunate". There is a lot of nutters around and you are quite right I seem to be a magnet for nutters (which includes you) It does not surprise me that you seem to condone cyclists breaking the law! As for your comment on the driver "attempting to kill a cyclist" are we not being a bit dramatic? All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story and I think there is blame on both sides here. The driver must have encountered some other incidents of "rogue cyclists" in the past and lost the plot! As it says in previous comments cyclists are very vulnerable so surely they should try their best to be law abiding road users (not pavement users or red light jumpers) thereby not putting themselves and others in danger. Now crawl back under your stone like a good little boy![/p][/quote]You attract people who are unpleasant to you because you are a nasty intolerant racist bigot. You are saying that the cyclist deserved to be knocked off his bike by over a ton of fast moving metal. That is because he has seen "rogue cyclists"? You are for real? Once again we are back to trying to establish some facts. You have proved you are a racist, now we have to differentiate between nasty hate filled troll or idiot. I have had the misfortune to meet a few racists but no matter how much I would like to, it does not give me the right to run you over. If I were to drive a car at you with not only the intention of scaring you but of actually making contact, where is the fine line between intending to injure and intending to kill? Can you "surgically strike" with a car? I dont think so. Gooby

4:59pm Tue 20 Sep 11

hammer says...

Well what can I say about your eloquent description of me. For the first time in my life I could not describe what I think you are but you need to get out more mate! Your comments would be funny if they were not so tragic.

As other people have said on this subject it was stupid for the cyclist to be rude to the car driver (if the car driver was at fault at all). The cyclist should have been the bigger man and just carried on. If you incite someone to be violent you have only got yourself to blame - and you take the consequences - although I don't agree with what happened!
Well what can I say about your eloquent description of me. For the first time in my life I could not describe what I think you are but you need to get out more mate! Your comments would be funny if they were not so tragic. As other people have said on this subject it was stupid for the cyclist to be rude to the car driver (if the car driver was at fault at all). The cyclist should have been the bigger man and just carried on. If you incite someone to be violent you have only got yourself to blame - and you take the consequences - although I don't agree with what happened! hammer

5:26pm Tue 20 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

hammer wrote:
Well what can I say about your eloquent description of me. For the first time in my life I could not describe what I think you are but you need to get out more mate! Your comments would be funny if they were not so tragic.

As other people have said on this subject it was stupid for the cyclist to be rude to the car driver (if the car driver was at fault at all). The cyclist should have been the bigger man and just carried on. If you incite someone to be violent you have only got yourself to blame - and you take the consequences - although I don't agree with what happened!
The point is Hammer none of us were there. It is irrelevant as to who swore at who first or who flicked the Vs first.
The point is that NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING excuses one from attempting to kill the other.
It really doesn't matter who was a car driver and who was a cyclist........altho
ugh it is car drivers that seem to have the worst tempers and lack of patience or consideration theses days, and I am a car driver and not a cyclist. It's just a sad fact of life
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Well what can I say about your eloquent description of me. For the first time in my life I could not describe what I think you are but you need to get out more mate! Your comments would be funny if they were not so tragic. As other people have said on this subject it was stupid for the cyclist to be rude to the car driver (if the car driver was at fault at all). The cyclist should have been the bigger man and just carried on. If you incite someone to be violent you have only got yourself to blame - and you take the consequences - although I don't agree with what happened![/p][/quote]The point is Hammer none of us were there. It is irrelevant as to who swore at who first or who flicked the Vs first. The point is that NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING excuses one from attempting to kill the other. It really doesn't matter who was a car driver and who was a cyclist........altho ugh it is car drivers that seem to have the worst tempers and lack of patience or consideration theses days, and I am a car driver and not a cyclist. It's just a sad fact of life eunoia6

7:35pm Tue 20 Sep 11

Jean-Pierre Blaireau says...

bobvdmeulen wrote:
Jean-Pierre Blaireau wrote:
Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off".

Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party.

And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.
"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance."

I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter:

"According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles."

In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007.

Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group.

You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion.

Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement.

Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise.

It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done.
What makes you leap to the foolish conclusion that I do not ride a bicycle? I do - on the road or on approved cycleways through the countryside. and I ride (horses), too, again on the road and elsewhere where permitted. I also drive, have a PPL and know how to sail. I have taken part in these activities for many years and have undergone instruction and sat exams for some of them to prove my competency. I am insured to take part in them, too. Why shouldn't cyclists?

Again, you serve only to demonstrate your foolishness, and ignorant prejudice, by stating that I work for an insurance lobby group. On what evidence did you base this? None. Pure, ignorant speculation. I am, however, an ex-Army officer.

As for suggesting that keeping cyclists off the pavement and on the road is a '...form of "ethnic" cleansing...', I feel that the Marsh Arabs I met after the first Gulf War and the Bosniaks for whom I and other soldiers guarded relief convoys in FYR in the early '90s, not to mention my (Jewish) wife's relatives who died in concentration camps in WWII, might disagree with your inane, offensive and odious comparison.

I look forward to meeting you on the road one day.
[quote][p][bold]bobvdmeulen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jean-Pierre Blaireau[/bold] wrote: Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off". Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party. And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.[/p][/quote]"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance." I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter: "According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles." In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007. Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group. You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion. Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement. Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise. It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done.[/p][/quote]What makes you leap to the foolish conclusion that I do not ride a bicycle? I do - on the road or on approved cycleways through the countryside. and I ride (horses), too, again on the road and elsewhere where permitted. I also drive, have a PPL and know how to sail. I have taken part in these activities for many years and have undergone instruction and sat exams for some of them to prove my competency. I am insured to take part in them, too. Why shouldn't cyclists? Again, you serve only to demonstrate your foolishness, and ignorant prejudice, by stating that I work for an insurance lobby group. On what evidence did you base this? None. Pure, ignorant speculation. I am, however, an ex-Army officer. As for suggesting that keeping cyclists off the pavement and on the road is a '...form of "ethnic" cleansing...', I feel that the Marsh Arabs I met after the first Gulf War and the Bosniaks for whom I and other soldiers guarded relief convoys in FYR in the early '90s, not to mention my (Jewish) wife's relatives who died in concentration camps in WWII, might disagree with your inane, offensive and odious comparison. I look forward to meeting you on the road one day. Jean-Pierre Blaireau

7:36pm Tue 20 Sep 11

Jean-Pierre Blaireau says...

What makes you leap to the foolish conclusion that I do not ride a bicycle? I do - on the road or on approved cycleways through the countryside. and I ride (horses), too, again on the road and elsewhere where permitted. I also drive, have a PPL and know how to sail. I have taken part in these activities for many years and have undergone instruction and sat exams for some of them to prove my competency. I am insured to take part in them, too. Why shouldn't cyclists?

Again, you serve only to demonstrate your foolishness, and ignorant prejudice, by stating that I work for an insurance lobby group. On what evidence did you base this? None. Pure, ignorant speculation. I am, however, an ex-Army officer.

As for suggesting that keeping cyclists off the pavement and on the road is a '...form of "ethnic" cleansing...', I feel that the Marsh Arabs I met after the first Gulf War and the Bosniaks for whom I and other soldiers guarded relief convoys in FYR in the early '90s, not to mention my (Jewish) wife's relatives who died in concentration camps in WWII, might disagree with your inane, offensive and odious comparison.

I look forward to meeting you on the road one day.
What makes you leap to the foolish conclusion that I do not ride a bicycle? I do - on the road or on approved cycleways through the countryside. and I ride (horses), too, again on the road and elsewhere where permitted. I also drive, have a PPL and know how to sail. I have taken part in these activities for many years and have undergone instruction and sat exams for some of them to prove my competency. I am insured to take part in them, too. Why shouldn't cyclists? Again, you serve only to demonstrate your foolishness, and ignorant prejudice, by stating that I work for an insurance lobby group. On what evidence did you base this? None. Pure, ignorant speculation. I am, however, an ex-Army officer. As for suggesting that keeping cyclists off the pavement and on the road is a '...form of "ethnic" cleansing...', I feel that the Marsh Arabs I met after the first Gulf War and the Bosniaks for whom I and other soldiers guarded relief convoys in FYR in the early '90s, not to mention my (Jewish) wife's relatives who died in concentration camps in WWII, might disagree with your inane, offensive and odious comparison. I look forward to meeting you on the road one day. Jean-Pierre Blaireau

12:03am Wed 21 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.
I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work. beachcomber1

8:57am Wed 21 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

Jean-Pierre Blaireau wrote:
bobvdmeulen wrote:
Jean-Pierre Blaireau wrote:
Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off".

Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party.

And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.
"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance."

I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter:

"According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles."

In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007.

Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group.

You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion.

Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement.

Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise.

It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done.
What makes you leap to the foolish conclusion that I do not ride a bicycle? I do - on the road or on approved cycleways through the countryside. and I ride (horses), too, again on the road and elsewhere where permitted. I also drive, have a PPL and know how to sail. I have taken part in these activities for many years and have undergone instruction and sat exams for some of them to prove my competency. I am insured to take part in them, too. Why shouldn't cyclists?

Again, you serve only to demonstrate your foolishness, and ignorant prejudice, by stating that I work for an insurance lobby group. On what evidence did you base this? None. Pure, ignorant speculation. I am, however, an ex-Army officer.

As for suggesting that keeping cyclists off the pavement and on the road is a '...form of "ethnic" cleansing...', I feel that the Marsh Arabs I met after the first Gulf War and the Bosniaks for whom I and other soldiers guarded relief convoys in FYR in the early '90s, not to mention my (Jewish) wife's relatives who died in concentration camps in WWII, might disagree with your inane, offensive and odious comparison.

I look forward to meeting you on the road one day.
Firstly I didn't claim you were part of an insurance lobby, I gave you an either or. Much more likely is you are just bitter. You know, the sort of highly-vocal hypocrite who waxes lyrical about others following every letter of the law, but being quite happy to make certain exceptions in their own case (as everyone who is honest will admit they do from time to time). I can almost smell the dissonance.

What makes me think you don't ride a bike is when you address "to all the cyclists out there" it implies you are not a part of the group you are addressing. However it's not a necessity and I stand corrected.

"Ethnic" cleansing was in speech marks for a reason, your histrionics should really have taken this into account.

Obviously we are not talking about killing people, and it has nothing to do with ethnicity. The fallacious and ugly reasoning is identical however. Vilify a group you don't like based on your own personal anecdotes, ignore all the established facts about the group you have chosen to vilify, and then push for measures that inconvenience or discourage their very existence.

Cars need insurance because cars kill and maim people every single day. End of story. The same is not true of bicycles. Regulation should be introduced to solve a problem, not to satisfy the whims of a howling mob.

The rest of your rhetorical rant is simply not pertinent, but I stand by my point that your form of reasoning is really quite close to those that justify the deliberate persecution of others of whom they disapprove. If you don't like that assertion then perhaps come up with some evidence to support your claim that cyclists need to be licensed, taxed and ensured.

Let it be your name that goes on the law that forever prevents children and the less fortunate from riding their bicycle, and forces more people onto our already-crammed roads and trains, forcing more people to pollute the planet we live in, so you can feel you finally got one over those pesky pavement riders. Good for you.
[quote][p][bold]Jean-Pierre Blaireau[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobvdmeulen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jean-Pierre Blaireau[/bold] wrote: Headline should be "Driver 'deliberately knocks Bournemouth cyclist off his bike'" or better still "Cyclist CLAIMS driver deliberately knocked him off". Until the driver is found, if indeed there ever was one, and gives his side of the story, possibly in court, we do not know. More importantly, the Echo, as a news source also does not know and should not jump to side with the injured party. And to all the cyclists out there, especially the fools on the pavements, I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance.[/p][/quote]"I hope the day comes when there is a requirement for you to be tested before you ever set off and that you, too, are required to have insurance." I wonder why you wish this, is it out of some kind of bitterness, or because it's necessary because rogue cyclists kill, maim and injure so many people. Well simple facts tell us it's not the latter: "According to figures from the Department of Transport from 2009, no pedestrians were killed in Britain by cyclists but 426 died in collision with motor vehicles." In fact the last recorded case of death by cyclist I can find is 2007. Let's face it, you see cyclists as needing regulation because they don't behave as you would wish them to, not out of any benign interest in public safety. Either that or you work for an insurance industry lobby group. You would wield unnecessary legislation as a punitive measure for a section society that you don't much care for. In short a sanitised, politicised form of "ethnic" cleansing with no factual or scientific basis demonstrating it will improve safety or public health (the purpose of mandatory insurance for vehicles). A very small-minded attitude in my opinion. Try to live and let live, you are more likely to be harmed by stampeding elephants than by a pavement cyclist. Also, if less people held your combative attitude toward cyclists, the roads would be safer and you might find more cyclists using them instead of the pavement. Where I deem it safer for me to cycle on the pavement or run a red light, I will do so, and I don't give a hoot for any law that says otherwise. It's my life, and I'm not going to lose it to satisfy the pedantic schoolground whinging of the large group of people who have never cycled in traffic but think they know everything about how it ought to be done.[/p][/quote]What makes you leap to the foolish conclusion that I do not ride a bicycle? I do - on the road or on approved cycleways through the countryside. and I ride (horses), too, again on the road and elsewhere where permitted. I also drive, have a PPL and know how to sail. I have taken part in these activities for many years and have undergone instruction and sat exams for some of them to prove my competency. I am insured to take part in them, too. Why shouldn't cyclists? Again, you serve only to demonstrate your foolishness, and ignorant prejudice, by stating that I work for an insurance lobby group. On what evidence did you base this? None. Pure, ignorant speculation. I am, however, an ex-Army officer. As for suggesting that keeping cyclists off the pavement and on the road is a '...form of "ethnic" cleansing...', I feel that the Marsh Arabs I met after the first Gulf War and the Bosniaks for whom I and other soldiers guarded relief convoys in FYR in the early '90s, not to mention my (Jewish) wife's relatives who died in concentration camps in WWII, might disagree with your inane, offensive and odious comparison. I look forward to meeting you on the road one day.[/p][/quote]Firstly I didn't claim you were part of an insurance lobby, I gave you an either or. Much more likely is you are just bitter. You know, the sort of highly-vocal hypocrite who waxes lyrical about others following every letter of the law, but being quite happy to make certain exceptions in their own case (as everyone who is honest will admit they do from time to time). I can almost smell the dissonance. What makes me think you don't ride a bike is when you address "to all the cyclists out there" it implies you are not a part of the group you are addressing. However it's not a necessity and I stand corrected. "Ethnic" cleansing was in speech marks for a reason, your histrionics should really have taken this into account. Obviously we are not talking about killing people, and it has nothing to do with ethnicity. The fallacious and ugly reasoning is identical however. Vilify a group you don't like based on your own personal anecdotes, ignore all the established facts about the group you have chosen to vilify, and then push for measures that inconvenience or discourage their very existence. Cars need insurance because cars kill and maim people every single day. End of story. The same is not true of bicycles. Regulation should be introduced to solve a problem, not to satisfy the whims of a howling mob. The rest of your rhetorical rant is simply not pertinent, but I stand by my point that your form of reasoning is really quite close to those that justify the deliberate persecution of others of whom they disapprove. If you don't like that assertion then perhaps come up with some evidence to support your claim that cyclists need to be licensed, taxed and ensured. Let it be your name that goes on the law that forever prevents children and the less fortunate from riding their bicycle, and forces more people onto our already-crammed roads and trains, forcing more people to pollute the planet we live in, so you can feel you finally got one over those pesky pavement riders. Good for you. bobvdmeulen

8:59am Wed 21 Sep 11

tracy m says...

Reading some of these comments i am even more convinced that there should be a move to introduce more regulation of cyclists.
Reading some of these comments i am even more convinced that there should be a move to introduce more regulation of cyclists. tracy m

9:01am Wed 21 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

You are failing to answer the most relevant question here Hammer.

What would you call it if someone deliberately drove a car at you with the intention to harm you?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter, as I suspect your answer will either be obviously disingenuous or will undermine your entire argument.
You are failing to answer the most relevant question here Hammer. What would you call it if someone deliberately drove a car at you with the intention to harm you? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter, as I suspect your answer will either be obviously disingenuous or will undermine your entire argument. bobvdmeulen

9:09am Wed 21 Sep 11

Red Panda says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.
Again not all cyclists are inconsiderate.......
....your comment is just plain childish in light of a serious incident that occurred...........h
aving also read the victims blog I would say that he had every right to be aggrieved by the motorists original action by 'cutting him up'..........for the motorist to knock him off in to a ditch is totally unacceptable........
...

As a non driving cyclist I suggest that car drivers take more care around cyclists...........l
ots of us do know the Highway Code however it seems that a lot of motorists ignore it where cyclists are concerned not allowing us to cycle safely.............P
ersonally I cycle on the roads as little as possible preferring riding round the cycle trails of the New Forest and off road paths............

Link to blog http://blog.sportsma
ssagebournemouth.co.
uk/2011/09/hit-run-u
rgent-appeal-for-fem
ale.html
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.[/p][/quote]Again not all cyclists are inconsiderate....... ....your comment is just plain childish in light of a serious incident that occurred...........h aving also read the victims blog I would say that he had every right to be aggrieved by the motorists original action by 'cutting him up'..........for the motorist to knock him off in to a ditch is totally unacceptable........ ... As a non driving cyclist I suggest that car drivers take more care around cyclists...........l ots of us do know the Highway Code however it seems that a lot of motorists ignore it where cyclists are concerned not allowing us to cycle safely.............P ersonally I cycle on the roads as little as possible preferring riding round the cycle trails of the New Forest and off road paths............ Link to blog http://blog.sportsma ssagebournemouth.co. uk/2011/09/hit-run-u rgent-appeal-for-fem ale.html Red Panda

9:49am Wed 21 Sep 11

iNewForest says...

@beachcomber1 By this logic, the pony and foals involved in the three hit and run incidents in the New Forest last week deserved everything they got.

http://www.verderers
.org.uk/announcement
s.html#hitrun11

I do not know Mr Roberts but have read that he is an active member of a local cycle club. Imho, the type of cyclist that causes havoc on the Bournemouth Prom is not the same animal that keeps fit and healthy by riding around the forest. It's like judging all drivers by the actions of the moron that tried to injure/kill Mr Roberts or the 117 drivers that struck animals last year in the forest.

On the subject of cycle training. Haven't most of us completed The Cycle Proficiency Test? I certainly did when I was at school many years ago. My daughter did her training at her local New Forest school last year. Do all schools in the area carry out this training?

I think it would be a good idea for all learner drivers to have to do a number of hours on a bicycle too before they pass their test. Cycling is getting more and more popular, so it would be useful for more drivers to understand the difficulties that sometimes arise between these machines of very different properties.

I am not anti-car, far from it. I run a chauffeur company. I also own my own car and enjoy driving it. I also enjoy cycling around the forest. Most drivers give me plenty of room when passing, but some put my life in danger.

It is the reckless/ignorant individuals who ride bicycles, ponies or any other type of vehicle that we need to focus on. Not some poor chap injured, and presumably out of work for at least six weeks by the actions of one unbalanced individual.

I live right next to a pinch point in the forest. I hear a lot of expletives shouted in anger from my house. I have even shouted in the same manner at a couple of dangerous drivers last year. One driver actually overtook me from behind on the pinch point, I felt his vehicle brush my clothing as I tried to get out of his way. I am so glad I wore a close fitting lycra top! I am not going to tar every other motorist with the same brush because the majority are sensible and courteous. I slow down for horses, AND I slow down for cyclists and pedestrians too.

Maybe this Buddhist has the right idea?

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
HH The Dalai Lama.
@beachcomber1 By this logic, the pony and foals involved in the three hit and run incidents in the New Forest last week deserved everything they got. http://www.verderers .org.uk/announcement s.html#hitrun11 I do not know Mr Roberts but have read that he is an active member of a local cycle club. Imho, the type of cyclist that causes havoc on the Bournemouth Prom is not the same animal that keeps fit and healthy by riding around the forest. It's like judging all drivers by the actions of the moron that tried to injure/kill Mr Roberts or the 117 drivers that struck animals last year in the forest. On the subject of cycle training. Haven't most of us completed The Cycle Proficiency Test? I certainly did when I was at school many years ago. My daughter did her training at her local New Forest school last year. Do all schools in the area carry out this training? I think it would be a good idea for all learner drivers to have to do a number of hours on a bicycle too before they pass their test. Cycling is getting more and more popular, so it would be useful for more drivers to understand the difficulties that sometimes arise between these machines of very different properties. I am not anti-car, far from it. I run a chauffeur company. I also own my own car and enjoy driving it. I also enjoy cycling around the forest. Most drivers give me plenty of room when passing, but some put my life in danger. It is the reckless/ignorant individuals who ride bicycles, ponies or any other type of vehicle that we need to focus on. Not some poor chap injured, and presumably out of work for at least six weeks by the actions of one unbalanced individual. I live right next to a pinch point in the forest. I hear a lot of expletives shouted in anger from my house. I have even shouted in the same manner at a couple of dangerous drivers last year. One driver actually overtook me from behind on the pinch point, I felt his vehicle brush my clothing as I tried to get out of his way. I am so glad I wore a close fitting lycra top! I am not going to tar every other motorist with the same brush because the majority are sensible and courteous. I slow down for horses, AND I slow down for cyclists and pedestrians too. Maybe this Buddhist has the right idea? "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." HH The Dalai Lama. iNewForest

10:00am Wed 21 Sep 11

exScites says...

The sad thing is it is impossible to win an argument with an ignorant person.
Can anyone really say that they would consider it an acceptable response if someone used a weapon, that statistically kills more people than any other weapon against them because they made a gesture?
Take the cyclist out (why are they so vilified when they don't kill people) of it, replace it with someone flicking Vs and being shot and injured in response - the gunman - saying I didn't aim to kill, just to injure. Would you say fair play? no crime committed?
The sad thing is it is impossible to win an argument with an ignorant person. Can anyone really say that they would consider it an acceptable response if someone used a weapon, that statistically kills more people than any other weapon against them because they made a gesture? Take the cyclist out (why are they so vilified when they don't kill people) of it, replace it with someone flicking Vs and being shot and injured in response - the gunman - saying I didn't aim to kill, just to injure. Would you say fair play? no crime committed? exScites

11:31am Wed 21 Sep 11

cyclejim says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.
Change the word causing worry to causing deaths and you can say the same about motor vehicles yet cycling continues to draw a disproportionate level of angst in these forums and a great deal of misinformation particularly concerning the mythical 'road tax'.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.[/p][/quote]Change the word causing worry to causing deaths and you can say the same about motor vehicles yet cycling continues to draw a disproportionate level of angst in these forums and a great deal of misinformation particularly concerning the mythical 'road tax'. cyclejim

12:56pm Wed 21 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.
Karma? Perhaps look it up and understand what it means before using the word. If a rogue cyclist were reincarnated as a dung beetle, then you may have a point - but I'll go out there and say we'll probably never know if Karma applies to cycling offences.

Still the fact you feel that a minority of cyclists "causing worry" to you means that all cyclist deserve to suffer attempts on their life from motorised vehicles demonstrates what a nasty piece of work you must be, so no surprise even a rudimentary understanding of Karma is beyond you.

Judging your moral compass by your post, it's probably you that needs to worry about what particular lower echelon of life you may return as once the cosmos has passed its judgement upon you. I'm thinking some kind of bottom-feeding creature might be appropriate.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: I wonder if the cyclist is one of the many who cynically and brazenly cycle along the Prom in July and Aug causing worry and chaos amongst those seeking a peaceful stroll and putting small children at risk, knowing full well there's so little enforcement that they won't be caught. Perhaps Karma does work.[/p][/quote]Karma? Perhaps look it up and understand what it means before using the word. If a rogue cyclist were reincarnated as a dung beetle, then you may have a point - but I'll go out there and say we'll probably never know if Karma applies to cycling offences. Still the fact you feel that a minority of cyclists "causing worry" to you means that all cyclist deserve to suffer attempts on their life from motorised vehicles demonstrates what a nasty piece of work you must be, so no surprise even a rudimentary understanding of Karma is beyond you. Judging your moral compass by your post, it's probably you that needs to worry about what particular lower echelon of life you may return as once the cosmos has passed its judgement upon you. I'm thinking some kind of bottom-feeding creature might be appropriate. bobvdmeulen

1:19pm Wed 21 Sep 11

Kudos says...

So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike.

He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda.

90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.
So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians. Kudos

1:19pm Wed 21 Sep 11

Kudos says...

So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike.

He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda.

90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.
So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians. Kudos

1:24pm Wed 21 Sep 11

Kudos says...

Goldbar wrote:
another busy day at Echo towers then!!

Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days.

Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too.

Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up.

If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: -

Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads)
Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!!

Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about.

Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner

I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there.

How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ?

Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to
Thing is the media keeps waving it's finger a drivers when we see cycles acting fools multiple times, every day.

It's like gypies turn up and the crime rate rockets but the media doesn't like to make the leap,

Cyclists cause accidents and are protected by the media and unpunished by law enforcement.
[quote][p][bold]Goldbar[/bold] wrote: another busy day at Echo towers then!! Perhaps in the future Mr Cyclist will keep his"v" signs to himself as you never know what kind of idiot is on the road these days. Idiot driver yes and he shouldn't be on the road as I'm sure if car driver did then same he would turned around too. Why is it we never see the stories of cyclists go straight through red lights and cause accidents I have personally witnessed 3 included one idiot who went into me? Yet the uninsured cyclist gets off scott free whlst he drivers have to cough up. If cyclists want equal rights of way on the road thats fine I see no problem with as long they do the Following: - Start paying some form road tax (we have to even though its not spent on the roads) Insurance I have had a cylist go through red light straight in the side of my car before - was he insured of course not so I had go though my insurance in order to get the paint & dent sorted as the cylist gave false details and cleared off!! Have your bike Safety Checked like us car/van/motorcyle/ buses/ lorries have to do - if bike is tip top you have nothing to worry about. Undergo recognised proficiency training that is registerd to prove you know the highway code and can use the bike on the road in a safe and competent manner I'm quite sure then you would get some parity and sympathy from the majolrity of law abidin and decent drivers/motorists out there. How many of you cyclists will be prepared to do that ? Stop whinging & moaning and pay up like other motorists have to[/p][/quote]Thing is the media keeps waving it's finger a drivers when we see cycles acting fools multiple times, every day. It's like gypies turn up and the crime rate rockets but the media doesn't like to make the leap, Cyclists cause accidents and are protected by the media and unpunished by law enforcement. Kudos

2:01pm Wed 21 Sep 11

udaku says...

Take heart all cyclists from the arguments here. You can see that the anti-cyclist brigade are of a very low order of intelligence. Their arguments are mindless rants without factual basics, pure stone-age bigotry.
The VED argument is sooo funny.
Cycles should pay VED, based on how poluting their vehicle is and comparing that with the current cost of VED for a small car, cycles would have a negative VED, ie. cyclists would be paid to be on the roads.
These people are a throwback, an evolutionary hiccup reflecting an attitude from a dark age of 60's sitcoms.
So sitting in their cars they see cyclists, wind in hair breezing along and think "thats not fair, they should be forced to be miserable like me". Then their thoughts come flooding in, its not fair, make them suffer, make them pay tax like me, make them take tests like me. Its not fair, boo hoo, mommy!
Is that really the best they can do, is this the quality of the opposition?
YOU PAY BECAUSE YOU ARE SAT IN A CAR. You have a choice you idle dolt, get off youur fat arse and get on a bike.
Take heart all cyclists from the arguments here. You can see that the anti-cyclist brigade are of a very low order of intelligence. Their arguments are mindless rants without factual basics, pure stone-age bigotry. The VED argument is sooo funny. Cycles should pay VED, based on how poluting their vehicle is and comparing that with the current cost of VED for a small car, cycles would have a negative VED, ie. cyclists would be paid to be on the roads. These people are a throwback, an evolutionary hiccup reflecting an attitude from a dark age of 60's sitcoms. So sitting in their cars they see cyclists, wind in hair breezing along and think "thats not fair, they should be forced to be miserable like me". Then their thoughts come flooding in, its not fair, make them suffer, make them pay tax like me, make them take tests like me. Its not fair, boo hoo, mommy! Is that really the best they can do, is this the quality of the opposition? YOU PAY BECAUSE YOU ARE SAT IN A CAR. You have a choice you idle dolt, get off youur fat arse and get on a bike. udaku

3:59pm Wed 21 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

bobvdmeulen says...
12:56pm Wed 21 Sep 11

Still the fact you feel that a minority of cyclists "causing worry" to you means that all cyclist deserve to suffer attempts on their life from motorised vehicles demonstrates what a nasty piece of work you must be


This astounding leap really made my eyes water LOL Where did I ever extend my comments to all cyclists? Fact? LOL
bobvdmeulen says... 12:56pm Wed 21 Sep 11 Still the fact you feel that a minority of cyclists "causing worry" to you means that all cyclist deserve to suffer attempts on their life from motorised vehicles demonstrates what a nasty piece of work you must be This astounding leap really made my eyes water LOL Where did I ever extend my comments to all cyclists? Fact? LOL beachcomber1

6:11pm Wed 21 Sep 11

udaku says...

Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke.
Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you.
Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them.
All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury.
The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars.
So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.
Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke. Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you. Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them. All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury. The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars. So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling. udaku

6:44pm Wed 21 Sep 11

downfader says...

Kudos wrote:
So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.
OK, if 90% is true - source and data printed here, please!

Whats that, figure plucked out of thin air, where as when we've tried to form an argument atleast we've take the official data from the DFT.

Its not a case of "perceive". The highway code is clear that if a vehicle has already made progress through a pinch point that it has priority and vehicles from the other side should wait:

"General advice (153)
Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas."

Further to that this is pertinent to this story and some of the attitudea presented here:

"144
You MUST NOT

drive dangerously
drive without due care and attention
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users"

"147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should

try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake
not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey
slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them
not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists"
[quote][p][bold]Kudos[/bold] wrote: So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.[/p][/quote]OK, if 90% is true - source and data printed here, please! Whats that, figure plucked out of thin air, where as when we've tried to form an argument atleast we've take the official data from the DFT. Its not a case of "perceive". The highway code is clear that if a vehicle has already made progress through a pinch point that it has priority and vehicles from the other side should wait: "General advice (153) Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas." Further to that this is pertinent to this story and some of the attitudea presented here: "144 You MUST NOT drive dangerously drive without due care and attention drive without reasonable consideration for other road users" "147 Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists" downfader

10:08pm Wed 21 Sep 11

eunoia6 says...

Seems to me that the motorist should have had more respect for the cyclist, but sadly the cyclist has no respect for the pedestrian on the pavement. An elderly lady was hit and broke her hip.
The same as this case. Hope the cyclist is caught and locked up.

http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/92
63062.Pavement_cycli
st_breaks_pensioner_
s_hip/
Seems to me that the motorist should have had more respect for the cyclist, but sadly the cyclist has no respect for the pedestrian on the pavement. An elderly lady was hit and broke her hip. The same as this case. Hope the cyclist is caught and locked up. http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/92 63062.Pavement_cycli st_breaks_pensioner_ s_hip/ eunoia6

11:10pm Wed 21 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

udaku wrote:
Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke.
Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you.
Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them.
All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury.
The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars.
So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.
What an astonishing post!

"Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby." PMSL

So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"?

I doubt anyone has ever made a post critical of cyclists who obey the Highway Code and Byelaws - I certainly haven't. But I will continue to criticise those that break the Code and Byelaws. If you wish to call that trolling then fine, it's trolling.
[quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke. Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you. Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them. All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury. The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars. So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.[/p][/quote]What an astonishing post! "Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby." PMSL So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"? I doubt anyone has ever made a post critical of cyclists who obey the Highway Code and Byelaws - I certainly haven't. But I will continue to criticise those that break the Code and Byelaws. If you wish to call that trolling then fine, it's trolling. beachcomber1

8:14am Thu 22 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
bobvdmeulen says...
12:56pm Wed 21 Sep 11

Still the fact you feel that a minority of cyclists "causing worry" to you means that all cyclist deserve to suffer attempts on their life from motorised vehicles demonstrates what a nasty piece of work you must be


This astounding leap really made my eyes water LOL Where did I ever extend my comments to all cyclists? Fact? LOL
You try to justify what is at best a very serious assault, and at worst attempted murder, by postulating the victim may have been one of those pesky cyclists who are "causing worry" on the promenade.

Can you not see the disproportionality of your argument. BE honest, would you feel the same if it was your child or family who had nearly been killed for the crime of flicking a v-sign at a motorist?

For once, try to see the other side of the story. I accept that cyclists are irritating and reckless, I've never seen one so irritating and reckless that justifies me going out of my way to harm them with my car.

Your point of view is quite abhorrent to me, it shows a total lack of empathy for other human beings unless they are in your camp. It's bigotry plain and simple.

If you want further evidence of the seriousness of what has occurred in the eyes of the law, then simple look at the police response. Stop trying to justify or mitigate the seriousness of using your car as a weapon against people who irritate or worry you.

If you want to take issue with such people, then at least have the courage to get out of your car first and address them on an equal footing.

Also look up cognitive dissonance. ON the one hand you rally against cyclists who worry and irritate, on the other hand you take no issue with ramming human beings in a car. Can you not see the glaring inconsistency in that position?
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: bobvdmeulen says... 12:56pm Wed 21 Sep 11 Still the fact you feel that a minority of cyclists "causing worry" to you means that all cyclist deserve to suffer attempts on their life from motorised vehicles demonstrates what a nasty piece of work you must be This astounding leap really made my eyes water LOL Where did I ever extend my comments to all cyclists? Fact? LOL[/p][/quote]You try to justify what is at best a very serious assault, and at worst attempted murder, by postulating the victim may have been one of those pesky cyclists who are "causing worry" on the promenade. Can you not see the disproportionality of your argument. BE honest, would you feel the same if it was your child or family who had nearly been killed for the crime of flicking a v-sign at a motorist? For once, try to see the other side of the story. I accept that cyclists are irritating and reckless, I've never seen one so irritating and reckless that justifies me going out of my way to harm them with my car. Your point of view is quite abhorrent to me, it shows a total lack of empathy for other human beings unless they are in your camp. It's bigotry plain and simple. If you want further evidence of the seriousness of what has occurred in the eyes of the law, then simple look at the police response. Stop trying to justify or mitigate the seriousness of using your car as a weapon against people who irritate or worry you. If you want to take issue with such people, then at least have the courage to get out of your car first and address them on an equal footing. Also look up cognitive dissonance. ON the one hand you rally against cyclists who worry and irritate, on the other hand you take no issue with ramming human beings in a car. Can you not see the glaring inconsistency in that position? bobvdmeulen

8:21am Thu 22 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
udaku wrote:
Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke.
Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you.
Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them.
All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury.
The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars.
So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.
What an astonishing post!

"Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby." PMSL

So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"?

I doubt anyone has ever made a post critical of cyclists who obey the Highway Code and Byelaws - I certainly haven't. But I will continue to criticise those that break the Code and Byelaws. If you wish to call that trolling then fine, it's trolling.
"So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"?"

I'm sorry this happened to the old lady, and the cyclist should be punished. However even this cyclist doesn't deserve to be rammed by a car.

Now in the interests of fairness, I'd like you to do some research. See how many cases of injury by cyclist you can find. Then see how many cases of cyclists injured by cars. Then, when you've made a fair assessment of the wider facts of this matter, make an decision on where the real problem lies and focus your efforts accordingly.

Throwing tragic anecdotes around does not change the fact that cyclists barely injury anyone, cars kill and injure cyclists every single day.

Feel free to highlight cyclists that don't disobey the highway code, feel free to campaign about it, but understand that it's tasteless in the extreme to use a story of a serious assault on a cyclist as a soapbox for your view.

It's the same thing as a religious fanatic using a rape story as soapbox for their views on how people ought to dress.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke. Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you. Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them. All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury. The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars. So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.[/p][/quote]What an astonishing post! "Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby." PMSL So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"? I doubt anyone has ever made a post critical of cyclists who obey the Highway Code and Byelaws - I certainly haven't. But I will continue to criticise those that break the Code and Byelaws. If you wish to call that trolling then fine, it's trolling.[/p][/quote]"So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"?" I'm sorry this happened to the old lady, and the cyclist should be punished. However even this cyclist doesn't deserve to be rammed by a car. Now in the interests of fairness, I'd like you to do some research. See how many cases of injury by cyclist you can find. Then see how many cases of cyclists injured by cars. Then, when you've made a fair assessment of the wider facts of this matter, make an decision on where the real problem lies and focus your efforts accordingly. Throwing tragic anecdotes around does not change the fact that cyclists barely injury anyone, cars kill and injure cyclists every single day. Feel free to highlight cyclists that don't disobey the highway code, feel free to campaign about it, but understand that it's tasteless in the extreme to use a story of a serious assault on a cyclist as a soapbox for your view. It's the same thing as a religious fanatic using a rape story as soapbox for their views on how people ought to dress. bobvdmeulen

4:01pm Thu 22 Sep 11

alanhl says...

downfader wrote:
Kudos wrote:
So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.
OK, if 90% is true - source and data printed here, please!

Whats that, figure plucked out of thin air, where as when we've tried to form an argument atleast we've take the official data from the DFT.

Its not a case of "perceive". The highway code is clear that if a vehicle has already made progress through a pinch point that it has priority and vehicles from the other side should wait:

"General advice (153)
Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas."

Further to that this is pertinent to this story and some of the attitudea presented here:

"144
You MUST NOT

drive dangerously
drive without due care and attention
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users"

"147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should

try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well
be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake
not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey
slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them
not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists"
whilst i agree with some of your "facts" i would point out that if everone or even most people followed your guidlines the roads would be clogged with stationary vehicles. besides which if we follow your thoughts the ignorant will rule the road and your journeys will get worse and worse
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kudos[/bold] wrote: So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.[/p][/quote]OK, if 90% is true - source and data printed here, please! Whats that, figure plucked out of thin air, where as when we've tried to form an argument atleast we've take the official data from the DFT. Its not a case of "perceive". The highway code is clear that if a vehicle has already made progress through a pinch point that it has priority and vehicles from the other side should wait: "General advice (153) Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas." Further to that this is pertinent to this story and some of the attitudea presented here: "144 You MUST NOT drive dangerously drive without due care and attention drive without reasonable consideration for other road users" "147 Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists"[/p][/quote]whilst i agree with some of your "facts" i would point out that if everone or even most people followed your guidlines the roads would be clogged with stationary vehicles. besides which if we follow your thoughts the ignorant will rule the road and your journeys will get worse and worse alanhl

4:31pm Thu 22 Sep 11

downfader says...

alanhl wrote:
downfader wrote:
Kudos wrote: So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.
OK, if 90% is true - source and data printed here, please! Whats that, figure plucked out of thin air, where as when we've tried to form an argument atleast we've take the official data from the DFT. Its not a case of "perceive". The highway code is clear that if a vehicle has already made progress through a pinch point that it has priority and vehicles from the other side should wait: "General advice (153) Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas." Further to that this is pertinent to this story and some of the attitudea presented here: "144 You MUST NOT drive dangerously drive without due care and attention drive without reasonable consideration for other road users" "147 Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists"
whilst i agree with some of your "facts" i would point out that if everone or even most people followed your guidlines the roads would be clogged with stationary vehicles. besides which if we follow your thoughts the ignorant will rule the road and your journeys will get worse and worse
They wont get clogged. I have seen courteous cycling and driving many times and it aids the freeflow of traffic rather than hindering it.

Another factor of following the Highway code, as this is what I had emphasised, is that the roads become safer and those once scared from walking or cycling return to it.

Or are you suggesting something wrong with the highway code?
[quote][p][bold]alanhl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kudos[/bold] wrote: So a cyclist 'perceives' he has right of way forcing his bike in to traffic, then after forcing a vehicle to make an emergency manoeuvre feels in his arrogance to then antagonise the driver who loses their cool and knocks him off his bike. He then uses this as more anti-driver propaganda. 90% of all 2 wheeled traffic is operated by people with a complete disregard for the safety of other road users or pedestrians.[/p][/quote]OK, if 90% is true - source and data printed here, please! Whats that, figure plucked out of thin air, where as when we've tried to form an argument atleast we've take the official data from the DFT. Its not a case of "perceive". The highway code is clear that if a vehicle has already made progress through a pinch point that it has priority and vehicles from the other side should wait: "General advice (153) Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas." Further to that this is pertinent to this story and some of the attitudea presented here: "144 You MUST NOT drive dangerously drive without due care and attention drive without reasonable consideration for other road users" "147 Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists"[/p][/quote]whilst i agree with some of your "facts" i would point out that if everone or even most people followed your guidlines the roads would be clogged with stationary vehicles. besides which if we follow your thoughts the ignorant will rule the road and your journeys will get worse and worse[/p][/quote]They wont get clogged. I have seen courteous cycling and driving many times and it aids the freeflow of traffic rather than hindering it. Another factor of following the Highway code, as this is what I had emphasised, is that the roads become safer and those once scared from walking or cycling return to it. Or are you suggesting something wrong with the highway code? downfader

4:39pm Thu 22 Sep 11

downfader says...

bobvdmeulen wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
udaku wrote: Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke. Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you. Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them. All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury. The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars. So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.
What an astonishing post! "Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby." PMSL So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"? I doubt anyone has ever made a post critical of cyclists who obey the Highway Code and Byelaws - I certainly haven't. But I will continue to criticise those that break the Code and Byelaws. If you wish to call that trolling then fine, it's trolling.
"So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"?" I'm sorry this happened to the old lady, and the cyclist should be punished. However even this cyclist doesn't deserve to be rammed by a car. Now in the interests of fairness, I'd like you to do some research. See how many cases of injury by cyclist you can find. Then see how many cases of cyclists injured by cars. Then, when you've made a fair assessment of the wider facts of this matter, make an decision on where the real problem lies and focus your efforts accordingly. Throwing tragic anecdotes around does not change the fact that cyclists barely injury anyone, cars kill and injure cyclists every single day. Feel free to highlight cyclists that don't disobey the highway code, feel free to campaign about it, but understand that it's tasteless in the extreme to use a story of a serious assault on a cyclist as a soapbox for your view. It's the same thing as a religious fanatic using a rape story as soapbox for their views on how people ought to dress.
The thing that annoys me is that I now feel like wearing a T Shirt on the bike that says: "I am not a lawbreaker!"

If we use their mentality perhaps 72 year old Donald Williams was "collateral" because drivers frequently speed down the A31. Perhaps motorcyclist Wayne Moores "deserved to die" because of the actions of a few other motorcyclists..??

Its rubbish.

Its demonisation and guilt by association instead of them engaging their **** brain and understanding that victims NEED support.

Its comparable to those idiots who trolled the Maddie Mccann website, or the tribute pages on facebook. A guy in Reading has been sent to prison for similar nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]bobvdmeulen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: Beachcomber, you really are having trouble forming an coherent argument so make comments intentionally to provoke. Your comments belie an attitude of ridicule and disdain that can only provoke an ascerbic response.You really don't get it do you. Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby. Financed by the huge profits made from their "cash cow", us drivers(suckers). Might is right and the wealthier you are the bigger/safer the vehicle is that you can afford. In an accident between Range Rover and a Mini which one would you prefer to be in? This suits the car lobby fine, the bigger/more expensive the vehicle, the more money for them. All cyclists want is to be allowed to exist (as they have for alot longer than cars) and be treated with consideration. They want to be adequately protected by law, so that they feel safe, in the knowledge that drivers who don't give a fig about anybody at least know that they will be punished severely if they cause them injury. The antis are asking for the right to b*tch and needlesly persecute a minority. Their safety isn't an issue here, so why complain. They seem to live in a world where thousands are killed and tens of thousands permanently disabled every year by these "rogue cyclists", not cars. So fools, when we are arguing for the right to be treated in a civilised manner and you post this schoolground bully ridicule tripe, why act surprized if you get a strong response. I thought that was your intention. it's called Trolling.[/p][/quote]What an astonishing post! "Cyclists are resisting an attitude of total selfishness by a right wing fascistic car lobby." PMSL So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"? I doubt anyone has ever made a post critical of cyclists who obey the Highway Code and Byelaws - I certainly haven't. But I will continue to criticise those that break the Code and Byelaws. If you wish to call that trolling then fine, it's trolling.[/p][/quote]"So the poor old lady mown down and hip broken was just collateral damage in your "war"?" I'm sorry this happened to the old lady, and the cyclist should be punished. However even this cyclist doesn't deserve to be rammed by a car. Now in the interests of fairness, I'd like you to do some research. See how many cases of injury by cyclist you can find. Then see how many cases of cyclists injured by cars. Then, when you've made a fair assessment of the wider facts of this matter, make an decision on where the real problem lies and focus your efforts accordingly. Throwing tragic anecdotes around does not change the fact that cyclists barely injury anyone, cars kill and injure cyclists every single day. Feel free to highlight cyclists that don't disobey the highway code, feel free to campaign about it, but understand that it's tasteless in the extreme to use a story of a serious assault on a cyclist as a soapbox for your view. It's the same thing as a religious fanatic using a rape story as soapbox for their views on how people ought to dress.[/p][/quote]The thing that annoys me is that I now feel like wearing a T Shirt on the bike that says: "I am not a lawbreaker!" If we use their mentality perhaps 72 year old Donald Williams was "collateral" because drivers frequently speed down the A31. Perhaps motorcyclist Wayne Moores "deserved to die" because of the actions of a few other motorcyclists..?? Its rubbish. Its demonisation and guilt by association instead of them engaging their **** brain and understanding that victims NEED support. Its comparable to those idiots who trolled the Maddie Mccann website, or the tribute pages on facebook. A guy in Reading has been sent to prison for similar nonsense. downfader

11:34pm Thu 22 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.
bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed. beachcomber1

11:35pm Thu 22 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.
bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed. beachcomber1

1:05am Fri 23 Sep 11

soapbox99 says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Can anyone help me with my problem....? I am a mild mannered middle aged guy who is totally comfortable with all races, religions and sexualities but for some reason I seem to have this deep seated and bizarre predjudice against men that goes out clad from head to toe in luminous ad-endorsed lycra.........! Just can't help myself...am I alone out there?
Seeing people keeping themselves fit annoys you? or people that are not so insecure of their appearance they wear lycra to improve performance? or is it the adverts? Do your heart and our NHS a favour and get on a bike occasionally.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Can anyone help me with my problem....? I am a mild mannered middle aged guy who is totally comfortable with all races, religions and sexualities but for some reason I seem to have this deep seated and bizarre predjudice against men that goes out clad from head to toe in luminous ad-endorsed lycra.........! Just can't help myself...am I alone out there?[/p][/quote]Seeing people keeping themselves fit annoys you? or people that are not so insecure of their appearance they wear lycra to improve performance? or is it the adverts? Do your heart and our NHS a favour and get on a bike occasionally. soapbox99

6:14am Fri 23 Sep 11

downfader says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.
And your posts here have served to do nothing but distract from the story in hand.

As I said earlier - what have pavement cyclists got to do with this guy?

You carefully avoided the question earlier (as did many others). That says rather a lot about your mentality. I have read Mr Roberts comments on a recent blog and he does not appear to be a law breaker in any capacity.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.[/p][/quote]And your posts here have served to do nothing but distract from the story in hand. As I said earlier - what have pavement cyclists got to do with this guy? You carefully avoided the question earlier (as did many others). That says rather a lot about your mentality. I have read Mr Roberts comments on a recent blog and he does not appear to be a law breaker in any capacity. downfader

7:06am Fri 23 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

downfader wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.
And your posts here have served to do nothing but distract from the story in hand.

As I said earlier - what have pavement cyclists got to do with this guy?

You carefully avoided the question earlier (as did many others). That says rather a lot about your mentality. I have read Mr Roberts comments on a recent blog and he does not appear to be a law breaker in any capacity.
Your conclusion that anyone who failed to answer your question was "carefully avoiding" it says rather a lot about you!
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.[/p][/quote]And your posts here have served to do nothing but distract from the story in hand. As I said earlier - what have pavement cyclists got to do with this guy? You carefully avoided the question earlier (as did many others). That says rather a lot about your mentality. I have read Mr Roberts comments on a recent blog and he does not appear to be a law breaker in any capacity.[/p][/quote]Your conclusion that anyone who failed to answer your question was "carefully avoiding" it says rather a lot about you! beachcomber1

7:08am Fri 23 Sep 11

beachcomber1 says...

Your conclusion that anyone who failed to answer your question was "carefully avoiding" it says rather a lot about you!
Your conclusion that anyone who failed to answer your question was "carefully avoiding" it says rather a lot about you! beachcomber1

8:40am Fri 23 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.
Fine, answer one simple question then:

"What would you call it if a person drove their car at you deliberately with the intention to harm you?"

Shame I have to keep asking, one might think you are avoiding it.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: bobvdmeulen - your two posts are so full of ridiculous assumptions and twisted logic that i really can't be bothered to reply in any detail. one thing i will say is that you jump to the conclusion that i am a motorist. actually i'm not. i have no car, i go everywhere on foot, dodging the cyclists on the pavement as necessary, and take the bus or hire a minicab if needed.[/p][/quote]Fine, answer one simple question then: "What would you call it if a person drove their car at you deliberately with the intention to harm you?" Shame I have to keep asking, one might think you are avoiding it. bobvdmeulen

9:34am Fri 23 Sep 11

The Liberal says...

twobigdogs wrote:
He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way.

He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car.
Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?
There's no use trying to later backtrack on what you were clearly implying here: that the cyclist deserved what he got.
 
Your comments about cyclists in every other story there has been about them says all we need to know about you and your appalling attitude: for example, “Cyclists!........
...
freeloading nutters the lot of em!”
 
It scares and appals me to think that someone like you is allowed behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way. He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car. Hmmmmm I wonder why he was knocked off?[/p][/quote]There's no use trying to later backtrack on what you were clearly implying here: that the cyclist deserved what he got.   Your comments about cyclists in every other story there has been about them says all we need to know about you and your appalling attitude: for example, “Cyclists!........ ... freeloading nutters the lot of em!”   It scares and appals me to think that someone like you is allowed behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. The Liberal

12:11pm Fri 23 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

I think your name says it all really!
I think your name says it all really! twobigdogs

2:09pm Fri 23 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

twobigdogs wrote:
I think your name says it all really!
Twobigdogs, he's got no answer to the charges levelled at him, so he resorts to playground ad hominem attacks.

I echo the sentiment - appalled you could be driving a car, you haven't got the brains to drive a tonka truck.

Here's hoping you get run over and we can all write about how you had it coming.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: I think your name says it all really![/p][/quote]Twobigdogs, he's got no answer to the charges levelled at him, so he resorts to playground ad hominem attacks. I echo the sentiment - appalled you could be driving a car, you haven't got the brains to drive a tonka truck. Here's hoping you get run over and we can all write about how you had it coming. bobvdmeulen

2:23pm Fri 23 Sep 11

twobigdogs says...

Lol.................
..........ad hominem...nice one!
Lol................. ..........ad hominem...nice one! twobigdogs

3:52pm Fri 23 Sep 11

bobvdmeulen says...

twobigdogs wrote:
Lol.................

..........ad hominem...nice one!
Bless, did you have to look it up? All the best.
[quote][p][bold]twobigdogs[/bold] wrote: Lol................. ..........ad hominem...nice one![/p][/quote]Bless, did you have to look it up? All the best. bobvdmeulen

3:57pm Fri 23 Sep 11

downfader says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
Your conclusion that anyone who failed to answer your question was "carefully avoiding" it says rather a lot about you!
Answer the question then.

What has an antisocial cyclist elsewhere got to do with the cyclist mentioned in this story?

Answer Bob's too. It aint that hard.
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: Your conclusion that anyone who failed to answer your question was "carefully avoiding" it says rather a lot about you![/p][/quote]Answer the question then. What has an antisocial cyclist elsewhere got to do with the cyclist mentioned in this story? Answer Bob's too. It aint that hard. downfader

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree