/ Cyclist causing congestion and not paying road tx

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Orgsm on 10 Oct 2013
This video says it all cyclists causing congestion and not paying road tax How dare they!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwP42k3m_tY
Kevin Woods - on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: I thought you were trolling st first... funny, point well made :-)
Orgsm on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Kevin Woods:

Yes, it does put the ridiculousness of those statements across very well doesn't it!
Toby S - on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Very good :-)
Rob Parsons on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

It must be holier-than-thou night. I missed the announcement.

That's filmed in Edinburgh. What he doesn't show is the hordes of anti-social cyclists bombing up and down the shared use paths just to left of this shot, scattering old ladies like nine pins.

Still: carry on with the self-congratulations.
a lakeland climber on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

Nice one :-)

ALC
gethin_allen on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> It must be holier-than-thou night. I missed the announcement.

Many drivers think they are faultless so it isn't really a shock that some cyclists take a similar position on the other side of the fence.

It's one of the big problems with the world that nobody wants to admit they are wrong.
Orgsm on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
What he doesn't show is the hordes of anti-social cyclists

Maybe because there aren't any hordes?

Tony the Blade on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Parsons:

You mean the pedestrians going about their business without. If there were old ladies being scattered around like nine pins I didn't see them!
lfenbo - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:


nice one ;-)
johncoxmysteriously - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

You people are prettily easily pleased, aren't you?

jcm
Kimono - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
>
> You people are prettily easily pleased, aren't you?
>
> jcm

Christ, that was a pretty unentertaining 2 minutes.
What exactly was the point??
Chris the Tall - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Kimono:
Another clip of a non-road-tax-payer holding up traffic in Scotland.
This one seems determined to get run over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVN4PRLrpsA
Kieran_John - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!:

There are always going to be terrible cyclists, much like there are terrible drivers. I had some cyclist swear loudly at me on my ride in to work the other day because I dared to stop at a redlight on my bike. He swerved and went straight over the road, narrowly missing more traffic.

On the reverse of this, I have to cross two busy lanes of traffic to get in to the right lane (third lane) on my route. It made my day last week when a bus saw no-one was letting me pull out, so he took up both lanes and flashed his lights at me to pull out!
mark s - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Chris the Tall: that is actually very funny
Mike Highbury - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Beat me to it!: So no cyclist under the wheels of a bus.

Never mind, I'll write an invoice instead to satisfy my bloodlust.
Martin W on 11 Oct 2013
Purely out of interest, I'd be interested to know what people think having compared the video in the OP at around 1:23, and Highway Code rule 191.
puppythedog on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Martin W: The cars had not stopped to give way to pedestrians (which had not arrived at the crossing) but were stopped in a traffic jam.
Martin W on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to puppythedog: It looks to me like the vehicle nearest the crossing was still moving when he started to overtake it. It did then stop, leaving the crossing clear as advised in rule 192. Whether this counts as "giving way to" the pedestrians (which were clearly intending to cross) is not clear.

I only ask because I find myself in this situation on my bike fairly often, and I usually hang back rather than proceed. My reasons being (a)that if the rule was interpreted against me then it would be an offence, and (b) it seems both polite and safer to wait for the situation to become clearer, rather than to plough on through.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Niall_H - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to Martin W:
I think I'd be pretty relaxed about rule 191 in that situation, as the cycle-lane lines continue up to the crossing, so there's no overtake occuring with respect to the car, just moving ahead in a separate lane.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.