Cars v Cyclists - New Fines

London cyclists are a breed apart. It's getting worse by the day for the poor pedestrian (for once I'm not using the perspective of the car driver). Oi duffman what with you being a copper if I was to haul one off his bike for going through a red light and made a citizen's arrest on the fucker for breaking the law would your lot take it seriously?


Diesel is for tractors and vans and the likes.

Yeah of course we would, do it first thing tomorrow

No. She wasn't paying attention to what was going on around her and didn't slow when I was turning. I saw her in the mirror but she was a significant distance behind me and should've seen my indicator that had been flashing since the previous set of traffic lights. It wasn't careless or inconsiderate, it was part of normal traffic flow.

You were turning across her path, therefore the responsibility lies with you to make sure it is clear. The rule for blame is a very simple one, if another road user has to alter their speed or direction to avoid a collision after something you have done then it's your fault.
 
Last edited:


Yeah of course we would, do it first thing tomorrow



You were turning across her path, therefore the responsibility lies with you to make sure it is clear. The rule for blame is a very simple one, if another road user has to alter their speed or direction to avoid a collision after something you have done then it's your fault.
What are you talking about? If a car is behind me it has to slow down when I put an indicator or apply the brakes because otherwise it would go into the back of me. That's why you have lights on your car in the first place, so people can see what your doing. Otherwise we'd constantly be crashing into each other at every junction.

She was behind me, she could see the indicator had been on for a while if she was looking properly. I was nearly through the corner by the time she hit me, she actually went over the back end of my car.
 
What are you talking about? If a car is behind me it has to slow down when I put an indicator or apply the brakes because otherwise it would go into the back of me. That's why you have lights on your car in the first place, so people can see what your doing. Otherwise we'd constantly be crashing into each other at every junction.

She was behind me, she could see the indicator had been on for a while if she was looking properly. I was nearly through the corner by the time she hit me, she actually went over the back end of my car.
I'm a cyclist and I'm on your side.
 
I'm a cyclist and I'm on your side.
Cheers pal. I know I was in the right though mate, i was just trying to work out what his point was. He obviously missed my posts from earlier explaining the full story.

The lass who hit iz was a copper, she went f***ing apeshit with me when it happened and another copper came to assist and had to calm her down. in the end they reviewed the footage on her bodycam and sent me an apology note and an offer to fix the damage.
 
Do cyclist's need to pass numerous stringent tests to be allowed on the road?


What the fuck do the dvla send out to me every year then?

While a number of road cycling training courses do exist, there is no mandatory training enforced for cyclists. The same applies to other road users such as horse riders, pedestrians, scooters, skateboards etc.
 
Don't need them for the bike. Why would they ask in the first place? Nonsense question.
Because people who have to get a licence, and pay tax, and forced to take out insurance, and spend shit loads of tax filling up said car, which is taxed to fuck when you buy it, should have more priority over others that dont have to do all that just to get on the road.

Just my opinion like...
 
Because people who have to get a licence, and pay tax, and forced to take out insurance, and spend shit loads of tax filling up said car, which is taxed to fuck when you buy it, should have more priority over others that dont have to do all that just to get on the road.

Just my opinion like...
Possibly the most stupid opinion I've heard but yes, it is one.
 
In your opinion its stupid. Why don't cyclists have to get insurance? What if they're belting down the road and knock some poor sod over? Some of these race bikes are pretty fast.

Nah fuck it, let them get away with it

I agree, as someone who cycles you should pay insurance to be on the road I can quite easily get upto 40mph down some hills. Can you suggest how it would work though? Would it just be for those who use the roads? What then happens when they move to the pavements and aren't much slower near pedestrians? Or what about a 5 year old pedalling alongside their parents, would they need insurance?
 
Because people who have to get a licence, and pay tax, and forced to take out insurance, and spend shit loads of tax filling up said car, which is taxed to fuck when you buy it, should have more priority over others that dont have to do all that just to get on the road.

Just my opinion like...
Opinion but the opposite of the law.

If it is all based on cash spent, should more expensive cars have priority? Should new have more priority over an older car? And if fuel tax comes into play then petrol over electric? Classic cars are lower down still because they go tax free.

Naturally taking this ‘logic’ further then pedestrian crossings should not exist. Cars would always come first in your world of wankers, bikes and then anyone on foot needs to get out the way sharpish or die.
 
I agree, as someone who cycles you should pay insurance to be on the road I can quite easily get upto 40mph down some hills. Can you suggest how it would work though? Would it just be for those who use the roads? What then happens when they move to the pavements and aren't much slower near pedestrians? Or what about a 5 year old pedalling alongside their parents, would they need insurance?


Which is the argument I always use when insurance mentioned....see how many would be happy to pay insurance for their kids on bikes...
After all they ride on roads( admittedly hopefully quieter ones) but still riding on public roads
 
I agree, as someone who cycles you should pay insurance to be on the road I can quite easily get upto 40mph down some hills. Can you suggest how it would work though? Would it just be for those who use the roads? What then happens when they move to the pavements and aren't much slower near pedestrians? Or what about a 5 year old pedalling alongside their parents, would they need insurance?
And a licence, and have paid road tax on their little bike after sitting their exam.

That is why the DVLA looked at it and said it would never work. And as always on these threads you have to ask, if fuckwit drivers knew a bike was taxed, the driver had a licence and had insurance, would those happy to put lives at risk now suddely have a change of heart and drive with due consideration? This thread started talking about the safety of cyclists and I doubt a tax disc would do much to protect them.
 
Because people who have to get a licence, and pay tax, and forced to take out insurance, and spend shit loads of tax filling up said car, which is taxed to fuck when you buy it, should have more priority over others that dont have to do all that just to get on the road.

Just my opinion like...

I've got a car. I've got a licence. I've got insurance. I pay VED. I pay income tax (probably more than you) which also pays for the roads. Don't really fill it up much tbf.

How much do motorised vehicles cause damage to roads compared to cyclists? You should pay. ANd if we're talking priority based on how much you pay, why shouldn't a lorry have more priority than you?
 

Back
Top