It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Driver vs. Bicyclist Fight is Way More Violent in England

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.

However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.

Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
As a driver I do respect those that commute with their bicycles in the cities.

Where I live (Monaco) there is a small coastal road that is heavily used by commuters that come from Italy to work in France and is already dangerous as we have to share the road with buses and zillions of scooters.

You rarely see people commuting on their bicycles on these roads, but on the other hand there are Many many Lance Armstrong wannabees that are totally geared up ( Racing bikes, racing suits ) and often go out in groups and instead of riding one behind the other, they ride by group of two or three next to each other, forcing the cars to go on the other lane in order to overtake them. ( There are many many turns on these small roads so overtaking visibility is minimal )

When I see them I get angry and almost develop road rage as they put us drivers at risk ! ( The thought of ramming into them sometimes comes to my mind.... but of course will never never ever do it !!!!!!!! )

We have so many beautiful country roads in the back that are empty and yet they have to use the road of the daily commuters.

If we have to share the road we should respect each other.

edit on 20-2-2012 by Monte-Carlo because: typo error



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
it's ten years now, that i've benn commuting by bike to work. the traffic here is nervous, slow, full of bad elderly drivers and histeric scooter riders. i have dodged a few big ones, but the rules are as follow:
-always respect the law, it's not that traffic regulatin is made by stupid people. laws are there for a REASON.
-think in advance and always look at the people inside the drivers' seat. you can see who's nervous, distracted or on a rush.you can see fron the seat or by looking in the side mirror.
-even if you risked your life, be polite and koke about it, getting even the most angry to talk and exchange opinions. next time thay will be nice to other cyclists.
what i really can't handle from other fellow pedallers, are these attitudes:
-i am saving the world by riding a bike, so i am exempt from any law. it's always other people's fault.
-i have a fixed gear bike with no brakes and lights, and am soooo cool, that i am invincible. you cannot smash me down, so cool i am.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
i have a private insurance. it shouldn't be mandatory, but if you smash down a pedestrian, without an insurance you're gonna spend an entire life paying back one single error.


Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ANOK
 


I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.

However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.

Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mutante
 


I have to disagree and say that it should be mandatory - there should be one rule for all road users. The simple fact is that cyclists cause accidents as well as being the victims of accidents. Vehicle users pay insurance for this very reason and therefore cyclists should have the same conditions of use imposed on them.

However, as i said originally, these should be at much lower rates than those for car users and dependent upon usage (as is the case for vehicle users of varying sizes and mileages).



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Ever been to oxford? If you take out a cyclist better make sure theres no traffic ahead or you might get mobbed by cyclists, theres hundreds of em!



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


That is because in England the cost efficient, healthy, Earthsaving and humanly beneficial bicycle is still seen as a most reliable and efficient acceptable form of TRANSPORTATION.

The USA (which is England ... except undersexed, with less senses of either decorum or humor)...sees the bicycle as a sporting event.

Cars have taken on a life of their own and now command the roads with more rights than a human being if that human being happens to be on a bicycle.

We have taken a step backwards...turning human rights, health benefits and the Earth itself asunder for the sake and well being of the corporation that makes the automobile and the car itself.

Bike path? You can't even find a sidewalk anymore...and yet you have to pay for these roads.

How effed up is that?
edit on 20-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ANOK
 


I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.

However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.

Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.



I think since the bicyclist was there before the car, all accommodations for itself should be made and paid for by the car and car maker. None of these accommodations (roads) should infringe on the rights of the cyclist just as the cyclist should not infringe on the walker who should take precedence overall.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I can take this one i think.

In england we have this strange thing they dont really have in america, its this odd road anomaly called a curve or rounded corner.

This is due to the amount of space thats good to build on and the more compact nature of civilisation. Bicycles make much more sense over here because a bicycle path can cut straight through the countryside that the raods go around and combined with the fact the low average distance a UK person has to travel to work etc - makes them totally viable, more so, the denser the area.


USA thats not going to work anywhere near as well.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Its been a long time since i've even tried to post anything an ATS. But here it goes.

Some of you guys make me sick!!! I'm 28 and i refuse to buy a car. The bike i own could buy me a nice second hand car but i refuse to give in to the polutant and oil consuming thing called a car. On a 6/7 base i drive 14km to my workplace and 14 back with my bike and i love every second of it! I live in Belgium and over here people are used to tons of bikes in traffic and we own a full protection from motorized vehicles and hardly any biker abuses the system. I'm a 'agressive' biker but keep the cars in mind. I drive with my eyes and ears, and in some sense i understand some bikers are annoying.

The only guys who should pay any taxes are users of motorized things. I have to breath in the crap cars push in the air while driving to work. So tell me why should i or any other biker pay anthing because we do the right thing?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Spartannic
 


Ok then, very simply because you use the same facilities as the evil car users.


Fairly basic really, unless you are advocating a society in which some are more entitled than others?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ANOK
 


I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.

However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.

Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.



I think since the bicyclist was there before the car, all accommodations for itself should be made and paid for by the car and car maker. None of these accommodations (roads) should infringe on the rights of the cyclist just as the cyclist should not infringe on the walker who should take precedence overall.


Im sorry but that simply doesn't make sense. The horse was there before the cyclist, so should we allow horses everywhere? Times have changed, cars are the vehicle of choice.

In regards to this subject, the rights and wrongs of this choice are actually totally irrelevent. The simple fact is that motorists pay insurance in case of accidents. Unless something totally magical has happened that i have missed, cyclists are also capable of causing accidents on the highways. Therefore they should also have to pay insurance. If a cyclist swerves in front of me and i have to swerve to avoid hitting them, that is their fault and not mine - so why should it be me that has to pay for it?

That is all the issue is actually about and anything else is just padding for arguments for and against.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


I just don't want to contribute to the slaughter of our planet in ways i can avoid . :-)

And while i dont have a problem with people using a car in a responable way , i cant seem to understand why drivers seem to have a problem with bikes. maybe its a culture thing or something but over here people respect bikers cause most of the time they use a bike or their children do. Somewhere i have some footage from me mountainbiking in a massive thunderstorm while heading home from work ,one of the most opening moments of my life. but over here some people refuse to ride a bike. The reason? I guess to lazy.... People far to often use their cars for things who are 1km away ,its stupid beyond anything i know....



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
There is a little more to this story actually, if you read the youtube replies..

Apparently the driver and the bike rider had mixed words leading up to the knockdown.

The bike rider was riding along side the bus and the bus driver cut him off..
So the bike rider wanted to exact revenge by riding directly in front of the bus to wind up the driver..

That's why the driver flipped.

I don't condone either action to be honest but you do not do that! If you do then it wouldn't be getting all these comments.. it is getting this attention because it is wrong!

I ride my bike through traffic everyday but i don't follow the code.. i pass red lights and i ride on pavements.. both fine-able of fences and yes i have been fined before..

My point is we all cut corners, both riders and drivers, its human nature to.. especially if you're in a rush.
We all do.. we just need to do it safely, with caution and respect for others.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Spartannic
 


I get your point. Personally, i don't have a problem with the vast majority of cyclists. I will, however, say that some ignore all the rules of the road and then get angry when they are pulled about it! I just think everyone should have to apply by the same rules. Over here, the VED (car tax) would be totally unfair to pass to cyclists because as others have pointed out, it isn't used to maintain the roads. However, insurance is something that is legally required in case of accident. This should be the same for cyclists also but at reduced costs to reflect the reduced risks.

In Northern England it is bloody freezing most of the year. That's why i think you don't see as many cyclists over here!



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I can take this one i think.

In england we have this strange thing they dont really have in america, its this odd road anomaly called a curve or rounded corner.

This is due to the amount of space thats good to build on and the more compact nature of civilisation. Bicycles make much more sense over here because a bicycle path can cut straight through the countryside that the raods go around and combined with the fact the low average distance a UK person has to travel to work etc - makes them totally viable, more so, the denser the area.


USA thats not going to work anywhere near as well.



Hey thanks for confirming and expanding on what I just said. Always helpful!



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 





cars are the vehicle of choice.



Clearly not to everyone.

Henry Ford and all his relatives, the majority of people who need them to travel to their jobs...the rest of us...not so much. Cars have just taken over like a disease...or the BLOB.

Regarding a cyclist swerving in front of you...it might be deliberate but usually I would assume not. Here in the USA if you rear end someone you are responsible, even if they are in another car and stop dead in their tracks inappropriately. You are obligated to, as much as possible, know what is in front of you and act accordingly. It makes sense then that rule might apply no matter what is in front of you unless it is an act of nature such as a deer. Posted speed limits should be such that you CAN feasibly stop in time and be determined by what TYPE of traffic predominantly is using the road

edit on 20-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


by law i have to have a insurance for my household . anything in my fault would probably be payed by the system . :-)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Same in the UK, if you go into the back you are responsible. I was badly trying to get across though that cyclists also cause accidents. Therefore they should also have to pay insurance. If not, why should car drivers? Car drivers only pay insurance in case or accident or injury. We either have laws that are applicable to all or we totally divide up society depending upon preferences.

I personally favour law for all but if others fancy going the other way my first proposal would be tax returns for us skinny, healthy folk as we are less of a burden on society!



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
This happened right outside where I work and I was there at the time, have to say it's quite unsettling knowing that could have been me, thankfully my bike got nicked a few months earlier. Never thought I'd be saying that..



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join