CYCLISTS!

riddick

Well-Known Member
As a cyclist sometimes, I can confirm that some motorists are total %^&*s.
As a motorist sometimes, I can confirm that some cyclists are total *&^$s.

you need to change your route Apthorpe, nobody needs that many %^&*s in their life. ;)
and don't forget them pedestrian %^&*s as well. :rofl:
 

kes

Well-Known Member
As a cyclist sometimes, I can confirm that some motorists are total %^&*s.
As a motorist sometimes, I can confirm that some cyclists are total *&^$s.

[QUOTE="Cumbrian 1, post: 1620781, member:
Also remember that cyclists don’t pay road tax (and I don’t mean even if they own a car) yet they can often inconvenience 100s of people simply trying to get to work, or the hospice to see a dying relative, or trying to drop the children off at school etc.
I agree with all the rest of the post but people often repeat this objection about road tax but its bull****. Aside from the fact that increasing numbers of cars pay no car tax - including some massive lumps with grossly fraudulent economy figures. Obviously public highways are public and all people have equal rights to use them. There is also no connection between car tax and the building or maintenance of roads.
Cycles obviously cause zero wear to roads and, in fact, cars cause very little too. Heavy vehicles pay disproportionately little tax, cause much of the pollution and cause the majority of wear. Resent them.
[/QUOTE]

All of this is obviously correct but Road Fund Tax was originally to subsidise the Road Fund or Public Works budget so, before things became tight was hypothecated to roads expenditure.
I am concerned that cows have equal rights to cyclists as do sheep and horses - everyone else is generally insured against accidents caused. Cyclists are not and were they, a number of people would feel happier about it - me included.
Nobody else races on the roads in organised events - even rallying is off the main network or controlled on network. Heaven forbid someone starts cow or sheep racing to get even.
 

Cootmeurer

Well-Known Member
I live out on the juncture of two regular cycling routes. I would say a large majority are decent folks and very dedicated to their pasttime. That large majority also seems to take safety seriously with bright colored clothes, reflectors, and highly visible lights fore and aft, as well as riding defensively.

However, I really get irritated about the small subset that seem to be actively trying to get themselves killed. Riding at dawn/dusk, or even before and after light, with dark clothes and minimal or no lighting on bikes. If they want to die I don't care, but fear for the driver that is left with guilt of killing them. Last spring I nearly killed one, pulled out of my drive a full hour before first light, and nearly hit the bastard cycling with no lights, dark clothes, etc... Not the first time I have seen this behavior but the first time I nearly collided with one.
 

Rake Aboot

Well-Known Member
I live out on the juncture of two regular cycling routes. I would say a large majority are decent folks and very dedicated to their pasttime. That large majority also seems to take safety seriously with bright colored clothes, reflectors, and highly visible lights fore and aft, as well as riding defensively.

However, I really get irritated about the small subset that seem to be actively trying to get themselves killed. Riding at dawn/dusk, or even before and after light, with dark clothes and minimal or no lighting on bikes. If they want to die I don't care, but fear for the driver that is left with guilt of killing them. Last spring I nearly killed one, pulled out of my drive a full hour before first light, and nearly hit the bastard cycling with no lights, dark clothes, etc... Not the first time I have seen this behavior but the first time I nearly collided with one.

Clothing colour has nothing to do with being seen.

At dawn or dusk it is contrast that matters and it's well known that black can be the most visible colour.
Obviously lighting is a given and should be used when its required.
 

Woodsmoke

Well-Known Member
Clothing colour has nothing to do with being seen
Erm. Yes. It does. Otherwise, why would we bother with muted colours while stalking? Why bother with hi-viz? (kind of a giveaway in the definition)

it's well known that black can be the most visible colour
No, it isn't :-|

Yellow is. Always. Yellow hi-viz, ambulances, police cars, handrails, lifejackets, road markings, etc . . . .

Most special forces equipment? Black. Why? Because it can't easily be seen!!!

'sake
 

Rake Aboot

Well-Known Member
Erm. Yes. It does. Otherwise, why would we bother with muted colours while stalking? Why bother with hi-viz? (kind of a giveaway in the definition)



No, it isn't :-|

Yellow is. Always. Yellow hi-viz, ambulances, police cars, handrails, lifejackets, road markings, etc . . . .

Most special forces equipment? Black. Why? Because it can't easily be seen!!!

'sake
@sake all you like but colour is not what makes you visible.

Don't try to tell me about something I've been doing for 40 yrs.

Hi viz i nearly invisible in strong sunlight where you need to be in dark colours to be seen . And as for the special forces comment lol. Don't be silly, they wear what blends in, even if it's white hahaha.

In fact, just google the word "contrast" save me trying to explain it to you.
 

gixer1

Well-Known Member
The thing that gets me is the obvious difference in application of the law - it states that cyclists can cycle two abreast yet the highway code also states safe distances should be kept between vehicles, Bicycles never do this and in sole cases ride in pelaton formation which is ridiculous! I would love to see someone push this fact in a court and see where it went.

E.g.- if a cyclist was cycling next to his companion two abreast or in a pelaton formation and the cyclist on the outside swerved (or braked if at the from of a pelaton) to avoid a pothole causing his companion to swerve into the oncoming lane where a car coming the other way swerved off the road and crashed to avoid hitting the cyclist - surely that cyclist was not a safe distance from his companion and would be at fault? if so why are club cyclists allowed to sit a foot away from each other?

Regards,

Gixer
 

Rake Aboot

Well-Known Member
Your 'logic' just isn't worth the time to argue against. It's like trying to sweep water uphill :rolleyes:
What you mean is you can't be arsed actually finding out why you're wrong.

Nice one.

Ok I will explain it to you and for anyone else.

Contrast is basically how much something stands out against a background.

If you have a light background, then contrasting colours will stand out more and be easier to see.

Dark background, same applies.

You wear camo and earth toned colours so that you blend in, this means you are aiming for less contrast. If you were shooting in snow you would change that to a light maybe white camo to contrast less and blend in.

Cyclists want to stand out, so they need more contrast.
Against a grey sky and a low winter sun, the black does this best. Light greys, whites and hi viz vanish against some backgrounds because the do not contrast with them.

Keeping up ?


Ok At night colour makes even less difference. It doesn't matter what colour you wear as most will not contrast against a night time dark background. You can go lamping in a light blue jacket it won't make any difference. Even if you wear black if the skyline is light enough you will stand out as a black outline.

Reflective clothing is what does the best job as this is picked out in car headlights and flashes back at the driver. This and lights.

Note I said reflective, because Hi viz is not reflective, it's basically a yellow.
The reflective patches are what stands out. Shine a torch at a Hi viz vest and you'd be lucky to see any colour. Simply the reflection from the patches.

Hi viz can work well in rainy darkish grey days but only because it CONTRASTS against this type of background.

On sunny days light colours can vanish because they do not contrast with the background (nice blue skys and sun shine reflecting light coloured buildings)


Are you getting it ? or do I need to explain further ?

And blaming anyone else for nearly hitting them goes a long way to explaining why some people refuse to accept the above. They weren't lit up like a xmas tree so I never saw them ! aye whatever.
 

Rake Aboot

Well-Known Member
The thing that gets me is the obvious difference in application of the law - it states that cyclists can cycle two abreast yet the highway code also states safe distances should be kept between vehicles, Bicycles never do this and in sole cases ride in pelaton formation which is ridiculous! I would love to see someone push this fact in a court and see where it went.

E.g.- if a cyclist was cycling next to his companion two abreast or in a pelaton formation and the cyclist on the outside swerved (or braked if at the from of a pelaton) to avoid a pothole causing his companion to swerve into the oncoming lane where a car coming the other way swerved off the road and crashed to avoid hitting the cyclist - surely that cyclist was not a safe distance from his companion and would be at fault? if so why are club cyclists allowed to sit a foot away from each other?

Regards,

Gixer

The highway code is not the law. It is a guide. And as you said, allows for cyclists to ride alongside each other.

Why is this so hard for people.? No one OWNS the road, other people have a RIGHT to be on it, so if you are behind them WAIT until you can pass them safely. Not rocket science.

If you get frustrated due to you're lack of manners and you kill a young parent or even a child, will it make you feel better to think that they were only a cyclist?

If you are in your car bellowing at a cyclist (basically someone who keeps fit) and you threaten them and they knock your teeth out, will you be happy knowing you were the car driver so you MUST be in the right cause you own the roads don't you.

Jesus christ.
 

riddick

Well-Known Member
The highway code is not the law. It is a guide. And as you said, allows for cyclists to ride alongside each other.

Why is this so hard for people.? No one OWNS the road, other people have a RIGHT to be on it, so if you are behind them WAIT until you can pass them safely. Not rocket science.

If you get frustrated due to you're lack of manners and you kill a young parent or even a child, will it make you feel better to think that they were only a cyclist?

If you are in your car bellowing at a cyclist (basically someone who keeps fit) and you threaten them and they knock your teeth out, will you be happy knowing you were the car driver so you MUST be in the right cause you own the roads don't you.

Jesus christ. "ON A BIKE"959e02d0d48db607fcf9bdbe9600bb55.jpg
 

Ade8mm

Well-Known Member
I used to love my cycling. . Kept me fit though I much preferred off-road cycling than round the roads/lanes etc. Same when I had a horse. Why on earth would you want to ride around on tarmac? beats me..

Anyway, where I live (when not working overseas) is Worcestershire. Weekends round us the lanes are clogged (no exaggeration) with lads (mostly) dressed up in all the BSkyB logo covered lycra etc. Often in big groups (perhaps dreaming they are in the peleton on the tour de France) They hold up people busily going about their daily lives. God forbid you ever try and over take. You would be lucky if you just got away with a fisting to your wing mirror.

One particularly nasty bunch , Monkspath Cycling Club , they proudly wear the lycra garments with the name of the club - ( Monkspath being a newish-build suburb of Solihull) are really the very worst advert for cycling. You can bet they all drive cars in the week, but come the week-end they morph into lycra-clad cyclo-warriors)

I name and shame one group but doubtless there are plenty of others

I have a solution...

When all the Cyclo-warriors are back in their housing estate I would like to get all the old boys like me who enjoy the odd ploughing match to head up to Monkspath on a Monday morning with slow old tractors, ploughs , muck-spreaders and other implements and have a nice, slow and jolly drive around the Monkspath estate and surrounding arteries
Lets see how they like being held up on their way to work by other people exercising their right to use the road.

Oh and by the way, the tractors would all be insured.. :)
 

Hornet 6

Well-Known Member
Why all the anger, its all so very simple, todays modern roads were built for motorised transport, transport that pays a road fund license, has to be insured and is then further taxed on fuel duty, no matter if petrol, diesel or electrickery.
Fact two, the majority of weekend lycra clad warriors are selfish assholes, they are if riding in an official trial braking the law, you know, the one that says racing and pacemaking on the Queens highway is illegal.
They also seem to be incapable of understanding that when push comes to shove they will lose every single time, there is not a push bike in the world that will win against any 4 wheeled vehicle.
Also in the main any friction is caused by the attitude of cyclists to cars, car driver suffer the cyclists quite well if they behave, and refrain from riding in huge organised groups (also illegal, thinks organised traffic chaos.

Neil.
 

Top