Idiots on the A1

"Robert Peffers." wrote in message
...

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... wrote:

I crawled along behind two cyclists on a narrow Devon lane recently.
They were the epitome of 'smug' - dressed in bloody silly lycra costumes
with daft pointed pixie helmets and wrap-around sunglasses as they
slowly rode two abreast up a hill, preventing anything from passing
them.

The emanations of self-righteous 'greenness' coming from these two gaily
coloured carnival performers was almost overpowering! - and if someone
finally lost their temper and drove over them and their bloody bicycles
it would be hard to condemn them for their actions.


You sound just like the caravanner's best friend, Jeremy Clarkson.

Tony
Look, I'm all for live and let live, but let's face it, there are a lot of
cyclists out there who flout the law and give reasonable cyclists a bad
name.It is long past time they were made to pass a test, pay road tax and
insure themselves for at least third party.


Hurrah!! - proof that even a barbarous Caledonian, asylum seeker loving,
treacherous haggis in the grass can enjoy moments of lucidity!

Of *course* these cycle aficionados should be required to carry third party
insurance!! If I inadvertently knock one of the dawdling buggers from his
contraption and send him sprawling on the ground, there would be the devil
to pay!! - lot's of limping, and groaning, and camping it up for the benefit
of my insurance company! - but if they collide with my car and damage the
paint, whose going to pay *me*!? No-one!, that's who!

I, along with other motorists, pay for the roads that these spongers appear
to think they own! - and compulsory third-party cycle insurance would go a
small way to redress the existing inequity!

Either that, or take the bold (and probably immensely popular) step of
banning them from public roads completely.

On balance, the latter option sounds the most attractive.- herd them onto
buses and keep the motorist safe.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:56:00 GMT, Martin Dann
wrote:

Artleknock wrote:
Before I start a rant - I have been a cyclist all my life.
On Sunday morning the 5th I was driving down the A1 about a couple of
miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner when I joined a long
tail back of traffic. On finaly reaching the hold up it was a bloke on
a bike, drop handle bars, crash hat, lycra budgie smugglers, the
works, riding on the carriageway!! A bit further on there was a
marshal at the next turn off. The idiots were doing time trials on a
major trunk road on the same day that all the holiday makers were
heading home from up north.

I regularly ride on dual carriage way A roads. In fact I
commute to work on a dual carriage way. I have no choice
about this as my company is placed next to a dual carriage
way.

Do you object that I have to ride in the carriageway, or
do you expect me to get off and bow as you pass.

If you truly are a cyclist as you claim, why are you
ranting about cyclists legally using British roads.

No one is complaining about the legality, it is the stupidity. It was
more dangerous for the cyclist than the vehicle drivers, and at the
place where I passed him there was a hard shoulder. Many car drivers
where squeezing through between him and the traffic on the outside
lane, I was towing a caravan and had a hell of a job getting onto the
outside lane to pass him. Many motorists hate cyclists anyway and
situations like that reinforce their prejudice against all of us.

I use the bike as much as I can, it's great to get out for the
exercise and fresh air, you have to get off road for that. If you
choose to ride on A roads, that's up to you. I live near a dual
carriage ring road that takes me straight to work. I use the car,
there is no way that I am going to mix it with HGV's and cars
traveling at 70mph+. I could ride across town on cycle ways, but I
work shifts and once it gets dark all the layabouts and muggers crawl
out of the woodwork. You can stick up for your "rights" and ride
around with your middle finger up, I choose to be sensible (or a
coward - your choice).

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:12:30 +0100, "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....."
wrote:

but if they collide with my car and damage the
paint, whose going to pay *me*!? No-one!, that's who!

I think that you will find that the minimum insurance motor vehicle
drivers are required to have won't cover the idiot drivers or their
passengers when they open their door into passing cyclists.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:26:28 GMT, Artleknock
wrote:

No one is complaining about the legality, it is the stupidity. It was
more dangerous for the cyclist than the vehicle drivers, and at the
place where I passed him there was a hard shoulder. Many car drivers
where squeezing through between him and the traffic on the outside
lane, I was towing a caravan and had a hell of a job getting onto the
outside lane to pass him. Many motorists hate cyclists anyway and
situations like that reinforce their prejudice against all of us.

Would you have been satisfied had the cyclist been riding on the hard
shoulder?

Artleknock wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:56:00 GMT, Martin Dann
wrote:

Artleknock wrote:
Before I start a rant - I have been a cyclist all my life.
On Sunday morning the 5th I was driving down the A1 about a couple of
miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner when I joined a long
tail back of traffic. On finaly reaching the hold up it was a bloke on
a bike, drop handle bars, crash hat, lycra budgie smugglers, the
works, riding on the carriageway!! A bit further on there was a
marshal at the next turn off. The idiots were doing time trials on a
major trunk road on the same day that all the holiday makers were
heading home from up north.
I regularly ride on dual carriage way A roads. In fact I
commute to work on a dual carriage way. I have no choice
about this as my company is placed next to a dual carriage
way.

Do you object that I have to ride in the carriageway, or
do you expect me to get off and bow as you pass.

If you truly are a cyclist as you claim, why are you
ranting about cyclists legally using British roads.

No one is complaining about the legality, it is the stupidity.

Why is it stupid to cycle in the road, it is safer than
using a shared use road side cycle track.

It was
more dangerous for the cyclist than the vehicle drivers,

Driving a car is more dangerous than driving a HGV if the
two collide, are the car drivers also stupid?

and at the
place where I passed him there was a hard shoulder.

There was a hard shoulder, what does that have to do with
anything. Were there also fields next to the road?



Many car drivers
where squeezing through between him and the traffic on the outside
lane,

In that case he was to far towards the left of the road,
he should have moved out further, and made all the cars
move into the next lane to overtake.


I was towing a caravan and had a hell of a job getting
onto the
outside lane to pass him.

So you were also travelling slower than most other
vehicles, did you cause a tailback?


Many motorists hate cyclists anyway and
situations like that reinforce their prejudice against all of us.

I use the bike as much as I can, it's great to get out for the
exercise and fresh air, you have to get off road for that.

No you don't, it is far healthier to cycle along a road
than to drive along. If a cyclist and car driver go the
same route with a lot of pollution, then at then end of
that route, the cyclist will have far less pollution in
his blood stream than the motorist.

If you
choose to ride on A roads, that's up to you. I live near a dual
carriage ring road that takes me straight to work. I use the car,
there is no way that I am going to mix it with HGV's and cars

I would rather mix with HGV's than cars, the drivers are
more likely to know that they are doing. I also find dual
carriage ways safer than some of the small roads where I live.


traveling at 70mph+.

70+ is that not stupid and illegal?


I could ride across town on cycle ways, but I
work shifts and once it gets dark all the layabouts and muggers crawl
out of the woodwork. You can stick up for your "rights" and ride
around with your middle finger up, I choose to be sensible (or a
coward - your choice).

I work shifts and still manage to cycle. If more people
cycle the roads it would be safer for everyone.

Robert Peffers. wrote:

Perhaps if the two abreast idiot cyclists had known the law the motorist
would not be so upset about cyclists in general.

Seems that the cyclists did know the law and its clear that you don't -
perhaps you would like to quote the relevant Act as asked earlier. The
first time round it could be put down to a genuine mistake but repeating
the error after it has been pointed out to you indicates a more
fundamental problem.

Tony

I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... wrote:

Of *course* these cycle aficionados should be required to carry third party
insurance!! If I inadvertently knock one of the dawdling buggers from his
contraption and send him sprawling on the ground, there would be the devil
to pay!! - lot's of limping, and groaning, and camping it up for the benefit
of my insurance company! - but if they collide with my car and damage the
paint, whose going to pay *me*!? No-one!, that's who!

You have a very poor grasp of the basics of insurance. Its to protect
the person insured from liabilities they may incur not you. Your rights
to claim against the individual are not reduced one iota by whether or
not they have insurance. Indeed you will probably take greater pleasure
from sending the bailiffs in to seize his bicycles than you would from
having an insurance company pay everything off for him.

And I am sure you will be delighted to know that almost all of us do
have third party insurance. Its so cheap for a cyclist that they throw
it in free with my household policy as well as with the membership of
the cycle clubs I belong to.


I, along with other motorists, pay for the roads that these spongers appear
to think they own! - and compulsory third-party cycle insurance would go a
small way to redress the existing inequity!

Your having a larf bringing that old chestnut up. Back under your
bridge with you laddie.

Tony

Artleknock wrote:

No one is complaining about the legality, it is the stupidity. It was
more dangerous for the cyclist than the vehicle drivers, and at the
place where I passed him there was a hard shoulder.

You have a poor grasp of what makes cycling safe. I recommend
Cyclecraft to you.


I live near a dual
carriage ring road that takes me straight to work. I use the car,
there is no way that I am going to mix it with HGV's and cars
traveling at 70mph+. I could ride across town on cycle ways, but I
work shifts and once it gets dark all the layabouts and muggers crawl
out of the woodwork. You can stick up for your "rights" and ride
around with your middle finger up, I choose to be sensible (or a
coward - your choice).

You have a poor grasp of the safety of roads and cycleways. It may
surprise you to know that your ring road is almost certainly safer than
your cycleways and that cycling is actually an extremely safe activity -
about 40 million cycled kilometres per fatality which is safer than
walking. You are many times more likely to die of natural causes while
cycling than you are to be killed by traffic.

Tony

Robert Peffers. wrote:
Look, I'm all for live and let live, but let's face it, there are a lot of
cyclists out there who flout the law and give reasonable cyclists a bad
name.

It seems from your posts so far they don't flout any laws other than
ones you've made up

It is long past time they were made to pass a test, pay road tax and
insure themselves for at least third party.

I see you knowledge of history is as tenuous as your knowledge of the law.

Tony

http://www.drypool.net/cgi-bin/system.pl?id=nfflist
"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...

You have a very poor grasp of the basics of insurance. Its to protect the
person insured from liabilities they may incur not you. Your rights to
claim against the individual are not reduced one iota by whether or not
they have insurance. Indeed you will probably take greater pleasure from
sending the bailiffs in to seize his bicycles than you would from having
an insurance company pay everything off for him.

Since his pedal cycle would, presumably, be wrecked, and since most cyclists
appear to be poorer than a particularly impoverished church mouse, sending
in the bailiffs (whilst being emotionally very satisfying) would probably do
very little to pay for the damage to my car!


And I am sure you will be delighted to know that almost all of us do have
third party insurance. Its so cheap for a cyclist that they throw it in
free with my household policy as well as with the membership of the cycle
clubs I belong to.

I have NEVER, ever known third party liability cycle insurance to be
included with house & contents insurance! - and I've held policies with most
of the UK's major insurers.

I suspect that your waffle about such insurance is just an attempt to
reassure the rest of society - who rightly expect cyclists to stop
freeloading and arrange the cover which they are too mean/poor to pay for!


I, along with other motorists, pay for the roads that these spongers
appear to think they own! - and compulsory third-party cycle insurance
would go a small way to redress the existing inequity!

Your having a larf bringing that old chestnut up. Back under your bridge
with you laddie.


I don't know if it's a 'cherstnut' or not - but compulsory cycle insurance
is am eminently sensible idea - and one that is long overdue.

Pay your way, or walk.