teuchter
je suis teuchter
Cyclists shouldn't be travelling through stationary traffic at anywhere near the speed limit.
Highway Code said:
Jaywalking
- Thread starter Orang Utan
- Start date
Cyclists shouldn't be travelling through stationary traffic at anywhere near the speed limit.
Taking that to its logical conclusion, then it's equally invidious to fine people for driving in a bus lane when there's no buses in it - on that basis, I agree.
Generic NorthAmerican term for crossing the road against the light or not a a corner/designated crossing location.
But the space between the cars that the cyclist is using is clear, at least until some prick wanders into it without looking to see if anyone's coming.
Cars and trucks are not the only vehicles on the road. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Is this about that odd dance the Jamaraquai guy does?
Pingu
Credo
That's fair enough, and I agree, just make sure you look for cyclists innit.
and dont go to live in hamburg
very cycle and pdestrian friendly place. but cross the road at the wrong place or when man isnt green and its a fine (50 marks in my case - no idea how that is these days in euros)
I'm usually v law-abiding, but a few months in Germany (with laws against things you wouldn't even think of being worth banning) brought out every urge I had to jaywalk, play music after hours (quietly), use the bottle banks in the small hours and shower when I damn' well pleased! What does this say about human nature?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
If you regularly see cyclists approaching the speed limit in stationary traffic you either have some nutty local cyclists or a very low speed limit.
I don't think it's asking too much to expect pedestrians to poke their head out to check for cyclists before stepping out from between cars. It's no different to crossing the road when there are cars parked by the kerb, you just have extra rows of parked cars to negotiate.
Common sense only need be applied. Legislating against stupidity isn't the answer.
And fuckwit pedestrians shouldn't be blithely wandering through the fucking traffic, stationary or not, without bothering to look. Would you rather we came on to the fucking pavement, then (applying your logic) we could just rampage about and blame you for not missing us?
On a motorcycle it's way more dangerous than pedal cycles too. And frequently the fucking pedestrian at fault is (a) missed and (b) fucks off without providing any details leaving no way of fucking suing them for their fucking negligence ... which could include paralysis or death for the biker (I've encountered both in my time) or whoever else they collect and almost always involves serious cost in damage and minor injury.
I don't think careless wandering should be a criminal offence. I DO think there should be a criminal offence of leaving the scene of an incident involving damage (or, at very least, injury) to another which applies to ALL road / public place users, regardless of status (not just motor vehicle drivers), that it should be accompanied by a requirement to provide the police with names and addresses, that the police should be able to supply those details to all concerned to facilitate civil action if the evidence is there. And that that criminal offence should have a proper sentence attached to it, not just a pissy fine.
Rights and responsibilities. You fuck up and damage another, the system should be set up so as to require you to answer for it. End of.
untethered
For industry & decency
How do you propose to make drivers in general responsible for the environmental and social damage which they cause?
You can rant all you like about people doing obviously stupid and dangerous things, but in my book, insisting on taking that huge metal box with you wherever you go and expecting an expensive piece of land to park it on when you get there is about as stupid and dangerous (not to mention selfish) as you can get.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
how many people actually do this though ? I'm sure car drivers somethimes get the bus or walk places as well . Some even cycle and get the train !
untethered
For industry & decency
I'm sure they sometimes do, but in my experience very few people with a car will ever say, "Hey, let's take the bus today."
It's just a bad idea and one whose time is rapidly running out, thank goodness.
zenie
>^^<
In answer to the OP, pedestrians should be No 1 not moving vehicles, so I'll walk and cross where I want thanks.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
I do. All the time.
untethered
For industry & decency
Fair enough. I know plenty of people with cars that haven't taken public transport for local journeys for years. They might take a train if going a long distance or take public transport to an airport, but otherwise they drive everywhere they go.
Sorry, what the fuck has this got to do with what is being discussed?
(I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that the "polluter pays" and the bigger polluter pays more, but what the fuck has it got to do with this?)
Well you're just a sterotyping prick then.
Loads of the people cycling in to London every day (if not most) have a car they have left at home.
Loads of the people (if not most) crammed on the trains like sardines have.
Loads of the people on motorcycles (if not most) have.
untethered
For industry & decency
Sorry, what the f- has this got to do with what is being discussed?
(I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that the "polluter pays" and the bigger polluter pays more, but what the f- has it got to do with this?)
You made a point about "responsibility" and I thought it appropriate to put it in its broader context: there is very little responsible about gratuitous motoring.
untethered
For industry & decency
If you want to have a discussion, attempt to tone down the personal abuse.
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
People who cross the road yards from the crossing on an an empty stretch of road without looking for cyclists are twats. I see it happen on South Lambeth Road all the time. It's the only stretch of road I can get up to a good speed but I have to be really careful and cycle near the edge of the bus lane so I can avoid them.
No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
Pedestrians are entitled to wander about anywhere they like without a care in the world. Everyone else has to watch out for them and take avoiding action. It's the law. untethered said so.
(By the way, I'm surprised untethered hasn't slagged you cyclists off for causing global warming (you know, getting all panty and spewing out all that additional CO2 ...) yet.
)It's hardly in the same ball park as the direct damage caused by the negligence and fuckwittery we were talking about though, is it?
(And the motorbikes I was actually talking from the perspective of aren't "huge metal boxes" anyway ... though I doubt you'd know that and you undoubtedly have a whole load of prejudices about bikers just waiting to be exercised ...)
untethered
For industry & decency
It's hardly in the same ball park as the direct damage caused by the negligence and f-wittery we were talking about though, is it?
Of course not. It's much, much worse than that.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
You've changed your tune pretty rapidly. Earlier you were having a go at cyclists, suggesting if fuckwit pedestrians steps in front of them without looking and notice it must still be the cyclist's fault.
Is cycling irresponsible or gratitious then?
Pedestrians are not beyond blame. They must act responsibly and not like the fucking lemmings some of them appear to be. One day I'm going to get off my motorbike and give one a slap. Because I'm really fed up having to brake or take evasive action virtually every week due to some idiot appearing on the middle of the road between stationary traffic without bothering to look. I have already had one accident that could have been very serious because of one such fuckwit- who then tried to sue me for her self-inflicted injuries.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
And fuckwit pedestrians shouldn't be blithely wandering through the fucking traffic, stationary or not, without bothering to look. Would you rather we came on to the fucking pavement, then (applying your logic) we could just rampage about and blame you for not missing us?
Just for the record, this is what I actually said...
teuchter said:
Fair enough, you did say you'd look. However the leap from there to placing the blame on the cyclist for not seeing you even though you didn't see him either is pure wank.
Anyhow you're on a windup IMO. You're insisting on other road users obeying the letter of the highway code, even going as far as to quote a passage from it you regard as being important yet state in the same quote above you'd happily ignore it yourself
the highway code said:
Similar threads
