Non cyclists make crappy drivers

You only need to look at some of the comments posted on this group by
people who claim that they drive, but also claim that they do not ride
bikes.

1 They think it is acceptable to go through a green traffic light
without any consideration whatsoever for possible conflicting traffic,
even if there is a possibility of red light jumper or pedestrians on the
carriageway.

2 They think it is acceptable to drive within inches of a cyclist tucked
up by the kerb, with absolutely no consideration to the cyclist who
might need to avoid debris or pot-holes, conflicting traffic or be
affected by wind turbulence.

3 They think it is acceptable to overtake an indicating vehicle with no
consideration that the indicating vehicle might actually move out in the
direction of indication.

4 They think it is acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or a brow of a
hill.

5 They think it is acceptable to break speed limits, because they think
if they only break it by a little then they are not really breaking the law.

6 They think it is acceptable to go through an amber light, even in the
vehicle ahead has stopped and they need to swerve around them to get past.

7 They get annoyed bless if a cyclist is selfishly or ‘peevishly’
riding in a safe road position a metre or so away from the kerb or
taking the centre line when the gap is narrow.

But I cannot recall anyone who claims to both cycle and drive supporting
these unsafe practices, apart from The Major but he’s nuts anyway and is
the exception, which proves the rule.

Non-cyclists often make pretty crappy drivers. Not all of them do but
cycling opens your eyes a bit and ought to be a pre-requisite to holding
any driving licence.

On 24/03/2013 18:39, Simon Weissel wrote:
You only need to look at some of the comments posted on this group by
people who claim that they drive, but also claim that they do not ride
bikes.

Most people are far too sensible to ride push bikes.

1 They think it is acceptable to go through a green traffic light
without any consideration whatsoever for possible conflicting traffic,
even if there is a possibility of red light jumper or pedestrians on the
carriageway.

No they don't.

2 They think it is acceptable to drive within inches of a cyclist tucked
up by the kerb, with absolutely no consideration to the cyclist who
might need to avoid debris or pot-holes, conflicting traffic or be
affected by wind turbulence.

It's not the job of the tax paying motorist to compensate for non viable
forms of transport.

3 They think it is acceptable to overtake an indicating vehicle with no
consideration that the indicating vehicle might actually move out in the
direction of indication.

It's acceptable if the vehicle is a push bike.

4 They think it is acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or a brow of a
hill.

No they don't.

5 They think it is acceptable to break speed limits, because they think
if they only break it by a little then they are not really breaking the
law.

Which is nothing compared to what serial law breaking cyclists do.

6 They think it is acceptable to go through an amber light, even in the
vehicle ahead has stopped and they need to swerve around them to get past.

It's acceptable if the vehicle is a push bike.

7 They get annoyed bless if a cyclist is selfishly or ‘peevishly’
riding in a safe road position a metre or so away from the kerb or
taking the centre line when the gap is narrow.

Of course they do. Sponging freeloaders should not obstruct tax paying
motorists.

But I cannot recall anyone who claims to both cycle and drive supporting
these unsafe practices, apart from The Major but he’s nuts anyway and is
the exception, which proves the rule.

'Prove' as in the sense of 'test'. Please ensure you know what these
expressions really mean.

Non-cyclists often make pretty crappy drivers. Not all of them do but
cycling opens your eyes a bit and ought to be a pre-requisite to holding
any driving licence.

Motorists pass a test to use their vehicle, cyclists don't. Game over.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £10 billion of this is spent on roads.

On 24/03/2013 19:01, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
On 24/03/2013 18:39, Simon Weissel wrote:
You only need to look at some of the comments posted on this group by
people who claim that they drive, but also claim that they do not ride
bikes.

Most people are far too sensible to ride push bikes.

Most people are far too lazy

1 They think it is acceptable to go through a green traffic light
without any consideration whatsoever for possible conflicting traffic,
even if there is a possibility of red light jumper or pedestrians on the
carriageway.

No they don't.

I could name a few ...

2 They think it is acceptable to drive within inches of a cyclist tucked
up by the kerb, with absolutely no consideration to the cyclist who
might need to avoid debris or pot-holes, conflicting traffic or be
affected by wind turbulence.

It's not the job of the tax paying motorist to compensate for non viable
forms of transport.

The issue was driving standards.


3 They think it is acceptable to overtake an indicating vehicle with no
consideration that the indicating vehicle might actually move out in the
direction of indication.

It's acceptable if the vehicle is a push bike.

Exactly the point - crappy driving.

4 They think it is acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or a brow of a
hill.

No they don't.

I could name a few ...

5 They think it is acceptable to break speed limits, because they think
if they only break it by a little then they are not really breaking the
law.

Which is nothing compared to what serial law breaking cyclists do.

But a display of crappy driving none-the-less.

6 They think it is acceptable to go through an amber light, even in the
vehicle ahead has stopped and they need to swerve around them to get
past.

It's acceptable if the vehicle is a push bike.

Exactly the point - crappy driving.

7 They get annoyed bless if a cyclist is selfishly or ‘peevishly’
riding in a safe road position a metre or so away from the kerb or
taking the centre line when the gap is narrow.

Of course they do. Sponging freeloaders should not obstruct tax paying
motorists.

Exactly the point - crappy driving.

But I cannot recall anyone who claims to both cycle and drive supporting
these unsafe practices, apart from The Major but he’s nuts anyway and is
the exception, which proves the rule.

'Prove' as in the sense of 'test'. Please ensure you know what these
expressions really mean.

No.

Non-cyclists often make pretty crappy drivers. Not all of them do but
cycling opens your eyes a bit and ought to be a pre-requisite to holding
any driving licence.

Motorists pass a test to use their vehicle, cyclists don't. Game over.


The test standards need raising. A lot. Cycling can help with that.

On 24/03/2013 20:32, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 24/03/2013 19:01, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
On 24/03/2013 18:39, Simon Weissel wrote:
You only need to look at some of the comments posted on this group by
people who claim that they drive, but also claim that they do not ride
bikes.

Most people are far too sensible to ride push bikes.

Most people are far too lazy

No, more sensible.

1 They think it is acceptable to go through a green traffic light
without any consideration whatsoever for possible conflicting traffic,
even if there is a possibility of red light jumper or pedestrians on the
carriageway.

No they don't.

I could name a few ...

Purely anecdotal. No data.

2 They think it is acceptable to drive within inches of a cyclist tucked
up by the kerb, with absolutely no consideration to the cyclist who
might need to avoid debris or pot-holes, conflicting traffic or be
affected by wind turbulence.

It's not the job of the tax paying motorist to compensate for non viable
forms of transport.

The issue was driving standards.

The issue is that push bikes are not a vaible form of transport, but a
silly Victorian diversion.


3 They think it is acceptable to overtake an indicating vehicle with no
consideration that the indicating vehicle might actually move out in the
direction of indication.

It's acceptable if the vehicle is a push bike.

Exactly the point - crappy driving.

Nope, wrong again. The push bike rider should wait until him turning
doesn't inconvenience a motorist.

4 They think it is acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or a brow of a
hill.

No they don't.

I could name a few ...

Purely anecdotal. No data.


5 They think it is acceptable to break speed limits, because they think
if they only break it by a little then they are not really breaking the
law.

Which is nothing compared to what serial law breaking cyclists do.

But a display of crappy driving none-the-less.

But only 3% of drivers are convicted os speeding, despite all the scameras.

6 They think it is acceptable to go through an amber light, even in the
vehicle ahead has stopped and they need to swerve around them to get
past.

It's acceptable if the vehicle is a push bike.

Exactly the point - crappy driving.

Nope, wrong again. If the vehicle is a push bike, the driver shouldn't
need to swerve. The push bike shouldn't be in the way.


7 They get annoyed bless if a cyclist is selfishly or ‘peevishly’
riding in a safe road position a metre or so away from the kerb or
taking the centre line when the gap is narrow.

Of course they do. Sponging freeloaders should not obstruct tax paying
motorists.

Exactly the point - crappy driving.

Nope, wrong again. The cyclist should be in the gutter where he belongs.

But I cannot recall anyone who claims to both cycle and drive supporting
these unsafe practices, apart from The Major but he’s nuts anyway and is
the exception, which proves the rule.

'Prove' as in the sense of 'test'. Please ensure you know what these
expressions really mean.

No.

Not bright enough huh?

Non-cyclists often make pretty crappy drivers. Not all of them do but
cycling opens your eyes a bit and ought to be a pre-requisite to holding
any driving licence.

Motorists pass a test to use their vehicle, cyclists don't. Game over.


The test standards need raising. A lot. Cycling can help with that.

The standards have been raised and the accident level drops year on year
to a statistically irrelevant level.


--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £10 billion of this is spent on roads.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:59:36 +0000, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:

The issue is that push bikes are not a vaible form of transport, but a
silly Victorian diversion.

My silly Victorian diversion is an extremely viable enjoyable convenient
means of transport.

On 24/03/2013 18:39, Simon Weissel wrote:
You only need to look at some of the comments posted on this group by
people who claim that they drive, but also claim that they do not ride
bikes.

1 They think it is acceptable to go through a green traffic light
without any consideration whatsoever for possible conflicting traffic,
even if there is a possibility of red light jumper or pedestrians on the
carriageway.

2 They think it is acceptable to drive within inches of a cyclist tucked
up by the kerb, with absolutely no consideration to the cyclist who
might need to avoid debris or pot-holes, conflicting traffic or be
affected by wind turbulence.

3 They think it is acceptable to overtake an indicating vehicle with no
consideration that the indicating vehicle might actually move out in the
direction of indication.

4 They think it is acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or a brow of a
hill.

5 They think it is acceptable to break speed limits, because they think
if they only break it by a little then they are not really breaking the
law.

6 They think it is acceptable to go through an amber light, even in the
vehicle ahead has stopped and they need to swerve around them to get past.

7 They get annoyed bless if a cyclist is selfishly or ‘peevishly’
riding in a safe road position a metre or so away from the kerb or
taking the centre line when the gap is narrow.

But I cannot recall anyone who claims to both cycle and drive supporting
these unsafe practices, apart from The Major but he’s nuts anyway and is
the exception, which proves the rule.

Non-cyclists often make pretty crappy drivers. Not all of them do but
cycling opens your eyes a bit and ought to be a pre-requisite to holding
any driving licence.

I would be interested to see copies of the comments that you say were
made on this group.

"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...
On 24/03/2013 18:39, Simon Weissel wrote:
You only need to look at some of the comments posted on this group by
people who claim that they drive, but also claim that they do not ride
bikes.

1 They think it is acceptable to go through a green traffic light
without any consideration whatsoever for possible conflicting traffic,
even if there is a possibility of red light jumper or pedestrians on the
carriageway.

2 They think it is acceptable to drive within inches of a cyclist tucked
up by the kerb, with absolutely no consideration to the cyclist who
might need to avoid debris or pot-holes, conflicting traffic or be
affected by wind turbulence.

3 They think it is acceptable to overtake an indicating vehicle with no
consideration that the indicating vehicle might actually move out in the
direction of indication.

4 They think it is acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or a brow of a
hill.

5 They think it is acceptable to break speed limits, because they think
if they only break it by a little then they are not really breaking the
law.

6 They think it is acceptable to go through an amber light, even in the
vehicle ahead has stopped and they need to swerve around them to get
past.

7 They get annoyed bless if a cyclist is selfishly or ‘peevishly’
riding in a safe road position a metre or so away from the kerb or
taking the centre line when the gap is narrow.

But I cannot recall anyone who claims to both cycle and drive supporting
these unsafe practices, apart from The Major but he’s nuts anyway and is
the exception, which proves the rule.

Non-cyclists often make pretty crappy drivers. Not all of them do but
cycling opens your eyes a bit and ought to be a pre-requisite to holding
any driving licence.

I would be interested to see copies of the comments that you say were made
on this group.

Christ, don't call him a liar. His bottom lip will go all trembly again and
he'll say you're being "offensive".

On 26/03/2013 14:50, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

Christ, don't call him a liar. His bottom lip will go all trembly again
and he'll say you're being "offensive".

If people are lying then calling them a liar is fair enough. If you call
them a liar because they said something which you do not like and you
are are struggling to accept it, then you a being a dick.

"Simon Weissel" wrote in message
...
On 26/03/2013 14:50, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

Christ, don't call him a liar. His bottom lip will go all trembly again
and he'll say you're being "offensive".

If people are lying then calling them a liar is fair enough.

Which you were, and which I did. You appear to be suggesting that nobody can
accuse anyone else of lying or being wrong, without overwhelming evidence to
support their accusation.

If you call them a liar because they said something which you do not like
and you are are struggling to accept it, then you a being a dick.

That's offensive and my feelings may never recover. *sob*

Maybe you could let us know the date on which you were elected Governor of
All Usenet and we can take a look at your remit to be better prepared for
what's acceptable and what isn't within our posts and avoid getting told
off.

On 26/03/2013 18:04, Simon Weissel wrote:

If you call them a liar because they said something which you do not like and you
are are struggling to accept it, then you a being a dick.

You'll have to do better than that on your Italian holiday.