At least have the courage of your convictions and stand by what you've said.
Posted from Cambridge, the home of two wheeled, free loading, red light running, wrong way down a one way streeting, accident magnets.
TV chef James Martin has apologised for unkind comments he made regarding cyclists in a Mail on Sunday review of the Tesla Roadster. James Martin Martin (pictured) ill-advisedly spouted: "God, I hate those cyclists. Every last herbal tea-drinking, Harriet Harman-voting one of them. That's one of the reasons I live in the …
The opinion of a cyclist about roads is worth as much as they pay towards the up-keep of those roads: nothing.
They do not pay MOT fees, VED, insurance or any other kind of support; so they are just freeloaders. Once they have a training, licenses, plates, insurance etc and contribute towards the roads; then they can voice an opinion.
As for the "Ooo, but I own a car, I do pay" idiots. Yes, that is your contribution for your *car*. You still pay dick for all the special measures put in to protect your lycra-lout-rump when on two wheels. You pay *NOTHING* for the costs and inconvenience your two-wheeled-torture devices cause, and yet you still think you have a right to complain. Sheesh.
At least motorcyclists pay something towards the cost of scraping them off the roads when they get it wrong (most non-urban bike accidents are rider-only fault, urban are about 50/50). Luckily the new driving license directives will see their numbers decline heavily and the roads become safer for all. And that's good news for you freeloading cyclists as motorcyclist is more likely to kill a cyclist than a car driver.
However trogloditic and obnoxiously expressed Mr Martin's opinion about cyclists is, he has his right to them. What he REALLY should be apologising for is his dangerous driving (and glorification thereof) which could have led to serious injury.
Regarding his 'city-boy ponce' remarks, the way I see it no one can be offended by any remark unless they subconsciously agree with that remark or are afraid its true.
Oh and one other completely unrelated thought strikes me - I love that El Reg puts up stories with no IT angle and are just simply entertaining, and I completely agree with our one and only Moderatrix flaming the clueless chumps who keep asking where's the IT angle. So why do we still have an IT? icon?
Either he did or he didn't run other more vulnerable road users off the road. If he did he is a knob of the highest order and should be prosecuted. If he didn't, he claimed he did for some sort of 'petrol head' cudos and is therefore is a knob of a slightly lower order.
(I walk, cycle and drive - I can't stand the idiocy that is exhibited by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all of whom seem to have a holier than thou attitude.)
He risked doing some people some serious injuries. So because they were cyclists it's ok.
So if it had been a group of black/asian/foreigners that he didn't like would it have been ok too?
Last time I checked the "laws" it was illegal to intentionally endanger someone (which also makes a cyclist endangering peds or cars illegal too).
The comments on here aren't terribly far from the type of comments that you would expect to hear from some loony religous fundamentalist (which should encompass most of the Mail's readership)
It's good to know that such a large proportion of the El Reg readership would happily sign up to a lynch mob if required. Must be hard to fit passengers into your cars what with all the pitchforks and torches...
Maybe the stupid sod will stop driving like a d*ck now and not try and potentially kill people on bikes now just because he is in an electric, quiet, car. Im sure Tesla are well chuffed to have pissed off loads of cyclists who, lets face it, are probably mopre likely to buy their products as they are perceived as being "green".
Epic fail, I think he should be prosecuted for the grevious offence of using the horn between the hours of 8 and 22.30 or whatever it is.
He has a point, most cyclists know sod all about the highway code nevermind any kind of spatial awareness! Shame he backed down so quick.
Think he'll slag off other annoying road users next?
Can I suggest the middle management / sales type idiots who have to go at 90+ wherever they are and get very aggressive and as close to your rear bumper as they can if you're going slower?
He made a rather ill-judged attempt at a Clarkson-esque diatribe and left himself looking like a pompous arse who drives a overtly flash car and thinks that running people off the road with it is funny and will compensate for his poor sexual performance.
As for the Anonymous Coward at 9:03: get a clue mate. Roads and road safety measures are paid for by council tax, not VED or MOT fees. Bikes pay the correct amount of VED: zero, because they have zero CO2 output. Or do you think electric cars should also be banned?
"most non-urban bike accidents are rider-only fault, urban are about 50/50"
True, cyclists jump red lights, and they don't pay road tax... but chill the fk out.
Solution 1 - The Lycra Problem:
Drivers - stop looking at their cocks.
Cyclists - you can wear lovely cycling shorts over your lycras.
Solution 2 - The Red light problem:
Cyclists - Don't be pricks. I know it is difficult, but just try to imagine a red light as a symbol meaning "stop".
Solution 3 - The Road Tax Issue:
Drivers: Cyclists don't exactly contribute to the wear of the road, adn therefore don't exactly have to pay the same amount for its maintenance. Your Road tax isn't a shared ownership of the road - it is a contribution to its upkeep...
Cyclists: ... it is also a tax, so doff your helmet at all the good cars which drive past.
Solution 4 - James Martin:
All: This man isn't funny AND has no balls. Boycott his cabbage steamer range.
To continue your argument what about all those Pedestrians as well. They walk across the road all the time and don't pay a penny in tax or insurance! They don't pay for special measures to protect them or for the inconvienience of stopping ALL the cars while they totter across the road on their stupid "legs".
What I'm trying to say is you really are a dick.......
Road maintenance, policing and ambulances are covered by Council Tax, business rates, Income Tax, National Insurance, VAT, Excise Duty and every other impost our beloved leaders dream up. There is no hypothecation.
Also, why is Martin apologising for offence caused? Most of the furore has been at his being a plonker, apparently confessing to dangerous behaviour, which he doesn't condone but still engages in.
"They do not pay MOT fees, VED, insurance or any other kind of support; so they are just freeloaders"
err... Lot of cars damage roads because they travel fast and are heavy. MOT's are for the safety of your car and other road users. Insurance is for when you drive into the back of a truck while yacking on your crackberry. So its no surprise we don't 'contribute' as you put it.
Bikes are environmentally friendly, carbon neutral, get you fit and would save the NHS millions if it want for twats like James Martin and you trying to drive them off the road.
Just because your probably too fat from going to drive thru's and sitting in front of your computer doesn't mean you are entitled to have a go on a subject that you obviously know nothing about and are too stuck in you own world to see the benefits of.
Do you get the rest of your mindless opinions from the daily mail as well?
Its not the same as doing it to "a group of black/asian/foreigners"* as that would be prejudicial discrimination based on a an element of their existence that is beyond their control.
As people choose to ponce around on push bikes of their own free will this is not a prejudicial action but one based on inconvenience caused by this decision. Driving cyclists off the road for one's own amusement is not to be encouraged as it is indeed unlawful - but I bet it was bloody funny to watch...
* maybe the collective noun for this should be a "political correctness of"
> It was never my intention to offend the many cyclists ... "
Erm, pardon me for stating the bleedin' obvious, but this was EXACTLY his intention. Why else hurl so many insults at them? Now, I realise this guy (who I'd never heard of before - and probably will never hear of again) is a complete troll, and has now discovered that he can milk the earlier comments for even more free publicity. However, he's got to work out which side of the fence he's on - or in more basic terms: which group can he make more money from. Does he want to be the new Clarkson, or does he want to continue as the Daily Wail's poodle.
Either way, in my estimation he's made a mistake by trying to weasel out of his earlier statement - especially as it's so obvious that he's not sorry at all. Maybe he really wants to be Prince Philip, in which case he should adopt the royal family's old adage:
Never apologise, never explain.
I agree. I said on the other article that I was just as annoyed at inconsiderate cyclists for giving us *all* a bad name, but it's the dangerous driving and/or incitement to dangerous driving that he should apologise for, not his opinions - which are his to do with as he likes and express in a humorous fashion if he wants. I'd have found it funny apart from the shit driving.
He's still a d*ck though.
The ponces are obviously making themselves a nuisance in the village cycling round showing the locals a view of their balls like they're in training for the fucking tour-de-tosspots.
On the other hand the twat's comments don't have to be taken as an insult to all cyclists everywhere. Just the spider-twats that drive their BMWs to the countryside.
I drive a very large vehicle almost daily (it's my job). Those two wheeled suicide jockeys are NOT accountable. They cause accidents (I've seen two directly attributable to a pedal cyclists disobeying red traffic lights, one of which was a near fatal that lost a man his leg), and they don't give a screaming **** about other road users - not even other cyclists.
They have no registration numbers, which is why they blow through red lights, they scream blue bloody murder when they've got no lights at night, wear dark cloths, and you never notice them until the last minute, and they're having a dig at a kitchen captain for stating the bleeding bloody obvious?
No sense of humour, obviously.
Points on his licence and a fine please.
Had some tw@ do this to me yesterday because the car in front of him wouldn't overtake me yet you could fit a bus through so he decided to drive inches from that cars rear and then blast the horn next to me - luckily I can spot a crap driver a mile off so was expecting it.
And for the record I don't wear Lycra or drink tea (herbal or otherwise).
... he drove them off the road???
What he did was overtake in a very quiet leccy car and then used his horn to let the cyclists know he was there.. perfectly legal as far as I am aware....
That the cyclists had not noticed there was a car approaching from behind and were startled enough to ride and fall into a bush is their problem!
As for why he was reviewing a car... well thats mainly due to him been a petrol head too... the Guy owns and can drive quite well a Formula 1 car, has taken part in many many cross country rallies and been quite sucessful.
No one really follows the highway code to the letter.. even if you think you do you most likely dont! So just pay each other some respect, leave enough space (both bikes and drivers) for each other and there wont be any of this :)
it's actually a bit disappointing. i'm no road user - neither cyclist nor driver - but i find the degree of animosity levelled against cyclists by drivers astounding, particularly on these pages (which i normally consider reasonably free from such base, idiot rhetoric). don't the drivers amongst us realise that cyclists are legally bound to share roads with motor vehicles? i'm sure the cyclists wouldn't wish to, given a choice - but they don't have one. can't the fearsome motortards railing against these fleshy, lightweight co-commuters display any degree of empathy toward their fellow travellers? drivers ride in a powerful, half tonne or more of steel and aluminium at no physical risk to themselves, unlike cyclists who risk death from angry motor manoeuvrings daily. many, many times in my city have i seen cyclists forced from the road or hit by buses, lorries and fucking idiots driving bmws. cyclists are quiet, non-polluting, non-congestion causing and inherently less dangerous to other road users (unless you count the danger to the cyclists themselves. from whom? why, motor vehicles, of course). so, who has the most to lose, and who has greatest potential for damage? who here is doing the shouting? who is concerned they may lose their no claims bonus because they didn't open their eyes and look? what a worry that must be!
it would seem to me that the only reason for such invective to be directed against cyclists is that cyclists simply prevent drivers from getting to where they are travelling quite as quickly as they otherwise might - thus rendering the single, self-serving, narcissistic reason for owning a motor vehicle obsolete. no wonder it pisses you off. you spend all this money to get somewhere really, really quickly and then somebody gets in your way. big fucking whoop - my heart drains blood for you. as for the road tax argument, AC, that is total, total bullshit. road tax goes toward maintaining the roads - cyclists don't wear them out, cars and lorries do. end of story. cyclists may be an inconvenience to you as drivers, but that is all. you will still get to where you are going, and in comfort. get over yourselves, show some patience, show some respect and behave like fucking human beings, you simple-minded, self-obsessed cocks.
It's extremely simple - either this guy did what he said - that is attempted to scare a bunch of cyclists into having accidents, or he made the story up. In the first case he is a dangerous idiot who ought to be prosecuted for dangerous or reckless driving. Intentionally trying to cause accidents is an offense and needs to be treated as such. I don't care what anybody thinks of any other class of road user, or what they are offended by or what others of their ilk might behave like or how much they pay. It's dangerous, and if you support this then you have no place on the road either. Period - full stop. Just grow up.
If, as seems more likely, he's made it up for the column and to let off a bit of steam, then he's just an idiot. If the judgment he showed in propogating this dangerous tripe pandering to the worst instincts of some of the less intellectually advanced members of the human race (for which this site has a fair number judging by the comments) then one wonders he can tie up his own shoe laces.
Hate people who brake the law, or ride/drive with no care for others, like the cyclist who pulled out on me when overtaking without looking to see I was overtaking him, or the car that was 2" behind me going up a steep hill because my little 125 won't go over 55 up that hill, or the bike that overtook me in to oncomeing traffic who must have been doing over 90 (I was doing 60 and it was like I was stood still).
Oh, and ideots like James Martin. Not so much for his comments, but because he is creepy. He was on "The Big Food Fight" the other day, and he was just slimy and horrible.
As a person who tends to pay an awful lot in road tax, insurance, fuel duty, MOT's...parking fines...SORN fines...and just generally seem to be paying through the nose. I am of the firm opinion that if it doesnt pay tax, then it shouldnt be on MY bloody road. (Any road on which I am driving at that time, is considered 'mine' - regardless of what side of the road I may be on...)
But seriously, Im sick to death of being stuck behind cyclists who dont contribute at all - often they ride three or four up (thats in rows of four, essentially taking up the entire one lane) thus making it nigh on impossible to over take.
I personally like to get behind them, red line the engine, dump the clutch and wheelspin past them shouting 'Buy some bloody road tax you freeloading, road hogging, lycra wearing *naughty word meaning female sexual organ*!'
On the same track I also dislike horses, again they pay no road tax, they are dangerous on the roads and whats more they always take a shit on that dangerous bend where 100% traction is needed!
And while Im on the subject, can we also ban old people, chelsea tractors, young drivers, women drivers, BMW owners, Audi owners, Merc owners, Jag owners, Rice Boys, ugly cars and also the police.
Essentially, ban everyone apart from me. Except Reg Readers.
It does seem that cyclists have really pissed a few people off here and my experience has been that it is the lycra wearing brigade that seem to bring the reputation of the average cyclist into disrepute. Either they are wizzing by in the traffic jam (the bastards) or they going too slowly round country lanes (the bastards), so logically creating lanes dedicated to these people should please the country drivers and keep the cyclists at a safe distance from the irritable city commuters too.
The AC who thinks that they deserver no opinion because they do not pay road tax is just an idiot. Indeed I believe that everyone from pedestrians, through scooters for the disabled, and up to A class emission cars also pay no tax so why get so high and mighty about one group?
On the negative side it does seem the lycra brigade are also guilty of a certain amount of Martineque behaviour. I remember once being out on a local cycle path between home and the shops with friends and we had our daughters with us when a bunch of lycra clad clowns came whizzing along shouting verbal abuse because the girls were travelling slower than they would have liked.
Quite apart from anything else the man is a liar. At any reasonable speed (like over 20mph) the loudest noise coming from a modern car is that of the tyres on the road. So any cyclist would hear a Tesla coming up behind them.
When you're next walking (or indeed cycling) next to a 30mph limit road listen out for the cars coming up behind you. You'll notice that what you hear is road noise, not engine noise. This is the reason they can't really lower the noise limits for cars any further.
It's a big head he's got on him, but it appears there's fuck all in it.
The road doesn't need cars to go on it to require maintenance, nature does that for us, so the fact that bikes don't cause substantial damage does not equate to they should not pay road tax.
However we could say the same for Pedestrians and Paths. Maybe it's worth subsidising them for the good of the planet, plus removing cars from the over crowded roads?
James shouldn't have backed down, and just because he said those things doesn't mean that he actually done them. I believe that's journalism for you. This is where a sense of humour is always good.
...to talk about the nice "racing stripe" I left on a Renault Migane this morning when the stupid cow driving it decided to pull into the cycle lane without checking to see I was in it. Fortunately I was able to evasive action to save my life but not before my brake lever met her paint work. So what does she do- Drives off as fast as possible- running a nice gouge along the full length of her car.
Made my day that did.
To the Anonymous Coward at the top of these comments slating cyclists and motorcyclists - I think you'll find it's car/van/truck drivers who are responsible for 90% of collissions with motorcyclists in urban areas - they dont look or indicate as they are in a tin box with airbags you see.
And while I'm sure they do happen, I've never heard of a motorcyclist killing a cyclist, you daily mail reading muppet.
about carbon neutral, fitness, blah blah blah.
You're forgetting slow, irritating, smug, eyesore, etc.
The whole reason I drive is to get somewhere more quickly than I can via any other method. Drop the holier than thou attitude, I know I'd be fitter, better for the environment, yada, yada, yada but I'd also waste more time out of my day getting to and from places I don't want to be. So phuck you to be honest, I'll take my extra hour of spare time in the morning and evening I gain from driving thank you very much.
If you dropped the smug attitude and as long as you didn't hold me up every bloody day (and for more than a few seconds too) then I wouldn't have to hate you.
...and some people are complete jerks (I'm fed up of being the only cyclist in London who stops at a red light). But most of them aren't. Just like motorists. Most of them aren't complete James Martins, but then again some of them are. So going road warrior on some randoms with no provocation makes you a bit of a dong, doesn't it?
As for the tax issue- well mate, at the risk of sound like a hippy you can't "own" the roads, they're public rights of way. Also, the biggest, most expensive and best maintained roads (motorways) are barred to cyclists, so what's your problem?
Finally, if you're pissed at cyclists wizzing past you in a traffic jam, there's an answer. Get a bike.
Another cyclist was killed this morning in Whitechappel by an HGV turning left.
I believe we are now on 8 or 9 deaths this year caused by motorised vehicles hitting cyclists.
So if we could move past the Road Tax issue- which does not exist and anyone who thinks it does is a complete idiot, and maybe gain some perspective?
And as for those accusing him of "dangerous driving" I think you mean "driving without due consideration" or some such law -- dangerous driving would be if he drove at them. While beeping the horn may cause them to fall off, it would be their own fault for riding without due care and attention.
I think what you are missing Alan Wray, Andy 79, et al is that these pricks were, apparently, deliberately taking up the whole carriageway thus making it hard for people to pass them -- while this may be perfectly legal it is twattish behaviour and typical of many cyclists "exercising their rights". Yes, you are legally allowed on the road and, yes, cars should give you as much room as they would another car but, in the real world, you're just being tedious, stubborn, pricks and causing other people annoyance because you can.
"Anyway, for H&S reasons, cyclists should be limited to racing at their local cycle stadium, not putting themselves in danger where vehicles are trying to get from A to B."
Who said they were "racing"? I suspect they were just out for a ride with their friends.
But I completely agree. The roads are no place for leisure journeys. There are important people trying to get somewhere and we should give them absolute priority.
All road journeys, even those through the quiet country lanes where Mr Martin lives, should only be conducted when there is clear business requirement to do so; backed by the supporting documentation of course.
Anyone found to be irresponsibly using the road simply for entirely spurious leisure reasons like getting some fresh air and exercise, going for a little drive in the country, visiting grandma, shopping, picking the kids up etc, should expect to be run off the road by irate reps like the wasteful scoundrels they are.
"cyclists are quiet, non-polluting, non-congestion causing and inherently less dangerous to other road users (unless you count the danger to the cyclists themselves. from whom? why, motor vehicles, of course)."
I can tell you're not a driver. Cyclists are one of the major causes of congestion on the road: they cycle through red lights into oncoming traffic, they pass cars on the left at junctions, waiting in the blind spot, they cycle off at the speed of an arthritic snail blocking the road and meaning that only two cars can get through those really short time-span lights. Also they wear lycra. There's also no requirement for a competancy test for cyclist, so those few good cyclists are massively outnumbered by the twatty cyclists on the road.
Why do they wear lycra? It may shave off a millisecond of time per mile's distance (which is probably removed by the stupid helmet that is worn) but it looks ugly and SERVES NO PURPOSE. Ban lycra that's what I say.
Also as one of the nation's dog owners I have to put up with cyclists ignoring red lights on pedestrian crossing, thinking that they own all paths, not ringing bells and generally trying to kill my dog on a daily basis. Though it was amusing, watching one cyclist crash as he didn't think to ring his sodding bell thus warning the great big German Shepherd in front of him that he was around.
This is an article written in the Mail, yes, the Mail, the newspaper equivalent of a right wing internet troll. Please people, if you need an apology from someone writing for that pos you really need help. I'm a cyclist meself and appreciate that yes, some cyclist are cocks, and yes, some car drivers are cocks but almost unilaterally people who read or write in the Mail are cocks.
Will you all please just take a deep breath, step back and THINK about what you're saying???
Yes, there are stupid road users of ALL sorts, I know, I cycle, ride a motorcycle and (although I don't own a car now) I have driven in the past and I've seen all the stupid and downright dangerous behaviour of other road users, but the sort of idiotic vitriol I've seen in these comments (and the stupid remarks from James Martin that started the whole thing) help NOBODY!
The attitudes that you have been ranting on about mean you are not part of the solution, you are part of the PROBLEM!
The Highway code says "It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders." but going off on a rant about whatever particular road using group has pi$$ed you off helps nobody and is likely to just make YOUR behaviour on the road worse.
So, someone does something stupid, fine, it happens, so why not just take account of that in your driving/ riding/ walking and ensure that YOU are not in a position where such behaviour is going to put you or someone else in jeopardy?
It's called Defensive Driving/ Riding and I commend the idea to you all...
No problem at all with cyclists, as long as they stick to the rules of the road that all users should abide by. If they ride four abreast, jump red lights, cut people up and potentially cause accidents they should really be held to accountable, certainly if a car driver did that they would be in rather hot water.
As for this chap, rather poor form that he can't just say it was rather obviously humour and leave it at that, if people are reading his article and can't see that its more of a reflection on them..
I'm with Martin - and shame on him for apologising. His comments were clearly humorous - the response says more about the cycling brigade than it says about him.
I live in a country area, on roads that are problematic enough without cyclists - many of whom seem unaware of the most basic road traffic laws. They're not just an annoyance, they're often damned dangerous and self-righteous to boot. Good luck to those who need to cycle to their work in an area with little public transport. But not to the lycra brigade who arrive in their campers, ride their bicycles around for an hour to show how environmentally caring they are, then climb back into their petrol guzzling vans.
Like other contributors, I'll give cyclists a damned sight more respect when they learn a few rules of the road, and sport road tax discs on their lycra-clad backsides.
> "Cyclists are one of the major causes of congestion on the road"
What are you on about? That is simply not true.
In town, you will notice that it is the cyclists that are still moving when the other traffic is stopped.
And out of town, I guarantee that you being stationary on the M25 has absolutely nothing to do with cyclists.
Still if you feel strongly about it then I suggest you write to your MP and demand more funding for dedicated cycle paths.
> "Why do they wear lycra? It may shave off a millisecond of time... but it looks ugly and SERVES NO PURPOSE."
For cycling commuters it is less to do with aerodynamic drag and far more to do with it not flapping about, not chafing and drying quickly if it rains. Most normal cyclists are aware it can look rubbish, but it is very practical. Simples.
I am genuinely saddened to see the level of bitchy vitriol spouted on this comments page - initiated by the daft (and most probably untrue) comments made by an, admittedly entertaining to watch, TV Chef. I mean, c'mon people!
WTF is wrong with you all, FFS?! Everybody who uses the road does so in the full knowledge of all the risks they are taking, regardless of how much they're perceived to contribute. Similarly, all road users have a duty to minimise the danger they pose to other road users and they should be fully aware of this also.
If you think about it, that's it - end of discussion. If you don't want to take the risk of getting hit by a car, take steps to be more aware of your surroundings or don't use the roads. If you don't want to hit a cyclist, sort out your driving or don't use the road.
1) Inconsiderate cyclists. This includes those who choose to ride four-abreast, those who ride on pavements, the wrong way down one way streets, slowly along main roads in the middle of the road preventing other road users getting past, and danerously in general. It doesn't really matter whether you are paying taxes for the upkeep of the roads or not; lets disregard that particular straw man. How about a little consideration for your fellow human beings? Personally, my belief is that cyclists should be licensed so that they are at least aware of how they should behave on the roads. Others may disagree, but meh, I'm entitled to my opinion as are you.
2) Inconsiderate drivers. This includes those who pull out without indicating, drive too fast right behind me and those who don't look before changing lanes. These individuals seem to usually be driving Audis for some reason. Before anyone says anything, yes this is a generalisation. Some such cocks drive BMWs, etc. too.
3) Inconsiderate motorcyclists, not that I've ever come across any. Bikers who don't respect the rules of the road don't tend to remain bikers for long for some reason. I do have to tut however, when I see bikers in cycle lanes, or stopped at the advanced stop line for cyclists at red lights. AS a biker, I don;t do this myself, although I'm sure I have as many bad habits as anyone else.
4) Idiots who feel the need to suffix the word 'tard' onto ther descriptions of others on internet discussion boards, and engage in ad-hominem attacks on others because they happen to disagree with their point of view. Grow up, stop hiding behind your keyboards and go and engage in some real-life social interactions where you can learn what is considered to be appropriate behaviour.
The thing is, there seems to be a distict correlation between items 1 and 4 on my list both in these comments and the ones yesterday. I don't think this shows that most cyclists have pumped-up egos, just that such idiots are overrepresented here. How about rather then being antagonistic towards others, you express some consideration, don't hold up traffic on busy roads where you can allow drivers to pass, don't cycle on the pavement etc.
Oh, and one last thing - James Martin is clearly a cock if he thinks it is funny to run people off the road for whatever reason. The fact that he writes for the Daily Fail should be indicative of this. He is, however, entirely entitled to his opinion of cyclists. If you happen to be one of those he has offended, rather than becoming incandescent with rage about it, why not engage a little introspection and consider why it is that he doesn't like YOU in the first place.
This post has been deleted by its author
As I haven't meet all the car drivers I would not like to generalise, but you sir are an idiot. As one of the people who don't insist on taking a three peace sweet on wheels with me every where I go all I can say is "get it the fuck out of my way and see ya later looser".
Perhaps it's your own method of travel that is getting you down, and if you aren't up to the standard required for driving on the road with other road users then DON'T
I cannot believe quite how intolerant people are of cyclists!
The views expressed in this thread just show what is wrong with this country, and the arrogance of those who think just because they drive a car that the road is theirs and theirs only. Previous bad experience with bad cyclists only go to compound your views, but actually you're being discriminatory. As someone else posted - because you can't get your bigoted views out on a racial minority, is it kick a road minority time?
I notice most of the outspoken people are hiding behind the screen of anonymity.
To be honest - the more of you that stay off your bikes and in your virtual little metal bubble, the better for those of us who enjoy freewheeling through the country and know what it's *really* like. :)
As I said on the other thread - I'm just glad Apple don't make bikes as you'd all have exploded.
(BTW - I do drive a car myself, but have some tolerance towards other road users).
If you can count a Gordonobrownian statement as an apology then yes, I guess he did apologise; however if you cynical then you could just say he was covering his arse while avoiding actually apolgising or saying anything meaningful.
That's the last time I shall be watching a cookery programme without Delia.
Coat? Yes the one with a picture of Delia and a jar of semi-melted butter in the pockets. (Oh God - now I puked in my mouth a little for saying/thinking that)
What the fuck has paying VED got to do with it? Your VED does not go to building and maintaining roads it just gets chucked into the big revenue pot and a tiny fraction of all the taxes paid by road users comes out of that pot to be spent on the roads. You're not paying for some sort of exclusive right to use the roads, you are paying to prop up public spending in return for which you get a small expenditure on the road networks. It has always been thus since VED was introduced.
The argument that roads wouldn't exist were it not for drivers is total bollocks too. Sure our "metalled" roads didn't exist before cars came along, but that's because cars need them. Bikes don't *need* roads. Horses don't *need* roads. So car drivers should pay for them, why should other road users pay for the laying and maintenance of tarmac that they don't need? And don't tell me that I should, therefore, stick to the dirt tracks. I would rather those metalled roads were returned to their status as dirt tracks. Many of the roads in my neck of the woods were not tarmacked until after WWII, but people got by even in cars by going slowly. However there is now an expectation that every road should be passable at 60mph. Only last month we were pulling an idiot out of the hedge because he tried driving his Audi (natch) down an arrow straight, but narrow country lane at speed and was a little surprised when he came over a blind crest to find a car coming the other way.
"Another cyclist was killed this morning in Whitechappel by an HGV turning left."
"they pass cars on the left at junctions"
I was stopped at a traffic circle, signaling to go left. Because of right of way laws, I was (obviously) watching the right, for the gap in traffic. Some idiot on a bicycle passed me on the left, I slammed the brakes. If he passed 2 seconds later, he would have been pitched over my bonnet.
With the HGV killing the cyclist... Was the truck signaling? If so, the cyclist was at fault, and paid with his life. He should have either been in front of the truck (and pulled off first) or behind it (where its safe). If the truck didn't signal, the trucker is at fault. Which remidns me: motorists, your indicators are there to show other people (pedestrians included) what you intend to do with your vehicle. Signalling 0.3 seconds before you turn is NOT acceptable.
"If you dropped the smug attitude and as long as you didn't hold me up every bloody day (and for more than a few seconds too) then I wouldn't have to hate you."
I think you hating cyclists is the least of your worries. I think the problem here is you need extra space because you are unable to control your car properly, due to the space you need around it for your enomously inflated ego. Do you have a private plate on your car by any chance?
Nope - it is quite simply dangerous driving (or worse). Driving without due car and intention is just that. If the intention was to cause the cyclist to end up in the hedge (as was implied by the original wording) then it is at least dangerous driving, and might well qualify as reckless. Of course it is far more likely he was just making the whole story up.
Oh yes - and just because others are not complying with the Highway Code, it doesn't give you the right to break the law in retaliation, especially in a manner likely to lead to an accident.
I'm quite aware that the cyclists were being twats.
What you "seem to be missing" is that he carried out an action that deliberately endangered them. I quote "Knowing they wouldn't hear me coming..." so if he knew they wouldn't hear him coming then he chose to deliberately and knowingly take an action that would endanger them because they annoyed him.
Slow people on the tube annoy me because they aren't paying enough attention to where they are going. By your logic I could shout really loudly at them and cause them to fall onto the tracks because after all they were guilty of "just being tedious, stubborn, pricks and causing other people annoyance because you can".
Call me an old whiny but I thought causing people deliberate harm was a bad thing. I joke about taking out a pointy stick to get past slow walking pedestrians. I don't actually do it....
What a fucking one sided argument that was. Why dont you open your eyes and give a reasoned argument covering all sides if you are going to drivel on that long!
You love to cry on the side of the cyclist versus the cars, what about cyclist versus pedestrians.
Even on busy pavements in the centre of London there are still cyclists riding on pavements to avoid one way streets. This is just the "better for me to hit a person walking than get hit by a car" mentality that makes me block the pavements and get in their way whenever possible on the pavement.
Fucking inconsiderate wankers you are (not all, of course, just the pavement mounters), and you even have the cheek to wear a helmet when riding on the pavement. Whats this for, so you can smash my face in with your helmet when you come over the handlebars.
I could cycle to work, or even drive, but I use public transport and you cunts dont make it any easier. Might as well go back to driving and see if its acceptable for me to drive at you in your special lanes.
But I do get annoyed by the minority that act irresponsibly, which, luckily, there are few of where I live. Why lycra? It's comfortable, doesn't weigh you down when it rains and dries quickly when it stops raining (which, in the UK, is really useful) and is brightly coloured.
As for the Vehicle Excise Duty argument, car drivers have a far bigger issues than cyclists not paying. From the last budget report:
Expenditure on transport: £13.7bn (that's all transport)
Income from VED: £6.1bn
Income from Fuel Duty: £25.7bn
So, road users appear to paying out more in taxes and duties than is spent on the roads. Your payments are being spent on non-transport sectors (people claiming benefits, MPs' expenses, etc) and other transport methods (buses, trains, airports, shipping).
Disclaimer: There is a chance I've misinterpretted the budget report (it is a tedious, long document) and the figures may be incorrect.
Cyclists & red lights. Most cyclists don't like to lose the momentum they've built up.
Imagine if , as a motorist, you had to push the car up to 5mph manually after each stop?
To cyclists... many motorists drive dangerously. My solution is, don't get mad, get even!!!
Oh dear - the anti-cyclists with their bigotry, stupidity, belligerence and intolerance are out in force today.
Firstly, regardless of who pays what, no-one in this country has any right to cause damage to anyone or anything else, regardless of provocation. Punch someone in the face and you leave yourself open to a charge of assault. There is no precedence in law that grants someone paying a tax the right to assault another person through having paid money to the govt. That's just basic. You paying your £130 VED doesn't give you any right to cause damage to me or anyone else who happens to irritate you.
Roads are funded from general taxation anyway; the VAT on my current bike was more than 3 year's of my car's VED. Add to that the sort of income tax that most on here are used to paying, the rather large Council Tax bill that drops on my mat every April, the money that we as a family spend and therefore contribute to general taxation via the VAT element and I think you'll find I pay my way, thank you. Who knows - it might add up to more than what you pay.
This 'all cyclists jump red lights / ignore all traffic laws' idea. Cobblers. You notice the ones that do it. You just don't see me & every other cyclist on my route waiting at zebra crossings, waiting at traffic lights, being careful & attentive at Give Ways etc. You see some do it and then tar every single one of us with the same brush in some desperate attempt at justifying your stupid dislike of cyclists. What is it about some cyclist who jumps a red light that so upsets you anyway? In your dreams they deserve to die for jumping a light; if they do you get to gloat and point as you drive past the aftermath. Is it because when they don't die you're left with that intense disappointment that someone you've never met isn't now dead but has gained a few seconds on you, and has failed to prove you right? I don't get it - you hate being held up by a cyclist, but when they scuttle off out of your way, you hate them even more...?
Lycra - the old chestnut.
@RayOx6 - and I quote - "Why do they wear lycra? It may shave off a millisecond of time per mile's distance (which is probably removed by the stupid helmet that is worn) but it looks ugly and SERVES NO PURPOSE. Ban lycra that's what I say."
You just don't get it do you? If I'm riding 21 miles to work I'm going to get sweat on. Jeans & a jumper are heavy, restrictive and soak up all that sweat, which I'm then going to carry about all day. Stenchtastic mate. If it rains it's even worse, riding in heavy soaked clothes. You know what lycra does? It wicks away sweat from the body. It has handy pockets out of the way round th back to put things in, like a phone, cash, swipe card for the office. It's a stupid lurid colour so that other road users have a better chance of spotting us. The shorts have a nice padded insert that allows a lot of us to ride 80, 80, 90, 100 miles without getting a sore backside. The one thing that lycra isn't designed for is to make us more attractive to other drivers. We don't wear it for that purpose, so don't flatter yourself into thinking that we do. It works, it does what it's meant to do. It's the right kit for the job.
If you get so angry about someone doing some form of exercise wearing the right kit for the job even though he or she may not be up Lance Armstrong's standard, I take it that you also prise yourself out of your pit on a Sunday morning to harangue & berate those Sunday league footballers, you know, the fat late-30s blokes nursing a hangover, wearing something that could be Real Madrid's kit but playing football of a standard that wouldn't get them into the England Ladies Reserve team, or perhaps you wander round Asda on a Saturday afternoon picking fights with fat blokes in Chelsea & Man Urenited tops? You don't? Why ever not?
There a some numpties on here. When I drive to work I'm never held up by a cyclist. It's the queue of cars that holds me up. When I cycle, it takes 20 minutes or so longer, but I feel good. That's what you miss out on. Sitting in traffic jams getting fatter & older, instead of getting the buzz that cycling gives. Try it. Don't mock, have a go. You might then realise why so many people willingly take longer to get to work and put more effort into it. Ponder that. Why do we do? Ever heard of fun?
'I take it that if someone videos me taking out your windscreen with a bike lock then it'll be funny?'
Funny? It'd be a miracle, I don't own a car and haven't for about 6 years... However, I do own & regularly ride a bike both to work and for recreation and its exactly the sort of arrogant, smug, red-light jumping, pavement-cutting, riding-four-abreast twat he refers to in the article that give the rest of us a bad name.
I was working on the assumption that the original article was full of exaggeration & hyperbole rather than reporting fact, being as the author was in effect confessing to a criminal act. You two on the other hand seem to take everything you read on the internet as gospel, which really can't do much for your blood pressure...
Are you always a twat faced wanker or is this just the theme for today?
Since when does a bike weigh the same as a car?? If you cant get the momentum on your bike going then you shouldnt be riding it as you are a danger to other road users and yourself. This is no excuse not to stop at red lights, this is just the excuse of a law dodging lazy ass knob rash!
As for your comment about getting even....love it! Think I will start taking an umbrella to the spokes of every saddle humper I pass on the pavements.
Um, it's now possible to buy conventional engined, non-hybrid cars that are in the £0/annum VED band- the charge is based on emmisions. I believe one of them is a Fiesta, possibly even a diesel.
Bikes do approximately 1/10000 of the damage to the road surface of a mid-sized car.
I'm a Cambridge cyclist, as it happens, but I would prefer it if it was legal for me to carry a baseball bat to deal summary justice to the pavement riding, red-light jumping, unlit prats doing all the above whilst texting.
@all replying to Ray0x6 - you are not replying to me, but deity - he used my name as the title of his post. i had also written a reply to him/her, but eventually didn't post it because there is no point arguing with people who choose to believe stuff that is patently false.
@Mark123 - you are replying to me, but i started my post with the following statement: "i'm no road user - neither cyclist nor driver". it should be fairly obvious therefore that i, like you, am a pedestrian, but that wasn't what we were arguing about.
> Cyclists & red lights. Most cyclists don't like to lose the momentum they've built up.
> Imagine if , as a motorist, you had to push the car up to 5mph manually after each stop?
I'm sorry, but the law is the law, there isn't one law for you and one for everyone else, with the possible exception of MPS, natch. If you are too unfit to get your bike moving again after stopping due to a legal requirement, might I suggest a few trips to the gym before riding on the road?
> To cyclists... many motorists drive dangerously. My solution is, don't get mad, get even!!!
Yes, because a reasoned adult response to someone acting irresponsibly, is always to act irresponsibly yourself.
There, whoever said sarcasm doesn't work in the written format?
"Yes, you are legally allowed on the road and, yes, cars should give you as much room as they would another car but, in the real world, you're just being tedious, stubborn, pricks and causing other people annoyance because you can."
What a load of cock. "In the real world"? No. Not the real world at all, it's just your opinion which would count for nothing in a court of law. The law is the law, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Just because the speed limit is 60mph that doesn't mean anybody preventing you from driving at that speed is being a twat. It's an upper limit beyond which you should not go, not a recommended cruising speed. If there's something slow in front of you you wait until it's safe to pass and then you pass. Carefully, safely and with consideration for all around. It doesn't matter what's holding you up, that's what you do. To do otherwise is the behaviour of a tedious prick who likes to cause annoyance because they can.
The real test is however to consider what he had done if the slow moving vehicle had been something larger. If he'd come up behind a slow moving tractor would his behaviour have been the same? Of course it wouldn't, because he'd have been frightened that he would come of worst in an argument with several tons of metal. Or alternatively an argument with a big burly son of the soil, rather than a big girly son of a bitch like him.
Remember that the RTA requires that at all time you proceed safely, with care and with consideration for other road users. No matter what else it says in the act or it's amendments, if you fail to meet with those simple requirements you are committing an offence, and although it doesn't say so in the RTA you are being an arrogant twat at the same time.
Final comment on that lardy ponce: Did you see his attempt at the Mille Miglia? He spent god knows how much buying an old Maserati he then spent about £30K getting the engine rebuilt and then the engine went bang before he even got started. So basically he threw a toddler's tantrum. He cried. He was rude and obnoxious towards people who tried to help him. He even turned down the offer of a loan of another car to complete the event from the film company who were paying him handsomely for the rights to film his attempt. Is he really a bonafide petrolhead? No. Sure a petrolhead would be upset when his £30K engine went bang, but a real petrolhead would have jumped at the chance to take part in the Mille Miglia in somebody else's car. What he was really interested in was showing off his expensive car. All of which goes to show that the man is clearly a typical celebrity twat who believes that the world should revolve around him and will throw his toys out of the pram when it doesn't.
"You two on the other hand seem to take everything you read on the internet as gospel, which really can't do much for your blood pressure..."
No not really. I just happen to think that while people should be free to express opinions, when they start advocating violence against another group in a national newspaper and openly claim to have committed such violence themselves, then they should be taken to task.
Likewise the various mob of idiots backing him and basically saying "Yeah, that minority group upset me for some reason, so they should be physically attacked" is unacceptable.
Later claiming that it was all a joke is utterly spineless and a pretty poor defence IMO.
"Sensitive bunch you cyclists."
Yeah, being run-over for someone else's amusement or because they don't like what you wear or find you annoying tends to do that. Surprised?
I'm off to batter an old lady to death for taking too long fumbling around in her purse in a post office queue. That'll be a laugh, care to join me?
Well if you're a pedestrian stop sticking up for the pedal pounding fucktards. They make enough noise on their own without other people helping them out.
You should be well aware of the blight these two wheeled pavement harassers cause to the biped community so stick up for yourself man coz they sure as hell dont intend to!
Have you ever been or know someone who has been hit by a bike simply for walking along a pedestrian pavement? Its not a nice thing to happen, especially if said cyclecunt is in top gear and ploughs into them at full speed, even worse if said ped is a small child or elderly. And all you get is a "oh sorry, didnt see you there", then a quick pedal away before anyone can do anything.
Bottom line, this kind of cyclist doesnt give a shit about me or you or our rights...just their need to get from A to B as quickly as possible, whatever the consequences.
For arguments sake though, if one day a car mounts the pavement and gives me a shunt I will express my opinion about them, but until that day, all I can comment on are the cycling knuckleshufflers that deem it ok to harass the likes of me and YOU by taking away our legal right to walk along a pavement in safety.
Somebody needs to stick up for the pedestrians side, as this is should not be a two way discussion between cars and bikes. You can sit in their camp, but I am standing up for my rights matey.
If we all stick to our respective boundaries and respect each others then we will truly be living in a society...until that day, cycletards will always be the bane of my pedestrian existance.
reg motortards hating cyclists #
cyclists are quiet, non-polluting, non-congestion
Cyclists cause congestion by travelling far below the speed limit, in the same way that tractors cause congestion on country roads.
ideally everyone using a road should be able to move at a fairly constant speed, and not be held up by a cyclist, which causes then to brake, wait for a safe place and then accelerate again to overtake.
braking and accelerating causes more pollution than driving at a steady speed, cyclists hold up traffic and cause this.
Cyclist are a cause of pollution.
As for the guy saying that motor cyclists are responsible for 50% of accidents in towns (that they are involved in), I'm quite sure that the statistics on this, (which I don't have to hand) back up your claim, there is a word that describes most motorcycle accidents, (sidsy) -Sorry i didn't see you, I guess that must be why they run special campaigns asking drivers to be more aware of bike riders. -but yes, they also have to warn bike riders not to act like twats as well
By Naich Posted Wednesday 16th September 2009 09:45 GMT
To all the people who don't want me to cycle to work tomorrow - tell you what, I'll take the car instead and rather than being held up for a few seconds, you can sit behind me all the way. Morons
Yes please do take your car, then we can sit behind you travelling at 30MPH rather than 10 or 15MPH.
or just be mindful of the fact that you are piloting a slower vehicle and perhaps get over a little when a car is behind you so that they can over take you a little easier?
By Dammit Posted Wednesday 16th September 2009 10:49 GMT
Another cyclist was killed this morning in Whitechappel by an HGV turning left.
I think that you'd need more details of this to pass judgement. I mean the lorry was turning left. you say the lorry didn't look and killed a poor innocent cyclist.
I say that the cyclist put himself most likely tight up against the left hand side of the lorry, (likely where the cycle lane was). ignored the indicators, the physics of the situation, (that the lorry would encroach at the ape of the corner because of it's physical size), and likely sat in the blind spot of the drive so that he couldn't be seen...
you say that it's the lorry drivers fault. I say that cyclists should be more aware of what they are doing, and more considerate to other road users.
10to4 says he's held up by queues of cars...
so am i, just often those queues of cars can be caused by cyclists!
10to4 says (regarding cyclists jumping red lights)
someone you've never met isn't now dead but has gained a few seconds on you, and has failed to prove you right? I don't get it -
I never looked at it like this, it's not that red lights are there to control traffic, or stop some traffic to make it safer for other traffic, it's clear that lights go red just to hold up cars.
from now on I'll take your lead and just jump red lights in my car shall I? after all you are saying that it's ok for road users to jump red lights?
fuck the pedestrians that may be crossing the road, bollocks to the other traffic that want to go.
my mode of transport (a shit car) is slow, and take a lot of effort to get up to a good speed so I should get to ignore the rules of the road?
And FYI I do notice the cyclists who stop at lights, I have no problem with cyclists in general, just the bad ones, who ride slowly in the middle of the road lane, (as opposed to around 1 meter from the left side as I was told cyclist should when I took a cycling proficiency test in school many years ago). I have a problem with the cyclists who ride two/three or four abreast holding up traffic, and I have a problem with cyclists who cut up lorries turning left, (but lets face it they don't last long), I have a problem with the cyclists who jump lights and get in other peoples way and endanger themselves and other people.
All the cyclists who actually ride sensibly and considerately get my consideration back, (like I don't drive up their arse I do give them plenty of space when overtaking etc).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021