Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,350 comments
- 614,347 views
- 23,993
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 23,993
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
She touched me inappropriately once.
- 1,049
- England
There's tonnes of these kind of videos on youtube
and they're always funny watch and read the comments.But what was this guy expecting really, if you live in England you know most white van drivers have poor road mannors and are easily provoked, what was he expecting the outcome of him beeping his overlly loud horn to be?
And whats the deal with him shaking his head at the car trying to park? Yeah he it had to pull out and try again, so what? He got frustrated that he had to slow down and stop? I don't understand why cyclists don't campain to make it legal to ride a bike on normal footpaths.
- 1,049
- England
I don't know how you can say it's equally dangerous to ride a bike on a footpath as it is on a road. Whenever I chose to ride my bike insted of drive I will always choose the footpath over the road if it's available regardless if i'm legally alowed to ride on it. I feel much safer on a footpath.
I'm not saying it should be illigal to ride a bike on the road, just it should be legal to ride a bike on both, no need for designated to cycle paths. In this particular video there is about only 10 pedestrians on the left side footpath, he could have easily avoided this whole situation if he was allowed and chose to ride on it, he wouldn't have to deal with the driver strugling to park (Really what's his issue with that guy? He's about to read out the number plate then gives up and shakes his head and rides on) He wouldn't have to deal with the impatiant van driver passing close to him, and most of all he wouldn't have got punched in the face. IF that was me i'd feel much safer on the footpath, if the footpaths are congested with pedestrians then of course common sence dictates you join the traffic on the normal road, but if the paths are clear why ride on the road when you know you're vunerable and most people end up doing stupid things trying to over take cyclists as they break the flow of normal traffic.
- 23,993
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 87,383
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The speed differential from pedestrian to cyclist is much higher than that from cyclist to motorist - and a cyclist hitting a pedestrian can be fatal to both.
Pedestrians often move very slowly and unpredictably - a pedestrian you think you're passing by six feet might decide to cross the road and will very often step out into your path without any warning whatsoever, so you either hit them (see above) or are pushed out into traffic unpredictably.
Last and by no means least, cyclists and other vehicles are bound by rules of the Road Traffic Act and - other than when they go to cross highways - pedestrians are not. They don't have to be lit, have an audible warning device or carry any protective gear. They don't have to stop for red lights, obey speed limits or double-yellow lines. Pedestrians are just people going about their business and they have pavements to protect them from forms of commuter transport like trucks, cars, buses and cyclists.
The road is where road vehicles belong. Pavements and footpaths are not for road vehicles.
- 12,898
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
What Famine said ^
Drivers getting frustrated over cyclists doesn't make sense. I get annoyed with cyclists from time to time but how much does it really add on to your journey to sit behind them for a few seconds before overtaking safely? There are hundreds of cyclists on the roads around here (especially now the sun is out) and if they were to ride on the path then they'd end up killing quite a lot of people. The only ones I have a problem with are the militant nutcases who speed up to just below the speed limit as you overtake them having followed them doing ~10mph for the last 1/4 mile. I don't care if you don't like being overtaken, I'm leaving you an entire lane of movement room and speeding up to try and annoy me is just putting both of our lives at danger.
Drivers getting frustrated over cyclists doesn't make sense. I get annoyed with cyclists from time to time but how much does it really add on to your journey to sit behind them for a few seconds before overtaking safely? There are hundreds of cyclists on the roads around here (especially now the sun is out) and if they were to ride on the path then they'd end up killing quite a lot of people. The only ones I have a problem with are the militant nutcases who speed up to just below the speed limit as you overtake them having followed them doing ~10mph for the last 1/4 mile. I don't care if you don't like being overtaken, I'm leaving you an entire lane of movement room and speeding up to try and annoy me is just putting both of our lives at danger.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
My elderly father who likes to walk has almost been run over several times by cyclists on the sidewalk when they should be on the road. Many of them fly by going 5-10x the speed of pedestrians, leaving no margin for error. Yes many cyclists have common sense and leave room and slow down for the walkers, but it's the few that don't that ruin it for everyone.
- 87,383
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
A good cyclist should behave like - and be treated no differently than - a speed-limited car. You pass them when it's safe to do so, in a safe and timely manner.
Bad cyclists, which vastly outnumber them, are colossal wanglords. But then the majority of people that do anything are not good at it.
- 29,898
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
On top of this though, I find, is that motorists have a contempt for cyclists. They find them a problem and a nuisance, which makes riding on the road intimidating.
Then there's the "I'll respect cyclists when they start paying their road tax" and "It's not fair that cyclists don't pay car tax". Well guess what? Roads are funded out of general taxation. Road tax, also commonly known as car tax, is vehicle excise duty; that is, a tax on the type of vehicle, not the fact that it's driving on the road.
Then there's the "I'll respect cyclists when they start paying their road tax" and "It's not fair that cyclists don't pay car tax". Well guess what? Roads are funded out of general taxation. Road tax, also commonly known as car tax, is vehicle excise duty; that is, a tax on the type of vehicle, not the fact that it's driving on the road.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
- 87,383
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
And the majority are. As are the majority of drivers.
Well... it should be. You should be mindful of the risks, whatever vehicle you're in - moreso if that vehicle is more vulnerable. Lose that and you lose the respect for what you're doing.
Not really. VED is levied on certain classes of vehicles for use on the public highway. Track cars don't have to have VED unless they're used on the roads. Neither do offroad vehicles - quadbikes, off road bikes, rally cars - unless they're used on the roads.
Incidentally, bicycles are a vehicle. They're just not part of the classification of VED - which is applied only to motorised vehicles (including electric ones - though motability scooters are exempt if they're limited to 8mph). Certain classes have VED exemption - they must still display a valid, zero rate tax disc to be used on the road.
Indeed - but it applies just as much to drivers too.
- 1,049
- England
I still wonder what the cyclists issue was with the car struggling to park? He could see while approching the car was parking yet he chose to ride up up close to it, attempted to read out the number plate, then he changed his mind and rode off shaking his head.
I see that video as a nice display of instant karma.
Impatiant cyclist looking to name and shame drivers that don't meet his standard Vs Impatiant white van man.
White van man wins.
He could have avoided the whole situation which is what bugs me about these kind of videos. He knew the van was passing him at a bad place but he chose to maintain his speed and road position because he was in the right. But common sence would tell me "Oh this van drivers a nutter he's passing to close I best slow down and move to my left" But he chose to hold his position and beep his horn as if "That will tell him he's a bad driver and show him I had right of way, he won't do that again". All he did was provoke the situation and make it worse for himself.
I see that video as a nice display of instant karma.
Impatiant cyclist looking to name and shame drivers that don't meet his standard Vs Impatiant white van man.
White van man wins.
He could have avoided the whole situation which is what bugs me about these kind of videos. He knew the van was passing him at a bad place but he chose to maintain his speed and road position because he was in the right. But common sence would tell me "Oh this van drivers a nutter he's passing to close I best slow down and move to my left" But he chose to hold his position and beep his horn as if "That will tell him he's a bad driver and show him I had right of way, he won't do that again". All he did was provoke the situation and make it worse for himself.
- 1,457
- Exeter
- Emptyone-77
Being a cyclist, and doing that day in day out on the roads, you get a healthy sense of danger being on the road. Getting passed by a lorry is scary whatever speed you're doing, and I'm not thick enough to jump lights and sidle up by vans and lorries, because you get crushed by them.
Having said that, I have friends who treat the pavement as an extension of the road, which is just wrong in my opinion, you should stick to the road like glue, but respect the fact everything else on there could crush you.
I have got shouted at on behalf of 'not paying taxes for the road' by a van driver, but then again, what kind of person attempts an overtake round a bike on a blind crest corner, no wonder I wasn't going to be exactly by the edge, another car comes the other way and he crushes me
Having said that, I have friends who treat the pavement as an extension of the road, which is just wrong in my opinion, you should stick to the road like glue, but respect the fact everything else on there could crush you.
I have got shouted at on behalf of 'not paying taxes for the road' by a van driver, but then again, what kind of person attempts an overtake round a bike on a blind crest corner, no wonder I wasn't going to be exactly by the edge, another car comes the other way and he crushes me
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Motorists are far more predictable than walkers, children, dogs, skaters, people leaving their house/front gate.Maccer_42
Roads are more predicable than lamp posts, street signs, bollards, drop kerbs, alley ways and passengers leaving cars on kerbside.
I'd much rather be on the road and escape onto the pavement, than the pavement and escape onto the road.
FYI, I've cycled on shared pedestrian cycle paths, and across Australia with 100 ton road trains. I'd take the latter every single time.
As a cyclist you have to maintain a presence on the road and expect motorists to act accordingly. If you don't do so you'll end up in the back pf parked cars or having to accelerate out from behind parked cars.Maccer_42
If you cycle like a victim you'll be treated like one.
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
So the council election.
CON 18 -10 1116 -335
LAB 3 2 538 291
LD 0 0 352 -124
UKIP 0 0 147 139
GRN 0 0 22 5
OTH 0 0 187 24
NOC 13 8 N/A N/A
Numbers.
Far right = how many councillors the party has lost or gained.
Right = number of councillors elected.
Left = Number of councils of which the party has gained a majority in or lost a majority in.
Far left = Number of councils which the party has a majority in.
NOC = Hung councils.
Not a good day to be a Conservative. Losing 335 councillors ouch. Good day for UKIP.
Labour won back the same number of councillors as they had in 2005 if my sources were correct.
Labour won the By election in South Shields. Labour also won both mayoral elections in North Tyneside and Doncaster. Before the mayoral elections the mayor for Doncaster was an independent and North Tyneside was a Conservative.
CON 18 -10 1116 -335
LAB 3 2 538 291
LD 0 0 352 -124
UKIP 0 0 147 139
GRN 0 0 22 5
OTH 0 0 187 24
NOC 13 8 N/A N/A
Numbers.
Far right = how many councillors the party has lost or gained.
Right = number of councillors elected.
Left = Number of councils of which the party has gained a majority in or lost a majority in.
Far left = Number of councils which the party has a majority in.
NOC = Hung councils.
Not a good day to be a Conservative. Losing 335 councillors ouch. Good day for UKIP.
Labour won back the same number of councillors as they had in 2005 if my sources were correct.
Labour won the By election in South Shields. Labour also won both mayoral elections in North Tyneside and Doncaster. Before the mayoral elections the mayor for Doncaster was an independent and North Tyneside was a Conservative.
Last edited:
- 87,383
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
After a fashion...
The big news was that Labour won South Shields with a huge majority - over 50% of valid votes cast, a 26% majority over the 2nd place candidate. But there's five stories here.
The first is that their polling and majority fell - David Miliband scored 52% of the valid votes cast and a 30.4% majority in 2010, Emma Double-Barrelled-Socialist scored 50.4% and a 26.2% majority.
The second is that the turnout was just 39.28% - of all those asked to express a preference, more than 3 in 5 didn't bother.
The third is that the turnout was in fact higher than that, only none of the news outlets bothered reporting spoiled ballots. Turnout for them is now classed as valid votes over total votes - which is fraudulent at best. There were 54 spoiled ballots and turnout was actually 39.35%. This is a relatively big story with regards to misreporting election results.
The fourth regards postal voting - 58.2% of all votes cast were postal votes, which means that roughly 8 people out of every 100 walked into a polling station and cast a vote for Emma Double-Barrelled-Socialist, the eventual winner. There have been allegations in the past of abuses of the postal vote system - such as local parties collecting postal votes from the vulnerable, discarding votes for other parties and only posting the votes for themselves - so that's its own story.
And the last is a damning of the process itself. A Twitterer popped up on my feed to say that "For every 1000 eligible voters in South Shields, who were offered the opportunity to vote Lib Dem 995 said no.". For some reason, my response "And 802 said "no" to the winners..." was not answered. And no, that's not an attack on Labour as "Redpeter99" was attacking the Lib Dems, but on a process where 99.5% of people not voting for you is a loss but 80.2% of people not voting for you is a position from which to gloat.
So. someone won South Shields - a safe seat for them - with a reduced majority, a reduced polling, a reduced turnout (fake AND real), where only slightly fewer than half of people who voted actually voted against them, 80% of people didn't vote for them and only 8% of the population walked in through the doors to cast a vote for them.
Representative democracy my arse.
Last edited:
