CyclingMikey says cyclists breaking rules are "annoying", but not focusing on drivers to improve road safety the "wrong way round"

I think you need to buy some maniac cyclist repellent - I should imagine you can buy it off of the internet. I started using elephant repellent years ago - on a Tuesday I think it was - and it's great. I spray a little under my armpits every morning and I'm good to go. Never had a problem with elephants since, even when Billy Smart's circus were in town. I'm thinking about getting some tiger repellent as well.

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

When was the last time you saw a car going the wrong way in a one way road whilst drinking a cup of coffee or tail gating a lorry at 2 mtrs at 55mph or go through red lights when you can clearly see vehicles coming

To be fair, never; especially never seen a car drinking a cup of coffee. I regularly see plenty of drivers doing all those things though.

I watch 3 dash cam series - all those can be seen each week.

Driving on the pavement to get past a queue is increasing in popularity.

Had to get a bus a couple of weeks ago after dropping my bike off. Parked cars on our side of the road, so every single car coming the other way drove on the pavement. And there were plenty of them. 

I do keep meaning to ask what kind of bike you ride, wheelywheelygood - do you have an (adapted?) two wheeler or do you ride a trike?

Wankpanzer I'd have thought.

brooksby wrote:

I do keep meaning to ask what kind of bike you ride, wheelywheelygood - do you have an (adapted?) two wheeler or do you ride a trike?

Hobby-horse?  (Often seems to be a two-wheeler).

Meanwhile in the Netherlands...

grOg wrote:

The problem with van twerp is not him reporting, but his confrontation with offending drivers; in Australia, this action falls under road rage legislation and he would be charged accordingly. He also likes to attend court hearings of his victims.. he is a creep.

Firstly, if someone is using their phone whilst driving they are a clear danger to others, so if possible it's best to "confront" them and tell them to stop. What if they were just filmed without their knowledge and then hit a pedestrian down the road because they hadn't put the phone down? Secondly, CM doesn't attend court hearings for fun (and as a sidenote, people committing road crime are not "victims", they are perpetrators, the people they kill and injure are the victims), if you send video evidence and the case goes to court you have to attend as a witness and explain the cirumstances of the incident, if you don't appear nine times out of ten the case will fail as the defence will file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that they didn't get a fair chance to question the witness.

By the way I've looked up Australian road rage legislation and what you say is complete nonsense, road rage is defined as menacing another person with your car and/or making threats to damage them or their property or actually doing so as a result of a road incident. CM does none of these things so not applicable, as would be quite obvious to anybody not determined to slander him because they hate the idea of drivers being called to account.

As ever with your posts, if it's true that you used to be a UK traffic officer, thank goodness we got shot of you.

Thank you for your work.

trOll

Is he not required to attend court hearings of his ''victims'' ? 

He attends when he is called.
Or don't they bother with witnesses in Australia?

Another one who thinks vehicle offences are not crimes.

grOg wrote:

The problem with van twerp is not him reporting, but his confrontation with offending drivers; in Australia, this action falls under road rage legislation and he would be charged accordingly. He also likes to attend court hearings of his victims.. he is a creep.

The problem with Mikey is that there is a real need for people like him doing what he does as otherwise drivers continue to endanger others with impunity. Whether he "likes" to attend court hearings is irrelevant, but he doesn't do it for fun but because he feels very strongly about road danger since his father was killed by a drunk driver.

As I highlighted in one of the blogs this week, there is no driver behaviour that people will not defend.
He might irritate a few but a good number will realise their behaviour will result in consequences.

Grig
Wrong.

This one going how you expected?
🤣🤣🤣🤣

Quote:

...think it's OK to be dressed in black...

It is.

I don't think that's true, there will always be a need for separated cycle infra. Many people, myself included and also many who do not yet cycle, wouldn't feel safe even if motorists really tried their hardest to drive safely.

I think the point they're really missing is that you wouldn't have a go at a motorist for avoiding the motorway if they felt unsafe or for taking the motorway instead of winding through smaller roads if they were in a hurry.
Only cyclists are required to justify their route to society.

Amen!

I do understand why people say "but just make the drivers drive better" or even "but just remove all the cars".  After all, almost every day I ride on the road and am not killed or injured by a motorist!  Plus the roads are very wide and are made for fast travel, and almost everyone conceeds we'll continue to need motor transport.  So they will be there and we'll still be paying for them.  Indeed originally they were filled with cyclists [1] [2]!

The main issue is that people (in many different countries) have repeatedly shown they just won't cycle where there is lots of motor traffic, or high speed differentials.  (Fortunately this doesn't mean we need a cycle path next to every single motor vehicle route.  That's far from the case even in NL!)

Beyond that the roads of today (and even many streets) are actually not well-suited to cycling, even if we could somehow remove the danger or even unpleasantness from motor traffic.

Since cycling is so space-efficient we can have smaller routes - we can stop maintaining all that tarmac and reclaim space.  Wider spaces also are less pleasant for pedestrians to negociate - it's easy to cross a cycle path though.  Cyclists by themselves don't need traffic lights or roundabouts amongst many other things - those are "because cars".  Kerbs for motor vehicles are not good for cyclists.  Roads used by lots of motor vehicles tend to get damaged quickly - which is more of a problem for those cycling than driving.

chrisonabike wrote:

...almost everyone conceeds we'll continue to need motor transport..

Fundamentally, we don't need motor transport. We need clean air and water, food (not ultra-processed), shelter (affordable) and a functioning ecosphere. The issue is societal, forcing individuals to have to use motor transport to function in society, i.e., it's a social construct.

Like healthcare or formal education?

We don't need hot water to bathe either but it's nice though..

It's becoming less of an issue over my lifetime but for some days each year without heating, it's not water, it's ice!

I suspect that the pattern of more humans using ever more resources is almost irreversible - except temporarily via war or natural disaster. Our social nature and flexible, copying behaviour make that possible - but we might not like contemplating the shape of societies which could achieve that...

Looking longer term though species making themselves extinct through success - or at least hitting a limit - is a natural phenomenon!

We don't need to bathe at all.

Once the government has finished forcing us on to a single energy source, and we're all having to heat water by electricity ... we won't be able to *afford* to bathe.