Printable View
Not sure what you're saying mate. Should I be happy when a cyclist dies under the wheels of a truck breaking the law just because some other cyclist safely broke the law somewhere else? How does that work? Perhaps it's because the law breaking cyclist is defrauding the state of fines dollars to make more motorways for the trucks to drive on. I know how much state revenue matters to some people, so long as it targets 'the others", not themselves. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
Totally missed the point there...but I reckon you knew that and wanted to stir the pot further :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
What point? That there are **** faces on this forum thinking it's funny to throw innocent people under a truck's wheels?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatsouthernland
cyclist runs red lights, gets cleaned up by truck who has green light.
nothing about throwing innocent people under a truck's wheels
What? Who said that (apart from you)? Now you're just making **** up :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
What's the name for that type of behavior again? :angel:
You should chill out brah...here's some relaxation music for you :)
[ame]https://youtu.be/juRUOGv1T2k[/ame]
I think we could argue forever about who or what is right or wrong... Cyclist rah rah rah, car rah rah, truck rah rah, but still not get to the issue.. IMO the issue is the fact that a cyclist still thinks he/she is safe sat atop a light aluminium frame with two slim wheels and a plastic helmet.. 15 yrs ago when the roads were quieter, cars were slower, trucks were smaller, and there were a lot less people about, yes, the powered vehicle vs cyclist accidents were probably far less.. Now tho, we have 600+ hp trucks weighing in at 50+ tonnes, doing highway speeds, we have faster quieter cars, and a lot more of them, and to make matters worse (because it seems a lot who pilot these modern projectiles can't drive them) there is now Armco and railings everywhere.... to help keep us safe and on the carriageway!! The only thing that has really changed for the humble cyclist is the brightness of the gear he/she chooses to wear.. They are not much faster, they do not have an impenetrable force field around them, but he/she still chooses to share the road with everything else! Times have changed. Hate it though you may, cyclists should now be contributing to the roads upkeep. Yes, they should have rego, BUT, that money needs to be spent on building more cycle paths, and actually cleaning/sweeping the ones that we have. Everything that uses the road has to pay rego.. Cars, trucks, buses, trailers, motorbikes, tractors... I even have my 20hp tractor registered so I can mow the strip outside my property.. because if I don't I am liable.. So, I say it again, Cyclists, you are the same as everyone else!! Contribute, and if you do, I'm pretty sure a big percentage of the angst against the cycling fraternity will disappear. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
Y see, this is the thing that everyone here seems to be thinking, but it's 99.9% wrong. The number of cyclists running red lights may indeed be huge, but none the less statistics show that the majority of vehicle vs cyclist incidents happen when said vehicles turn across the cyclists path when the cyclist is just rolling along. Sure, the occasional red light runner dies under someone's wheels but the majority of cyclists are riding along more or less legally when they are skittled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds | Life and style | The Guardian
No Cookies | The AdvertiserQuote:
A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
Quote:
'More than 85 per cent of the cyclists in the study were identified as travelling straight on a single carriageway with the intention of continuing straight at the time of the crash', Ms Lindsay said.
'Drivers of vehicles, however, were more likely to be turning, with more than 64 per cent of all drivers undertaking a turn manoeuvre into or out of another roadway at the time of the crash.'
Ha! What did I spell wrong Mick? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitec
You left the C out of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitec
Oh, and I removed the double S from buses. Ok, I'm traditional.
All good. I try and get my grammar right, but still miss bits out. Wifetec is always telling me off for using 'you're' when I should be using 'your'!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh