My brush with a psycholist

Home Forum Chat Forum My brush with a psycholist

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • My brush with a psycholist
  • jon1973
    Member

    It does indeed. Like, why do so many w**kers have their own newspaper columns?

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    What a load of reheated twaddle.

    scu98rkr
    Member

    Just looking at this

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

    And its says you can not cycle on the pavement. I usually roll onto the pavement to get to the front door of my work/house house, but Im not cycling just rolling is this fine ?

    Jamie
    Member

    *note to self…..put gravel in pocket*

    scu98rkr
    Member

    Also there doesnt seem to be any guidance on how to join the road in the first place.

    If the road is busy are you meant to just plonk your bike down on it and get on. Or start moving on the pavement and then join the traffic.

    TNH
    Member

    Seen this in today's paper? It raises some interesting points…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/carol_midgley/article6846227.ece

    samuri
    Member

    It's getting very tiresome isn't it? Although she does say further down that she's self-centred and then implies that everyone is like that. That's where her problem lies, that she thinks everyone is as selfish and self-obsessed as she is.

    GaryLake
    Member

    Did any of you actually read to the end? She actually says she's a cyclist too, admits it's only a few that are the problem and goes on to suggest that we should all perhaps just try a hot steaming cup of chill the **** out…

    I also agree that the law to say that all drivers are automatically to blame in an accident is dumb too.

    PJM1974
    Member

    She does have a point… I regularly cycle in London and have seen some atrocious acts committed by people on two wheels. Yes, cars can get too close, yes bendy busses are a menace and yes, pedestrians will step out with their mind in neutral.

    I've been sworn at for crossing a road on foot UNDER A GREEN LIGHT while the seemingly colour blind cyclist just ignored the stop sign. I've seen cyclists on the pavements around Trafalgar Square too come to think of it.

    Frankly, the idea of making drivers legally responsible regardless of fault is absolutely ludicrous. It's utterly insane. You cannot absolve one group of road users from responsibility and expect them to obey the rules of the road.

    coffeeking
    Member

    Gary – it seems some people don't bother reading 🙂

    It's about time someone put this sensible view forward.

    scu98rkr – jesus it's not that hard to join a busy road in a gap in traffic or carefully from the side without cycliing on the pavement. And legally it is wrong to "roll" as "rolling" is part of cycling. Common sense would, of course, prevail but its not an excuse to blat the final 100m of your journey on a pavement.

    yossarian
    Member

    Frankly, the idea of making drivers legally responsible regardless of fault is absolutely ludicrous. It's utterly insane

    The 'Strict Liability' law works pretty well in the Netherlands so I'm told by my dutch friends. It forces car drivers to prove the cyclist was at fault (they do not assume the car driver is ALWAYS wrong) and if they cannot do this then they are regarded as liable. From what I'm told it has reduced the overall number of accidents between cars and bikes significantly and also lowered the average speed in many resendential areas where bikes are ridden thus also reducing pedestrian injuries from cars.

    seems pretty sensible to me

    samuri
    Member

    She actually says she's a cyclist too, admits it's only a few that are the problem

    of which she is clearly one because, and I quote…

    "When I’m on a bike I consider motorists to be a pain in the backside and when I am in a car I consider cyclists to be a pain in the backside. When I am a pedestrian I consider everyone to be a pain in the backside"

    She sounds like a **** nightmare.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    What we need to end the car/cycle war is more mutual respect and less shouting of the word “****” at each other. So kiss a Lycra lout. Hug a white van man. But it’s probably best to fit a smog mask first.

    Seems perfectly sensible to me…

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    Frankly, the idea of making drivers legally responsible regardless of fault is absolutely ludicrous. It's utterly insane.

    I am so bored of pointless opinions being formulated on the basis of total ignorance and incomprehension. Thank **** it's the weekend.

    sofatester
    Member

    Frankly, the idea of making drivers legally responsible regardless of fault is absolutely ludicrous. It's utterly insane

    Oh dear 🙄

    The 'Strict Liability' law works pretty well in the Netherlands so I'm told by my Dutch friends. It forces car drivers to prove the cyclist was at fault (they do not assume the car driver is ALWAYS wrong) and if they cannot do this then they are regarded as liable. From what I'm told it has reduced the overall number of accidents between cars and bikes significantly and also lowered the average speed in many residential areas where bikes are ridden thus also reducing pedestrian injuries from cars.

    Remember someone driving a car is far more important that a cyclist and should NEVER under ANY circumstances be slowed down.

    coffeeking
    Member

    What's the difference between then and now, practically? Currently if I'm run down I have to prove the car did it, the car has to prove they didn't. I dont see how that changes in real terms.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    I also agree that the law to say that all drivers are automatically to blame in an accident is dumb too.

    That's not what it says at all. 😉

    I love the woman in the comments who seems to think that it IS law, that it will automatically result in every squeaky-chained special brew-sipping crusty being able to victimise motorists, and that "Gordon" is personally responsible. Thanks a bunch, Gordon!

    yossarian
    Member

    What's the difference between then and now, practically? Currently if I'm run down I have to prove the car did it, the car has to prove they didn't. I dont see how that changes in real terms.

    well relating what my dutch friends tell me, it works on a kind of cultural level. Motorists become far more cautious on all roads where they think bikes may be. They tend to look for bikes everywhere before pulling out at roundabouts, overtaking in traffic, changing lane etc etc. After a while people just drive more carefully and not to the limit of their car's performance.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    Coffeeking, it's the burden of proof that changes. So instead of assuming that no-one is at fault, there is an assumption that the car driver is at fault. In a real world incident I'm not sure how much difference it would make, but apparently in other European countries where the law has been introduced, it has the effect that Yossarian describes. It's also worth noting that the same burden will fall on cyclists who collide with pedestrians. Hopefully it'll have a sensible-ifying effect all round.

    BillyWhizz
    Member

    Th fact that the thick bitch got into a taxi in the first place, when as she says, she could have taken the tube, proves she's a stupid lazy self centered arsehole.

    🙂

    coffeeking
    Member

    Would be interesting to see, but I'm not sure I like the fact that I'm burdened with proving my innocence any more than normal if a nutter courier gets under my wheels, it'll be bad enough thinking I've hurt them regardless of fault.

    BillyWhizz – did you read the article all the way through?

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    Has anyone actually seen a real-life cycle courier? They seem to be pretty thin on the ground these days, but I know a couple of people who used to be one. I don't think they got any extra money if they chucked gravel at taxis or threw themselves under peoples' wheels, but I'll ask them just in case. 🙂

    Mr Agreeable – Member
    Has anyone actually seen a real-life cycle courier?

    Looks out of office window….Spots one almost immediately! Jumping a red, through pedestrians, natch.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    CF, assuming he's real and not a figment of your fixie-fixated imagination, how do you know that said RLJer is a courier? Did you book him yourself? If so, at least it sounds like your package is going to get there on time. 😉

    MrA, it was the radio that gave it away! Oh, and he wasn't wearing his sister's jeans!

    Am in the City today, and there's couriers aplenty as normal.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    The ones we see (City fringes, Holborn, Chancery Lane) are mostly pretty sensible.

    BD, I'd go as far as to say that most couriers in London are sensible. It's fakengers you've got to watch out for…!

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    I'm assured by those who know about such things that a (non-functioning) radio can actually be one of the accessories of the dreaded Fakenger.

    mike_check
    Member

    This was raised on Talksport late the other night as well and amidsit all the bull shit and moronic callers, all I could think was 'thank **** I'm nowhere near London.' It's always London based bollox that gets raised here, and they can screw if they want to infringe on the rest of the country cos London is such a hustle.

    Seriously, the problem isn't the attitude of cyclist, motorists or whatever, it's the attitude of cities like London, every insignificant individual and their mundane daily business is more important than anything else.

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)

The topic ‘My brush with a psycholist’ is closed to new replies.