Now there's something worth getting angry about!
The problem is 'cyclists' if we just had 'people on bikes' there wouldn't be half the bother.
Motorists may face penalty for overtaking cyclists on some city roads
- Thread starter dombooth
- Start date
Currently reading:
Motorists may face penalty for overtaking cyclists on some city roads
Now there's something worth getting angry about!
The problem is 'cyclists' if we just had 'people on bikes' there wouldn't be half the bother.
and if we had people in cars rather than drivers there would be half the bother = no problems :devil:
just renewed my 3rd party insurance for me on any bike...... £32 a year
no i dont need insurance legally but you never know....
Ive had a motorist use the you dont pay road tax argument at me he didnt like the "Go buy a fing Prius if it upsets you that much" he didnt like it
even government website call it a tax https://www.gov.uk/tax-disc
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ive seen it written some where that cycles need lights, how come some think if they put lights on their body they no longer need to have lights on the cycle?
Last edited:
No Highway code quote?
You love it so much.
Doesnt seem to state the lights must be fitted to the bike?
It does say the rear reflector should. only the lights should be lit front & rear
Of course it's a tax! That's what the word 'duty' means.
What it isn't is 'road tax' where funds are ring fenced for roads. That stopped in IIRC 1937.
Drivers no more pay for the roads than smokers or drinkers.
exactly if paying road "tax" as a motorist upsets you that much go trade your dirty polluting wreck in for one of the modern clean mean low emission cars. its not the cyclists fault your driving something dirty and highly polluting and begrudge paying a "tax" you can avoid..............
If you cant afford a new low emission car too bad go buy a bike instead....
This is where the HWC is an ass the bike lights must be fitted to the bike within set limits IIRC its between 300mm and 1.5m of the ground and centre to offside..... even the cateye bsau100 as it comes with a multi fit bracket is technically illegal due to its bracket :bang:
but i bet you cant find a legal bike light with a legal bracket in the uk which is why i use the brightest lights i can get my hands on...
the Sorry mate i didnt see you cant be uttered then... .
Given the amount of retards driving cars with blinding illegal none oem HID headlamps which the police dont seem too bothered about. which make other road users all but invisible to blinded on coming drivers....
im sticking with my nice cree chip set led lights on my bike.... incidentally the BS regs regarding output only give a minimum rating (2.5w incandescent and 3 lumen led) there is no upper threashold in the RVLR for cycle lights
Dont get me started on "road tax" i havnt read all the posts on here, ive just been skimming. But road tax has become an emisions tax. I could have a v12 ferrari and drive it 100 miles a year, yet somebody who had a 1 litre ecoboost drives 15000 miles on the roads yet doesnt pay a penny. Same can be said for cyclists and horse riders. If you want to use the roads, you should pay. Its not down to the ammount of emissions, but the maintainence of the roads you pay for.
But just to add, i always give cyclists room, i live in a village in west yorkshire the the tour de france is coming through. And as you can imagine, lately it has been rammed every weekend with people trying the route, like people are saying, they do slow you down. For a matter of seconds.
Id rather get somewhere a minute late, than have blood on my hands for the rest of my life.........
they ought to scrap VED and lay it on fuel....
Again. It's not road tax. It doesn't pay for roads, it's part of general taxation. Cyclists pay for the roads along with anyone else.
A more original argument if you hit a cyclist would be to proudly proclaim that your VED goes towards paying for the ambulance that's on the way.
they ought to scrap VED and lay it on fuel....
They pretty much laid it on fuel already
Or go the other way and get an electric car. Zero VED plus five grand free money plus free fuel from those charge points popping up at service stations.
Also you can sneak up on cyclists with them :devil:
They pretty much laid it on fuel already
wonder if i can claim it back when i put it in my lawnmower
its a good idea to read what you are quoting "your cycle MUST" cycle is another name for a bike btw
there is one around here with a light only on his rucksack and another with them on his helmet, when they bend over the handlebars to go faster you dont see them until its almost too late
Last edited:
Would it run on red diesel?wonder if i can claim it back when i put it in my lawnmower
its a good idea to read what you are quoting "your cycle MUST" cycle is another name for a bike btw
so going by that flashing lights are legal then as its in the highway code after the word must......
its a good idea to read what you are quoting "your cycle MUST" cycle is another name for a bike btw
Well done on digging in a bit further.
It says a red reflector must be fitted
So why is there an omission on the lights?
Are we back into its down to how Dave reads it, as to how it is?
Or perhaps I should just make a typical nonsensical post,like anyone that agrees with me and add a few smilies.
are you deliberately being an idiot? its down to what is safer, but don't worry in the world according to custard if you have a light that no one can see and you get run over its automatically some one elses fault.
much like car drivers who drive round with numerous lights out or obscured or covered with tint film / your mums old tights,
pedestrians don't fit lights to themselves either...
Last edited:
Oh so we can ignore the highway code if we deem it safer?
What is safer about a light mounted to a bike frame and mounted(generally above bonnet height) on the rider?
You seem to quote the Highway code as gospel,but now it seem that isnt the case because you don't agree?
I dont think you should be calling someone who is disabled an idiot.
