Cyclists

[SoundMan]

Punishment? Pass. The cyclist behaved like an @rsehole in the first place weaving in and out of traffic and then insisted on staying in the centre of the lane when there was no need at all for it - notice he pulled in for the bus though. THe manoevre by the car driver was stupid too though. Thing is the cyclist clearly likes goading other road users and then recording their reaction as though he's some poor put upon innocent.

He's a C**t

 

[SoundMan]

Yes it is. Cyclists breaking red lights generally doesn't cause harm. Statistically it is not dangerous. People's preoccupation with this is disproportionate to the actual impact. It's when motorists break lights that we should be concerned about.

Stall the ball there. You can't seriously be suggesting that cyclists breaking red lights isn't dangerous but chiding other road users for doing the same. Either bikes are entitled to be on the road or they're not (I think they are). But if they're on the road they should obey the rules of the road.

Going on your "doesn't cause harm" bs then someone on a Honda 50 should be OK to go through the odd traffic light because it doesn't cause harm. Where do you draw the line then? I think it should be that all road users obey the rules of the road - you appear to be suggesting the rules of the road should only apply to motorised vehicles. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Happyhonkaman]

Stall the ball there. You can't seriously be suggesting that cyclists breaking red lights isn't dangerous but chiding other road users for doing the same. Either bikes are entitled to be on the road or they're not (I think they are). But if they're on the road they should obey the rules of the road.

Going on your "doesn't cause harm" bs then someone on a Honda 50 should be OK to go through the odd traffic light because it doesn't cause harm. Where do you draw the line then? I think it should be that all road users obey the rules of the road - you appear to be suggesting the rules of the road should only apply to motorised vehicles. Is that what you're saying?

Soundman - there are stats for all of this, go look them up FFS

The point mire is making is about the amount of misappropriated attention cyclists get vs the amount of serious accidents they cause


If you cannot see the vast difference between a Honda 50 and a bicycle then theres not really any point debating anything with you - One is self propelled and can do about 25-30KM/H max and the other is motorised and can do 80 KM/H and weighs far more

 

[Sillyrabbit]

In what way is it effective?

It sounds like intimidating behaviour to me tbh..

I liken it to smacking a bold child. It's a last resort but sometimes it's the only way they will learn to behave themselves.

 

[SoundMan]

Honky the amount of injury one inflicts with the bike (motorised or not) is down to momentum. It's proportional to the square of the velocity.

So a bicycle barreling through lights is likely to do more damage than some ol codger on a honda 50 possibly with a plastic bag hanging off each handlebar crawling along that went through lights.

Your efforts at trying to justify the turning of a blind eye to cyclists disobeying the rules of the road while they expect everybody else to obey them are hypocritical.

Make up your mind, is it down to the likleyhood of inflicting damage or not ?

 

[Afro_Samurai]

That sounds like a challenge, I'll have to start practising on unsuspecting cyclists to prove my supremacy.

Can't make a omelette without breaking a few eggs.

 

[Happyhonkaman]

Honky the amount of injury one inflicts with the bike (motorised or not) is down to momentum. It's proportional to the square of the velocity.

WTF?

A honda 50 has the potential to travel up to 80km/h and weighs more than a bike

A bike has the potential to travel up to say 30km/h under normal circumstances and weighs significantly less than a Honda 50

Therefore, the potential to inflict serious or fatal injuries on someone else is massively different.. surely this is beyond dispute?

 

[c'mere timmy]

Honky the amount of injury one inflicts with the bike (motorised or not) is down to momentum. It's proportional to the square of the velocity.

So a bicycle barreling through lights is likely to do more damage than some ol codger on a honda 50 possibly with a plastic bag hanging off each handlebar crawling along that went through lights.

Your efforts at trying to justify the turning of a blind eye to cyclists disobeying the rules of the road while they expect everybody else to obey them are hypocritical.

Make up your mind, is it down to the likleyhood of inflicting damage or not ?

Your discounting mass from your equations there chief, which has a far bigger effect on velocity than acceleration.

You've just been pwnt by science, bitch.

 

[Happyhonkaman]

Your discounting mass from your equations there chief, which has a far bigger effect on velocity than acceleration.

You've just been pwnt by science, bitch.

maybe his crash is happening on the moon?

 

[SoundMan]

Your discounting mass from your equations there chief, which has a far bigger effect on velocity than acceleration.

You've just been pwnt by science, bitch.

pwnt? Haw, haw, haw. You've just shot yerself in the foot there fellah. It's the velocity squared. So the velocity is the dominant factor.
I didn't discount mass m (v)squared. You seem to be suggesting that 14stone man doing say 20kph versus some 7 stone doing 40kph have equal momentum? They don't