The Driver vs. Bicyclist Fight is Way More Violent in England

Urban biking is dangerous, and especially so when drivers are going out their way to decapitate you. This video, taken from a CCTV camera in Bristol, England, shows bus driver Gavin Hill intentionally swerving into cyclist Philip Mead. Mead landed 10 feet away with a broken leg and a fractured wrist, and Hill has reportedly been sentenced to 17 months in jail.

Source

I think Phillip Mead was very lucky, he could have easily been killed if he wasnt wearing a helmet.

I can see this argument from both sides here. Ive had a similar thing happen to me once , I let a bus get along side me and then it just knocked me clean off my bike and didnt even stop.

On the other hand i constantly see people on bikes shooting through read lights riding on the pavement / sidewalk and turning without signaling.

So should cyclists have the same rights as drivers on the road?

A bee could take out a cyclist. Imagine what a truck could do. Be safe or pay the price.

Bus driver shouldn't have got that aggressive, but the idiot cyclist should have moved over rather than being right in the centre of the lane.

Take up a lane with a bike down here and you'll get abuse from most motorists.

reply to post by TrueInstinct


It looks like he was wanting to get into the turning lane, but the bus driver had other thoughts. Pretty damned disgusting, and is similar to vigilantism i.e. taking the law into your own hands.
When you're in the bigger vehicle ( and especially one involved in Public Transport) it is your responsibility (as it is everyone's) to ensure the safety of other road users.
The bus driver did not.

Looks like he was being a complete wanker to me and deserved to get run-over. I have seen countless cycling fascists deliberately stopping in the road in front of a car (usually driven by a woman) because of some imagined infraction against them - they just sit there with thier front wheel across the front corner of the car, daring them to drive over it - whilst a huge backlog develops behind.

Not sure of the law there but where I live, in the US, cyclists are allowed full use of the lane, regardless of traffic.

A friend of mine was killed a few years ago by a truck that did the same thing as that buss driver.



Driving a vehicle makes you impatient, and gives you a false sense of superiority and safety.

If cyclists paid road tax and had insurance I could accept there presence on the road, but they have neither so should not in anyway be allowed on the road.

Sorry if that offends any campaigners for cyclists rights.

Originally posted by Ixtab
If cyclists paid road tax and had insurance I could accept there presence on the road, but they have neither so should not in anyway be allowed on the road.

Sorry if that offends any campaigners for cyclists rights.

BS, you pay those fees for the privilege to drive a car, not use the road. Just because it costs you more money than someone else it doesn't mean you should have more rights. It's your choice, you are not forced to drive a car.

Cyclists have as much right as you do to travel.

Where are they supposed to ride?

reply to post by Ixtab


Apparently there is no such thing as 'road tax' , its really Vehicle Excise Duty.

“BLOODY CYCLISTS, THEY SHOULD PAY ROAD TAX!”
The majority of adult cyclists own cars. Hence they pay Vehicle Excise Duty, known, inaccurately, as ‘road tax’. Winston Churchill started to abolish this tax in 1926. He didn’t want motorists to think a token payment gave them “ownership” of the road. It was an ex-tax by 1937. ‘Road tax’ doesn’t pay for the roads anyway, general and local taxation does that so even those cyclists without cars still pay for roads. The Road Fund (1910-37) only ever paid for the maintenance of a few ‘national’ roads, never local ones. Paying car tax gives no “right to the road” for motorists (or car-owning cyclists). There’s much more on this subject on iPayRoadTax.com, a campaign to put the record straight on ‘road tax’.

But thats news to me to.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Motorist pay that car/road tax every year in order to use public roads.

Without it, you cannot use a public road. What that tax is for or how it spent is neither here nor there, the fact is we pay a duty on the right to use a public road.

Cyclists do not pay this.

Why is that?, they use the road, but do not pay tax for doing so.

I also have to be taxed with an MOT to ensure my vehicle is safe to use on a public road.

Cyclists do not.

They also have no insurance, I am fully covered for any crash/death liability I may cause on a public road.

Cyclists are not.

They are infact a total liability to everything and everyone on that public road they choose to make use off, why should they be allowed to continue in this totaly un regulated manner?

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by TrueInstinct

 

It looks like he was wanting to get into the turning lane, but the bus driver had other thoughts. Pretty damned disgusting, and is similar to vigilantism i.e. taking the law into your own hands.
When you're in the bigger vehicle ( and especially one involved in Public Transport) it is your responsibility (as it is everyone's) to ensure the safety of other road users.
The bus driver did not.

Nah, he wasn't attempting to change lanes at all. Look closely, he just stays directly in the middle then swerves a bit when he notices the bus doing such a crazy maneuver. No hand signals to show a lane change either, which would have been even more dangerous.

reply to post by Ixtab


Again you are not paying to use the road, you are paying for the privilege of driving a car.

You can not use that argument to disrespect other road users.

Should pedestrians pay road tax to use a crosswalk?

reply to post by ANOK


Actualy no, you do pay it for the privilege of using the public road, thats what its for. I have a various off road vehicles I use on private grounds/roads.

I am not legaly obligated to have them road taxed as they are not being driven on a public road, I am not obligated to have them insured or MOT'd, because again, I am not using a public road.

The Vehicle Excise duty is for the privilege of using the public roads.

That is how it is.

Cyclists do not pay this.

And again I will bring to your attention they have no insurance, I cannot fathom why that is. Do you know why this is?

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by ANOK

 

Actualy no, you do pay it for the privilege of using the public road, thats what its for. I have a various off road vehicles I use on private grounds/roads.

Did you read this....

“BLOODY CYCLISTS, THEY SHOULD PAY ROAD TAX!”
The majority of adult cyclists own cars. Hence they pay Vehicle Excise Duty, known, inaccurately, as ‘road tax’. Winston Churchill started to abolish this tax in 1926. He didn’t want motorists to think a token payment gave them “ownership” of the road. It was an ex-tax by 1937. ‘Road tax’ doesn’t pay for the roads anyway, general and local taxation does that so even those cyclists without cars still pay for roads. The Road Fund (1910-37) only ever paid for the maintenance of a few ‘national’ roads, never local ones. Paying car tax gives no “right to the road” for motorists (or car-owning cyclists). There’s much more on this subject on iPayRoadTax.com, a campaign to put the record straight on ‘road tax’.

Kinda proves my point, no?

I am not legaly obligated to have them road taxed as they are not being driven on a public road, I am not obligated to have them insured or MOT'd, because again, I am not using a public road.

The Vehicle Excise duty is for the privilege of using the public roads.

That is how it is.

Cyclists do not pay this.

And again I will bring to your attention they have no insurance, I cannot fathom why that is. Do you know why this is?

No, the Vehicle Excise duty gives you the privilege to drive a car on a public highway, you don't need that on a private road. The public highway does not belong to you because you pay money for the privilege of driving your car on it.

Road maintainence comes from the general budget, and is not raised from VED. It used to be, but that ended in last centurary. As cyclists also pay income tax, which goes into the general budget, they are also paying to use the road. Get used to it. VED is just and purely a taxation levvied on the privilage of being allowed to drive a car on a public road.

Using your argument, pedestrians, horse riders, segway riders(lol) should all pay VED as they too sue the public roads.

Even if cyclists were to pay VED, in reality because of the way VED is calculated, you'd actually be giving the cyclists refunds, and big ones at that. The amount of VED levvied on a vehicle, is determined by the amount of CO2 generated by its engine. Still want to charge VED to cyclists and end up putting money in their pocket? Fine by me.

Regards to the helmet issue, I have read in the past that there is strong statistical evidence that helmets increase the incidence of accidents, but make accidents more survivable. The logic is, a driver sees a cyclist with a helmet, and feels safer about driving closer to them... The Highway Code advises the use of helmets, but they are not required by law.

Cyclists are legitimate road users, and are entitled under UK law to ride in the middle of the lane, and are not obligated to "pull over" to let traffic pass. That said, most reasonable cyclists will do so, if its safe to do so, as a cyclist, I can tell you its not always safe to ride in the gutter which is where most drivers think we're legally obliged to ride.

Heres a link to the "Rules for Cyclists" section of the Highway Code.

I can already predict that some of you will read section 62, which says that cyclists must keep to the side, and stop reading there. If you read the full text, you will realise that only applies to combined cycleway/footpath. Not to roads.

With regards to the bus driver, its a bit more severe than just 17 months in jail. His PSV licence will be cancelled, and he will never be allowed to drive another public service vehicle. So, in effect, he ended his career.

reply to post by ANOK

Even if cyclists were to pay VED, in reality because of the way VED is calculated, you'd actually be giving the cyclists refunds, and big ones at that. The amount of VED levvied on a vehicle, is determined by the amount of CO2 generated by its engine. Still want to charge VED to cyclists and end up putting money in their pocket? Fine by me.

Fair point.

Now all you need is insurance and were good to go.

Originally posted by Ixtab


The Vehicle Excise duty is for the privilege of using the public roads.

That is how it is.

Cyclists do not pay this.

The majority of cyclists own motor vehicles as well. Therefore they do pay it.

reply to post by aorAki


Yeah ive heard that arguement before and it doesnt make any sense. Sorry but it really doesnt.

I often cycle, I usually use a motorcycle and sometimes drive a car.
Most of this thread just confirms what I already knew. Cage drivers by and large are scum. They like to act out macho fantasies on other road users, secure in the knowledge that central locking and and a bit of pressure on the throttle will see them not having to account for their actions.

Cyclists and pedesrians both have the right to use the road. If you can't deal with that, then surrender your licence, cos you are a mong who shouldn't drive.

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by aorAki

 

Yeah ive heard that arguement before and it doesnt make any sense. Sorry but it really doesnt.

The reason it doesn't make sense is because your reasoning is you pay more money so you should have more rights. The problem is your own sense of self importance, not cyclists. You're the driver who doesn't like to yield to pedestrians at intersections and marked cross-walks. Might is right eh, even if it's artificial?