NEarly got side swiped this afternoon :(

[Chesney Christ]

A certain Doesnotcompute, of uk.rec.cycling "fame", writes :

>> This is nonsense - we all have the same rights when riding a bike, regardless of which licences
>> we hold or taxes we pay.
>
>Indeed - but the vast majority of people who believe in that are cyclists. There is many a cager
>and possibly motorcyclist (but less likely) that does not believe cyclists do, or should have,
>those same rights.

But does what they believe actually matter ? Certainly not if it ever goes to court. Saying to the
judge "the cyclist shouldn't have been there because he doesn't pay road tax" won't go down well.
--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

 

[Doesnotcompute]

Chesney Christ wrote:
> A certain Doesnotcompute, of uk.rec.cycling "fame", writes :
>
>>> This is nonsense - we all have the same rights when riding a bike, regardless of which licences
>>> we hold or taxes we pay.
>>
>>
>> Indeed - but the vast majority of people who believe in that are cyclists. There is many a cager
>> and possibly motorcyclist (but less likely) that does not believe cyclists do, or should have,
>> those same rights.
>
>
> But does what they believe actually matter ? Certainly not if it ever goes to court. Saying to the
> judge "the cyclist shouldn't have been there because he doesn't pay road tax" won't go down well.

ergo it matters but not in a court of law. The more we (cyclists) can do to rid the world of this
antiquated cowardly point of view, the better. Likewise Bullies.

--
Dnc

 

[Pete Biggs]

Doesnotcompute wrote:

>> You have a right to the arguement you paid for? Did you want the 5 minute or the 10 min argument?
>

Monty Python.

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

Doesnotcompute wrote: ...............
> Anyway he passes me and pulls over a little further down the road. Warily I pull up at the drivers
> door as he winds the window down and lets all sorts of expletives out. Apparently I need to be
> more careful and open my eyes, as he nearly took me out. I suggested that given it was nearly him
> taking me out and not the other way round, perhaps he should be more careful and open his eyes
> insted. Well that was that, he went for the door handle - so I cunningly just leant forward, with
> my arms on the top of the door above the window. Being about 65 he didn't have a chance of pushing
> that door open with me leaning on it. I'm a big geezer to say the least!

Even big geezers are vulnerable when on a bicycle. Your confrontation was all very entertaining and
I'm sure the bloke deserved what you said and did to him, but purely for your own safety, it's best
to let it go and get away as SOON AS POSSIBLE. On balance, it's better for your own mental health as
well if you forget it quickly: just give a quick shout back then let your frustration out on your
pedals and enjoy the adreline rush! I get my fair share of unjustified yelling and hooting: it's
just water off a duck's back. Ok, it's momentarily frustrating but it does just last a moment if
you've got any sense.

People do get deliberately shunted by drivers. I witnessed it myself once as a car hit a protesting
cyclist, and just yersterday, a lorry driver in north London was MURDERED as theives stole his
lorry and drove over him as he stood in front of the cab trying to stop them. It seems to be a
growing trend for people to assault and kill for extremely trivial reasons or sometimes absolutely
no reason at all.

By the way, the police will do FA about the incident.

~PB

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:04:57 +0100, Doesnotcompute <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:36:24 +0100, Doesnotcompute <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[1] okay okay it was a Volvo. Surprise Surprise.
>>
>>
>> Certainly a surprise to me - it's usually BMWs or Mercs for me. But then, I'm a Volvo driver.
>> When I drive, which isn't often.
>
>Guy - there is an exception to every rule, in this case you're it! Seriously though, Volvos are
>well renound in the motorcycle community for being, and I choose this word carefully, "involved",
>in motorcycle-car interfaces.

It's just risk-compensation writ large. Volvos are often bought for their occupant safety in
accidents...

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Pete Biggs]

Ian Smith wrote:

>> Keep on cycling and he can wind his window down as much as he likes..
>
> At which point a psycopathic lunatic is immediately behind you with a ton or so of deadly weapon.

Drivers don't tend to get too psyco if you don't wind them up more in the first place. They really
just want to get on their way so you'll probably be ok if you don't get *in* their way at that point
and they can overtake.

But if the atmosphere does seem too hostile, then yes don't get in front of them - at least not no
the road. I have been known to scarper away on the pavement after confronting bad motorists - but I
try to avoid the confrontations altogether now (see my previous reply). Good assertive and defensive
cycling tends to prevent these kinds of incidents anyway, especially if fast enough to avoid
delaying motorists for more than a few seconds.

Please note that I'm not suggesting that cyclists /always/ give way to motorists (it's often safer
to ride in middle of lane at dangerous sections, etc, etc). Just that's it's asking for trouble to
delay them more than necessary, especially when they're angry!

~PB

 

[Doesnotcompute]

Pete Biggs wrote:

> People do get deliberately shunted by drivers. I witnessed it myself once as a car hit a
> protesting cyclist, and just yersterday,

a good reason for having pulled up then - no doors to open into me, or
>1 tonne of enraged volvo behind me.

> a lorry driver in north London was MURDERED as theives stole his lorry and drove over him as he
> stood in front of the cab trying to stop them. It seems to be a growing trend for people to
> assault and kill for extremely trivial reasons or sometimes absolutely no reason at all.

Surely the lorry driver thing is totally irrelevant? and certainly not trival/no reason. That
occured because he load/wagon was being hijacked. Modern day **** Turpin if you will. Somewhat
different to the topic in hand, albeit unpleasant.

> By the way, the police will do FA about the incident.

Well they said that they would go and talk with him - assuming they do, that's good with me, maybe
it'll make him realise that his mentality is wrong. Then again, maybe the next cyclist will get it
worse on my account. No telling with some people....

--
Dnc

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:56:56 +0100 someone who may be "Chris Bardell"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Whether you pay road taxes or not is irrelevant

It certainly is, because nobody pays road taxes.

>& vehicles without engines (such as cycles) do not pay Road Fund Licence.

Please repeat slowly after me:

1) There is no Road Fund.

2) There is no Road Fund Licence.

See [1] below.

> I have a car & pay road tax too,

Incorrect. You do not pay road tax.

[3] - a few facts that need to be repeated far too often:

===============================================================

1909 - The Development and Road Improvements Fund Act said that taxes on motor vehicles and fuels
could be used to fund improvements to existing roads. The taxes were paid into the 'Road Improvement
Fund', later called the 'Road Fund'.

1920 Finance Act and the Roads Act stated that all motor vehicles had to be taxed, goods vehicles
being more heavily taxed than passenger vehicles, and that contributions to the cost of improving
existing roads could be taken from the 'Road Fund'. For roads of national importance, up to 50% of
the improvement cost could be granted from the Road Fund. For 'Class II' roads (like B roads today),
25% of the cost could come from the Road Fund.

1927 Finance Act stated that cars could be taxed as 'luxury items' and hence not all the tax went
into the Road Fund.

1933 Road Traffic Act gave local authorities the power to claim the cost of providing road signs
from the Road Fund.

1936 Trunk Roads Act transferred the authority for trunk roads from local authorities to a central
body- the Ministry of Transport. Up to that point, roads were the responsibility of local
authorities.

Finance Act 1936 wound up the 'Road Fund'. From then onwards, the Ministry of Transport would have
to bid for money from the Treasury.

So, even when all motoring taxes were ring-fenced they did not cover the costs of improving the
roads. The ring-fencing ended only seven decades ago. It's surprising how many motorists you meet
who still think it exists, they must have long memories and be at least 90 years old.... And the
Road Fund licence was abolished only six decades ago.

===============================================================

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Doesnotcompute wrote:

>> People do get deliberately shunted by drivers. I witnessed it myself once as a car hit a
>> protesting cyclist, and just yersterday,

> a good reason for having pulled up then - no doors to open into me, or
> >1 tonne of enraged volvo behind me.

Yes but you couldn't stay side by side forever. When you eventually go ahead, the driver could shunt
you. Or if he goes first, he could do a u-turn and come back for you. You're more likely to avoid
this come-back if you don't wind up the motorist more than you have to.

My point was more of a general one anyway. You won't always be able to physically prevent the driver
harming you. A confrontational attitude will increase your chances of getting hit and you won't be
able to educate motorists on the scene. They're not in a frame of mind for learning. I've tried
enough - they just don't take it in and see your point of view.

>> a lorry driver in north London was MURDERED as theives stole his lorry and drove over him as he
>> stood in front of the cab trying to stop them. It seems to be a growing trend for people to
>> assault and kill for extremely trivial reasons or sometimes absolutely no reason at all.

> Surely the lorry driver thing is totally irrelevant? and certainly not trival/no reason. That
> occured because he load/wagon was being hijacked. Modern day **** Turpin if you will. Somewhat
> different to the topic in hand, albeit unpleasant.

Killing someone for standing in front of the lorry you're trying to steal? That's a trivial reason.
Relevant because it shows how little life is valued when people are behind the wheel.

~PB

 

[Doesnotcompute]

Pete Biggs wrote:

> Killing someone for standing in front of the lorry you're trying to steal? That's a trivial
> reason. Relevant because it shows how little life is valued when people are behind the wheel.

ahh yes, but had the lorry driver been less confrontational and not stood in the way he'd more
likely be alive today - according to your earlier comments at least.

The point is there are plenty of people who are willing to stand up (pun not intended) for what they
believe in. The lorry driver is one, I am another and there's a whole bunch more out there.

I re-iterate: I will *not* be bullied or intimidated on the roads. YMMV.

--
Dnc

 

[Chesney Christ]

A certain David Hansen, of uk.rec.cycling "fame", writes :

>> I have a car & pay road tax too,
>
>Incorrect. You do not pay road tax.

I don't know about elsewhere, but in Belfast there are government-sponsored billboards everywhere
that say quite clearly "make sure you pay your road tax". I don't think there's a lot of point being
pedantic about this one.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

 

[Pete Biggs]

Doesnotcompute wrote:

>> Killing someone for standing in front of the lorry you're trying to steal? That's a trivial
>> reason. Relevant because it shows how little life is valued when people are behind the wheel.
>
> ahh yes, but had the lorry driver been less confrontational and not stood in the way he'd more
> likely be alive today - according to your earlier comments at least.

Exactly.

> The point is there are plenty of people who are willing to stand up (pun not intended) for what
> they believe in. The lorry driver is one, I am another and there's a whole bunch more out there.
>
> I re-iterate: I will *not* be bullied or intimidated on the roads.

Some things aren't worth dying for, including theft and dodgy driving. Fighting back doesn't prevent
the incidents in the first place and letting it go doesn't mean you've been bullied. Quite the
opposite in fact because it shows you are superior to them. The bully thrives on confrontation. And
m ost of the intimidation can be prevented by good cycling: the more skillful you become, the less
of this hassle you will get.

I've "been there done that" with confrontation thing. It just doesn't work - doesn't improve
motorists, doesn't make you feel better. I'm happier now I can just rise above it. To counter the
badness (of these motorists), good can be done by setting an example through good road useage, plus
campaigning and promoting cycling.

I'm not saying that you should always do nothing at all. Fair enough to make your feelings known or
report to police. It's the extended arguing/fighting and winding-up that does the damage. Not just
because it's dangerous but because you can't win like that.

> YMMV.

It does, and yours too might eventually if you manage to stay alive.

~PB

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 10 Aug, Pete Biggs <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> >> Keep on cycling and he can wind his window down as much as he likes..
> >
> > At which point a psycopathic lunatic is immediately behind you with a ton or so of deadly
> > weapon.
>
> Drivers don't tend to get too psyco if you don't wind them up more in the first place. They
> really just want to get on their way so you'll probably be ok if you don't get *in* their way at
> that point and they can overtake.

In the case in point I had had the temerity to obey the laws of physics. Sadly, that meant that
when he turned right out of the side-road the best I could do was convert the collision into a
glancing scrape.

Short of not existing, there was frankly nothing I could have done to wind him up less - having hit
me, he stopped (screech of burning tyres), leapt out and stated (at some volume) that if I hit his
car again he'd have me off my *** bike, then screamed off again. Some few hundreds of yards down the
road, just as I went past he came screeching out of an entrance, engine reving wildly and went past
me with rather less space than I care to think about.

I said nothing, gestured nothing, and short of being where he didn't want me to be, did nothing.

> sections, etc, etc). Just that's it's asking for trouble to delay them more than necessary,
> especially when they're angry!

I can't imagine how I delayed him - I suppose as his bodywork scraped down mine the drag would have
increased slightly.

Consequently, I work on teh assumption that an angry motorist may well be a murderous psycopath, and
I don't get in front of them.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Wafflydirtycatl]

>I don't know about elsewhere, but in Belfast there are government-sponsored billboards everywhere
>that say quite clearly "make sure you pay your road tax". I don't think there's a lot of point
>being pedantic about this one.

It's not pedantic - there is no such thing as road tax - simple. There is vehicle excise duty,
but no road tax and VED does not pay for the roads. Time for a letter to the advertising
standards I think ;-)

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$**o$l.c$$*o$*m*$ by getting rid of the
overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

 

[The Baker-Beall]

"Doesnotcompute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>
> > People do get deliberately shunted by drivers. I witnessed it myself
once
> > as a car hit a protesting cyclist, and just yersterday,
>
> a good reason for having pulled up then - no doors to open into me, or
> >1 tonne of enraged volvo behind me.
>
> > a lorry driver in north London was MURDERED as theives stole his lorry and drove over him
as
> > he stood in front of the cab trying to stop them. It seems to be a growing trend for people to
> > assault and kill for extremely trivial
reasons
> > or sometimes absolutely no reason at all.
>
> Surely the lorry driver thing is totally irrelevant? and certainly not trival/no reason. That
> occured because he load/wagon was being hijacked. Modern day **** Turpin if you will. Somewhat
> different to the topic in hand, albeit unpleasant.
>
> > By the way, the police will do FA about the incident.
>
> Well they said that they would go and talk with him - assuming they do, that's good with me, maybe
> it'll make him realise that his mentality is wrong. Then again, maybe the next cyclist will get it
> worse on my account. No telling with some people....
>
> --
> Dnc
I think my main worry is what the frustrated driver may try to do to the next cyclist he meets. The
OP feels he can handle himself in a physical confrontation, many of us don't feel that way at all
myself included - 5ft 3 female in my forties. I have to work on the basis of ignoring the bad and
thanking the good and considerate in the hope they will be respond by giving the next cyclist equal
consideration and room. ( Mind you I can understand the temptation to thump some-one..)

Julia

 

[Trevor Woodmore]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It's not pedantic - there is no such thing as road tax - simple. There is vehicle excise duty, but
> no road tax and VED does not pay for the roads.
Time
> for a letter to the advertising standards I think ;-)

Not pedentic?

You have to pay money to the government in order to be able to drive a car on the road, and the
amount you pay is not related to the benefits you recieve. This is a tax on your use of the road - a
'Road Tax' in common parlance - the fact that this is not it's official name is irrelevant in the
context it was used. You knew what the originator meant, and so did everyone else, so the only
possble explanation for your response is that it was pedantry.

Trevor.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Ian, I was referring to the type of incident Doesnotcompute was involved in not yours. Sorry if I
didn't follow your reply properly. Really, I'm making *general* points about confronting motorists
rather than criticising anyone here.

~PB

 

[Doesnotcompute]

the Baker-Bealls wrote:

> I think my main worry is what the frustrated driver may try to do to the next cyclist he meets.
> The OP feels he can handle himself in a physical confrontation, many of us don't feel that way at
> all myself included - 5ft 3 female in my forties. I have to work on the basis of ignoring the bad
> and thanking the good and considerate in the hope they will be respond by giving the next cyclist
> equal consideration and room. ( Mind you I can understand the temptation to thump some-one..)

Julia, I can understand your worries, your size and unfortunately gender don't work as an advantage
for you unless your adversary is similarly matched or you have some combatant skills.

In my case, being over 6 foot tall and well built with confidence in adverse situations (I'm a
qualified doorman as well as a people manager) I'm fortunate enough to be able to confidently stop
and tackle most situations.

I'd hope, that by trying to tackle situations such as the one I highlighted, it will make people
think twice. Certainly if we were all able to do it, it would make it much less likely to happen.

Look what happened with seatbelts and drink driving. Eventually they have become socially
unacceptable situations. One day, abusing cyclists will be the same.

I only hope that the cagers in question don't take it out on the next person (unless that next
person is me) but at least they have a recorded track record with the police if they do.

--
Dnc

 

[Doesnotcompute]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Doesnotcompute wrote:
>
>
>>>Killing someone for standing in front of the lorry you're trying to steal? That's a trivial
>>>reason. Relevant because it shows how little life is valued when people are behind the wheel.
>>
>>ahh yes, but had the lorry driver been less confrontational and not stood in the way he'd more
>>likely be alive today - according to your earlier comments at least.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>The point is there are plenty of people who are willing to stand up (pun not intended) for what
>>they believe in. The lorry driver is one, I am another and there's a whole bunch more out there.
>>
>>I re-iterate: I will *not* be bullied or intimidated on the roads.
>
>
> Some things aren't worth dying for,

agreed,

> including theft and dodgy driving.

agreed,

> Fighting back doesn't prevent the incidents in the first place

no but it *might* stop it happening again.

> and letting it go doesn't mean you've been bullied. Quite the opposite in fact because it shows
> you are superior to them. The bully thrives on confrontation. And m ost of the intimidation can be
> prevented by good cycling: the more skillful you become, the less of this hassle you will get.

Good cycling will only prevent intimidation/confrontation caused by poor cycling. It will not
prevent the same things caused by other peoples bad driving.

> I've "been there done that" with confrontation thing. It just doesn't work - doesn't improve
> motorists, doesn't make you feel better.

Reporting it made me feel better. It also gives the cager in question a track record, so that if at
some point in the future he knocks somone off, it can't possibly be thought of as a "one-off".

> I'm happier now I can just rise above it.

Good, after all, it's what we all dtrive for in life - to be happy, what that happiness is of
course, differs between us all.

> To counter the badness (of these motorists), good can be done by setting an example through good
> road useage, plus campaigning and promoting cycling.
>
> I'm not saying that you should always do nothing at all. Fair enough to make your feelings known
> or report to police. It's the extended arguing/fighting and winding-up that does the damage.

What extended fighting/arguing? That's the point in this instance, there wasn't any. It was one
incident and went on for maybe 3-4 minutes tops.

The inly extension, is the ongoing debate here, nothing wrong with that either.

> Not just because it's dangerous but because you can't win like that.
>
>>YMMV.
>
> It does, and yours too might eventually if you manage to stay alive.

I think that comment was alittle unecessary, given my track record, especially your (lack of)
knowledge of it, there's no reason to presume I wouldn't stay alive any longer than anyone else. I'm
more likely to pop my clogs due to being unhealthy than being battered in a road rage incident.

--
Dnc

 

[Pete Biggs]

Doesnotcompute wrote:

/snip
>> Fighting back doesn't prevent the incidents in the first place
>
> no but it *might* stop it happening again.

Ok if it might. I've got my doubts if any motorist will change his ways after a telling off from a
cyclist, but good if I'm wrong.

>> and letting it go doesn't mean you've been bullied. Quite the opposite in fact because it shows
>> you are superior to them. The bully thrives on confrontation. And m ost of the intimidation can
>> be prevented by good cycling: the more skillful you become, the less of this hassle you will get.
>
> Good cycling will only prevent intimidation/confrontation caused by poor cycling. It will not
> prevent the same things caused by other peoples bad driving.

It can prevent a lot of bad driving. eg. Not giving room to overtake dangerously (and this can be
done without excessively annoying the motorist). But yes I agree that it can't prevent
everything....

I respect you standing up for what you believe in but I can't let it pass without comment because I
know it is risky and want to broadcast my knowledge.... After witnessing a cyclist being
deliberately hit for merely delaying a motorist without saying a word, I know how easily drivers can
snap. I don't know how often it happens but there are more satisfying ways to play russian roulette
on a bike. Slipstreaming lorries for example.

> What extended fighting/arguing? That's the point in this instance, there wasn't any. It was one
> incident and went on for maybe 3-4 minutes tops.

That's a very long time!! Anything more than a few seconds is dangerous.

/snip
>>> YMMV.
>>
>> It does, and yours too might eventually if you manage to stay alive.
>
> I think that comment was alittle unecessary, given my track record, especially your (lack of)
> knowledge of it, there's no reason to presume I wouldn't stay alive any longer than anyone else.
> I'm more likely to pop my clogs due to being unhealthy than being battered in a road rage
> incident.

Sorry about that line but my guess still is that you are more likely to get hit through road rage
being confrontational than you would be otherwise.

~PB