Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: 78bex on 18 August 2013, 22:50:13
-
.............here :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHcUlfTZILQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHcUlfTZILQ)
-
Close? Not really, IMO.
???
-
:o :o She wasn't going to stop for no one was she :(
-
Close? Not really, IMO.
???
I'm with chris, she is clearly not taking enough care but that could have been closer :y
-
Close? Not really, IMO.
???
I'm with chris, she is clearly not taking enough care but that could have been closer :y
true but @ 1.06 after she passes the mobil crane a grey cab is very close.
weird road markings,does anyone recognise the location in London
-
What is interesting is that she got through London faster than a motorbike ;D
-
Close? Not really, IMO.
???
I'm with chris, she is clearly not taking enough care but that could have been closer :y
true but @ 1.06 after she passes the mobil crane a grey cab is very close.
weird road markings,does anyone recognise the location in London
i would say exhibition road junc cromwell rd
-
Not that close but still an idiot. I wish the police would take more cyclists like that to task. If they did and fewer cyclists did crap like that then we may start to find some sort of harmony between cyclists and motorists. Hopefully these new powers for the police could see the start of it.
-
Sadly I see people like her on the road most days - in cars, vans, trucks as well as cyclists, all caught up in what they are doing at that particular point and the rest of us that are driving with due care and attention are merely objects to go round by whatever means possible. It's a selfish society we live in.
Darren
-
Not that close but still an idiot. I wish the police would take more cyclists like that to task. If they did and fewer cyclists did crap like that then we may start to find some sort of harmony between cyclists and motorists. Hopefully these new powers for the police could see the start of it.
Mmmm, not so sure tbh. Yes they should obay the rules, but I don't think its wise to channel cyclists down the same funnel at the same time by making them, stop at each traffic light or whatever, along side all the other traffic on the same route.
As we saw there she was actually passed all the melay at the junctions and on her way by the time the motorbike cought up with her, there by keing out of the way of traffic on her route.
If cyclists can cross ,as a pedestrian would if there is no traffic at a red light, I think they should be aloud to do so.
I mean it's no different to a pedestrian taking a chance by crossing on a red man. No?
Until cyclists have a number plate and insurance they are just pedestrians on wheels are they not?
-
Put it the other way. What's to stop a pedestrian walking or running down the left side, or down the white line at a red light, walking straight through the red light, across the junction, as a cyclist would... dodge the Crain and the taxi, etc and on their way up the road...?
Nothing at all. Not wise, and would be at fault if there was an accident I suspect, but there's nothing to stop them.
...afaik anyway.
Is a cyclist effectively a pedestrian? In legal terms?
-
Put it the other way. What's to stop a pedestrian walking or running down the left side, or down the white line at a red light, walking straight through the red light, across the junction, as a cyclist would... dodge the Crain and the taxi, etc and on their way up the road...?
Nothing at all. Not wise, and would be at fault if there was an accident I suspect, but there's nothing to stop them.
...afaik anyway.
Is a cyclist effectively a pedestrian? In legal terms?
No, pedestrians should and usually do use the pavement.
Cyclists should use the road (but often use the pavement) and therefore should be subject to the rules of the road in the same way as other wheeled vehicles! ;)
I don't agree at all with this proposal that the bigger vehicle will automatically be at fault in an incident with a cyclist. It will at stroke of a pen remove the cyclists responsibility for their own safety, and many idiot cyclists will ignore the basic rules of the road on the assumption that they automatically have right of way and are always 'in the right!!' >:(
There are too many idiots on the road as it is, in and on all sorts of vehicles, without legitimising a faction of idiots!! ::)
-
Put it the other way. What's to stop a pedestrian walking or running down the left side, or down the white line at a red light, walking straight through the red light, across the junction, as a cyclist would... dodge the Crain and the taxi, etc and on their way up the road...?
Nothing at all. Not wise, and would be at fault if there was an accident I suspect, but there's nothing to stop them.
...afaik anyway.
Is a cyclist effectively a pedestrian? In legal terms?
No, pedestrians should and usually do use the pavement.
Cyclists should use the road (but often use the pavement) and therefore should be subject to the rules of the road in the same way as other wheeled vehicles! ;)
I don't agree at all with this proposal that the bigger vehicle will automatically be at fault in an incident with a cyclist. It will at stroke of a pen remove the cyclists responsibility for their own safety, and many idiot cyclists will ignore the basic rules of the road on the assumption that they automatically have right of way and are always 'in the right!!' >:(
There are too many idiots on the road as it is, in and on all sorts of vehicles, without legitimising a faction of idiots!! ::)
EXACTLY and pay INSURANCE :y
-
Put it the other way. What's to stop a pedestrian walking or running down the left side, or down the white line at a red light, walking straight through the red light, across the junction, as a cyclist would... dodge the Crain and the taxi, etc and on their way up the road...?
Nothing at all. Not wise, and would be at fault if there was an accident I suspect, but there's nothing to stop them.
...afaik anyway.
Is a cyclist effectively a pedestrian? In legal terms?
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Cyclists are road users and should use the road as per the rules or walk/drive. Both cyclists and motorists have to accept this fact and just got on with things.
-
Put it the other way. What's to stop a pedestrian walking or running down the left side, or down the white line at a red light, walking straight through the red light, across the junction, as a cyclist would... dodge the Crain and the taxi, etc and on their way up the road...?
Nothing at all. Not wise, and would be at fault if there was an accident I suspect, but there's nothing to stop them.
...afaik anyway.
Is a cyclist effectively a pedestrian? In legal terms?
No, pedestrians should and usually do use the pavement.
Cyclists should use the road (but often use the pavement) and therefore should be subject to the rules of the road in the same way as other wheeled vehicles! ;)
I don't agree at all with this proposal that the bigger vehicle will automatically be at fault in an incident with a cyclist. It will at stroke of a pen remove the cyclists responsibility for their own safety, and many idiot cyclists will ignore the basic rules of the road on the assumption that they automatically have right of way and are always 'in the right!!' >:(
There are too many idiots on the road as it is, in and on all sorts of vehicles, without legitimising a faction of idiots!! ::)
EXACTLY and pay INSURANCE :y
*sigh*
most already do
-
Put it the other way. What's to stop a pedestrian walking or running down the left side, or down the white line at a red light, walking straight through the red light, across the junction, as a cyclist would... dodge the Crain and the taxi, etc and on their way up the road...?
Nothing at all. Not wise, and would be at fault if there was an accident I suspect, but there's nothing to stop them.
...afaik anyway.
Is a cyclist effectively a pedestrian? In legal terms?
No, pedestrians should and usually do use the pavement.
Cyclists should use the road (but often use the pavement) and therefore should be subject to the rules of the road in the same way as other wheeled vehicles! ;)
I don't agree at all with this proposal that the bigger vehicle will automatically be at fault in an incident with a cyclist. It will at stroke of a pen remove the cyclists responsibility for their own safety, and many idiot cyclists will ignore the basic rules of the road on the assumption that they automatically have right of way and are always 'in the right!!' >:(
There are too many idiots on the road as it is, in and on all sorts of vehicles, without legitimising a faction of idiots!! ::)
EXACTLY and pay INSURANCE :y
*sigh*
most already do
No different to car drivers then :) :) :) ;)
-
No different to car drivers then :) :) :) ;)
;D ;D :y
-
So nobody sees any ambiguity in that cyclists are road users?
What about minors? What's the age laws? I don't know tbh. Although she's clearly not a child.
I just consider them the same as pedestrians. :-\
Rightly or wrongly, I have no problem with that ladies riding. No different to a pedestrian IMO. Just moving quicker. Extremely unwise perhaps, but she seems in full control, judged everything well.
Fus about nothing it seems to me tbh. :(
-
So nobody sees any ambiguity in that cyclists are road users?
What about minors? What's the age laws? I don't know tbh. Although she's clearly not a child.
I just consider them the same as pedestrians. :-\
Rightly or wrongly, I have no problem with that ladies riding. No different to a pedestrian IMO. Just moving quicker. Extremely unwise perhaps, but she seems in full control, judged everything well.
Fus about nothing it seems to me tbh. :(
I quite agree if somebody wants to take any particular route that`s their business.
I`ve had occasions to drive past people cycling the wrong way up motorways before.
I can`t see that cyclists running red lights would have a positive effect on safety on the roads?
-
Fus about nothing it seems to me tbh. :(
So she runs 2 red lights at a considerable pace, but lets face it she is the one who will come off worse in a collision with another vehicle. As you say a fus about nothing! ::)
Lets assume that she has no 3rd party insurance, how you would be compensated if she smacked into the wing of your shiny pride and joy Omega? :o As you say a fus about nothing! ::)
What about the pedestrian crossings she also scoots through at speed which presumably are on green... Quite a potential to cause a serious injury to a pedestrian there, especially if she has one eye on her mobile! As you say a fus about nothing! ::)
I probably come across as a bit anti cyclist which I'm not, but the 'Holier than thou' attitude of many cyclists gets on my tits to be honest! ::) :P :)
-
Fus about nothing it seems to me tbh. :(
So she runs 2 red lights at a considerable pace, but lets face it she is the one who will come off worse in a collision with another vehicle. As you say a fus about nothing! ::)
Lets assume that she has no 3rd party insurance, how you would be compensated if she smacked into the wing of your shiny pride and joy Omega? :o As you say a fus about nothing! ::)
What about the pedestrian crossings she also scoots through at speed which presumably are on green... Quite a potential to cause a serious injury to a pedestrian there, especially if she has one eye on her mobile! As you say a fus about nothing! ::)
I probably come across as a bit anti cyclist which I'm not, but the 'Holier than thou' attitude of many cyclists gets on my tits to be honest! ::) :P :)
And how much of that happened...? I seem to remember much moaning about the nanny state on here, and yet.... :-\
-
Not getting involved in the Car Vs Bike thing . . . :-X
But if she cycled like that in the bit of London that I live in, she would not survive long.
-
She is simply an idiot, a danger to herself, other vehicles and pedestrians, and doesn't obviously give a hoot about others. >:( >:(
Why don't we all just drive how we like and forget the highway code ::)
-
Close? Miles away! Looks like Hyde Park to me, happens all time in London.
-
She is simply an idiot, a danger to herself, other vehicles and pedestrians, and doesn't obviously give a hoot about others. >:( >:(
Why don't we all just drive how we like and forget the highway code ::)
Because we have number plates ::)
-
She is simply an idiot, a danger to herself, other vehicles and pedestrians, and doesn't obviously give a hoot about others. >:( >:(
Why don't we all just drive how we like and forget the highway code ::)
Because we have number plates ::)
So putting them on cycles is the answer ;) :y
-
....which means accountability.
So your going to put number plates on kids going to school?
Where did this natural ability to get bitter about every single thing come from...? Maybe its a bitter miserable state of mind that just needs an outlet. Get over it.
-
Does that mean we need number plates on our arse?
Cause after a curry, i think we need to find who is accountable. ::)
-
Cycling proficiency test ....... Remember that?
Cyclist need to realise that they are not exempt from the highway code? :y
P.S I ride a bike and stop at traffic lights, do not go on the pavement, and obey the highway code . Yes some motorists are pricks but so are the lycra brigade ;)
You can stick a number plate up your arse for all I car Tunnie, ENJOY IT :o :o ;D ;D
-
ALL CYCLISTS ARE COCKS!
As are all other road users, pedestrians, Airline Pilots, Train Drivers and Reindeer*
*Except Rudolph, everyone knows Rudolph is an exceptional Driver.
-
;D ;D ;D
And Bristolians ;D ;D ;D
-
To be fair, that motorcyclist was going WAY too fast at times in that video clip!! ::) :)