Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

Practically a certainty in London.
you often hear that the police target criminals' use of the roads, on the basis that people who break one law may well break another. sadly they only target this at drivers. for some reason cyclists who break the law by riding on pavements or commit infractions of road traffic legislation are only subject to an at best token targeting by the police. yet it would seem foolish to assume that cyclists are all morally pure. i suspect more drug dealing than you'd expect involves a cycle at some point. and if anti-social criminals know that they can ditch the motor for a pushbike and evade police interference then you can be sure they'd do so.
 
Funny enough, I collected a mate from Brighton hospital yesterday, and there's loads of cyclists acting like complete twats in the city, I've never witnessed such behaviour, maybe the sun got to them.

I always leave plenty of space when I overtake them, yet they are happy to speed past on the inside with just inches to spare, or cut across in front of me to turn right, with no warning whatsoever, and forcing me to brake hard, suddenly weaving out of the cycling lane into the car lane, to over take, without even looking, etc. etc.

Having to put up with that behaviour all day long, on a daily basis, it's hardly surprising that some professional drivers get aggressive with some of the cycling twats.

What's your genius plan for turning right from a cycle lane then?

Newer cycle lanes are designed to encourage cyclists to move into primary position at junctions; primary position being what the centre of what ignorant motorists from the 70's call a 'car lane'.
 
Just FYI, there's no such thing as a "car lane".

OK, 'lane meant for motorised vehicles and separated from a bollard lined cycle lane, designed for the safely of cyclists, but ignored by some cycling twats, with a death wish, that just weave out beyond the bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking'.

Bit long winded, but that's basically a 'car lane'.
 
OK, 'lane meant for motorised vehicles and separated from a bollard lined cycle lane, designed for the safely of cyclists, but ignored by some cycling twats, with a death wish, that just weave out beyond the bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking'.

Bit long winded, but that's basically a 'car lane'.
I'm afraid you've just demonstrated the misunderstanding that I feared your wording indicated.
 
OK, 'lane meant for motorised vehicles and separated from a bollard lined cycle lane, designed for the safely of cyclists, but ignored by some cycling twats, with a death wish, that just weave out beyond the bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking'.

Bit long winded, but that's basically a 'car lane'.

The only place you'll find a lane for the exclusive use of motorised vehicles is on a (the clue is in the name) motorway.
 
I'm afraid you've just demonstrated the misunderstanding that I feared your wording indicated.

So, you think it's OK for cyclists to weave out beyond these bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking?

2t.png
 
What's your genius plan for turning right from a cycle lane then?

In this case, wait until the lights turn red for cars going straight ahead, cycle across the lane, in time for the turn right light to change green.

Much better than suddenly crossing the traffic moving forward, risking life, only to have to pause at the red right turn light, because the other carriage [2 lanes] is moving faster. :facepalm:
 
Here's more very typical car driver behaviour.


In this case, a repressed urge to travel by rail, which they know deep down is better. But they saw a Range Rover advert on TV with lots of revving noises, some kind of twisting mountain roads or a beach or something, an implication that they would suddenly find an attractive partner by having a shiny metal thing, their testosterone levels went out of control and they went out and stole one. Now look at them, no cash to buy a train ticket, limited intellectual capacity due to being a car fancier and here's what happens.
 
Here's more very typical car driver behaviour.


In this case, a repressed urge to travel by rail, which they know deep down is better. But they saw a Range Rover advert on TV with lots of revving noises, some kind of twisting mountain roads or a beach or something, an implication that they would suddenly find an attractive partner by having a shiny metal thing, their testosterone levels went out of control and they went out and stole one. Now look at them, no cash to buy a train ticket, limited intellectual capacity due to being a car fancier and here's what happens.
A train geek stole a car because he didn't want to mix with train types, but soon realised that the only roads he knew were railroads.
 
Anyway, another entitled car owner - who thinks she owns the pavement too.

View attachment 278679

Tbf to the woman this is one of those things that are tragic when they happen to you but funny when they happen to someone else. But her complaints have zero legal standing, No-one owns the pavement in front of their house and unless there is a dropped kerb then there is no right to drive across it. It's clear from the 2009 photo there was never an initial right of access and she took out the original wall. I would imagine her chance of getting her dropped kerb now have gone as well since any council surveyor is going to see the box and say 'Nope'. They can't 'just' move it anyway since that means a lot of cables would have to be relaid.
There is a lot of unrelated 'entitlement' in that article. What has the fact that she spent money on the house got to do with this? She also doesn't have a driveway, she has a front garden which she has paved over.
Besides all it means is that she and presumably her husband will just have to shuffle cars about each morning or make sure that whoever goes out first is parked on the left. Before I had our front lawn paved over Mrs Q and I parked our cars one in front of the other and whoever was gone second had to park first.
 
Yes, not only has she actively and selfishly degraded the streetscape (like anyone who paves over their front garden) but she shouldn't have been driving across that bit of pavement anyway and was therefore possibly doing damage to the public realm physically as well as aesthetically. Typical car owner.

Screenshot 2021-07-16 at 09.58.37.jpg
 
Tbf to the woman this is one of those things that are tragic when they happen to you but funny when they happen to someone else. But her complaints have zero legal standing, No-one owns the pavement in front of their house and unless there is a dropped kerb then there is no right to drive across it. It's clear from the 2009 photo there was never an initial right of access and she took out the original wall. I would imagine her chance of getting her dropped kerb now have gone as well since any council surveyor is going to see the box and say 'Nope'. They can't 'just' move it anyway since that means a lot of cables would have to be relaid.
There is a lot of unrelated 'entitlement' in that article. What has the fact that she spent money on the house got to do with this? She also doesn't have a driveway, she has a front garden which she has paved over.
Besides all it means is that she and presumably her husband will just have to shuffle cars about each morning or make sure that whoever goes out first is parked on the left. Before I had our front lawn paved over Mrs Q and I parked our cars one in front of the other and whoever was gone second had to park first.
My twattiest neighbour decided he owned the whole pavement when he moved in. His house has a garage and a dropped kerb and because the garage is full of junk he decided to park in front of it forcing every wheelchair and buggy into the road. Talking to him didn't help. Notes through the door did nothing. Parking tickets had no effect (and he claimed in our street's group chat to have got out of paying them in court somehow, god knows why as he was ge uinely causing an obstruction). However, he moved it quick smart when some enterprising buggy-pusher keyed the fuck out of his bonnet. Entitled piece of shit, same as the idiot in the article. I have flowers in my front garden to try and keep the street looking nice. That's what front gardens are for. Not putting fucking cars on.
 
There is no such thing as an obligation to maintain the streetscape, if you want to grow flowers on it and make it look pretty that is your right to do so, but she has an equal right to pave over it if she wants it's her property not that of the street.
As indeed did I (though we have always had a dropped kerb). In my own case my need was driven by my eldest daughter passing her test and my realisation that there was a great deal of valuable parking land that was going to waste and was costing me effort to maintain but was bringing me no benefit. The rear garden is great, we can have barbecues and just sit out there when the weather is nice but the front garden was basically just a burden.
 
Back
Top Bottom