What annoyed you today?

[mac11irl]

on my way home from work last night the work van (2020 Connect, limited to 125kph) with the cruise locked on at max on the motorway and thank god it was the middle of the night with noone else around, when the cruise control decided to just randomly start stepping my speed down in 10kph increments right to 30kph, and autobraking to achieve this, pretty sharply. because there was noone else for mikes behind me i let it do it, to see what was happening.

it wasnt the anti collision, or adaptive cruise slowing me down, literally the cruise control speed indicator was dropping on the dash. i put my foot down at 30kph to override it, but then also had to reset the cruise speed back up. wasnt raining, just damp road. 

really random and annoying...

 

[Ootohere]

Members of parliament in the UK who are no better than teens or pre-teens and send people pictures of their private parts.

MP,s or Politicians even the likes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that think it is brave of the idiots that do it because they owned up to it.

 

These people got to their place as a MP supposedly from what they can offer us due to education or experience. 

It looks like some have not the brains they were born with.

 

I like who experts are saying they are just looking for love.   Well there have been plenty caught out in the past paying for that, or us paying for them to have a quicky.

 

 

Getting to keep the  Tory whip. 

After all 'We are all in this together, one for all and all for one!'.

Edited 5 April by Rooted

[BTandSid]

But didn’t he say he passed these details to his ‘friend’ as he’d been ‘threatened’ with personal details otherwise being released 🤔

Bet he’s stupid enough to pass out his bank details when someone allegedly from Amazon Prime calls up and asks for them 

[@Lee]

6 hours ago, BTandSid said:

But didn’t he say he passed these details to his ‘friend’ as he’d been ‘threatened’ with personal details otherwise being released 🤔

Bet he’s stupid enough to pass out his bank details when someone allegedly from Amazon Prime calls up and asks for them 

 

As an MP he shouldn't have ended up where he did in the first place. Being an MP comes with certain amounts of responsibility and Wragg failed to meet them.

If he was/ felt he was being pressured to give out details of other MPs he should have ceased all communication with whoever it was he was communicating with and saved all the messages to pass on to the Met and the relevant Parliamentary offices in confidence. 

That Sunak hasn't sanctioned him is beyond the pale IMO and yet another sign of how weak he is as a PM and MP and how utterly knackered the whole government is. 

The thing is, if they remove the whip from Wragg, they'd have to remove it from those he compromised. But perhaps they don't want it to get out who else was involved other than Wragg hence he keeps the whip 🤷 

It's not as if the Tories are allergic to sex scandals is it. Anyone remember the Hamiltons plus many others. 

 

Edited 6 April by @Lee

[Stonekeeper]

Cyclist racing a fire vehicle to a turn?

 

The majority of the replies seem to agree.

 

Why when you have plenty of warning would you do that?

 

 

 

[Graham Butcher]

3 hours ago, Stonekeeper said:

Cyclist racing a fire vehicle to a turn?

 

The majority of the replies seem to agree.

 

Why when you have plenty of warning would you do that?

 

 

 

I doubt that the driver could have seen him in his mirror, as the cycle lane is too far away from the road to be included within its field of view. These new rules for cyclists and pedestrians, giving them the right of way IMHO must have been written by someone who has never driven a car let alone a big truck, bus/ coach etc. The code should be written around trying to get these vulnerable road users more aware of their own frailty in the event of an accident occurring between them and a motor vehicle. Their focus should be on keeping themselves safe at all times and if that means letting the motorist go first so be it, at least they have a greater chance of completing their journey safe and sound.

Edited 6 April by Graham Butcher

[skomaz]

10 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

I doubt that the driver could have seen him in his mirror, as the cycle lane is too far away from the road to be included within its field of view. These new rules for cyclists and pedestrians, giving them the right of way IMHO must have been written by someone who has never driven a car let alone a big truck, bus/ coach etc. The code should be written around trying to get these vulnerable road users more aware of their own frailty in the event of an accident occurring between them and a motor vehicle. Their focus should be on keeping themselves safe at all times and if that means letting the motorist go first so be it, at least they have a greater chance of completing their journey safe and sound.

 

Totally agree...   Too many cyclists put themselves in dangerous positions of their own accord and most have no idea about blind spots. 

 

I saw a great video a while back that demonstrated it really well...   Viewed from the drivers seat with nothing visible through windows or mirrors but in reality with about a dozen bikes positioned at various locations around the vehicle...   All in blind spots. 

[Graham Butcher]

43 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

Totally agree...   Too many cyclists put themselves in dangerous positions of their own accord and most have no idea about blind spots. 

 

I saw a great video a while back that demonstrated it really well...   Viewed from the drivers seat with nothing visible through windows or mirrors but in reality with about a dozen bikes positioned at various locations around the vehicle...   All in blind spots. 

Yep, totally agree. having driven many large vehicles in my time I'm only too well aware of these blind spots. I strongly think that before people are allowed to write new rules into highway codes etc, that the should have plenty of experience of the problems that drivers face in all kinds of vehicles. Cyclists for instance are in a far better position to react quickly to events and have far shorter stopping distances as well. Traffic lights, one way roads etc it seems are not applicable to them either 🙄

 

Car drivers as well need to have a far greater understanding of the laws of physics especially those that longer vehicles and also articulated vehicles have to abide by.

Edited 6 April by Graham Butcher

[Stonekeeper]

8 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

I doubt that the driver could have seen him in his mirror, as the cycle lane is too far away from the road to be included within its field of view. These new rules for cyclists and pedestrians, giving them the right of way IMHO must have been written by someone who has never driven a car let alone a big truck, bus/ coach etc. The code should be written around trying to get these vulnerable road users more aware of their own frailty in the event of an accident occurring between them and a motor vehicle. Their focus should be on keeping themselves safe at all times and if that means letting the motorist go first so be it, at least they have a greater chance of completing their journey safe and sound.

 

There was a consultation It ran from July to October 2020, and received more than 20,000 responses from the public, businesses and other organisations. Most people who responded were in favour of all the changes.

 

 

I wonder if the majority of those consulted were cyclists.

 

Ridiculous that such a major change was decided with so little input

 

It does make sense to raise awareness of vulnerable users of the road, but everyone should be educated about the challenges of maneuvering large vehicles.

 

The fire vehicles last chance of seeing anything in that cycle lane behind it was around 10sec in the clip. After that it was turning.

 

The cyclist knew he was not visible on his mad dash to get to the junction.

 

 

 

 

[Paws4Thot]

16 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

The cyclist knew he was not visible on his mad dash to get to the scene of the accident.

Edit inline, underscore.

[Breezy_Pete]

Rabid cyclists are often annoying. 

[cheezemonkhai]

Cyclists will cycle at circa 20-30mph on a combine foot/cyclepath then bomb across junction where it’s impossible for a vehicle or pedestrian to see them until it’s way too late.

 

On footpaths they ring their bells whilst riding fast and expect pedestrians to get out of their way. If cars or Lorries honked  the horn and carried on they’d lose their shot and state the cyclists priority, but forget about pedestrians priority.

 

one did to a new mum with a baby, with a dog coming the other way and just carried on when the dog walked pointed out the pedestrian priority.

 

I had a group on a country lane cycling 4 wide who ignored the building queue of cars as nobody could get past.

 

Some extremely nasty people on bikes, who only car about themselves.

[Stonekeeper]

1 minute ago, cheezemonkhai said:

Cyclists will cycle at circa 20-30mph on a combine foot/cyclepath then bomb across junction where it’s impossible for a vehicle or pedestrian to see them until it’s way too late.

 

On footpaths they ring their bells whilst riding fast and expect pedestrians to get out of their way. If cars or Lorries honked  the horn and carried on they’d lose their shot and state the cyclists priority, but forget about pedestrians priority.

 

one did to a new mum with a baby, with a dog coming the other way and just carried on when the dog walked pointed out the pedestrian priority.

 

I had a group on a country lane cycling 4 wide who ignored the building queue of cars as nobody could get past.

 

Some extremely nasty people on bikes, who only car about themselves.

 

 

That type of cyclist only reads the rules that apply to others. They have no interest in the rules that apply to them.

 

Cycling organisations were heavily involved in changing the rules to suit them on the grounds of "safety" for them not all.

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20220127-Highway-Code-–-Riding-two-abreast-0

[Stonekeeper]

Rule 67 for cyclists

 

when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left.

[Graham Butcher]

5 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

Rule 67 for cyclists

 

when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left.

Or indeed any vehicle turning left as its started to turn its left mirror field of view has changed. 

 

The rules should be pointing out the real need for cyclists to proitise their own safety and urge them to be on the lookout danger points. Any coming together between cyclists/pedestrians and any motorised vehicle, and they will come off the worst. They need to understand that they are frail. 

[Graham Butcher]

Looking into the https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20220127-Highway-Code-–-Riding-two-abreast-0 in a bit more detail, it is pretty clear that these groups are pushing for more what seems to social events rather than for the safety of their members. By that, I mean that appears to be more biased towards allowing cyclists to ride 2 abreast in order to allow them to chat to each other, as if that alone would keep them safe. The photo they use shows 4 riders together in a very narrow country road, where common sense suggest to me that they would be better off in single file. Picture a car coming round a bend and being confronted head on by these. Where does the car driver go left or right to avoid them? What the riders split either side of the road and the driver also makes a move to avoid an impact, one or both of the riders is going to suffer, surely?

 

It also mentions club events and suggests that that is a classic event to warrants 2 abreast riding and in these events there are many riders taking part. Surely, it makes perfect sense to limit such events to smaller groups of no more than say 4 in a group so they become more spread out along the roads and therefore less of a hazard to other road users and themselves? If a car club, try to arrange a club meet/event the police will very often arrive mob handed with a dispersal order to break it up and prevent such events taking place.

[Winston_Woof]

maybe if they need to travel in such a group they should have a lead & a tail car with warning boards and/or lights and have the "convoy" (including the cars) limited to a max nose to tail length of say 55Ft /16.5m (which is the maximum cab & trailer length for artics permitted in the UK)

[mac11irl]

whatever about the discussion following the post with the video...

that clown could see from plenty far away the engine indicating and turning the corner long before he was at the junction. he created that situation for online clout and point scoring. he, in this situation, is 100% the dingleberry.

 

besides the point that im sure the "cyclists have priority" has a blue light services exception writen into the rule? "sorry your house burned down and your nan passed away, we got held up at a junction by a load of cyclist who had right of way over us" wouldnt really be acceptable to anyone would it?

[J.R.]

Hear hear!

It's a shame that fate did not choose that moment for his brakes to fail.

[Graham Butcher]

40 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Hear hear!

It's a shame that fate did not choose that moment for his brakes to fail.

Problem being with the way the police would handle it. If they take view that HC had not been followed by the driver of fire truck, he would be held responsible for the accident. 

[Gerrycan]

1 hour ago, mac11irl said:

whatever about the discussion following the post with the video...

that clown could see from plenty far away the engine indicating and turning the corner long before he was at the junction. he created that situation for online clout and point scoring. he, in this situation, is 100% the dingleberry.

 

besides the point that im sure the "cyclists have priority" has a blue light services exception writen into the rule? "sorry your house burned down and your nan passed away, we got held up at a junction by a load of cyclist who had right of way over us" wouldnt really be acceptable to anyone would it?

I used to be an enthusiastic cyclist, including commuting, touring and a bit of racing (on a dedicated track), although nowadays only a commuter.

I am in complete agreement with what you said and with other's general condemnation of the poor road manners and selfishness of many cyclists, especially groups. It is the same here in Australia

 

However my 'like' for your comment was for the use of the word 'dingleberry'

 

[cheezemonkhai]

To be honest it sounds like a sensible update to the rules is required.

 

Yes bikes are more vulnerable, but it doesn’t meant they should just do what the fancy, ignore their own safety and everyone else be responsible.

 

Self preservation is key to all road users.

[Tilt]

Playing 'Devil's Advocate' ..........

 

Whilst yes, I agree, there are lots of cyclists that do stupid things whilst riding their bikes ....

 

There are also lots of pedestrians that do stupid things whilst waking the pavements / roads

 

And there are certainly lots of drivers that do stupid things whilst driving their vehicles .....

 

ALL endangering themselves and others.

 

(the first and third statement possibly apply to myself on the odd occasion of madness, Lol.

[Breezy_Pete]

Mildly annoying to regularly remove recycling from the wrong bin in the kitchen, rinse and put in the right one.

 

 

[skomaz]

On 07/04/2024 at 19:14, cheezemonkhai said:

 

Self preservation is key to all road users.

 

This ^^^^

 

It's generally how I drive, cycle and walk.

 

The difference is pedestrians are pretty agile and can usually dodge and avoid things, drivers have a tin box around them for protection but cyclists have neither and some seem to be oblivious to this.