Are they genuinely thick, or what?

Absolutely agree @fat controller. I thought the roads were for everybody to use and correct me if I'm wrong but do we not pay a roadfund licence for the priviledge! Don't think cyclist do, do they?
You should hear daughter on cyclists, well perhaps not with some of the language she uses! when recounting yet another near miss when a cyclist has either hung onto the back of her artic for a tow up a hill or crept up her near side and are just damned lucky she has spotted them before she has turned left.
I know when I drove a lorry (not HGV) I was forever keeping an eye on my near side when in reality I needed to be concerntrating on looking ahead. I live on a single track road which is a designated cycle route by our council. I acquired a dislocated finger c/o a cyclist and damned nearly got mown down a few months ago when putting the rubbish bin out for collection. With the speed some of these cyclist go (have race cycling clubs using our road) if I get hit it could well be "thanks very much and good night!" Daughter's BF who has 5 artics, got dash cams for them for various reasons including to protect himself and his drivers from cyclists who always seem deemed to be in the right even if they are in the wrong!

 

Same applies to motorbikes but for slightly different reasons.

I'm sick of all the crap about 'Think bike, think biker'.

I personally prefer 'Think other fellow human being regardless of number of wheels on their vehicle, or absence of vehicle' but that's far less catchy.

I saw a rather distressing picture on Facebook and while ago. A motorbike had hit the side of a car that had 'pulled out on him'. It was carnage. The bike was embedded inside the wreckage of the car and all involved, biker, driver and passenger, all killed. Of course it was the car driver's fault according to the post. Nobody asked how fast a motorbike has to be going to hit a car so hard it tears through and half hangs out the other side. Or how much time might elapse between a driver seeing it is clear and a bike arriving with sufficient speed to embed itself and practically split the car in two.

The highway code works very well, as long as everybody abides by it. There is nothing in the highway code that is even remotely dangerous or stupid. Almost all road accidents are caused by either human error or negligence.

 

My personal experience, as a cyclist, car driver and pedestrian, is that it is generally 6 of one half dozen of the other; a moments inattention and things rapidly go pear shaped.
The difference is that cyclists and pedestrians come off worse in an accident involving a car regardless of fault.
Cyclists and pedestrians with headphones or using phones are my particularly bugbear. Imagine a cyclist on a mobile or texting, admittedly the texting cyclist was riding on the pavement. I have been taken out by a pedestrian on a mobile stepping into a cycle lane in front of me.

 

We get all sorts, worst is, Tractors then white van man/women then 4x4's then cars then horses then people on foot

The highway code only applys to people who don't break the law, them that break the law won't get done as no police to do them

 

My white van is blue now, the air around it turned it that colour...

..and here is a good reason to drive a 4x4...

 

The only good reason to drive a 4x4 is if you regularly have to go off road.

For everyone else they create a false sense of safety. What happens in a crash test and what happens in a real test are rarely the same thing. And besides, surely it is better to try very hard not to crash than reassure yourself that it's OK if you do because the person you kill will be worse off than you.

 

Not yesterday. On a narrow country road, ahead I saw a car tailgateing two horses (one ridden, other on a lead rein) and when I slowed down the idiot driver went to overtake them and drive straight at me, he couldn't have been looking ahead! Luckily he saw me and pulled back in behind them without me needing to use horn as the led horse was getting spooked. As I went past the rider was hand signalling to turn right into an entrance track but the driver behind ignored it and accelerated past them, the inconsiderate idiot.

I'm happy to follow horses and cyclists at a safe distance for however long it takes until it's safe to overtake, considerate cyclists and horse riders will let you pass, it's the big groups of cyclists who'll block everything behind for a mile or so who are most likely to be totally inconsiderate.

Too many 'off road' vehicles don't want to put their alloy wheels near the verge/ mettalic paintwork anywhere near the hedge and expect everybody else to move over onto the verge out of their way.

 

I agree, as there are good people about and then there is idiots, horses,tractors and tractors with trailors at night with no lights on at all and the horses with no lights or even hi-vis

 

Only part of that is correct. The biggest majority of people that own 4x4's dont really need them, but there are a certain percentage that do, even if they do not use them off road. As someone that owns one, I'll elaborate on that.

I live where I have chosen to live. We do not have any form of public transport within 10 miles, and could therefore, by UK standards, be considered remote. Winters can also be harsh, especially as regards snow. So bad that this village is usually cut off from the outside world for a few days each winter. When we are in that period both before and after being "cut off" and just a heavy snowstorm, a proper 4WD is the only way we can get supplies (read food!). Everyone in the village has some kind of "winter story." In every case, a 4WD has been the thing that has saved them. In my case, it was to take me to the nearest hospital that is 25 miles away when suffering from internal bleeding during the worst snowstorm of that particular year. So to say "The only good reason to drive a 4x4 is if you regularly have to go off road" is far from being correct.

As regards crashing, like most others, I do try my best not to have an accident. As can be understood from what I wrote above, personal transport is important to me just to live a normal life! When I do crash though, I do have a tendency to prefer surviving either uninjured or with minor injuries.

 

I see this as a good reason to own one. It kind of fits in with my claim that you only need one if you go off road often. I was erm, indisposed when I posted earlier so had to keep it brief. Getting through snow is a good reason to choose a vehicle that has 4 wheel drive and good ground clearance.

That said, and I'm not for one second pointing fingers at anyone in particular, it never ceases to amaze me when in the UK, it's not unusual to hear of a 4x4 driver that's had a mishap on snow or ice. They seem to think that a 4x4 can do anything. They seem to forget that the only advantage a 4x4 has when it comes to traction is that they can set off when a 2 wheel drive car might not. When it comes to breaking and steering, the number of driven wheels makes no difference. ie. A 4x4 can skid just as easily as any other car.

Then there's the 4x4s with their stylish wheels and low profile tyres. Utterly useless on snow or ice.

 

Like a 740 for example?