Should there be a new offence listed

[Suvv]

I do not pay VED for my car, 2014 reg. emitting under 100g/km CO2.
I have to renew every year but the cost is still £0.

 

[Pound Coin]

The DVLA say "Drivers must buy car tax every year. The money this raises is paid directly into the central government fund, which is used for projects that benefit everyone – including road work and maintenance." I am certainly aware that I pay this as do other car owners but do not know any cyclist who pay this. Of course we could scrap the Vehicle Licence and just increase income tax or VAT then motorist and cyclist would pay. However, that is not the point. My point is that a lot of money is now being spent on cycle lanes but cyclist are not using them.

Dave

I wondered what the source for the 'not using them' data is, presumably something on .gov.uk ?

 

[Marc]

I do not pay VED for my car, 2014 reg. emitting under 100g/km CO2.
I have to renew every year but the cost is still £0.

I tried to explain similar earlier with regards to electric cars but it was ignored.

 

[troutfisher]

Well to go back to the original question there is no point in making it an offence as like many others ( Mobile Phones when driving , Electric Scooters etc) it would not be enforced.
But is a fair point if one walks in front of your car or does not hear you when they are cycling along oblivious to their surroundings, it makes the cost of a dash cam worthwhile.

 

[Dave Canon]

Maybe they should build ones that suit cyclists and that the cyclists can use without beaking DFT guidance then.

But the point is that all cyclists are already paying for roads, as everyone, whether they have a car or not.

Road tax does not exist.

Why are you bothering to argue, the Vehicle tax is an additional tax which cyclist do not pay unless they have a vehicle (and I am sure many do). If the tax load was to be spread more evenly (as you imply), why not increase income tax or VAT.

Dave

 

[ancient_mariner]

I agree with you, yes, there absolutely should be an offence of selecting a 4x4 when it is not needed. And no, I have no idea whether your selection was prompted by utility or perception without reference to the danger posed to yourself (more likely to die in a 4x4) or other road users.(more dangerous to pedestrians etc) and more likely to drive badly because drivers of 4x4 feel safer.

I'm really not having a go at you personally, you may have a valid reason for choosing a 4x4 but the overwhelming majority of people don't.

Does having a go, then saying you're not having a go mean that you weren't having a go after all?

In my book, living in North Wales/comfort/towing are valid reasons for choosing a 4x4, but note I went to lengths to de-personalise my comment. You did title this thread: "Should there be a new offence listed" and then go on to say ".....oblivious to a large 4x4" so I'm afraid that was fair game

So he was fair game after all?

Here's the thing: this all boils down to people's sense of entitlement. Whether it is a driver on the road who wants it to be a crime for pedestrians to "jaywalk" (yes, in the USA you become a criminal if you dare to step into the road), a motorcyclist weaving in and out of traffic, or a cyclist barrelling along regardless the mindset that leads to that attitude is the same. Labelling the individual "motorist", "cyclist" is irrelevant, they are the same person in different modes of transport. Appreciating that would go a long way to bringing about self realisation to those who may not have considered it, and breaking down the artificial barriers and "class war" fostered by those for whom it serves their personal agenda.

Which *looks* to me like you're suggesting the problem is BF's sense of entitlement that made him feel like youths on phones should not walk out in front of him.

So if you tell me that you weren't trying to have a go personally at BF then I'll take your word for it, but can you also see where it seems that both he and I got that impression?

 

[munch]

I think I know why ham is called ham. He tells little porky pies.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think I know why ham is called ham. He tells little porky pies.

I think he's someone who is passionate about this particular topic. Not sure trying to bait him is especially helpful either.

 

[munch]

I think he's someone who is passionate about this particular topic. Not sure trying to bait him is especially helpful either.

As has been said "I wasn't having a go"

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Why are you bothering to argue, the Vehicle tax is an additional tax which cyclist do not pay unless they have a vehicle (and I am sure many do). If the tax load was to be spread more evenly (as you imply), why not increase income tax or VAT.

Dave

You said you paid road tax, I pointed out road tax hasn't existed for decades, you've continued arguing the point.

I've never said it should be taxed in any other way, just pointing out that you were wrong, using facts. Thanks for listening to my ted talk.

 

[Ham]

Does having a go, then saying you're not having a go mean that you weren't having a go after all?

Sticking to the 4 x 4 theme for the moment, in what way is alerting people to the aspects of these cars that are rarely if ever discussed, while clearly stating that there are reasons why they make a sensible choice having a go? I'm genuinely curious.

So he was fair game after all?

I've re-read my explanation, that the OP used an ambiguous title expecting everyone to follow their line of thought, I deliberately chose not to, to highlight an alternative perspective: That apart from there being an issue of people on the road, there is is an issue of (too many) SUV on the road. Throughout I'm not suggesting that people should not be able to acquire and use SUV, simply that they should be in full possession of the facts beforehand, to make an informed decision. That simply doesn't happen right now.

Which *looks* to me like you're suggesting the problem is BF's sense of entitlement that made him feel like youths on phones should not walk out in front of him.

So if you tell me that you weren't trying to have a go personally at BF then I'll take your word for it, but can you also see where it seems that both he and I got that impression?

Well, yes, bang to rights. It's true, I am suggesting that a sense of entitlement underpins just about every "battle" between groups including motorist/cyclist/pedestrian whatever, and it sounds to me that comes into play in this incident. The alternative way would be simply to slow down, have a little wonder to yourself about the behaviour of some people and move on. I tried to avoid phrasing it in such a way that sounds like a personal attack, but clearly I'm not expressing the sympathy that the OP might have expected. This hasn't been any part of the discussion since then, though.

 

[munch]

Sticking to the 4 x 4 theme for the moment, in what way is alerting people to the aspects of these cars that are rarely if ever discussed, while clearly stating that there are reasons why they make a sensible choice having a go? I'm genuinely curious.

Yet when I asked you to actually provide evidence of your assertions you choose not to provide any. (Only a very questionable newspaper article (by your own admission))

 

[ancient_mariner]

Sticking to the 4 x 4 theme for the moment, in what way is alerting people to the aspects of these cars that are rarely if ever discussed, while clearly stating that there are reasons why they make a sensible choice having a go? I'm genuinely curious.

The passage I quoted implies that a 4X4 is usually chosen for the wrong reasons and that the OP is likely to be driving with less care than if they were in a conventional vehicle. The fact that he is complaining about people who walked out in front of him - presumably scared him badly and made them worried that they *might* have hit them - yet did not hit them has already strongly suggested they were driving with appropriate speed and awareness for the conditions. Had BF been driving recklessly as implied then we'd probably have seen his name on auntie Beeb instead of grumbling in the forum.

That's why it looks like having a go. He's had a nasty shock, he's dealing with this by talking about it in a place where he was hoping for a little support.

I am suggesting that a sense of entitlement underpins just about every "battle" between groups including motorist/cyclist/pedestrian whatever, and it sounds to me that comes into play in this incident.

But if BF had complained abut a stupid, blind, speeding 4X4 driver pulling ut into his path, that would have been ok because the entitlement resulting in bad behaviour would have been in a more acceptable place.

While I like the idea that we take care of 'softer' targets on the road, what we seem to have done is given them a sense of entitlement now. Speaking as a pedestrian, cyclist, biker and car driver, when you *know* that you're vulnerable then you tend to take care. But if such soft road users are told to take up as much space as a car or given the impression that you should be able to step off the pavement with impunity then that's asking for trouble. The driver may be in the wrong, but the phone-zombie will be dead after stepping into moving traffic, and that helps no-one.

 

[Cobra]

Road tax road fund licence VED,
a rose by any other name ..

Please drop it, the thread is getting boring and so are the amount of RTM's regarding the attitudes of some posters.

 

[Pound Coin]

The fact that he is complaining about people who walked out in front of him - presumably scared him badly and made them worried that they *might* have hit them

As I have said before - if you are driving in a place that has all kinds of humans beings in it - you need to be prepared for what those other humans beings are going to do. If you do not drive carefully, with an expectation that humans beings may do unexpected things, then you are not driving with due care and attention. You are driving with the entitlement of an entitled driver.

I'm not sure that BF has explained where this happened - a Google Maps location would help. I jokingly said that it was unfortunate that these 4 people jumped out in front of him on a dual carriageway, but he hasn't come back and said "Yes, it was in the middle of the country on the A55". So, we have no idea where this took place. For all we know it could have been in a pedestrian precinct!

The second post on this thread was from you, ancient_mariner, and you said "This is really a bit of natural selection at work, for you as well as them. We don't need a jaywalking law, but we do need people to be aware of their surroundings. Sorry you had a scare." I may have this wrong, but it appears that you had made your mind up about the incident with only half (or less of) the information.

Should we hear from the four lads on their phones before we jump on the Like button?

Oh, and please do not demean yourselves by suggesting I am a troll. If you really think that then you should be on a petrolhead forum, not a photography one.

 

[Cobra]

Oh, and please do not demean yourselves by suggesting I am a troll

Was that a dig? FYI I never called you a troll you just thought I did...

if you really think that then you should be on a petrolhead forum, not a photography one.

I often wonder why you and a few others are actually on a photography forum TBH,
Hardly any of you that haunt HT or OoF post images or offer help to budding photographers or leave this section ...

I'm sure there are plenty of other places that you / they can impart their wisdom on a wide variety, of non photographic based subjects.

 

[Pound Coin]

Road tax road fund licence VED,
a rose by any other name ..

Please drop it, the thread is getting boring and so are the amount of RTM's regarding the attitudes of some posters.

Hypothecation is the key.

As I pay Road Tax (yeah, I know it doesn't exist) I should have privileged access to the roads.
As I do not have kids, I should not pay for education.
As I am not ill, I should not pay for the NHS.

It is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for if you try to say that what you pay as tax gives you special privileges.

 

[Cobra]

It is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for if you try to say that what you pay as tax gives you special privileges.

WTF?
Did you miss the bit where I said "DROP IT"?

 

[Pound Coin]

Was that a dig?

I often wonder why you and a few others are actually on a photography forum TBH,
Hardly any of you that haunt HT or OoF post images or offer help to budding photographers or leave this section ...

I'm sure there are plenty of other places that you / they can impart their wisdom on a wide variety, of non photographic based subjects.

I am not sure if your post about feeding was a dig - maybe explain?

Recently I asked for help on the Olympus section and was told "RTFM".

 

[Pound Coin]

I shall drop it.

 

[Cobra]

I am not sure if your post about feeding was a dig - maybe explain?

You took it that way.
Or have you forgotten already?

Please don’t accuse me of being a Troll.

 

[Pound Coin]

Tis the way of some people on TP unfortunately.
It's best not to "feed" them Toni.

Oh, sorry, Chris, for thinking this was directed at me, maybe help out by saying who it was directed at?

 

[Cobra]

Oh, sorry, Chris, for thinking this was directed at me, maybe help out by saying who it was directed at?

They know who they are, no point in labouring it.
The moment has passed.

 

[TheBigYin]

Road tax doesn't exist and hasn't for many years.

since 1937 - iirc the process of abolishing it being started by a certain Winston Churchill...

 

[TheBigYin]

When you talk about separate cycle lanes, what do you mean?
Routes for cyclists to get about the country, or a limited specialist provision, which doesn’t actually go door to door, much like motorways for motorised vehicles?

Chris is talking about the Redways in Milton Keynes, which are IIRC pretty much the best planned and implemented segregated cycling lane provision in the country, having been on the original plans when the newtown was drawn up. They really are a parallel transport system, and very much similar in conception (if not in execution, due to being quite an old installation these days) to the world leading cycling provisions in the Netherlands.

For me however, the biggest issue with ANY segregated cycling scheme is the upkeep. Bikes are monumentally more liable to get punctures than cars - it's the thickness of the rubber, you know - and on roads, any glass ends up getting broken down to smaller less damaging grains by car wheels. On a segregated bike track, the glass doesn't go anywhere - so - they need really really regular upkeep and sweeping - even more money wasted in the eyes of the car lobby.

I'm a Cyclist, have been since I was 14. I've also been a biker since I was 17, and a car driver for over 30+ years, passed my IAM advanced test, driving upwards of 30k miles a year at some points - I kind of get everyones side here. But ultimately, I know if I was going to be in an accident at 20 mph, I know which mode of transport I'd be most vulnerable on/in and I know which one would likely get me hospitalised. So, yeah, when it comes to safety matters, I'm on the side of the pedestrians, then the cyclists, then the bikers...

 

[TheBigYin]

But the point being that is not how it works here, I often see them riding 2 or 3 abreast on the roads here.
And certainly not in the "kerb" as you suggest.

latest highway code advice is I think where practicable, if riding in a "large group" - typically 6 or more - to ride where possible 2 abreast - which would be still less wide than a typical car, and take up half the distance on the road so if the car drivers pass giving the approved 1.5m space to the cyclist, they'll be "on the wrong side of the road" for half the time. Of course, it cuts both ways, and a responsible "road captain" of a cycling group would call for single file if he saw a solid white central divisor line on his side of the road, so that the car drivers would have a chance of overtaking on the wider, straighter sections of road.. Give and Take people... and recognise that there's good and bad in all types of road users.

And the cyclists that weave across the lanes because they can, or think they are invincible?
And they are surprised when Darwin's law comes into play..

the Issue I have as a fairly "serious" cyclist is that to non-riders, all people on a bike are tarred with the same brush - I've said I'm pretty responsible on a bike, I understand the highway code, keep up to date with the revisions as they come out and apply to me. But yet, to the "average man in the suv", i'm no different to the smack head, riding around on the back wheel of his £40 from Asda "mountainbike", with a phone in one hand and skinning up with the other. Extreme portrayal perhaps - but as I said, learn to recognise light and shade people - it shouldn't be too hard a concept to get your head around as photographers. Don't just lump everyone into one box.

 

[the black fox]

Sticking to the 4 x 4 theme for the moment, in what way is alerting people to the aspects of these cars that are rarely if ever discussed, while clearly stating that there are reasons why they make a sensible choice having a go? I'm genuinely curious.



I've re-read my explanation, that the OP used an ambiguous title expecting everyone to follow their line of thought, I deliberately chose not to, to highlight an alternative perspective: That apart from there being an issue of people on the road, there is is an issue of (too many) SUV on the road. Throughout I'm not suggesting that people should not be able to acquire and use SUV, simply that they should be in full possession of the facts beforehand, to make an informed decision. That simply doesn't happen right now.



Well, yes, bang to rights. It's true, I am suggesting that a sense of entitlement underpins just about every "battle" between groups including motorist/cyclist/pedestrian whatever, and it sounds to me that comes into play in this incident. The alternative way would be simply to slow down, have a little wonder to yourself about the behaviour of some people and move on. I tried to avoid phrasing it in such a way that sounds like a personal attack, but clearly I'm not expressing the sympathy that the OP might have expected. This hasn't been any part of the discussion since then, though.

For a starter laddy I’m definetly not looking for sympathy from you or anyone else . At 76 I honestly do not give a toss , I have a lifetime of driving for a living behind me , and as I said to you earlier my choice of vehicle has more to do with area, my age and comfort than any thing else . You really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about suv / 4x4/ sized vehicles etc , have you perhaps had a bad experience with one , has one forced you off the road or a driver shouted abuse at your mode of transport .. and made you cry

Ah that’s a point you don’t state what your preferred vehicle is or why you chose it or where you live/ use it . Whether such vehicle is for family use or are you just a lonely boy ..

Another reason for my choice of vehicle is they are more suitable for towing and although I have sold my caravan i am currently looking for a trailer for it . But I may buy another caravan if the mood takes me

It’s also weird that you seem to pick on just one type of popular privately owned vehicle while ignoring the myriad of lorries, hgv’s , delivery vans etc that being often driven by employees who don’t have to worry about there condition .

I really look forward to your honest and in depth reply to the above questions . Though I do doubt it will happen openly

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

latest highway code advice is I think where practicable, if riding in a "large group" - typically 6 or more - to ride where possible 2 abreast - which would be still less wide than a typical car, and take up half the distance on the road so if the car drivers pass giving the approved 1.5m space to the cyclist, they'll be "on the wrong side of the road" for half the time. Of course, it cuts both ways, and a responsible "road captain" of a cycling group would call for single file if he saw a solid white central divisor line on his side of the road, so that the car drivers would have a chance of overtaking on the wider, straighter sections of road.. Give and Take people... and recognise that there's good and bad in all types of road users.



the Issue I have as a fairly "serious" cyclist is that to non-riders, all people on a bike are tarred with the same brush - I've said I'm pretty responsible on a bike, I understand the highway code, keep up to date with the revisions as they come out and apply to me. But yet, to the "average man in the suv", i'm no different to the smack head, riding around on the back wheel of his £40 from Asda "mountainbike", with a phone in one hand and skinning up with the other. Extreme portrayal perhaps - but as I said, learn to recognise light and shade people - it shouldn't be too hard a concept to get your head around as photographers. Don't just lump everyone into one box.

Drivers often miss the fact that if there's enough space to *safely* overtake a single cyclist giving them the correct spacing, then there must also be enough space to overtake 2 abreast. As it wouldn't be safe to overtake a single rider if there was a car in the oncoming lane anyway.

 

[Box Brownie]

Drivers often miss the fact that if there's enough space to *safely* overtake a single cyclist giving them the correct spacing, then there must also be enough space to overtake 2 abreast. As it wouldn't be safe to overtake a single rider if there was a car in the oncoming lane anyway.

I always give cyclists a wide berth but it staggers me how close some vehicles behind me get to the cyclist.....maybe not often as most following vehicles do 'follow my example' though not always with IMO enough of a gap

 

[Pound Coin]

I overtake in the other lane, as you are now supposed to according to the HC changes, I believe.

Unfortunately, the “they all ride 2 or 3 abreast” has just become something poured out regularly as a descriptor of cyclists.

 

[Pixbarmy]

I was quite happy to follow the two lovely young ladies in Lycra until there was a suitable passing place!

 

[LCPete]

To be honest recently at least I’ve noticed that when I come up to people riding two or tree abreast they do move down to one when I get near to them , the only issues I’ve had driving recently has been clowns driving tailgating me when I’m going through a village that’s a 30 limit when I’m in the Yaris

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

To be honest recently at least I’ve noticed that when I come up to people riding two or tree abreast they do move down to one when I get near to them , the only issues I’ve had driving recently has been clowns driving tailgating me when I’m going through a village that’s a 30 limit when I’m in the Yaris

My favourite is when you get stuck behind someone doing 40mph in a 60mph zone and then you get to a 30mph zone and they continue doing 40....

 

[ancient_mariner]

My favourite is when you get stuck behind someone doing 40mph in a 60mph zone and then you get to a 30mph zone and they continue doing 40....

I was going to post this very thing.

 

[Sky]

My favourite is when you get stuck behind someone doing 40mph in a 60mph zone and then you get to a 30mph zone and they continue doing 40....

That'll be 90% of the locals here on the Isle of Wight.

 

[LCPete]

My favourite is when you get stuck behind someone doing 40mph in a 60mph zone and then you get to a 30mph zone and they continue doing 40....

Yep get that a lot some people just drive around at 40 everywhere

 

[Box Brownie]

To be honest recently at least I’ve noticed that when I come up to people riding two or tree abreast they do move down to one when I get near to them , the only issues I’ve had driving recently has been clowns driving tailgating me when I’m going through a village that’s a 30 limit when I’m in the Yaris

My favourite is when you get stuck behind someone doing 40mph in a 60mph zone and then you get to a 30mph zone and they continue doing 40....

Or even better........?

Those doing 40mph in the 30 zone......and I end up passing them in the 50 or 60 zone. Such unobservant driving 'screams' of undue care!

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

The DVLA say "Drivers must buy car tax every year. The money this raises is paid directly into the central government fund, which is used for projects that benefit everyone – including road work and maintenance." I am certainly aware that I pay this as do other car owners but do not know any cyclist who pay this. Of course we could scrap the Vehicle Licence and just increase income tax or VAT then motorist and cyclist would pay. However, that is not the point. My point is that a lot of money is now being spent on cycle lanes but cyclist are not using them.

Dave

Zero emission vehicles pay no road tax so implementing a road tax system for cyclists would be payed by car owners anyway , Road Tax was abolished in 1937 at the end of a process started by Winston Church hill as I remember because motorists had a bigoted opinion that the owned the road as they paid for it so pedestrians, horse riders/horse drawn carts and cyclist were all fair game, not a lot has changed with some people ! Most cycle lanes are stupidly built and very poorly maintained meaning if you used them you would get multiple punctures everyday and in a lot of cases be in more danger by using them hence why a lot of cyclists do not use them. Cyclist are only advised to use them if it makes their journey safer and easier

Rule 61​

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.

Anyway how did this thread get morthed into a cyclist v motorist v 4x4 driver thing bearing in mind the starting subject !

​

 

[Ham]

For a starter laddy I’m definetly not looking for sympathy from you or anyone else .

It was Ancient Mariner who claimed that " He's had a nasty shock, he's dealing with this by talking about it in a place where he was hoping for a little support." (from post #2) I didn't think that was the case, but thanks for clarifying.

At 76 I honestly do not give a toss , I have a lifetime of driving for a living behind me , and as I said to you earlier my choice of vehicle has more to do with area, my age and comfort than any thing else . You really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about suv / 4x4/ sized vehicles etc , have you perhaps had a bad experience with one , has one forced you off the road or a driver shouted abuse at your mode of transport .. and made you cry

I've no beef about SUV per se, I've consistently said that they make sensible choice in some cases, I do think people should be in possession of the facts when choosing. I've clearly said that I would consider buying one. Why pointing out their failings gives me a "chip on my shoulder" I'm not sure

Ah that’s a point you don’t state what your preferred vehicle is or why you chose it or where you live/ use it . Whether such vehicle is for family use or are you just a lonely boy ..

Well, I have done but it is understandable that you may not have missed that reply. I drive a big estate, with a towing capacity 50% up on the CRV and roughly the same as a big Kia Sportage for to tow a caravan, its nickname is the Grandpawagon. here's the post you missed.

Another reason for my choice of vehicle is they are more suitable for towing and although I have sold my caravan i am currently looking for a trailer for it . But I may buy another caravan if the mood takes me

It’s also weird that you seem to pick on just one type of popular privately owned vehicle while ignoring the myriad of lorries, hgv’s , delivery vans etc that being often driven by employees who don’t have to worry about there condition .

I'm not picking on anything, this horse has bolted and the proportion of SUV on the road is not going to change any time soon. My expectation was that the introduction to the underlying issues to SUV would come as a surprise to most readers here, that the initial reaction would be disbelief, followed by investigation and the realisation that actually what I have highlighted is based on hard facts. Given that the only rebuttals seem to have been personal attacks and claims without backup that it's all rubbish, that intention may well have succeeded.

As to the reason I'm not discussing the risks of LGV, as yet they are not much used for personal transport or to pick up the kiddies on the school run, but maybe that's only a matter of time. I certainly believe that they need regulation, a lot of that falls into the category of protecting people from their own stupidity (eg positioning themselves in the drivers blind spot) but equally there's a general expectation that LGV drivers have a responsibility commensurate with the risk posed. As a sweeping generalisation (which does have holes admittedly), that is not the case with private vehicles. What I mean by that is there is nothing to stop an individual buying and using a vehicle with performance way beyond their capabilities. Yes, they will be breaking the law to go 155 mph+ but laws don't do much to control those who flout them, witness the number still using their mobile phones behind the wheel, despite it being illegal and despite it being more dangerous than drink driving. That's another reason why your suggestion of a law to curb pedestrian behaviour isn't viable (even if you were being serious, i suspect you were just grumbling)

I really look forward to your honest and in depth reply to the above questions . Though I do doubt it will happen openly

Is that in depth enough?

 

[Ham]

The passage I quoted implies that a 4X4 is usually chosen for the wrong reasons and that the OP is likely to be driving with less care than if they were in a conventional vehicle. The fact that he is complaining about people who walked out in front of him - presumably scared him badly and made them worried that they *might* have hit them - yet did not hit them has already strongly suggested they were driving with appropriate speed and awareness for the conditions. Had BF been driving recklessly as implied then we'd probably have seen his name on auntie Beeb instead of grumbling in the forum.

That's why it looks like having a go. He's had a nasty shock, he's dealing with this by talking about it in a place where he was hoping for a little support.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, we clearly read the OP's initial statement differently, he's now clarified he wasn't looking for support.

But if BF had complained abut a stupid, blind, speeding 4X4 driver pulling ut into his path, that would have been ok because the entitlement resulting in bad behaviour would have been in a more acceptable place.

That is diametrically opposed to what I said, or at least what I meant, so if you could read that into it I obviously wasn't clear.

Any group labelling another group as something before generalising and demeaning them is, in my view wrong and founded on a sense of entitlement. There is a natural tendency for humans to do this "us and them" thing, but it is always unhelpful. Cyclists complaining about BMW drivers, everyone complaining about white van drivers and yes, drivers complaining about zombie pedestrians, all cut from the same cloth. To be 100% clear, complaining about an idiot driver, an idiot pedestrian, an idiot cyclists etc is perfectly factual and fine.